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)

SDCAL May 30, 2016 9:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RST500 (Post 7457464)
That's really awful. Looks like the typical sterile malls that have been built the last decade. Horton Plaza is a unique place and must be preserved.

To be honest, I'd have to see more renderings than just this one to make a judgement, but when you say hp needs to be preserved, do you mean leaving it as it is now? It's terrible as it is now. It was built like a fortress when downtown was much different and now it needs to be opened up to the outside to be more cohesive with the surrounding community.

embora May 31, 2016 1:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7457101)
I thought they cleared that hurdle back in December? I remember it being in the news. Any idea on when the council is set to hear it again?

In December, City Council agreed to negotiate with the developer.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...n-whole-foods/

nezbn22 May 31, 2016 3:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by embora (Post 7457895)
In December, City Council agreed to negotiate with the developer.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...n-whole-foods/

According to the resolution signed by the City on December 15, "the negotiation term will by 180 days with an optional 90-day extension." By my count, June 12th is the end of the 180-day period. Here's hoping they don't need an extension. And more importantly, here's hoping councilmembers don't buckle under the pressure from hotel and grocery worker unions to kill the project...

Streamliner May 31, 2016 5:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDCAL (Post 7457696)
To be honest, I'd have to see more renderings than just this one to make a judgement, but when you say hp needs to be preserved, do you mean leaving it as it is now? It's terrible as it is now. It was built like a fortress when downtown was much different and now it needs to be opened up to the outside to be more cohesive with the surrounding community.

I agree that Horton Plaza's layout is terrible and doesn't fit San Diego's modern downtown. I think what he may be referring to is the aesthetics of the mall. The rendering posted on the previous page is your typical Westfield look. It could be anywhere. Horton Plaza's weird, colorful design is pretty unique and so oddball that I think it's worth saving, even in pieces.

sixonenine Jun 1, 2016 1:22 AM

Have you guys seen the Bajalta project in Tijuana? The renderings look nice!

http://www.architecturalrecord.com/a...ent-in-tijuana

SDfan Jun 1, 2016 6:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixonenine (Post 7459107)
Have you guys seen the Bajalta project in Tijuana? The renderings look nice!

http://www.architecturalrecord.com/a...ent-in-tijuana

What the... Quite pleasant.

Northparkwizard Jun 1, 2016 6:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 7459926)
What the... Quite pleasant.

Can we have this architecture in place of Ballpark Village? Thanks.

SDfan Jun 1, 2016 7:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 7459936)
Can we have this architecture in place of Ballpark Village? Thanks.

:haha: :cheers: :hahano:

I wish. With San Diego's regulatory burdens, design guidelines and NIMBYism, we are lucky to get Ballpark Village as is. :yuck:

Northparkwizard Jun 3, 2016 3:02 PM

Good article from the L.A. Times: Gov. Jerry Brown's housing plan could wipe away development rules in Los Angeles and San Francisco


“I do imagine that the citizens of many cities will become unglued when they understand what this will do”

SDfan Jun 3, 2016 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 7462117)
Good article from the L.A. Times: Gov. Jerry Brown's housing plan could wipe away development rules in Los Angeles and San Francisco


“I do imagine that the citizens of many cities will become unglued when they understand what this will do”

Yes, I read about this earlier. It doesn't do much for SD since we let developers build without much oversight if they follow established guidelines.

Bikemike Jun 4, 2016 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northparkwizard (Post 7462117)
Good article from the L.A. Times: Gov. Jerry Brown's housing plan could wipe away development rules in Los Angeles and San Francisco


“I do imagine that the citizens of many cities will become unglued when they understand what this will do”

I'm not sure the Governor's right to do it this way. While he deserves credit for trying to alleviate the housing crisis, this is the wrong way to do it. This bill essentially sidesteps CEQA, yes the law the enables 99% of NIMBY lawsuits in California.

Why am I not with Brown if it takes a lot power away from NIMBYs then? Because CEQA, while poorly written, was intended to protect the environment from overdevelopment. While it's the main legal basis for NIMBY obstruction of pedestrian and transit friendly growth, it's also been the basis for protection of countless acres of sensitive habitat. CEQA needs to be reformed, not rescinded. To borrow an oft-stated line from Obama's first campaign, we need to go into this with a scalpel, not a hatchet. Governor Brown is using a hatchet, and the unintended blowback on the environment would be dire.

SDfan Jun 4, 2016 6:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bikemike (Post 7462766)
I'm not sure the Governor's right to do it this way. While he deserves credit for trying to alleviate the housing crisis, this is the wrong way to do it. This bill essentially sidesteps CEQA, yes the law the enables 99% of NIMBY lawsuits in California.

Why am I not with Brown if it takes a lot power away from NIMBYs then? Because CEQA, while poorly written, was intended to protect the environment from overdevelopment. While it's the main legal basis for NIMBY obstruction of pedestrian and transit friendly growth, it's also been the basis for protection of countless acres of sensitive habitat. CEQA needs to be reformed, not rescinded. To borrow an oft-stated line from Obama's first campaign, we need to go into this with a scalpel, not a hatchet. Governor Brown is using a hatchet, and the unintended blowback on the environment would be dire.

While I agree that an overhaul of CEQA would be ideal, the reality of such reform happening anytime soon is unlikely. I don't see how this undermines the environment when it simply allows for already zoned structures to be completed without the risk of running into NIMBY opposition tactics. This bill does not permit spot up-zoning at all, which are more likely to have greater environmental affects than already permitted (expected and reviewed) developments approved by localities. If a developer wants to upzone they would still need to go through the motions of CEQA. And this bill would primarily help infill developments in LA and SF, thus helping the environment by mitigating urban sprawl and encouraging urban, mixed use and TOD developments.

This bill does not rescind CEQA, it keeps it from over extending into needless litigation.

Add in the affordable housing requirements in the bill, and taking down unnecessary burdens to needed infill development is a plus for not only the environment, but also to low and middle income households who are suffering because of privileged and exclusionary zoning policies.

Bikemike Jun 6, 2016 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDfan (Post 7463287)
While I agree that an overhaul of CEQA would be ideal, the reality of such reform happening anytime soon is unlikely. I don't see how this undermines the environment when it simply allows for already zoned structures to be completed without the risk of running into NIMBY opposition tactics. This bill does not permit spot up-zoning at all, which are more likely to have greater environmental affects than already permitted (expected and reviewed) developments approved by localities. If a developer wants to upzone they would still need to go through the motions of CEQA. And this bill would primarily help infill developments in LA and SF, thus helping the environment by mitigating urban sprawl and encouraging urban, mixed use and TOD developments.

This bill does not rescind CEQA, it keeps it from over extending into needless litigation.

Add in the affordable housing requirements in the bill, and taking down unnecessary burdens to needed infill development is a plus for not only the environment, but also to low and middle income households who are suffering because of privileged and exclusionary zoning policies.

I guess my main problem with Brown's approach is that by bypassing local-level CEQA review, it now becomes solely reliant on macro-level general plans, which while technically in-keeping with the more generalized CEQA process when such plans were enacted, fail to address the more fine-grained issues that may still hold relevance but have been overlooked during the macro-level vetting process. Everyone knows LA's general plan is outdated and backwards, for instance. Some of the developments this would enable would be disasterous.

For larger cities like LA, SD, or SF, or just cities with outdated general plans (LA again) CEQA fails to address many environmental issues with local site plans. True, in CEQA's current state local level CEQA review has many evils, but it's not without its benefits either. As with most things in this world, there is good with the bad. The balance merely needs to be shifted.

I understand that CEQA's formal role has been bastardized by NIMBY's in order to obstruct the housing supply, but Governor Brown should be using his leadership and power to further reform the source of our housing woes in CEQA, rather than circumventing it alltogether. By passing this bill, which focuses solely on projects with affordable housing near transit (another red herring- it's SECULAR, market rate housing supply that affects macroeconomic prices, not affordable, AKA subsidized, housing) Brown is still ignoring the real problem. Affordable housing is a drop in the bucket anyhow, and the cost of subsidizing "affordable" housing passes to the general market anyway = no net benefit because "affordable" prices are set according to market rates anyway. Have you seen how much it costs to rent "affordable" units?

Also, CEQA isn't hopeless. LOS was just rescinded at the state level and discussion now centers around replacing it with VMT, which may effectively end CEQA's role as an obstructive tool for NIMBYs. Even without Brown's help, this housing crisis is being addressed AT THE SOURCE by more knowledgeable, more nuanced lawmakers. I say let that play out.

Bertrice Jun 6, 2016 1:55 AM

"and the unintended blowback on the environment would be dire."

like a hollywood movie or something. the sky's always falling with liberals.
Get rid of CEQA and the coastal commission while your at it. Most of the coastal is women from the east coast anyway.

Filambata Jun 6, 2016 4:14 AM

Purpose of CEQA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bikemike (Post 7464061)
I guess my main problem with Brown's approach is that by bypassing local-level CEQA review, it now becomes solely reliant on macro-level general plans, which while technically in-keeping with the more generalized CEQA process when such plans were enacted, fail to address the more fine-grained issues that may still hold relevance but have been overlooked during the macro-level vetting process. Everyone knows LA's general plan is outdated and backwards, for instance. Some of the developments this would enable would be disasterous.

For larger cities like LA, SD, or SF, or just cities with outdated general plans (LA again) CEQA fails to address many environmental issues with local site plans. True, in CEQA's current state local level CEQA review has many evils, but it's not without its benefits either. As with most things in this world, there is good with the bad. The balance merely needs to be shifted.

I understand that CEQA's formal role has been bastardized by NIMBY's in order to obstruct the housing supply, but Governor Brown should be using his leadership and power to further reform the source of our housing woes in CEQA, rather than circumventing it alltogether. By passing this bill, which focuses solely on projects with affordable housing near transit (another red herring- it's SECULAR, market rate housing supply that affects macroeconomic prices, not affordable, AKA subsidized, housing) Brown is still ignoring the real problem. Affordable housing is a drop in the bucket anyhow, and the cost of subsidizing "affordable" housing passes to the general market anyway = no net benefit because "affordable" prices are set according to market rates anyway. Have you seen how much it costs to rent "affordable" units?

Also, CEQA isn't hopeless. LOS was just rescinded at the state level and discussion now centers around replacing it with VMT, which may effectively end CEQA's role as an obstructive tool for NIMBYs. Even without Brown's help, this housing crisis is being addressed AT THE SOURCE by more knowledgeable, more nuanced lawmakers. I say let that play out.

The purpose of CEQA is to DISCLOSE and DESCRIBE the environmental impacts of development to inform decision-making in California. It does not say whether a particular development project should be approved or not; the local land use authorities retain that power. If a development is projected to have significant environmental impacts per CEQA, the relevant local land use authority can still approve it, so long as it adopts official findings explaining why the development should proceed anyway. CEQA litigation happens when there's disagreement as to the adequacy of the level of disclosure and description concerning the projected environmental impacts. Some development projects are so complex that preparing the CEQA document to adequately disclose and describe the environmental impacts takes a significant amount of time.

Bikemike Jun 6, 2016 7:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrice (Post 7464146)
"and the unintended blowback on the environment would be dire."

like a hollywood movie or something. the sky's always falling with liberals.
Get rid of CEQA and the coastal commission while your at it. Most of the coastal is women from the east coast anyway.

Wow, you know enough about this topic to utter the phrase "coastal commission"? I commend you! :haha:

Bikemike Jun 6, 2016 7:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filambata (Post 7464245)
The purpose of CEQA is to DISCLOSE and DESCRIBE the environmental impacts of development to inform decision-making in California. It does not say whether a particular development project should be approved or not; the local land use authorities retain that power. If a development is projected to have significant environmental impacts per CEQA, the relevant local land use authority can still approve it, so long as it adopts official findings explaining why the development should proceed anyway. CEQA litigation happens when there's disagreement as to the adequacy of the level of disclosure and description concerning the projected environmental impacts. Some development projects are so complex that preparing the CEQA document to adequately disclose and describe the environmental impacts takes a significant amount of time.

Yes, you're referring to the cumbersome EIR/EIS statement. The reason it takes a significant amount of time is largely due to the standard of thoroughness required to avoid as much legal wrangling as possible, of course.

Although when discussing the CEQA and NIMBYism, I'm sure you're aware that we are speaking of the broader vulnerability of the environmental review process, namely the ability of the public to undermine the approvals process by targeting the ways in which environmental impacts of a given project are arrived at to begin with. For that reason, changing one of the most litigated aspects of the EIS, congestion impacts, is going to alter how much of a potential hangup CEQA pose for development.

I'm sure Bertrice, the intellectual, would like to chime in with some insightful commentary :haha:

Bertrice Jun 7, 2016 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bikemike (Post 7464339)
Yes, you're referring to the cumbersome EIR/EIS statement. The reason it takes a significant amount of time is largely due to the standard of thoroughness required to avoid as much legal wrangling as possible, of course.

Although when discussing the CEQA and NIMBYism, I'm sure you're aware that we are speaking of the broader vulnerability of the environmental review process, namely the ability of the public to undermine the approvals process by targeting the ways in which environmental impacts of a given project are arrived at to begin with. For that reason, changing one of the most litigated aspects of the EIS, congestion impacts, is going to alter how much of a potential hangup CEQA pose for development.

I'm sure Bertrice, the intellectual, would like to chime in with some insightful commentary :haha:

Is this Corey Briggs?
thanks for saying nothing.
well, we'll see ya !
take care brush your hair.:slob:

SDCAL Jun 7, 2016 2:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrice (Post 7464146)
"and the unintended blowback on the environment would be dire."

like a hollywood movie or something. the sky's always falling with liberals.
Get rid of CEQA and the coastal commission while your at it. Most of the coastal is women from the east coast anyway.

It's about balance. We don't need endless red-tape but we also don't need a free for all where no environmental regulations exist at all. The goal should be streamlining, not abolishing. Most of the "coastal" may be East-Coast women, but most of the anti-density, anti-mass transit, anti-anything over two-stories are cranky old right-wing NIMBYs. I'll take the East-Coast women.

Lipani Jun 7, 2016 6:39 AM

Will a mod please get rid of this Bertroce troll?


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.