Efforts to build a new ballpark for the San Diego Padres hit a snag when historic preservation advocates won a round in San Diego County Superior Court, potentially jeopardizing the project's targeted completion date of February 2002.
Superior Court Judge Judith McConnell ordered the City of San Diego and its downtown redevelopment agency to halt eminent domain proceedings, land assembly and the awarding of a $50 million contract for infrastructure improvements until an environmental impact report is complete. A draft EIR is has circulated but City Council adoption of the study is not due until mid-September.
The decision stalls a "critical path" item by three to four months, said Deputy City Manager Bruce Herring. Officials are still trying to determine if that time can be made up before February of 2002, he said.
An organization called Citizens Advocating Redevelopment Excellence filed a lawsuit because it wants the city and the Padres to move the stadium location by two blocks to avoid an historic warehouse district. In June, the National Trust for Historic Preservation listed the arts and warehouse district as one of the 11 most endangered historical places in the country.
City officials argued that the eminent domain, land assembly and public works projects were allowed under a 1992 downtown redevelopment plan. However, the plan does not contemplate a baseball stadium, said Susan Brandt-Hawley, the attorney for CARE. A paper trail made clear the city's actions were in preparation for a ballpark, she said.
In her ruling issued in late June, Judge McConnell wrote, "The current activities being pursued by (the city) appear to be inconsistent with the Centre City Redevelopment Plan, and the master environmental impact report. The draft subsequent environmental impact report admits that the development site was intended to comprise primarily residential uses, and the proposed ballpark project is ‘currently not an allowed use within the area.'"
Added Brandt-Hawley, "You wonder why they didn't do the EIR a year ago."
Last fall, San Diego voters approved the 42,000-seat stadium for the rundown East Village, near the revamped Gaslamp Quarter and the expanding convention center. Funding for the $411 million ballpark is to come from city-issued bonds ($225 million) the redevelopment agency ($50 million) the port district ($21 million) and the Padres ($115 million). The ballpark is supposed to anchor a 26-block redevelopment area, with hotels, restaurants and shops completing the project.
Brandt-Hawley said her clients are not trying to halt the ballpark, only to move it a few blocks toward vacant San Diego Gas & Electric property. The East Village is getting a second life as people create live/work units in the brick warehouses built early this century — just as envisioned by the 1992 redevelopment plan.
However, Herring, the deputy city manger, said shifting the ballpark site would "change the project dramatically" because it would requiring altering plans for ancillary hotels and other developments around the stadium.
Padres majority owner John Moores told the San Diego Union-Tribune that he would not consent to shifting the ballpark's location. He also said McConnell's ruling proves "it's impossibly difficult to get anything done in California."
Complicating the stadium controversy further, the 1998-99 San Diego County grand jury charged two-term Mayor Susan Golding with civic misconduct. The grand jury alleged Golding offered to back a $4 million city appropriation to the San Diego County Hotel-Motel Association for tourism promotion in exchange for the association supporting last year's ballpark ballot measure. However, on July 20, District Attorney Paul Pfingst declared Golding had done nothing illegal and he sought dismissal of the charge. Golding denied any wrongdoing.
Contacts:
Susan Brandt-Hawley, attorney for Citizens Advocating Redevelopment Excellence, (707) 938-3908.
Bruce Herring, San Diego deputy city manager, (619) 236-6363.
What the government builds and where it builds things can have a major impact on a community and on the way generations of people live their lives. The siting of college campuses in California provides a poignant, and depressing, case study.
These days, the California High-Speed Rail Authority might as well be called the Political Traction Company. After winning voter approval of a $9.9 billion bond in November, the authority seemed to become a favorite of the Obama administration, which is eager to fund high-speed rail construction. In addition, some Central Valley communities � such as Fresno and Bakersfield, where stations are set to be built � are eager to see the project advance. Nevertheless, cities along the Peninsula of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are asking questions about the project.
Although gigantic state budget deficits are threatening to stall thousands of public works projects in California, one major effort appears to remain on track: Courthouse construction. The $5 billion program for replacing, rehabilitating or expanding 41 courthouses has its own funding source in the form of civil filing fees and criminal penalties.
When Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network CEO Russell Hancock talks about transforming El Camino Real into the Northern California version of the Avenues des Champs Elysees, one begins to wonder what color the sky is in his world.
State bond money and local tax dollars are flowing into new school construction at record rates, and school officials are learning that a "green" campus is both better for students and teachers and is less expensive to operate.
The State of California needs a better system for determining how much it pays for resource conservation lands, the Legislative Analyst's Office concluded in a lengthy report issued in October. Although the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) does not say directly that the state has overpaid when it bought forests, wetlands, beaches, habitat and open space, the implication is easy to draw.
If anything has become clear during the months since voters approved a $19.9 billion transportation bond last November, it's that freeways are still king. The first $4.5 billion allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) was aimed solely at roads, mostly for expanding freeway capacity. Another $3 billion for pavement — including $1 billion for Highway 99 — is scheduled for allocation by June.
State prison officials are moving forward with plans to build a new death row at San Quentin, but elected officials and business interests in Marin County are urging the state to reconsider.
Voters in the Contra Costa Water District will decide early next year whether to quadruple the capacity of five-year-old Los Vaqueros Reservoir in the hills east of Mount Diablo.
The reservoir expansion would increase water reliability and improve water quality but would not provide more water for growth, water district officials insist.
Since 1996, California voters have approved $11.1 billion worth of resource bonds. However, tracking how that money has been spent, how the remainder is proposed to be allocated — and even determining how much money is available — have proven tricky.
During the next 12 months, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) plans to build a an additional westbound lane on the 91 Freeway for a few miles just west of Riverside County. Such minor highway work might seem unremarkable — except for the fact that the agency spent $207 million simply for the right to pursue the project.
The Los Angeles Unified School District has embarked on a huge land-purchase effort as part of a massive school construction program. But because the cost of real estate in the region is so high — and available land is scarce — the district and other agencies are beginning to emphasize joint use.