Sally Brett commented on Vote for Measure R to Protect Our Parks & Open Space 2016-10-16 15:00:08 -0700Measure R is all well and good. Even if this measure passes, though, the City Council could still pull a stunt like when they tried to move the Youth Soccer Park first to Ulistac Natural Area, then to Montague Park & Jenny Strand Park, then to our public school fields. Thank goodness all these maneuvers have failed (so far). Measure R doesn’t prevent changing the use of city land, it just sets legal barriers against selling it without public approval. So, vote for Measure R, but remain vigilant. Jed York has no intention of actually paying for new property for a relocated Youth Soccer Park. And, you better believe he would love to convert the existing Youth Soccer Park land into a free parking lot for his fellow VIPs.
Sally Brett answered 2016-07-29 14:48:43 -0700Q: Do you think the Santa Clara City Council is treating the San Fransisco 49ers unfairly?
A: No - I disagree with Patty Mahan and think the City Council needs to stand up for residents and neighborhoods, not the 49ers.
On November 8, Santa Clara voters will determine who runs City Hall. In a Mercury News story, one City Council candidate, Patty Mahan, thinks the city needs to do more for the team.
“Mahan said the city hasn't always been fair to the Niners”
We want to know if you agree.
The 49ers want to unilaterally reduce their rent and they don’t want to comply with the city’s noise ordinance protecting neighborhoods. How should the city deal with team on these issues and others?
Please take a moment to answer the survey below.
Stand Up for Santa Clara will be tracking candidates to determine who is being recruited and financed by the 49ers either directly or indirectly through independent expenditures. Please share our information on Twitter and Facebook so we can shine a light on this election.Take the survey
Jed York promised to fund replacement fields. We need to force him to pay for LAND for these fields as well. Don’t let our City Council trick us by building replacement fields on public land, especially city parks, Ulistac open space, or public school fields. Our City Council needs to represent the PUBLIC not billionaires who fund their reelection campaigns.
The Santa Clara Youth Soccer League & the PAL Soccer Organization Need Your Support to Save Soccer Park from the NFL, the City of Santa Clara Leadership, and the 49ers.
GOAL: 963 signatures
- Please Sign the Petition.
- Email the Mayor of Santa Clara and the City Council Members requesting: (1) They protect the Soccer Park facility from destruction (2) Create an Open & Transparent Process to negotiate a deal with the Super Bowl 50 Committee and the NFL (3) Do not spend Santa Clara General Funds to repair soccer park. (4) Represent and protect the citizens of Santa Clara. Email them at: MayorAndCouncil@santaclaraca.gov
- Spread the news so we collect more signatures.
- Attend the Santa Clara City Council Meeting on Dec. 8th at 6pm to show your support in soccer uniforms. Location: 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050 .
We, the leaders and parents of the Santa Clara Youth Soccer and PAL Leagues, have worked cooperatively with the Santa Clara City Leadership for the last six months to prepare for Super Bowl 50. We know that the Santa Clara Youth Soccer Park (SCYSP) is an important facility to ensure the success of the game and we know that this is an important event for the city of Santa Clara.
We pledged to cooperate on a plan that would provide the facility to the Super Bowl for a reasonable period of time since we know that the staging of an event of this scale is not simply a one-day event.
We also believed the commitment of city leaders who in turn pledged to find a reasonable and comparable alternative to the soccer park which is used daily and serves over 1,000 children.
To date, there has been some progress made between the Santa Clara Parks & Recreation Department working with SCYSL and PAL to find temporary training fields for 3 months (January-March), however, the soccer community have received little information or concrete proposals regarding the use plan by the NFL.
We have heard of plans to construct a media village on the soccer fields which would require approximately 6-9 months of setup then re-construction.
We have also heard that the city must absorb these costs. Such a plan is unacceptable to the soccer community and we believe the citizens of Santa Clara would strongly object as well.
Without information and communication, we now believe that the city is acting irresponsibly and secretively in an effort that will jeapordize the SCYSL & PAL 2016 Soccer Seasons, and cause serious damage to the Santa Clara Youth Soccer Park.
So, we ask the Santa Clara City Council to formally establish these guiding principles before any agreement may be negotiated to use the SCYSP for Super Bowl 50:
- PROCESS – All proposals shall be vetted in an open and transparent process by the city council at a public meeting to work on an appropriate plan.
- TEMPORARY SOCCER FIELD LOCATIONS – SCYSL and PAL Board designated members must be involved in the site selection and approval of temporary soccer fields.
- DISPLACEMENT COSTS – The NFL or the Super Bowl Committee, not the taxpayers of Santa Clara, shall pay for all soccer field rental fees necessary to provide uninterrupted access to equivalent soccer fields until the Soccer Park reopens.
- REPAIR/REPLACEMENT COSTS – The NFL assumes all responsibility for the Soccer Park facility during their possession of the property, and promises to return the property in equal or better condition. The NFL shall be liable for any loss, theft, damage or destruction of the Soccer Park property.
We believe that the city council must assert its authority as the representatives of the people of Santa Clara.
The soccer community have been disappointed in the past when the majority of the council dismissed the 49ers pledge to build additional soccer fields. If the 49ers had done as they had promised, or if the city had pushed them to do so, we would not likely be in this predicament. We’re concerned that any verbal agreement made by the 49’ers or the NFL will not be upheld and enforced by the City and/or Council.
We hope Super Bowl 50 will not be another example of the city council majority failing to Stand Up for Santa Clara.
Help protect the Soccer Park facility by signing this petition and show the City of Santa Clara Leadership, the NFL & the San Francisco 49ers that we value our kids in our community.
Thank you for your support!
Santa Clara Youth Soccer League
Santa Clara PAL Organization
Stand Up for Santa Clara
I agree with this article, it is excellent. However, the plot is much thicker and threatens more than just soccer fields. Please read the below details for a more thorough analysis:
Why is the City of Santa Clara planning to destroy our parks and school fields?
1) The Santa Clara City Council built the Levi’s stadium without first planning for adequate parking. They built a 14 acre stadium on a 17 acre site. On event days, transportation engineers determined that the public requires 41,373 parking spaces within 20 minutes of the stadium. But, sufficient parking lots were not built. The city assumed “It is reasonable to assume that on a yearly basis, the team could secure agreements for the required parking from the total supply available.”
(As events have proven, this WAS NOT a reasonable assumption.)
Source: Page 61 of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the stadium:
2) The Santa Clara City Council, on March 15, 2012, promised parking rights (to “StadCo”, the 49ers Stadium Company) to two vacant lots on Tasman Drive across the street from the stadium. (Tasman lot APN 104-03-038 (3.3 acres) and Tasman lot APN 104-03-039 (4.7 acres))
This Parking Rights Agreement was the ultimate sweet deal for the 49ers. They get to park on these 8 acres for FREE during 49er event days. And : “The City will also receive $5 per parking space used on the the Tasman Drive surface lots for Non-NFL Events.”
Why did the City make this terrible deal? It was certainly not in the best interest for city taxpayers…
Source: Pages 1 and 2 of the Parking Rights Agreement
3) The Santa Clara City Council, on June 26, 2012, voted to approve “Centennial Gateway”, a massive development spearheaded by former 49er star Joe Montana. The development included these same two lots on Tasman. So, the Santa Clara City Council DOUBLE PROMISED these two lots. This fact was known. The below agreement even says “The Developer acknowledges that the Properties are encumbered by Parking Agreements”.
Source: Page 7 of Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Montana Property Group LLC for the Development of Two City Owned Parcels on Tasman Drive
4) The Santa Clara City Council, on September 17, 2013, in a Work Study Session, announced it’s intentions to move the Youth Soccer Park to an alternate location. This was an obscure meeting, meant to be under the public’s radar (not a formal widely attended City Council Meeting, during standard work hours, not videotaped, announced just 48 hours before (the minimum required by CA state law)). On page 68 of the hand outs, the city recommended moving the Youth Soccer Park to Ulistac Natural Area, at a taxpayer cost of $9,850,000. See the below:
5)The Santa Clara City Council, in late September of 2013, as part of a massive public & media firestorm was heavily criticized for threatening to destroy Ulistac Natural Area. The nail in the coffin for the city’s plans was a letter from Andrea Mackenzie, the General Manager of the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, reminding the City of Santa Clara that it had accepted two grants ($176K in 1999 and $281K in 2004) after promising to preserve Ulistac Natural Area as “open space”, in “perpetuity”. The letter adds that the Authority does not consider a Youth Soccer Complex as consistent with their definition of open space. Source:
6) The Santa Clara City Council, on June 10, 2014, discussed a study which they commissioned after being heavily criticized for not collecting enough taxes from developers to fund parks and open space. This study, “New Housing Development Impact Nexus study”, showed clearly that Santa Clara needs more park land and doesn’t collect nearly enough money for parks as compared with neighboring cities. For example, in 2013, development fees collected for Cupertino: $2,484,000, Sunnyvale: $3,330,249, San Jose: $24,100,000, Santa Clara: $895 (This is not a typo, it shows that Santa Clara has been offering sweet deals to developers). Here is a key quote: “…the City of Santa Clara ranks lowest in level of service standards at 2.4 park acres per 1000 residents, compared to neighboring cities which provide between 3.0 up to 5 acres per 1000 residents”
Source: Pages 9 & 10 of:
7) The Santa Clara City Council directed the Parks & Recreation Commission on July 15, 2014, to do the exact opposite of what the Nexus Study recommended. Instead of increasing park land acres per 1,000 residents, the Parks & Recreation Dept. decided to continue pursuing consuming park land to resolve the stadium parking situation. Here is a quote: “The Commission discussed the next step in the process to develop three additional soccer fields to meet the demands for fields and mitigate Stadium game day access impacts to Youth Soccer Park (YSP); the fields are additional to, not a replacement of YSP. A consultant will be selected to do the community outreach, design, and engineering. Kings Academy has been secured for immediate use.”
Source: Section IV a of: