Roundtable Dissects One Paseo Compromise, Stadium Plan
The plan to develop 23 MT acres in North County has been nothing but trouble. But a compromise to scale back the project known as One Paseo appears to have ended the wrangling. TheMary's task force announced his plan to replace decrepit QUALCOMM Stadium and keep the Chargers here. How much will it all cost and with the team stay or will they bolt to LA? I'm Mark start of the pick TPP is Roundtable starts now. Welcome to a discussion of the week's top stories. I'm Mark Sauer. Joining me at the KPBS about tubal -- Megan Burks and Scott Lewin's CEO of voice of San Diego, I met, Scott. Agenda back in business reporter up to three of the San Diego Union Tribune. I met, Lori. Hello. It is all over especially the shouting, kill where the developer of the controversial One Paseo project in Carmel Valley agreed yesterday to downsize it rather than face a referendum. The result looks like a development that opponents Calibri. Konopa CO forces if you will objective merely to increase traffic. Here's what conference key of what price meet street had to say. The main objections to this site is terrific. They are generating 23,000 trips a day which requires them to widen streets, to divert traffic through neighborhoods by schools, elementary schools. Kids will have two to get to the elementary school but will have to walk across my lanes of traffic. They did, tell us about the scope of the original plan. This was pretty big project. Yes, it is about 23 acres and I think it was over a million-square-foot it in terms of development. There would be about 600 residential spaces, office space, ton of retell, all kind of situated around this main street concept. This particular project was being viewed around San Diego because it was seen as whatever happened here might be some sort of model in this whole smart growth philosophy, right? Yes, I think was planing to the city of many villages so it is almost to the town center, this village and popping it into basically a suburb and so it would increase density in that area and be a model for smart growth. A lot of people argue wasn't exactly smart growth because how would you get to that village there wasn't any public is ready. SmartGrid this post be more dense residences and to marshal an area that has service from Hanson, mass transit. Right, it is recognizing that we are running on the space. There's more. Would need to house and we need to limit their chips if they can walk to work that there's less cars on the road so that's better for car emissions. Who opposed the big original plan and why? So they were couple, a few community groups what price meet street, that -- Association and the alliance for responsible development of the world groups interested in development and also residents and then the aligned with the shopping center directly across the street which of course was opposed to this new retail. Because they are a competitor. Right. And historically across the street. You know what I found interesting on the development of -- the shopping center across the street is that he filed a lawsuit saying it was environmentally responsible company really related Medicaid for the environmental hazards and yet it was really that was code for I don't really want any more expansion in markup addition he's planning an expansion himself I think it is center. Yes, it was always about the traffic, that's what was public we discussed but we have to also look at the competition side of it. A lot of moving parts. This isn't done yet. They have to come back with the new design with new levels of development. There's really no indication is going to be fewer homes is silly. They might get rid of all the retail or a bunch of it or some other commendation of things that just lower the traffic total, but then has to go all the way back through this process again and get approved. So we've got to cover buys in the sense that the lawsuits and the votes and referendum that we are going forward that that's done, but this could still fly replicant. You touched on that vote, the Council had approved the earlier plan, right, this gets, located in processing but they had to vote on it again yesterday. The City Council approved the project in February and that's despite a lot of residential, a lot of opposition from residents that areas planning group opposed it. The City Council one had an approved and it but these community groups gathered enough signatures to force the City Council to reconsider so that the vote this week was whether to rescind that approval or let go all the way to the ballot let voters decide and they ultimately decided to rescind. Because they had this last-minute, the cover buys because there were lawsuits involved as we said at the open. To big sigh of relief on yesterday's vote here and this didn't yet so the President and all end up placed into other areas recent or political history. It was interesting being at the meeting. This has been really contentious for a long time I think six years so yesterday's meeting was per two lighthearted comparatively people were cracking jokes. But then there was this period of mourning after the vote we are Councilman Gloria, Councilman Alvarez and some folks in the audience said this is the -- Logan committed to plan should've gone should have gone. Itthere was a lot of disagreement between this is between residents within Logan committed plant's growth in cap and referendum was passed, City Council had to reconsider the City Council with the opposite way with [Indiscernible] so there really was a sense of sadness they said we missed the boat with that one and that's unfortunate. Are we seeing this again where some folks who had the money to put together a petition drive and can just again overrule what this with this Council the people's representatives have decided on that issue? It is been clear that gathering signatures has become another column of local government that the City Council can do what it wants. Borders can elect the representatives if they want and there's a judicial process, but if it cannot get to that hurdle, if there's enough money on the side of forcing it to a ballot, pictures with a tremendous weight. In this case that money cannot from that routine shopping center and they were able to force almost a different different project. On the other hand it seems like your there were able to forge a compromise but they were unable to do so in -- I know that the head of the community planning groups -- was saying that the problem started in the beginning with the console ignored the planning group. So they are still that element how much of it -- assay do the planning groups have in these project. There was this little stamp on the story but I think 17 committee planning groups passed resolution saying we shouldn't have passed One Paseo but also saying you should have passed One Paseo because that's showing you are willing to go over the planning community, the planning boards heads and not listen to the residents. We should note the communities have these groups, these folks get together and volunteer and spend a lot of time and come up with these community plants. They are not by me but they are supposed to have a certain weight when it gets to the planning commission and City Council. It is binding you have to get City Council approval to go rounded. The committeeplanning boards have nothing but just recommendation power. But in this casethey had political sway as well and so all three candidates were running for that City Council seat next year which is going to be the most expensive and ferocious City Council race we've seen probably ever and those all three of them were against this project so that shows the kind of politics that were around it. Names of those folks. Boggabri and agile couple in Democratic side and then Ray Ellis on the Republican side. -- I'm sure -- at the end of her term. Who wins that race with then determine the who dominates the City Council in general, Democrats or Republicans. A few seconds left on the segment. What happens now we mentioned it looks like they are still going to have 600 resident but they literally back to the drawing board. Right. They agreed to cut the amount of traffic in half associated with that pick we don't know yet what they are going to do to achieve that they have to go back to the drawing board and figure that out. They say they will present new panel -- and relatively soon to the public but it has go to the full process so community meetings, planning commission, city console sold it could be a year or more before we come back to this Usually the following that as we move on. Before we get toward Chargers segment I did want to say Lori I'm holding up for our radio listers here. The new San Diego Union Tribune it says on the front page of the newspaper today. The new owners from the LA Times change the paperback the name of the paperback from you too cynical and what was the reaction to the this or briefly to that? I got the sense it was pretty gleeful. I think we for years at the Kitsap at this brand cynical Union Tribune when it went back to the desert when you to -- we had to rebrand ourselves. No way back to wiping every one of Brad. I think if only upside from that I think and as I said yeah very happy about it. Back to the future on that one. The last ditch plan to give the Chargers in San Diego was a deal this week. Citizens task force a somewhat bite or Kevin Parker came up with financing blueprint that supposedly generates enough funds to cover the $1.1 billion cost of a new stadium. The big question is it too little too late looks at him feature of the Mairs citizen stadium advisory group that some awful so the plan is workable. Is what he had to say. This is good investment for the city. First foremost the city this -- to be for the operations and maintenance of QUALCOMM Stadium. Our recommendation has that level going down to about $7 million here. Switch Engine of the city will be saving money from its general fund budget. It is also a good investment for the team because they will be able to recoup their investment although we've asked them to go to be slightly more than they've offered in the past. The cost of the facility has increased over 300% in the last 10 years we are asking the team to share in the cost increase. But there are opportunities opportunities for them to generate additional revenue. Lori, breakout generally, what does this look like, this public and private financing of this new stadium? There is a little debate on what you call public and what you call private but clearly what public is $121 million from the city covers 100 women dollars from the county and then hope for $20,205,000,000 from a landfill on the QUALCOMM site. There are also more than $100 million proposed and parking and ticket surcharges. Some argue that public company is argued that private but that you get a sense of that's the split for now. Okay, $1.1 billion is the price tag, they come up with revenue that goes beyond that, right About $1.4 billion. This questions is do they really come up with enough $1.4 billion but yes, but there's the personal seat licenses for tickets which would be 120 millimolars spend between the Chargers and the public, that would be part of the naming rights revenues of the crew to the Chargers to help pay their share but there's the Chargers went that the President dollars is about $70 million that they would bond against so those are other sources of revenues. The public parts of there's no tax raising this which was essentially, that's what the mirror task tests with but it does to the point where we are his is public money coming from this 121 out of city in the county? We know the county has a pretty healthy cache and investment reserves, expected to be about about a billion dollars -- again, every dollar is really coveted by the city in the county for public services and facilities and that is a big question mark. So is the landfill That segues nicely into Scott they sell certified -- but there are some problems there, right with zoning? Yes. The ASP at EMDAC this things what about the zoning so can you really sell the slam for two and $25 million? Linezolid with what you can build on it. You can have Beechcraft land but if you cannot build home it is not worth as much incenting here. They want to know he said we can sell it that much, no problem. Essent are you sure, this is the land as is you think it is all of her $3 million an acre? He said yes, when you look at the letter they got that's a $3 million. Said no it has to be zone, has to be built -- ready to build condos on then we will pay $3 million for. That's a time when problem and that's a problem for the Chargers. Any normal operation hoping for have a really dollars or more in public subsidies I be willing to wait a couple years about the Chargers. We have to work hard for them. But he played with that point about the operations of maintenance. He said we lose $12 million year on the stadium from operations maintenance, that's true. Savvy? Only spent $7 million. That's separate from operations and maintenance he just wants to use to build the stadium. Do you want to use that to bond to build the stadium. We have not covered operations and maintenance for the new stadium and they they did not estimate of how much that would cost or provide an exact funding source for it. New at that all together that's another public subsidy to this because when we lose about $10 million from operations and maintenance act all comes to them and they say we have a lot more events there. It is not clear -- we did a survey of all the other stadiums of the country to figure out who is doing good on events and there are some places doing really well in advance but not near covering a breakeven level. Without a roof, or not going to build have the be all have the same level of evidence. I ran up with the same thing with that report came out and I was questioning Adam about the , that went before operation minutes and that was not our job to come up with that he said. We identified a lot of revenues. Excepted the city and county to figure out what the revenue is going to come from. As far as rent, -- as far as events by knowing that we will Andre list of events that they think could generate revenue but you've also got. Park having events as well. This does this weekend. They are going to be competing against each other for these marquee events. The key points on the rent, the rent they are picturing would be bonded itself and invested in the construction of the stadium. Rent now or ostensibly would be used to be operations maintenance so that's with the whole comes from, this go identified money for exactly where all that money for operations and maintenance will come from. But this they'll be moot. The Chargers -- That's my next question ago that's it to this panel panels family on this, along time owners of the Chargers. They would be responsible for $300 million under this plan, what is their feeling about this or the whole plan in general? They are not into this plan. They are not into this memory. They are throwing shame on everything publicly and privately. They are not into this framework. A lot of people say maybe they are just trying to push for a better deal. I think the contours of this amount of public and private investment might be something they would be willing to work with, but I don't think they are into this entire from her. I think they want to move the operations to allay. They are the Chargers so they might collect that but I think that's their goal. Ithink that mine my network out and make it more time here, but if they get more time your I think he will push for an entirely different framework outside of Mission Valley. From the perspective of class half-full perspective, I think part of the reason you are not hearing much from [Indiscernible] in the Chargers -- far beyond the -- is that they are moving we hope into negotiations and it is probably not they're best interest to start talking a lot in your scene that's the case with the city and County so there are downsides to LA pick we have to reestablish your fan base so I know they say they get 25% of the fields from the only ones county area. But you have to rebuild your business, will you be competing if your sharing with readers, you are competing with that and database. There are still downsides to LA and so there's a part of me that wonders I cannot tell how into are not into the plan that obviously they are moving forward very much with Carson. For ask about Carson and the situations with that site come up wasn't the time curious this week when the Chargers announce they hired well-known former 40 Niners executive Carmen policy to shepherd that deal? This was the only public response and maybe a single figure salute to this whole task force. This they could've set this is really -- we are going to consider it. They said we will look at it and when would you ask Stanos today's leaders the President of the Company if you seeing this, after the has given a brief been to the owners of the other teams about what the situation was in San Diego and they asked him did you read this plan? He said no, I didn't see it. That's just a slap. He doesn't care. Even our columns today you had a column and open letter to the -- encode amount of that incident come on, you still haven't read the plan? I know. That doesn't look good. When I talk to some outside experts about the higher -- they said maybe the would also help them shepherd would help them shepherd a plan in San Diego but policy is clearly said no, I'm doing this for Carson, it is not for San Diego. It is become increasingly clear that the NFL could force the Chargers or force this whole process in LA to slow down and maybe we would have another year to work on something, but the way that the deadlines have been put down from the NFL you can have a public vote in 2016, you cannot wait for the moment in this rezoning of this land. The rezoning of the land shouldn't be that big deal. We can do that but it is going to take a year or two to do. That's not enough time for them, I'm sorry, I've hundred million dollars, you have to wait two years and that's -- you need to get that done sooner? They are not into it. What about the Carson site itself? Does it have hurdles? I don't think has any more hurdles that what we face, I think that's what they are thinking that they are going to go for that and it doesn't work out, baby San Diego can throw them something. But I think we need to phase that and that's not me being cynical or mean, I think that's just a problem that we should address head-on. I don't know how much the family ways that interruptible value being the hometown team staying put, we get a sense we furred from -- would like to say San Diego all things being equal but there are business operation and they have to go where they are going to make money in there obviously can make a lot more money in LA market what you when you have big corporations and more fans to be for that. You touched on the seat licensing proposal and that's the very well in places like symphysis go. What about your? $100 million, isn't that what they are trying to raise? That's the right to buy a ticket, right? Yes, it is a license to pay more money for something. They can probably do some level of that and I think that's pretty good estimate. This plan is very honest, Gary comprehensive and it is an elegant puzzle that they have put together. But that point in particular I think is well-established. That's how much they will be able to get. The Chargers just aren't into that time it. They want to get in it LA done and I think that they are just going to the shame of this in the meantime. We haven't even talked about what measures. Measure. That was my next question. You don't really have Java but because we are not raising taxes but the Mayor has been insistent that he's going to put this before the public To Scott's point, time, can they will get an out measure in November? This year? How quickly can they do it? The NFL's rep as talked about wanting to wrap this up by early next year so that's a big obstacle. You cannot pick -- you cannot have -- the city cannot commit to an area site for this without doing an environmental review. Sohow that balance would actually look is really odd. This a ballot measure is not required. Actually it is with County. The County is a policy-based we have have about the counties going to put any money into a stadium. It but they could change that rule. The speed limit is 65 but they can change that. But that's the way this right now. There is going to be a vote. When they could possibly -- what if it is, to IPO but the city voters vote against it but the County voters outweigh them? How does that go down? We as a city voter I have to pay what it more for this stadium than the County does so somebody in Vermont has much better deals from more in their interest about four. It is going to be really interesting discussion. Any sense -- Megan, go ahead. The environmental review, that's very well take a really long time. -- that took six years and we are talking about Mission Valley right of the road is the submitted development and everybody recognizes that traffic is going to be absurd in that area. So can these bots they are selling, would they be viable for condo developments Rezoned is no slamdunk. That's already one of the business areas in the region. -- the city can really push to explain this but you still have got that -- issue. What might it cost to attend the game if you chose to quote the football game, I don't know that you do, are we going to see prices triple? We saw that with Petco Park. It will definitely be more in one of the Chargers are going to be frustrated was is this he wants to put a surcharge on tickets within the Chargers will say that limits how much we could charge for tickets. So these are the kind of things they can negotiate out but the way they are throwing doing shame on every part, I don't think really indicates that they are interested in this type of puzzle. Getting back to the vote for a moment, any polls% they -- would evoke past yes or no Chargers state stay, triggers go, public money? I think were going to be having a pollster but -- a poll so, I'm not sure. Obviously we know the truth hurts will never make it may be if it doesn't look like it is the voucher that is money out of their pockets we can get maybe if you do 1% vote but I think that's still you could have, you can say city county split and how does that look of city voters don't go for it. It is a big risk. The Chargers need to get on board. They need to start really very quickly because they give this as a primary election. These are two sites going at it and maybe they want their go for the general election which will be between taxpayers and the teams and they will have to work and convince them to get more than 50%. But that primarily action is still not settled. Before we get -- what about the Aztecs, will they have a lot room and what happens to the Aztecs interested in goes -- the Chargers go, where do the Aztecs play? This plan does vision when he million dollars from the Aztecs which would be a branch of year. They don'tpay heard anything right now. I don't know, I furred. Park for them to play at if all, isn't viable or maybe they build their own small stadium either on this call, area or on campus. Quick one Roundtable cover the Chargers stay or do they go ultimately what happens? I think the hometown spiritual weight -- they will stay. I think there's a 20% chance they stay or because they might fail in their attempt go to LA. Very good. That this wrap up another week of stories at the school route typical our budget think I guess Megan Burks, Scott Lewis a voice of San Diego and Lori Weisberg of the newly renamed send you union trivia. Reminder all the stories we discussed today are available on our website keep EPS the org. I am Mark Sauer, thanks for joining us today on the Roundtable.
One Paseo passes muster
It's an unusual day when rival developers reach an agreement that is not only acceptable to themselves, but to the city and community groups as well. That happened Thursday.
Plans by Kilroy Realty for a 23.6-acre, mixed-use development in the northwestern reaches of San Diego riled up competitor Donohue Schreiber and Carmel Valley neighbors. Other suburban areas like Rancho Bernardo were also concerned. Density and traffic were the chief worries in these areas, which lack mass transit and were built for the automobile.
At Thursday's City Council meeting, Kilroy announced it would downsize its development by about a third, eliminating some retail shops and lowering the height of an office tower from nine to seven stories.
The larger plan, approved by the council in February, attracted vehement opposition, several lawsuits and enough signatures to put a referendum on the ballot in 2016.
The City Council was set to vote Monday to continue with the plan they voted on and place it on the ballot — or bail. But Kilroy and Donohue Schreiber announced they had worked things out, which presumably includes dropping all litigation against each other, and come to a compromise.
The stadium and the taxpayers
The mayor’s Citizens Stadium Advisory Group came out with their proposed plan to keep the Chargers in San Diego on Monday.
The group produced a plan National University’s Erik Bruvold says is reasonable given its mission to keep the Chargers in San Diego without raising taxes.
Under this plan a new stadium will cost $1.1 billion (relatively reasonable in the pro football universe), with taxpayers footing about $500 million of that. Or possibly more. Voice of San Diego’s Liam Dillon has shown that the bill for the city may be more like $1 billion, when all the costs are factored in.
In any case, many believe none of that matters, not the actual costs or even whether or not voters will weigh in. Many believe the Spanos family and their football team have made up their minds to head north to more lucrative pastures — albeit over a former landfill — to a plot of land they now own in Carson, aided and abetted by the NFL.