Lots of stuff on the agenda. The pertinent item tonight is 11.6: Administrative Hearing on an Appeal of the Planning Commission of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the Baseball Stadium in the Diridon/Arena Area.
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution to certify:
(A) The City Council has read and considered the Final Supplemental EIR; and
(B) The Final SEIR has been completed in accordance with the CEQA; and The Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of San Jose; and The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement shall transmit copies of the Final SEIR to the Applicant and to any other decision-making body of the City of San Jose for the project.
7:18 PM – After a few ceremonial items, Council is mercifully doing item 11.6 first.
7:24 PM – Public speaker time. Two appellants: Stand for San Jose and Marc Morris (who tool issue with the traffic analysis from the original ballpark EIR).
Attorney Michael Buskirk (Stand for San Jose) is explaining his client’s objections to the SEIR. Essentially, he’s saying that the parking analysis is flawed considering the lack of info for the 6-7 PM weeknight hour.
Marc Morris refers to the Sharks objections, which have been withdrawn. Citizens from Shasta-Hanchett are holding up blue signs in unison.
Thanks to gojohn10 for holding up the sign.
Susan Hammer and Michael Mulcahy are speaking in favor of the project.
Interestingly, at least two speakers want more traffic downtown because it’s an indicator that downtown is thriving.
Other neighborhood advocates are asking for a more comprehensive TPMP in conjunction with the ballpark. Some are concerned about emergency response due to drop in level of service to certain key intersections.
8:08 PM – Public comments over. Staff-council Q&A starts. Already covered ground regrding parking, BART and HSR development.
8:19 PM – Mayor Reed notes that since the A’s aren’t the applicant yet, there’s no one to negotiate a TPMP with. If/when the applicant is able to apply, there will be additional environmental review, which could take the form of an amendment or another supplemental EIR. Reed mentions the negotiating principles that have been set since last year.
Councilman Sam Liccardo puts forth a motion to deny the two appeals and certify the EIR, which was seconded. Vote coming after other council members’ comments.
8:38 PM – Unanimous approval. That’s a wrap. Time for a beer.
newballpark.org 
R.M. or GJ10,
Any idea what the “right decision” would be for Shasta/Hanchett/Park?
The “right decision” would be for those NIMBYs to move to Gilroy.
The funny thing is the neighborhoods immediately surrounding the ballpark (Cahill and Downtown) seem to be the most supportive of the ballpark. The Shasta-Hanchette folks are just stuck in the 50’s.
I wasn’t there but assume “the right decision” isn’t not building the park but developing a traffic management plan that works for all–just like they did when the Tank was built and more recently their negotiations with the Sharks—personally I don’t view the SH folks negatively–seems to me that they have come to the table and been willing to work in the community forums–doesn’t mean they have to jump up and down over the ballpark—consider their approach to that of Fremont’s residences…and personally I would much prefer to live in the SH neighborhood with its character than out in Fremont–
Pingback: Tweets that mention Liveblog from 6/15 SJ City Council Sessiom - -- Topsy.com
According to this morning’s Matier and Ross in the Chronicle, it is almost too late to get the new ballpark on November’s ballot: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/16/BAE11DVJ7B.DTL#ixzz0r2vfgErm
What the heck is taking MLB so long? I’ve heard different theories. One theory I’ve heard is Selig wants to make sure he has a unanimous vote amongst the owners. Another is the A’s and Giants are bickering over the settlement check (I believe Stanford Sports Economist Roger Noll most recently said this in Monday’s SJ Mercury News.)
We’re running out of time. What are the odds that MLB makes a decision on territorial rights before the next city council meeting (August 3rd)? The deadline to get something on the ballot is supposedly just a few days after August 3rd, according to the article. MLB better hurry up.
No need to respond to a M&R article re: A’s to SJ, as they are now akin to Ann Killion articles (see GARBAGE). That said, let’s keep one thing in mind: a ballpark initiative on the November ballot may not TECNICALLY be necessary. Remember, a ballot measure for a SJ sports venue is only necessary if direct taxpayer monies (tax hike, muni/redevelopment bond monies, general fund monies) are used for the actual construction of said facility. Being that an A’s ballpark will be privately financed, and that some sort of land-lease will be involved, TECHNICALLY a city-wide vote shouldn’t be necessary. But alas, the city looks bent on putting this thing to the voters regardless, and as last weeks Niners/SC vote exhibited, it should pass with flying colors. Lawsuits appear imminent regardless of vote or no vote, as Stand for San Francisco has already suggested they’re preparing for the frivolous.
So what the heck is taking MLB so long Chris? Simple: nothing happens unless Selig/MLB know FOR SURE, 100%, that a ballpark in San Jose WILL HAPPEN if they free up SCCo. for the A’s. That means all land acquired at Diridon South, EIR complete, lawsuits struck down, and (most important) San Jose giving the GREEN light for ballpark construction (vote or not vote).
Chris,
Forgot to mention that Selig/MLB currently have their hands full with the Texas Rangers sale/bankruptcy proceedings (see R.M.’s post from a few weeks back).
I’m wondering how Bud Selig and other owners feels about this Stand for San Jose farce, do they know about it?
Goodness gracious can we just hurry up and get this over with MLB? Seriously.
it feels like M&R went out of their way to contrast with what was written in the Merc a few days ago. All they really had was one quote for Larry Stone which I actually disagree with.
I try not to speculate anymore as to when Selig will release the report as it just forces my doctor to increase my blood pressure medication. But, since we all seem to be getting annoyed at MLB’s inaction, here are my thoughts on the delay.
It’s been about 18 months since Selig ordered the formation of the 3 person panel. There’s no way the panel has not completed its research and report. Selig knows the results of their finding. Their recommendation is San Jose, or at least not Oakland. If the panel seriously thought Oakland was a viable option, we would already be moving in that direction. Selig would have privately made the panel’s finding known to Wolff, and we would have heard a change in the tone of Wolff’s comments. Instead, Wolff remains steadfast in his comments about wanting to move to SJ.
As for what’s causing the delay, I believe the sticking point is the amount of compensation the A’s will owe the Giants. The Giants can afford to play hardball, as they have nothing to lose by allowing this to drag on for another year or two. They have a relatively successful team on the field, and they continue to draw well at the gate. The A’s on the other hand, are faced with poor attendance, a disgruntled fanbase, and a looming election deadline. There’s really no incentive for the Giants to come down from their asking price. Rather than forming a panel to study ballpark sites, perhaps it would have been more productive for Selig to have appointed a panel to decide on the properly level of compensation owed to the Giants.
FC,
I don’t disagree with the Giants getting compensation part of your post. Where I do disagree with you is the assertion that somehow the Giants are in the “drivers seat.” They aren’t and are in no way in charge of dictating what they’ll get from the A’s/MLB. Remember this: MLB’s anti-trust exemption and “The best interest of Baseball” clause of MLB’s constitution. If, say, Selig/MLB state that the Giants will get $10 million from the A’s annually for 5 years, then they will get $10 million from the A’s annually for 5 years! No objections or lawsuits allowed. Remember, there’s no crying in baseball!
Again, I feel strongly (as I have for the past 5+ years) that the onus is on San Jose to make this ballpark a reality. Let’s see how things shake out when San Jose has ALL OF ITS DUCKS lined up.
Tony,
I hear what you’re saying regarding the Giant’s compensation. Which is why I thought it might have been a better idea for MLB’s panel to come up with some type of $$$ amount which would be binding on both the Giants and A’s.
With regard to when the decision will be made public, I wouldn’t be surprised if we had to wait until after the November elections. If the ballpark issue passes, MLB could point to the results as an indicator that the South Bay is willing to support a MLB team, sort of a mandate if you will.
I wonder whether your “ducks lined up” theory also applies to Oakland as well.