Click on the link to read the article from the Contra Costa Times

San Jose ballpark study criticized

Residents, the Sharks, Caltrans and Caltrain complain about how the city analyzed potential problems such as parking

By Barry Witt
KNIGHT RIDDER

San Jose's attempt to identify how a downtown ballpark might affect surrounding neighborhoods, businesses and freeways is seriously deficient, according to comments submitted recently by state agencies, neighborhood leaders and the San Jose Sharks.

The scores of letters and e-mails received by the city before Thursday night's deadline for feedback on an environmental study lay out a litany of complaints about how the city analyzed parking, traffic, noise and lighting problems associated with a major-league baseball stadium.

San Jose is spending $700,000 on the speculative analysis in the hopes that the Oakland A's will someday move to the city. The City Council has authorized spending $17.6 million to buy the first three land parcels it needs south of the Diridon train station to create a ballpark site, and it expects to spend about an additional $60 million for property. No city official has publicly addressed how to pay for the actual ballpark. If the city does pursue a ballpark, voter approval would be required.

The A's, meanwhile, are exploring whether to pursue a stadium in Fremont rather than challenge baseball's territorial rights, which give Santa Clara County to the San Francisco Giants.

Should A's owner Lew Wolff decide to turn his sights farther south, San Jose officials said, they want to be prepared to move fast on a ballpark and in February released the draft environmental review of the site. The city will respond to the complaints this summer before presenting the report to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval.

The environmental study "grossly underestimates the parking and traffic problems in surrounding neighborhoods and for other downtown event patrons that would be generated by this project," wrote Jody Hucko and Scott MacDonald, who live in the Shasta-Hanchett neighborhood west of downtown.

A consultant for the Sharks wrote that the report "does not demonstrate that the baseball stadium can be developed without causing significant negative traffic or parking impacts on HP Pavilion." Among other complaints, the Sharks questioned a conclusion that wider sidewalks near the ballpark would help keep large numbers of people walking toward games from tying up vehicle traffic.

The Sharks also questioned fans' willingness to walk three-quarters of a mile from parking lots the city assumes will be available, while other critics noted the report failed to address parking for weekday afternoon games when office workers' vehicles will be filling downtown parking lots. The city expects to build only about 1,200 new spaces adjacent to the ballpark and reserve them for premium ticket holders.

Others said the entire traffic analysis should be revised because it assumed traffic coming to games would be generated from the same places as those that now head to Sharks games, despite a presumed heavy concentration of A's fans who would come from the East Bay. The report assumed fewer than one in 10 fans would drive down Coleman Avenue or The Alameda from Interstate 880.

Caltrans highway engineers, meanwhile, said in their letter that the city had to find a way to address expected backups that would extend up off-ramps from Santa Clara Street and Julian Street onto Route 87.

Caltrain complained that the study failed to account for the needs of the system's planned electrification project, which could require a power substation on some of the same property targeted for the ballpark.

On other issues, prospective ballpark neighbors said the city used the wrong analysis for evaluating noise effects, particularly from concerts at a ballpark, and that the study needs to be done again.

City officials said Friday they would respond to all the comment letters but weren't prepared to do so immediately on most issues.

On traffic, Akoni Danielson, the city planner overseeing the report, said the city deliberately avoided an analysis assuming the A's would be the ballpark tenant out of concern the city would appear to be tampering with baseball's territorial rules. He said that if the A's do declare a desire to move to San Jose, the report's conclusions would be revised.

As for general traffic and parking problems, Bill Ekern, the city redevelopment agency official overseeing the project, said fans will adjust their habits if given good information on where to go. For instance, if roads and parking lots can't handle the traffic, fans will use light-rail park-and-ride lots, as was the case last summer when the city hosted the Grand Prix race.

"The market will adjust itself," Ekern said. He did acknowledge, however, that the city has not yet looked adequately on how to handle the problems presented by weekday afternoon games.