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=-