San Diego State University supporters announced a drive Thursday to gain control of the SDCCU Stadium site as an alternative to SoccerCity.

The newly formed Friends of SDSU Steering Committee said they will publish a notice of intent Saturday to launch a city ballot initiative drive that would authorize the city to sell 132 of the 166 acres at the SDCCU Stadium site. The 14-page measure is called the SDSU West Campus Research, Stadium and River Initiative.

“This effort is not for the next 10 years or 20 years, it’s for the next 50, 60, 70 years and making SDSU everything it can possibly be,” said Kim Kilkenny, a 1974 alumnus, retired developer and downtown redevelopment board chairman, who met with Union-Tribune reporters and editors Thursday to review the initiative.

The 24-member steering committee includes the last three SDSU presidents, civic leader Malin Burnham, high-profile alumni and several developers, including executives of Sudberry Properties, who have helped bankroll the Public Land Public Vote group opposing SoccerCity.

After 21 days, the group could begin gathering the required 71,646 signatures from registered city voters and have them certified by March. The goal is to be ready for the measure to be voted on at the June 5 primary or Nov. 6 general election next year. Veteran campaign consultant Tom Shepard is overseeing the campaign.


SoccerCity, geared to building a professional soccer stadium and other development, is scheduled for the November ballot. If they appear on the same ballot, the measure with the most votes would win.

Unlike SoccerCity, the SDSU measure does not lay out the uses for the stadium land. Instead it calls on SDSU to prepare a master plan that would be approved by the state and leaves the city and the university to negotiate the fair market price, mitigation measures and other details.

However, the initiative does call for a new stadium of at least 35,000 seats to be built within seven years of the measure’s passage.

Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s office said it was aware of the initiative but has not been briefed on the details. Faulconer has endorsed SoccerCity but is working with SDSU to allow it to continue to play at SDCCU Stadium beyond 2018. The city had planned to close the 50-year-old stadium in 2019 to save about $12 million in annual operating costs now that the anchor tenant, the NFL’s Chargers, have relocated to Los Angeles.


SoccerCity project manager Nick Stone issued this reaction to the SDSU alternative: “As we have always said, we welcome competitive ideas, because we believe the detailed plan we put forward accomplishes some long-held goals for San Diego.”

He cited his plans for a park, a stadium that could be shared with SDSU, room for SDSU to expand on land they would have to purchase and new tax revenues.

“We put our best plan forward and we look forward to and expect a similarly thorough review by San Diegans of this proposal,” Stone said.

SDSU spokeswoman Gina Jacobs said the campus also was aware of the initiative and had reviewed several drafts to make sure it conforms to state policy.


The university is barred from taking positions on such issues but Jacobs said SDSU administration appreciates the “work and passion and resources” of the friends group.

She said the campus expects to issue a site plan by the end of the year that would lay out the extent of housing, academic buildings, commercial space, hotels and what non-university-related development would be allowed.

“We think it’s going to be a really well-executed plan and campus,” she said.

It is too early to say whether the amount of space and housing would be as much as SoccerCity plans, she said.


But the overall goal is to produce what other universities have done — a mix of academic and private-sector development, similar to what higher education institutions have done around the country, Jacobs said.

La Jolla-based FS Investors’ SoccerCity proposes a 23,500-seat professional soccer stadium that could be expanded to 33,500 if SDSU partnered in the project; 4,800 housing units, 3.1 million square feet of office and retail space, two hotels with a total of 450 rooms and 60 acres of parkland.

The project would only go forward if voters approve it and if Major League Soccer awards FS an expansion franchise or if another major sports club is secured to use the facility.

The SoccerCity measure lays out a variety of incentives to encourage voter approval but those deadlines will not be met with a 2018 election and it is unclear how subsequent promises FS has made to the city to retain those incentives would be enforced. The biggest incentive is $40 million for a river park at the south side of the campus, but only if approval had been granted this year. Otherwise, the number drops to $20 million.


SDSU originally had planned to share the stadium but backed out of discussions when the two sides failed to agree on details.

After SoccerCity collected 112,000 signatures and had them certified, critics, including some City Council members, called for a request for proposals from SDSU and other developers as an alternative that could have been placed on the same ballot.

“We could play defense and try to defeat it,” said former City Manager Jack McGrory, who sits on the SDSU campaign steering committee and on the campus foundation board, “or come out and give the community an alternative. We are being proactive and giving the voters an alternative to the SoccerCity proposal.”

The new initiative would guarantee a 34-acre river park within seven years and 22 acres of neighborhood parks, similar to what SoccerCity proposes. Unlike SoccerCity, it would subject the SDSU West Campus plan to a formal environmental impact review and require SDSU “to take steps to reach agreement” with the city and other agencies to mitigate offsite impacts, such as higher traffic. But the city would not have veto power over the plan itself.


“We purposely did not give the city of San Diego land-use control over this,” said Kilkenny. “If the city and SDSU are in charge of approving the plan, they’ll do this” — and he twisted his hands together to illustrate how the process could be tied up in knots.

It also would make room for a connection to the proposed San Diego Trolley’s Purple Line on Interstate 805.

Like SoccerCity, the SDSU initiative calls for the land to be purchased at fair market value as set by an independent appraiser. The latest appraisal set the price at $83 million for the 166-acre stadium property but McGrory said a new appraisal would be called for if the measure passes.

Also like SoccerCity, SDSU would be responsible for demolishing SDCCU Stadium. The initiative makes provisions for sharing the new Aztec stadium with “other potential sports partners,” including professional soccer, and making it “adaptable” to an NFL team should one come to replace the Chargers. SoccerCity pledged to leave that option open for five years.


Unlike last year’s Chargers’ plan for a downtown stadium, no tax is proposed, although it is unclear how the project would be financed, starting with the new stadium. Initiative backers said they are currently focused on raising money for the signature-gathering drive and subsequent campaign.

But they said it is likely the university would arrange public-private partnerships to carry out the master plan.


Business

roger.showley@sduniontribune.com; (619) 293-1286; Twitter: @rogershowley