SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[Streamliner]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Will, You say above "CalTrans will veto anything over 500 ft above ground level even if it would otherwise be allowed". I can understand the FAA having a say in height limits because of the airport, but why should CalTrans care about height limits or have a veto on them?

From what I recall discussed elsewhere on this thread, Caltrans has permitting authority over any structures within the state that exceed 500 feet. Caltrans also has a rule where they don't permit structures above 500 feet within x distance of an airport. Downtown falls within that distance.

So even if the FAA would be fine with certain-sized structures near airports in other states, Caltrans doesn't make exceptions.

[CaliNative]

I'm surprised nobody has commented yet on the NAVWAR proposal. If it came to pass according to what the navy wants, it could include many hi rises and midrises. Apartments, offices, transit center. Potentially huge. Could someone post the pictures shown on TV? Some of the buildings shown appeared to be over 20 floors, or 30.

Where are all the people who follow SD projects? The last post besides this one was November 28!

[sixonenine]

Looks like Tijuana has a new 3 story mall with many shops like H&M, Sephora, and Inditex Group stores like Zara, Zara Home!!, Pull & Bear and Bimba y Lola and other shops available in Europe and Mexico. Nearest place I was able to find these were in Mexico City so thats exciting to have so close to San Diego now.

https://www.jerde.com/projects/8248/peninsula

[dl3000]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

I'm surprised nobody has commented yet on the NAVWAR proposal. If it came to pass according to what the navy wants, it could include many hi rises and midrises. Apartments, offices, transit center. Potentially huge. Could someone post the pictures shown on TV? Some of the buildings shown appeared to be over 20 floors, or 30.

Where are all the people who follow SD projects? The last post besides this one was November 28!

I believe the EIS preferred alternative had max height of 350 ft. The vibe I was getting judging from the little yard posters that used to be around is Mission Hills (and to a lesser extent, Point Loma) was PISSED.

https://navwar-revitalization.com/draft-eis/

[HurricaneHugo]

Originally Posted by sixonenine

Looks like Tijuana has a new 3 story mall with many shops like H&M, Sephora, and Inditex Group stores like Zara, Zara Home!!, Pull & Bear and Bimba y Lola and other shops available in Europe and Mexico. Nearest place I was able to find these were in Mexico City so thats exciting to have so close to San Diego now.

The Tijuana river will never be that clean.

[mello]

Nice looking project for Tijuana what is its status? Not under construction yet I assume. Tijuana has a history of many nice glossy grand proposals that never get built so hopefully this one happens. Heading in to these tough economic times not sure it will get financing if they don't already have it.

-------- Downtown Project update. On 4th between J and K there is a Notice of Application sign on an old funky structure saying that a 12 story hotel is planned to be built there (240 Rooms). Surprised we haven't heard about this. The Gaslamp could use one more nice hotel. The AC should finally be opening soon after all those years but its very small. The Keating closed think it was a victim of Scamdemic.

[negentropic behavior]

It's actually nearly finished. The Liverpool store, the mall's main anchor retail store has been open since November. Other smaller retail spaces are opening as they are completed. The smaller highrise is a residential building and the steel work close to topping out. The larger highrise hasn't grown passed 3 stories yet, its supposed to be a hotel. They're probably waiting for the majority of the retail spaces to open until they can attract a hotel to finish the construction of that building.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by Streamliner

From what I recall discussed elsewhere on this thread, Caltrans has permitting authority over any structures within the state that exceed 500 feet. Caltrans also has a rule where they don't permit structures above 500 feet within x distance of an airport. Downtown falls within that distance.

So even if the FAA would be fine with certain-sized structures near airports in other states, Caltrans doesn't make exceptions.

The FAA is very much not fine with absolutely anything near airports. If they had their way there wouldn't be anything taller than 150' in downtown. But legally they have no land use authority, so technically they can't keep a city from building whatever they want.

I say technically because there are a variety of routes they can go if a local municipality really wants to play hardball on this. The example that comes to mind is Boston, which was the first city to build a skyscraper in close proximity to an airport, back in the 1960s. That eventually escalated to the point that the FAA threatened to cut funding to every airport in Massachusetts (which would have bankrupted most of them), whereupon the state stepped in and intervened.

Afterwards the FAA began highly encouraging other states to limit building highs to 150' in the vicinity of airports. Certain exceptions could be negotiated, but they are very firm on 500' as a hard limit. Boston was given a special dispensation, where the FAA does an individual study for every new skyscraper and Massachusetts agrees to enforce the FAA's rulings. Even today Boston, Massachusetts (through Massport) and the FAA have a somewhat difficult relationship.

Who exactly gets an exception to the 150' limit isn't exactly written down anywhere to the best of my knowledge. It's just sort of known that in certain places the FAA is willing to issue a "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation" and the responsible state agency will issue a permit. In California, the known exceptions are San Jose and San Diego.

And even then San Diego is a standout, being the only one able to build up to the full 500'. The only cities I know of that get away with more are the aforementioned Boston and Las Vegas, both of which cause their respective states exponentially more headaches with the FAA.

So in Caltrans' mind, San Diego is already getting special treatment and they don't see the value of taking such an extremely aggressive stance with the FAA. Keep in mind Caltrans is a state agency, in a state not as beholden to San Diego as Massachusetts is to Boston or Nevada is to Las Vegas. It's just not their biggest priority.

Originally Posted by dl3000

I believe the EIS preferred alternative had max height of 350 ft. The vibe I was getting judging from the little yard posters that used to be around is Mission Hills (and to a lesser extent, Point Loma) was PISSED.

https://navwar-revitalization.com/draft-eis/

As with all things NIMBY, you can always read up about it on OBRAG.
WARNING: opinions

Navy Dumps ‘Very Scary’ Redevelopment Models for NAVWAR Site
City and Mayor Gloria’s Biggest Contributor Cement Agreement for the Lease and Redevelopment of Sports Arena Area
Whether Community Plan Updates in Mira Mesa or Historic Lamps in Kensington, City Rides Roughshod Over Neighborhoods

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by mello

Nice looking project for Tijuana what is its status? Not under construction yet I assume. Tijuana has a history of many nice glossy grand proposals that never get built so hopefully this one happens. Heading in to these tough economic times not sure it will get financing if they don't already have it.

-------- Downtown Project update. On 4th between J and K there is a Notice of Application sign on an old funky structure saying that a 12 story hotel is planned to be built there (240 Rooms). Surprised we haven't heard about this. The Gaslamp could use one more nice hotel. The AC should finally be opening soon after all those years but its very small. The Keating closed think it was a victim of Scamdemic.

Tijuana will probably have one or more buildings higher than 500' in a few years, taller than anything in SD.

[JSW]

Originally Posted by mello

...victim of Scamdemic.

Are we doing very big brain Q conspiracies here now, or is this just a joke?

[eburress]

"Scamdemic." hahaha I've not heard that before but I like it!

[Nv_2897]

Originally Posted by eburress

"Scamdemic." hahaha I've not heard that before but I like it!

Huh

[Nv_2897]

.

[Nv_2897]

Also, the crew at 800 Broadway has begun installing the exterior windows and façade.

[SDCAL]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

The FAA is very much not fine with absolutely anything near airports. If they had their way there wouldn't be anything taller than 150' in downtown. But legally they have no land use authority, so technically they can't keep a city from building whatever they want.

I say technically because there are a variety of routes they can go if a local municipality really wants to play hardball on this. The example that comes to mind is Boston, which was the first city to build a skyscraper in close proximity to an airport, back in the 1960s. That eventually escalated to the point that the FAA threatened to cut funding to every airport in Massachusetts (which would have bankrupted most of them), whereupon the state stepped in and intervened.

Afterwards the FAA began highly encouraging other states to limit building highs to 150' in the vicinity of airports. Certain exceptions could be negotiated, but they are very firm on 500' as a hard limit. Boston was given a special dispensation, where the FAA does an individual study for every new skyscraper and Massachusetts agrees to enforce the FAA's rulings. Even today Boston, Massachusetts (through Massport) and the FAA have a somewhat difficult relationship.

Who exactly gets an exception to the 150' limit isn't exactly written down anywhere to the best of my knowledge. It's just sort of known that in certain places the FAA is willing to issue a "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation" and the responsible state agency will issue a permit. In California, the known exceptions are San Jose and San Diego.

And even then San Diego is a standout, being the only one able to build up to the full 500'. The only cities I know of that get away with more are the aforementioned Boston and Las Vegas, both of which cause their respective states exponentially more headaches with the FAA.

So in Caltrans' mind, San Diego is already getting special treatment and they don't see the value of taking such an extremely aggressive stance with the FAA. Keep in mind Caltrans is a state agency, in a state not as beholden to San Diego as Massachusetts is to Boston or Nevada is to Las Vegas. It's just not their biggest priority.




As with all things NIMBY, you can always read up about it on OBRAG.
WARNING: opinions

Navy Dumps ‘Very Scary’ Redevelopment Models for NAVWAR Site
City and Mayor Gloria’s Biggest Contributor Cement Agreement for the Lease and Redevelopment of Sports Arena Area
Whether Community Plan Updates in Mira Mesa or Historic Lamps in Kensington, City Rides Roughshod Over Neighborhoods

The question that comes to mind here, what is the definition of “close proximity to the airport.” Does the FAA have a specific distance? Is the far East Village (east of Petco Park) still considered close proximity? How far are Boston and LV’s downtowns from their airports, are they as close as SD’s downtown to our airport?

It seems that after a certain radius, there should be a definable area not just for us but for cities across the US as to what is considered close enough to an airport to have height restrictions.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by SDCAL

The question that comes to mind here, what is the definition of “close proximity to the airport.” Does the FAA have a specific distance? Is the far East Village (east of Petco Park) still considered close proximity? How far are Boston and LV’s downtowns from their airports, are they as close as SD’s downtown to our airport?

It seems that after a certain radius, there should be a definable area not just for us but for cities across the US as to what is considered close enough to an airport to have height restrictions.

I am gravely simplifying all this. Of course there are rules and regulations and standards.

To be very specific, the FAA's guidelines are covered in Federal Regulations 49 CFR Part 77, or just Part 77 to those of us in the business. Part 77 lays out a series of "imaginary surfaces" to determine navigational hazards. Think lines drawn in the air, laying out various sectors.

The exact distances involved vary depending what landing aircraft approach speed the airport is able to accept, what level of bad weather is it designed to handle (instrument means bad weather capable, precision means really bad weather capable). For reference KSAN can handle class D approach speeds, has a precision instrument runway approach from the west, and a non-precision instrument approach from the east.

But then that's a lot of info to keep in your head, so there's a map where we've done all the math for you




These are the height limits the FAA would greatly prefer. Notice that to keep them, San Diego would have to lop off the top of Mission Hills and Point Loma, which is a big reason the FAA wanted San Diego to replace KSAN in the 1950s and 60s (as did San Diego itself, but between all the military bases we never found a good place to put it).

Just a note, all these heights are above Mean Sea Level, so unless you're building a mid-rise in the middle of the bay you'll have even less than the 166.8'.

So yes, in FAA terms East Village and Petco Park would be considered in "close proximity" to the airport. In terms of who has the closest downtown, us or Boston/Vegas, that's a trickier question to answer than it might first appear. At these sort of distances it really depends from what spot on the airport you measure from, and where you consider the border of "downtown". In general I'd say all three are at roughly the same distance.

[Will O' Wisp]

And for another note, the Part 77 surfaces aren't actually based on any sort of technical requirements. If something gets built that breaches them, it doesn't effect airport operations at all really. The real limits are in the FAA Terminal Instrument Procedures, or TERPS. If you mess with them, it will interfere with the instruments aircraft use to land in bad weather.

I'm not going to get into exactly how TERPS works because that way more complexity than I think anyone in this thread really needs, but here's the map of them:

[SamFlood]

Radd IQHQ

[CaliNative]

As I've suggested before, Petco could function well as a football stadium. I think the Holiday Bowl tonight proved it. The fans loved it. Add 5-10,000 seats (either temporary or permanent) and you have 50,000+ capacity. Since baseball and football don't overlap much, who needs a downtown football stadium when you have Petco? For schedule conflicts in Sept-Oct. with the Padres, the football team could play in Snapdragon. The Chargers played a year in a 20,000 seat socker stadium. The Padres could use the extra seats as well since they are now a contending team. Attendance will rise.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

As I've suggested before, Petco could function well as a football stadium. I think the Holiday Bowl tonight proved it. The fans loved it. Add 5-10,000 seats (either temporary or permanent) and you have 50,000+ capacity. Since baseball and football don't overlap much, who needs a downtown football stadium when you have Petco? For schedule conflicts in Sept-Oct. with the Padres, the football team could play in Snapdragon. The Chargers played a year in a 20,000 seat socker stadium. The Padres could use the extra seats as well since they are now a contending team. Attendance will rise.

No. Just... no. Multi-purpose stadiums don't work. The scheduling doesn't work. The field conditions and the shape of the fields don't work. The sightlines don't work. Has no one learned anything from what happened with Candlestick Park and the Oakland Coliseum?