Chief Lansdowne says he "protects and serves". Yes but whom? 03/30/07

Proof that you can fight City Hall - and win! 03/29/07

The "mixed-use" use clause and De Anza Cove. 03/29/07

                                                       by Pat Flannery                                        top^

Yesterday, a Judge found in favor of the De Anza Cove residents. They are in fact a Mobile Home Park and must be noticed and compensated according to the California Mobilehome Residency Law. The City had attempted to kick them out without a penny in order to make room for hotels etc.



Most of the buildings above 30 foot in Mission Bay and Pacific Beach pulled permits in the few weeks between Prop D being passed by the people in November 1971 and coming into effect on January 1, 1972. There have been none since.

What will happen when the City is finally rid of the mobile home tenants and it can start negotiating with wealthy hotel builders? Will they be able to get around the 30-foot height limit? Does it have anything to do with the present controversy over the affordable housing density bonus that would have to concede the 30-foot height limit?

The City's proposed ordinance says:

"§143.0740 Development Incentives for Affordable Housing Density Bonus Projects

(a) The City shall grant an incentive requested by an applicant, to the extent allowed by State law and as set forth in this Section.
    (1) An incentive means any of the following:
           (A) A deviation to a development regulation;
           (B) Approval of a mixed use development in conjunction with the residential development if the commercial, office, or industrial uses will reduce the cost of the residential development; and if the mixed use development is compatible with the residential development; and if the mixed use development is compatible with the applicable land use plan."

This means that a future developer at De Anza Cove needs only put in some residential units, 10% of which must be affordable by people earning less than $73,200 per annum. The developer can then apply for and must be given a concession from the Prop D 30-foot height limit, for the whole development.

I checked with a some attorneys today. They thought that because of yesterday’s ruling, establishing the existing use as a normal residential mobile home park and the fact that the site had been under such residential use for a long time, a developer would have a case for retaining a small element of affordable housing, which is all he would need.

Such a developer could make a good case based on the elimination of such a large number of affordable units. The State Lands Commission may have a tough time resisting a request to continue allowing affordable housing there, as it has for so long.

As for the Coastal Commission, it is not interested in height limits. It could not refuse a coastal development permit because a State mandated density bonus concession breached a local voter-approved height limit, Prop D.

Other than on State Lands, a "mixed-use" developer need only put in some residential units, 10% of which must be "affordable" and the entire development qualifies for a density bonus plus up to three "concessions". Perhaps that is how the City intends to "re-zone" the 4,534 acres it mentions in its Land Use Plan.
 

City Planners vs. the people. 03/28/07

How would you like an overnight 73% increase in the value of your property? 03/26/07

Another "Friday Surprise" from Aguirre's office. 03/24/07

The latest on the City's Density Bonus shenanigans. 03/23/07

"ITEM-333: (Continued from the meeting of January 30, 2007, Item 331, at the request of Councilmember Frye, for further review, and continued from the meeting of February 27, 2007, Item 335, at the request of Councilmember Frye (and public), for further review.)"

The important thing to remember here is that this is a public hearing and "further review" means further PUBLIC review, not behind the scenes horse trading.

The action before the City Council on Tuesday is:

"Matter of approving, conditionally approving, modifying or denying an ordinance that would amend the Land Development Code regulations ..... related to Affordable Housing Density Bonus."

At this regularly scheduled and properly noticed PUBLIC hearing, the City Council and only the City Council, "can approve, conditionally approve, modify or deny" this Ordinance. They and they alone can do that. And only after hearing PUBLIC testimony.

At the February 27th meeting, when this Item was continued, the following was the staff recommendation:

"STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution in Subitem A and introduce the ordinance in either Option 1 or Option 2 in Subitem B.

Subitem-A: (R-2007-698)
Adoption of a Resolution certifying that Supplement to the Environmental Impact Report No. 96-0333, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

Subitem-B: (O-2007-40 Cor. Copy. 1)
Introduction of an Ordinance of the Council of the City of San Diego amending Chapter 14, Article 3, Division 7, Sections 143.0710, 143.0715, 143.0720, 143.0725, 143.0730, 143.0740, and 143.0750, and deleting Section 143.0760; by amending Chapter 12, Article 6, Division 7, Section 126.0708, and amending Chapter 14, Article 1, Division 3, by amending Section 141.0310(b), all relating to the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Regulations."

On Tuesday March 27's calendar, Option 2 has disappeared! The following is NOW the staff recommendation:

"STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution in Subitem A and introduce the ordinance in Subitem B.

No mention of Aguirre's "clean" alternative Option 2! Even though it was CONTINUED alongside Option 1, which is the Ordinance going forward on Tuesday. Can they do that?

Further, at Tuesday's Council meeting the City Council will be asked to adopt the following Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC):

"That pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15093, the City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, with respect to the project."

That SOC was not part of the February 27 Council package that was continued.

What this new document says is that Aguirre's Option 2, does not provide developers with a 20% density bonus for "moderate" income housing, up from the State mandated 5% by a factor of four, therefore it is "unfeasable". Obviously Mike caved in to the developers and allowed his "clean" Option 2 to be withdrawn. Too bad.

Giving the developers 20% bonus as opposed to 5% as mandated by the State, is what this is all about. The developers will accept nothing less.

So what to do. Well, democracy and the law is still on our side. Here is what the staff are pointing out to the City Council for Tuesday:

"STAFF SUPPORTING INFORMATION: There are two alternative actions for consideration. First, the Council may adopt the state mandated density bonus regulations and deny or modify the City-initiated density bonus incentives and still be in compliance with state mandates. Second, the Council may deny and/or modify the state mandated provisions of the regulations. However, this action would cause the regulations to be out of compliance with state law."

Now that Aguirre has withdrawn his "clean" Option 2, the public can demand at the public hearing on Tuesday, that the City Council, as City staff have told them they can, "adopt the state mandated density bonus regulations and deny or modify the City-initiated density bonus incentives and still be in compliance with state mandates".

Therefore, we actually don't need Aguirre's "clean" alternative Option 2. The City Council can adopt the State mandated 5% bonus and deny the City-initiated 20% bonus. It would have been better if Mike Aguirre had been the savior of the coastal 30-foot height limit, but perhaps he had other priorities. His Option 2 actually accomplished it.

Adopting the State mandated 5% bonus and denying the City-initiated 20% bonus surely would be the wise course for Kevin Faulconer on Tuesday. He does not want to be tarred with the 20% bonus brush in his coastal District 2, thus busting the Prop D 30-foot height limit. That would be political suicide. How could he explain to his coastal constituents that he voted for a 20% density bonus when he had the opportunity to merely conform to State law at 5%? They would tar and feather him if he does.

The other coastal Councilmember, Scott Peters, is too deeply in bed with the developers to turn back now and unlike Faulconer is not running for reelection.

Remember, developers get the 20% bonus BEFORE they ever even ask for a height concession! The amount of the density bonus has nothing to do with the 30-foot limit.

In the above SOC the City is saying that a 5% bonus is "unfeasable" - then lets give it to them. That will save the 30-foot height limit in the Coastal Zone. A developer can only ask for a height concession in order to reach his/her density bonus entitlement. If a 5% bonus does not entice them into the affordable housing business, then they cannot ask for a concession from the 30-foot height limit. It's that simple.

Of course that is why the developers want the 20% bonus so badly.

And that is why the City (apparently now including Aguirre ) wants to give it them. The City wants to give them 20% and then blame the Coastal Commission and the State Density Bonus Law for busting the 30-foot height limit. I doubt they will get away with it. The people are on to them now. Let's see what happens on Tuesday.
 

We are in the midst of a deadly attack on our democracy. 03/22/07

The Charter Review Committee. 03/22/07

The City is now trying to shift the blame to the Coastal Commission. 03/21/07

They are obviously trying to shift the blame to the Coastal Commission. Nice try. The people will see through that.

Anyway, the focus should be on the fact that the City wants to give a 20% density bonus to developers when the State only mandates 5%. They can't blame that on the Coastal Commission. Sneaking a 20% density bonus by the people is what this is all about.

At least they have now conceded that they have no control over our 30-foot height limit once a Density Bonus Ordinance is adopted. It does not matter whether it is the State Density Bonus Law or the State Coastal Commission that is responsible for busting our 30-foot height limit, at least we can control by how much - we can keep it at 5% until we can get Lori Saldana to fix this flawed law at State level.

The developers would not be fighting so hard for a 20% bonus (plus concessions) if they did not intend to take full advantage of it, especially along the coast. That one key concession, height, would be a bonanza for the developers. Once they get that, the sky's the limit, literally. But I guess it's OK now that we can blame the Coastal Commission instead of the City Council. Do Faulconer and Peters expect their coastal constituents to believe that? The people will roast them alive when those tall buildings start going up along the coast. Blaming the Coastal Commission will not save them.

As for Waring, he told the City Council on February 27th that not a single developer has contacted him regarding the Density Bonus Ordinance. Yeah, right Jim. We believe you.
 

"Form-Based Codes" are fundamentally dictatorial. 03/21/07

Bird Rock will look like a 19th century English coal-mining town. 03/20/07

"1.2.2 That infill developments with a mix of uses and of a smaller scale should be the preferred pattern of development and to discourage projects specializing in single uses or repetitive architecture on several parcels.

1.3.2 The provisions of this Code, when in conflict, shall take precedence over those of other codes, ordinances, regulations and standards except those that are collectively referred to as the “Local Health and Safety Sections.”  

1.3.3 In the event of conflicts between these definitions and those of any other laws or ordinances of San Diego, those Codes shall take precedent related to the use and application of this Code.  

Peters and his team of hired guns hope to transform the Bird Rock Planned District into the Bird Rock Form-Based District. After Bird Rock the deluge.

All San Diego's PDO's would quickly morph into Form-Based Districts. PDOs in turn would become the "model" for the rest of the city. When the whole city is zoned multi-use the developers will have achieved developer heaven.

San Diego would be indistinguishable from Barcelona or Naples. At least in Europe they have real neighborhoods - people know one another because they have lived and worked close to each other for generations. But such close living and working in San Diego? People rotate in and out of here by the week!

Here are two extracts from the Bird Rock's proposed multi-use beauties:

Everything will be 3 story, until they start to use the density bonus ordinance to bust the 30-foot height limit. That is next. Their nicer apartment buildings will have dormer-style windows on the third floor. The rest will have flat roofs. Can you imagine what a row of flat-roofed, multi-use buildings will look like? It will be like a 19th century English coal-mining town, row after row of the same. The above proposed buildings are straight from the high priced Project Report Scott Peters has somehow found the money for. We will find out tonight if the people of Bird Rock think he has spent their money wisely.
 

Proof positive that "density bonus" is an attack on our neighborhoods. 03/20/07

Donna Frye is like a beacon of light in a city of darkness. 03/19/07

My Powerpoint Presentation and Density Bonus definitions. 03/18/07

The Big Lie. 03/17/07

It's called democracy Jerry. 03/15/07

"Charter Section 11.1: Legislative Power — Nondelegable
The same prohibition against delegation of the legislative power which is imposed on the State Legislature by Article XI, Section 11a of the Constitution of the State of California shall apply to the City Council of The City of San Diego, so that its members shall not delegate legislative power or responsibility which they were elected to exercise in the adoption of any ordinance or resolution which raises or spends public monies, including but not limited to the City’s annual budget ordinance or any part thereof, and the annual ordinance setting compensation for City employees, or any ordinance or resolution setting public policy."

Does that Section not make it perfectly clear that the elected City Council has sole and absolute power over the spending of public monies? Councilmembers Peters and Young have no authority to "compromise" the City Charter. And Peters is an attorney!

Thank goodness for Donna Frye. She wrote this Memorandum to the City Attorney on March 8th asking whether the executive branch, i.e. the Mayor, has the legal authority to "unilaterally shut down the internal audit function of our City". That's a bit like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?". It will be interesting to hear the City Attorney's response, especially the part about notifying the City's bond disclosure counsel.

She then wrote this Memorandum to the City Attorney on March 9th. It too is a "beating your wife" kind of question. Of course the Mayor does not have the authority to deviate from the Budget the City Council debated and approved. It's called democracy Jerry.

This is one time when the City Attorney has to lay down the law - even if his friend Jerry Sanders does not like it. It is a crucial moment in the City's history: are we a government of laws or a government of men? I think Mike Aguirre's idol, Bobby Kennedy would have no trouble answering Councilmember Frye's questions.

As for Peters and Young ......
 

The public want to be heard. 03/11/07

We preserved our historic gaslamp area for this? 03/09/07

The Historic Resources Board is next for Sanders' chopping block. 03/07/07

And Donna Frye is now in a Budget War with Sanders. 03/03/07

Let's look at why I think Donna Frye will be hopping mad, and rightly so. Last week she made a startling discover at the Budget & Finance Committee's regularly scheduled monthly meeting. The City's CFO, Jay Goldstone, casually mentioned that his boss, Mayor Jerry Sanders had vacated an entire department over a year ago without telling anybody! That department just happened to be the internal audit department.
Watch the video

Sanders can afford several highly paid spin doctors on his personal staff but he cannot spare a dime for the internal audit department. Now that takes chutzpah.

Watch the video of Donna's stunned response. She could hardly believe her ears. What must she be thinking when she read in the paper yesterday (that's how she found out about it) that Peters had given away her powers to the Mayor?

Peters was at that Budget Committee meeting. He heard about the internal audit committee having been "vacated". Yet he gave these wide spending powers to Sanders knowing that not one City staff will check on a single Sanders invoice. Without authority, Peters gave Sanders this power to spend whatever he wants, whenever he wants, on whatever he wants, without any accountability whatsoever. Unbelievable.

What has Sanders promised Peters and Young in return for these sweeping powers? You don't stick your neck that far out without something in return. Peters voted against this Ordinance when it was introduced for its first reading on February 5, 2007. Unlike Peters, Young voted for it. Now, judging by his joint press appearance with Peters last week, he looks set to do precisely the opposite on Monday. His behavior reminds me of what

1. "Budget change authorities granted to the Mayor require Council approval if such action will result in reducing, altering or eliminating service levels to the community, upon which the Adopted Budget has been based."

2. "The quarterly budget reporting process ... will provide a timely and certain schedule for Council review of proposed BPRs. The current 60 day notice and waiting period requirements will not be necessary, allowing for quicker implementation of the BPRs."

As for Aguirre's part in all this - it really is unfortunate that he took the Mayor's side on this issue, against Donna Frye, in February. I went back and played the tape of his little Council Chamber spat with Donna that caused so much comment in the media. He attempted to buy time for the Mayor to kill this Ordinance, by quibbling over words such as "is expected to" or "substantial and material".

Let's hope he rethinks his position on Monday and supports Councilmember Frye. The people do not want Sanders to have the power he is looking for.

We need checks and balances in our form of city government. The Independent Budget Analyst, Andrea Tevlin and Donna Frye have got this Ordinance right. It's what the people want. Sanders and his backers want absolute power. The people do not want that. Surely the fact that Sanders has killed off the one department that is supposed to check up on his check-writing activities is proof enough. He wants too much power.

Surely Aguirre will see that and not oppose this Ordinance - again. This time we need the City Attorney on the side of democracy, not autocracy. This is a good Ordinance and the people need it passed to protect them from one man rule.
 

Aguirre is now in a land development war. 02/28/07

Here is what Aguirre had to say about her qualifications when he hired her:
"Edwards has over 15 years of comprehensive environmental, litigation and advisory experience, including direct involvement in CEQA, NEPA, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act and other related environmental matters. Prior to joining the City Attorney's office, Edwards was the Directing Attorney for the Stockton office of the California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. (CRLA) and also worked for over a decade as an environmental and prosecuting attorney for and on behalf of enforcement agencies at the federal and state level. She is a San Diego native and a graduate of the University of San Diego where she obtained her B.A., M.B.A., J.D., and L.L.M."

Ms. Edwards' colleague, Assistant City Attorney Huston Carlyle, is Chief of the Redevelopment Section. Huston was hired by Aguirre about the same time last year. He occupies a very important position. Fortunately he has also proven himself to be a totally trustworthy professional attorney and an all around nice guy.

He can move with ease from a downtown meeting with Nancy Graham, head of CCDC or Jim Waring, head of land use and economic development for the City, to a group of activists meeting in somebody's living room. He will as patiently explain the intricacies of redevelopment law to the high and mighty as to a concerned citizen over a cup of coffee in their kitchen. Now that is public service. Did anybody ever hear of anything like that happening under Casey Gwinn? That's because Aguirre is still a man of the people which is why he chose a totally different type of person from those of the Gwinn era.

Hopefully the long nightmare of a City Attorney's Office riddled with developer and DSD shills is nearly over. Aguirre can now be a lot more aggressive in curbing the giveaways of the Mayor and his staff. Aguirre's new hires have proven their worth and they obviously like working for him. They have nothing but good things to say about him. It is the leftovers from the old guard that bad mouth him. I do not know of one of his new hires who have a single bad word to say about him. And to my knowledge not one has left. I find that very reassuring. I think the Mayor may have underappreciated Mike's friendship.
 

The Mayor's staff are giving legal advice. AGAIN! 02/28/07

The people elected Mike Aguirre City Attorney, not Jim Waring. 02/26/07

Latest! Waring secretly changes the Density Bonus EIR! 02/26/07

                                                       by Pat Flannery                                        top^

Now for the latest chicanery. Here is the Mayor's DSD staff recommendation for City Council action tomorrow:

"STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. CERTIFY Supplement to Environmental Impact Report No. 96-0333 (Project 63422) and adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations."

The City Council is being asked to Certify "... that the final Supplement to EIR No. 96-0333 has been reviewed and considered prior to approving the project, certifying the final Supplement to EIR No. 96-0333, and adopting the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations."

EIR No. 96-0333, together with its Supplement, was "reviewed and considered" before being presented to the City Council on January 30, 2007. But it has been altered since, without any further "review or consideration" by the public. This is grounds for an automatic continuance tomorrow. You simply cannot do that. Not even Jim Waring.

Here is the version of the EIR put on file at the City Clerk's Office for the January 30, 2007 City Council meeting. As you know, the matter was continued to tomorrow, February 27, 2007. Now look at the version of the EIR they are asking the City Council to Certify tomorrow, February 27, 2007.

THEY HAVE CHANGED IT!

The City Council cannot certify this changed version of the EIR as having been "reviewed and considered" by the public.

This is another example of DSD's dirty tricks. They write an EIR, have it "reviewed and considered" by the public, then secretly change it! Is there no end to what they will do on behalf of the developers who elected their boss, Mayor Jerry Sanders.

The City Council simply cannot adopt an Ordinance tomorrow that relies upon an altered EIR without proper public review. It would spawn dozens of law suits. The Madaffer "let them sue us" mantra must not be allowed to prevail.

Now look at the alteration they made. Go to page 2 of 13 of the altered version of the EIR. Before alteration it said: "Proposition D, limiting height in the Coastal Zone, would have to yield to the State Law mandating density bonuses and incentives".

After alteration it says the exact opposite. They simply stroked out the words "have to" and substituted "not" before the word "yield".

How can anybody deal with such people? And we pay their salaries. They seem prepared to tell any lie, misrepresent any law, intimidate and coerce any staff person, to get their way. They elected Sanders, now they own the city. Or do they?
 

The two Density Bonus Options side by side. 02/25/07

We can no longer accuse Mike Aguirre of not fighting Waring on this. Perhaps he finally has had enough of Waring's land use shenanigans. Aguirre prepared an excellent alternative to Waring's Ordinance. Now it is up to the City Council on Tuesday. They will face the wrath of their constituents if they choose Waring's Option 1. The best choice might be to continue this Item again and hold a series of public hearings. There is no need to rush this through on Tuesday - unless of course you happen to be a developer.
 

The City Attorney's legal advice must prevail. 02/25/07

When high-rise condos start going up on the beach, people will wake up. 02/23/07

Here is the City Council Docket for Tuesday:

"Introduce the ordinance in either Option 1 or Option 2.

Option 1 (the January 30 ordinance):

§143.0725 Density Bonus Provisions
A development proposal to utilize density bonus, in and of itself, shall be processed in accordance with Process One. A development requesting a density bonus is subject to the following ......

§143.0740 Development Incentives for Affordable Housing Density Bonus Projects
(b) The following incentives shall be provided through Process One consistent with Tables 143-07A, 143-07B, and 143-07C.

Option 2  (the City Attorney's "alternative"):

§143.0725 Density Bonus Provisions
A housing development entirely situated on land zoned for five or more pre-density bonus dwelling units for which an applicant is seeking a density bonus is subject to the following ....

§143.0740 Development Incentives for Affordable Housing Density Bonus Projects
(b) The following incentives are available consistent with Tables 143-07A, 143-07B, and 143-07C."

As you can see, Option 1 still requires Process One (ministerial) in both sections, while Option 2 does not require Process One in either section.

Then for the Machiavellian part. The Mayor's staff, backed up by memos from the City Attorney, say that Option 2 would be "out of compliance with state law". Then why are they offering it as an option? To make sure that the City Council passes Option 1 of course! How stupid do they think we are? Clearly it's a set up.

Here is the staff advice to City Council (page 63):

"There are two alternative actions for consideration. First, the Council may adopt the state mandated density bonus regulations and deny or modify the city-initiated density bonus incentives and still be in compliance with state mandates. Second, the Council may deny and/or modify the state mandated provisions of the regulations. However, this action would cause the regulations to be out of compliance with state law."

So what we've got here is the Mayor's staff and the City Attorney's staff united in giving cover to those City Councilors who want to bust the 30 foot height limit all along the coastal zone by deliberately misrepresenting State Law . As I have said many times in my blogs below, state law does not mandate Process One for density bonuses and everybody at DSD and everybody at the City Attorney's Office knows it.

The only question is: who on the City Council wants this? Do Peters and Faulconer want it? We'll know on Tuesday. If they vote for it, they obviously want it.

All I can do is wish Donna Frye luck. She seems to be the one remaining voice against incredible dishonesty at City Hall. If Faulconer and Peters vote for this, they have been lying to their coastal constituents all along. I don't know at what stage the public will get so enraged at being continuously lied to that they will march on City Hall.

No other city in California has asserted that state law requires that all density bonus concessions be granted by staff without any recourse to the City Council. If they pass Option 1, the Mayor's staff will be able to hand out 30 foot height limit busting concessions to every developer who applies for them and the City Council will have nothing to say about it. Is that what Peters and Faulconer want? Apparently so.

Here is Los Angeles' Density Bonus Ordinance. Perhaps Mr. Aguirre should call them and tell them they are "out of compliance with state law". It really is time for some honesty around here. Busting Prop D and lying about it may prove to be the straw that broke the camels back. When high-rise condos start going up beside some important people's homes on the beach, Peters and Faulconer will have some explaining to do.
 

The Density Bonus Law is a defining moment in City Government. 02/22/07

The solution to the Density Bonus vs. 30 Foot Height Limit problem. 02/16/07

Section 2. That Chapter 12, Article 6, Division 7, is amended by amending Section 126.0708."

Here's the solution:

Solution Part 1 (what should NOT be included in the Ordinance):

(A) The first part of the solution is NOT to delete Section 143.0760. When you read it (bottom of page 5) you will immediately see why they wanted to delete it. Their reason had nothing to do with implementing a density bonus ordinance:

"A deviation from the provisions of either Section 143.0730 or Section 143.0740 may be requested in accordance with a Site Development Permit and shall require that the findings in Section 126.0504(m) be made." [emphasis added]

A Site Development Permit to the DSD and its developer clients is like a cross to a vampire. These permits are codified at Chapter 12, Article 6, Division 5. Read the "Purpose" of these permits on page 1 of 12 and you will see why DSD hates them.

Section 126.0504(m) deals specifically with how these Site Development Permits apply to affordable housing. Read page 10 of 12. This Section requires a finding that the project really is affordable housing, not the fake variety.

No wonder DSD wanted to get rid of it (and the City Attorney obliged). The taxpayers pay the salaries of the staff who concocted this Ordinance on behalf of the developers.

So the first part of the solution is simply not to implement this little piece of chicanery - do not delete Section 143.0760. It offers some protection, in that it requires a level of review higher than an over-the-counter Process One "stamp-out", as they want.

(B) The City should NOT increase the density bonus above that required by the State. It should adopt into law the density bonuses mandated by the State and no more, at least in those areas that have an existing Height Limit Overlay Zone.

Look at what the City is proposing. They are going way beyond what the State requires. They are offering developers way more bonuses than State Law requires.

(C) They should NOT include in this density bonus legislation "Section 2. That Chapter 12, Article 6, Division 7, is amended by amending Section 126.0708."

As I explained in my February 13 blog "§126.0708 Findings for Coastal Development Permit Approval, starting at page 17 in their Draft Ordinance, they have inserted a whole section to keep Bob "easy findings" Manis busy. Remember, they tried to do all this under Process One i.e. "ministerially"! This is a classic pork-barrel under the guise of State mandated density bonus. All a developer will need to do is come up with some sad story about economic hardship if not granted the permit. Manis will be only too delighted to help him out."

Solution Part 2 (what should be included in the Ordinance):

If the City wants to protect the 30 foot height limit all over the city, not just in the Coastal Zone or the Prop D area, all it has to do is the following:

Add a small sub-section (c) to §131.0103 Official Zoning Maps, which would read something like this:

"In any area of the City where a Height Limit Overlay Zone exists, the overall maximum density shall be 1,452 square feet." That's all. The existing Land Development Code takes care of the details.

The key is to use the existing Land Development Code.

Chapter 13, Article 1, Division 1 is about Base Zones. Read the "Purpose" of Base Zones on page 1 of 12. The current effect of a 30 foot height limit is 30 units per acre. There are 43,560 square feet in an acre, divided by 30 = 1,452 square feet. The Official Zoning Maps use maximum square feet rather than maximum number of units.

The Certified Housing Element of the San Diego General Plan (page 18) states:

"The state Department of Housing and Community Development generally utilizes a threshold of 30 units per acre as the minimum density needed to potentially provide housing units for low- and very low-income households in urban areas. Fortunately, for the FY 2005-2010 period, San Diego does have sufficient land available that is designated for 30 units per acre or higher."

So, adding the above §131.0103 (c) would set the Base Zoned height limit for all density bonuses within a Height Limit Overlay Zone at 1,452 square feet and thus bring the implementation of the State density bonus law in line with San Diego's General Plan.

Remember, density bonuses are calculated on "Base Zone" density, not density after applying an Overlay Zone. For example, the Base Zoned height limit in the Coastal Zone ranges from 30 to 80 foot. Therefore a developer receives a considerable bonus before the application of the density bonus or any additional "concessions" or "incentives".

I offer this workable solution, there may be others, in order to demonstrate that the City of San Diego can readily enact a Density Bonus Ordinance that achieves the State's legislative objectives, while protecting the interests of San Diego citizens. All that is required is that city staff, both DSD and City Attorney's Office, act in good faith and serve the people of San Diego, not the narrow interests of the developer community.
 

A faded old picture tells the story - only too clearly. 02/15/07

The scary part about this new fight is that Mike Aguirre (our friend) is in bed with Sanders on this vital issue. He is acting as Sanders' attorney in gutting Prop D, when I thought we had elected him our attorney.

Here's their plan in a nutshell:

On February 27, 2007 they will enact a Density Bonus Ordinance, which gives a 20% "density bonus", plus a "concession" from any one "development standard", to any developer who will include 10% "moderately" affordable units.
 
The "concession" of course will be an exemption from the Prop D height limit. The developer can then go as high as he likes, which of course is the whole idea.

Aguirre's ignominious part in all this is to spread the lie that Prop D is protected by some magical powers he attributes to the Coastal Act, which it does not have.

So let's take an example. A developer wishes to build a high-rise condo project right on the beach, anywhere in the Coastal Zone. He wants to build 100 condo units. All he has to do is include 10 "affordable" units, in order to be able to go as high as he wants.

So what's "affordable"?

The California Health & Safety Code defines "moderate" income (which is all they need to get the height "concession") as 120% of the area's median income. Now go to SANDAG for the San Diego "median income". As you can see it is currently $61,043.

120% of $61,000 is $73,200. Any individual in San Diego who earns less than $73,200 qualifies for "low or moderate" income housing. So how much can a person earning $73,200 qualify for? Well, I am a mortgage broker and do this kind of calculation all day every day. So, several years ago I developed a spread sheet for that purpose.

The answer I would give to a client: approximately $400,000. In other words my client could qualify, as a "low-mod" buyer, in any project that offered a unit for $400,000. I could do hundreds of those deals today, which is why I should be on the other side of this issue. But I am burdened with a conscience. Perhaps it's the Irish in me.

Now I don't know about you, but I do not consider a person earning $6,100 per month with $85,000 cash to put down on a beach front condo in La Jolla, a particularly poor person. So I don't think the other 90 multi-million dollar condo owners will object too much with having to rub shoulders with 10 such "poor" folks, in the elevator and the underground parking, as the price they must pay for their splendid ocean view.

In San Diego, where only a small number of people can qualify for the median home price, everything that sells is "affordable housing". The developers will now be able to designate every single project in San Diego as "affordable housing". If it is selling it already is! Therefore, every single project will be entitled to a height limit "concession"!

Remember, the entire condo project becomes a "low income" housing project once it includes the above defined "poor people". The 90% millionaires will be living in a "low income" condo project on the beach. The entire Coastal Zone, not to mention East of 5, will be packed with "low income" housing, as depicted in the old faded picture above.

Pretty neat huh? Better call your City Councilor and ask him/her to explain to you what the heck is going on. Only our incredibly sophisticated San Diego developer community, perhaps the most sophisticated in the Nation, could come up with something as brilliant as this. No wonder Mike Aguirre has been seduced by them.
 

1,000 lying lawyers cannot change Prop D vs. Density Bonus. 02/13/07

They refer back to the City Attorney's MOL dated September 8, 2006, which states in its conclusion:

"State Density Bonus Law requires the granting of incentives and concessions under certain circumstances. However, because the Density Bonus Law also requires compliance with the Coastal Act, the City of San Diego has no authority to grant development incentives or concessions that are not provided for in the local coastal program as certified by the California Coastal Commission.

Local regulations and initiatives are generally preempted by the State Density Bonus Law. However, those regulations that are part of the certified local coastal program, including Proposition D, cannot be determined to be preempted, and must be read in conjunction and reconciled with the Density Bonus Law."

But, that is just flat out wrong. The mere approval and certification by the Coastal Commission of a local planning regulation e.g. San Diego's Prop D 30 foot height limit, does not make it part of the Coastal Act. Certification merely allows the City of San Diego or any other city to apply any additional standard that is not contrary to the provisions and objectives of the Coastal Act, in issuing a Coastal Permit. Additional provisions do not become part of the Coastal Act. That would be ridiculous. A city could literally rewrite the Coastal Act as if it were its own Municipal Code.

In drafting this Density Bonus Amendment and in writing these two MOLs, Deputy City Attorney Sharon Thomas deliberately tries to find ways of giving the developer community what it wants. It wants to sneak this Prop D busting Ordinance past a gullible public by falsely asserting that it does no such thing.

In fact the Density Bonus Law in Section 65915 (g) (5) states the exact opposite to what Thomas asserts: "The granting of a density bonus shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval." In other words the Density Bonus Law can be applied despite anything that might be incorporated in a Local Coastal Program. The legislators provided for and shut out exactly what Ms. Thomas and the developers are attempting to do.

And again at Section 65915 (k) they restate their caveat: "The granting of a concession or incentive shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval. This provision is declaratory of existing law." What could be clearer than that?

Now for the sneakiest trick of all: Ms. Thomas' MOL admits on page 2 that "The proposed ordinance does not amend that part of the City’s local coastal program." In other words she admits that in order to enact San Diego's Density Bonus Law there is no need for a trip to the Coastal Commission. Then what part of the City's Local Coastal Program are they changing? The Environmentally Sensitive Lands provision!

That's right. Not satisfied with busting the Prop D height limit, while loudly protesting their innocence, they are granting themselves the means of busting the Environmentally Sensitive Lands provisions in the Coastal Zone Program.

Read §126.0708 Findings for Coastal Development Permit Approval, starting at page 17 in their Draft Ordinance They have inserted a whole section to keep Bob "easy findings" Manis busy. Remember, they tried to do all this under Process One i.e. "ministerially"! This is a classic pork-barrel under the guise of State mandated affordable housing. All a developer will need to do is come up with some story about economic hardship if not granted the permit. Manis will be only too delighted to help him out.

Even when a project may have to go to a higher discretionary process, the "easy findings" will flow and the Council will uphold them all, just as they did with NBC. Whatever it took to get Tony Young's vote at NBC will be done again and again.

All the above discussion does not even mention what happens East of 5. If they can do this West of 5, can you imagine what they will do East of 5? Maybe that is why they are beginning to tell us about the joys of live-work units. They know that all this density will jam the roads and there will be no public transport worth mentioning.
Watch the video where the SDRCC tries to sell us on their live-work heaven, sans parking.
 

The end of Planned Districts. "Form-Based Codes" to the rescue. 02/12/07

The Chamber wants to bust the 30 foot height limit. 02/11/07

The City's proposed Density Bonus Law definitely busts Prop D. 02/07/07

"§143.0740 (a) (5) Any development requesting an incentive within the Coastal Overlay Zone shall be required to make the findings in Section 126.0708 (i.e. obtain a City-issued Coastal Permit) and any development within the area identified on Map C-380 (i.e. the Prop D area) shall be subject to the regulations of Chapter 13, Article 2, Division 5, (i.e. the Codification of Prop. D, known as the Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone) in accordance with the certified Local Coastal Program (i.e. the City's LCP already certified by the Coastal Commission)."

But that is already the case!

Here is a "clean" copy of the full Proposed Ordinance, with this amendment included. They simply added a spurious clause (5) to §143.0740 (a), on pages 11 and 12.

I downloaded the entire California Government Code Section 65915, the relevant State law on the matter of Affordable Housing Density Bonus, which you can read for yourself. I urge you to do so (for some reason a hyperlink to the State's server will not work, but try it here anyway).

First, an explanation of the difference between a "density bonus" and a "concession".

State Code Section 65915 mandates that cities give a "density bonus" to developers who are willing to include in their projects a percentage of affordable housing units. The size of that bonus is determined by the percentage of affordable units included in each project. Read the State's Chart in Code Section 65915 linked above. DSD has incorporated the State Chart into its Proposed Ordinance as Tables 143-07A, 143-07B, and 143-07C. The two charts say exactly the same thing.

In addition to this "density bonus", the State requires cities to offer 1 to 3 additional "concessions or incentives", again based upon the percentage of affordable units included in each project. These "concessions" are deviations from a city's own "Development Standards". They are not mandatory. But a city must offer them.

A developer may ask for any "concession" that would help achieve the "density bonus" the project is entitled to under Section 65915. The city may refuse to grant a particular "concession" and offer something else instead. The State does not mandate what a "concession" must be, only that it be a "Development Standard" of that particular city.

A city may grant only up to a certain number of "concessions". Even if the developer does not need them to achieve the State-mandated "density bonus", a city may grant them as additional "incentives". That becomes a matter of policy.

San Diego's Prop D 30 foot height limit is a "Development Standard". Therefore a developer may ask for a "concession" from that standard and the City must respond. A city cannot prevent a developer from asking for any deviation from any "Development Standard", as defined in State Code Section 65915 (o) (1). It can only decide what its answer will be.

It is this answer to a "concession" request that DSD is trying to load in favor of the developers. DSD inserted a clause in the Proposed Ordinance that would mandate DSD's response be a Process One determination! Every time! That is pure chicanery.

Read my blog of February 5, 2007 for a full explanation of the significance of Process One. And look again at "Diagram 112-05A", contained in the Land Development Code (Chapters 10 thru 15 of the Municipal Code).

DSD quotes a clause in State Code 65915 (k): ".... The granting of a a concession or incentive shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval [emphasis added]." Nor does it require, "in and of itself", a Process One determination! DSD is misrepresenting this clause as justification for mandating Process One.

When a developer asks for an exemption from the Prop D 30 foot height limit (not in the Coastal Zone), according to the Proposed Ordinance, §143.0740 (b), "the following incentives shall be provided through Process One". That's what needs to go.

In the Coastal Zone there is some protection, not because of the spurious amendment put out by DSD last week and described above, but because the Coastal Act says so.

The Coastal Act says all Coastal Development Permits have to be Process Two, i.e. discretionary. If you look at "Diagram 112-05A" you will see that the only difference between Process One and Two is that the staff decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission, that may still use its discretionary power and grant the "concession". It would then become a discretionary "incentive".

So what can DSD do (if it wants to) to ensure that every request for a height limit "concession" is treated no differently than any other planning application? What would work best is a declaratory statement in the Proposed Ordinance reiterating State Code 65915 (k), emphasizing the fact that State Law is neutral on how a city processes any "concession" request. A myriad of factors determine under which Process the City should process any application, including a density bonus concession. In its Code Section 65915 (k) the State was very careful to not interfere in that flexibility.

When appropriate DSD staff can still process a "concession" request under Process One. They will simply rely on the Land Development Code to decide the appropriate Process. A clause mandating a Process Two or higher would be doing for supporters of Prop D, what DSD is attempting to do for developers.

The existing system, as depicted in "Diagram 112-05A", should be allowed to work. DSD staff do not need any special guidance to tell them under which Process they should administer density bonus "concessions". The existing procedures are clear and universal. DSD staff are already familiar with them.

Now for an explanation of what happens when the City (DSD) denies a "concession" request. State Code 65915 provides for that situation as follows:

"Section 65915 (d) (1) An applicant for a density bonus pursuant to subdivision (b) may submit to a city, county, or city and county a proposal for the specific incentives or concessions that the applicant requests pursuant to this section, and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. The city, county, or city and county shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the city, county, or city and county makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of either of the following:"

The Section then goes on to describe a series of legitimate grounds for denying a "concession". The most likely would probably be a "finding" that:

"The concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code."

But what if that particular "concession" is the only one that will achieve the project's "density bonus" entitlement? For example, a developer could apply to build 100 units with 30 "affordable" units included and claim a 35% State-mandated "density bonus" on a lot that would normally be too small for 100 units. The developer would then claim "entitlement" to any additional "concession" that would enable the achievement of a 35% "density bonus".

If no combination of any three "concessions" (the max allowed to anybody) could enable the 35% density bonus entitlement to be achieved, would DSD be obligated under State Law to grant a Prop D busting "concession"? Or would other factors come into play? What would be the City's options? That question should surely not be confined to a Process One determination. We all know what Bob Manis would "find".

If the DSD Ordinance as currently drafted goes forward, Jim Waring can grant Prop D-busting "concessions" to every developer on Jerry Sanders' campaign contribution list. Waring and DSD will justify them all as necessary "incentives". DSD, not the City Council will decide when developer "incentives" are necessary. DSD will be in charge of the affordable housing "incentives" cookie jar. That's the real intent.

Nice try DSD. Please get rid of "the following incentives shall be provided through Process One" and let's have a serious public discussion on how to reconcile the various interests involved here, not just the developers. It's called democracy.
 

A big victory for Donna Frye and the public yesterday. 02/06/07

The Planned District Ordinances are next for DSD's chopping block. 02/05/07

Escobar-Eck's Sunroad letter raises a huge red flag. 02/04/07

The Coastal Commission made its concerns known in October. 01/31/07

The Coastal Commission is not buying the Navy Broadway deal. 01/31/07

They have questions about the use of condo-hotel and office-condo units. Those questions alone could derail the project. They will almost certainly not allow the condo concept to be used in any way whatsoever, because it would set a statewide precedent. And Manchester is relying for his financing on the income from condo sales.

But this is the part of the letter I love the most: "The "Geotechnical and Geologic Fault Investigation" dated July 12, 20O6, submitted with the application is missing Figures 8, 9, and 10 of the Terra Physics Report contained in Appendix D; please provide this information". Busted! You don't get away with tearing out vital pages from a document in your submission to the Coastal Commission! What was Manchester thinking?

Between you me and the gate post, the Coastal Commission staff had a little heads up on that piece of skullduggery, not that they wouldn't have discovered it on their own. Manchester is so spoiled from dealing with the DSD. But his $50,000 "subscription" to Sanders' favorite charity, the Prop C campaign, counts for nothing with the good folks at the California Coastal Commission. He is not used to this kind of letter. 

When the Commission reviews the seismic data, the project is dead. There is no way any developer can achieve the density Manchester needs to make a present of $160 million to the Navy for their Headquarters Building and meet the mitigation requirements that will apply once the true seismic facts of this site are confronted.

One simply cannot put the amount of square footage proposed on a site that has both a fault and is subject to liquefaction. One of these, on its own, maybe. But both! No way.

Sorry "Pappa" Doug, that space is taken - apparently a Higher Authority has reserved it for a park. Kinda makes a believer out of one, doesn't it?
 

Here is the smoking gun - DSD meant to neuter Prop D today.  01/30/07

"Not so fast" says Council Member Donna Frye! 01/30/07

Full background on how "Affordable Housing" will neuter Prop D.  01/30/07

                                                        by Pat Flannery                                        top^

For those of you who would like to fully understand the Affordable Housing Density Bonus issue that is before the City Council today, here for the record is some information and supporting documentation.

The best place to start is with this extract from the City Attorney's MOL: "While generally, municipal initiatives and regulations are preempted by State Density Bonus Law, the height limit set forth in Proposition D has previously been certified by the Coastal Commission as part of the City’s land use plan. The City does not have any authority to grant a permit that is not in conformance with that certified land use plan."

Therefore to circumvent Prop D all that was needed was a change to the City's certified plan as it relates to the Coastal Zone. That is done by amending the Municipal Code. So here it is:

126.0708 (b) Findings for Coastal Development Permit Approval.

"(2) A deviation from the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Regulations when requested as an incentive for providing affordable housing pursuant to the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Regulations in Chapter 14, Article 3, Division 7, may be approved or conditionally approved only if the decision maker makes the following supplemental findings in addition to the findings in Section 126.0708(a)(1) through (4):

(A) Feasible alternatives to the requested incentive and the effect of such alternatives on coastal resources have been considered;

(B) Granting the incentive or alternative will not adversely affect coastal resources."

You can rest assured that these "supplemental findings" will be as forthcoming, as routine and as "ministerial" as the infamous Manis CEQA finding on Navy Broadway (after the usual donation to the Mayor's favorite charity of course). That is why DSD has stipulated that all these "findings" will be done "administratively" - for cost efficiency you understand. We now have an "efficient" Mayor who is "cleaning up" (on) the city.

Again, just so you understand that DSD (read developers) know exactly what they are doing: they tried this before with the Coastal Commission but got shot down. They learned however, exactly what the Coastal Commission would or would not approve. This new amendment to Section 126.0708 is it. Everything else is just a diversion.

"Low or Moderate income" is defined in the California Health & Safety Code, Section 50093. I have downloaded just that section, but you can go to the State web site and read the whole thing here. Essentially "low or moderate income" is defined as 120% of an area's median income. But the State and the City may agree to "permit the agency to use higher income limitations in designated geographic areas of the state, upon a determination that 120 percent of the median income in the particular geographic area is too low to qualify a substantial number of persons and families of low or moderate income who can afford rental or home purchase" under the Law.

Not only is the definition of "low or moderate income" flexible, but the developers will be able to include whatever percentage of "low or moderate income" they will need to qualify for whatever concession they are after e.g. unlimited building height. And it will all be done "administratively". They have thought of everything. You and I, or even the City Council, will have nothing to say about it. San Diego truly is the "Developers Finest City"! Even the City Council is irrelevant. With Sanders they achieved a clean sweep.

I (above) extracted the most important section, the one that busts the Coastal Zone 30 foot height limit, Section 126.0708 (b) (2) (A) and (B), but you may read the entire draft (strikeout) of the Code amendments the City Council will presumably enact today. Presumably, because they always do what they are told by either the developers or the unions. No doubt today will be no different.

Also, here is a summary of the changes made to the State Density Bonus Law by SB 1818, adopted January 1, 2005 and by SB 435 adopted June 21, 2005. This document was initially attached to the Report to The City Council, 07-021 when posted on the City web site last week, but was mysteriously withdrawn yesterday! Go figure.

The San Diego developers had a large hand in SB 1818. Now it is pay-off time.

Here is the actual SB 1818 Bill and here is a background written by the California Chapter of the American Planning Association. It may be too late to prevent it, but at least you now know how what happened to your San Diego coastline, happened. It happened because the only ones paying attention were the developers.
 

After tomorrow, the 30 foot Coastal Height Limit is history. 01/29/07

ITEM-331 (Amendments Related to Affordable Housing Density Bonus, page 34) on tomorrow's City Council Adoption Agenda, is a sneak attack on Prop D, the 30 foot coastal height limit law.

The City Attorney's Memorandum of Law (MOL), dated September 8, 2006, said that "the height limit set forth in Proposition D has previously been certified by the Coastal Commission as part of the City’s land use plan. The City does not have any authority to grant a permit that is not in conformance with that certified land use plan".

Far from warning them (DSD) off, the City Attorney's MOL told them what needed to be done. Betsy McCullough, the recipient of the Memo, and DSD staff, got busy. I doubt that is what the City Attorney intended.

Their Report to The City Council, 07-021, dated January 24, 2007, states in the last paragraph of page 4: "The ordinance approving the amendments to these regulations will be crafted to allow implementation in those areas of the city outside the Coastal Overlay Zone 30 days after the second reading by the City Council. Implementation in areas within the Coastal Overlay Zone will become effective upon the unconditional certification of the regulations by the California Coastal Commission" [emphasis added].

This means that DSD is putting us on notice that they intend to apply to the Coastal Commission for "unconditional certification" of their new height regulations, which will effectively neuter Prop D.

Proposition D became effective on December 7, 1972. It imposed a 30 foot building height limit within the City of San Diego's coastal zone: "The Coastal Zone was defined in Proposition D as the area from the US-Mexico border to the northern border of the City of San Diego, and from the Pacific Ocean to Interstate 5."

If the City Council adopts this Ordinance tomorrow, the developers will be able to circumvent the 30 foot height limitation anywhere, so long as they include a percentage of moderate income units. Note the requirement is for "moderate", not "low" income units. That will be easy for the developers to meet and well worth it.

Developers will gladly swap an "inclusionary" housing element for unlimited building height. This single Ordinance, if passed, will change the face of San Diego forever. If passed, it will demonstrate that the people of this city are no longer represented at City Council. The developers (and the unions) ARE the Government.

Don't imagine for one moment that all the City Council members are not fully aware of what this Ordinance will do to our coastal zone. Here is what the actual Docket for tomorrow says:

"The proposed amendments to the Land Development Code would apply to the Coastal Zone, therefore the City Council’s decision requires amending the City’s Local Coastal Program. As a result, the final decision on the amendments to the Land Development Code and associated Local Coastal Program amendments will be with the California Coastal Commission. The City of San Diego must submit the amendments to the Land Development Code as an amendment for certification to the Coastal Commission. The amendment is not effective in the Coastal Zone until the Coastal Commission unconditionally certifies the amendment." [emphasis added].

What could be clearer than that? That stuff didn't just write itself. The clear intent of this City, through its City Council, is to abandon the 30 foot height limit all across the city, including the coastal zone.

The only thing that now stands between the final demise of our 30 foot coastal height limit is a Coastal Commission hearing sometime later this year. The developers will be there en masse with their highly paid propagandists. They will tell the world that they did it all for the poor folks. "Comical" Jim Madaffer will be priceless tomorrow, advocating for the poor folks. It would be hilarious - if it wasn't so tragic.

He will tell us how our socially-conscious developers, the very engine of our County's economy, have fought the "enviro-nazis" (to quote Doug Manchester last week) and finally busted that loathsome 30 foot height limit, imposed by narrow-minded, tree-hugging obstructionists, who just don't get what real progress means. His rich builder friends will now be glad to include a number (the absolute minimum, of course) of "moderate" income units in their high priced skyscraper condos, so they can qualify for their well-deserved "height bonus".

Ah! the genius of San Diego business. It turns obstacles into opportunities. And what an opportunity low and moderate income housing has turned out to be! That wonderful "Density Bonus" State Law. Now whoever sponsored that? San Diego developers no doubt. What a small price to pay for vertical freedom, They'll figure out later how to get around actually building these pesky units - plenty more genius where this came from.

As a final gesture of defiance to us "enviro-nazis" (yes, you and I), the DSD staff wrote:

"If you wish to be noticed of the Coastal Commission hearing on this issue, you must submit a request in writing to the Development Services Department, Attention: Dan Joyce, Senior Planner, 1222 First Avenue, MS 501, San Diego, CA 92101 before the close of the City Council public hearing. If you wish to challenge the City’s action on the above proceedings in court, you may be limited to addressing only those issues you or someone else have raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or written in correspondence to the City at or before the public hearing."

It is more painful every day to witness the steady destruction of everything that made this city the place of my dreams. I suppose I was blessed to be able to enjoy the last 30 years before the deluge. My children and grandchildren will not be so lucky.
 

 01/26/07 - An alternative to Manchester and the Navy - John Moores.
Good or bad?

Today in the U-T Steve Peace and Ron Roberts laid out the grand vision of John Moores and his friends in the Labor Council for the future heart and soul of San Diego. Surprised I said John Moores and the Labor Council? Don't be. Moores' ace-in-the-hole against his arch rival Doug Manchester for downtown hegemony, is Jerry Butkiewicz.

Manchester will never do a deal with the unions. He hates them. He has made that clear over many years and over many developer deals. Moores on the other hand understands the power Butkiewicz and the unions have over the City Council - the unions finance most of their campaigns. We all know you cannot get elected dog-catcher in this town without either the unions or the developers. When you have both you can be king.

Butkiewicz is grooming Lorena Gonzales to win back District 2 from Kevin Faulconer in 2010. She knows a lot about coastal issues. Having lost to Faulconer in the 2006 runoff, she went to work for Butkiewicz at the Labor Council.

No doubt she and veteran politician/campaigner Steve Peace, now a senior VP for Moores, are the political engineers in this coastal/airport redevelopment plan.

Today's op-ed piece is the opening (public) salvo in the battle of the developer giants, Doug Manchester and John Moores. Whichever one wins gets to remake San Diego for future generations. Steve and Ron are right, this is a once in a century opportunity.

Their initial line of attack is to call Manchester's Navy Broadway project "piecemeal development". That's a good first jab. Then they present the grandest re-development plan for the heart of San Diego anybody has seen since John Nolan.

A clue to their overall intent is this quote: "the linchpin is Lindbergh Field's master plan.The San Diego County Airport Authority must act immediately to move terminal operations to the Pacific Highway side of the airport".

That would constitute the first stage in their redevelopment plan for the area running from the old Police Station all the way to dog's beach. Read my piece "The Knights and peasants of San Diego Today on November 16, 2006?

Lindbergh Field is indeed the linchpin. It would be the centerpiece of a giant joint-authority project. Today's U-T piece is the first I had heard of their plan to close down Harbor Drive. It may  have been considered too radical to mention earlier, or maybe their drawing boards have been busy in the meantime. They would close Harbor Drive in order to create an integrated esplanade and waterway running all the way from downtown to the west end of what would become Lindberg's "south" runway. The new waterway would run between Harbor Island and the airport and continue along the east side of NTC.

This would be integrated with "a mega-terminal that showcases the waterfront. This could even be designed as a joint-use facility with the Convention Center". Presumably people movement would be by a distinctive San Diego style water bus. Yes, that would be "cool". It would certainly provide San Diego with a "signature" experience. I'm not sure how the folks in Point Loma would like having to take a water taxi to get to downtown. But that's the great thing about democratic politics, we can all get into the fight.

I know John Moores comes from Huston and that everything is big in Texas, but man, this is big! This shows his Texas-size you-know-whats. "Pappa" Doug would be eclipsed by "Grandpappa" Moores. His plan is the father and mother of all San Diego visionary plans. It makes Navy Broadway positively "piecemeal".

But both of these San Diego Princes have mother nature to reckon with. They cannot get around the fact that there are seismic fault lines running all over the place. Lorena as an environmental attorney knows very well how much "fill" is involved. She knows that faults and "fill" liquefaction make a deadly combination. I hope she has so advised Moores.

Personally, so long as developers stay off our tidelands (they are for our grandkids) and that they check for fault lines, I don't care what they build behind the high-tide line .They can build a dozen Sears Towers for all I care. That's why I don't like Manchester. Most all of what he has built is on tidelands and he has flatly refused to check for fault lines on what is clearly "fill" land at NBC. That is criminal in my book. Lives are at stake. But the NBC battle is not over yet. I believe he will be forced to do it and it will kill his project. Maybe it's the scent of that failure Moores & Co. are picking up.

If Moores and his "project-labor" relationship with the unions is the alternative, let's deal with them. Moores and the unions can hardly be worse than what Manchester and the Navy. Look what they tried to do to us. Nothing is perfect in life, but we can at least aspire to better than Doug and the Navy's commercial monstrosity. Peace and Roberts say: "the best results come from our elected and appointed leaders working with developers, landowners and community groups". That's a nice change from DSD's Waring and Escobar-Eck treating "community groups" as the enemy. We'll see.

(One little amusing correction for Steve and Ron: Miramar is a Marine Corps not a Navy base. The Navy fly boys now have a new address: Fallon, Nevada. Too funny!)
 

Does the City have a "special relationship" with the Bank of America? 01/25/07

                                                        by Pat Flannery                                        top^

John Torell, the former City Auditor & Comptroller, was "re-engineered" by Sanders and his staff right back to Santa Barbara, where he came from less than two years ago. His ouster underlines the successful power-grab the Sanders administration has become.

On his resignation just before Christmas, John offered this to Alison St. John of KPBS, regarding the current culture at City Hall "The bottom line: this survey they just completed where they asked people if they felt free to speak up and to be open and all, and the results of that didn't seem to be too good!" There is no doubt John felt marginalized. In fact he was doomed from the very moment Sanders took over.

On December 17, 2005, shortly after Sanders was elected, I wrote a blog about John's knowledge or lack thereof of the very suspicious $152 million City bond deal with the Bank of America on October 24, 2005. John was as baffled as I was. I found him very forthcoming and as anxious as I was to get to the bottom of an apparent "special relationship" between the City and the Bank of America. We both wondered if a massive misrepresentation had not been made to the City Council by (since resigned) City staffer Dennis Kahlie. What Kahlie presented to the City Council made no sense.

Whatever happened with John then, it was obvious to me that somebody put the muzzle on him. He just clammed up totally. It was right at the time of the 2005 mayoral election. Sanders and his people were closing in on City Hall.  It was then I became aware that a dark cloud of secrecy was descending on City Hall. I wondered whether John would survive. He didn't. The surprise was that he lasted as long as he did.

The questions I raised back in October 2005 are looming even larger now. Hundreds of millions of dollars of refinancing deals are in the works, by the very people who marginalized and eased out a City Auditor because he showed an interest in doing his job. John was without doubt an outstanding City Auditor, something Sanders and his staff obviously would prefer to do without.

In order to understand what happened in October 2005 between the City and the Bank of America please read the three successive blogs I wrote at that time. I researched it thoroughly and talked at length to the various players, including City Auditor John Torell.

On October 24, 2005 City staffer Dennis Kahlie represented to the City Council that the Bank of America had offered the City a loan of $152 million at 2.624% interest rate, without any upfront deductions. The City Council bought it. Watch the streaming video for October 24, 2005. Go to Item 200 approximately 1 hour 10 minutes in. Madaffer moved the motion and acted as salesman for the Bank of America.

Now, on January 16, 2007, the City Council has approved going ahead with the refinancing of the original $169 million 2002 ballpark bond, with a $172 million bond from the Bank of America. Read the staff proposal to the City Council here on pages 25 to 27 and view the streaming video. It is Item 332 about 7 hours 54 minutes in.

According to Goldstone this was a "negotiated" deal as opposed to a "competitive" deal. City staff use the word "negotiated" when no RFP is issued. It turns out that whatever deal was "negotiated" with the Bank of America was done in 2004, under Murphy!

CFO Jay Goldstone and his staff described "Banc" of America LLC in their report as the "structuring agent" for Bank of America, which of course is just a nice word for a loan broker. "Banc" of America LLC is a strange and troubled entity that worries me. If you haven't done so already, read about it in my 2005 blogs beginning here.

Goldstone referred to an interest rate called the "true interest cost" (TIC). TIC is rather like the APR on your home loan in that it is supposed to take into account the closing costs. But as with APR not all closing costs are included in the calculation. This can be very misleading. We do not know for example whether "Banc" of America received a brokerage fee or whether brokerage fees are even considered an issuing cost.

Goldstone's staff report said that the original ballpark bond had a TIC of 8.53% and the refinance bond would have one of 4.78%. But those are based upon the loans running full term - in the case of the new BofA loan, 25 years. TIC thus becomes vastly higher when a loan is paid off early, because the total cost of issuance has to be absorbed over a shorter period - in the case of the original bond that will now be under 5 years.

We know that the City realized only $130 million cash from that $169 million 2002 bond. The rest was therefore issuing costs. No wonder Merrill Lynch would not negotiate. They wanted that loan paid off early so they could reap a cash bonanza. Sanders obliged.

Moving the staff proposal (again), Jim Madaffer said "this is how to do things" and that this was "one heck of a good deal". Yes Jim, it probably was "one heck of a good deal" for somebody - but not for the City of San Diego or its tax payers. I wonder who?

The bottom line here is that there is something very fishy going on between this City and the Bank of America. A sweetheart deal was apparently struck back in 2004 under Murphy. Sanders is honoring it because he is merely the present spokesman for the same cadre of faceless downtown business elite that continue to run this city. In addition to grabbing City land like Montgomery Field, they also want to raid the City Treasury. Was that why Torell was forced out? Because he is an honest man?

Sanders was the political creation of Golding and McGrory. They pulled him out of obscurity and made him Police Chief, simply because they knew he would do what he was told, a character trait highly valued by the secretive "business" bosses.

Jerry is essentially a performer, but a very good one. So far he has fooled the people of San Diego. They have bought his act. The trouble is that bosses such as his always want more. John Moores was not content with the gift of a ballpark by Murphy, he wanted more and more and more, more than Murphy could finally dare. Who knows what Murphy had already given to his "friends" and what more they expected of him. His former employer, the Bank of America, may have been one of those "friends".

It will be the same with Sanders, because, like Murphy, he is not his own man. Like Murphy, Sanders is owned lock stock and barrel by a cadre of ruthless business interests. It will be interesting to see if Jerry runs for a second term. Dick Murphy should have stuck to his instincts in 2003, when he announced he would not run for a second term, even though he loved being Mayor. But they got him back on the wagon again.

If any of you can shed any light on this "special" relationship between the City and the Bank of America, I would love to hear from you. I personally believe that much is being hidden from us and to paraphrase John Torell: "that doesn't seem to be too good".
 

The truth behind Sunroad's development at Montgomery Field. 01/18//07

                                                        by Pat Flannery                                        top^

Bob Kittle is mystified at "Sunroad's defiance of state and federal regulators" in his editorial today. He says: "We are normally sympathetic to developers in their struggles with bureaucracies, but this is ridiculous". It is far from ridiculous from Jim Waring's point of view. Just look at the satellite picture below.

Waring wants the FAA to withdraw Montgomery Field's operator's license! It's as simple as that. The reason is obvious - land.

Now look at that picture from Waring's point of view. All that developable land being wasted on an airport. Remember, Jim's DSD is in business - with the developers. They do the big development deals and DSD rakes in the big fees. Have you checked out DSD's parking lot lately? Notice all the BMWs and Lexus' not to mention the Mercedes'?

That piece of ground you see before you should be good for many more millions in developer fees and mega contributions to up and coming politicians like Tony Young. Did you know Tony was on the Airport Board? Did you know he is on Jim Waring's Land Use Committee? That's how our city is run. And all this time I thought Bob Kittle knew.
 

The Jewel of San Diego County, perhaps of the State. 01/16/07

                                                        by Pat Flannery                                        top^

The beautiful green valley in the center of the photograph below is Rancho Guejito, the last intact Spanish Land Grant in all of California. Read the history of the Californios who owned these rancheros before the Anglos came. These pristine California valleys were as near to heaven as it is possible to get on earth. This the last one.

Read this short piece by the Conservation Biology Institute (CBI), describing why Rancho Guejito is "The Jewel of San Diego County". It is actually the jewel of California.

Preserving this jewel should not be left to the much maligned "Environmentalists", this is a matter for all of us. I am glad to see that the U-T has taken up the fight. Hopefully there is a growing awareness that Southern California is a special place and can only accommodate so many people. Sooner or later we have to say enough is enough.

It is already a very different place from what I fell in love with over 30 years ago. I can't imagine what those who came here in the 19th century would think of today's choked freeways and modern "development". So much of what set this place apart has already been lost. If the present trend continues San Diego County will become just another desolation of concrete and over-crowding, all in the name of "development".

We have to redefine "development" before it is too late. Human values must be reintroduced into the concept. Developers have stolen our best words to sell their soul-destroying high-density "projects". Their use of the word "visionary" for example, as in their North Embarcadero "Visionary" Plan, is "visionary" only in the scale of its greed.

If capitalism is to serve mankind, like any ideology it must be carefully managed and restrained. Right now, in its "developer" mode, it is an unrestrained monster. The best way to fight this growing developer greed is to get involved with your local Community Planning Group. These Groups are official organs of city government and can be decisive - if you participate! They are the City's template for development in your area.

You owe it to your children and grandchildren to get involved in YOUR Community Plan. Right now most are dominated by industry hacks masquerading as community people.
 

A different take on Jim Waring. 01/11/07

I agree with Scott Lewis of The Voice in his opinion piece today, that Jim Waring is "one of the most interesting people at City Hall", but not in the way Scott Lewis means it.

Of course it all depends on how you perceive Mayor Sanders goals of "achieving regulatory efficiency", "expediting development" and "reducing the permit processing period". Very laudable goals if you happen to be a developer who contributed heavily to Mayor Sanders election. I'm not sure how it will improve the quality of life in the neighborhoods or protect the environment.

Therefore unlike Scott Lewis I do not support Waring's goal of making it all "over-the-counter" for Sanders' developer backers. I am all for efficiency and expediting the permit process. As a small businessman myself I am all for reducing business costs, but what Waring is attempting to do has nothing to do with business or government efficiency or the reduction of costs. It has to do with avoiding CEQA compliance. His mission for Sanders and his developer backers is to make the whole development process "ministerial" thus avoiding public scrutiny. But they have forgotten one thing: State Law.

Section 21151(c) of the Public Resources Code says:

"If a nonelected decision-making body of a local lead agency certifies an environmental impact report, approves a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, or determines that a project is not subject to this division, that certification, approval, or determination may be appealed to the agency’s elected decisionmaking body, if any."

Lewis quotes Waring: "It should only matter what the community has clearly declared that it wants to allow built on a parcel of land". I fully agree with that sentence except the word "only" - Waring is attempting to ignore or minimize CEQA.

Again Lewis quotes Waring: "only the richest developers with the best lawyers and lobbyists have the ability to get their projects through City Hall the way they wanted them". Yes, lobbying is a bonanza for the "best lawyers and lobbyists", but worse, it tends to corrupt city officials. That is bad. Why, for example did Tony Young vote with the developers on Tuesday? He promised one of the NBC appellants, the night before, that he would vote to uphold the appeal. Why did he change his mind?

The reason it takes "the best lawyers and lobbyists" to get a project approved "the way they wanted them" is because Waring and his DSD staff, acting as a "nonelected decision-making body", routinely certify environmental impact reports, approve negative impact declarations and determine that a project is not subject to CEQA, with total disregard for what constitutes a significant environmental impact.

It is these DSD actions that result in so many citizen appeals before the City Council. Waring may find them insufferably tedious but he is their direct cause. So, Jim and Scott, you are both going to see more, not less, tedious appeals before the City Council if Jim and his DSD staff persist in their "ministerial" approach to CEQA.

This "ministerial" approach has risks for the developers too. For example, Waring assured Manchester that the Manis CEQA finding was not appealable. Not only was he wrong about that, he is wrong now in telling Manchester that he does not have to do an adequate seismic fault investigation before starting construction of the Navy headquarters building. If there really is a seismic fault running through that site, and it is not discovered until after the Navy has its HQ building, Manchester will have been had - he will be unable to build the private rentable space. Has either one of them thought about that?

I am delighted that Waring is committed to completing the remaining Community Plans as quickly as possible, but that is not his problem. His problem is that he is trying to sidestep CEQA. His friends can have all the projects they like, over the counter, in a matter of hours, if they will just obey CEQA law. But every time they ignore it, or refuse to do mitigation, they will be appealed. If they stop to think about it, it is better business to just obey the law. But that is not Jim's way. That is why he is so "interesting".

Citizens will be watching to make sure the kind of last minute "lobbying" that obviously took place late on Monday night or Tuesday morning will not happen again - at least not without a Cheetah's style investigation. As one activist said to me recently, the only difference between Manchester's $50,000 "donation" and Cheetah's bribes, was that Charles Lewis, Ralph Inzunza and Michael Zuchett were being wiretapped by the FBI.
 

Is Tony Young corrupt? 01/10/07

San Diegans as a whole got what they deserved yesterday because a majority of them voted for Sanders at the last election. In doing so they knowingly voted for wall-to-wall development. That is exactly what they are now getting - no more parks or open spaces..

But the good people of District 4 did not deserve what their City Councilman, Tony Young, did to them yesterday. He disgraced them. He should forever hang his head in shame. He withheld the one vote that would have sent Navy Broadway back to BRAC so the people, not Jerry Sanders and his Navy CEO, could decide what to do with it. The DSD staff needed five votes to uphold their "finding", therefore four votes would have upheld the citizen appeal.

Donna Frye was her usual passionate self on behalf of the ordinary people of San Diego, against the greed machine that elected Sanders. In addition to voting to uphold the citizens' appeals, she resisted Sanders attempt to add credibility to the farce that is now his Audit Committee - it is to be chaired by his lapdog, Kevin Faulconer. Sanders tried to make Frye Faulconer's Vice-Chair to make it look like this was a real audit committee. That dubious honor now goes to, you guessed it, the "Honorable" Tony Young.

If you still have doubts about who is running this city, read Mel Shapiro's research into Kevin Faulconer's political contributors - the Republican Party and the Lincoln Club - then tell me Faulconer is not a lapdog. Maybe we'll see Tony Young's name on the Lincoln Club's contribution list next time. Maybe he will run as a Republican.

But there are Honorable Council Members. In addition to the ever-honorable Donna Frye, Toni Atkins and Ben Hueso displayed a high degree of moral integrity yesterday by voting to uphold the citizens' appeals.

Atkins, with close personal ties to CCDC (through her friend Jennifer LaSar who chairs its board) did not flinch from following the dictates of her conscience yesterday. In fact LaSar, to her everlasting credit, has been on the side of the people all along with regard to Navy Broadway. Toni must be as shocked and dismayed as the rest of us at Young's sneaky vote. He and Madaffer rudely absented themselves during most of the discussion. They showed total disdain for the opinions of the public. Then when the time came to vote Young just sat there and silently pressed the voting button, exactly as his developer masters had instructed him. Tony is moving on up.

Ben Hueso may have had a weather eye on his (anticipated) appointment to the Coastal Commission. His vote yesterday may be a clue to how he will vote on the hotel-condo issue when it comes before the Coastal Commission. Manchester still has to clear that hurdle. Let's hope Hueso remains honorable and votes against all hotel-condos anywhere on the California coastline. We don't want our coastline becoming the private privilege of those who can afford waterfront condos.

Hueso must have been as shocked at Young's vote as the rest of us. I am not (quite) Machiavellian enough to think that they had it all worked out between them, but in politics anything is possible. Land use appeals have a habit of failing by one mysterious vote. The consistency of that outcome shows the stranglehold developers have on San Diego. They seem to be able to purchase that one crucial vote every time.

So now what? Well, the seismic fault is still there. It will have to be dealt with at the building permit stage. There is no avoiding it. God may yet have the last word. If He didn't want that site built upon, it will surely come tumbling down by a combination of seismic faults and liquefiable "fill". Together they are a deadly mix. Ominously, both exist on this particular site. It is not a normal "fault' site and therefore a very dangerous one.

We know it is subject to liquefaction because it consists of "fill" dredged from the bay. Ironically that is the very reason given by the U.S. District Court for its 1991 finding that it is no longer "tidelands" and therefore no longer under public ownership.

When (not if) the fault line is officially acknowledged, it will render the site uneconomical for development. The setback (for all buildings from a fault line) is 50 feet. But when a site is also subject to liquefaction the setback is four times greater. Manchester will not be able to achieve anything like the density he needs to make the project economical.

I'm not a big advocate of law suits (we should have won this battle at the City Council yesterday; that is why Young's vote was so tragic) however, a citizen group has in fact filed against the Navy in Federal Court. Somebody may also file against the City in Superior Court. The most likely complaint would be that the City did not even consider the high likelihood of a terrorist attack. That worries a lot of people.

Tony Young in particular should be made to pay a high political price for his toadyism. What he did yesterday was not only contrary to the interests of his own District 4 constituents but against all the people of San Diego. George Stevens would have been horrified. Unlike George Stevens, Young is no man of the people.

He did not even speak yesterday. He made no attempt whatsoever to explain his vote. He should be called upon to explain himself. I am beginning to wonder about his involvement in the Cheetahs bribery scandal. After all he was the late Charles Lewis' chief of staff at the time and Lewis was charged with accepting bribes. Is Young corrupt? Was he involved in accepting bribes? It is a fair question. After yesterday, I for one will have a very different view of Tony Young and will watch him carefully.

I will also continue to observe whether Manchester and the Navy will be allowed (by DSD) to cut corners or get away with false mitigation. Lives are at stake now that construction will occur on this site. Despite being "fill" from the dredging of the bay, it is still tideland, with the added handicap of a known seismic fault running right through it.

Methinks God meant it to be a park. He will no doubt have the last word. Young's ignominious vote may yet be in vain. He may have to explain it to more than the people of San Diego, he may have to explain it to - a Higher Authority.
 

Here is the full Navy/Manchester Lease. Is it fair? 01/05/07

Finally, here is the full Navy Broadway Lease. The Navy hand delivered two copies to the City late this evening, Friday January 5, 2006, one to the Mayor's office and one to the City Attorney's office.

The City Attorney's office then kindly offered me a hard copy which I immediately scanned and uploaded to my web site so it would be available to all of you over the weekend. The City Attorney's office did not want to play favorites with either of the two appellants and considered me a neutral party. (I doubt Jim Waring would agree.) But the important thing is that you all get to read it before Tuesday.

Perhaps the most interesting part will be trying to figure out what exactly has been redacted - what it is they are hiding. I believe it is that the Navy has made itself an equity partner with Manchester. I believe it has granted itself an income that will grow over the term of the 99 year lease. That means it is now a private developer just like Manchester or any other. Indeed Manchester may be little more than a leasing agent for the Navy.

They have hidden the seismic fault report. Why? That document has been even more heavily redacted - the public has not been given a copy! Appellant Katheryn Rhodes was allowed a brief look at it - somewhat like viewing a holy relic. She immediately noticed that crucial pages were missing. So far she has not received an answer as to why.

Is this what we can expect when the Navy becomes a private developer? It is totally inappropriate that our military, in this case the Navy, can use the powers we give it to defend us, in its capacity as a private developer. That is the real scandal of San Diego's Navy Broadway. I'm not sure the public fully understand what is happening.

Land use issues are legitimate political battles to be fought in the rough and tumble of normal democracy. This is not a normal fight. The Navy is not a normal opponent.

And on top of all this we have no idea who the shareholders of the leasing entity are. Manchester Pacific Gateway LLC, a Delaware Corporation, may have Manchester's name on it, but that only means that he or Manchester Financial Group Inc is its managing partner. The Delaware Corporate veil is impossible to penetrate.

Therefore the City Council has no idea who they are dealing with here! Admiral Hering or Mayor Sanders could be shareholders in this Manchester Pacific Gateway LLC for all anybody knows. Can any member of the City Council tell me they know? Of course not. Does that bother them? We will find out on Tuesday.

Here are the various Lease Exhibits:

Exhibit A - Legal Description of Land and Existing Encumbrances

Exhibit A-l - Buildings I and I l0 Land

Exhibit K - Copy of Development Agreement
 

A Navy Broadway timeline and links to relevant documents. 01/04/07

I thought it would be helpful for those of you who want to be fully read for Tuesday's Council Meeting. Here is a table of the major documents relating to Navy Broadway.

Remember, we are demanding a city park! Not a rearrangement of the Admiral's office. If you read nothing else, Bob Filner's letter to the United States Attorney General. We have at least one gutsy public representative in San Diego. Thanks Bob.
 

A "Navy Broadway" will inevitably become a "Navy Bunker". 01/03/07

Here is an excellent letter from California Assemblywoman Lori Saldana to CCDC on October 25, 2006. In it she referred to and quoted from the testimony of then Captain Hering, Commander of Naval Base San Diego at a Congressional hearing in June 2001.

Admiral Hering is talking out of both sides of his mouth. In his pleadings before the U.S. Congress (for more money for security) he made the perfect case for containing all Navy operations within well defended perimeters. He was right.

He knows it is inevitable that there will be another terrorist attack somewhere in the United States. He knows it is just a matter of time. Yet he wants to place his Command Headquarters right in the middle of one of the busiest tourist spots on the planet!

He recklessly wants to endanger not only tens of thousands of San Diego residents and workers, but throngs of unsuspecting tourists and cruise ship passengers. No wonder Assemblywoman Lori Saldana is concerned.

Approving "Navy Broadway" would be painting a bulls-eye on our waterfront. One terrorist attack could wipe out the entire top Navy Brass together with thousands of innocent civilians as an added bonus. Where else in America could they achieve that? Where in all America would there be a juicier target than "Navy Broadway"?

Or are we to become human shields for the Navy? I thought only terrorists hide among civilians. Is that what the Navy is up to in San Diego? What is Hering thinking!

Even if the "Navy Broadway" complex, as presently envisaged, escapes the next attack, this Admiral, or his successor, will be clamoring to Congress for money to build a defensive perimeter all around this ill-conceived Navy Headquarters. A vital section of our civic waterfront will become a walled-off Navy fortress. It is inevitable. The catch-cry will be "force protection". Apart from Berlin-style walls on land, there will be booms and barriers extending well out onto the water. What are we thinking! 

That's what this guy Hering and his greedy civilian partner, Manchester, has in store for us. All that is between us and that scenario is five votes on the City Council on Tuesday. (Item 336, last Item on the Agenda, pages79/82)
 

San Diego may become the Alamo of the California coast. 01/02/07

An extraordinary letter from Admiral Hering to Mayor Jerry Sanders dated October 2, 2006 gives some idea of the Navy's sense of entitlement to the Navy Broadway project. By early October Hering had enough, he requested Mayor Sanders' "personal assistance in obtaining a consistency determination as soon as possible".

I do not have a copy of Sanders' response but from everything that has happened since, it must have been reassuring to the Navy. Hering got his "determination of consistency" shortly afterwards, on October 19, 2006, in the Manis finding. I personally condemned that finding in the strongest possible terms, calling it a declaration of war on the people.

I was unaware of Hering's letter at the time. Having now read it, my disgust of this sordid affair deepens. It proves that military personnel, such as Hering, are totally unsuited for the role of developer. He was "alarmed" that the views of a coalition of concerned citizens might be considered or that California's environmental laws might likewise be considered. The Manis finding dutifully put a stop to both. Sanders gave Hering what he wanted.

Inevitably we will find out what Manis and Waring knew when they issued their CEQA finding on October 19, 2006. We already know that they were aware of "new information" provided by the Manchester seismic fault study in June, but decided to ignore it. Reminiscent of the Watergate tapes, vital pages have been removed from that report.

Manis and Waring maintain they were unaware of the June 2006 Navy EA (which details a whole range of "changed circumstances", now picked up in Aguirre's December 27, 2006 MOL). Why are Manis and Waring not seizing upon that lifeline? They could so easily point to the EA document and say that if they were aware of it they would never have issued their October 19, 2006 finding, because it was not officially released by the Navy to the general public until November 25, 2006.

Are they afraid that somebody like me will discover that they were very much aware of it long before they issued their finding, which gave the Navy its "statement of compliance"? I have already called for the dismissal of Waring and Graham based on the certainty that they knew about the Manchester seismic study in June but hid it from the public. How much louder will the cry for their dismissal be, if it turns out that they were also aware of the Navy's EA long before they contrived to issue their "statement of compliance"?

My suspicions deepen when I read this telling sentence in the last paragraph of Hering's letter: "all requested materials have been in the hands of those necessary to make a decision since June". The Navy pushing to get what they want is one thing, but City employees like Waring, Graham and Manis, breaking their employment contracts and ignoring their fiduciary responsibility to the people of San Diego, is quite another.

The Navy's mission is to protect and defend our coastline, not to own it for its own profit.  Sanders chose the Navy's interest over that of the citizens who elected him. What part did his hand-picked CEO, retired Navy Admiral Ronne Froman play?

Now read the Hering letter for yourself:

Next Tuesday, January 9, 2007, the City Council will decide where it stands on this craziness. Will they too side with the Navy against the citizens who elected them?

The Navy should be paying us, the citizens of San Diego and the people of California, back rent for the use of that prime piece of public trust property since 1919. Instead of us building them a new headquarters, they should be building us a waterfront park!

Will the City Council repeat Sanders' abject toadying to the Navy? If it does, it will set alarm bells ringing all up and down the California coast. It will be obvious to all that the Navy has become the biggest developer in California and that it is absolutely ruthless in getting its way. San Diego may become the Alamo of the California coast.

What Navy Broadway is really all about is the shocking emergence of the U.S. Navy as a super-aggressive developer and the apparent lack of will (or power) by municipalities to resist it. Hence the abject compliance of our Mayor to Admiral Hering's letter.
 

© Copyright "San Diego Today"  November, 2004 - January, 2009