SAN FRANCISCO
First look at 49ers' new stadium plan
Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
The San Francisco 49ers presented a preliminary outline for a privately funded stadium and adjacent development at Candlestick Point on Monday, and said the team would seek the Board of Supervisors' approval for the project once plans are firmed up.
The 68,000-capacity stadium would be built on landfill just southeast of the current Monster Park and would cost between $600 million and $800 million. Team officials said during a Chronicle editorial board meeting that they planned to partner with Lennar Corp., which would build housing, retail and office space around the stadium, but that those elements were in the early stages.
Critics have voiced concern that the development will veer too far from the stadium-mall plan that voters approved with two 1997 ballot measures. Proposition D authorized $100 million in revenue bonds to subsidize the project, and Proposition F allowed rezoning of 77 acres for the stadium and mall.
That plan, hatched by the 49ers and mall developer and operator Mills Corp., never got off the ground. Lisa Lang, a spokeswoman for the 49ers, said Monday that the team no longer needs the public financing but believes that it is still entitled to the land because the new project would qualify under the Prop. F rezoning.
Nonetheless, Lang said the team would seek Board of Supervisors approval.
"We want the city and the neighborhoods to be supportive of the project; without the support of the Board of Supervisors, it's not going to go forward," Lang said.
Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, whose District 10 encompasses Candlestick Point, said she agreed with Lang that any development would require board review.
Unlike Lang, however, Maxwell said she believed the new project would involve zoning alterations.
"You have to remember that this was zoned to be a mall," Maxwell said. "It's going to change from being a mall to having a lot of new housing, and that will require transportation and other infrastructure. There will be a lot of things that will need to come before the board."
Board President Aaron Peskin said the 49ers would have to come up with a detailed proposal before he could form an opinion on what role the city should play.
"We have a rendering of a stadium, but we're waiting for more details," Peskin said. "The problem is that it's not a stadium alone -- it's a stadium tied at the hip to an adjacent development."
Other elected officials have been taking steps in recent weeks in expectation that the 49ers would be coming up with a new stadium plan.
Legislation sponsored by state Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, would allow the city to seek a judicial ruling on whether the 49ers and the city can proceed with a stadium different from the one that voters approved.
The bill, which Migden proposed at the request of Mayor Gavin Newsom, has passed the state Assembly and awaits a final vote in the state Senate before going to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Critics of the legislation have said Newsom and the 49ers are trying to avoid the expense and uncertainty of returning to the ballot to seek voter approval of the new plan.
Maxwell said she would not object to judicial review as long as the community has a say in whatever the team builds.
The 49ers and their designers at HNTB Architecture Inc. said Monday that they were looking to win the community's support.
"We want the public to embrace the stadium and to have the stadium intertwined with the community as a public place," said HNTB design director Fernando Vazquez.
Vazquez said the project was in the "very beginnings of the design process."
Architect Timothy Cahill said the stadium could be used for soccer, concerts and other entertainment, and could be an Olympic venue should the Bay Area ever land the Summer Games.
The team showed drawings of a possible design and said it hoped to put two-thirds of the seats in the stadium's lowest section and to include a north plaza, with a large open area for viewing downtown San Francisco.
Lang outlined a proposed timeline in which the project would start with community input in September, then move through the Board of Supervisors approval and an environmental review process. She said the team hoped to play its first game in the stadium in 2012.
She said the 49ers believed their best backup plan for a stadium site would be Santa Clara if the San Francisco proposal falls through. She said the team had engaged in very preliminary discussions with officials in Santa Clara, where the team has its headquarters and a practice facility, about placing a stadium there.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGTVK0N891.DTL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Proposed new 49er stadium -- Computer-rendered view from inside proposed stadium looking north to San Francisco -- Monster Park would be demolished Proposed location of new stadium -- 68,000 seats are planned, but could be expanded to 72,000. Two-thirds of the seats (46,000) are in the large, lower “bowl,” intended to give most fans a view closer to the field. -- In addition to NFL football, the field could be used for soccer, Olympic Opening and Closing ceremonies, concerts and other entertainment. -- Cost is estimated at between $600 million and $800 million. -- Current plan is to begin construction in January 2010 and finish for the 2012 football season. Sources: San Francisco 49ers; aerial view from Pictometry.com The Chronicle
Prev
Linear Mode
