|
Post by AzTex on Apr 1, 2015 13:31:31 GMT -8
Welcome to your new blue home Aztecs! The Spanos Clan will still be your landlords, but on the bright side, you'll have the best looking facility in the Mountain West. Where's the parking structure(s)? Downtown?
|
|
|
Post by Ghost Dad on Apr 1, 2015 13:32:10 GMT -8
Ok Well just send that link to Scott Sherman and he'll skip those plans and start working on a SDSU West Campus plan which I'm sure would be immune to those same restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Apr 1, 2015 13:33:02 GMT -8
If the Rams go to LA, what's to stop the Chargers from going to St. Louis? They support their pro teams much more than San Diego ever would. Honestly? Probably future market growth projections. As transient and lame as SoCal is at being consistent in fan support our growth potential is off the chart. You have to figure that a decision to move is one that looks a minimum of 25 to 30 years into the future. You have to think the pop growth here will make SD a more valuable location than St. Louis. But who knows...anything is possible. If support was so good and the market projections were strong in St. Louis I doubt the Rams would be leaving though. I doubt the Chargers go to LA because you can forget about Carson. Hell that would be another 10 year fight. SD is basically a resort city, not an industrial one. One thing Fabiani said that's probably true is SD is not a town that can sellout PSLs and that's a deal breaker for most owners. The years the Rams had the Greatest Show on Turf, their fans reflected their success. They've been worse than the Chargers these last few years so now their owner blames his city for lack of support? Sound familiar? There's much more money in St. Louis than San Diego, but a team has to win to get their full support. If the Chargers pour money into the team and start winning, that's the place to do it.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 1, 2015 13:39:30 GMT -8
Ok Well just send that link to Scott Sherman and he'll skip those plans and start working on a SDSU West Campus plan which I'm sure would be immune to those same restrictions. Pretty sure I don't have to do that either ... the San Diego Water Authority will inform the City Council and the County Board of the current water supplies and restrictions as well as the appropriate actions or measures regarding development that has been approved but not yet started & development submitted for approval but not yet considered (the stadium development pay for has not even been been submitted so ...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 13:46:15 GMT -8
Ok Well just send that link to Scott Sherman and he'll skip those plans and start working on a SDSU West Campus plan which I'm sure would be immune to those same restrictions. Pretty sure I don't have to do that either ... the San Diego Water Authority will inform the City Council and the County Board of the current water supplies and restrictions as well as the appropriate actions or measures regarding development that has been approved but not yet started & development submitted for approval but not yet considered (the stadium development pay for has not even been been submitted so ...) If I'm following you your point is water restrictions mean the MV site is less sexy than it appears because the development would be delayed by water conservation? So a stadium could be built but the rest would be in question until the state/regulators gave the ok? If so this still makes the site viable for SDSU expansion since our timetable for development could be much longer, no? I still wonder if the best option for all parties would be to have the state purchase the site for future usage by SDSU and use the funding to help finance a DT Charger stadium? I think the Chargers ownership wants DT, SDSU needs to expand (whether that includes a stadium or not), and the city/county needs a decent deal on the back end.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Apr 1, 2015 13:52:13 GMT -8
Pretty sure I don't have to do that either ... the San Diego Water Authority will inform the City Council and the County Board of the current water supplies and restrictions as well as the appropriate actions or measures regarding development that has been approved but not yet started & development submitted for approval but not yet considered (the stadium development pay for has not even been been submitted so ...) If I'm following you your point is water restrictions mean the MV site is less sexy than it appears because the development would be delayed by water conservation? So a stadium could be built but the rest would be in question until the state/regulators gave the ok? If so this still makes the site viable for SDSU expansion since or timetable for development could be much longer, no? I still wonder if the best option of all parties would be to have the state purchase the site for future usage by SDSU and used the funding to help finance a DT Charger stadium. I think the Chargers ownership wants DT, SDSU needs to expand (whether that includes a stadium or not), and the city/county needs a decent deal on the back end. Totally acceptable scenario for me... a Chargers move to DT accomplishes the one and only goal IMO... SDSU's West Campus expansion.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 1, 2015 14:09:29 GMT -8
Pretty sure I don't have to do that either ... the San Diego Water Authority will inform the City Council and the County Board of the current water supplies and restrictions as well as the appropriate actions or measures regarding development that has been approved but not yet started & development submitted for approval but not yet considered (the stadium development pay for has not even been been submitted so ...) If I'm following you your point is water restrictions mean the MV site is less sexy than it appears because the development would be delayed by water conservation? So a stadium could be built but the rest would be in question until the state/regulators gave the ok? If so this still makes the site viable for SDSU expansion since or timetable for development could be much longer, no? I still wonder if the best option of all parties would be to have the state purchase the site for future usage by SDSU and used the funding to help finance a DT Charger stadium. I think the Chargers ownership wants DT, SDSU needs to expand (whether that includes a stadium or not), and the city/county needs a decent deal on the back end. For the most part, yes. Residential development at best could be delayed or at worst, could fail CEQA as the the Water Supply Assessment will be in place by the time it comes around for approval and would be at the tail end of a line that already includes 9000+ residential units in Mission Valley and 2 new projects downtown (1 being a 7 building development next to Petco) -- the stadium / Grantville development would add another 8300 units ... this is to say nothing of the development projects outside of the City of San Diego but still within the San Diego Water Authority service area / jurisdiction. An SDSU West Campus impact on water consumption would be a lot lower than residential development (just like the strain on infrastructure in Mission Valley would be lower) so Yes, SDSU offers an advantage to the City in this respect. Of course, if the Chargers and Spanos were to accept a more modest stadium ... say a $600M facility rather than a $1.2B one -- and fund more of the project themselves to lessen the need for residential development to pay for it, this would be less of an issue.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 1, 2015 16:11:44 GMT -8
Welcome to your new blue home Aztecs! The Spanos Clan will still be your landlords, but on the bright side, you'll have the best looking facility in the Mountain West. Lol. Getting a little ahead of yourself aren't you? You need to get past CEQA first. And good luck getting a project of that density approved. Oh, and don't forget that minor detail of getting voter approval.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 1, 2015 17:03:06 GMT -8
Welcome to your new blue home Aztecs! The Spanos Clan will still be your landlords, but on the bright side, you'll have the best looking facility in the Mountain West. That's a really nice rendering of the SDSU West Campus -- but the stadium colors are all wrong He must have gotten the SDSU West Campus plans mixed up with the Chargers plans. Here is the real Charger plan...
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 1, 2015 17:12:50 GMT -8
That's a really nice rendering of the SDSU West Campus -- but the stadium colors are all wrong He must have gotten the SDSU West Campus plans mixed up with the Chargers plans. Here is the real Charger plan... LoL, I like the drought friendly fake water moat ... but just a standard def jumbotron?
|
|
|
Post by Ghost Dad on Apr 1, 2015 17:18:40 GMT -8
That's a really nice rendering of the SDSU West Campus -- but the stadium colors are all wrong He must have gotten the SDSU West Campus plans mixed up with the Chargers plans. Here is the real Charger plan... Looks like something an SDSU grad drew up. Sure that isn't a OCS plan? It futures a red stadium and a the no-so jumbo tron is purple (former SDSU color).
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 1, 2015 17:22:49 GMT -8
He must have gotten the SDSU West Campus plans mixed up with the Chargers plans. Here is the real Charger plan... Looks like something an SDSU grad drew up. Sure that isn't a OCS plan? It futures a red stadium and a the no-so jumbo tron is purple (former SDSU color). you may need a new prescription for your glasses, you missed the "Chargers Fans Only" draw-bridge across the fake water moat -- Obviously this is what Fabiani submitted to the CSAG as what the Spanoi want built, palatial stadium, with not enough parking
|
|
|
Post by Ghost Dad on Apr 1, 2015 17:26:09 GMT -8
Looks like something an SDSU grad drew up. Sure that isn't a OCS plan? It futures a red stadium and a the no-so jumbo tron is purple (former SDSU color). you may need a new prescription for your glasses, you missed the "Chargers Fans Only" draw-bridge across the fake water moat -- Obviously this is what Fabiani submitted to the CSAG as what the Spanoi want built, palatial stadium, with not enough parking Looks more like a castle with a flag on top. Maybe SDSU will use it for their new Art Program.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 1, 2015 17:33:25 GMT -8
you may need a new prescription for your glasses, you missed the "Chargers Fans Only" draw-bridge across the fake water moat -- Obviously this is what Fabiani submitted to the CSAG as what the Spanoi want built, palatial stadium, with not enough parking Looks more like a castle with a flag on top. Maybe SDSU will use it for their new Art Program. good job, you understand that "palatial" is similar to "castle" ... if it gets SDSU the entire Qualcomm site, I'm sure the Art dept would gladly frame and mount that piece in a place of prominence on the West Campus
|
|
|
Post by Ghost Dad on Apr 1, 2015 17:36:14 GMT -8
Looks more like a castle with a flag on top. Maybe SDSU will use it for their new Art Program. good job, you understand that "palatial" is similar to "castle" ... if it gets SDSU the entire Qualcomm site, I'm sure the Art dept would gladly frame and mount that piece in a place of prominence on the West Campus What about mandatory water restrictions?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 1, 2015 17:37:59 GMT -8
good job, you understand that "palatial" is similar to "castle" ... if it gets SDSU the entire Qualcomm site, I'm sure the Art dept would gladly frame and mount that piece in a place of prominence on the West Campus What about mandatory water restrictions? aztecmesa.proboards.com/post/795102/thread
|
|
|
Post by Ghost Dad on Apr 1, 2015 17:41:20 GMT -8
Facts please, not something you came up with out of bias.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 1, 2015 17:45:31 GMT -8
Facts please, not something you came up with out of bias. The Water Supply Assessment law requires that before cities or counties approve certain classes of projects ( e.g., residential developments over 500 units) as lead agencies under CEQA, they must request preparation of a WSA by the public water supplier identified to serve the proposed development project. The public water supplier has 90 days to prepare and approve a WSA after receiving a request from a city or county land-use agency. The WSA must assess the supplier's projected water availability and the projected water demand in its service area over a 20-year horizon, including supply and demand projections in normal water years, dry water years and multiple-dry water years (i.e., in droughts). The public water supplier's WSA must conclude whether projected supplies will be adequate to serve existing demand, demand from the proposed development project, and demand from planned future uses. Feel free to look it up yourself ...
|
|
|
Post by Ghost Dad on Apr 1, 2015 17:54:22 GMT -8
Facts please, not something you came up with out of bias. The Water Supply Assessment law requires that before cities or counties approve certain classes of projects ( e.g., residential developments over 500 units) as lead agencies under CEQA, they must request preparation of a WSA by the public water supplier identified to serve the proposed development project. The public water supplier has 90 days to prepare and approve a WSA after receiving a request from a city or county land-use agency. The WSA must assess the supplier's projected water availability and the projected water demand in its service area over a 20-year horizon, including supply and demand projections in normal water years, dry water years and multiple-dry water years (i.e., in droughts). The public water supplier's WSA must conclude whether projected supplies will be adequate to serve existing demand, demand from the proposed development project, and demand from planned future uses. Feel free to look it up yourself ... So Councilman Scott Sherman announced this huge plan to the public without being aware of any mandatory water restrictions in his district?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 1, 2015 17:57:41 GMT -8
The Water Supply Assessment law requires that before cities or counties approve certain classes of projects ( e.g., residential developments over 500 units) as lead agencies under CEQA, they must request preparation of a WSA by the public water supplier identified to serve the proposed development project. The public water supplier has 90 days to prepare and approve a WSA after receiving a request from a city or county land-use agency. The WSA must assess the supplier's projected water availability and the projected water demand in its service area over a 20-year horizon, including supply and demand projections in normal water years, dry water years and multiple-dry water years (i.e., in droughts). The public water supplier's WSA must conclude whether projected supplies will be adequate to serve existing demand, demand from the proposed development project, and demand from planned future uses. Feel free to look it up yourself ... So Councilman Scott Sherman announced this huge plan to the public without being aware of any mandatory water restrictions in his district? Since Sherman announced his plan this morning, and the Governor announced the water restrictions this afternoon ...
|
|