The fate of the Mission Valley parcel formerly occupied by the Chargers is in the hands of city voters who can, this November, choose between competing measures, Measure E and Measure G, that would lease or sell the land for redevelopment. Or San Diegans can reject both measures and leave the city in charge of the property.

This is uncharted territory — California voters have never forced a land negotiation of this kind. The measures themselves are complex and confusing. With that in mind, the Union-Tribune hopes to provide clarity with the following assessment of both measures and their respective plans.

Should both initiatives receive more than 50 percent of the vote, the measure with the most votes will prevail. If neither crosses the 50-percent threshold, the city would likely solicit proposals for redevelopment.

How did we get here?

Measure E: Better known as SoccerCity, the ballot measure from La Jolla-based private investment firm FS Investors took shape as the Chargers prepared to relocate to Los Angeles. The group’s stated intent is to bring a Major League Soccer franchise to San Diego. FS Investors and SDSU, under then president Elliot Hirschman, were originally on the same team and in talks to build a joint-use professional soccer and college football stadium at the Mission Valley site. The relationship soured, however, after FS Investors announced its stadium initiative in January 2017, with the sides disagreeing over design and land-control issues. The SoccerCity group pressed forward with a successful signature drive in March 2017 and sought to go before voters in a special election. Instead, City Council voted in June of last year to send the proposal to voters this November.


Measure G: The SDSU West initiative — spearheaded by Jack McGrory, former city manager and past chairman of SDSU’s Campanile Foundation Board — came to be as the university’s relationship with FS Investors fell apart in early 2017. By June of that year, SDSU was publicly talking about pursuing stadium alternatives. In September of 2017 a newly formed group of 24 university supporters, known as “Friends of SDSU,” announced the SDSU West ballot initiative drive, which proved successful. City Council voted to send measure to the November ballot in March of this year.

What is it?

Measure E: Proposes the lease and privately funded development of 253 acres at the Mission Valley stadium site and the former practice facility of the Chargers.

The initiative would allow, but not require, a stadium for a professional soccer team, or a joint-use football and soccer stadium. It also calls for a 34-acre river park, 12 acres of sports fields and 9 acres of neighborhood parks, 2.4 million square feet of office space, 740,000 square feet of retail space, 4,800 multi-family residential units and 450 hotel rooms. It includes an option to reserve 16 acres of land for second stadium to be used by a professional football franchise.

Measure G: Proposes the sale of 132 acres at the Mission Valley stadium site for public, government or commercial purposes that promote the university’s higher education mission. Those purposes could include academic facilities, a stadium, parks, student and faculty housing, retail and hotels. The property sale would not include the 34 acres set aside for a river park.


What does a ‘yes’ vote mean?

Measure E: A ‘yes’ vote means you want the city to lease 253 acres of Mission Valley property to FS Investors for 99 years. Mayor Kevin Faulconer would negotiate and sign off on the terms of the lease. A ‘yes’ vote also means you support the initiative’s comprehensive development plan as is, without public hearings or City Council approval.

Technically speaking, the measure, if adopted, changes the city’s municipal code so that the city can lease the land. It also adopts a specific development plan and alters land development requirements. The city attorney, which unsuccessfully sued to remove the measure from the ballot, has characterized the measure as precedent-setting. Legal challenges are expected.

Measure G: A ‘yes’ vote means you want the city to sell 132 acres of the Mission Valley stadium site to San Diego State University or an affiliate. The mayor would negotiate the sale price and terms. The deal must be approved by City Council after an environmental review is conducted. A ‘yes’ vote also means you approve of how the university will plan its development — through the SDSU Campus Master Plan revision process. That process will be governed by the Board of Trustees of the California State University and not the city.

Technically speaking, the measure, if adopted, changes the city’s municipal code so that the city can sell the land. The city attorney, which unsuccessfully sued to remove the measure from the ballot, has characterized the measure as precedent-setting. Legal challenges are expected.


Who is behind it?

Measure E: MLS SD Pursuit, which consists of FS Investors, its advisers, and professional soccer players Landon Donovan and Shannon MacMillian. FS Investors has held past and present stakes in a wide variety of businesses, including Uber, the Sacramento Kings and a variety of mixed-use developments.

In this file photo from June 6th, 2018, former soccer player Landon Donovan speaks in front of a crowd of SoccerCity supporters before the unveiling of their new logo. (Chadd Cady/Union-Tribune)

Notable people include:

Michael Stone is the founder of FS Investors. Stone has been active in a number of charities and institutions locally and nationally, from the San Diego Museum of Art to the Library of Congress. He serves on the Dean’s Advisory Council at The Rady School of Business at UCSD.

Nick Stone (unrelated) is a partner at FS Investors, a Harvard graduate and the former vice president of private equity firm TPG Capital. He is the primary spokesperson for the campaign.

Steve Altman is the retired president of Qualcomm. Altman joined Qualcomm in 1989 and was instrumental in establishing the company’s technology licensing business. Altman and his wife Lisa host the annual fundraising concert “Rock the Cure” to raise money for diabetes research.

Massih Tayebi co-founded Wireless Facilities, an engineering services firm that moved to San Diego in 1995; it is now known as Kratos Defense & Security Solutions. He founded San Diego-based Bridgewest Group, an investment firm specializing primarily in telecommunications technology companies.

Masood Tayebi co-founded Wireless Facilities with his brother. He later founded BioDuro, a drug discovery outsourcing company and became a senior adviser when it merged with Pharmaceutical Product Development.

Peter Seidler is part owner of the San Diego Padres and runs his own private equity fund, Seidler Equity Partners, which has stakes in LA Fitness and Rawlings. He is a member of the University of San Diego’s Board of Trustees.

Measure G: Friends of SDSU West, which is a 74-person steering committee consisting of alumni and local business leaders.


In this file photo from Jan. 16, 2018, Friends of SDSU steering committee member Fred Pierce speaks before he and other supporters submit boxes of the more than 106,000 signatures by San Diego voters for the SDSU West Initiative. (Hayne Palmour IV / San Diego Union-Tribune)

Notable members include:

Jack McGrory is a member of the CSU Board of Trustees and the past chairman of SDSU’s Campanile Foundation Board, the university’s fundraising arm. As city manager from 1991 to 1997, he is often criticized for his role in the city’s ticket guarantee deal with the then San Diego Chargers and also the city’s pension deficit.

Edward Brown is a board member for the Campanile Foundation. He is the retired chief executive of local technology firm Cymer, which donated $1 million to SDSU in 2015 for a courtyard and plaza named Cymer Plaza.

Frederic Luddy is the billionaire founder of IT software-maker ServiceNow, which was based in San Diego until 2014 when the company moved its headquarters to Santa Clara. ServiceNow went public in 2012 and has a market cap of $35 billion.

Steve Doyle is the president of Sandy Point Properties and the co-vice chair of athletics for the Campanile Foundation. He’s worked in construction and development for the duration of his career with high-ranking positions at Brookfield Homes, the Baldwin Company and Pardee Construction.

Fred Pierce is a career real estate professional who runs Pierce Education Housing, one of the nation’s top buyers of student apartments. He is chairman of the board of SDSU’s Fowler College of Business and previously served on the CSU Board of Trustees.

Where’s the campaign money coming from?

Measure E: The SoccerCity campaign has raised $6.84 million in cash and spent $6.68 million through Sept. 22.

Major donors and spending highlights:


Mike Stone has contributed $2.98 million.

Bridgewest, Massih Tayebi’s company, has contributed $1.88 million.

Peter Seidler and Steve Altman have each contributed around $1 million.

The campaign spent $1.63 million on TV and radio ads between July and September.

Measure G: The SDSU West campaign has raised $2.36 million in cash and spent $2.26 million through Sept. 22. In addition, an anti-SoccerCity campaign, No on Measure E, funded by prominent local developers (some of whom are also on Friends of the SDSU steering committee) has raised nearly $4 million in cash and spent $3.38 million in the same period.

Major donors and spending highlights:

More than a handful of steering committee members, including Jack McGrory, Edward Brown and Frederic Luddy have each contributed between $100,000 and $155,000. Contributions from other donors range from $100 to $100,000.

Christopher Sickels, a developer and past chair of the Campanile Foundation, has contributed $105,000 in cash and $24,892 in stock.

The SDSU West campaign spent $233,762 on TV ads between July and September.

The No on Measure E campaign spent $638,359 on TV ads and $62,315 on Facebook ads between July and September.

To date, builder H.G. Fenton Company has contributed $2.03 million to the No on Measure E campaign. It has also contributed $123,000 to SDSU West.

To date, Sudberry Properties, its chairman, president and vice president have contributed $1.98 million to the No on Measure E campaign. They’ve also contributed $123,000 to SDSU West. Tom and Colton Sudberry, chairman and CEO of the development company respectively, are on the Friends of SDSU committee.

What are the proposed developments?

Measure E: The SoccerCity initiative includes a specific plan for the site. Its land use policies would be legally binding should the initiative take effect. According to the city attorney’s analysis, the measure does not guarantee that any specific development would be built or that developments would occur in a specific order.

A rendering depicts a professional soccer stadium in the northeast corner of the Mission Valley stadium site. It anchors a sports and entertainment district. (Courtesy/Gensler)


The measure’s development plan, which would be privately funded, provides for the following:

Stadium: A soccer stadium with 18,000 to 22,000 seats, or a joint-use soccer and college football stadium with 28,000 to 32,000 seats. The stadium would be built in the northeast corner of the Mission Valley stadium site and anchor a sports and entertainment district east of Mission Village Drive. A second stadium site of 16 acres would be reserved for five years for a professional football team.

Parkland: A $20 million 34-acre river park, along with 12 acres of sports fields and 9 acres of neighborhood parks.

Housing: A maximum of 4,800 multi-family residential units, including 800 student units and 10 percent affordable units spread across three, 300-foot high rises of up to 26 stories.

Office: A maximum of 2.4 million square feet of office space at four locations on the site — on both sides of the existing trolley station, south of the soccer stadium, off the Mission Village Drive entrance and at the northwest corner of the site along Friars Road.

Retail: A maximum of 740,000 square feet of retail space as part of a sports and entertainment district for sports fans and the broader public.

Hotels: 450 rooms in two hotels.

Murphy Canyon site: The building would be re-purposed for athlete accommodations. A redesign of the fields would create two full-sized soccer fields and a practice field. The facility would also house youth soccer academies.

Parking: 16,400 parking spaces located in several parking structures.

Measure G: The SDSU West initiative does not include a specific plan for the site. The final development plan will not be known until the site is sold to the university, SDSU’s Campus Master Plan revision process is complete, an environmental review has been performed and the CSU Board of Trustees grants approval. No sale or development is guaranteed by the initiative.

A rendering depicts the 35,000-seat stadium that the university says it will build at the upper northwest corner of the site (Courtesy/Carrier Johnson + Culture)

SDSU has outlined its vision for the site, which it’s calling SDSU Mission Valley. The plan, which is only conceptual, would be funded through revenue bonds, public-private partnerships and philanthropic gifts. The plan includes the following:


Stadium: A football-oriented, 35,000-seat facility at the upper northwest corner of the site.

Parkland: 89 total acres of open space with 75 acres of community parks, including a 34-acre river park that would be owned by city. The remaining 14 acres would consist of 5 acres of paseos and public plazas, and 9 acres of campus parks and green space.

Housing: 4,500 units spread across 15 blocks with townhouses, mid-rises and five 22-story towers. Housing for upper-division, graduate students and faculty would be included with market-rate condos, apartments and affordable housing for the public.

Office: 1.6 million square feet of office space shared between private companies and SDSU departments, and located south and east of the stadium in three- to six-story buildings.

Retail: 95,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving shops, restaurants and grocery would be located along the entrance road immediately east of the stadium.

Hotels: A 22-story conference center hotel with 250 rooms and a second, low-rise ”select service” hotel with 150 rooms.

Parking: 11,500 spaces in underground levels, and in a few surface lots and street spaces.

Both SoccerCity and SDSU expect to sell or lease land to developers who would build the retail, office and residential buildings as market conditions dictate.



What are the terms of the lease or sale of the stadium site?

Measure E: The mayor would determine the “fair market value” for a 99-year leasehold interest, with factors such as the property’s physical condition and site contamination playing a role in setting the price. The lease payment would be paid all at once. If the value is determined to be a negative number, the rent for the entire period will be $10,000. The lease would also allow for the sale of 79.9 acres of stadium property. The city may have the option to terminate the lease and take control of the property if a stadium isn’t constructed within seven years.

Measure G: The price and terms must be “fair and equitable and in the public interest,” as defined by the initiative. The sale price and terms must be approved by City Council and based on the value of the property as of Oct. 9, 2017. The measure allows the city to discount the sale price based on factors such as stadium demolition costs and the cost to develop a river park.

What’s the value of the land?

Measure E: In May 2017, the appraised value of the land that would be leased to FS Investors was $110 million. D.F. Davis Real Estate Inc. did the the appraisal of the stadium site, valuing 233 acres at $83 million, and making its determination as if the existing stadium was no longer operational. The firm defined market value as the most probable price the land should bring in a competitive and open market. Separately, Hendrickson Appraisal company valued the Murphy Canyon facility site at $27.3 million.


Measure G: In May 2017, the appraised value of the Mission Valley stadium site when excluding the river park acreage is $73.8 million, according to the same report prepared by D.F. Davis Real Estate Inc.

What’s the economic impact?

Measure E: Net annual tax revenue from SoccerCity would be $4 million, according to the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, which based its analysis on sales, hotel, property and possessory interest taxes for a completed development. Over 99 years, SoccerCity would net $396 million for the city.

In addition, construction would result in an estimated 37,900 jobs, $2.3 billion in wages and $3.4 billion added to the city’s gross regional product, according to a study by the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation. Operations would result in an estimated 22,600 jobs generating $1.8 billion in wages.

Measure G: Net annual tax revenue from SDSU West would be $1.9 million, according to the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, which based its analysis on sales, hotel, property and possessory interest taxes for a completed development. Over 99 years, SDSU West would net $188.1 million for the city.


In addition, the university estimates that the addition of 6,000 students over a 15-year development period would result in a $239 million impact by 2033.

What are the traffic implications?

Measure E: SoccerCity expects to generate 71,500 average daily trips. Meanwhile, a SANDAG study determined that the mixed-use development would generate 97,000 average daily trips. During weekday morning and evening commute hours, the SoccerCity proposal would create 11,999 trips.

The specific plan outlines traffic improvements, paid for by FS Investors, that would help mitigate the number of new trips. That includes construction and maintenance of streets and utilities, along with accommodation for current and future transit lines.

Measure G: The measure is not a development plan. However, the university has said SDSU Mission Valley would create 55,140 average daily trips. During weekday morning and evening commute hours, SDSU Mission Valley would create 11,780 trips. SANDAG has not vetted those numbers independently.


Infrastructure requirements would be determined through the Campus Master Plan revision process.

What does this cost taxpayers?

Measure E: The measure provides for a privately funded redevelopment of the site involving no city funds.

It is unclear whether FS Investors would reimburse the city for staff time associated with processing the development. Also, any underground pollution (from nearby oil tanks) discovered during development could be the city’s responsibility. There are also potential legal costs should the city be sued for leasing the property to FS Investors.

Measure G: The measure does not raise or impose new taxes.


The impact on city staff time and resources to process developments is unclear. The city’s cost to build, operate and maintain the river park is unknown at this time.

Who’s endorsing this?

Measure E: Organizations and individuals who have publicly supported SoccerCity include:

North San Diego Business Chamber

Mayor Kevin Faulconer

City Councilman Scott Sherman

Board Chair of the San Diego Regional Airport Authority April Boling. She is the campaign treasurer and is paid by the campaign.

Youth soccer organizations and club teams across the county

Measure G: Organizations and individuals who have publicly supported SDSU West include:



The Lincoln Club of San Diego County

Sierra Club

San Diego County Democratic Party

League of Women Voters

San Diego Police Officers Association

San Diego City Firefighters Association

San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce

San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council

San Diego County Supervisor Greg Cox

City Council President Myrtle Cole along with Councilmembers Chris Ward, David Alvarez, Barbara Bry and Lorie Zapf

Reps. Scott Peters and Juan Vargas

State Assemblyman Todd Gloria

State Sens. Toni Atkins and Ben Hueso

Linda Vista Planning Group


Business

jennifer.vangrove@sduniontribune.com (619) 293-1840 Twitter: @jbruin


UPDATES:

10:27 a.m., Oct. 15: This article was updated to clarify that April Boling is paid as Measure E’s campaign treasurer.

This article was originally published at 5 a.m. on Oct. 14.