Yesterday was the first day of up to two weeks of hearings into a district plan change that would allow the stadium to be built at the site, subject to final approval by the Dunedin city and Otago regional councils.
The city council's experts painted a rosy picture of the situation.
While the subject matter may seem dry, yesterday's evidence started to provide answers to some of the questions that have been swirling around the stadium issue since its inception.
Those include whether the site will be flooded by sea level rise, whether the reclaimed land can support such a building, and whether nearby industry, like the Liquigas lpg depot, could mean the area is dangerous.
A notable feature was Carisbrook Stadium Trust trustee Bill Baylis' defence of trust chairman Malcolm Farry from "unfounded slurs" the stadium was "a one-man ego trip for personal gain".
Committee chairman Roger Tasker opened the hearing by explaining it was about a zone change, and the committee was not making a decision on whether the stadium would be built.
Dunedin City Council planning policy manager Paul Freeland explained a report from council staff would not be presented to the hearing.
As the council was the applicant, it was proper for the evidence to come through at the hearing. For the council, counsel Lauren Semple said the issues to be considered were the loss of industrial land; reverse sensitivity; geotechnical and flooding risks; appearance; traffic risks; retail effects; noise; consultation: funding and viability.
"In my submission, this plan change is not just about developing a rugby stadium, as many submitters will have you believe.
"It is about enabling the people of this city to provide for their own wellbeing."
The location was not just appropriate, but "very nearly perfect" for the development.
The integration with the campus zone and Logan Park would result in a multipurpose use for the area to create a vibrant recreational, sporting and education hub.
Mr Baylis gave evidence for the council on behalf of the trust, and said the commissioners might wonder why chairman Malcolm Farry was not doing so.
He said there had been vocal opposition to the project, which the trust respected, but "quite unfounded slurs and accusations have been directed at Mr Farry personally".
"In my view, such actions are to be deplored."
Mr Baylis said he was there as a representative of the trust, "in the hope that this will assure the commissioners that this is not a one-man ego trip for personal gain, as some have sought to portray".
Mr Baylis said the stadium was designed for a wide range of uses, from basketball and tennis to graduation ceremonies and large-scale functions.
"We are not suggesting that all these possibilities will eventuate, but are firmly of the view that a sufficient number of attractions and events will result to warrant the investment.
"We believe that this concept will best serve Dunedin city and its future generations."
Engineering consultant David Hamilton told the committee the stadium site was subject to flooding threats from Otago Harbour, the Water of Leith and Opoho Creek.
Mr Hamilton covered other flooding threats to the reclaimed land, including tsunamis, and said the stadium would be high enough to deal with those, and the latest climate change predictions.
Responding to submissions that highlighted the risk of flooding on the land, he said: "The issues of climate change and rising sea levels and the effects of flooding are all addressed by the proposed minimum floor level of 3.7m for buildings in the zone."
Engineering consultant Keith Macleod dealt with issues beneath the surface of the reclaimed land.
While the site was at risk from liquefaction, foundation lateral spreading and flooding, it was no different from any other land in the area, and the risk could be appropriately managed.
Mr Macleod said the land had been used for industrial and commercial purposes as long as he could remember.
Much of his evidence was based on a preliminary geotechnical report completed last year.
Investigations had shown that weathered and hard rock were "assumed" to be 40m below the surface.
"Ground improvement techniques" would be required to prevent settlement of ground, and liquefaction.
Work would also be needed to prevent lateral spreading of the site should the Leith be disturbed by a significant earthquake.
Asked by Mr Matthews if that meant replacement of the walls of the Leith may be required, he replied: "They could do."
Rex Alexander, a hazardous substances specialist, said evacuation plans for the stadium would be affected by nearby hazardous facilities, and vice-versa.
But, with the exception of the Liquigas lpg depot, those risks were minimal, and for all facilities, the impact of the stadium would be minimal as long as there was a traffic management plan in place for events.
Mr Alexander said the Liquigas depot had 13 100-tonne below-ground tanks, the closest 195m from the stadium.
To put that in perspective, a site on Hillside Rd near The Warehouse had three above-ground tanks, one 20-tonne, one 30-tonne and the 50-tonne - but The Warehouse was still able to build there. Answering questions about the ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) roofing material, Mr Alexander said it would "vaporize" in a fire, did not burn or drip like plastic, and was safe during intense heat.
Traffic engineer David Gamble told the committee the stadium parking area had room for more than 335 parks, there were 327 parking spaces in roads surrounding the proposed zone, which may reduce to 253, and they would be available on a "competing" basis.
On Logan Park itself, and surrounding streets, there were 540.
During large-scale events, the vast majority of event parking would be accommodated by on-street and public parking surrounding the site, "probably better than the existing Carisbrook location given the pedestrian connections with the city.
"It's going to be squeezed, but it can be handled in a managed way."
