Posted by Kevin Pollem on behalf of Howard Blackson 01-27-2007, 11:04 AM
AIA UD GP Update Committee.

Spoke with John Ziebarth during our conference call and we decided the following:

1) Continue to prepare your bullet point papers for each element you are response (see attached list)

2) On Tuesday, John will distribute overall comments on each element from his various other GP Update commitees for our reference, review, and incorporation into your bullet point paper. He has a big Monday meeting to forge consensus on main issues in each Element and will be very helpful to all.

3) Send me electronic copies of your papers and I will organize a master document for all of us to discuss at our next meeting to be announced (to be held in a quiet room).

4) Be prepared to participate in a workshop with the Planning Commission to discuss your points/topics/issues as John is making this recommendation as well (thanks, John!). No date yet, but will be announced.

Our goal is to put together a paper in AIA required format to send to the board. We want to do as great a job as possible to earn the trust and respect from the Board. So, we have to ensure we have the correct standards in place to submit our information to the AIA board for their consideration. I do not have that information and will rely on Mark and Kate to ensure we meet the submittal standards. We need to be succent and to-the-point on fundamental issues as this is a large document to be reviewed in a short period of time (now). Thank you all for your time.

Sincerely,

Howard Blackson

Posted by Kevin Pollem on behalf of Jay Shumaker 01-27-2007, 11:06 AM

Howard,

My first reaction to the GP is that it is incredibly verbose:

"San Diego's resources include, but are not limited to: water, land, air, biodiversity, minerals, natural materials, recyclables, topograpy, veiwsheds, and energy. Over the long-term, conservation is the most cost-effective strategy to ensure that there will be a reliable supply of the resources that are needed now and in the future."

Pithy stuff.

I do have concerns, ...the more I read:

Development Impact Fees have me worried, ...always have.

Economic Element:

"The strategy will indentify and monitor those San Diego industries that are growing and are globally competitive. It will also translate policies into more specific programs and near to mid-term actions in response to changes in the global economy."

Like what, ...air commerce?

I've never read a plan like this and simply don't know what to make of it. Though I'm sure it has meaning to some people, ...most of it is so patently obvious..., yet it manages to contradict logic all over the place.

Remember, I define City Planning as the creation of "good" opportunities for risk takers. ('else nothing gets built)

Howard and John, what are your concerns generally? I need perspective.

-Jay S.

Posted by Kevin Pollem 01-27-2007, 11:10 AM
Preaching to the Choir?

Globally competitive? Are there are any economists on the UDC? They have a few good ones at UCSD. Anyway, my information may be outdated but I believe that the US economy made its 3rd Demographic Transition decades ago which means our economy is much less production based, much more service based. My point is (I’ll get there eventually): Donna Frye seems to think that the industrially zoned sections of the city could be manufacturing PV panels for the rest of the world. That may or may not be true. We do know that the population of San Diego will continue to grow based on the current economy which is not industrially based. My point is (I think I’m there): For an intelligent General Plan, that intelligently thinks of the inevitable future population growth of the city, WE NEED TO HAVE HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF PEOPLE LIVING ALONG THE TROLLEY CORRIDORS. This means changing a lot of industrial zoning along the orange line. I think this fits in with Stepner’s bigger picture definition of ‘sustainability’. How many people can we get out of their cars? Don’t multi-family buildings produce less hazardous waste than factories? If we continue to build up the density of the existing urban fabric, that leaves more un-disturbed land left as-is. Am I preaching to the choir? I don’t know, its been a LONG time since I’ve had these kinds of discussions with anyone. Go UDC!

Posted by Chris D 01-29-2007, 03:54 PM
Historic Preservation Element

Well after taking a look at the Historic Preservation portion of the city plan I have to say it's kind of useless. Of the 15 pages in this section 7 deals with definitions, federal, state, and local responsibilities, and 2 pages deal with an overall definition of goals. The remainder are large and general statements of how great preservation is, that it's beneficial to the city, and how the city needs to develop a procedure/context for preserving buildings. Keeping in mind that I'm not expert in writing General Plans like this, maybe these generalities are sufficient for what this is.

I looked up the Los Angeles General Plan (http://cityplanning.lacity.org/) and skimmed over their H.P. plans and they seem to be leaps and bounds ahead of us. In that plan they clearly define procedures and responsibilities, establishes boards and committees and defines how to establish district boundaries. The San Diego version doesn't even list a top 10 of most endangered buildings.

In terms of using this plan in conjunction with a community plan I don't think it does any real good at all. It's so general that anyone on a community planning board who would read it couldn't get any guidance from it. No where does it say "this is the way to identify, define, and catalog a building that may be of historic importance", it doesn't even give a phone number to call. All it does is, like I said in the first paragraph, "Pursue the use of identifying conservation areas at the community plan level..." What the hell does that mean? Who and how do you do that?

It does make reference back the chapters 11, 12 & 14 of the municipal code and says that there is where you can find all the legal mumbo jumbo, but I don't know if that is what you should have in a G.P.

So taking all this into account my bullet points are as follows:

The plan should clearly state all contact information for the cities preservation department including any and all persons working in that department, what their jobs are and meeting times for the preservation board.

Identify and list any and all historical districts with in the city and give the contact info for the boards of these specific districts.

Clearly state the relationship between the H.P. board and the individual community planning committees.

Clearly state the first step for a(n) community group/individual to establish a historical district or identify a historical building.

I hope this helps,

Take Care,

Chris

Posted by Kevin Pollem 01-29-2007, 04:15 PM
The more things change.....................................

All very good points, Chris. I know you are new in town so it is good to see that you think the HP in SD is crap. The Advocacy Commission sat down with two kind folks from the City about HP last year and they pretty much regurgitated what you summarized in your post. We asked them specifically about designation criteria but they had no answers. They did seem to agree with us but are limited by funds and personnel.

It would be great if the AIA had some influence over this. I don't like smoke and mirrors.