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)

Streamliner Jul 31, 2018 2:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joemamma (Post 8267293)
Can anyone in the know please explain to me what exactly an environmental report is, and why is it so often used to hold up projects? Is it truly something regarding this sites' environmental conditions, or is it just an easy way for another party to throw a wrench in the development gears?

Thanks

Joe

Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) are a requirement for many large projects in California. It's based on 1970s legislation called the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The reports are meant to provide a way to disclose to the public what effects a project would have on the environment. The environment isn't just birds and butterflies, but also includes issues related to traffic, noise, aesthetics, archaeology/paleontology, public services (fire/police/school capacity), utilities, geology, hydrology, and others.

Since these are public documents that are meant to adequately assess a project's impacts, they naturally become easy targets for people who want to sue to hold up a project, for a variety of reasons. Some truly want to make sure that the public is fully informed, others like to threaten lawsuits in the hopes that some other conditions are satisfied. I believe 7th and Market's EIR was threatening a lawsuit from a labor union to ensure that the future tenant would hire union workers.

Will O' Wisp Aug 1, 2018 8:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streamliner (Post 8267679)
Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) are a requirement for many large projects in California. It's based on 1970s legislation called the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The reports are meant to provide a way to disclose to the public what effects a project would have on the environment. The environment isn't just birds and butterflies, but also includes issues related to traffic, noise, aesthetics, archaeology/paleontology, public services (fire/police/school capacity), utilities, geology, hydrology, and others.

Since these are public documents that are meant to adequately assess a project's impacts, they naturally become easy targets for people who want to sue to hold up a project, for a variety of reasons. Some truly want to make sure that the public is fully informed, others like to threaten lawsuits in the hopes that some other conditions are satisfied. I believe 7th and Market's EIR was threatening a lawsuit from a labor union to ensure that the future tenant would hire union workers.

All very true, to explain further there are a few other aspects to CEQA that can be abused to slow down/stop a project. First, if you want a full EIR it can take up to two years just to get through that process. There are less stringent options available like an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Declaration of No Significant Impact (DNSI), but as I'll explain below these are associated with a certain amount of risk.

Second, more or less anyone is entitled to sue a developer under CEQA if they believe that the environmental studies conducted were inadequate or misleading. Initiating a CEQA lawsuit effectively revokes permitting approval of a project until it's resolved, so right there that's holding up the timeline. It typically takes about a year before our overburdened judiciary can find the time to hear your case, and once you're in the courtroom you're essentially guilty until proven innocent. It's on the developers to prove whatever claim their opponents are making lack merit, which if they haven't already done a full EIR can force that whole process to start all over again. And if the plaintiffs are really determined, they can keep appealing up to the appellate court and the superior court over the next year or two.

n the more fraudulent cases the issues brought up by the plaintiffs are knowingly non-existent, and often a cover for their real complaints against the project which don't fall under CEQA's domain. You can't sue under CEQA to "preserve neighborhood character" or force an employer to hire union employees, but you can make them spend large amounts of money and time conducting traffic study after traffic study or some-such. The plaintiffs will also usually form a non-profit as their legal vehicle, which isn't legally required to disclose its membership and can be easily dissolved in the event of a counter-suit, so there's very little consequences to them for doing any of this as well.

joemamma Aug 1, 2018 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streamliner (Post 8267679)
Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) are a requirement for many large projects in California. It's based on 1970s legislation called the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The reports are meant to provide a way to disclose to the public what effects a project would have on the environment. The environment isn't just birds and butterflies, but also includes issues related to traffic, noise, aesthetics, archaeology/paleontology, public services (fire/police/school capacity), utilities, geology, hydrology, and others.

Since these are public documents that are meant to adequately assess a project's impacts, they naturally become easy targets for people who want to sue to hold up a project, for a variety of reasons. Some truly want to make sure that the public is fully informed, others like to threaten lawsuits in the hopes that some other conditions are satisfied. I believe 7th and Market's EIR was threatening a lawsuit from a labor union to ensure that the future tenant would hire union workers.


Very informative and interesting, thank you.

joemamma Aug 1, 2018 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 8268768)
All very true, to explain further there are a few other aspects to CEQA that can be abused to slow down/stop a project. First, if you want a full EIR it can take up to two years just to get through that process. There are less stringent options available like an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Declaration of No Significant Impact (DNSI), but as I'll explain below these are associated with a certain amount of risk.

Second, more or less anyone is entitled to sue a developer under CEQA if they believe that the environmental studies conducted were inadequate or misleading. Initiating a CEQA lawsuit effectively revokes permitting approval of a project until it's resolved, so right there that's holding up the timeline. It typically takes about a year before our overburdened judiciary can find the time to hear your case, and once you're in the courtroom you're essentially guilty until proven innocent. It's on the developers to prove whatever claim their opponents are making lack merit, which if they haven't already done a full EIR can force that whole process to start all over again. And if the plaintiffs are really determined, they can keep appealing up to the appellate court and the superior court over the next year or two.

n the more fraudulent cases the issues brought up by the plaintiffs are knowingly non-existent, and often a cover for their real complaints against the project which don't fall under CEQA's domain. You can't sue under CEQA to "preserve neighborhood character" or force an employer to hire union employees, but you can make them spend large amounts of money and time conducting traffic study after traffic study or some-such. The plaintiffs will also usually form a non-profit as their legal vehicle, which isn't legally required to disclose its membership and can be easily dissolved in the event of a counter-suit, so there's very little consequences to them for doing any of this as well.


Thanks Will for the further info.

joemamma Aug 3, 2018 3:27 PM

July DT Update
 
http://civicsd.com/wp-content/upload.../July-2018.pdf

Interesting to see some of the estimated completion dates, and current phases.

SDCAL Aug 3, 2018 3:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nv_2897 (Post 8264769)
Does anyone know when the Ritz Carlton project is supposed to break ground? It Would add some nice needed height in East Village and It would be Sd's (downtowns) first 5 star hotel and residenceshttps://i.imgur.com/Mbo1WKw.jpg

I talked to someone involved a few weeks ago. They are settling the lawsuit and supposed to break ground in April. Was hoping it would be this year, but at least it’s not dead

mello Aug 3, 2018 8:30 PM

^^^ Not breaking ground till next April... Sheesh lagging hard but at least it will get built. Hey it will finish for 2022 when the Padres will win the World Series loooool!! The economy will have cratered but we'll have a dope baseball squad and the skyline view from PetCo will be epic with 7th and Market finally done. ;)

CIVIC SD List: So what does "Pending Completion of Building Plans" Mean. Scroll down and you see the big/tall projects already approved but not started and that is what their status reads. All high rises with that status : 499 W Ash-- 1122 4th Ave. (Renderings anyone don't remember this one) -- 1st & Beech --
7th & A -- Citiplace N side of Ash between 1st & Front --

Also AC Hotel says this status as well. Tons of projects so I'm guessing that just means they are stalled and can't get financing. And what is up with AC Hotel that has been stalled for a looooong time?

Nv_2897 Aug 3, 2018 11:05 PM

https://news.theregistrysf.com/bridg...ent-san-diego/
https://i.imgur.com/WRJSrpR.jpg

Proposed tower next to Ariel in little Italy

Nv_2897 Aug 3, 2018 11:15 PM

Also with the Bosa owned site next to harbor club i kind of wished that they worked with Brandon Martella with his proposed vertical farm on the site. I feel this tower would be a show stopper/ signature worthy tower I feel that his design was much better and unique than the other proposed tower plus it would also be a nice gap filler and would add some depth and detail to our skyline
https://i.imgur.com/mE5tewH.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/2Z0zOSm.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/6umFsMw.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/bKxxZvJ.png
https://i.imgur.com/wyulITW.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/vq8htfD.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/1GEuNZq.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/imgNm1j.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/O7ttXVZ.jpg

mSeattle Aug 7, 2018 1:25 AM

That is STUNNING! Build it now!

Streamliner Aug 8, 2018 9:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joemamma (Post 8269759)
Very informative and interesting, thank you.

For a real-time example, I just saw this article in the Union Tribune today:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...56-story.html#

Summary: A labor union is suing a dense suburban project in Penasquitos because they claim its EIR didn't adequately address biological, greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, and traffic impacts. The labor union has simultaneously requested that the developer agree to a project labor agreement...

eburress Aug 8, 2018 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streamliner (Post 8275710)
For a real-time example, I just saw this article in the Union Tribune today:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...56-story.html#

Summary: A labor union is suing a dense suburban project in Penasquitos because they claim its EIR didn't adequately address biological, greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, and traffic impacts. The labor union has simultaneously requested that the developer agree to a project labor agreement...

Soooo frustrating.

spoonman Aug 9, 2018 3:36 AM

Democrats hard at work..

Boatguy619 Aug 9, 2018 9:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 8275997)
Democrats hard at work..

Sure wish we could give a comment a like. "Progressives" keep holding progress back. I've been trying to build a campground in Kern County for years. Currently in the process of getting the conditional use permit and starting the EIR now. Seems like no end in site. Sacramento makes it nearly impossible for a billionaire to invest here, let alone a guy like me. Then they wonder why theres a housing shortage. Why would anyone consider building anything here?

Will O' Wisp Aug 10, 2018 2:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 8275997)
Democrats hard at work..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boatguy619 (Post 8276732)
Sure wish we could give a comment a like. "Progressives" keep holding progress back. I've been trying to build a campground in Kern County for years. Currently in the process of getting the conditional use permit and starting the EIR now. Seems like no end in site. Sacramento makes it nearly impossible for a billionaire to invest here, let alone a guy like me. Then they wonder why theres a housing shortage. Why would anyone consider building anything here?

I hate to break this to you, but CEQA was passed in 1970 by a republican state legislature (21R vs 19D in the senate, 41R vs 39D in the assembly) and signed by a republican governor (Ronald Regan). In many ways it actually represents the traditional conservative solution to environmental regulation. The 1969 passage of federal NEPA laws and the founding of the EPA meant states lacking any form of environmental review risked having laws dictated to them by Washington instead. Obviously, Regan and co weren't going to want that. But rather than raise taxes to form a statewide agency dedicated to permitting new developments, a concept anathema to conservative philosophy, the they instead crafted a very complex bill that was essentially designed to deputize every Californian to approve or disprove projects in their local area instead.

Much of CEQA's flaws come from this desire to make it a taxpayer money free, self-enforcing law. Allowing anyone to sue under a CEQA complaint means you don't have to pay a bureaucracy to investigate potential violations, but it also gives the lowest common denominator free reign to gum up the works. NIMBYs can sue against high density housing, atheists can sue against churches, anti-abortion activists can sue against planned parenthood clinics, all for equally flimsy reasons and there's not a lot that can stop it. It's gotten to the point now though where anyone with a few hundred thousand dollars and Cory Briggs' phone number can cost a developer millions upon millions, and that's a power small yet vocal groups on both sides of the aisle are loathe to give up.

The Flying Dutchman Aug 10, 2018 2:37 AM

I'm sitting next to a 500+ page document containing the 2018 CEQA guidelines. It has without question, placed massive regulatory burdens on the entitlement process. Where I work, we have to write legally defensible (airtight) CEQA reports that basically anticipate the slightest erroneous challenge, because litigation often occurs and the 'Act continues to metastasize. The man-hours involved in processing a project of even moderate size can add $$$ to the cost. There are people like me who entire career revolves around this. At least it pays o.k.

SDCAL Aug 10, 2018 4:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boatguy619 (Post 8276732)
Sure wish we could give a comment a like. "Progressives" keep holding progress back. I've been trying to build a campground in Kern County for years. Currently in the process of getting the conditional use permit and starting the EIR now. Seems like no end in site. Sacramento makes it nearly impossible for a billionaire to invest here, let alone a guy like me. Then they wonder why theres a housing shortage. Why would anyone consider building anything here?

This isn’t a political forum nor a thread for Kern county development, but I’ll respond. If progressives are so anti-development, then why are SF and LA light years ahead of SD when it comes to infrastructure and high rise development. Plenty of conservative NIMBYs in this town who don’t want their views blocked or their neighborhoods getting more density.

spoonman Aug 10, 2018 1:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 8277016)
I hate to break this to you, but CEQA was passed in 1970 by a republican state legislature (21R vs 19D in the senate, 41R vs 39D in the assembly) and signed by a republican governor (Ronald Regan). In many ways it actually represents the traditional conservative solution to environmental regulation. The 1969 passage of federal NEPA laws and the founding of the EPA meant states lacking any form of environmental review risked having laws dictated to them by Washington instead. Obviously, Regan and co weren't going to want that. But rather than raise taxes to form a statewide agency dedicated to permitting new developments, a concept anathema to conservative philosophy, the they instead crafted a very complex bill that was essentially designed to deputize every Californian to approve or disprove projects in their local area instead.

Much of CEQA's flaws come from this desire to make it a taxpayer money free, self-enforcing law. Allowing anyone to sue under a CEQA complaint means you don't have to pay a bureaucracy to investigate potential violations, but it also gives the lowest common denominator free reign to gum up the works. NIMBYs can sue against high density housing, atheists can sue against churches, anti-abortion activists can sue against planned parenthood clinics, all for equally flimsy reasons and there's not a lot that can stop it. It's gotten to the point now though where anyone with a few hundred thousand dollars and Cory Briggs' phone number can cost a developer millions upon millions, and that's a power small yet vocal groups on both sides of the aisle are loathe to give up.

Yes, if only the agency was larger and had more money :uhh: Where have I heard that before?

Streamliner Aug 10, 2018 3:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp (Post 8277016)
Much of CEQA's flaws come from this desire to make it a taxpayer money free, self-enforcing law. Allowing anyone to sue under a CEQA complaint means you don't have to pay a bureaucracy to investigate potential violations, but it also gives the lowest common denominator free reign to gum up the works. NIMBYs can sue against high density housing, atheists can sue against churches, anti-abortion activists can sue against planned parenthood clinics, all for equally flimsy reasons and there's not a lot that can stop it. It's gotten to the point now though where anyone with a few hundred thousand dollars and Cory Briggs' phone number can cost a developer millions upon millions, and that's a power small yet vocal groups on both sides of the aisle are loathe to give up.

Well said. Accountability to the public is a double-edged sword.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman (Post 8277038)
I'm sitting next to a 500+ page document containing the 2018 CEQA guidelines. It has without question, placed massive regulatory burdens on the entitlement process. Where I work, we have to write legally defensible (airtight) CEQA reports that basically anticipate the slightest erroneous challenge, because litigation often occurs and the 'Act continues to metastasize. The man-hours involved in processing a project of even moderate size can add $$$ to the cost. There are people like me who entire career revolves around this. At least it pays o.k.

I'm also sitting next to that document. I have a feeling Will O' Wisp is too. Is everyone on this forum in the CEQA business?

iReserve Aug 10, 2018 4:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 8271444)
I talked to someone involved a few weeks ago. They are settling the lawsuit and supposed to break ground in April. Was hoping it would be this year, but at least it’s not dead

"...The case study speakers discussed the 7th & Market project, which has been in the works for a few years, and lately gummed up by legal challenges. Those difficulties, according to Jason Wood, are nearly over. Plans for the project include San Diego's first Ritz-Carlton, along with office and retail, and both rental and for-sale residential space.

"We spent 2017 fighting a CEQA lawsuit, which we won," Wood said. "The plaintiffs appealed, and now we're negotiating with them. We're very close to having the lawsuit dropped, and we've returned to the capital markets to get our financing back in order. It looks like the project is a go again."

The Ritz-Carlton project is on a full block Downtown on a site owned by the city of San Diego. In 2015, Wood said, the city selected Cisterra to develop the project.

"There were certain things the city wanted, such as 200 public parking and 200 resident units and 50K SF of commercial space," Wood said. "We decided that we wanted to deliver a project that not only meet those requirements, but exceeded them. We decided to do top-notch."

Part of the early process was approaching Marriott and proposing a Ritz-Carlton, since there were hotels of that brand in San Diego, as well as Whole Foods, though the grocer has since pulled out of the project.”

https://www.bisnow.com/san-diego/new...rage-731-91591


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:35 PM.

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