Monday, May 28, 2007

Family Water Play Facility

On March 27 2007 bids came in several million dollars higher than expected.

What the newbor reported March:
he city has just under $15 million allocated for the park. The $11.75 million bid was almost $3 million higher than what the city had expected bids to come in at.

What is the water park?

The 4-acre Family Water Play Facility would be built at the Puerto Penasco Swim Lagoon, at the southwest corner of Central Park. It would feature 4 large slides - the tallest of which would be 45 feet, a lazy river for people to float around the park on rubber tubes, a swimming pool, a youth play area with slides, and a "sprayground" for tots. There also would be picnic areas, an education center, and other amenities.

"The purpose is not to be Water World or Raging Waters, but small enough for a family to enjoy and afford," Parks and Recreation Director Annabell Holland said.

The water park originally was approved by the City Council in 2001. But, as the economy headed into a downturn, city officials became worried about the public's perception of adding amenities, and whether they even would be able to afford to visit the park if it were built.

"What would have happened is something so positive would have had so much negative energy around it," Holland said.

The project came to life again last year, and city officials had planned for the park to be completed and open by next summer. If the City Council accepts one of the new bids that come in, the park now would open in 2009.

Where is the money coming from?

Some have questioned how the city can afford a $15 million water park while essential services such as police and fire protection have been reduced. The answer is in where the money comes from. Or maybe more appropriately, where it doesn't come from.

None of the money to build the park would come from the city's General Fund. The General Fund is the city's largest source of unrestricted money. Most of it is used to pay for the city's operations, such as payroll.

The bulk of the park's money - more than $9 million - is from money taken in by the city's recreation department and from fees paid by developers. The first, about $4 million, can only be used for recreation projects that will generate revenue. The second can be used only for parks.

The rest of the money mostly comes from grants and donations targeted for parks - or in some cases for the water park specifically.

So if the city decides to not build the water park, it would need to find other recreation-based uses for the money.

"Even if the park is killed, the money can't be used on police or fire," Holland said.

She also pointed out that, once built, the park will bring in enough revenue to completely pay for its operation.

Water Park Site Plan
Water Park Section

New Bid

Project Name: Family Water Play Facility

City Project Number: PWC 8464

For Bids Opened: 05/01/07

Project Manager: Roger Ravenstad


Base Bid Total


Sierra Bay Contractors, Inc.



West Bay Builders, Inc.



BRCO Contractors, Inc.



What's next?

By reopening the bidding process, the Council gave construction companies until the end of April to once again submit a bid for building the facility. City officials say there are several reasons they expect bids to fall within their budget this time around.

The decision is scheduled for city
council on June 5, 2007.

We giving more detail soon.

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Coming Soon

Coming Soon:
Retail international cuisine at pacific commons
(Late May-Early June)

1)Photo has not been Post.( No Photo)
2)Retail Has not been Post.
(List of the retail has been Release)

I will post This Week or Next Week. It will be at ASAP.
I do not have list of the Retail. But I know all the Retail.
I do visit the Retail Site. But not all the Retail Site.

Please Note All Retail has not Complete.
The Store has been Construction. But Project Did not Complete.
It may take Few Weeks. I think around 2-3 Months.
One Store openedJune 16,2007

Saturday, May 26, 2007

City pitches guidelines for A's ballpark

Click photo to enlarge

City of Fremont staffers presented a list of general guidelines Tuesday for the proposed ballpark village to be built by the Oakland Athletics. Many of the guidelines had already been discussed previously by A's owner Lew Wolff, most recently during a May 8 Fremont City Council meeting.

After a total of 19 guidelines, broken down into three groups, were presented Tuesday, city council unanimously approved them.

A few of the items presented under "Financial and Business Guidelines" included:

Any transaction with the A's for the development of the ballpark village project should be a prudent business deal, protect the interests of the taxpayer, and be of benefit to the Fremont community.

All impacts of the ballpark village project such as public safety, traffic and environmental, should be addressed by the project developer.

The city and A's should consider opportunities for public use of the ballpark when the ballpark is not in use by the A's

Any future baseball team and/or ballpark name should include "Fremont." For example, "_______ A's at Fremont" or "Cisco Field at Fremont."

Other guidelines included Fremont not bearing any construction costs, no future un-reimbursed general fund financial obligations imposed on Fremont or its residents, and that there should be no new taxes imposed on Fremont or its residents.

Under the group of "Planning and Public Review Process," staffers noted the ballpark should be a high quality, intimate, state-of-the-art facility.

Additionally, the project should include alternate transportation to and from the site, including Bay Area Rapid Transit or Alameda-Contra Costa Transit bus service, the guidelines state.

Also, the guidelines indicate that the review process for the project will include a public process open to the community, and that the design and potential impacts will be reviewed by the city.

A third group of guidelines, named "Other," simply state that the city will work with regional partners, and that the city manager will be responsible for negotiations consistent with the guidelines.

Finally, according the guidelines, negotiations will be conducted privately and confidentially, not in the public forum. But proposals resulting from negotiations will be explored in the public forum.

During the council meeting, some wanted the guidelines to be more specific.

Carrie Hamill, a representative from BART's general management team, wanted the city to ensure there would be a large capacity transportation system, such as a bus line, between the stadium and the future Warm Springs BART station.

Resident Douglas Cattaneo suggested the city add a guideline that ensures A's owner Wolff promise to build a stadium.

"We want to make sure Mr. Wolff builds a ballpark," he said. "We want this ballpark, and we want to make sure we get one. We don't want him to come in, rezone the site, build houses and leave, and we never get a park."

Fremont City Manager Fred Diaz and Mayor Bob Wasserman both pointed out that there is a guideline that states "The A's should guarantee that the ballpark will be built and should make a long-term commitment to play its home schedule in Fremont."

Cattaneo said that guideline should be more explicit.

"These guidelines are not specific, and nothing is set in stone," Diaz said. "These are merely for the council to review, and for (city staff) to come back with more detailed guidelines. These are still evolving."

Some council members expressed concern over the lack of detail in the guidelines.

Councilwoman Anu Natarajan had concerns with the lack of a defined process to the project.

"We've all heard Mr. Wolff's interest in expediting this project, but that can only happen with a defined process," she said.

Councilman Steve Cho expressed concern over what would happen if some of these guidelines did not take shape.

"We're developing an agreement that is supposed to be a win-win for everyone," he said. "All the principles I've read so far are with positive outcomes. What about the what-ifs? We don't address the consequences if something here does not happen."

City Attorney Harvey Levine said the city has brought in consultants to brainstorm potential problems that will be handled in different documents.

Wasserman reiterated to his concerned council colleagues that the document before them was merely a list of guidelines.

The mayor added the guidelines will return in the future as a memorandum of understanding, which could be as many as 200 pages long.

"I guarantee that when this comes back, it will be more comprehensive than anything you've ever wanted to see," Wasserman said. "This isn't going through any different process than other developments in Fremont."

The entire cost for the 32,000-seat ballpark and its "village" are estimated at $1.8 billion.

Broken down, the ballpark would cost $450 million. A 100-room hotel would cost about $30 million, and a 2,900-unit residential housing development would cost $1.1 billion to build. About 550,000 square feet of retail would cost $198 million to construct, according to Wolff.

Friday, May 25, 2007

City budget forecast is slightly improved

City budget forecast is slightly improved
by Wes Bowers

Click photo to enlarge
City staff breathed a sigh of relief, if only for a moment, when it reported to Fremont City Council that there would be $133.7 million in Fremont's general fund for 2007. Catherine Chevalier, the city's budget manager, said this figure was $600,000 more than what had been reported to the council in March. However, expenditures will remain at $130.5 million, as was reported in March, leaving the city with $9.3 million in its general fund by the end of the 2006/2007-fiscal year. Chevalier said the primary reason for the income increase is due to some $800,000 in other revenue sources, such as reimbursement for state-mandated services like the animal adoption program. Fremont Finance Director Harriet Commons said because the governor's May revise for the state budget was released May 14, the city had no time to review it. This results in the city not knowing when it will receive $800,000 in other revenue. The increase in an ending general fund balance comes a year after the city reported that it was virtually broke. Last year, city officials reported $118.8 million in revenue, but $122 million in expenditures. As a result, the city had to transfer $1.4 million from its Budget Uncertainty Reserve, a "rainy day fund," to bring it out of the red. Also, city officials projected this fiscal year would be even more uncertain. Although city officials said they are happy with the revenue and general fund increase, more spending is forecast for next fiscal year. For the 2007/2008-fiscal year, the city projects bringing in $141.4 million in revenue, but spending $147.2 million. However, the city will still be in the black overall, with $3.5 million remaining in its general fund by the end of the year. The general fund balance will then again increase by the end of the 2008/2009-fiscal year, as the city expects to generate $149.3 million in revenues, and only spend $146.2 million. That will leave the city with an estimated $6.6 million in the general fund by June 30, 2009. According to Commons, the city is not worried about the drop in next year's general fund balance. She said next year property taxes are expected to increase from $45 million to $48.2 million, although there haven't been as many home purchases in Fremont as there have been in recent years. Additionally, sales taxes are expected to increase from $34.6 million to $36.6 million. With this budget increase, city staff is proposing 18 new public safety positions. On Tuesday, city staff will officially propose that the city hire 10 new firefighters and eight new police officers. But these additions will still not give Fremont the same amount of public safety positions as other cities in the area, Commons said. According to staff reports, the additions will only give Fremont 2.2 public safety personnel per 1,000 citizens. In comparison, Newark has 3.5 safety officers per 1,000 residents; Oakland has about 4.25. Additionally, staff is suggesting turning seven temporary city positions into permanent positions, including three in Fremont's Human Services Department, two in Fremont Community Development Department and two in Fremont Transportation and Operations Department. "Based on this information, we think revenues will be enough to absorb the ongoing costs of these new positions," Commons said. Fremont City Manager Fred Diaz said the city is pursuing retail opportunities throughout the city to help increase revenue, as sales tax is the city's primary driver.
Diaz mentioned projects like the Central Business District and Centerville Market, along with the Oakland Athletics' ballpark village, as potential revenue generators.
"We've been through some challenging times in the last few years, and we remain skeptical," he said. "We're approaching next year with caution, but things are looking up."

Friday, May 18, 2007

City officially breaks ground on separation

City officially breaks ground on separation
by Wes Bowers

Click photo to enlarge
Braving the cold and the wind, City of Fremont officials did more than just put shovels into dirt last Thursday at the groundbreaking ceremony for the Washington Grade Separation Project on Washington Boulevard near Osgood Road. City Manager Fred Diaz said the largest public works project in the city's history commenced, though it almost never got off the ground. "There really was a moment we thought this project wouldn't happen," he said. "Nine months ago we only had $80 million for the project, and we thought Ôwhere are we going to come up with the money for this?' And we did (come up with the money), with a lot of heart, dedication and tenacity." The transit project, estimated to cost $111 million, includes building an overpass at Washington Boulevard between Bruce Drive and Roberts Avenue, and an underpass at Paseo Padre Parkway between Shadow Brooke Common Road and Hancock Drive. The project's goal is to separate vehicle and pedestrian traffic from railroad traffic and crossings. In addition to an overpass and underpass, the project will also relocate nearly 1.5 miles of active Union Pacific railroad tracks eastward. Planned Bay Area Rapid Transit tracks in the Warm Springs District will also run southward toward Milpitas and San Jose. Jim Pierson, Fremont Transportation and Operations director, said the current Union Pacific tracks, which run down Osgood Road, will hopefully become BART tracks. The project is expected to take three years to complete, spanning 11 stages of construction. Of the $111 million, $68 million was obtained through grants from Alameda County Transportation Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Union Pacific Railroad, and Alameda County Congestion Management Authority, among several others. The remaining $43 million was put up by the city. "For the City of Fremont, to put in more than $40 million of their own money through redevelopment agency funds and other funding sources, is really amazing," Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty said. "This will not only benefit Fremont, but the entire region. Grade separations are increasingly becoming necessary to link Alameda County with Silicon Valley." Tom Blalock, Fremont's representative on the BART Board of Directors, said BART staff is working "feverishly" to get a Warm Springs station together. "The number of folks we'll have at the (existing) Fremont BART when we extend will drop from about 16,000 to 12,000 people a day, which will be great," he said. "And Washington Hospital will breathe a sigh of relief as parking pressure will be gone." Mayor Bob Wasserman said while last Thursday was an exciting day for the city, there is still a long way to go. "This project will not occur over night," he said. "Over the next three years, community members will see many changes unfold as construction activities begin, so we ask for your patience and understanding."

Thursday, May 10, 2007

New specialty boutique shopping not as part 1 in Pacific Commons.
I will start posting photo and Detail Near the Future. Late may-early June

Here's what I knew:

1) Taiwanese Food Talk
2) Kinder's Mets Deli BBQ
3) La View Vietnamese Restaurant
4) Baby Hugs
5) Family Dentistry
6) Asian Pearl
7)Beauty(Do not Know)
8) Kaenyama Sushi and Teppanyaki Restaurant
9) Shanghi( Do not know)
10) Hot Pot( name not know)
11) Cheesecake or bakery shop(Do not know)
When I don't know,it means I don't know the names or it is Finally. Name of the Store should post soon.

Property Description:
This Project is part of 80 Acres Pacific Commons Power Center.
This Existing Center is over 95% leased.
52,000 sq.ft. Divisible from 1400sq.ft. to 18,000 sq.ft.

Location Description:
Excellent access from Freeways, 880, 680 and 84; Via Dumbarton Bridge

Description has not know Yet. Photo will release Soon.

Comming Post:

1) Pacific Park Box middle of (June-July)

2) Description of the BallPark Village( update News)

3) Description, Design of the A's(June)

4) The Globe ( June-July)

5) New specialty boutique shopping in Pacific Commons( Late May or June)

6) New Retail and future Planning Comming Soon to New Post(May-June)

A's sign Fremont land deal

Chron's Patrick Hoge reports:

The owners of the Oakland A's announced today that they have signed a contract to buy 168 acres for a proposed ballpark development in Fremont.

Lew Wolff, the team's managing partner, said the deal will allow him quickly to submit an application to the city for a roughly 32,000-seat stadium, surrounded by housing and high-end commercial development.

Really? It sounds different from what the Argus's Chris De Benedetti reported earlier today:

There is no new information regarding the land transaction, a Cisco spokeswoman said. ProLogis spokesman Arthur Hodges declined to comment.

Meanwhile, Wolff has been meeting with Fremont staff members as often as twice a month since December to discuss the project. The A's are scheduled to meet again with city staff members May 17, Fremont officials said.

As to when the A's might submit a development application or a formal plan, that step is "probably a few months away," Wolff said.

Alrighty then. Here's the obligatory map if you want to familiarize yourself. The A's are buying both the yellow and green sections.

This is a pretty big move. Not "done deal" definitive, but rather "planting their stake in the ground" serious. That stake has to be worth around $200 million. Correction: According to the press release and Barry Witt's report, the A's have amassed 226 acres. Land value is around $500 million. Just posted on the Arugs website:BREAKING: A's close land deal for new stadium

Just posted on the Arugs website: BREAKING: A's close land deal for new stadium

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Economic Impact Report now available

The big takeaway from Wolff's progress report tonight was that the Economic Impact Report for the project is now available. I've only barely scanned through it so far and here are some key points:
  • Ballpark is still 30-34,000 seats, cost = $450 million
  • The 2,900 housing units will be spread over 120 acres, for a density of 24 units per acre. There would be a mix of brownstone-type units and higher density development adjacent to the ballpark, cost = $1.1 billion
  • 550,000 square feet of "high quality mixed-use/retail," the majority of which would be in a "lifestyle center" (a.k.a. outdoor mall); the remainder would be "entertainment retail in a 'Main Street' environment activated by the residential neighborhood and the ballpark. Cost = $198 million
  • High-end boutique hotel with only 100 rooms, cost = $30 million
  • Total project cost would be $1.8 billion
  • Total economic impact (using multipliers) would be $3.2 billion
Next I'll quote verbatim from the report from its summary of economic impacts:
  • The direct economic impact on Alameda County will be approximately $109 million per year from the operations of the Athletics franchise, the operations of concessions within the ballpark, the net new retail spending captured by the Baseball Village retail, and the net new spending captured in the county from the new households in the Ballpark Village.
  • Including the indirect and induced “multiplier” effects, the Ballpark Village will generate over $191 million per year in total economic output for Alameda County, and create approximately $50 million each year in personal earnings, which in turn supports approximately 1,762 incremental jobs within Alameda County.
  • The net present value over the next 30 years of the total expansion in economic output of Alameda County will be between $700 million and $2 billion, depending upon the discount rate used, as a result of implementing the Ballpark Village proposal.
  • Construction of the Ballpark Village is estimated to cost approximately $1.8 billion in today’s dollars. Over the several years it will take to build and absorb the project, over 13,000 full-time equivalent annual jobs will be created, along with almost $600 million in earnings for those workers. Alameda County will experience a one-time economic expansion during the construction period of almost $3.2 billion.
  • For the Fremont Unified School District, over $10 million in development fees will be collected from the project.
  • For the City of Fremont, over $3.6 million per year will be generated after build out in General Fund revenues. While the costs of providing General Fund municipal services cannot be estimated until a formal development application is submitted, these General Fund revenues will be unrestricted in their use for offsetting costs. Additional revenues will be generated for the City in the form of fees and charges to offset non-general fund services provided, and by the Special Services tax levied within the Pacific Commons development area.
  • The Fremont Redevelopment Agency, upon project build out, will be collecting over $15 million per year in today’s dollars in the form of property tax increments and set-aside funds for low- and moderate-income housing.
I need to read more before I post any significant analysis. A couple of notes however:
  • Tax increment is mentioned, though not as a method to pay for the project; rather it's used as positive economic impact for the city and county (the usual skepticism applies).
  • Additional tax revenue sources are identified, though not the gross receipts tax I found earlier.
The report is 60 pages long and is chock full of tables. Enjoy.

Now for a few observations about the progress report:
  • The $500K paid last month was reimbursement for process work
  • The best method for owning the stadium has not yet been determined, whether public, private, or a mix
  • Traffic and environmental impact reports are meant to show that the project would have the same or fewer impacts than the currently planned use (office park)
  • Janet Gawthorpe (sp?) was the last of two speakers and expressed her concern about environmental impacts, urging the council to make sure the project had a full, complete, transparent, open review. To that end, Mayor Wasserman replied that the project would indeed have such a review.
  • Council were mostly positive, mostly champing at the bit - especially Anu Natarajan and Bill Harrison, who by trade is a CPA.

Ballpark Village Progress Report - Tuesday, 5/8

From the Fremont City Clerk's office (I used bold for emphasis):
Subject: Ballpark Village Project Progress Report




This is to advise you that an agenda item has been scheduled for the regular City Council meeting of Tuesday, May 8, 2007, to hear a progress report from Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff on the Ballpark Village Project. The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m.

The meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers located at 3300 Capitol Avenue, Building A, Fremont, California.

If you have any questions regarding this agenda item, please contact Economic Development Director Daren Fields at (510) 284-4020 or at


Dawn G. Abrahamson
City Clerk

Office of the City Clerk
See y'all there. For those of you who won't be there, check out the webcast.

Subscribe To My Podcast