SDSU Drops Out Of SoccerCity Stadium Negotiations
San Diego State University has broken off talks about sharing the 30,000-seat soccer stadium at the proposed $4B SoccerCity development in Mission Valley on the city’s Qualcomm Stadium property. The university said the developer’s plan for the sport’s facility does not meet athletic and academic needs of the campus, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports.
The university renewed its offer to purchase land for an SDSU stadium and share infrastructure costs, but no agreement was reached, according to an SDSU statement.
The university has said all along that a 30,000-seat stadium is too small and adding 10,000 extra seats to the plan is too costly. SoccerCity developer FS Investors plans to reduce the stadium size to 22,000 seats if SDSU is not a partner in the project.
SDSU officials urged the city to pursue a transparent request for proposals process to solicit proposals from developers for a plan that accomplishes the community’s vision for this 166-acre property, the largest undeveloped site in the city.
FS Investors’ Nick Stone said in a statement SDSU is moving the goal posts and walking away from people trying to help them. He suggested SDSU's decision to pull out of the project jeopardizes Aztec football, because the city plans to shut down Qualcomm next year. The Aztecs’ backup plan is to play at Petco Park the following year.
The overall SoccerCity project would include 4,800 homes, including 800 units oriented to students, 3.1M SF of commercial and office space, 450 hotel rooms, 55 acres of parkland and the new stadium. Qualcomm Stadium would be demolished, but its site would be reserved for five years in case a National Football League team decides to move to San Diego and build a new stadium.
The developers collected more than 112,000 petition signatures — 40,000 more than needed to get it on the ballot. The city council could approve the petition for the project next month or put it on the ballot. It needs a simple majority to pass.
RFPs from developers are generally required for projects on public land, and a review process involving financial feasibility, environmental review and community input follows. Due to recent court rulings developers are able to skirt the lengthy review and approval process by taking proposals directly to voters.
