Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Now It's SAN Vs Developers  
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2695 times:

For anyone paying attention to the developer problems in San Diego near a GA airport:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/more/sunroad/

The same company now proposes two more towers near Lindbergh, 1/2 mile south of the runway. Just a thought, they might want to talk to the Military about North Island's approach/departure paths which run more north/south:


http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070601/news_1n1towers1.html

Freakin wow!

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2544 times:

I was thinking about posting that same link!!

Just who the *(#%$(* is in charge of land development around airports?

If the FAA says "too high", then shouldn't they have VERY clear guidelines as to what height limitations they want to impose on surrounding areas?

And for the love of God, DON'T leave it to local governments!! San Diego's is so bad there's a parking garage at the foot our runway - that actually had to have floors taken off of it!!



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2531 times:

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 1):
Just who the *(#%$(* is in charge of land development around airports?

The airport is, but they can be over ruled by the government agency that owns the land or the city where the land rests. There's a bill on the Senate floor that would take this away from the airport and give it to another agency led by politicians, bought and paid for by developers (it would revert land use to the agency that had it before the airport gained it in 2003). Nice huh? Its not like there's already been enough developer damage to SAN.

Best quote from the article:

Port Commissioners Stephen Cushman and Robert Spane said they were unaware Sunroad's plans were deemed hazardous by federal regulators.

“Sounds like we did our job,” Spane said. “We did used to run the airport. Maybe that has something to do with it.”


Right... Like you did with the parking structure, freeway and other buildings around the airport....

The true best quote:

“Maybe they think they have better experts than the FAA,” said Linda Johnson, the airport authority manager in charge of land-use planning.

[Edited 2007-06-01 21:58:31]

User currently offlineSocalfive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2441 times:

This is typical chapter and verse of how things get done in San Diego. Nothing but criminals on all sides of any issue that has a financial gain to it. The FAA gets involved on ANY high rise development project that is located anywhere near an airport. The Stratosphere in LAS was even height limited by the FAA, so this is no damned surprise to any of these bozos. The Montgomery Field ClusterF&^% is just the latest in a very very long line of bad decisions and payoffs and collusion deals done in SAN.

As for East Harbor Island, it IS far enough away from Lindbergh's approach to 27 to not be an issue and 09/27 traffic patterns are north of the airport, HOWEVER it IS sitting right alongside the traffic pattern into North Island 18/36. But either way, it's SAN so with enough money spent on the right political criminal, you could add two more floors onto that parking garage.


User currently offlineRadelow From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 426 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2365 times:

In defense of San Diego I went to a function with Jerry Sanders (our mayor) and see said Sunroad won't be building this kind of building on Harbor Island (over my dead body was used).

Radelow


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2582 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2319 times:

I don't know if the parking structure had floors removed, but the approach had to be changed as a 747 approach would have hit the structure. So, the FAA moved the displaced threshold further down the runway. For PR, I think the Balboa Travel Center (parking structure) were offering pilots a discount to park on the top floor to show how "safe" it was.

As for Sunroad, their actions on the Montgomery Field building shows how greedy and guilty they are. I surely wouldn't propose they be in charge of Harbor Island developments. But, San Diego has a fantastic waterfront and such developments would be an upgrade vs. rent-a-car facilities and airport parking that sport dueling sign spinners trying to fill their spaces. Lindbergh could be another boon to the city if developed with canals and public-private partnerships. If SAN were moved, SD's waterfront could rival the best waterfronts in the world.

The voters in this County were hoodwinked by the NO on Miramar people, who used fear tactics to say that the Miramar was needed to fight the War on Terror. Today, yes, but the airport wouldn't be needed for 15 years. Funny how the DOD could runa a BRAC during the War on Terror, but the NO on Miramar people said asking for planning input on commercial operations at Miramar in 15 years was a threat to national security - what a joke.

Of course, the Regional Airport Authority was totally inept in the airport planning issue, following in the footsteps of the former agency (Port of SD) and planning agency (SANDAG). No politician would support the relocation of Miramar for fear of being thrown out of office - what civic foresight.

It got so ridiculous, that the NO group was saying Mirimar had to stay because of the missiles in N. Korea. I guess we all remember that little dust up with N. Korea last year. Some even said we needed Miramar to be within range of the N. Korean missiles - now that takes the cake to make sure your large base is a target and a target with 2 million in the area.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2175 times:

Quoting Socalfive (Reply 3):
As for East Harbor Island, it IS far enough away from Lindbergh's approach to 27 to not be an issue and 09/27 traffic patterns are north of the airport

Actually, it's not. Its less than 2,500' from the runway centerline which penetrates the lateral OFZ.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 6):
I don't know if the parking structure had floors removed, but the approach had to be changed as a 747 approach would have hit the structure.

Myths abound about this parking structure. Floors were never removed. The height was established first by the freeway, then by trees and buildings near (south and west of) Balboa Park when instrument standards were put in place in San Diego. The parking lot was then built to the limit established. The problem with the parking lot is that is blocks the view of a full approach light system and the multiple buildings block a glideslope signal )(the smae applies for runway 9 which is why the threshold crossing height is so high - you can't net a 55' crossing height with the existign equipment, but they can with a new glideslope model) from being used, thus San Diego does not have an precision approach to runway 27. If the freeway and other buildings had not been built, SAN could have a CAT III to runway 27 as the displacement is based on the natural terrain, not the crap that has been built on that terrain. Alas, it's a bit late for that now (LAAS will reduce runway 9's glideslope to 3.1 and runway 27's to 3.3 vs. 3.22 and 3.5 - WAAS already does this but the minimums are crap because the WAAS verical accuracy is crap). To get a CAT III today, the threshold has to be displaced 3,400' (an additional 1,590') and it will only work with LAAS/WAAS - no ILS - so they'd have to wait for the technology as there is no LAAS/WASS CAT III standard - and it will only work for appraoch category "C" aircraft. No big deal for a 737, big problem for existing widebody aircraft - 787 not such a problem - it's CAT C and needs 6,000' landing.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 6):
Of course, the Regional Airport Authority was totally inept in the airport planning issue, following in the footsteps of the former agency (Port of SD) and planning agency (SANDAG). No politician would support the relocation of Miramar for fear of being thrown out of office - what civic foresight.

That makes the politicians and the opposition inept, not the airport authroity. They laid the groundwork, they made valid arguments. Their credibility on the issue will come with time. The key arguments were lack of ability to expand effectively, the military relocation of fighters and the negative economic impact. Lindbergh is going to be congested within the time frame they suggested, the military fighters will leave Miramar by 2015 and the economy will see a negative impact not only from the lack of a sufficient airport but also the reduction in military presence. It will cost in terms of market damage as a result of congestion (give some thought to what Southwest will do when Lindbergh has the kind of delays that La Guardia does), but it's better to lose a fight and be right then it is to win a fight and be wrong.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 6):
It got so ridiculous, that the NO group was saying Mirimar had to stay because of the missiles in N. Korea. I guess we all remember that little dust up with N. Korea last year. Some even said we needed Miramar to be within range of the N. Korean missiles - now that takes the cake to make sure your large base is a target and a target with 2 million in the area.

The ability of the airport to campaign for relocation is limited by California Law. They could only make a case a present a scenario for why the airport was needed. By law, they could not actively participate in the public debate over the issue.

[Edited 2007-06-04 17:27:07]

User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2582 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2086 times:

Concept 6 would have given RW 27 that CAT III approach by extending the runway west (over and past the NTC Boat Channel). That Concept was shown by the RAA, even though it violated all their criteria for dwelling units and population relocation. While it did show what it would take to build SAN to provide dual ILS capability, even though I believe East flow would have been required for Dual ILS's, it as interpreted by many that the RAA was in favor of it.

Boeing7E7, you are correct regarding RW 27 and the RAA and I may have gone a little far on stating their ineptness as they were restricted on what they could say to the public. Unfortunately, the NO side was not.

With the new RAA board, they now have a couple of new members who were part of the NO crowd. I just hope they don't try to over invest in SAN to the point where, if Miramar becomes available, the pitch would be that we couldn't move due to the money sunk into SAN.

Simple, SAN needs to stay a single runway airport and improvements should lack the Taj Majal style Terminal Two expense. Backside that terminal, add some RON parking to the west, add some ticketing space, maybe second level parking and improve where you can, the efficiency of the single runway. And, please stay away from moving the commuter aircraft to the main terminal as as it will create massive head-to-head taxiing problems and increase runway occupancy times of landing commuter aircraft. Run trolley -type buses to the Old Town Transit Center - the SD trolley would be a waste of money. Currently the 992 bus looks empty every time I see it.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 8):
Concept 6 would have given RW 27 that CAT III approach by extending the runway west (over and past the NTC Boat Channel). That Concept was shown by the RAA, even though it violated all their criteria for dwelling units and population relocation. While it did show what it would take to build SAN to provide dual ILS capability, even though I believe East flow would have been required for Dual ILS's, it as interpreted by many that the RAA was in favor of it.

It was a bit more than just the boat channel. It was most of Loma Portal being leveled. Such a modification was never supported, nor was it ever possible to achieve.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 8):
With the new RAA board, they now have a couple of new members who were part of the NO crowd. I just hope they don't try to over invest in SAN to the point where, if Miramar becomes available, the pitch would be that we couldn't move due to the money sunk into SAN.

That's not happening.

[Edited 2007-06-05 00:40:10]

User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 784 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1994 times:

If I'm not mistaken. Isn't there two high rise hotels in the same vicinity of the two proposed hotel towers? One of which is
the Sheraton Harbor Island? I could see that it may cause problems with North Island NAS, but not so much as Lindbergh. Those developers can be well assured, that if this project goes through, the Navy will be fighting it tooth and
nail, just like they did with Miramar.(which was ridiculous).

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 2):
developer damage to SAN.

The developer damage is not just limited to Lindbergh, It's all over town.Every little strip of land they find,they plop more strip malls and condos on it.The downtown area has condos on every corner now,with more going up in between.It's developers run amok!



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1985 times:

Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 10):
If I'm not mistaken. Isn't there two high rise hotels in the same vicinity of the two proposed hotel towers? One of which is
the Sheraton Harbor Island?

Those are 145 feet, the one proposed is 282'. The maximum is about 146'.


User currently offlineTrvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 9):

That's not happening.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly what happens in a few years. It's not a logical argument, but there hasn't been a logical argument on that side of the issue in years.

Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 10):

The developer damage is not just limited to Lindbergh, It's all over town.Every little strip of land they find,they plop more strip malls and condos on it.The downtown area has condos on every corner now,with more going up in between.It's developers run amok!

The boom is over in the downtown condo market, with more and more projects not already under construction going on hold. However, like aviation, this market is cyclical, and we can probably expect an upturn in a couple of years.

What downtown really needs, in my opinion, is more diverse development. Until last month's announcement by the Irvine Company, which plans a 34-story Class A office tower near the Embarcadero, there were very few non-hotel commercial projects under construction or in the planning phase. More importantly, however, downtown needs more services for people who live there. The area will not become a sustainable community until there are more schools, supermarkets, and developed park space.


User currently offlineTootallsd From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1835 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Trvlr (Reply 12):
What downtown really needs, in my opinion, is more diverse development. Until last month's announcement by the Irvine Company, which plans a 34-story Class A office tower near the Embarcadero, there were very few non-hotel commercial projects under construction or in the planning phase. More importantly, however, downtown needs more services for people who live there. The area will not become a sustainable community until there are more schools, supermarkets, and developed park space.

As a resident of downtown I both agree and disagree. First off, more diversity in terms of increased office space probably provides additional employment options. However, San Diego has never been a big manufacturing town, so that is not really an option.

If I had school age children, I think schools would be an issue for me. But I don't know if there is an easy solution there at all. I would say that we have a good community college campus at City and trolley access to the SDSU campus -- so without driving you have two decent options.

I do think that downtown is already far more sustainable than other neighborhood of San Diego. We have a huge range of culture options, outdoors (when you factor in adjacent Balboa Park), restaurants. Shopping, particularly grocery shopping, is not an issue. The addition of Albertsons in the East Village has been a major improvement over Ralphs. Rumor indicates that Trader Joes will move into the ground floor of the full block condo project underway at 10th and A.


User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 784 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1799 times:

Forgive me if this was posted already,or belongs in another thread, but since we were on the subject of SAN, I was just
driving down the I-5 during the night and I happened to see what looked like two 737 Bizjets parked at the Jimsair side,alongside this rare visitor: an A340!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jerry pang










Does anyone know why it's here? The above aircraft looked like the one I saw at Lindbergh tonight.



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4763 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1772 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Yeah, I saw it parked over at Jimsair on Sunday. According to one of my supervisors, the Prince of Saudi Arabia is in town.


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1742 times:

Quoting Trvlr (Reply 12):
I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly what happens in a few years. It's not a logical argument, but there hasn't been a logical argument on that side of the issue in years.

They will buiild out terminal 2 and that's about it. They are on the investement course however not to close Lindbergh but build a new replacement and keep Lindbergh if this goes beyond 2013.


User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 784 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1641 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 16):
They will buiild out terminal 2 and that's about it.

The question is, when are they going to start building it out? Or are they going to spend the next 20 years sitting around talking about it and conducting more studies while the airport bursts at the seams? The local politicians and the Airport Authority people makes me more and more cynical of them when they continue to procrastinate on the airport situation.
 pessimist 



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1608 times:

Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 17):
The question is, when are they going to start building it out? Or are they going to spend the next 20 years sitting around talking about it and conducting more studies while the airport bursts at the seams? The local politicians and the Airport Authority people makes me more and more cynical of them when they continue to procrastinate on the airport situation.

Its in environmental review right now. They have a land fill to clean up before they can build it compliments of the Navy.


User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 784 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1555 times:

I saw in a previous thread of the master plan which really looks great which include a parking structure,and the terminal gate areas that could accomodate two 787's,which should be enough to buy some time at Lindbergh until they really get
off the pot and take leadership in finding a new airport site,whether it be Miramar,the desert, or someplace feasible. It seems as if the SD Airport Authority's not doing anything at all anymore after that Nov.defeat on Miramar,and yes,I know Christine Kehoe's still got her fingers in the whole mess now, but the only activity that appears to be ongoing is new members replacing old members.That's about it.



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1509 times:

Quote:
until they really get off the pot and take leadership in finding a new airport site

        

THAT made my day!! Leadership...ha ha ha!! That's funny...

I love my city dearly, but I don't hold any illusions for San Diego or southern California - logic has nothing to do with any long-term decisions. Until it really hurts, no planning or forsight will go into ANYTHING. Buy some time, play the military card, keep spending the tax dollars, and hope the public loses interest.

However, I still hope that it doesn't require a body count before someone wakes up and says, "Hey, a skyscraper probably shouldn't be built near the approach to an airport!!"

[Edited 2007-06-06 23:55:29]


Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 784 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1489 times:

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 19):
However, I still hope that it doesn't require a body count before someone wakes up and says, "Hey, a skyscraper probably shouldn't be built near the approach to an airport!!"

You know? I fully agree with you. Being a SD native, I still hold out hope that this city can fully live up to its potential.But the sad reality is that as you said, nothing will ever get accomplished until some unfortunate incident motivates people to action.It's the old saying:'If it ain't broke,don't fix it",unfortunately,the airport is breaking and many people don't believe it is,
until it breaks. Many locals have such a cavalier attitude towards the airport and would not even see a problem with having parking garages in the flight path,or high rise hotels and office buildings in close proximity,until an incident occurs,then boom! "Let's do something about it!," or how about this? "It's all the airport's fault for allowing those jetliners to land there!",ignoring the fact that those high rises should not have ever been built near the airport in the first place.   

[Edited 2007-06-07 00:48:51]


PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineSocalfive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1441 times:

Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 20):
I still hold out hope that this city can fully live up to its potential.But the sad reality is that as you said, nothing will ever get accomplished

There's way too many more important issues to deal with, like blocking Walmart from building Super Centers. Thank goodness we don't have to worry about Walmart now, it was keeping me up at night. Von's Albertson's, Ralphs's and the labor unions PAID council members for that legislation. The Chargers debacle, the airport, there's nothing these bozos can accomplish in City Hall without graft, shame, humiliation, and millions upon millions of wasted tax dollars being the outcome. Welcome to San Diego, Enron by the Bay!


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1372 times:

Speaking of cleaning up the Department of the Navy's "no you can't have Miramar because we're better for the region and environmental stewards but we can have a fuel farm leak in Point Loma and dump human excrement in your bay then leave behind a toxic mess for you to clean up"....


http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/artic...007/06/08/news/01cleanup060807.txt


Yeah.. $61 million smackers and mercury levels off the chart....


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Now It's SLC PD's Turn: Photos Illegal posted Tue Sep 19 2006 05:34:28 by FlightShadow
Now It's Official: Aeroflot Is A Sky Team Partner! posted Fri Apr 14 2006 11:02:02 by 777
First Air Jamaica. Now It's BWIA's Turn. posted Wed Jul 13 2005 20:47:21 by Westindian425
Now It's Really Official - Boeing 777LRF Launched posted Tue Nov 16 2004 00:20:08 by Boeing nut
It's Official! VS To Codeshare SQ Flight From 10/1 posted Fri Sep 7 2001 06:50:41 by Jiml1126
SIANZ: Hoorah! Now It's 6 September! posted Mon Sep 3 2001 09:34:12 by Singapore_Air
Brazil And Canada At It Again (B Vs E) posted Sat Apr 14 2001 09:43:41 by Watewate
San Diego Vs San Jose, Comparisons posted Thu Apr 26 2007 16:38:32 by Juventus
It Is Now Air Indian posted Thu Mar 29 2007 05:11:04 by Schipholjfk
SAN-MCO On Airtran Now Official posted Mon Mar 19 2007 05:35:29 by San747