Text by Sarah Phelan
The draft EIR for the 49ers stadium in Santa Clara states that the proposed construction will result “in significant cumulative transportation, air quality and global climate change impacts.”
According to the study, the significant unavoidable impacts of the proposal include a substantial increase in ambient noise levels during large stadium events, temporary noise impacts from construction, regional air pollutants in excess of established thresholds, significant impacts on 17 intersections on 8 weekday evenings a year, and on two local intersections on 42 weekend days.
It could also result in the abandonment of active raptor nests or the destruction of other migratory birds’ nests.
And expose construction workers and future site users to contaminated soil, airborne asbestos particles, and lead-based paint.
The proposed site is located within the worst-case release impact zone for two toxic gas facilities and thus, “could expose event attendees to toxic chemicals.”
Then there is the fact that it could impact “unknown buried prehistoric and/or historic resources.”
And numerous BBQ activities within 700 feet of neighboring residences “could result in odor complaints”
What impact this draft EIR will have on Santa Clara voters when they go to the ballot next March remains unclear.
But a quick skim through this 336-page report finds it concluding that other alternatives, including Mayor Gavin Newsom’s proposed site at Hunters Point Shipyard, are mostly deemed inconsistent with the 49ers objectives.
“The costs and time required for hazardous materials clean up, infrastructure and roadway/transit improvements, and permitting make the Hunters Point site inconsistent with the following objectives: locate the stadium on a site that can be readily assembled and that enables the development of the stadium within budget and on schedule; locate the stadium on a site that is served by existing streets and highway infrastructure adequate to reasonably accommodate local and regional game-day automobile circulation.”
The existing Candlestick Point site, as well as Pier 70, Pier 80, Pier 90-94 backlands, Baylands, San Francisco Airport, Moffett Airfield, Zanker Road, San Jose State, Santa Clara Fairgrounds, a reduced stadium size alternative and an enclosed stadium alternative are also evaluated.
Ultimately the report concludes that “the enclosed stadium alternative would meet all of the project proponent’s objectives.”
“In addition, this alternative would reduce impacts from crowd noise in the stadium…and would eliminate the visible light increases,” the draft EIR continues. ” Energy use would increase to some extent with the enclosed stadium because it would require more of the stadium area to be climate controlled. An enclosed stadium would, however, allow for a variety of design features that would at least partially offset energy consumption. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project.”
