SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[aerogt3]

Civic San Diego just uploaded their latest Downtown Project Status Log:

http://civicsd.com/images/stories/downloads/planning/status-logs/December_2014.pdf

Amazed how the city decides to put so many affordable units in glitzy downtown high rises. There are 50 affordable units at 15th & Island alone... that has to be one of the least cost effective places.

Wouldn't it be better to offer 80 units in north park rather than 50 in downtown? Not saying all the affordable units should be shoved into a ghetto, but they shouldn't go into one of the most expensive areas in the city, either. It seems like the same amount of money could be used to help a lot more people.

[tyleraf]

There is a meeting concerning Lane Field South coming up on February 19th. Lane Field updates: Port of San Diego
This email is issued by the Port of San Diego. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact CustomerServiceCenter@portofsandiego.org via email or call (619) 686-6200. Thank you.

Port to Host Public Outreach Meeting on Lane Field South Hotel Development
Published: February 12, 2015
lane 3The Port of San Diego will host a public outreach meeting on a hotel development planned for the south side of Lane Field, located at the corner of North Harbor Drive and West Broadway in San Diego. The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. on Thursday, February 19, 2015 in the Training Room of the Port's Administration Building, 3165 Pacific Highway, San Diego [map].

The proposed hotel is being developed by LPP Lane Field, LLC (LLP). LPP is the managing partner of the group developing the Lane Field North Hotel, currently under construction on the north portion of the Lane Field site.

At the meeting, the public will have the opportunity to view and provide comments on the preliminary concept for the Lane Field South hotel project. The proposed project consists of a higher-end, 400-room hotel that would include meeting space, retail stores and restaurants and a minimum of 686 parking spaces, of which 271 must be available for the public. The developers will also complete a 55-foot long setback along West Broadway between North Harbor Drive and Pacific Highway.

LPP was awarded a one-year option agreement to develop the Lane Field South Hotel project at the December 9, 2014 Board of Port Commissioners meeting.

[dtell04]

Amazed how the city decides to put so many affordable units in glitzy downtown high rises. There are 50 affordable units at 15th & Island alone... that has to be one of the least cost effective places.

Wouldn't it be better to offer 80 units in north park rather than 50 in downtown? Not saying all the affordable units should be shoved into a ghetto, but they shouldn't go into one of the most expensive areas in the city, either. It seems like the same amount of money could be used to help a lot more people.

Did anyone notice 15th and Island phase 2 is listed as condominiums? I also spoke to a realtor that said there were far too few parking spaces. Does anyone recall reading about that?

[Northparkwizard]

Amazed how the city decides to put so many affordable units in glitzy downtown high rises. There are 50 affordable units at 15th & Island alone... that has to be one of the least cost effective places.

Wouldn't it be better to offer 80 units in north park rather than 50 in downtown? Not saying all the affordable units should be shoved into a ghetto, but they shouldn't go into one of the most expensive areas in the city, either. It seems like the same amount of money could be used to help a lot more people.

I don't think the city decided to put those affordable units there. It's likely this,

"The Density Bonus Program allows housing developers to build more units on a property than are otherwise permitted, provided that a certain percentage of the total number of the additional units are reserved for low- or moderate-income households."

http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/sdhcd/organizations/developer_incentive.html

[spoonman]

I don't think the city decided to put those affordable units there. It's likely this,

"The Density Bonus Program allows housing developers to build more units on a property than are otherwise permitted, provided that a certain percentage of the total number of the additional units are reserved for low- or moderate-income households."

http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/sdhcd/organizations/developer_incentive.html

I believe developers also have the option to "buy out" of having to provide affordable units. That probably occurs much more in the case of condos.

[Northparkwizard]

I believe developers also have the option to "buy out" of having to provide affordable units. That probably occurs much more in the case of condos.

Yep.

[SDfan]

Amazed how the city decides to put so many affordable units in glitzy downtown high rises. There are 50 affordable units at 15th & Island alone... that has to be one of the least cost effective places.

Wouldn't it be better to offer 80 units in north park rather than 50 in downtown? Not saying all the affordable units should be shoved into a ghetto, but they shouldn't go into one of the most expensive areas in the city, either. It seems like the same amount of money could be used to help a lot more people.

I've wondered about this too before. I read an article where the commentators wondered why SD invests in more expensive locations rather than far-flung areas where land is cheaper. The answer revolved around the realities of those needing affordable housing, and the communities who are unwilling to accept them.

Downtown is ideal for affordable housing development because many of the social services that low-income people/families need are located in the immediate area. Also, a person living in subsidized housing is less likely to have a car, which means you need relatively good transportation services nearby - which is less likely in rural or suburban areas.

Meanwhile, other communities tend to oppose affordable housing (and any market rate housing in general) over fears of crime and property devaluation. Poor people are (unfortunately) the pariahs of many in community planning groups. You can see this in Uptown especially, where newer projects opt for paying the fee, rather than having their projects opposed because they would include two or three affordable units.

Downtown is in a unique situation because it's an already established mix-income community, with reliable mass transit, embedded social services, and a robust, pro-growth planning group. That's what makes affordable housing more likely to appear in some of the most expensive real estate in the county.

And to be honest, that's not bad. It makes for a more egalitarian society, and promotes urban living for all - not just the exclusive right for retired, second home, Arizona sunbirds. The cost per unit is ridiculous (300k+), but the long term benefits are greater. I do think more uptown and urban core neighborhoods should be building more units, both affordable and otherwise. But selfish property owners have a stranglehold on housing development, and that won't change any time soon.

[SDfan]

Looks like there is a lot going on in University City. The following photo was taken from the webcam on the Wells Fargo building. There are some projects that are common knowledge, as well as some possible new ones. Does anyone have any knowledge of these "new" projects??

http://earthcam.com/clients/irvinecompany/onelajollacenter/?cam=pano1


http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah101/jas92129/LJC_zps4moxepdo.jpg

The "???" project is BioMeds' new i3 life science campus, which looks to be a series of low-rise offices. Meh.

Illumnia is building a new parking structure, but I don't know if there is going to be a building expansion along with it.

Does anyone have a rendering of the new Costa Verde project by UTC? I can't find a picture of all 4 towers that are going in there.

[SDCAL]

Civic San Diego just uploaded their latest Downtown Project Status Log:

http://civicsd.com/images/stories/downloads/planning/status-logs/December_2014.pdf

IDEA1 has a status of 'pending approval' and start date not available?

I thought this project was ready to break ground soon, anyone know what's going on with this?

[tyleraf]

IDEA1 is going to break ground in October according to the developer.

[eburress]

The "???" project is BioMeds' new i3 life science campus, which looks to be a series of low-rise offices. Meh.

Illumnia is building a new parking structure, but I don't know if there is going to be a building expansion along with it.

Does anyone have a rendering of the new Costa Verde project by UTC? I can't find a picture of all 4 towers that are going in there.

I could be wrong, but I didn't think they were still planning to move forward with the former, four-tower project. My understanding was that it was now going to be a shorter, two-building project.

[dtell04]

http://www.sandiego.gov/real-estate-assets/pdf/stadium/missionvalleystadiumprivatefinancingproposal.pdf

Finally some real numbers for a new stadium and plan in mission valley. Check it out

[SDfan]

I could be wrong, but I didn't think they were still planning to move forward with the former, four-tower project. My understanding was that it was now going to be a shorter, two-building project.

Was this in an article?

[SDfan]

http://www.sandiego.gov/real-estate-assets/pdf/stadium/missionvalleystadiumprivatefinancingproposal.pdf

Finally some real numbers for a new stadium and plan in mission valley. Check it out

Where did this come from?

[dtell04]

Where did this come from?

I saw it via bleacher report team stream. ESPN ran a story about county kicking in some money via a pbs article. The pbs article had a link to the San Diego website that has a big list of documents for public viewing. This specific proposal is dated February 2015 so i can only assume it was just released. It's worth reading thoroughly. They have some good ideas.

[spoonman]

I saw it via bleacher report team stream. ESPN ran a story about county kicking in some money via a pbs article. The pbs article had a link to the San Diego website that has a big list of documents for public viewing. This specific proposal is dated February 2015 so i can only assume it was just released. It's worth reading thoroughly. They have some good ideas.

The problem with this plan is that it leaves a gap of about $200 million for the stadium. The plan looks great for the developer and city, but not the Chargers. Very thoughtful proposal, but seems to miss the point. Spanos would have to be the mixed-use developer to recoup his outlay for the stadium unless revenue from the new stadium was sufficient to cover the gap in funding.

[dtell04]

The problem with this plan is that it leaves a gap of about $200 million for the stadium. The plan looks great for the developer and city, but not the Chargers. Very thoughtful proposal, but seems to miss the point. Spanos would have to be the mixed-use developer to recoup his outlay for the stadium unless revenue from the new stadium was sufficient to cover the gap in funding.

It would be a no brainier solutuion if the NFL said they would cover any funding gap from lack of PSL revenue. If that were the case they could get it done. Spanos will make more than enough money from new suite revenue to cover his portion of the payments and interest.

[aerogt3]

I don't think the city decided to put those affordable units there. It's likely this,

"The Density Bonus Program allows housing developers to build more units on a property than are otherwise permitted, provided that a certain percentage of the total number of the additional units are reserved for low- or moderate-income households."

http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/sdhcd/organizations/developer_incentive.html

IMO, that density should be permitted from the beginning. I don't like the idea of bending rules to get what you want. It seems like a pretty stupid to say there is an affordability crisis, and then restrict the number of total units so that supply can't meet demand and economy of scale is lost, driving up prices.

Downtown is ideal for affordable housing development because many of the social services that low-income people/families need are located in the immediate area. Also, a person living in subsidized housing is less likely to have a car, which means you need relatively good transportation services nearby - which is less likely in rural or suburban areas.

Meanwhile, other communities tend to oppose affordable housing (and any market rate housing in general) over fears of crime and property devaluation. Poor people are (unfortunately) the pariahs of many in community planning groups. You can see this in Uptown especially, where newer projects opt for paying the fee, rather than having their projects opposed because they would include two or three affordable units.

Downtown is in a unique situation because it's an already established mix-income community, with reliable mass transit, embedded social services, and a robust, pro-growth planning group. That's what makes affordable housing more likely to appear in some of the most expensive real estate in the county.

And to be honest, that's not bad. It makes for a more egalitarian society, and promotes urban living for all - not just the exclusive right for retired, second home, Arizona sunbirds. The cost per unit is ridiculous (300k+), but the long term benefits are greater. I do think more uptown and urban core neighborhoods should be building more units, both affordable and otherwise. But selfish property owners have a stranglehold on housing development, and that won't change any time soon.

I do agree that downtown is a great place for it because of the services available. But at the same time, it's a center for mostly white collar jobs, and barrio logan, golden hill, etc. are just next door and arguably closer to blue collar job centers.

I think it's good that downtown have mixed incomes. But the goal of affordably housing should be to help as many people as possible afford a place to live, not gift away a la jolla beach estate to one lucky lottery winner. Offering 3 affordable 1bd in a pricey highrise makes no sense to me when just 2 miles away you could build double or more for the same price. And the extra cost passed on the other units in that tower is just making the problem worse for everyone else. Wealthy buyers obiously don't feel much an impact, but housing policies like this feel very much like robbing the almost poor to feed a small percentage of other almost poor citizens. And how do HOA fees work on affordable units?

In general, I would say if housing is unaffordable city wide, there is a big supply/density problem, to which offering up a few units a year below market is not a real solution. It may even drive up prices of the remaining units even faster!

[Northparkwizard]

It's a common practice in most cities, here's an interesting article on the subject from The New York Times that I read/watched last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/realestate/affordable-housing-in-new-yorks-luxury-buildings.html?_r=0

[SDCAL]

Urbana on 10th avenue near Petco Park is almost complete, but I was surprised when I walked by tonight to see no place for ground-level businesses (as their building renderings implied they would have).

They have their leasing office and the building's gym taking up the largest spaces. Then, there are two ground level units with kitchens, etc which are either model rental units or actual units for rent.

The Farenheit building directly across from urbana has ground level shops and it would have activated that part of 10th having commercial activity on both sides of the street. It really seems like wasted street level space not having any ground level businesses. Especially the buildings gym, why would they put it right next to the entrance at street level with big windows for everyone to stare into. Being right adjacent to Basic and that close to the ballpark, I'm perplexed as to why they wouldn't want street level commercial space there.

[aerogt3]

It's a common practice in most cities, here's an interesting article on the subject from The New York Times that I read/watched last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/realestate/affordable-housing-in-new-yorks-luxury-buildings.html?_r=0

Interesting article. I did a simple calc on one of the buildings in the article, that had 710 market rate (starting at $3065) and 142 affordable units (at $540.) The subsidy on the affordable units works out to $505 per market rate unit :runaway: Not sure if raising rents on everyone who isn't lucky enough to win a very narrow lottery really helps society. I am not against affordable housing, but the way it is done in the US seems like a benefit for an extreme few at the expense of many.

At the Chelsea Park, for example, 15,000 applicants made a bid for just 51 apartments. For those who make it through the sieve, the effect can be profound.

Stats like that show what is clearly a supply problem. If there were 100 applicants and 70 were granted housing, you could say affordable housing were making a difference. But to me, affordable housing works a lot like this:

You have 100 hungry people, and only 50 slices of pizza. 2 people are filthy rich, and are helicoptered out of the real world to go eat on their yacht. The solution for the rest is to have a lottery where 5 winners recieve 2 slices each. The rest of the 40 slices are divided evenly between the remaining 93.

The result of this "solution" is that 93 people are hungrier than they otherwise would have been, and the news runs a feel-good story about how affordable housing has helped feed 5 people.

[The Best Forumer]

Here's another proposal. I like this one the best

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9NGqZjCUAAK5fK.jpg

Nice!

[ucsbgaucho]

I think any San Diego stadium proposal has to include some sort of retractable roof setup to allow the stadium to host indoor events, like the Final Four, presidential election conventions, etc. Doing this vastly increases the functionality of the stadium, and takes care of one of the big complaints about football stadiums, that they are only good for a handful of days every year. San Diego would be an ideal destination for events like the Final Four, which is regularly hosted in covered football venues like Dallas, Indianapolis, New Orleans, etc. There's no facility on the west coast capable of hosting that event, what a great coup for San Diego.

In addition, if the current stadium location is the site of a new facility, which I think is probably the best option considering the land is there and there's more than enough of it, you need to incorporate an indoor basketball/hockey arena. San Diego has been in discussions for years to be a good option for an expansion NHL or NBA franchise. Heck, Vegas is building a 20,000 seat arena in hopes of attracting a team. Putting the two together makes a lot of sense.

The Qualcomm site is the best site in San Diego for a facility, and the most probable. Of course I'd rather have something downtown with the views, the high-rise buildings that would surround it, etc, but I just think it's going to be too difficult to make any of the proposed sites work. Plus, with the other high-rises being built in Mission Valley, I could envision a cluster of high-rise commercial, hotel and residential buildings surrounding the stadium area.

It may not be the most beautiful spot, but it's the most likely to succeed.

[dtell04]

If there's one thing this stadium debate has pointed out it is that we need to give up our "Americas finest city" motto. There's basically zero sense of civic pride or cohesiveness. After being here for about a decade it's getting pretty old. This town is full of too many selfish people that either don't want to spend money on a stadium(or any number of examples), the never ending factions of NIMBYs, or people that simply have no clue what's going on around them.

If a sports team can't even bring people together to work towards a solution nothing will. The bickering will continue to hold San Diego back. Best solution is Rams and Raiders move to LA before the Chargers can get there.

I'm an eternal pessimist, to make a disclaimer.

[rocksteady]

Chargers, Raiders propose shared NFL stadium in Carson.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl-stadium-20150220-story.html#page=1

[Lipani]

^ With all due respect, dtell, claiming that anyone against a football stadium lack civic pride is a childish attack. This city needs billions in infrastructure repairs and to spend a huge chunk of that on a new stadium for owners of a team who are billionaires (and in a league that makes billions) will not go over well with most people. If building a new stadium made any financial sense the Chargers and the NFL would have built one years ago. And no, I am not a nimby nor am I selfish because I prioritize other projects to better our city ahead of this one.

[HurricaneHugo]

Signed a petition for One Paseo:

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/feb/18/one-paseo/

But now I don't care at all since the city will probably lose the Chargers :(

[eburress]

Signed a petition for One Paseo:

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/feb/18/one-paseo/

But now I don't care at all since the city will probably lose the Chargers :(

Man, for real. A pretty as it is here and as nice as the weather is, this city is the worst.

I'm pulling for One Paseo, but it doesn't look good.

[dtell04]

^ With all due respect, dtell, claiming that anyone against a football stadium lack civic pride is a childish attack. This city needs billions in infrastructure repairs and to spend a huge chunk of that on a new stadium for owners of a team who are billionaires (and in a league that makes billions) will not go over well with most people. If building a new stadium made any financial sense the Chargers and the NFL would have built one years ago. And no, I am not a nimby nor am I selfish because I prioritize other projects to better our city ahead of this one.

Yeah you are certainly entitled to prioritize that way. But for the stadium to possibly never ever be put to a public vote is a complete failure of leadership. Comment sections and blogs are not a proper way to make civic decisions.

[a very long weekend]

the san francisco 49ers left the city here and it didn't really make any difference. i'm pretty sure that san diego is more than the nhl team.

[SDfan]

If there's one thing this stadium debate has pointed out it is that we need to give up our "Americas finest city" motto. There's basically zero sense of civic pride or cohesiveness. After being here for about a decade it's getting pretty old. This town is full of too many selfish people that either don't want to spend money on a stadium(or any number of examples), the never ending factions of NIMBYs, or people that simply have no clue what's going on around them.

If a sports team can't even bring people together to work towards a solution nothing will. The bickering will continue to hold San Diego back. Best solution is Rams and Raiders move to LA before the Chargers can get there.

I'm an eternal pessimist, to make a disclaimer.

I'll be the first person to say that San Diegan's are cheap, penny pinching stiffs, but on this issue the majority is right.

This city is falling apart. The roads are crumbling, the sewers are bursting, housing construction is over burdened with regulatory nonsense, and we haven't even addressed how this community is going to adapt to climate change or deal with the growing inequality issue. But to say that a building a 1.5 billion dollar stadium for a sports team (a private, for-profit entertainment club owned by a billionaire) should be the litmus test for civic pride and achievement is really, kind of, ridiculous. This city has so much it needs to do, and yet the Chargers are supposed to be priority? They bitch and moan about how it's been 14 years since they began their stadium drive (keep in mind, they decided Qualcomm was not up to par, not San Diegans), but that ignores the fact that we went through a major financial scandal followed by the greatest economic recession since the depression era, and have only now been climbing slowly out of the hole economically and politically. Boo-hoo. So sad. Until my streets are paved, my sewers are re-piped, my community plan updated, and the other 3 billion+ dollars worth of needed infrastructure repairs are made, its a hell no to those arrogant extortionists. The NFL is a criminal cartel, shaking down cities for billions and we are wising up to their concussion-strewn game. The Los Angles Chargers sound good to me.

[spoonman]

About the stadium, wow! Total lapse in leadership.

This city could have had a new airport, but waited to long.

This city could have had a new stadium, but waited too long. Now these are becoming too expensive to build, monetarily and politically.

This city could have had an expanded convention center...

This city could have extended rail to the airport...

This city could have completed the Pacific Imperial Railroad...

This city could have expanded the port...

I'm close to giving up on this city...pathetic. I feel like the Nimby types are getting worse, not better. Entitled boomers, I guess? I can only hope that these doldrums can inspire us to do better.

[SDfan]

Yeah you are certainly entitled to prioritize that way. But for the stadium to possibly never ever be put to a public vote is a complete failure of leadership. Comment sections and blogs are not a proper way to make civic decisions.

I completely agree, it should go to a vote. It won't get 66%+, however.

[SDfan]

About the stadium, wow! Total lapse in leadership.

There really isn't much our leadership could do. They knew the majority wouldn't support a public finance option, let alone a supermajority. They know the Chargers are profit driven, and would leave for greener pastures once that reality set in. All the Chargers ever really needed was an incentive to leave, and once the Rams came along, boom.

[spoonman]

There really isn't much our leadership could do. They knew the majority wouldn't support a public finance option, let alone a supermajority. They know the Chargers are profit driven, and would leave for greener pastures once that reality set in. All the Chargers ever really needed was an incentive to leave, and once the Rams came along, boom.

Not exactly. In 2004, the stadium cost was estimated at only $400m. The Chargers proposed to build the facility if the city gave them the land. Rather than negotiate or accept the offer, Mike Aguirre was allowed to railroad the team. As time has gone on, the cost has now substantially exceeded that which can be covered by the team, naming rights, etc.

While I believe that the team sold it poorly and is inept, the city blew them off and is ultimately to blame. Just like the airport at Miramar, it is a classic San Diego case of waiting too long.

I've always stuck up for this city, but it is going backward, not forward.

[dtell04]

I'll be the first person to say that San Diegan's are cheap, penny pinching stiffs, but on this issue the majority is right.

This city is falling apart. The roads are crumbling, the sewers are bursting, housing construction is over burdened with regulatory nonsense, and we haven't even addressed how this community is going to adapt to climate change or deal with the growing inequality issue. But to say that a building a 1.5 billion dollar stadium for a sports team (a private, for-profit entertainment club owned by a billionaire) should be the litmus test for civic pride and achievement is really, kind of, ridiculous. This city has so much it needs to do, and yet the Chargers are supposed to be priority? They bitch and moan about how it's been 14 years since they began their stadium drive (keep in mind, they decided Qualcomm was not up to par, not San Diegans), but that ignores the fact that we went through a major financial scandal followed by the greatest economic recession since the depression era, and have only now been climbing slowly out of the hole economically and politically. Boo-hoo. So sad. Until my streets are paved, my sewers are re-piped, my community plan updated, and the other 3 billion+ dollars worth of needed infrastructure repairs are made, its a hell no to those arrogant extortionists. The NFL is a criminal cartel, shaking down cities for billions and we are wising up to their concussion-strewn game. The Los Angles Chargers sound good to me.

I didn't quite state that correctly. I meant that other cities rally around their sports teams, and for us not to even be able to agree upon supporting them means we are in a world of hurt.
On a side note, I question the 1+billion in backlog maintenance. I figured out a few years ago the flashing "don't walk" sign will blink 12 times in 12 seconds prior to turning red and allowing opposite traffic to pass. I did this by personal observation. Now the city installs signs that count for me. I wonder how much of this billion plus backlog is tied up in shit like this. A big part of our problem is people refusing to just figure out what's going on around them.
I don't think billionaires need welfare. But someone will build the Chargers a new stadium. Be that the private rich people that can afford the PSLs in LA or public money in SD, it ultimately is no money out of the Spanos family wallet. I grew up without a professional team and, personally, I would hope it could at least come to a vote. If not, well it's always been said there aren't enough charger fans in SD to fill a stadium. Hopefully the padres can help. Maybe AJ preller should be in charge of stadium negotiations.

[Leo the Dog]

Carson stadium proposal is $1.7 billion. No public money would be used. LA now has 3 possible NFL teams with 4 competing proposals all across the basin.

If the Chargers moved to LA, would you continue to wear their apparel? And would you make the 2 hour drive to watch them?

If not, then who would San Diegans go for...Arizona Cardinals?

If we lose the Chargers, I hope that SD builds an Arena/CC expansion to snag the Clippers when their lease expires.

[Bertrice]

and we haven't even addressed how this community is going to adapt to climate change

wear sunscreen .

[eburress]

I'll be the first person to say that San Diegan's are cheap, penny pinching stiffs, but on this issue the majority is right.

This city is falling apart. The roads are crumbling, the sewers are bursting, housing construction is over burdened with regulatory nonsense, and we haven't even addressed how this community is going to adapt to climate change or deal with the growing inequality issue. But to say that a building a 1.5 billion dollar stadium for a sports team (a private, for-profit entertainment club owned by a billionaire) should be the litmus test for civic pride and achievement is really, kind of, ridiculous. This city has so much it needs to do, and yet the Chargers are supposed to be priority? They bitch and moan about how it's been 14 years since they began their stadium drive (keep in mind, they decided Qualcomm was not up to par, not San Diegans), but that ignores the fact that we went through a major financial scandal followed by the greatest economic recession since the depression era, and have only now been climbing slowly out of the hole economically and politically. Boo-hoo. So sad. Until my streets are paved, my sewers are re-piped, my community plan updated, and the other 3 billion+ dollars worth of needed infrastructure repairs are made, its a hell no to those arrogant extortionists. The NFL is a criminal cartel, shaking down cities for billions and we are wising up to their concussion-strewn game. The Los Angles Chargers sound good to me.

I think that's partly why this is so demoralizing. This city can't do ANYTHING right...it's one half-assed, mismanaged failure after another. The roads are ridiculous, the sports venues are ridiculous, the airport is ridiculous, the infrastructure is ridiculous, the arts venues are ridiculous (if they exist at all). 20 years ago this city had momentum and could do no wrong. Boy has that changed!

Something people here in SD need to realize is that growing the tax base is what is going to pay for all this infrastructure, the new facilities, and such. Increasing density in general, moving the airport and turning the ground it's sitting on into new development, etc...

[eburress]

Carson stadium proposal is $1.7 billion. No public money would be used. LA now has 3 possible NFL teams with 4 competing proposals all across the basin.

If the Chargers moved to LA, would you continue to wear their apparel? And would you make the 2 hour drive to watch them?

If not, then who would San Diegans go for...Arizona Cardinals?

If we lose the Chargers, I hope that SD builds an Arena/CC expansion to snag the Clippers when their lease expires.

Good luck with that. There's still no money for a new arena and just think of the utter impossibility of rallying this city's population...a NIMBY population that HATES development...to build a shiny new structure. It's not going to happen.

[dtell04]

Interesting number from the Real Estate Assets Department:
Sold 36 surplus properties with a total value of over $54.7 million; $2.8 million over appraised value (FY 13) - The numbers don't add up in the revenue columns though.
Sold 43 surplus properties with a total value of over $57.0 million ($2.9 million over appraised value) (FY 14)

Goal 2 states that the city owns over 3,800 assets totaling about 120,000 acres. (187.5 square miles)


http://www.sandiego.gov/fm/annual/pdf/fy14/vol2/v2realestateassets.pdf
http://www.sandiego.gov/fm/proposed/pdf/2015/vol2/v2realestateassets.pdf

[spoonman]

^What are you getting at?

[dtell04]

^What are you getting at?

Possible way to raise money for the Chargers. Hire more people in that department and sell off more property.

[spoonman]

Possible way to raise money for the Chargers. Hire more people in that department and sell off more property.

Interesting idea. I actually don't believe "public" money is needed. Here is how I think we can get it done:

$150M - SDSU - gets to share stadium and gets portion of Qcomm site
$200M - NFL
$200M - Spanos
$200M - Naming Rights
$100M - PSLs (or maybe $50M psl, $50M from NFL for "loss" of LA market)
-------
$850M Total

No taxes. Doable for NFL, Chargers, SDSU, City, and taxpayers. No vote required. Sell naming rights to Qualcomm, Sempra, Chevy, Hyundai, anyone. I don't believe more than $850M is needed. The site already has the infrastructure.

[dtell04]

Interesting idea. I actually don't believe "public" money is needed. Here is how I think we can get it done:

$150M - SDSU - gets to share stadium and gets portion of Qcomm site
$200M - NFL
$200M - Spanos
$200M - Naming Rights
$100M - PSLs (or maybe $50M psl, $50M from NFL for "loss" of LA market)
-------
$850M Total

No taxes. Doable for NFL, Chargers, SDSU, City, and taxpayers. No vote required. Sell naming rights to Qualcomm, Sempra, Chevy, Hyundai, anyone. I don't believe more than $850M is needed. The site already has the infrastructure.

Looks good like that. Spanos said he doesn't think he should have to give up the naming rights for revenue. Normally teams keep that money, but he's only getting 800k a year for the Qualcomm name. I read he stands to make 100 million more a year by moving to LA.

I also have been wondering, how is the convention center going to be financed, if it still happens? The Chargers dilema pretty much stopped that rhetoric dead in its tracks.

[PadreHomer]

You're going to have to remove the NFL and Spanos' contributions from that number and then get that number to $1 billion to be realistic. Then the NFL and Spanos will contribute on top of that to get the Chargers what they want to stay in San Diego.

[spoonman]

You're going to have to remove the NFL and Spanos' contributions from that number and then get that number to $1 billion to be realistic. Then the NFL and Spanos will contribute on top of that to get the Chargers what they want to stay in San Diego.

I thought that it was common knowledge that Spanos and NFL contributions would be $200M each. Why do you believe otherwise? Is it because Spanos' share would be derived from his sale of naming rights, etc and not in addition to it?

I believe with the Qcomm site already entitled, and in use, with adequate infrastructure, $800-850M should be adequate. Cities like Seattle have build their stadiums recently for around $500M. Since the Qualcomm site is already "plummed" for a stadium, I would think it's enough. Everyone else seemed to think so too, until last week when Fabiani said they needed $1.2.-1.5B. I'm not an expert on this, but that's the way I see it, and I don't understand why the number mysteriously skyrocketed in the last month.

[Zapatan]

What's the status on the bosa development? That building is awesome!

[mello]

I don't see why San Diego isn't getting super active in selling off its land. Might as well do it now before the economy goes through another shock. Things are looking pretty stable for the next two years should definitely strike while the iron is hot.

Regarding the bus depot downtown has anyone ever heard of where an alternate location is if an Arena, or large development were to be proposed for that 4 sq. block area? It is looking like Chargers Stadium will remain in Mission Valley so SDfan doesn't have to worry about that gobbling up those precious blocks ;)

The only other place I can see the bus depot going is somewhere north of the new rental car parking garage being built in that area I refer to as "the bowels of San Diego". The no mans land along Pacific Coast Hwy with its random mix of tow yards, industrial, and SPA War.

[Urbanize_It]

As mad as I am about the shared Carson stadium, I have to admit we are nowhere near as bad off as St Louis. They have a relatively new stadium and the Rams are still threatening to leave. The Rams demands look a little heftier than the Chargers as well. Maybe a Rams move is the most likely?http://www.vox.com/2015/1/12/7525143/rams-stadium

[nezbn22]

What's the status on the bosa development? That building is awesome!

They've got a hole in the ground, so nothing too exciting. But it's on it's way...

[mello]

Another thing to not why isn't Faulconer and this "Stadium Task Force" thinking big about the Qualcomm site? This is the perfect place to do a "Vertical Village" ala Vancouver or Toronto. Why don't these lazy dudes take a flight to those Canadian cities direct from Lindbergh and see how its done. If 4000 Vertical units in dope glassy towers are built along with the SDSU plan I'm sure this thing can pencil out for everyone and provide much needed housing with Faulconer gives lip service to.

[travis bickle]

This will make a lot of people VERY happy...

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/feb/23/san-diego-attorney-cory-briggs-land-deals-raise-et/

[spoonman]

^Even if nothing comes of this "investigation", hopefully the limelight will help to slow him down and that this information will raise questions about his future involvement and intentions.

[HurricaneHugo]

Sempra Energy Building:

http://i.imgur.com/7BhpccL.jpg

Wish it was twice as tall...

[dtell04]

This will make a lot of people VERY happy...

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/feb/23/san-diego-attorney-cory-briggs-land-deals-raise-et/

I'm sure there's plenty of people willing to lend their services to bring this guy down. This'll be fun to watch.

[Bertrice]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-lQ9evUEAEjTHO.jpg

one paseo vote. shot down. then passed?

[Bertrice]

passed with more affordable housing.
welcome to san diego carmel valley.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-lb4L6UcAAE0Ro.jpg

[spoonman]

Wow, first Briggs is under fire, now One Paseo passes. Today was a good day.

[mello]

Wow huge changes coming for North County Coastal, One Paseo, Caruso's project off Cannon in Carlsbad (developer of Grove in LA and Americana in Glendale), then Westfield's giant 400 million dollar redo of mall in Carlsbad. I really hope Westfield considers a residential component to that especially after seeing what Kilroy is going to pull off on that tight 25 acre parcel.

Think about it where else in the County other than downtown will have that much square footage of res, retail, and office crammed in to just 25 acres than One Paseo? This will be a great example of what can be done with the Qualcomm site just scale it up to 100 acres and be more vertical.

[Nerv]

Does anyone know why when the cost of a new stadium is brought up outside of rebuilding Qualcomm (which would cost far less than the billion+ dollars since the land is already owned) that there is never a peep of using the money from the sale of the Qualcomm site to finance it? That's a hell of lot of money that could go toward any new site or is the city thinking it should be able to keep the money from its sale?

It seems logical that any money from the sale of the old stadium site should be applied to any new site to greatly reduce the costs. Over 160 acres of Mission Valley land has to be worth a fair amount and yet I never hear much of that money to be included in any deal. When you buy a new home you always use the money from your old home to help pay for a new one, right?


Also can someone explain to me how a city like Carson which is smaller and poorer than a city like Carlsbad can handle not one but two NFL teams? They don't have the tax base to support it so unless someone else is paying for that stadium the two NFL teams are paying most of the costs? The plan to pay for it seems very sketchy.

[eburress]

Wow, first Briggs is under fire, now One Paseo passes. Today was a good day.

I'm pleasantly surprised about One Paseo! It's about time too! :)

[spoonman]

Hope fully this win against the NIMBYs helps to break their spirits across the county and make them realize that they cannot oppose every project.

[Nerv]

The One Paseo project had more supporters than opposition. I'm not surprised it passed. Opposition is almost always louder though giving the impression at times that there are more against something than there really is.

I think it will turn out to be one of those projects after its built that will be a staple for that area.

The irony is that Carmel Valley was known at one time as North City West and was hard fought against to even exist. So now some of the people who exist in a project that others before tried so hard to stop are doing their own fighting. If every project was shot down those people wouldn't even be here today to argue the point.


Either way I think it will turn out to be a positive project for the area. Maybe it can give the city a bit more identity beyond rows of nice homes.

[Bertrice]

5-7 years to move bus yard

https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/4h6bydytc4bplr5/images/1-
cde8210517.jpg
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/4h6bydytc4bplr5/images/2-9310b35de3.jpg
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/4h6bydytc4bplr5/images/3-ed8bb1ef4e.jpg

[dtell04]

[QUOTE=Bertrice;6927846]5-7 years to move bus yard

Do you have that MTS letter?

[tyleraf]

Here is the article. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/24/stadium-mts-bus-downtown/ It sure sounds like MV is the only option now.

[Leo the Dog]

Here is the article. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/24/stadium-mts-bus-downtown/ It sure sounds like MV is the only option now.

DT site won't be available until 2025 according to Fox 5.

As for the Carson site, I'd imagine it'll be tied up in court for a long time. The site is an old city dump, there are definitely issues with the site. I'm sure environmentalists will file suits.

[spoonman]

Here is the article. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/24/stadium-mts-bus-downtown/ It sure sounds like MV is the only option now.

This sounds like a power play by the head of the MTS, Paul Jablonsky, to hold onto his bus yard. Paul Jablonsky is the same guy who has worked with and been scammed by the group of "investors" who are "trying" to revive the Pacific Imperial Railroad (that goes east from SD).

I believe this report (and Paul Jablonsky-who is involved in a federal investigation) have little credibility and that he may have been put up to this by he hoteliers who would rather have the stadium in MV or not at all.

The county and SDSU have both expressed interest in helping get this done. That gives any plan a much better chance.

[dtell04]

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/feb/18/whats-next-san-diegos-old-vacent-and-vandalized-do/
No permanent plan do do anything with the old library apparently......

[spoonman]

I'm surprised that nobody here is dancing on the ceiling about One Paseo. Sure it's a project in a suburban area, but it represents a huge win against the NIMBY contingent (the red balloon guy from Bay Park was one of the biggest protesters) and sets a precedent.

[mello]

Trust me Spoon I'm dancing I'm holding a One Paseo Approval party at my house this weekend you are all invited :cheers: You are right this is a giant precedent and will get suburban people accustomed to looking at tall buildings near them and their residence.

The MTS busyard is such a waste of space look at that pic on UT article what a black hole. SDFAN I know you are against a DT stadium and so am I at this point what is your opinion on how we can move forward and do something about that busyard?

[tyleraf]

Trust me I am thrilled about One Paseo. Now I just hope the NIMBYs were right by claiming that the passage of this project would set a precedent.
Mello: In my opinion, the best use of the MTS yard would be an arena. Maybe SD could convince the NBA to give us an expansion team alongside Seattle and if the
Gulls do well we could even end up with an NHL team.

[SDfan]

Trust me Spoon I'm dancing I'm holding a One Paseo Approval party at my house this weekend you are all invited :cheers: You are right this is a giant precedent and will get suburban people accustomed to looking at tall buildings near them and their residence.

The MTS busyard is such a waste of space look at that pic on UT article what a black hole. SDFAN I know you are against a DT stadium and so am I at this point what is your opinion on how we can move forward and do something about that busyard?

I don't think there is anything MTS or the city can do about the site in the near or midterm. They would have to select a new site, clean up the old site, and find a developer to partner with. That could take decades in this city. And with our region's transit network expected to expand in the years ahead, I'm not sure it would be wise to get rid of the property just yet. It's not pretty, but it's a necessary part of our infrastructure, like a power plant or highway, so I'm less upset at the idea of it sitting there for a while. Would I like it to go away eventually? Yes. But I won't cry if they tell me it's staying put. :shrug:

[SDfan]

I'm happy about One Paseo (still erked that it had to take a 30% reduction in sqft, but whatevs), but I'm waiting for the lawsuits. I don't think there will be a referendum drive, because (for better or worse) our city's business community kicks ass at swaying public opinion towards them. If Barrio Logan couldn't get their community plan update approved because "jobs" I can only imagine the blitzkrieg Jerry Sanders and the establishment at the Chamber of Commerce would unleash on Carmel Valley. *evil laughter*

As for Cory Briggs, lolololololololololz! I hope they throw the entire Stanford Law Library at him.

[SDCAL]

I'm surprised that nobody here is dancing on the ceiling about One Paseo. Sure it's a project in a suburban area, but it represents a huge win against the NIMBY contingent (the red balloon guy from Bay Park was one of the biggest protesters) and sets a precedent.

I guess I'm waiting for a ground breaking to get too excited.

I'm still not clear on a few things.

First, how binding is a city council approval? Is this the last hurdle?

I heard on the radio, I believe it was KPBS radio, that the people against it are threatening more legal actions. Whether they are just bitter and throwing out threats after losing at the council hearing or whether they do have legal maneuvers up their sleeve that could continually delay this project remain to be seen, but it IS SD so more legal limbo wouldn't surprise me.

I'm hopefully wrong though - anyone heard of a possible ground break timeline?

[mello]

SDCAL: Kilroy is a major developer who has already spent 10's of millions on this project and it is the only large office development ready to go right now in the City of SD other than the 500k sq. feet behind Scripps Ranch High that is going in. I'm sure he will work with the city to see this has a quick ground breaking he has already been waiting for years.

Fan - I'm surprised you don't have a proposal for some kind of vertical storage of the MTS buses to open up half the space on the site? You were so set against a stadium going there and now you are cool with it staying for 20 years? I think we need to dream a little bigger than that. What are your thoughts about an Arena there?

I guess there still are tons of empty lots waiting to be filled and approved projects aren't really coming online very quickly (11th Broadway, Blue Sky, etc.) Maybe you are thinking the bus yard is something nice to have open up in the long term when there are less lots left to build on.

[HurricaneHugo]

County chipping in money for stadium via loans?

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/24/chargers-county-loan-qualcomm/

[aerogt3]

I don't think there is anything MTS or the city can do about the site in the near or midterm. They would have to select a new site, clean up the old site, and find a developer to partner with. That could take decades in this city.

Stadiums don't have such a long shelf life anymore. So it'd be a lot better to have a stadium there for a few decades than a bus yard. At least people will want to build towers and live/work near a stadium. A bus yard not so much.

[dales5050]

Also can someone explain to me how a city like Carson which is smaller and poorer than a city like Carlsbad can handle not one but two NFL teams? They don't have the tax base to support it so unless someone else is paying for that stadium the two NFL teams are paying most of the costs? The plan to pay for it seems very sketchy.

The Carson stadium would be home to two NFL teams. Similar to the meadowlands for the Jets and the Giants.

The Carson stadium would be 100% privately financed and not take any money from the community. The reason for this is based on the projection of revenue from having 2 NFL teams share a single stadium.

MetLife pays $16M a year for naming rights. Citi pays $20M a year for the home of the Mets. I think it's safe to say they are projecting naming rights to be in the range of $20M to $25M. Over 20 years,$25M is $500M

Outside of this, you look at suites. MetLife gets $10k to $20k per luxury suite/per event. With 218 suites like this, you have $4.3M per NFL game. If the Carson stadium had at least the same amount of suites, with at least 16 games (8home for each team) that's another $70M per year. Over 20 years, $70M is $1.4B.

You take just licensing and suite sales over 20 years and you have $1.9B, which is $200M more than the cost of the stadium.

Obviously financing has costs but banks are lined up already for this. Besides, these are just two of the revenue sources. This does not include suites for other events like concerts and such. Those would be the $10K range. An for ticket sales in general.

[Nerv]

Thanks for the info. Dales5050.

So the Carson stadium actually would take nearly 20 years to get paid off meaning both teams wouldn't be seeing that revenue as profit until the debt is paid off.

You could argue the fact that being called a Los Angeles team will make you more money but since the Rams and the Raiders left for greener pastures in the past you could also argue that the city hasn't been kind to NFL teams in the past since both played in and won Superbowls and yet both still departed for better opportunities.

I also question what will become of this deal between the Chargers and Raiders if the rumours about the Rams returning to LA happen first. Three Los Angeles teams?

I'd rather the Chargers stay in San Diego but I have to admit a interest in seeing how the fallout of losing San Diego states football program and the two bowl games played here annually along with the Chargers would play in the city. That and how many years Qualcomm would sit falling apart as the city would fight over what to do with the now vacant stadium.

[embora]

I'm still trying to figure out in my mind whether to believe the Carson proposal is a legitimate threat, or if it is merely a bluff.

If it is real, what would happen to the project if one of the teams decides to stay in their current city, and the other still wants to move? Does it mean the deal falls through? If that is a possibility, it strikes me as a pretty risky plan for either team to consider. And that is before you factor in the possibility that the Rams could beat both teams to L.A., making me wonder how the metro area that couldn't hold two teams could support three of them.

In judging the genuineness of the Carson proposal, It would also be informative to know more about what alternatives are available to the Raiders. Though I am ignorant on that topic.

Until I see more info, I'll figure that its a bluff to motivate local elected officials (who don't want to look like they didn't try to keep the team in town) with a sense of urgency.

[Northparkwizard]

Drove by the Carson site on my way up to Big Sur earlier this week. The property location and neighborhood isn't even in the same universe as the Mission Valley site. I honestly feel bad for any athlete that should ever have to compete outdoors and downwind of petroleum refineries.

[mello]

Guys I have researched and look at this stadium/relocation issue from every angle and here are the two possibilities for the Chargers:

1. Work with the County/City and hop on board with SDSU and play your part in the major opportunity to redevelop the MV site. Spanos is already a developer he can make this a big revenue producer for himself. Bringing in an MLS team will also boost the naming rights deal and I think Kia would pay 15 - 20 million a year to name the Stadium "Kia Field". Hell they can even name the SDSU Campus west Kia something lol.

2. Go be a tenant in Stan Kroenke's facility he will build in Inglewood. He will probably charge you 30 to 40 million per year in rent because he will be building the whole stadium with his own money he is worth 12 billion (combined with wife) and can do everything himself. If SD keeps lagging and nothing can get done here and it pencils out to go be Kroenke's bitch tenant then Spanos may do that but that is a big blow to a rich man's ego.

Those really are the only two options Carson is a smoke screen, the Chargers are not the 49ers they won't get that lucrative of a PSL deal in LA. The Raiders are a bigger draw in that area anyway. Spanos is not that rich and can't come up with more than 200 million of his own money to put towards a facility maybe 300 mill max to share one in LA. Keep in mind the Raiders have Zero cash to put towards a stadium Mark Davis has no capital at all, his entire fortune is locked up in the value of Raiders franchise.

[dales5050]

So the Carson stadium actually would take nearly 20 years to get paid off meaning both teams wouldn't be seeing that revenue as profit until the debt is paid off.]

It would take less than that. The 2 sources of revenue I outlined are just some of the ways the stadium would bring in revenue. I would say it's paid off in 10-12 years.



Should also add that while this may bit San Diego, I think after LA gets a team or teams..the public funding of stadiums is going to end. Just where will teams threaten to go? That's why you have 3 teams wanting in on LA. It's the last play in the game before it changes.

[SDCAL]

Guys I have researched and look at this stadium/relocation issue from every angle and here are the two possibilities for the Chargers:

1. Work with the County/City and hop on board with SDSU and play your part in the major opportunity to redevelop the MV site. Spanos is already a developer he can make this a big revenue producer for himself. Bringing in an MLS team will also boost the naming rights deal and I think Kia would pay 15 - 20 million a year to name the Stadium "Kia Field". Hell they can even name the SDSU Campus west Kia something lol.

2. Go be a tenant in Stan Kroenke's facility he will build in Inglewood. He will probably charge you 30 to 40 million per year in rent because he will be building the whole stadium with his own money he is worth 12 billion (combined with wife) and can do everything himself. If SD keeps lagging and nothing can get done here and it pencils out to go be Kroenke's bitch tenant then Spanos may do that but that is a big blow to a rich man's ego.

Those really are the only two options Carson is a smoke screen, the Chargers are not the 49ers they won't get that lucrative of a PSL deal in LA. The Raiders are a bigger draw in that area anyway. Spanos is not that rich and can't come up with more than 200 million of his own money to put towards a facility maybe 300 mill max to share one in LA. Keep in mind the Raiders have Zero cash to put towards a stadium Mark Davis has no capital at all, his entire fortune is locked up in the value of Raiders franchise.

Questions/comments about the two scenarios you describe:

Scenario 1: would this still require a public vote / public money? I think it could work if it doesn't but if it does I just don't see SD voters supporting it.

Scenario 2: from what I've read in the LA press, the inglewood location, if it moves to reality, would most likely favor the Rams. Ram's owner Kroenke is part of the Hollywood Park Land Co. development group that is promoting the project, why would he do that if not to relocate his own team there?

Comment in general about a stadium vote in SD: when would the vote be? Would it need to be before the 2016 general election? This makes a HUGE difference. The general election attracts a broader spectrum of voters including younger/more progressive people who I think would be more likely to vote yes. A special off-year election heavily favors older conservative voters who want NO tax increases or perceived tax increases using public funds for ANYTHING. I don't see any stadium proposal that needs an election being successful unless it's during the 2016 presidential election.

[SDCAL]

I'm still trying to figure out in my mind whether to believe the Carson proposal is a legitimate threat, or if it is merely a bluff.

If it is real, what would happen to the project if one of the teams decides to stay in their current city, and the other still wants to move? Does it mean the deal falls through? If that is a possibility, it strikes me as a pretty risky plan for either team to consider. And that is before you factor in the possibility that the Rams could beat both teams to L.A., making me wonder how the metro area that couldn't hold two teams could support three of them.

In judging the genuineness of the Carson proposal, It would also be informative to know more about what alternatives are available to the Raiders. Though I am ignorant on that topic.

Until I see more info, I'll figure that its a bluff to motivate local elected officials (who don't want to look like they didn't try to keep the team in town) with a sense of urgency.

I'm skeptical of this dual team plan as well. Maybe they are "spreading the risk" by using Carson as a threat assuming at least one city - SD or Oakland - will come up with a stadium plan and if one doesn't they can look to Carson. It just seems odd that with the inglewood plan they could be planning the dual team stadium in Carson. That could potentially bring 3 NFL teams to LA!!??!!??

[mello]

SDCAL: Maybe I should of clarified but of course I was referring to Spanos deciding to go up and share Kroenke's Inglewood stadium with the Rams. IMO the perfect team to do that is the Raiders because they can probably draw significant PSL revenue that would offset the very high rent Kroenke is going to charge either SD/OAK to play in his palace that he is spending well over 1.4 billion on (including land costs).

Plus remember he has already put in about 900 million to be the sole owner of the Rams so he has already spent waaaay more money than Spanos has or ever will. He isn't just going to let them come be a tenant on the cheap by any means.

Regarding a public vote I think the Stadium Task Force and all players involve realize it isn't a good idea so if they involve the County and SDSU basically going in on a partnership with Spanos to maximize all of that prime land maybe there is a way it can pencil out without needing to vote on a County loan or Joint Powers Authority.

Remember Spanos also has a partner in Colony Capital Group out of Santa Monica. These are all smart people and I think there can be some way to get this done and not need a vote. Do you guys know how much students at SDSU pay for BLVD 63 and other nice places that are convenient to campus? The pay through the nose! There is a ton of money to be made in partnering with SDSU to build housing for young people. Plus the leases on at least 500k square feet of office/classroom space.

[Leo the Dog]

NFL in LA: Study Claims Inglewood Stadium Site Would Pose Terrorism Risk

In a 14-page report, Ridge suggests that because the Inglewood stadium proposed by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke would lie within three to four miles of Los Angeles International Airport and beneath the flight path of airliners, terrorists might try to shoot down a plane or crash one into the stadium, scenarios Ridge described as "a terrorist event 'twofer.' "

Ridge said the Inglewood stadium, part of a planned retail, office and residential development at the now-defunct Hollywood Park, would have "a significant risk profile with the potential to produce consequences that will not only the impact the airport and region, but global interest

Source:http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2380197-nfl-in-la-study-claims-inglewood-stadium-site-would-pose-terrorism-threat


Tempe lost the Cardinals Stadium (best location with LRT) because of its proximity to Sky Harbor Airport. The FAA strongly opposed it and therefore was built 25 miles west in Glendale.

[spoonman]

Petco is even closer to an airport. I can't see this actually killing this project.

[Leo the Dog]

Petco is even closer to an airport. I can't see this actually killing this project.

It killed Tempe's stadium site. The site still sits empty to this day. ESPN had a story on this also.

I'm sure Coronado NAS is a deterrent, and the physical geography of SD and the DT high rises are in stark contrast to low lying Inglewood.

Look at Google maps. The Inglewood site lies in the final approach of two runways of LAX, similar to Tempe.

Definitely a possibility.

[Leo the Dog]

KUSI news reporting that El Cajon might offer an option for the Chargers. There is county owned land near Gillepsie Field that is available. Access to the trolley and major freeways.

[aerogt3]

Petco is even closer to an airport. I can't see this actually killing this project.

Petco broke ground before 9/11.....

[HurricaneHugo]

KUSI news reporting that El Cajon might offer an option for the Chargers. There is county owned land near Gillepsie Field that is available. Access to the trolley and major freeways.

http://www.kusi.com/story/28228240/possible-stadium-site-where-el-cajon-speedway-used-to-be

Sell the mission valley site to SDSU and give this land to the Chargers.

Maybe sell the Sports Arena site too

[Derek]

Petco is even closer to an airport. I can't see this actually killing this project.


I don't get it either. Citi Field is directly under the flight path to LaGuardia.

[tyleraf]

22 story tower planned for former Library Tower site. http://www.civicsd.com/images/stories/downloads/meetings-and-events/event-calendar/2015/2014-72_150219_PDP_330-13th_NoticeOfApplicationPreliminaryDesignMeetings_2_3.2.15.pdf

[spoonman]

Lame. This same group was remanded recently for proposing another project that had lower than desired density. This lot was originally slated for 40 stories...oh well

[Puzzlecraft]

A LOT of activity nearby in Banker's Hill. Took some photos of five projects on Feb 25 and again today.

1) The Vue on Fifth. Fifth & Nutmeg. Lot of activity here. Already been two big pours, pretty soon will be at ground level. Will be 7 floors, 45 luxury condos. First picture taken Feb 25, second March 2
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/SanDiego/The_Vue_on_Fifth_20150302.jpg

2) Regent on 5th. Fifth & Maple. The lot at the old Mandarin restaurant has been cleared of equipment, but the building remains on site, abandoned. New building is to be 10 floors, I think more condos, with some retail space on the ground level. Pictures taken Feb 25.
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/SanDiego/Regent_on_5th_20150225.jpg

3) The Park Bankers Hill. 2850 Sixth. The ugly Sixth Avenue Medical Center is finally being torn down! This will be a major project, 13 storys and very high end condo, starting @$1.5 million. Will be some store fronts on fifth. Pictures taken March 2.
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/SanDiego/The_Park_Bankers_Hill_20150302.jpg

4) Fifth and Palm. Stalled, but maybe will break ground this year. Evolution, Sanfilippo’s, Extraordinary Desserts and a hair salon would be nuked. Read that there will be two towers, on of them a hotel the other apartments. Would be some retail. Pictures Feb 25.
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/SanDiego/Fifth_and_Palm_20150225.jpg

5) Fourth Avenue Lofts. Fourth & Olive. Initial excavation is done, about to start the pilings. Pictures taken Feb 25.
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/SanDiego/Fourth_Avenue_Lofts_20250225.jpg

Hot hot hot!

[SDCAL]

Lame. This same group was remanded recently for proposing another project that had lower than desired density. This lot was originally slated for 40 stories...oh well

Agreed. Library Tower and Cosmopolitan Square are the biggest disappointments in east village (disappointments because both never broke ground and were replaced with shorter, inferior projects).

[SDCAL]

A LOT of activity nearby in Banker's Hill. Took some photos of five projects on Feb 25 and again today.

2) Regent on 5th. Fifth & Maple. The lot at the old Mandarin restaurant has been cleared of equipment, but the building remains on site, abandoned. New building is to be 10 floors, I think more condos, with some retail space on the ground level. Pictures taken Feb 25.
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/SanDiego/Regent_on_5th_20150225.jpg

Hot hot hot!

Would it be in really poor taste to admit I kinda hope they find a way to incorporate the old mandarin house into the new project? It was so old school in a good way, the best place for Americanized Chinese food.