SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   City Compilations (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2 (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=126473)

HurricaneHugo Aug 30, 2020 6:05 AM

City picks developer for developing new Sports Arena/Entertainment district:

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2020/aug/2...eloper-build-/

HurricaneHugo Aug 30, 2020 6:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 9026824)
Keep in mind this is one of two proposals. The second is by the Padres and is supported by the downtown partnership, chamber and others. It's much more underwhelming...

Here's the virtual open house to see both proposals:

https://eastvillagequarterinput.org/

Will O' Wisp Aug 30, 2020 8:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo (Post 9026878)
City picks developer for developing new Sports Arena/Entertainment district:

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2020/aug/2...eloper-build-/

Wow, there's a pretty good chance Brookfield might end up developing both the sports arena and the petco lot (Brookfield has the proposal we're all drooling over). In a single swoop they'll have gone from relative outsiders in San Diego development to being mentioned in the same breath as Bosa, Manchester, and Stockdale.

roletand Sep 2, 2020 6:06 PM

Do you think the Padres' proposal is at risk considering Cisterra is part of their JV and the city is now withholding rent payments for 101 Ash?

Voice of San Diego - City Is Halting Rent Payments on 101 Ash St.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 9026900)
Wow, there's a pretty good chance Brookfield might end up developing both the sports arena and the petco lot (Brookfield has the proposal we're all drooling over). In a single swoop they'll have gone from relative outsiders in San Diego development to being mentioned in the same breath as Bosa, Manchester, and Stockdale.


Will O' Wisp Sep 3, 2020 5:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roletand (Post 9030063)
Do you think the Padres' proposal is at risk considering Cisterra is part of their JV and the city is now withholding rent payments for 101 Ash?

Voice of San Diego - City Is Halting Rent Payments on 101 Ash St.

That's a public RFP process, so legally the answer is required to be no. If the city even so much as mentions an unproven claim that's currently subject to litigation in its justification for selection, it can expect a lawsuit for acting in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner. Quite frankly, if Cisterra loses there's a good chance they will sue the city regardless if it really played a part or not.

roletand Sep 3, 2020 4:19 PM

The RFQ/RFP for East Village Quarter doesn't seem to be accessible without creating a vendor login on PlanetBids, however some of the addendum are. I can't see the scoring categories, but the city makes it pretty clear in the Q&A that they can change how they weight them at their discretion.

Quote:

Question 13. What are the top five factors in determining the winning party? Please rank them.

RESPONSE: Page 9 and 10 of the RFQ provide the City Objectives and the City’s Preferred Development Concept. The RFQ Section 9 Evaluation Criteria identifies the minimum qualifications and evaluation criteria. As stated in section 9, “[t]he weighting of criteria and scoring of submittals shall be determined in the City’s sole discretion.”
Source: THIRD ADDENDUM to Request for Qualifications of Development Teams For the Disposition and Development of East Village Quarter
https://www.planetbids.com/portal/po...ompanyID=24128

Will O' Wisp Sep 3, 2020 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roletand (Post 9031067)
The RFQ/RFP for East Village Quarter doesn't seem to be accessible without creating a vendor login on PlanetBids, however some of the addendum are. I can't see the scoring categories, but the city makes it pretty clear in the Q&A that they can change how they weight them at their discretion.



Source: THIRD ADDENDUM to Request for Qualifications of Development Teams For the Disposition and Development of East Village Quarter
https://www.planetbids.com/portal/po...ompanyID=24128

"Arbitrary and capricious" is a legal term, so its meaning may not line up with what the colloquial meaning of the phrase might be.

I'm no lawyer, but the way I've always understood the concept as it relates to RFPs is that public agencies have broad discretion to choose among proposals, but not with who they do business with.

So for example, say a city has some land to lease and gets two proposals to build on it. One proposes to build an apartment complex, a school, some community spaces, and some stores. The other is a billionaire who offers double the rent of anyone else if he can build a giant mansion. The city can say their community will benefit more from additional housing, retail, etc than the extra rent, even if they didn't mention this explicitly in the RFP.

Now lets say I'm a city manager awarding contracts to mow the lawn in front of city hall. You run a gardening company, and submitted the lowest bid to perform the work, but last week I heard you ran over someone's dog. I call you an evil, dog hating monster and give the contract to someone else. That was illegal, because you running over a dog has nothing to do with your employees' ability to mow a lawn. I am using public funds to push a personal vendetta, and acting in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner.

This comes up because at this point there's no proof Cisterra has done anything illegal, or even anything wrong. In court they are going to argue that they didn't know 101 Ash St was full of asbestos, that it was the city's responsibility to check before buying the building and tearing out all the walls, and that the city is trying to punish them rather than admit it acted irresponsibly. And even if Cisterra did screw over the city by selling it a lemon, that alone is hardly proof that they won't build what they say they'll build now.

Not that the city even needs to say that, they can legitimately say that the Brookfield proposal has more housing, a larger investment, etc instead. Cisterra might still sue though just to gain a bargaining chip for the fight over 101 Ash.

roletand Sep 3, 2020 11:29 PM

Thanks for the breakdown! I hope whatever the decision is, the city and the developer can keep delays to a minimum during negotiation. The Padres are saying they could break ground as soon as 2025, and Brookfield isn't willing to comment on any potential construction date.

Either way, it's a long haul between now and golden shovels in the ground.

Will O' Wisp Sep 5, 2020 9:38 PM

Welp, I told you guys to prepare for the 1970s experience of watching your transit dreams bite it. Guess here we are.

Internal audit finds SANDAG leadership approved improper payments

Full report

I'm trying to wrap my head around all of this but the audit basically alleges that Ikhrata has been running SANDAG as his own personal fiefdom, without any form of oversight, and has used that power abusively. In detail he's being accused of:

-refusing to acknowledge there are any limits to his ability to hire, fire, promote, transfer, or give monetary bonuses to SANDAG employees

-lying to the SANDAG board that they are not allowed any form of oversight, and claiming that he can essentially make his own rules as far as the above goes

-paying several retiring SANDAG employees large severance payments without proper justification (there's a strong implication this was done to keep them from badmouthing him to the press/the SANDAG board)

-giving out monetary bonuses and pay raises to SANDAG employees with little documentation, and sometimes without clear justification

-promoting employees to executive level positions without competition, possibly violating state discrimination laws

-changing employees from full time into at-will employment (so they could be fired without standard process)

-nearly doubling SANDAG's overall salary costs for no real benefit, and hiding this from the SANDAG Board

-harassing the auditor while she was trying to make this report

Ikhrata has responded that this is the way things have always been run at SANDAG, that the Board's oversight role consists of their ability to fire him, and that this auditor is biased against him. Probably not the best move, considering this audit was commissioned by the state after the failures of the last SANDAG administration...

SDfan Sep 6, 2020 4:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 9033245)
Welp, I told you guys to prepare for the 1970s experience of watching your transit dreams bite it. Guess here we are.

Internal audit finds SANDAG leadership approved improper payments

Full report

I'm trying to wrap my head around all of this but the audit basically alleges that Ikhrata has been running SANDAG as his own personal fiefdom, without any form of oversight, and has used that power abusively. In detail he's being accused of:

-refusing to acknowledge there are any limits to his ability to hire, fire, promote, transfer, or give monetary bonuses to SANDAG employees

-lying to the SANDAG board that they are not allowed any form of oversight, and claiming that he can essentially make his own rules as far as the above goes

-paying several retiring SANDAG employees large severance payments without proper justification (there's a strong implication this was done to keep them from badmouthing him to the press/the SANDAG board)

-giving out monetary bonuses and pay raises to SANDAG employees with little documentation, and sometimes without clear justification

-promoting employees to executive level positions without competition, possibly violating state discrimination laws

-changing employees from full time into at-will employment (so they could be fired without standard process)

-nearly doubling SANDAG's overall salary costs for no real benefit, and hiding this from the SANDAG Board

-harassing the auditor while she was trying to make this report

Ikhrata has responded that this is the way things have always been run at SANDAG, that the Board's oversight role consists of their ability to fire him, and that this auditor is biased against him. Probably not the best move, considering this audit was commissioned by the state after the failures of the last SANDAG administration...

Eh. I'll believe this is impactful if he's fired. Till then, meh.

sanatty Sep 9, 2020 8:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 9033245)
Welp, I told you guys to prepare for the 1970s experience of watching your transit dreams bite it. Guess here we are.

Internal audit finds SANDAG leadership approved improper payments

Full report

I'm trying to wrap my head around all of this but the audit basically alleges that Ikhrata has been running SANDAG as his own personal fiefdom, without any form of oversight, and has used that power abusively. In detail he's being accused of:

-refusing to acknowledge there are any limits to his ability to hire, fire, promote, transfer, or give monetary bonuses to SANDAG employees

-lying to the SANDAG board that they are not allowed any form of oversight, and claiming that he can essentially make his own rules as far as the above goes

-paying several retiring SANDAG employees large severance payments without proper justification (there's a strong implication this was done to keep them from badmouthing him to the press/the SANDAG board)

-giving out monetary bonuses and pay raises to SANDAG employees with little documentation, and sometimes without clear justification

-promoting employees to executive level positions without competition, possibly violating state discrimination laws

-changing employees from full time into at-will employment (so they could be fired without standard process)

-nearly doubling SANDAG's overall salary costs for no real benefit, and hiding this from the SANDAG Board

-harassing the auditor while she was trying to make this report

Ikhrata has responded that this is the way things have always been run at SANDAG, that the Board's oversight role consists of their ability to fire him, and that this auditor is biased against him. Probably not the best move, considering this audit was commissioned by the state after the failures of the last SANDAG administration...

As I've said before, Ikhrata is a goner. He proposed something that will never fly in our community - talk about failing to "read a room" - and now he's going to get *rightfully* run out of town for this failure.

He proposed a pie-in-the-sky hundred-billion-dollar plus transit plan in the middle of a pandemic (not his fault) to a city and region that are only prepared for incremental change.

On top of that, he proposed a transit system that's ill-suited to San Diego's multi-nodal employment patterns and completely ignored the unique needs of a long and narrow region with employment centers scattered along nearly the region's entire length.

Why he didn't go for the low-hanging fruit of a Purple Line trolley extension, a commuter rail along the 15-corridor and the long promised expansion of the north county freeways (perhaps with transit built into the median)??? Simple, ego and failure to "read the room".

sanatty Sep 9, 2020 8:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 9033466)
Eh. I'll believe this is impactful if he's fired. Till then, meh.

Whether or not he's fired (he will be, whether now for this; or later when his plan crashes and burns) - his plan is DOA and there's really no excuse for his failure to "read the room" and propose something that has even an infinitesimal chance of being implemented...

SDfan Sep 9, 2020 9:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sanatty (Post 9036739)
Whether or not he's fired (he will be, whether now for this; or later when his plan crashes and burns) - his plan is DOA and there's really no excuse for his failure to "read the room" and propose something that has even an infinitesimal chance of being implemented...

I don't agree, nor would I be as over dramatic. At the end of the day we need to transform our transportation system to get folks out of their cars to meet state climate law. Low hanging fruit won't meet state law, Gary proved that time and time again with his failed plans that got tossed out of court. That's what this whole process has been about for Hasan--big change to meet state law. Incrementalism in the face the climate crisis isn't gonna cut it. ;)

SDCAL Sep 10, 2020 3:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sanatty (Post 9036739)
Whether or not he's fired (he will be, whether now for this; or later when his plan crashes and burns) - his plan is DOA and there's really no excuse for his failure to "read the room" and propose something that has even an infinitesimal chance of being implemented...

This is a catch-22.

Reading the room = catering to NIMBYS.

If we had a non-controversial do nothing in there giving us the same half-assed crap SANDAG has put out the last many decades, people on this board would be complaining about how insufficient the transportation plan is.

I’m not a fan of the corruption that has been swirling but I’m totally behind the plan he put out. Just because San Diegan’s will likely reject it doesn’t mean it’s not a good plan. In fact, that likely means it IS a good plan.

This is the city that had a chance to buy Miramar for $1 in the 1950s and turned it down

This is the city that turned down a smart city hall redevelopment about a decade ago that would have solved their impending leasing issues, and now it’s blown up in their faces with the old Sempra building

This is the city that time and time again has made some of the stupidest, narrow-minded urban planning decisions in the country.

I don’t consider a plan that fails to “read the room” bad at all; in fact, the “room” needs to be told they’ve f’d this city for far too long IMO

SDCAL Sep 10, 2020 4:00 AM

IS RETAIL DOWNTOWN DEAD?

So, the last remaining tenant of Horton Plaza closed. Jimbos Horton Plaza has only a few days left.

They are in the middle of a construction zone so I guess it shouldn’t be surprising, but there seems to be a really depressing void in downtown lately.

I know some of this is related to COVID-19, but I have to wonder what plans there are (if any) for the future of retail downtown.

There’s literally nothing left. It’s just restaurants and condos. Over the years I know there’s been proposals that have floated about putting a Target or Home Depot or other similar things, but it seems like they’ve all died.

I’m not sure what will be in the ground level of the Horton Plaza redevelopment, they are extremely vague about it.

I think there was supposed to be high end retail at Manchester’s Pacific Gateway and that crashed and burned.

Is there just not enough people living down here for retail? Horton Plaza did good for awhile, so I’m having trouble understand why this is such a huge void downtown.

sanatty Sep 10, 2020 4:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 9036775)
I don't agree, nor would I be as over dramatic. At the end of the day we need to transform our transportation system to get folks out of their cars to meet state climate law. Low hanging fruit won't meet state law, Gary proved that time and time again with his failed plans that got tossed out of court. That's what this whole process has been about for Hasan--big change to meet state law. Incrementalism in the face the climate crisis isn't gonna cut it. ;)

Whatever the plan is - it will require a tax passed by 2/3rd’s under state law. A lot of trains and no freeways - state climate law or not - simply won’t get the votes (after broken promises re freeways through past tax measures)... while the courts can invalidate SANDAG’s plans... they lack the power to impose a funding mechanism over the voter’s rejection. Any plan must start with the goal of securing 2/3rd county voter approval for the underlying funding mechanism or it’s all for naught, isn’t it?

sanatty Sep 10, 2020 4:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 9037188)
This is a catch-22.

Reading the room = catering to NIMBYS.

If we had a non-controversial do nothing in there giving us the same half-assed crap SANDAG has put out the last many decades, people on this board would be complaining about how insufficient the transportation plan is.

I’m not a fan of the corruption that has been swirling but I’m totally behind the plan he put out. Just because San Diegan’s will likely reject it doesn’t mean it’s not a good plan. In fact, that likely means it IS a good plan.

This is the city that had a chance to buy Miramar for $1 in the 1950s and turned it down

This is the city that turned down a smart city hall redevelopment about a decade ago that would have solved their impending leasing issues, and now it’s blown up in their faces with the old Sempra building

This is the city that time and time again has made some of the stupidest, narrow-minded urban planning decisions in the country.

I don’t consider a plan that fails to “read the room” bad at all; in fact, the “room” needs to be told they’ve f’d this city for far too long IMO

Whether you (or I) like it - any plan needs 2/3rds voter approval for the underlying funding mechanism. Without it - there’s nothing. Courts may be able to invalidate SANDAG plans they deem out of compliance with climate law - they lack power to impose a funding mechanism (tax) - only the voters (your dreaded NIMBYS) can do that. Seems silly not to craft a plan designed to win approval of the very people who... *checks notes* must ultimately approve the darn tax...

JerellO Sep 10, 2020 5:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 9037188)
This is a catch-22.

Reading the room = catering to NIMBYS.

If we had a non-controversial do nothing in there giving us the same half-assed crap SANDAG has put out the last many decades, people on this board would be complaining about how insufficient the transportation plan is.

I’m not a fan of the corruption that has been swirling but I’m totally behind the plan he put out. Just because San Diegan’s will likely reject it doesn’t mean it’s not a good plan. In fact, that likely means it IS a good plan.

This is the city that had a chance to buy Miramar for $1 in the 1950s and turned it down

This is the city that turned down a smart city hall redevelopment about a decade ago that would have solved their impending leasing issues, and now it’s blown up in their faces with the old Sempra building

This is the city that time and time again has made some of the stupidest, narrow-minded urban planning decisions in the country.

I don’t consider a plan that fails to “read the room” bad at all; in fact, the “room” needs to be told they’ve f’d this city for far too long IMO

The city that also turned down a bold and extensive subway system that would’ve served all of San Diego county, for a cheaper but weak light rail line

Will O' Wisp Sep 10, 2020 6:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 9037188)
This is a catch-22.
This is the city that had a chance to buy Miramar for $1 in the 1950s and turned it down

I'm not going to argue with the rest of your post, since I kinda sorta agree with it, but this myth is one of my pet peeves. The Navy never offer to sell Miramar to San Diego, not for any price.

In late 1947, after the mass drawdowns post-WW2, San Diego asked for and the Navy gave permission for joint use at Miramar. There was an understanding that this was for cargo flights and maybe a few international flights, so long as they didn't interfere with Navy operations. Lindbergh would be kept open to serve the majority of passenger flights. The city was given a 50 year lease on half the aircraft parking areas and development rights to everything south of the runways.

At the time Miramar's runways were too short for commercial airliners, so they would need to be extended before commercial service could start. San Diego at the time was broke, the curtailment of war protection left the unemployment rates at around 33%. In 1948 the city asked the CAB (predecessor to the FAA) for funding. The CAB declined, citing more urgent priorities and that San Diego could make due with just Lindbergh for a few years.

In 1949 congress approved the Woods Plan, which designated Miramar as a Master Jet Station and primary base for all Navy aircraft on the west coast. Funds to expand the airbase weren't appropriated until 1951. From 1949-1951 the city tried very hard to find a way to coexist on Miramar with the Navy, but it was not to be. In 1950 the Navy retook the entire aircraft parking area to make room for Korean War training. In 1952, after the Master Jet Station was completed, the city ceded their development rights under pressure from the Navy. By then it was clear level joint would never be possible.

SDfan Sep 10, 2020 4:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 9037276)
I'm not going to argue with the rest of your post, since I kinda sorta agree with it, but this myth is one of my pet peeves. The Navy never offer to sell Miramar to San Diego, not for any price.

In late 1947, after the mass drawdowns post-WW2, San Diego asked for and the Navy gave permission for joint use at Miramar. There was an understanding that this was for cargo flights and maybe a few international flights, so long as they didn't interfere with Navy operations. Lindbergh would be kept open to serve the majority of passenger flights. The city was given a 50 year lease on half the aircraft parking areas and development rights to everything south of the runways.

At the time Miramar's runways were too short for commercial airliners, so they would need to be extended before commercial service could start. San Diego at the time was broke, the curtailment of war protection left the unemployment rates at around 33%. In 1948 the city asked the CAB (predecessor to the FAA) for funding. The CAB declined, citing more urgent priorities and that San Diego could make due with just Lindbergh for a few years.

In 1949 congress approved the Woods Plan, which designated Miramar as a Master Jet Station and primary base for all Navy aircraft on the west coast. Funds to expand the airbase weren't appropriated until 1951. From 1949-1951 the city tried very hard to find a way to coexist on Miramar with the Navy, but it was not to be. In 1950 the Navy retook the entire aircraft parking area to make room for Korean War training. In 1952, after the Master Jet Station was completed, the city ceded their development rights under pressure from the Navy. By then it was clear level joint would never be possible.

Do you recall what happened in the in-between time when the Navy transferred Miramar to the Marines? I thought that was the big opportunity that SD had to claim the airport.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.