49ers Stadium: The Planning Commission Punts

Santa Clarans,


The City Planning Commission voted 7-0 this evening to send the stadium's Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - as insufficient as it is - to the City Council.

However, they did so only after dismantling a Staff-written resolution in order to include their own concerns - namely, the near-total lack of mitigation of the stadium's negative impacts.

I'm a newcomer to the proceedings of the Planning Commission, and I was at first disappointed that an FEIR this bad ever went forward at all. But a long-time observer of the Commission suggested that I consider it "half a loaf." Now, at least, the lack of environmental mitigation is on the record.

The Commission's job wasn't an easy one. The timestamp on the FEIR I opened up early this morning read "November 13th", so this Commission - and we residents - had about five days to digest 368 more pages of revisions, comments and responses. At 4,400-some pages, I'm told that our EIR is way longer than the one San Francisco wrote for Hunters Point.

However, the Planning Commission correctly noted that they were dealing with an EIR - not with a project. The slick artist's rendition of a stadium on the display screen in Chambers this evening suggests that this distinction may have been lost on the platoon of 49ers representatives who were present - but in the end, the Commission put this on the right track.

Anyway: It's one thing to pass the EIR forward with a stripped-down resolution to Council. After that, as residents, however, we're really relying on the Planning Commission to take a hard look at how much damage this publicly-subidized stadium does to our community, especially north of U.S. 101 - and how little the 49ers are doing to fix that.

If this actually ends up as a project - let it receive more scrutiny than its EIR has.

The City Council, apparently, was determined to rush this defective proposal through the Commission so that they could take it up in regular session on Tuesday evening, December 8th. It looks like your Council got what it wanted - no matter how unfairly they treated the Planning Commission on this matter.

Santa Clara Plays Fair encourages all residents to contribute to the debate on December 8th - particularly those residents who would end up in the shadow of a publicly-subsidized stadium.

Thanks - especially - to concerned residents who spoke before the Planning Commission this evening.

In fact, I noted that Santa Clarans speaking in opposition to the subsidized stadium actually outnumbered Santa Clarans in favor - a very positive development.



Best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-
Ref.: http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=1197 (First link; 8.74MB)

49ers Stadium: Rushing the Planning Commission

Dear Santa Clarans,


How is the work of the Planning Commission really advanced by a presentation on the Term Sheet of June 2nd? And by a showing of the 49ers stadium video last presented on July 14th? It's hard to describe this evening's Study Session in any other way.

Still, though, it was possible to correct some of the erroneous information still being disseminated by both the 49ers and stadium supporters in general - and to get some fine points from the Term Sheet out there for all to see.

For example:

1. Contrary to the claims of stadium supporters: The stadium DOES raid the City's General Fund of some $67 million over 40 years. (Slide #48). This occurs because of the SB 211 amendment to the RDA's authorization, as well as because of the abrogation of the Cooperation Agreement with the City. So much for the Guiding Principle of "integrity of City funds."

2. Thanks to one Planning Commissioner for reminding everyone of this: Neither the City, nor the RDA, nor the Stadium Authority itself, has any power to demand a second NFL team in Santa Clara - the right of sublease to any second NFL team is reserved by the Term Sheet STRICTLY to the 49ers alone. (Page 24, Section 16.1). It's one more area in which we've lost control over a stadium we were told would be "ours" - even though that second team would improve the financial impact of the stadium on our city from 'lousy' to just 'bad.'

3. My favorite: Like a bad rash, the highly dubious claim of 26% mass transit utilization for a Santa Clara stadium (Page 175, Section 4.8.4.3) is still being spread around - even though the 49ers themselves told the Hunters Point developers and planners that they'd never achieve that figure in San Francisco, and even though Candlestick Park has an actual mass transit usage rate of less than 18.5%.

But our appreciation goes also to the Planning Commissioner who questioned whether the entire EIR could be fully read and understood in time to make a decision on Wednesday evening.

He's entitled to have some misgivings. The EIR runs to about 4,050 pages and takes up 120 MB on disk. And that's not even counting the public comments and additional data that have been received since this process began.

Which begs the question: This EIR has been out there for everyone's inspection since July 30th. Did the City make any effort to get this review process started by Commissioners at that time?

Or was the real purpose of this evening's presentations simply to rush the Planning Commission into rubber-stamping a highly-defective stadium project which contributes neither financially nor environmentally to the future of this City?

Santa Clara Plays Fair urges Planning Commissioners - as City Commissioners and as Santa Clarans - to ask hard questions, both about the $114 MILLION subsidy as well as the total lack of environmental mitigation (Section 4.8.5, Page 204, top) being offered by the Environmental Impact Report which will come before them on Wednesday evening.

We're not in that big a hurry.

The City Council shouldn't be, either.



Thanks to everyone who attended and spoke at the study session this evening, and best regards,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium and SB 43: The Anatomy of a Hijacking - 2

Dear Santa Clarans,


Unfortunately, your City Council decided last night by a vote of 5-2 that voting on changes to your City's Charter is not for you.

Instead, a "Santa Clara Stadium Authority" - identically this City Council, and acting by itself - will exempt the San Francisco 49ers from the competitive bidding requirements of our City's Charter.

What the 49ers apparently learned during some of their "push-polling" of Santa Clara residents is that two ballot measures - one for the $114 million subsidy and one to exempt the 49ers from obeying the Charter - are somehow....um....well....too "confusing" for us to handle.

Whereupon, one public speaker and one Councilman informed us, in the same breath, that it was OK to deny us voters a Charter vote - but that the voters were still intelligent enough to make the call on the stadium.

So, which is it? If we're smart enough to decide on a massive subsidy for an NFL stadium - and we are - we can certainly decide whether or not the 49ers are required to obey our City's Charter as any other applicant would.

As you can imagine, the rationalizations were flying thick and fast in Tuesday's City Council meeting.

However, there's that inconvenient truth that the Stadium Spenders cannot evade: If the 49ers would build their own stadium with their own money, the City's Charter would never have applied - and none of the subterfuge we've witnessed since June 23rd would ever have been necessary.

I'd like to thank the members of Santa Clara Plays Fair who contacted us this last week, and of course, those who stood up in Chambers on Tuesday to speak against our City Council invoking SB 43. Your support of one another and of the group was sincerely appreciated.


Best regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium and SB 43: The Anatomy of a Hijacking - 1

Hello to all Santa Clarans,


A Staffer in the office of Gov. Schwarzenegger informed me early this morning that SB 43 has been signed into law, unfortunately.

I don't know about you, but I don't give my votes to a Mayor or to Councilmembers with the expectation that they're going to drive to Sacramento and ask State Lawmakers to deny voters the right to vote on our own City Charter.

But that's exactly what happened on July 8th and September 9th.

The upshot of all of this: The 49ers are demanding a $114 million dollar subsidy for their stadium - and with this rather compliant City Council relying on SB 43, the 49ers will almost certainly have the power to spend that public money in violation of our City's Charter.

If there is to be an exception to the Charter of the City of Santa Clara - benefiting ONE millionaire NFL team owner and giving him his OWN one-billion-dollar football stadium - then we Santa Clarans are entitled to vote on whether or not he's entitled to that exception.

But it looks like that vote will in all likelihood be denied us.

The recommendation of the Charter Review Committee concerning SB 43 will be an Agenda Item at the City Council Meeting to be held on October 27. As residents, ratepayers and taxpayers, we're entitled to attend and to make our views known to the City Council. I encourage all Santa Clarans to be there, and that they urge this City Council NOT to invoke SB 43. This law clearly benefits only the San Francisco 49ers - not us.

Instead, the City Council should be putting the "49ers City Charter Carve-out" on the ballot right alongside of the "49ers $114M Stadium Subsidy" itself.

Santa Clarans are entitled to BOTH votes. The 49ers and the City Council know that.

A special thanks to all of you for expressing your views to Sacramento on SB 43.



Regards,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: Draft EIR, Pt. 4 - Mass Transit and Sandbagging the Numbers...

UPDATE, September 12th: Good news! -- The deadline for public comment on the Draft EIR has been extended from Monday, September 14th to Monday, September 28th:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-20090911-Notice-time-extension-for-DEIR-comment-period.pdf

If you possibly can, please comment on the DEIR per the instructions in the link above. To get started, check the four posts below, "Draft EIR" - and contact any of us if you have any questions.

--Bill Bailey
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Recall that San Franciscans voted on June 3, 2008, to give full permission for the Hunters Point development to go forward. That development makes a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers the centerpiece development on a site of 638 acres - in San Francisco - and it gives the 49ers everything they asked for - except for the hundred-million-dollar public cash subsidy they're still demanding from Santa Clarans...


Last week, I spoke with someone familiar with the negotiations over the Hunters Point development in San Francisco.

The mass transit utilization figures for the 49ers stadium at Hunters Point came up in discussions with the MTA - and the 49ers told the MTA people that they didn't believe that MTA could achieve a 20-25% utilization of mass transit at Hunters Point!

Not only that: A survey of transit modes for Candlestick Park over the interval 2002 through 2007 showed a mass-transit utilization of only 18.5%.

O.K., time out:

The 49ers are happy to see us assume a 26% mass transit usage figure here in Santa Clara - but when San Francisco's MTA proposes nearly the very same number for Hunters Point, the team's representatives feign skepticism?

This kind of inconsistency should be setting off a lot of alarm bells, and it should make Santa Clarans deeply suspicious of exactly what went into our own Draft EIR. Sandbagging the mass transit estimates for Hunters Point and inflating those numbers for Santa Clara merely allows stadium supporters to ignore a potential traffic nightmare - affecting homeowners as well as businesses - until it's too late to do anything about it.

We shouldn't be doing business like that.

Santa Clarans, you have until Monday, September 14th, to comment on the Draft EIR, and Santa Clara Plays Fair would like to urge you to speak up:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49er-Stadium-DEIR/49er-Stadium-DEIR-NOA.pdf

If you have any questions about the DEIR, or if you need background information for any comments you'd like to submit, please contact us any time.

We'll help in any way we can.



Thanks for all of your support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: Draft EIR, Pt. 3 - Mass Transit

Dear Santa Clarans,


The Draft EIR presumes a 26% usage of mass transit for 49ers game day traffic (See pp. 175-6, Section "4.8.2.3 Existing Transit Service").

Quick. By a show of hands: Do you believe that number?

One of the ways to rationalize the figure you like is to work backward - not only from the total number of seats in the stadium you want - but also with an eye on the stadium with which your own will be compared.

That's Candlestick Park, of course. As you can imagine, any mass transit utilization significantly lower than San Francisco's on 49ers game days pushes your number of auto trips up.

You can't afford that perception.

This concern isn't new - it was raised as a significant objection by several speakers at the original EIR scoping sessions moderated by City Planning Department Staff back on September 2, 2008. This writer was one of them. Very few people believed the "one-quarter-will-ride-the-bus" claim even then.

That's why it's a little disconcerting to find it yet unchallenged by the consultants who produced this section of the Draft EIR almost eleven months later.

See "Table 15" on page 176, and note that the occupancy is estimated at 2.7 persons per vehicle.

If we were truly to see that in practice, fine - but the price of being wrong will be yet another unsustainable increase in the vehicular 49ers traffic described in the previous blog post. If the seventeen Northside intersections serving those vehibles are already completely degraded to Level E and Level F already, then for any miscalculation in the mass transit figure, we'll have to invent a whole new Level of Service (LOS) for those intersections: Level G, for "Gummed up".

And it will take only an incremental increase in private vehicles to cause that kind of bedlam.

Considering that the Draft EIR's explicit "mitigation" of that jammed traffic is in fact NO mitigation at all, we're running a real risk if we uncritically accept numbers such as the ones in the report.

To their credit, the authors were quite honest about the fact that no firm commitments for game-day service were made by any transit agencies. With the extremely difficult fiscal state both of our County government as well of of our VTA, this should not be in the least surprising.

Forty-Niners transit service may yet be implemented in the fashion dreamed of in the Draft EIR - but we may be assured that it will be subsidized by County residents far less than we Santa Clarans are expected to subsidize the stadium. If riders find themselves using such a service, they will probably be covering as much of its cost as the VTA feels that they can bear.

To close, I'd like to offer a rather stark thought exercise. It should make us challenge any overly-optimistic figures for bus, light-rail, (and even chartered-coach) usage figures - and it goes like this:

Are the people who can afford $3,000.00 to $6,000.00 for a Personal Seat License in a one-billion-dollar NFL stadium really the ones you're going to see on the 57 bus?




Thank you for your continued support,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-

49ers Stadium: Why are we Subsidizing the Training Center?

Dear Santa Clarans:


The real truth about Santa Clara's "sweetheart deal" and longstanding subsidy of the 49ers Training Center on Centennial Way has been out there for all to see. But it was sharply underscored in Council comments before the Term Sheet vote in Chambers on June 2nd.

Here's the deal: If you had a chance to secure a 99-year lease on 11 acres of prime Silicon Valley real estate and still pay only $25,000 a year for those 11 acres even after some twenty years, you'd be foolish not to take advantage of any city government foolish enough to offer it. That's what the San Francisco 49ers took from our city over twenty years ago.

The Hyatt Hotel, just up the street, pays $1,465,982 a year for only 1.8 acres:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-20090602-List-of-Maj-Ground-Leases.pdf

The fact that the Hyatt pays 350 times what the 49ers are paying per acre per year is disgraceful, especially in view of the profits earned by the 49ers.

What would be almost comical if it weren't so costly to the city: Stadium proponents are actually selling the stadium as some kind of boost to hotel and tourism in Santa Clara - even though the consultants' presentations of June 23 themselves showed those returns to be mere peanuts:

http://santaclaraca.gov/pdf/collateral/49ers-CSL-Synergy.pdf

But there was a more insulting aspect to this total giveaway of the lands under the 49ers Training Center - and I'll simply let the speaker say it in his own words:

"If for some reason we are not able to move forward with our plan in Santa Clara, then there is no guarantee that the training facility will remain at this location."

That's Jed York himself quoted in yesterday's Mercury News - and we heard similar threats over a year ago when the 49ers didn't find our City Council to be deferential enough to the team's completely unreasonable demands.

Frankly, this resident, ratepayer and taxpayer would be pleased if the city would again take rightful control over those 11 acres of land. We could then negotiate a new lease with a new tenant paying Santa Clara far more than what the 49ers are paying us today.

The embarrassing terms of the current Training Center lease are only a subtext to the issue of the stadium subsidy itself - and it reveals what the short-sightedness on these issues will ultimately cost every Santa Claran.

Both subsidies should be halted at once. Please let the Mayor and the City Council know how you feel on this issue:

http://santaclaraca.gov/about_us/email-us.aspx?MayorandCouncil





Thank you for your support,

Bill Bailey, Treasurer

-=0=-