Matier & Ross: For Niners' new stadium plan, it may be a question of timing

[ManCans]

For starters, Santa Clara city officials don't expect even to complete their preliminary assessment of the 49ers' plan to build a 68,000-seat stadium next to Great America until year's end.

And even if the City Council likes what it sees, officials say they will need several more months to negotiate a final deal.

That deal, in turn, is almost certain to have to go before the voters, something sources close to the team now predict may not happen until November 2008 or later.

The team also needs to conduct an environmental impact study that takes a year or longer, and might not even begin before the voters have their say.

Put it together, and you have construction starting around 2010 or beyond.

Meanwhile, back in San Francisco, the city - with help from hometown fans Sen. Dianne Feinstein and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - has been pulling out all the stops to direct federal cleanup money to a possible stadium site at the old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.

An environmental review for a stadium is already under way, and master developer Lennar Corp. has rounded up a team of prospective partners - real estate firm MacFarlane Partners, retail builder Kimco Developers and base conversion expert MACTEC Engineering - to help push the stadium package along.

Both Lennar and city representatives told us Friday that they expect to have the new Hunters Point and Candlestick development plan ready to take to San Francisco voters in June.

"By the summer of 2009, we will have all the things to have a fully entitled project in place, and be ready to hand over to the 49ers a clean, 25-acre pad," said Mayor Gavin Newsom's stadium point man, Michael Cohen.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/10/BA5NS1EUQ.DTL&hw=matier+ross&sn=001&sc=1000

Once again, it looks like the Hunter's Point plan is miles ahead of Santa Clara. I just hope the Yorks are smart enough to see SF is the best option.

[NinerRider]

Here comes Geidi and his "It's York's fault" line in 3..2...1...

[ethanh]

Great news! Like I said before, you move to SC and lots of fans are upset, you stay in SF and everyone is happy. Rep ManCans to you.

[grimlock49]

Move to SC...

[ethanh]

Move to SC...

:shoot: :puppet: :nolisten:

[49ers Ephon]

awesome. sc would be a shorter drive for me but i'd like to see the team stay in sf; hopefully they can get it together!

[TheWiz]

Once again, it looks like the Hunter's Point plan is miles ahead of Santa Clara. I just hope the Yorks are smart enough to see SF is the best option.

- This would be news because the last time the team had a meeting with the city planning council, they said late September was their goal. I can't recall reading about any other delays but I've been following the game more the past few weeks.

- An environmental impact study will not take a year. Judging the amount of sewage, waste water, trash, and electricity needed will not take a full year. Any number of stadium firms can provide impacts and city utilities and services can report from their end in only a few months. Even this last the spring the city was saying an impact could be done between august and december in time for a january vote.

- Months needed to finalize a deal is nothing new. Once handshakes have been made and public consent exists then the financiers and lawyers come in. It takes weeks if nots months to hammer out the fine print from one side to the next and then team might need to secure all financing to give Santa Clara a price tag before the city agrees to sign the deal. This isn't news. As I've said on here before, even if we passed both studies and a primary vote, it could be well into early summer before anything would be finalized.

- You're confusing the deal and the sites. Regardless of how quickly or slowly either 'stadium' could be built, if both are done by 2012, time tables make no site better than the other. The mayor could say the site will be clean by next summer, it doesn't do a thing to make it any more likely to happen nor does it change any of the other aspects.

- I also don't see how Hunter's Point is a better site. If the city can guarantee a clean site by summer 2009 and bankroll expenses due to environmental reasons that may cause delays, then we're talking. If the city of so adament that it will be perfectly clean, they should put their money where their mouth is. Why doesn't that happen? Because the city only wants the perception that they're doing everything to bring the team back. If the team says no and that park can't be built for another 3 years due to environmental concerns, no one will notice how flawed and fake their timetable was. Also, the city isn't offering even the ~16-17% of costs that Santa Clara is. Even if the team moves to Hunter's Point, where does another 160M come from since it won't be any cheaper to build. Also, what does the team do about the likely extra 50M-100M to build a new team HQ? Moving to Hunter's Point leaves the team on the hook for cost overruns and nearly 200M-250M of uncovered costs to build there. Figure that one into SBL's. $10k rights for upper deck seats anyone?

[ManCans]

- An environmental impact study will not take a year. Judging the amount of sewage, waste water, trash, and electricity needed will not take a full year. Any number of stadium firms can provide impacts and city utilities and services can report from their end in only a few months. Even this last the spring the city was saying an impact could be done between august and december in time for a january vote.Sorry, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to set the record straight. By the teams own admission, the environment impact study could take up to two years AFTER an agreement with the city is met. So the article is accurate:

Once the team reaches a partnership agreement with a Bay Area city for the location of the stadium, the California mandated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process will begin, resulting in the creation of a detailed environmental impact report. The report, which can take almost two years, is an important step to ensure any potential impact the stadium may have on the local community including traffic is identified and addressed before construction begins.
http://www.supportourniners.com/FAQ.php#anchor03
- You're confusing the deal and the sites. Regardless of how quickly or slowly either 'stadium' could be built, if both are done by 2012, time tables make no site better than the other. The mayor could say the site will be clean by next summer, it doesn't do a thing to make it any more likely to happen nor does it change any of the other aspects.No, I'm talking about both. The article mentioned how an environment study is already underway at Hunter's Point, and it also mentions that Lennar is already lining up potential investors (financing). It also asserts that a plan will be ready for a June vote, as opposed to a November vote for SC. Seems like SF is ahead of SC in just about every phase.
- I also don't see how Hunter's Point is a better site. If the city can guarantee a clean site by summer 2009 and bankroll expenses due to environmental reasons that may cause delays, then we're talking. If the city of so adament that it will be perfectly clean, they should put their money where their mouth is. Why doesn't that happen? Because the city only wants the perception that they're doing everything to bring the team back. If the team says no and that park can't be built for another 3 years due to environmental concerns, no one will notice how flawed and fake their timetable was. Also, the city isn't offering even the ~16-17% of costs that Santa Clara is. Even if the team moves to Hunter's Point, where does another 160M come from since it won't be any cheaper to build. Also, what does the team do about the likely extra 50M-100M to build a new team HQ? Moving to Hunter's Point leaves the team on the hook for cost overruns and nearly 200M-250M of uncovered costs to build there. Figure that one into SBL's. $10k rights for upper deck seats anyone?From what I understand, SC hasn't offered any money at all yet. That's what they're studying right now.

Though I don't have intimate knowledge of Lennar's plan, as I understand it, they plan on paying for construction costs through mixed use development of Candlestick and Hunter's Point. IMO, that gives Lennar and SF a much better portfolio, as opposed to simply asking SC to come up with $160M.

The rest of your point is speculative. :unsure:

Honestly, I'm not opposed to the SC site entirely. I just think that SF has a better plan, which would contribute to a better gameday experience.

[Tovey21]

I knew the supposed plan for having new stadium by 2012 was BS. Try 2016, this will drag on forever.

[sandiegojoe]

An EIR study won't take two years.

What will take two years is the fact that somebody will sue the city/niners saying that the EIR is inadequate, they'll have an attorney find some silly flaws in it, and it will have to be revised once or twice prior to approval. The legal process will drag and it'll be a big waste of everybody's time. Those type of things happen all the time and they'll happen at hunters point too.

[TheWiz]

An EIR study won't take two years.

What will take two years is the fact that somebody will sue the city/niners saying that the EIR is inadequate, they'll have an attorney find some silly flaws in it, and it will have to be revised once or twice prior to approval. The legal process will drag and it'll be a big waste of everybody's time. Those type of things happen all the time and they'll happen at hunters point too.

I'd love to see somebody try that. It's a study, not a legally required survery of any kind. You can't claim an exploratory and informatory survery is incomplete or inadequate. In fact, the city doesn't even need to do one but there is legitimate concern if the city has the resources to handle the needs of a stadium. Therefore if it gets the info it wants then they're done. Its not like the required on-site environmental reports that must be filed by construction crews to make sure they don't pave over a spotted owl habitat.

[Teke]

An environmental impact study will not take a year. Judging the amount of sewage, waste water, trash, and electricity needed will not take a full year. Any number of stadium firms can provide impacts and city utilities and services can report from their end in only a few months. Even this last the spring the city was saying an impact could be done between august and december in time for a january vote.

Environmental impact studies tend to move about as fast as local officials wish them to. This is the world of politics. I know of a church in my area that had an environmental impact study take over a year and a half. That's a church... So since the local officials are looking to push it through I think it could go through very quickly.

[TheWiz]

Sorry, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to set the record straight. By the teams own admission, the environment impact study could take up to two years AFTER an agreement with the city is met. So the article is accurate:

It could, but for the most part that has little bearing as it would be finished before the team broke ground.


No, I'm talking about both. The article mentioned how an environment study is already underway at Hunter's Point, and it also mentions that Lennar is already lining up potential investors (financing). It also asserts that a plan will be ready for a June vote, as opposed to a November vote for SC. Seems like SF is ahead of SC in just about every phase.
From what I understand, SC hasn't offered any money at all yet. That's what they're studying right now.

First of all, you're still confusing the two. You're saying that you believe Hunter's Point is a better deal. When and if a stadium gets built at either location has to do with the deal, not the site. How it gets paid for and when it's built has no effect on the final product. Nothing has changed in regards to the stadiums except the deal around them. The city is once again pushing out rosey estimates, because they only look better when they get turned down, realistic or not, and Santa Clara hasn't changed a bit. None of this speaks a word about the stadium designs, location, parking, or overall final product, which has everything to do with the site. You may not separate the two but I do because so far even if Hunter's Point is looking like a better deal because of timing (and people forget we won't have a shovel in the ground for 3 more years either way) it hasn't changed at all in terms of a site.

Environment study is not the same thing. The city of Santa Clara is going to do an environmental impact survey. As in how the cities resources will be affected by the needs and demands of an NFL stadium in terms of things like water usage, trash creation, potential pollution, etc. The city of San Francisco won't need to do that, they already support Candlestick and the overall needs and impact for a new stadium won't be any different. At Hunter's Point they're doing an actual environmental study. As in poking and prodding the soil and bringing in specialists to determine the safety and viability of the site and ot make recommendations on cleanup dates and targets. If the city has any hopes of a project in that area they need to do this to guarantee the safety for the public.


Though I don't have intimate knowledge of Lennar's plan, as I understand it, they plan on paying for construction costs through mixed use development of Candlestick and Hunter's Point. IMO, that gives Lennar and SF a much better portfolio, as opposed to simply asking SC to come up with $160M.

Not really. Lennar has offered to pay the 100M or so that will be needed to build infrastructure. In Santa Clara, those costs don't exist because suitable lines run right next to the site. Not to mention Lennar is disguising itself because they'd need to build all of that anyhow for their project, stadium or not, unless they plan to build homes without electricity or plumbing. So it still leaves the team with a nearly 150M deficit in funding, around 230M if they move headquarters. So, the way things are going, it would be an 800M stadium tops and likely would be far from the state of the art level fans would be impressed by.

The rest of your point is speculative. :unsure:


Honestly, I'm not opposed to the SC site entirely. I just think that SF has a better plan, which would contribute to a better gameday experience.

I still think San Francisco is doing everything it can to make Hunter's Point look as presentable as possible with no intent of there ever being a stadium there. The mayor's office can lie and skew time tables to make the owners look bad. If the team ever took the offer any mishaps would be 'unforeseen setbacks'.

As hard as it may be to finance the Santa Clara site, Hunter's Point only seems to cost more with no public support at all. Get San Francisco to put down a promise to cover environmentally based delays, to initiate road construction in the immediate area, and for Lennar to pick up the costs for the parking lots/garages and then you'd have yourself a deal that puts Santa Clara to shame.

Environmental impact studies tend to move about as fast as local officials wish them to. This is the world of politics. I know of a church in my area that had an environmental impact study take over a year and a half. That's a church... So since the local officials are looking to push it through I think it could go through very quickly.

I'm guessing because the church didn't have the tens of thousands on hand to get it all done at once. In Santa Clara, they know they can't take years and it shouldn't. If it takes them years to get a simple estimate from their utilities on consumption and impacts, I pity their system.

[ninerjeff]

I knew the supposed plan for having new stadium by 2012 was BS. Try 2016, this will drag on forever.

that's just great. we'll continue to play in a dump. no free agents will want to come here to play in it. we'll be forever mired in mediocrity because we have a cheap screwball of an owner who doesn't share the passion for owning an nfl franchise, but rather being a member of some affluent country club getup. WHEN IS THIS NIGHTMARE GOING TO END??

[AlexSmith5rings]

WHEN IS THIS NIGHTMARE GOING TO END??
when we get a new owner