http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...?#article-copy

Interesting new idea....

I agree hopefully this could be worked out.

^ Great news. Love to see more varied height in that part of the Gaslamp.

Spoon, varied height? It is only 7 floors. I am more excited about the taller hotel on 5th ave finally moving forward.

Regarding SDSU and the Qualcomm site they must have boatloads of money to pay 300 million for the site, demolish a stadium, remediate the petroleum in the soil on the site, then move forward with some kind of development partner to build 6000 housing units, classroom space and research centers with UCSD. Would be interesting to see how they have all this money and who their development partners are.

What I mean is just that much of the Gaslamp's original structures are 0-3 floors, with the exception of some of the old hotels that are taller. While 7 floors is considered short throughout downtown, in my opinion, 7 floors will still help increase height in the central Gaslamp area that has the lowest building heights.

I saw this on sd_urban's (paul jamason's) twitter feed, super excited!

:cheers:

I also found the Draft Uptown Community Plan Urban Design Element on his twitter feed:

http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/com...wn/index.shtml

I skimmed it. With regards to height limits in the three neighborhoods (Bankers Hill, Hillcrest, Mission Hills) it proposes some interesting things.

Mission Hills would have a limit of 50' along corridor areas, and 30' in low density areas. That latter makes sense to me, but the former seems a bit excessive given the density already in the area. But whatever.

Bankers Hill would have upper limits of around 150' with strict set back and scaling regulations. Fine, I'll take it considering it's anything over 10 stories.

Hillcrest is the odd-ball. It allows a minstrel height limit of 50', with a discretionary review for anything up to 65'. Then after that, buildings can go up to 100' but will need to go through a more thorough review process including shadow studies, and the project would need to provide a public benefit.

I don't know why 15' makes much of a difference in order to trigger a planning review. They should just scrap the first review process, and make the 65' limit minstrel with anything above needing further review, or set it at 50' and go from there. It seems redundant.

If any of you would like to review the plan, please submit comments to:

Marlon I. Pangilinan, Senior Planner
City of San Diego
Planning Department
1222 1st Avenue MS 413
San Diego, CA 92101

It's important to have our voices heard over the NIMBY oligarchy in Uptown. Let them know not all San Diegans are against increased density!

Segal, along with Foundation for Form, is leaving an impressive mark on the city. This looks to be yet another interesting project, although I wonder, does this have ground floor retail / restaurant space like his other projects in North Park / Little Italy?

I agree with you for the most part on your assessment.

Mission Hills - 50' in the commercial areas seems a bit low, but whatever.

Banker's Hill - 150' seems reasonable, but I don't think projects here should have to go through the ringer to get to that height. Unfortunately, we may find that developers instead decide to build bulky stucco boxes instead of facing the wrath of the neighborhood for wanting to build up to 150'.

Hillcrest - 50' is low, and should be 65' without additional approval. The 100' limit seems reasonable to me in most areas (except that you have to jump through the ringer), but I would have liked to see 15-story (`150') projects in the Normal/Park Blvd/University triangle area. Street, freeway, and transit access there are fantastic, and the stuff there is pretty unremarkable and semi-commercial for the most part.

Middleton - I disn't expect big things here, but it would have been nice to get a little bit of height near the Washington St trolley station.

Medical Center area - I didn't see heights defined here. Seems that the hospitals can do what they want in that area, within reason (I know Scripps pushed back to height limits). I doubt residential developers could do the same, but would be interesting to learn more.

It will be interesting to see if this proposal passes and is put into place. I feel like I could live with this plan with a few changes in Hillcrest. That said, in any negotiation, you usually start "higher" and get negotiated down. I feel like from a development perspective, this plan barely cuts it. I would like to see the city start with higher limits before they are negotiated down by the NIMBY clan.

As SDCAL said, please share your thoughts with the planners, council rep, and mayor.

Here is Marlon's Email: mpangilinan@sandiego.gov
Mayor - kevinfaulconer@sandiego.gov
Todd GLoria - District 3 - toddgloria@sandiego.gov

Hey guys,

Can think of no better place to ask this question. Can you help update me on the following blocks, and whether anything is being developed, stalled, U/C, dead, coming soon, etc.

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/18...539/Uv7SqG.png

- 700 W. Broadway - Was Irvine Co. Is it dead?
- Bosa Parcel 9 - Is this happening?
- Manchester Pacific Gateway - Any news?
- Lane Field Phase 1 is U/C - news on Phase 2?
- News on the Piers and whats happening on each of them?

Things I have no info on?

- Anything regarding the Office Depot Site?
- The two sites between the new park and Lane Field, will those be demolished and redone?
- Any other infill projects coming that may make some of these parcels with low rise on them?

Thanks!!

- 700 W. Broadway - Was Irvine Co. Is it dead? - It is 880 W Broadway, and I believe it was aquired by Bosa, who has done nothing with it yet.
- Bosa Parcel 9 - Is this happening? - This is PCH/Broadway, which should break ground any day now.
- Manchester Pacific Gateway - Any news? - Mired in litigation, but I believe they are almost out of the woods. Like Lane Field though, I will believe it when I see it.
- Lane Field Phase 1 is U/C - news on Phase 2? - Don't know. I imagine the Convention Center trouble can't be good for these hotel developments.
- News on the Piers and whats happening on each of them?

Things I have no info on?

- Anything regarding the Office Depot Site? - Owned by Bosa. Wish he could walk and chew gum at the same time. (jk)
- The two sites between the new park and Lane Field, will those be demolished and redone? - You mean the Wyndham hotel? I believe that is leased from the port...can't see that going away anytime soon.
- Any other infill projects coming that may make some of these parcels with low rise on them?

880 W Broadway - from what I can tell, that sale back to Bosa was only a rumor last summer. I can't find anything reporting that ever materialized.

Parcel 9 - on CivicSD's January Downtown Project Status Log, this was supposed to start last month. But on the recently published July status log, it no longer has an estimated start date. I wonder if Bosa is waiting to make sure Navy Broadway gets off the ground. Just a guess...

Manchester Pacific Gateway - yes, it's mired in litigation. But their case looks much better than the Convention Center's. The problem is that the Coastal Commission's appeal could take up to 18 months to get resolved. Manchester will win this, but Briggs and the CCC will stall it for another year or two. The most recent judge to see this case ruled strongly against the CCC, and chastised Briggs and CCC in the process.

Has anyone read this streetcar feasibility study? This study is different than the study done on a streetcar from downtown to Balboa Park. This study looks at building a streetcar line from downtown to Hillcrest, then east to Normal Street and/or Park Blvd. The cost for the line is somewhere between $150M-$200M. The study suggests that the line would be more useful than the Balboa Park line (which is a no-brainer).

SDCAL, You has said earlier that there was a streetcar line that was shot down. Were you referring to the Balboa park line, or this line through Banker's Hill & Hillcrest?


Streetcar Feasibility Study

The Uptown Streetcar Feasibility Study has been completed and the Final Report is available to be viewed at the following link:
•Final Uptown Streetcar Feasibility Study - May 2014

:coolugh:

That's not my name! ;)

And the Balboa line was shot down, not the Hillcrest line, which I will promptly review. :D

News on the Bosa tower:

http://www.sddt.com/RealEstate/artic...p#.U_6BqPldWCs

Bosa totally missed out on the apartment market. The condo market has pretty much bounced back, not sure what the issue is.

Oops, I mean SDfan. :runaway: