|
Post by Den60 on Sept 14, 2019 17:38:12 GMT -8
Again, it is quite common for governments to ask for infrastructure improvements for developments to be approved, especially large ones. The developers of Fanita ranch in Santee are being asked to fund some $30-40M in improvements to Highway 52 which would include widening bridges even though that highway was originally designed with future expansion in mind. The Fenton Parkway bridge would benefit the entire area, including the SDSU West development, though I don't believe SDSU should be held to cover the entire cost. Our problem is that we are the next big development in the area. I expect that when Riverwalk GC is finally developed they will be asked to make improvements to roadways because the propensity of local roads to flood during periods of significant rainfall. I had some involvement with the city and the Chargers on an earlier attempt to build a new stadium (perhaps 2005-'6), and there were discussions requiring the Chargers---and their development partner--to build a new freeway ramp out of the project, directly onto either I-15 or I-8. So it was going to be even more expensive. Yes, I recall reading that. Unfortunately Friars Road has an issue with traffic and local governments are not getting their "due" from the state when it comes to alleviating traffic, so they push those costs downhill to the developers which has to be absorbed by those proposing new development.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 14, 2019 20:25:18 GMT -8
Again, it is quite common for governments to ask for infrastructure improvements for developments to be approved, especially large ones. The developers of Fanita ranch in Santee are being asked to fund some $30-40M in improvements to Highway 52 which would include widening bridges even though that highway was originally designed with future expansion in mind. The Fenton Parkway bridge would benefit the entire area, including the SDSU West development, though I don't believe SDSU should be held to cover the entire cost. Our problem is that we are the next big development in the area. I expect that when Riverwalk GC is finally developed they will be asked to make improvements to roadways because the propensity of local roads to flood during periods of significant rainfall. I had some involvement with the city and the Chargers on an earlier attempt to build a new stadium (perhaps 2005-'6), and there were discussions requiring the Chargers---and their development partner--to build a new freeway ramp out of the project, directly onto either I-15 or I-8. So it was going to be even more expensive. Building a ramp directly to the freeways was proposed by Caltrans when the stadium was first expanded in the early 1980's. IIRC, the city nixed the idea, saying it was too expensive.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 14, 2019 20:40:11 GMT -8
Of course it isn't. But that bridge has allegedly been in the planning stages for over 30 years, and the area that bridge would REALLY help is the Fenton Marketplace, and I don't recall any great push for that bridge back when Fenton Marketplace was built. I don't see how Squirmin' Scott Sherman can claim that SDSU would stand to gain the most from that bridge. Again, it is quite common for governments to ask for infrastructure improvements for developments to be approved, especially large ones. The developers of Fanita ranch in Santee are being asked to fund some $30-40M in improvements to Highway 52 which would include widening bridges even though that highway was originally designed with future expansion in mind. The Fenton Parkway bridge would benefit the entire area, including the SDSU West development, though I don't believe SDSU should be held to cover the entire cost. Our problem is that we are the next big development in the area. I expect that when Riverwalk GC is finally developed they will be asked to make improvements to roadways because the propensity of local roads to flood during periods of significant rainfall. And again, I understand that. But just by looking at Google Maps of the area, I fail to see how that planned bridge helps SDSU West even a little bit, as the bridge would barely go over the Little Q/old Charger practice field, with no direct access from the SDSU West property to that bridge. The city dropped the ball on this 20 years ago, and SDSU, IMO, is quite right for not wanting to foot the bill for something they will NOT benefit from.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 15, 2019 9:57:35 GMT -8
Again, it is quite common for governments to ask for infrastructure improvements for developments to be approved, especially large ones. The developers of Fanita ranch in Santee are being asked to fund some $30-40M in improvements to Highway 52 which would include widening bridges even though that highway was originally designed with future expansion in mind. The Fenton Parkway bridge would benefit the entire area, including the SDSU West development, though I don't believe SDSU should be held to cover the entire cost. Our problem is that we are the next big development in the area. I expect that when Riverwalk GC is finally developed they will be asked to make improvements to roadways because the propensity of local roads to flood during periods of significant rainfall. And again, I understand that. But just by looking at Google Maps of the area, I fail to see how that planned bridge helps SDSU West even a little bit, as the bridge would barely go over the Little Q/old Charger practice field, with no direct access from the SDSU West property to that bridge. The city dropped the ball on this 20 years ago, and SDSU, IMO, is quite right for not wanting to foot the bill for something they will NOT benefit from. Fenton Parkway at Friars is just 2300 feet from the Western Edge of the property, and it appears that there will still be an entrance to the site at that location. Currently if you want to get to the stadium site from the West you have to come from Qualcomm Way which is over a mile away. The Fenton Bridge would reduce traffic on Friars Road which already has issues with congestion. It also appears that the campus will have an entrance right where the bridge would end near the intersection of Fenton and Northside though that shows Fenton Parkway as the access point with no connection to Camino Del Rio North. That, with the addition of the bridge, would give the site 4 entrances with two completely bypassing Friars Rd.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 15, 2019 10:15:07 GMT -8
And again, I understand that. But just by looking at Google Maps of the area, I fail to see how that planned bridge helps SDSU West even a little bit, as the bridge would barely go over the Little Q/old Charger practice field, with no direct access from the SDSU West property to that bridge. The city dropped the ball on this 20 years ago, and SDSU, IMO, is quite right for not wanting to foot the bill for something they will NOT benefit from. Fenton Parkway at Friars is just 2300 feet from the Western Edge of the property, and it appears that there will still be an entrance to the site at that location. Currently if you want to get to the stadium site from the West you have to come from Qualcomm Way which is over a mile away. The Fenton Bridge would reduce traffic on Friars Road which already has issues with congestion. It also appears that the campus will have an entrance right where the bridge would end near the intersection of Fenton and Northside though that shows Fenton Parkway as the access point with no connection to Camino Del Rio North. That, with the addition of the bridge, would give the site 4 entrances with two completely bypassing Friars Rd. There will be no direct access to the stadium site from Fenton Parkway unless another bridge is constructed from the current stadium site to the proposed Fenton Parkway bridge. That isn't going to happen. And most, if not all, of Northside Drive is nothing more than a truck access to the rear of IKEA and Lowes.
|
|
|
Post by pbnative on Sept 15, 2019 10:36:42 GMT -8
And again, I understand that. But just by looking at Google Maps of the area, I fail to see how that planned bridge helps SDSU West even a little bit, as the bridge would barely go over the Little Q/old Charger practice field, with no direct access from the SDSU West property to that bridge. The city dropped the ball on this 20 years ago, and SDSU, IMO, is quite right for not wanting to foot the bill for something they will NOT benefit from. Fenton Parkway at Friars is just 2300 feet from the Western Edge of the property, and it appears that there will still be an entrance to the site at that location. Currently if you want to get to the stadium site from the West you have to come from Qualcomm Way which is over a mile away. The Fenton Bridge would reduce traffic on Friars Road which already has issues with congestion. It also appears that the campus will have an entrance right where the bridge would end near the intersection of Fenton and Northside though that shows Fenton Parkway as the access point with no connection to Camino Del Rio North. That, with the addition of the bridge, would give the site 4 entrances with two completely bypassing Friars Rd. You don't add any road at the western edge by the river front. That whole area is for the river park, which is part of water, storm, and environmental mitigation. They are trying to keep daily trip to a minimum and AVOID the development being turned into a giant sea of cars. Why would you direct a bunch of daily trip traffic there? The only access in that area should be a simple walking/ bike path.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Sept 15, 2019 12:31:01 GMT -8
I had some involvement with the city and the Chargers on an earlier attempt to build a new stadium (perhaps 2005-'6), and there were discussions requiring the Chargers---and their development partner--to build a new freeway ramp out of the project, directly onto either I-15 or I-8. So it was going to be even more expensive. Building a ramp directly to the freeways was proposed by Caltrans when the stadium was first expanded in the early 1980's. IIRC, the city nixed the idea, saying it was too expensive. That was one of the many reasons that the Chargers' deal tanked the first time. The other was the arrogance and petulance of Dean Spanos and his Machiavellian hemorrhoid, Mark Fabiani.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 15, 2019 12:32:48 GMT -8
Building a ramp directly to the freeways was proposed by Caltrans when the stadium was first expanded in the early 1980's. IIRC, the city nixed the idea, saying it was too expensive. That was one of the many reasons that the Chargers' deal tanked the first time. The other was the arrogance and petulance of Dean Spanos and his Machiavellian hemorrhoid, Mark Fabiani. Machiavellian hemorrhoid. That description is out-damn-standing.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Sept 15, 2019 12:36:56 GMT -8
That was one of the many reasons that the Chargers' deal tanked the first time. The other was the arrogance and petulance of Dean Spanos and his Machiavellian hemorrhoid, Mark Fabiani. Machiavellian hemorrhoid. That description is out-damn-standing. My sole mission is to please.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 15, 2019 12:55:14 GMT -8
Fenton Parkway at Friars is just 2300 feet from the Western Edge of the property, and it appears that there will still be an entrance to the site at that location. Currently if you want to get to the stadium site from the West you have to come from Qualcomm Way which is over a mile away. The Fenton Bridge would reduce traffic on Friars Road which already has issues with congestion. It also appears that the campus will have an entrance right where the bridge would end near the intersection of Fenton and Northside though that shows Fenton Parkway as the access point with no connection to Camino Del Rio North. That, with the addition of the bridge, would give the site 4 entrances with two completely bypassing Friars Rd. There will be no direct access to the stadium site from Fenton Parkway unless another bridge is constructed from the current stadium site to the proposed Fenton Parkway bridge. That isn't going to happen. And most, if not all, of Northside Drive is nothing more than a truck access to the rear of IKEA and Lowes. Take a look at the site plan and tell me what you see. I see a road extending Fenton Parkway just South of the trolley tracks which enters the SDSU West site on its Southwest corner. And I said 'Near" the intersection of Northside and Fenton and not "at" the intersection of the two. missionvalley.sdsu.edu/assets/images/renderings/download/SDSU_Mission_Valley_Site_Plan_Medium.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 15, 2019 12:59:46 GMT -8
Fenton Parkway at Friars is just 2300 feet from the Western Edge of the property, and it appears that there will still be an entrance to the site at that location. Currently if you want to get to the stadium site from the West you have to come from Qualcomm Way which is over a mile away. The Fenton Bridge would reduce traffic on Friars Road which already has issues with congestion. It also appears that the campus will have an entrance right where the bridge would end near the intersection of Fenton and Northside though that shows Fenton Parkway as the access point with no connection to Camino Del Rio North. That, with the addition of the bridge, would give the site 4 entrances with two completely bypassing Friars Rd. You don't add any road at the western edge by the river front. That whole area is for the river park, which is part of water, storm, and environmental mitigation. They are trying to keep daily trip to a minimum and AVOID the development being turned into a giant sea of cars. Why would you direct a bunch of daily trip traffic there? The only access in that area should be a simple walking/ bike path. I'm just looking at the schematic site plan submitted by SDSU to the public. There is a road there which connects the site to Fenton Parkway and it doesn't intrude on the river park, the pedestrian/bike path stays well south of it with playing fields in between though they do intersect at Fenton Parkway. missionvalley.sdsu.edu/assets/images/renderings/download/SDSU_Mission_Valley_Site_Plan_Medium.jpg
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 15, 2019 14:11:43 GMT -8
There will be no direct access to the stadium site from Fenton Parkway unless another bridge is constructed from the current stadium site to the proposed Fenton Parkway bridge. That isn't going to happen. And most, if not all, of Northside Drive is nothing more than a truck access to the rear of IKEA and Lowes. Take a look at the site plan and tell me what you see. I see a road extending Fenton Parkway just South of the trolley tracks which enters the SDSU West site on its Southwest corner. And I said 'Near" the intersection of Northside and Fenton and not "at" the intersection of the two. missionvalley.sdsu.edu/assets/images/renderings/download/SDSU_Mission_Valley_Site_Plan_Medium.jpgAnd nowhere in that picture is there a bridge that spans the river from Fenton Pkwy to Camino del Rio North (nor would there be in the SDSU renderings, as they claim it's not needed), as the city envisions (and allegedly has for years). That is where the city claims that a bridge should be built. SDSU says their traffic plan will work just fine without the bridge, apparently partially by using that new road (part of the current access to stadium parking--not Northside Dr.) using it as access to Fenton Pkwy, with no bridge to the south. The other thing I am still curious about is this--was Soccer City going to have to contribute anything to this bridge over the river from Fenton Pkwy to Camino del Rio North? This whole thing to me is becoming even more of a pissing contest between Squirmin' Scott Sherman and SDSU, as Sherman is trying to get something out of SDSU (and the state) the city apparently hasn't been able to find after all of these years; funding for a bridge over the SD River in that location.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 15, 2019 14:57:39 GMT -8
And nowhere in that picture is there a bridge that spans the river from Fenton Pkwy to Camino del Rio North (nor would there be in the SDSU renderings, as they claim it's not needed), as the city envisions (and allegedly has for years). That is where the city claims that a bridge should be built. SDSU says their traffic plan will work just fine without the bridge, apparently partially by using that new road (part of the current access to stadium parking--not Northside Dr.) using it as access to Fenton Pkwy, with no bridge to the south. The other thing I am still curious about is this--was Soccer City going to have to contribute anything to this bridge over the river from Fenton Pkwy to Camino del Rio North? This whole thing to me is becoming even more of a pissing contest between Squirmin' Scott Sherman and SDSU, as Sherman is trying to get something out of SDSU (and the state) the city apparently hasn't been able to find after all of these years; funding for a bridge over the SD River in that location. No, there is no bridge in either the SC or SDSU plan. Both proposals used factors that minimized the effect of automobile traffic so as to reduce their development costs. SC is now out of the picture, their proposal was rejected so anyone who uses that as a basis for what we should get is in Fantasyland. No developmental plan has been approved yet, SDSU only "won" the decision to get the next look at purchasing the site. Once that happened things got "real," as I said at the time. It has never been a done deal that our plan for developing the site would/will actually happen, the work began once our measure was approved, in general, by the voters. A bridge at Fenton would benefit SDSU West as well as the surrounding area. The fact that SDSU and their developing partners are using that location for an entrance to the campus brings a bridge into play. Friars Rd has definitive issues with traffic congestion, not only when there is a big event at the "Q" site, and developing SDSU West is going to make those worse. To say otherwise is being intellectually dishonest. Again, I don't think the university should be required to pay all the cost of the proposed bridge, but traffic mitigation is a significant issue whenever new development is proposed - and I have presented examples of that in this thread. It isn't unusual. I think we should negotiate to pay some share of the bridge as a measure of goodwill as well as improving the area surrounding the development. As the bridge would not be tied to the actual stadium this can be covered by the University rather than the athletics program. Do you really want to have this thrown back to the voters with developers who would pay for the bridge and not be burdened with the cost building a football stadium which is a money loser in the big scheme of things?
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 15, 2019 15:12:27 GMT -8
And nowhere in that picture is there a bridge that spans the river from Fenton Pkwy to Camino del Rio North (nor would there be in the SDSU renderings, as they claim it's not needed), as the city envisions (and allegedly has for years). That is where the city claims that a bridge should be built. SDSU says their traffic plan will work just fine without the bridge, apparently partially by using that new road (part of the current access to stadium parking--not Northside Dr.) using it as access to Fenton Pkwy, with no bridge to the south. The other thing I am still curious about is this--was Soccer City going to have to contribute anything to this bridge over the river from Fenton Pkwy to Camino del Rio North? This whole thing to me is becoming even more of a pissing contest between Squirmin' Scott Sherman and SDSU, as Sherman is trying to get something out of SDSU (and the state) the city apparently hasn't been able to find after all of these years; funding for a bridge over the SD River in that location. No, there is no bridge in either the SC or SDSU plan. Both proposals used factors that minimized the effect of automobile traffic so as to reduce their development costs. SC is now out of the picture, their proposal was rejected so anyone who uses that as a basis for what we should get is in Fantasyland. No developmental plan has been approved yet, SDSU only "won" the decision to get the next look at purchasing the site. Once that happened things got "real," as I said at the time. It has never been a done deal that our plan for developing the site would/will actually happen, the work began once our measure was approved, in general, by the voters. A bridge at Fenton would benefit SDSU West as well as the surrounding area. The fact that SDSU and their developing partners are using that location for an entrance to the campus brings a bridge into play. Friars Rd has definitive issues with traffic congestion, not only when there is a big event at the "Q" site, and developing SDSU West is going to make those worse. To say otherwise is being intellectually dishonest. Again, I don't think the university should be required to pay all the cost of the proposed bridge, but traffic mitigation is a significant issue whenever new development is proposed - and I have presented examples of that in this thread. It isn't unusual. I think we should negotiate to pay some share of the bridge as a measure of goodwill as well as improving the area surrounding the development. As the bridge would not be tied to the actual stadium this can be covered by the University rather than the athletics program. Do you really want to have this thrown back to the voters with developers who would pay for the bridge and not be burdened with the cost building a football stadium which is a money loser in the big scheme of things? I don't think it is "fantasyland", as there was going to be far worse traffic had the Soccer City plan gone on to be approved. And again, I am not disagreeing with you regarding traffic mitigation, but I still say the city has soiled the sheets on this proposed bridge for years. SDSU needs to ask (if they haven't already) the city where are all of the previous development fees in the area have gone regarding this bridge, or any other traffic mitigation plans, has gone, and why should SDSU pay a "significant portion of the cost" (Sherman's words) of the bridge. I also don't believe that this site goes before the voters again anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 15, 2019 16:51:01 GMT -8
No, there is no bridge in either the SC or SDSU plan. Both proposals used factors that minimized the effect of automobile traffic so as to reduce their development costs. SC is now out of the picture, their proposal was rejected so anyone who uses that as a basis for what we should get is in Fantasyland. No developmental plan has been approved yet, SDSU only "won" the decision to get the next look at purchasing the site. Once that happened things got "real," as I said at the time. It has never been a done deal that our plan for developing the site would/will actually happen, the work began once our measure was approved, in general, by the voters. A bridge at Fenton would benefit SDSU West as well as the surrounding area. The fact that SDSU and their developing partners are using that location for an entrance to the campus brings a bridge into play. Friars Rd has definitive issues with traffic congestion, not only when there is a big event at the "Q" site, and developing SDSU West is going to make those worse. To say otherwise is being intellectually dishonest. Again, I don't think the university should be required to pay all the cost of the proposed bridge, but traffic mitigation is a significant issue whenever new development is proposed - and I have presented examples of that in this thread. It isn't unusual. I think we should negotiate to pay some share of the bridge as a measure of goodwill as well as improving the area surrounding the development. As the bridge would not be tied to the actual stadium this can be covered by the University rather than the athletics program. Do you really want to have this thrown back to the voters with developers who would pay for the bridge and not be burdened with the cost building a football stadium which is a money loser in the big scheme of things? I don't think it is "fantasyland", as there was going to be far worse traffic had the Soccer City plan gone on to be approved. And again, I am not disagreeing with you regarding traffic mitigation, but I still say the city has soiled the sheets on this proposed bridge for years. SDSU needs to ask (if they haven't already) the city where are all of the previous development fees in the area have gone regarding this bridge, or any other traffic mitigation plans, has gone, and why should SDSU pay a "significant portion of the cost" (Sherman's words) of the bridge. I also don't believe that this site goes before the voters again anytime soon. The Soccer City plan, which was more definitive, than the SDSU West plan was turned down by the voters. Using that as a basis for negotiation now is moot. From what I understand, the university is now trying to back out the cost of demolition of the stadium even though Measure G said that the city would ne be held responsible for the demolition. Here is the actual text from the measure: 10. The People of the City of San Diego desire that the City not pay for any stadium rehabilitation costs, stadium demolition or removal costs, stadium cost overruns, Joint Use Stadium operating costs, Joint Use Stadium maintenance, or Joint Use Stadium capital improvement expenses; and that the City be reimbursed for reasonable costs incurred by the City in providing public safety and traffic management-related activities for games or other events at the Existing Stadium Site. The cost of the demolition of the stadium was included in the land sale proposal to Soccer City. As for traffic mitigation, the city can fall back on this language in Measure G from section 2, 1a: (a) Such sale shall be at such price and upon such terms and timing as the City Council shall deem to be fair and equitable and in the public interest SDSU now has exclusive rights to negotiate for the sale. Given the budget of Soccer City's proposal this is a more than $1B dollar project though I have not seen numbers from the university. And yetwe are arguing over the cost to demo the stadium and add a bridge in the big scheme of things. Again, I don't think SDSU should be responsible for the complete construction cost of the bridge, but they should negotiate an offer to help facilitate that. As for the demo of the existing stadium they should not be asking for an additional discount when the earlier appraisal depreciated that cost in the value of the property. No, there will not be a ballot measure anytime soon. But there may be no movement in the negotiations and later subsequent litigation. Neither helps us get things done in Mission Valley anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 15, 2019 17:32:35 GMT -8
I don't think it is "fantasyland", as there was going to be far worse traffic had the Soccer City plan gone on to be approved. And again, I am not disagreeing with you regarding traffic mitigation, but I still say the city has soiled the sheets on this proposed bridge for years. SDSU needs to ask (if they haven't already) the city where are all of the previous development fees in the area have gone regarding this bridge, or any other traffic mitigation plans, has gone, and why should SDSU pay a "significant portion of the cost" (Sherman's words) of the bridge. I also don't believe that this site goes before the voters again anytime soon. The Soccer City plan, which was more definitive, than the SDSU West plan was turned down by the voters. Using that as a basis for negotiation now is moot. From what I understand, the university is now trying to back out the cost of demolition of the stadium even though Measure G said that the city would ne be held responsible for the demolition. Here is the actual text from the measure: 10. The People of the City of San Diego desire that the City not pay for any stadium rehabilitation costs, stadium demolition or removal costs, stadium cost overruns, Joint Use Stadium operating costs, Joint Use Stadium maintenance, or Joint Use Stadium capital improvement expenses; and that the City be reimbursed for reasonable costs incurred by the City in providing public safety and traffic management-related activities for games or other events at the Existing Stadium Site. The cost of the demolition of the stadium was included in the land sale proposal to Soccer City. As for traffic mitigation, the city can fall back on this language in Measure G from section 2, 1a: (a) Such sale shall be at such price and upon such terms and timing as the City Council shall deem to be fair and equitable and in the public interest SDSU now has exclusive rights to negotiate for the sale. Given the budget of Soccer City's proposal this is a more than $1B dollar project though I have not seen numbers from the university. And yetwe are arguing over the cost to demo the stadium and add a bridge in the big scheme of things. Again, I don't think SDSU should be responsible for the complete construction cost of the bridge, but they should negotiate an offer to help facilitate that. As for the demo of the existing stadium they should not be asking for an additional discount when the earlier appraisal depreciated that cost in the value of the property. No, there will not be a ballot measure anytime soon. But there may be no movement in the negotiations and later subsequent litigation. Neither helps us get things done in Mission Valley anytime soon. Then, the question should be (if this bridge has really been in the planning stages for 30 or so years, as the city claims), how much in the way of previous developer fees were collected from other development in the area, and how much of those fees were set aside for this proposed bridge? And I agree with you that SDSU should not be trying to ask for an additional discount for the demo of the current stadium. If that is indeed what they are proposing, as these negotiations are supposed to be secret. Allegedly.
|
|
|
Post by sdsu2000 on Sept 16, 2019 13:16:22 GMT -8
The City has wanted a bridge there forever. I believe at one point they even had over $10 million in funds for the bridge. But I feel it's something that will never get built and just another tactic for Sherman and folks to get more money from SDSU for the land. At some point just to move forward SDSU will agree to give $2 million towards the bridge project that will never get built.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 16, 2019 14:53:29 GMT -8
The Soccer City plan, which was more definitive, than the SDSU West plan was turned down by the voters. Using that as a basis for negotiation now is moot. From what I understand, the university is now trying to back out the cost of demolition of the stadium even though Measure G said that the city would ne be held responsible for the demolition. Here is the actual text from the measure: 10. The People of the City of San Diego desire that the City not pay for any stadium rehabilitation costs, stadium demolition or removal costs, stadium cost overruns, Joint Use Stadium operating costs, Joint Use Stadium maintenance, or Joint Use Stadium capital improvement expenses; and that the City be reimbursed for reasonable costs incurred by the City in providing public safety and traffic management-related activities for games or other events at the Existing Stadium Site. The cost of the demolition of the stadium was included in the land sale proposal to Soccer City. As for traffic mitigation, the city can fall back on this language in Measure G from section 2, 1a: (a) Such sale shall be at such price and upon such terms and timing as the City Council shall deem to be fair and equitable and in the public interest SDSU now has exclusive rights to negotiate for the sale. Given the budget of Soccer City's proposal this is a more than $1B dollar project though I have not seen numbers from the university. And yetwe are arguing over the cost to demo the stadium and add a bridge in the big scheme of things. Again, I don't think SDSU should be responsible for the complete construction cost of the bridge, but they should negotiate an offer to help facilitate that. As for the demo of the existing stadium they should not be asking for an additional discount when the earlier appraisal depreciated that cost in the value of the property. No, there will not be a ballot measure anytime soon. But there may be no movement in the negotiations and later subsequent litigation. Neither helps us get things done in Mission Valley anytime soon. Then, the question should be (if this bridge has really been in the planning stages for 30 or so years, as the city claims), how much in the way of previous developer fees were collected from other development in the area, and how much of those fees were set aside for this proposed bridge? And I agree with you that SDSU should not be trying to ask for an additional discount for the demo of the current stadium. If that is indeed what they are proposing, as these negotiations are supposed to be secret. Allegedly. And I agree, SDSU should look into the possibility that previous developments in the area were asked to contribute to a future bridge. I also believe it is the responsibility of the city to contribute as well since so many roads in the area flood significantly during periods of significant rain though I don't want to see them raise taxes to do it. Unfortunately, our gasoline tax dollars go into California's "black hole" and don't come back out for actual road improvements so the state puts it to cities/counties to fund these upgrades which they, in turn, try to pass off to the public with increased development costs. I did look back at Soccer City's site map and they did not connect the road along the Western part of the of the site to Fenton Parkway. It stopped short of the park area with a roundabout so that may explain why it was not an issue with their plan. But I do think having that access benefits SDSU West as well as the nearby developments, both commercial and residential and it would take a lot of strain of traffic on Fairmount and Friars which is much worse on game days.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 16, 2019 15:00:06 GMT -8
The City has wanted a bridge there forever. I believe at one point they even had over $10 million in funds for the bridge. But I feel it's something that will never get built and just another tactic for Sherman and folks to get more money from SDSU for the land. At some point just to move forward SDSU will agree to give $2 million towards the bridge project that will never get built. My response to aardvark is fairly detailed but I would add, to answer your post, that any money put towards its construction would be contingent on it actually being built. Finding out if other developments in the area did pay money towards it would be a good first step. I haven't driven to a game at the stadium in decades. Traffic and the cost of parking made me take the bus and then the trolley when that line came through. I had friends who drove to set up the tailgate. Of course, tailgating at the new stadium will be limited and likely cost a lot more than we are anticipating.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Sept 16, 2019 17:04:30 GMT -8
I don't think it is "fantasyland", as there was going to be far worse traffic had the Soccer City plan gone on to be approved. And again, I am not disagreeing with you regarding traffic mitigation, but I still say the city has soiled the sheets on this proposed bridge for years. SDSU needs to ask (if they haven't already) the city where are all of the previous development fees in the area have gone regarding this bridge, or any other traffic mitigation plans, has gone, and why should SDSU pay a "significant portion of the cost" (Sherman's words) of the bridge. I also don't believe that this site goes before the voters again anytime soon. The Soccer City plan, which was more definitive, than the SDSU West plan was turned down by the voters. Using that as a basis for negotiation now is moot. From what I understand, the university is now trying to back out the cost of demolition of the stadium even though Measure G said that the city would ne be held responsible for the demolition. Here is the actual text from the measure: 10. The People of the City of San Diego desire that the City not pay for any stadium rehabilitation costs, stadium demolition or removal costs, stadium cost overruns, Joint Use Stadium operating costs, Joint Use Stadium maintenance, or Joint Use Stadium capital improvement expenses; and that the City be reimbursed for reasonable costs incurred by the City in providing public safety and traffic management-related activities for games or other events at the Existing Stadium Site. The cost of the demolition of the stadium was included in the land sale proposal to Soccer City. As for traffic mitigation, the city can fall back on this language in Measure G from section 2, 1a: (a) Such sale shall be at such price and upon such terms and timing as the City Council shall deem to be fair and equitable and in the public interest SDSU now has exclusive rights to negotiate for the sale. Given the budget of Soccer City's proposal this is a more than $1B dollar project though I have not seen numbers from the university. And yetwe are arguing over the cost to demo the stadium and add a bridge in the big scheme of things. Again, I don't think SDSU should be responsible for the complete construction cost of the bridge, but they should negotiate an offer to help facilitate that. As for the demo of the existing stadium they should not be asking for an additional discount when the earlier appraisal depreciated that cost in the value of the property. No, there will not be a ballot measure anytime soon. But there may be no movement in the negotiations and later subsequent litigation. Neither helps us get things done in Mission Valley anytime soon. Measure G also provided the following: In arriving at the Fair Market Value, the City may fairly consider various factors, adjustments, deductions, and equities including, but not limited to: the costs for demolition, dismantling, and removal of the Existing Stadium; the costs associated with addressing current flooding concerns; the costs of existing contamination; the costs for revitalizing and restoring the adjacent River Park and the costs of avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts to biota and riparian habitat. So if the city choose to deduct demo they could and it was explicitly called out on the measure. In the end, measure G is clear. State is entitled to purchase the property at a price as determined by the City Council. The city can factor in the cost of the bridge, if they so choose, but that would a political mistake and one the city council would avoid. It would anger not only the CSU system but Sacramento if the city of San Diego tried to stick the entire cost of the bridge to State which they have been deferring building and collecting any requisite developer fees for decades. It would be in bad faith and is counter productive. In the end the CA taxpayer will bear the burden, all it does is spread the cost out a little to more CA taxpayers. But turnabout is fair play, will the State then reduce tax dollars for transportation, and other State funds that would have otherwise been directed to SD. Everyone needs to remember that SDSU is the State and sticking it to the State is sticking it to yourself.
|
|