|
|
|
|
San Diego's Waterfront
|
|
|
12/17/10 |
|
Broadway Pier - the
hard facts behind the
soft spin. |
|
|
09/30/10 |
|
Port CEO
Charlie Wurster's sudden departure. |
|
|
08/31/10 |
|
Is Broadway Pier
a Sanders' dirty deal? If so, with whom? |
|
|
08/30/10 |
|
Carnival did not want Broadway Pier! Is there a
hidden agenda? |
|
|
08/19/10 |
|
The
dirty deal nobody wants to talk about - Carnival Cruise
Lines. |
|
|
04/24/10 |
|
Cruise
Ship Terminal Financing and Berthing Agreement |
|
|
04/15/10 |
|
The
Mayor's Embarcadero Plan sunk by Cruise Ships. |
|
|
04/07/10 |
|
The Union-Tribune is
negotiating for the Port District |
|
|
04/05/10 |
|
Are the Port District
and the Convention Center giving away public money? |
|
|
04/03/10 |
|
Coastal Commission's
"April Fools" Staff Report. |
|
|
10/23/09 |
|
"Mean" bloggers draw fire from a
Port Commissioner.
|
|
|
09/14/09 |
|
Angry citizens protest walling off
Broadway Pier for a private cruise ship company -
Carnival Cruise Lines.
|
|
|
09/01/09 |
|
Hueso muzzles public comment on the
Embarcadero.
|
|
|
08/30/09 |
|
Steve Cushman promised a Convention
Hotel to his friends.
|
|
|
08/27/09 |
|
Kevin Faulconer's "Elephant on the
Waterfront".
|
|
|
08/25/09 |
|
The battle lines are drawn in the
fight for Broadway Pier.
|
|
|
08/17/09 |
|
"Cushman's Gift" - the Privatization
of Broadway Pier.
|
|
|
08/14/09 |
|
Coastal Commission takes charge of
the Port's permit.
|
|
|
08/11/09 |
|
Congressman Filner weighs in on
waterfront issues.
|
|
|
08/09/09 |
|
Tideland Activists sue Port
Commission over bait-and-switch. |
|
|
07/21/09 |
|
What is going on at the Navy
Broadway Complex? |
|
|
06/12/09 |
|
PLA Money talks - the environment
walks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/17/10 |
|
Broadway Pier - the hard facts behind the
soft spin. |
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
I will assume that each of my readers are familiar with
the ups and downs of the troubled Port District
project on Broadway Pier, so I will confine myself to "the
facts behind the
spin". The basic fact is that cruise
ships and public use of the Broadway Pier are
incompatible. To illustrate this reality I recorded the
following video in early 2010 which clearly shows the
inappropriateness of using the Embarcadero as a cruise
ship terminal.
Nevertheless the Port's spinmeisters have named the
new Cruise Ship Terminal the "Port of San Diego's
Pavilion on Broadway Pier". The grand opening is
tomorrow, Saturday December 18, 2010. Here is a video
link to the Port's spin on how this building "will serve as both a
public event center and cruise ship terminal". Compare
the two videos and judge for yourself.
A group opposed to cruise ships on the
Embarcadero, the Navy Broadway Complex Coalition (NBCC)
filed
a lawsuit on December 15, 2010, accusing the
Coast Guard and the Port of deliberately failing to enforce
§
165.1108 Security Zones; Cruise Ships, Port of San
Diego, California which states
in relevant
part:
(b) Location. The following areas are security
zones:
(1) All waters, extending from the surface to the sea
floor, within a 100 yard radius around any cruise ship
that is anchored at a designated anchorage within the
San Diego port area inside the sea buoys bounding the
port of San Diego.(2) The shore area and
all waters, extending from the surface to the sea floor,
within a 100 yard radius around any cruise ship that is
moored at any berth within the San Diego port area
inside the sea buoys bounding the Port of San Diego.
Note that it says the shore area
"within a 100 yard radius
around any cruise ship that is moored at any berth".
This means that all the public activity I captured on
video earlier this year was illegal. The Coast Guard
simply did the cruise ship owners a favor and turned a
blind eye. Charlie Wurster, a 37 year veteran of the
Coast Guard, was President and CEO of the Port District
at the time. You can actually see him on my video
entering B Street Terminal on a golf cart smoking a
big cigar.
The citizen action group NBCC has announced a rally in
front of the Pier tomorrow at 3:00 PM protesting "the
Ports replacing the promised oval public park
and public pier at the foot of Broadway
with a permanent private cruise ship terminal
structure". Mayor Jerry Sanders is
scheduled to perform the official dedication of the
"Pavilion" at 4 PM.
Whether the public embraces this new $28 million
building as a civic asset or a monument to corrupt San
Diego politics remains to be seen. But one hard fact the
Mayor will not be including in his dedication speech
tomorrow is that the taxpayers of San Diego, Coronado,
National City, Chula Vista and Imperial Beach are being
saddled with an enormous financial risk arising out of
the Port's cruise ship activities.
The hard fact hidden by the Port's spin is that the Port
has assumed all liability for cruise ship operations
under par 7.2 (page 12) of
its
Agreement with the Carnival Corporation. How many
citizens of the five participating cities know that?
Probably none because nobody has ever told them. That is
not the job of government spinmeisters (or the U-T it
seems).
Perhaps the greatest financial risk of all, not to
mention the risk to human life, is the utter abandonment
of any attempt to protect the public from a terrorist
attack. The banana ships at Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal
enjoy better protection than human cargo at the
Embarcadero. Can you imagine the class action lawsuits
against the five cities in the event of loss of life?
But the most immediate and certain financial risk is
associated with the Port issuing itself a Coastal
Development Permit (CDP) that will breach the California
Coastal Act. A key provision of that Act is that any
Port District may not amend its Port Master Plan (PMP)
by issuing itself a CDP.
In drafting the Coastal Act the State legislature was
careful to ensure that neither a Port nor the Coastal
Commission could amend a PMP as part of the permitting
process. At city level community plan amendments are
routinely handed out with development permits. If
allowed for coastal development permits it would have
left the Coastal Act toothless. Most Coastal
Commissioners come from city councils and would have
treated Port Master Plans with as little respect as they
do community plans.
The State learned the hard way that it will always lose
in court if its Coastal Commission is foolish enough to
uphold a CDP that amends a PMP. One lawsuit resulted in
such a large award of costs under the "private attorney
general" provisions that the State passed a law making
the Coastal Commission budget solely responsible if it
ever happened again. That got the Commission's
attention.
For that reason the Coastal Commission now insists upon
indemnification from any Port that might succeed
politically in garnering sufficient votes on the
Commission to uphold such an ill-advised CDP. Yet that is
exactly what the San Diego Port District is attempting
to do by dropping the Oval Park at the foot of Broadway
to facilitate cruise ship operations on Broadway Pier.
If it succeeds it will create an enormous financial
liability for its five participating cities.
This means for example that every homeowner in Coronado
will be on the hook for whatever costs a judge may award
the smart attorney who will inevitably sue the Coastal
Commission and thus the Port for approving a CDP that
breaches the PMP.
So, if you decide to attend tomorrow's festivities marking
the grand opening of this new $28 million cruise ship
terminal/pavilion at Broadway Pier which according to
the U-T "is being transformed into an old-fashioned
amusement park to commemorate the Port Pavilion", bear
in mind the hard facts behind the Port's spin to justify
its privatization of our front door - Broadway Pier.
|
|
|
09/30/10 |
|
Port CEO Charlie Wurster's sudden departure. |
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
Charles D. Wurster, President/CEO of the Port District:
"I served in the Coast Guard 37
years. Also, the 100 yard security zone is the standard
guideline and is most important on the surface of the
water. (This space allows distance and time for security
forces to make shoot/don't shoot decisions--regarding
possibly hostile approaching vessels--during times of
high alert.) Ashore, the practicalities of existing
infrastructure are taken into account by the Coast Guard
"Captain of the Port" who may approve a plan that
provides adequate security with less set-back. That is
the case for us here in San Diego."
Wurster wrote the above in a (perhaps unguarded)
email to Katheryn Rhodes, an appellant of the Port's
NEVP Coastal Development Permit, on Fri, 03 Sep 2010,
exactly three weeks before suddenly quitting his
$200,000 per year job with the Port. As a retired
three-star Admiral and Commander of the Coast Guard's
Pacific Area from 2006-2008, he had been recruited as
President and CEO of the Port on January 5, 2009.
Ms. Rhodes had been seeking a meeting with him to
discuss her many concerns regarding the Port's NEVP
project. She shared Mr. Wurster's email with several
individuals and groups who had expressed concerns
regarding how the Port was handling the Homeland
Security aspect of the NEVP, particularly as it relates
to cruise ship operations.
Wurster appeared to be speaking with authority for San
Diego's Coast Guard "Captain of the Port", which caused
a good deal of discussion among opponents of cruise
ships on the Embarcadero. They wondered if that was why
the Port had hired him in the first place. Was his real
job to minimize the impact of Coast Guard regulations on
cruise ship operations?
Wurster attempted to downplay the land-side security of
cruise ships. He said that "the
practicalities of existing infrastructure are taken into
account". 33 CFR Part 165 does not support him on
that. Homeland Security does NOT make a distinction
between truck or watercraft attacks.
Here is the relevant Code of Federal Regulations,
33 CFR Part 165. Read it for yourself.
Did the real San Diego Coast Guard "Captain of the Port"
ever formally rule that the Coast Guard can provide
cruise ships with "adequate security with less set-back"
as Wurster claimed? Nobody can find any such ruling. In
fact a Coast Guard spokesperson told activists that it
has never even been approached by the Port on cruise
ship security matters.
This apparent usurpation of the current Captain of the
Port's authority by his former commander, may have been
too much for the Coast Guard brass. It may have ended
Wurster's $200,000 a year gig with the Port. Without
influence at the Coast Guard Wurster was no longer any
use to Cushman/Sanders/Peters/Faulconer & Co..
As part of
Homeland Security the
Coast Guard and TSA
know well that cruise ships and waterfront parks are
incompatible. All one has to do is drive down to the
Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal approaches and look at the
TSA security being
provided for Dole's banana boats. It is easy to see what
is in store for the Broadway Pier Cruise Ship Terminal
when it opens.
Wurster led the Port to believe that it could provide
the required security for Dole's banana boats but not
for cruise ships or for San Diego citizens strolling
along the Embarcadero within feet of gigantic cruise
ships. It was obvious that that could not stand.
TSA checkpoints and ID inspections will inevitably be
enforced at or beyond a 100 yard perimeter of a Broadway
Pier Cruise Ship Terminal. The Port knows it, the Coast
Guard knows it, the Mayor knows it, even Kevin Faulconer
knows it, because
Homeland
Security the Coast Guard
and TSA require
it!
It is breathtakingly dishonest to talk about putting a
park and cruise ships on the Embarcadero when
multiple Federal Regulations prevent cruise ships and
parks coexisting within 100 yards of each other. What
the public urgently needs to understand is that if it
allows Broadway Pier to become an even once-in-a-while
cruise ship terminal, any waterfront park will exist
only on paper. That is the hard reality of the matter.
We can trust
Homeland Security the
Coast Guard and TSA
(if not the Port and our City) to ensure that the San
Diego Waterfront will not become the next 9/11.
Hopefully Wurster's futile
"adequate security with less set-back" attempt is
the last Port lie in this long underhanded scheme to
turn the Embarcadero into a working cruise ship marine
terminal.
This whole sordid Broadway cruise ship terminal affair may die without us ever finding
out who was really behind this rape of our otherwise
visionary North Embarcadero Visionary Plan. Now that it
is built, maybe we can yet turn that insultingly ugly "Sanders Shed" on
Broadway Pier into a civic/art center and send the cruise
ships to 10th Avenue where they belong. That would be an
uplifting story for the history books.
|
|
|
08/31/10 |
|
Is Broadway Pier a Sanders' dirty deal? If so, with
whom? |
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
Here is
a letter from Christine Anderson, the Port's VP of
Operations, dated July 27, 2007. In it she advises the
Port Commissioners that Bill Anderson, the Mayor's
Planning Director, had attended a meeting of the NEVP
Joint Powers Authority (JPA) the day before. Anderson
had advised Port staff that his boss the Mayor was
unhappy with the Port's plans for a temporary cruise
ship facility on Broadway Pier, that he wanted a permanent
building there.
The spin was that the Mayor wanted an "iconic" building
on Broadway Pier. The John Moores comprehensive
waterfront plan has always included a cruise ship
terminal on Broadway Pier. Was Anderson really Moores
messenger boy? We know that Sanders is controlled by
money barons like Irwin Jacobs and John Moores. Was
Moores behind this mayoral intervention? For Sanders to
get involved so heavily it had to be a major money man.
In any case
Anderson's message was effective. Things took off from
there. Only 11 days later, on August 7, 2007, the
Port Commissioners approved a
$562,507 increase to the design consultant's fee, Bermello Ajamil and Partners, Inc.
It went from an original contract for $700,000 to
$1,262,507. As of January 10, 2010 it has
ballooned to
$3,484,788.
Here is a
letter from Rita Vandergaw, the Port's Director of
Marketing, explaining to the Board the impact of the
Mayor's involvement. This is a very informative letter.
It subtly describes Sanders and his hidden masters as
"stakeholders" and their new directives as "project
scope increases". She equally subtly warns that funding
issues will emerge when the planning and bids process is
complete, "probably in the fall". It must have been
clear to everybody at the Port that a heavy hidden hand
was steering Carnival's money away from B Street Pier
and onto Broadway Pier.
This is the
"iconic" building that has resulted:

The only thing certain is that San Diego taxpayers will
end up paying the bill. The
Port did not order it and will refuse to pay for it. The final
cost is estimated to be over $28 million.
$3,484,788 is for a bloated design fee. Bermello Ajamil and Partners, Inc.
has done well out of it.
The Mayor's intervention
gave the Port cover for
asking CCDC to fund the project. This staff
letter written 3 days after the August 7, 2007 Port
Commissioners meeting, passes on the Mayor's spin:
"discussions with the cruise lines, fire marshal and
Homeland Security Department prompted the need for a
facility at Broadway Pier more permanent than a tent".
Did they really? I have not seen any documentary
evidence of such input by any of them.
It also emerges from this letter that at the JPA meeting on August 26, 2007
attended by Bill Anderson,
Fred Maas who represents CCDC on th JPA, intervened in
the design of the Lane Field project for which the Port
has sole land use jurisdiction.
Maas wanted a more "comprehensive" planning process on
the waterfront. Comprehensive has always been the
keystone of the Moores plan, making it all the more
likely that the hidden heavy hand is that of John Moores,
who incidentally has excellent working relationships
with unions like Unite Here. He may even be involved in
Lane Field LLC.
Rita Vandergaw
wrote another informative
letter to the Port Commissioners on October 4, 2007
following a meeting of the JPA. The letter makes it
clear that the escalation of the Broadway Pier project
is in full swing. The Mayor and his hidden master is
prevailing.
Kevin Faulconer's role remains a mystery. Will
he attempt to divert money earmarked by CCDC for the
NEVP, to bail out the Port for what it has wasted on
Broadway Pier? That diversion would leave the NEVP
without funding. All his talk about park/plaza space on
the Embarcadero would be just hot air. It would show
that the Broadway Pier was his agenda all along.
If he was part of a hidden agenda, he is trapped. If
not, now is the time for him to put the taxpayers'
interests before hidden masters. If he intends to run for mayor in
2012 he can't claim to be the taxpayers' friend on Prop
D while wasting $28 million on a boondoggle in his
Council District.
If he accepts Sanders' legacy, depriving the people of
San Diego of a long-promised world-class Embarcadero by
secretly serving special interests, he will be found out
and defeated. Kevin chairs the JPA. If he brings a
proposal before City Council to bail out the Port, we
will know the worst. Like Sanders, he will be exposed
for serving hidden masters, not the people who elected
him.
|
|
|
08/30/10 |
|
Carnival did not want Broadway Pier! Is there a
hidden agenda? |
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
On November 27, 2007 Carnival Corp sent
this letter to the Port of San Diego regarding their
shared vision for the future of the cruise ship industry
in San Diego. Carnival warned that changes in the cruise
ship business environment warranted changes in their
joint vision. Carnival worried whether the Port's plan
to spend $164 million in planned improvements to B
Street Pier could be supported through long term cruise
ship usage. Carnival pointed out that it could not "get
close to the passenger figures" that would be required.

Carnival reminded the Port that the original intent of
their joint "vision" was to
"reasonably upgrade Broadway Pier so that it can be used
as an occasional overflow home port pier". The
massive construction on Broadway Pier is therefore the Port's idea.
Carnival merely "agreed to amend the original $8 million
loan agreement by increasing it to $12 million in order
to allow the Port to upgrade (at its request) the
Broadway facility ahead of planned modifications to the
B Street Pier". Now the Port is trying to blame
Carnival for the rape of the original NEVP plan.
Carnival pointed out that the original Broadway Pier "vision" was for
a "temporary membrane structure for occasional
home port operations that required a relatively low
capital investment" but that "now the Port considers
Broadway to be a long term structure to be used for home
port operations". But what seems to have really bugged
Carnival is that the Port expected Carnival to help
pay for a permanent Broadway Pier cruise ship terminal
it never asked for.
In its
summary, Carnival questioned "whether the long term
programs the Port has in place to improve the cruise
infrastructure can be supported through cruise line
usage". That goes to the heart of the issue. If the
world leading cruise ship operator, Carnival Corp,
believes that the cruise ship business cannot support San
Diego's grandiose pier construction, exactly who are the politicians
involved planning it for?
I believe it
is gambling interests, with support from the union
that represents hotel and gaming employees,
Unite Here.
We really don't know who owns the two-hotel
Lane Field project. The owner is a
Delaware LLC. It in turn could be owned by just
about anybody.
The two proposed high-rise hotels will be right across
the street from the cruise ship terminals and gambling
is legal aboard cruise ships in international waters.
Gambling interests could easily buy their own
foreign-flagged vessels. Is that what is really going
on? The secret lies in determining the true ownership of
Lane Field LLC. That can and must be achieved by the
City Attorney enforcing
Charter Section 225. Lane Field is part of the
NEVP, which is a joint powers project between the City
and the Port. Charter Section 225 applies.
Now look at the
Port's reply to Carnival a month later on December
28, 2007 following a face-to-face meeting between the
Port and Carnival on December 3, 2007 and a Carnival
meeting with the Mayor. Expressing
disappointment that Carnival did not share the Port's
rosy scenario, it summarized Carnival's position as
follows:
1. Carnival does not anticipate having
vessels larger than 2,500 passengers in the foreseeable
future;
2. it will not need
more
than
2
berths for the
foreseeable future since
it is not
projecting
any
significant
market growth on the West
Coast;
3. it is not willing to commit more funds to
the
Broadway Pier
project
and prefers that
the Port
put the
funds into "B" Street
Pier instead of Broadway
Pier;
4. it prefers the retention of the
current building on B Street Pier with the development
of a smaller terminal (similar to a "Barcelona" type
facility) on the South side of the B Street Pier.
Speaking for the Port, Bruce Hollingsworth who was
then President/CEO, dropped a bombshell:
"We
just
spent
the
last several months
obtaining support
from the
City
and local residents for the
structure proposed
for
Broadway Pier.
Your meeting
with Mayor
Sanders, in
which it has been
reported
that you
indicated to the
Mayor
that
Carnival
does not
need
the building on
Broadway,
may have
caused significant
problems for us in
proceeding
with this
development
and in
obtaining
the funding necessary to
complete
the project."
 |
This means that in 2007 Mayor Sanders was personally
told by Carnival that it did NOT want a building on Broadway
Pier!
Yet he continued to champion a building that destroys the original North Embarcadero
Visionary Plan including the signature Oval Park.
The
Mayor needs to explain why he continues to support spending money on a project
that nobody wants, while
cutting police and fire. He could so easily have
called the whole thing off in 2007. Instead, he proposed
a permanent building on Broadway Pier for
"aesthetic reasons". Was that the real resaon? |
In an effort to justify the Port's
extravagant plan,
Hollingsworth resorts to circular logic. He tries to
blame Carnival for tying the Port's hands, quoting the
very contract Carnival was trying to modify. He throws
Carnival's cooperation (lending the Port money) back in
its face. He used the "you made us do it" excuse and
pleaded poverty by writing "we
advised
you
that the Port
did not
have the resources to
support a significant capital
investment in the
cruise facilities." He was
blaming Carnival for the capital spending it never
supported, let alone agreed to fund.
Hollingsworth ends defiantly stating
"The Port
will proceed
with its planned
improvements to
Broadway Pier
in accordance with our
Amended and Restated Cruise Ship Terminal Financing and
Berthing Agreement of
May, 2007." In other words,
far from jumping at the chance to scale back the Port's
plans for a permanent cruise ship terminal on Broadway,
it forces it on Carnival whether it wants it or not.
Clearly somebody has a hidden agenda.
|
|
|
08/19/10 |
|
The dirty deal nobody wants to talk about - Carnival
Cruise Lines. |
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
This is the dirty
Agreement that is spawning multiple lies about the
Embarcadero Oval Park. The fact is that a Panamanian
company, the Carnival Corporation, advanced the Port
District $12 million at 4.5% interest to construct two
home ports, one on B. Street Pier and one on Broadway
Pier. The sole source of funds for repayment of this
loan, which must be repaid in full by April 30, 2015,
shall be a Special Facility Fee charged to each
passenger while Carnival branded vessels will receive
preferential berthing rights.
The problem is that the Port District has contractually
committed itself to obtaining a Coastal Development
Permit for the Broadway Pier terminal. This is the
genesis of the lies and cheating that are going on. Most
of the lies revolve around moving a previously planned
2.5 acre Oval Park right in front of Broadway Pier,
which if not removed will make cruise ship operations on
Broadway Pier impossible.
Lie # 1 is that the Oval Park was never part of the
original Port Master Plan (PMP). That it was in fact
part of the PMP is well documented and fully accepted by
the Coastal Commission.
Lie # 2 is that moving the Oval Park would not trigger a
PMP Amendment. The Port wants to move it out of the way
of the servicing trucks to the Broadway Cruise Ship
Terminal. Coastal Commission staff is clear that such a
move would require a PMP Amendment.
Lie # 3 is that activist objections are merely about the
size of a waterfront park not about preserving its vital
location blocking cruise ship operations on Broadway
Pier. I and others believe that to move the Oval Park is
to permit a Cruise Line Terminal on Broadway Pier.
The alternative is quite simple: implement the original
North Embarcadero Visionary Plan (NEVP), as incorporated
into the PMP, before the Carnival Company upended the
Plan by buying itself a cruise ship terminal on Broadway
Pier. There is lots of room for cruise ships at a much
more suitable location, the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal
(TAMT).
The Port has launched a media blitz spearheaded by a
series of public "workshops" during the rest of August.
These workshops are akin to public meetings discussing
the size of a burial plot and the height of a memorial
for a man who has already been condemned to death. His
guilt has been decided. Similarly, retaining the Oval
Park in its present location is not an option in these
workshops. Its demise has already been decided by the
Port.
It may all come down to funding. Those opposed to a
cruise ship terminal on Broadway Pier like myself, will
fight to prevent the entire project so long as it
includes the implementation of what we consider a
corrupt bargain with Carnival.
The $12 million from Carnival will only partially fund
the cruise ship terminal on Broadway Pier. The Port will
have to find the remaining approximately $8 million.
After that it has no more money for the NEVP project. It
is interesting that the Port only has money for
Carnival.
Implementation of the non-cruise ship portion of the
NEVP will have to come from the City of San Diego
through its Redevelopment Agency. CCDC, who administers
redevelopment money in that area, has already earmarked
the money. Nevertheless, before CCDC can write the check
it will require a vote at City Council. That is where
the deciding battle will be fought.
Kevin Faulconer is expected to make the argument for
spending CCDC money. Carl DeMaio, his reputed rival in
the 2012 mayoral race, will argue strongly that if the
Port wants its NEVP so bad, it should pay for it. The
City is tapped out. It should be an interesting fight.
Now there is a proposal on the table for the City to buy
land from the Navy just north of the Lane Field project
for approximately $20 million to facilitate extra park
space. Will Kevin Faulconer be expected to find that
money too? If he does, DeMaio will murder him
politically. If he doesn't, where will the extra space
come from. One other proposal is to further narrow
Harbor Drive. All this to fulfill a promise to a
Panamanian cruise ship company.
What makes it all the more intriguing is that Kevin
Faulconer is its unlikely champion. Fundamentally the
NEVP project is union-driven. It is about temporary
construction jobs and long-term hotel jobs. It's main
supporters, Steve Cushman and Scott Peters are long-time
union trustees. The union most involved in the NEVP is
Unite Here. It represents hotel workers and gaming
workers. Yes, gaming workers. Are you shocked that there
is gaming on these cruise ships? There is big money in
gaming. Perhaps that is why some supporters of cruise
ships on the Embarcadero are so motivated. Cruise ships
could become floating casinos for bay front hotels
making San Diego "Las Vegas by the Sea". That may be the
dream of some.
The enormous amount of money (which it says it doesn't
have) the Port is spending to obtain a permit for a
revised NEVP that includes a Broadway Pier cruise ship
terminal, is wasted. The Port must know that endless
appeals and court filings still lie ahead. Perhaps it is
merely trying to avoid being sued by showing Carnival
that it did everything possible (including lying) to get
a coastal permit. That would be the kindest
interpretation of what is going on.
The wise move at this stage is to do a deal with
Carnival reversing the
dirty deal that is causing all this expense and
risk. Then the NEVP could proceed as originally planned.
We will have to wait and see just how dirty the Carnival
deal really was. We will have to wait and see just how
far its proponents are willing to go to ram it through.
Much will depend on Kevin Faulconer, the unlikely
champion of a massive union gig. Or is it something
more?
|
|
|
04/24/10 |
|
Cruise Ship Terminal Financing and Berthing Agreement |
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
This
Agreement is a must read for anybody who wishes to
understand what is happening on the Embarcadero. It
makes the infamous Charger's Ticket Guarantee seem like
a sweet deal for the City. With this Agreement the Port
Commissioners tried to cede control of the Embarcadero to a
Panamanian corporation. They thought that by signing
this Agreement the
NEVP was dead. But it is not. This Agreement is
legally flawed. The Port cannot grant what it does not
have. See below.
In March 2005:
"Carnival agreed to advance
monies to the Port for certain interim improvements to
the "B" Street Pier within the Port Facilities up to a
maximum of Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000) in
return for certain preferential berthing rights
for Carnival vessels at the north berth of the "B"
Street Cruise Terminal."
In May 2007:
"Carnival agreed
to increase the loan from Eight Million Dollars
($8,000,000) to
Twelve Million Dollars ($12,000,000) and revise
the original scope of work to provide for the upgrade
and improvement of a homeport facility on the
Broadway Pier."
By fronting the money for two cruise ship terminals (B
Street Pier and Broadway Pier) the Carnival Corporation
thought it had literally bought our Embarcadero.
In Par. 3.3 the Port appears to
accept responsibility (without an expressed contingency)
for obtaining the Coastal Development Permit that was denied last week.
The Port could not have promised a permit that it had
not already obtained. Therefore there was an actual contingency.
Due
diligence by Carnival would have revealed that the
Port's promise of a State Coastal Development Permit was
beyond its power. And Carnival knew it was dealing with a public
agency, not a private party. A public agency's property
rights are considerably more complicated.
In
Par. 4.5 the Port appears to grant Carnival the right of
"ingress and egress" to the Broadway Pier. Again, the Port
could not have granted a right-of-way over an area that had
already been designated as Broadway Landing Park,
popularly known as the
Oval
Park, to the people of San Diego in its certified
Port Master Plan,
a binding planning document. Therefore any grant of
"ingress and egress" was moot.
Due
diligence by Carnival would have revealed that the
Port's grant of "ingress and egress" to Broadway Pier
was beyond its power. It was like buying a used car from a guy who had already
sold the car to someone else. One needs to be diligent when
dealing with used car salesmen.
To pay off this totally inappropriate loan from Carnival,
the Port started collecting
a "Special Facility Fee" of $4 from each
embarking and disembarking (homeport only) passenger in April
2006. This
fee is to pay off the $12 million Carnival loan, with
interest at 4.5%, by April 30, 2015.
But the most disturbing clause in this one-sided
Agreement is:
"Carnival will provide and
pay for security for the outbound screening of
provisions ......
Port will provide and pay for security in
all other areas of the Port
Facilities (including passenger screening, perimeter
security, traffic control and pier access) as required
by applicable law and consistent with industry
standards."
This is a
terrible deal for the Port who is responsible for "passenger
screening, perimeter security, traffic control and pier
access". That is why Carnival is so blasé about
security not currently being provided "as
required by applicable law". See
this video.
It is hard not to
suspect corruption at the Port.
|
|
|
04/15/10 |
|
The Mayor's Embarcadero Plan
sunk by Cruise Ships |
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
One of the biggest mistakes Mayor Sanders
made was to fall for whatever
slick sales talk Steve Cushman used to cajole him into
backing this used-car salesman for a third term as Port
Commissioner, despite term limits. It
has now cost him the North
Embarcadero Visionary Plan (NEVP). It lies in ruins
because of Cushman's cruise ships.
I
have a suggestion: implement the people's "Embarcadero
Visionary Plan" i.e. move the cruise
ships to the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal. It has berths
for three cruise ships at a time and currently
gas three
vacant buildings. See
my blog of August 17, 2009.
This is
not only a win-win political strategy, it is also a
win-win economic strategy. The
people would not only get their promised park/gathering-place
on the Embarcadero, San Diego would get
the economic benefits of a world-class cruise ship
destination, located next to the Hilton, within walking
distance of the Convention Center, with military-class
security impossible at its
present Embarcadero location.
Now that would put us back in contention for America's
Finest City!
Are we up to it? Of course we are. The Cushman cruise
ship plan is crass and demeaning. Our world-renowned
Embarcadero, with its famous "Star of India", deserves
better than that. Cruise ships are the "used-cars" of the tourist
industry. They turn our beautiful Embarcadero into a
working dockside. Shame on those who supported Cushman's
"used-car" plan.
I journeyed to Ventura on Wednesday to
cover the fateful Coastal Commission's meeting that would decide
the NEVP's fate. It was a long and tense day.
Amazingly, not a single other San Diego media person
turned up.
Steve Schmidt, a staff reporter for the
Union-Tribune, wrote
this article. But he relied on a
remote video stream, missing the lobbying and
strategizing buzz that occurs around such a meeting.
There was a lot going on off camera. Everybody knew that
the
big San Diego project was in trouble.
In order to understand what happened throughout
this long process, read this
flow
chart. It shows the entire coastal development
permitting procedure. First, the San Diego Unified Port District, as the
appropriate local government agency, issued itself a
coastal development permit based on a Port Master Plan
previously certified by the California Coastal
Commission .
There were immediate and
multiple appeals to the Commission. Every effort was
made to craft compromise conditions
that would allow its approval. All failed, resulting in
a final denial on Wednesday. The powerful cruise ship
interest had achieved a bridgehead on the Embarcadero and
would not budge. It went for broke, using Cushman and the Port
as its
broker.
There is now no process by which this permit can be
resuscitated. The entire North Embarcadero Visionary
Plan (NEVP) is dead - no
coastal development permit, no project.
I could almost hear San Diego's Planning Director, Bill
Anderson, who had driven up to represent the Mayor,
thinking: "what am I going to tell the boss".
I could almost hear Port Chairman "Dukie" Valderrama and
Port CEO Charles Wurster, thinking "what are we
going to tell the Carnival Cruise boys?"
From its inception, the public improvements in this
"visionary" plan were cover for the public funding of two
cruise ship terminals for a Panamanian-registered Corporation,
Carnival Cruise Lines. Obviously there was huge influence peddling
going on.
Appropriate "performance bonuses" were in
place. Far from a Port District fresh start on this
project, a full inquiry is needed into that agency. It
seems to have been taken over by the Cruise Ship
industry, or is it the gambling industry. More about
that in a future blog.
Contrary to the
Union-Tribune report, the vote did not hinge on
the "Oval Park" issue. The U-T was
reflecting the Port's spin that blames the "negos", as Cushman so arrogantly calls all opposition
to his cruise ships. Ian Trowbridge's appellant group,
the "Navy Broadway Complex Coalition" (NBCC)
had bent over backwards to accommodate the Port in
crafting an alternative "Destination Park". Trowbridge
went so far as to propose another continuance until
June, to allow for even more appeasement.
Not even Neville Chamberlain could have appeased the
Port District because it was shilling for Carnival who
was calling the shots. Carnival wanted that coastal
development permit without any residual liability in the
form of indemnification of the Coastal Commission.
But another appellant group, "Save Everyone's Access" (SEA),
led by long-time park activist Scott Andrews, was less
naive. This group's legal counsel, Doug Carstens, a well
known (and winning) environmental and land use attorney from
Santa Monica, called for nothing less than total denial
of the permit. That clear "up or down" stance struck a chord with the
Commissioners and precipitated the meltdown of the
Port's game plan. The SEA group played
this video. It showed the Commissioners that the
reality on the Embarcadero is very different from the
Port's promo.
The SEA activists had read the Commission correctly. It knew
that the Commission's focus would be on the
indemnification issue. Everybody knew that this
flawed permit, if granted, was certain to be challenged in court. The Port
team used up most of its allotted time arguing that the Commission could not
require such an indemnity. It too knew where
the pivot point lay.
Ron Saathoff's wife Stephanie,
a lobbyist for the Port, stepped up to the microphone with a letter
from State Senator Christine Kehoe supporting the Port's
argument against the State Commission. What was that all about?
She's a State Senator! I'm sure there is an
interesting tale behind that little piece of melodrama.
Kehoe and Saathoff? I called
Kehoe's office for an explanation of her "indemnity" position. They will get back to
me.
We know that Carnival had already indemnified the Port (which
it demonstrably controls).
It was not about
to see that indemnity extended to the Coastal
Commission (which it obviously cannot control). No doubt
the Port team was on a performance bonus. They
and the Mayor's team were clearly confident that at least six Commissioners
would put the interests of a foreign Corporation
(Carnival) above that of the California
Coastal Commission. Five Commissioners did exactly that. A "Yes" vote
put the Commission at operational risk, as its legal
counsel had explained earlier. This demonstrates how totally
compromised those five pro-developer Commissioners are.
They clearly represent developer interests, not the public.
Some years ago the California legislature foreclosed on
any "deep pockets" recourse to the State Treasury in the
event of a successful lawsuit against the Coastal
Commission. The State had suffered a substantial loss
following a successful "private attorney general"
lawsuit against the Commission. Any adverse award must
henceforth come out of the Commission's own annual
budget. A big award could close down the Commission for
a year or more, explained Peter Douglas, its long-time
Executive Director. Indemnity should be the norm, not
the exception.
It is not clear that Commissioner Kruer, who recused
himself from Wednesday's vote following a
recent revelation that his brother was a sub-contractor
on the NEVP project, would have voted for the Port and
put the Commission in financial jeopardy. Legally he
didn't have to recuse. He could have toughed it out. It
is clear however that the Port and City had bet the farm
that he was a safe "Yes" vote.
Had he provided the sixth "Yes" vote he would have changed San Diego
history. Perhaps he was not as committed to the NEVP
project as was believed. Or there is more to his
brothers involvement than we yet know. To add to the
mystery, his close friend, Commissioner Burke, who is normally
very developer-friendly, mysteriously went AWOL after lunch.
It is possible that these
two contrived to dodge the indemnity vote for the sake
of the Commission. Politics is a black art.
In the end enough Commissioners expressed concern for the heightened
security risk associated with cruise ships to vote "No".
Would the presence of cruise ships induce a terrorist attack? Would
the Commission be sued for permitting terminals without
mandating adequate security?
Earlier, the Port had tried to portray cruise
ship calls as just "special events". Anybody familiar with
the reality of the embarcadero knows that a cruise ship
presence is now almost continuous.
SEA's attorney Carstens expressed concern not only for the
growing threat to the personal safety of
nearby condo owners, but also to their quality of life. As
an ex-Navy officer he also wondered whether the
terrorist threat to nearby Navy installations is
heightened by these unsecured cruise ships. He cited this U.S.
Coast Guard
regulation. He told
how it requires a 100 yard security
zone around all cruise ships while in port!
The strange fact that this regulation is not being
enforced will be the subject of a future blog.
The ten Coastal Commissioners present had plenty to
worry about when casting their votes. Now it is up to the Unified Port
District and the City of San Diego to address the
growing security threat of cruise ships on the
Embarcadero. The Port has painted a bulls eye on the
Embarcadero with its teeming tourists and
unsuspecting locals. Cruise ships are second only to
aircraft carriers on the terrorists' target list. Look
again at
this video. Look at the chaos cruise ships can bring
unless they are contained within a proper marine
terminal environment such as 10th Avenue.
The people need to have a serious chat with the
two elected representatives most responsible for this
debacle: Jerry Sanders and Kevin Faulconer. Once again they have demonstrated that they are little more than
corporate lobbyists on the people's payroll.
|
|
|
04/07/10 |
|
The Union-Tribune is negotiating for the Port
District |
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
 |
Read
this
Editorial in today's
U-T.
In hiring Ron Powell, a veteran Union-Tribune
reporter as its spokesperson, the Port District
hired the ability to get friendly editorials to
run in the U-T at critical moments like today.
This is a critical moment for the Port
District's North Embarcadero (Cruise Ship
Terminal) plan.
It needs to pull off another switcheroo. |
Ron Powell |
Powell
joined the San Diego Evening Tribune back in the 1970s.
He was with the Union-Tribune from 1991 until the Port
hired him last year. He knows the San Diego political
game. He knows the strategic use of a U-T Editorial.
The "hitch" that Powell and his old friends at the U-T
want to "un-hitch" for the Port District, is a Coastal
Commission requirement of legal indemnification by the
Port District.
The deal before the Coastal Commission calls for
"the port to indemnify the Coastal
Commission for all costs related to any lawsuits that
might be filed against the project". The Port
wants to "amend the amendment" to eliminate the
indemnification clause and the U-T is trying to help.
What are friends for?
The reason the Port District is balking at indemnifying
the Coastal Commission is that Carnival Cruise Lines has
already indemnified the Port District as part of its
coastal development permit application, but Carnival is
now balking at accepting liability for the permit's
breach of the Coastal Act. The Cruise Ship tail is again
wagging the Port District dog.
Both Carnival and the Port know that
the deal they are asking the Coastal Commission to
approve will inevitably be challenged in the courts. It
breaches the Coastal Act. Carnival Cruise Line wants the
Coastal Commission to be the one on the hook for the
inevitable damages.
Contrary to what the Union-Tribune is suggesting, the
Coastal Commission should not assume that liability. If
they do, the California taxpayers will pay for the
Commission's folly. That is exactly what Carnival Cruise
Line wants.
|
|
|
04/05/10 |
|
Are the Port District and the Convention Center
giving away public money? |
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
At its monthly meeting tomorrow the Port District will
be asked to consent to the assignment and assumption of
a lease from
Fifth Avenue Landing LLC (FAL) to the San Diego
Convention Center Corporation (SDCCC).
"SDCCC entered
into an agreement to purchase FAL's leasehold
interest in September 2008 and paid FAL $1
million for a one-year due diligence process. SDCCC now
desires to acquire FAL's remaining leasehold interest
for $13.5 million. FAL will finance SDCCC's acquisition
by providing a $12.5 million deed of trust secured by
the leasehold interest. SDCCC will pay FAL $1 million at
the close of escrow and make annual payments of $500,000
for up to five years. Consequently, SDCCC is requesting
District consent to the assignment of a portion of the
FAL leasehold interest to SDCCC, the grant of a new
Amended, Restated and Combined (ARC) lease to SDCCC and
consent to a lease encumbrance."
In another part of the
Agenda, on page
4 of 9, it says: "On September 16,
2008, FAL and SDCCC entered into a letter of intent to
form a definitive agreement for the purchase and sale of
FAL's option to lease agreement for the
premises which expires on April 9, 2010."
Which is it? A lease
or an option to lease? If it is SDCCC's "letter of
intent", not FAL's "option to lease", that expires on
Friday (the Agenda text is not clear as to which it is),
it means that FAL only has an "option to lease", not an
actual lease.
If so, how could a mere "option to lease" be worth $13.5
million? That would be very easy money for FAL. The
public really needs to see that option, or that lease,
whichever it is. When does it expire? Has FAL been
making rent payments? If so, how much? All we have so
far are representations (or possibly misrepresentations)
in the press. That is why Blog of San Diego
always insists on seeing actual documents.
It would appear that either way the Port and the
Convention Center are giving
Fifth Avenue Landing LLC a big
fat present of $13.5 million. SDCCC could simply let its
letter of intent expire on Friday and negotiate a new
lease directly with the Port when the time comes. It has
a very long way to go before it gets its financing in
place, if at all. Meanwhile, there is no mention
anywhere of a penalty and even if there were, would it
be greater than $13.5 million? If it were, it would have
been unconscionable for any public agency to have agreed
to such a thing.
The Port District has put a companion Item 4 on its
Closed Session Agenda for tomorrow. It is
described as "Negotiation: Price and Terms" of
"Approximately 221,000 square feet
of tideland area leased to Fifth Avenue Landing, LLC,
and the adjacent District owned roadway, all bayward of
the San Diego Convention Center." Why is that
necessary if FAL already has a lease, or an option to
lease, that is good until 2024?
What exactly is being "negotiated" tomorrow in
closed session? Is an "old" lease only now being created
to enable "Recommendation C" on page 3 of the open
session
Agenda:
"Ordinance Granting Amended,
Restated and Combined Lease to San Diego Convention
Center Corporation ending June 30, 2024"? Are
both the old and new leases being "Amended, Restated and
Combined" on the same day?
Will the product of
the closed session be walked over to the open session as
if it were in existence all along? Does FAL really have
a prior lease with an expiration date of June 30, 2024?
If so, why has it not been presented to the public well
in advance? Why has it not been recorded in the County
Recorder's Office? That would be the normal thing to do.
I called and asked
both the Port and Convention Center whether what is
being "negotiated" in closed session tomorrow affects
anything on tomorrow's open session agenda. Both
declined to answer.
If the Port District and the Convention Center are
indeed gifting
Fifth Avenue Landing LLC with
$13.5 million, as it appears, each and every official
involved in this smelly transaction is vulnerable to
prosecution. This is a clear case for the FBI.
Apart from questions regarding a closed session action
being taken on the same day as an open session action on
the same matter, there are huge unanswered questions
regarding the present value of the interest being
purchased by SDCCC, whatever it is. No official
appraisal has been published, just unconfirmed press
reports of various value ranges.
Recent press reports have described that interest as a
"land interest" when there can only be a "leasehold
interest" in public tidelands. As we have seen above, it
may turn out to be only an "option". We just don't know.
Without publication of the actual entitlement document
it is impossible to know why SDCCC is willing to pay
$13.5 million for that entitlement.
I was today informed by a reputable title company that a
lease on this property, if one exists, has not been
recorded at the San Diego County Recorder's Office. Is
the County Recorder hiding it? Surely not. All recorded
documents must be available to the public.
It should be an interesting Port District meeting
tomorrow.
|
|
|
04/03/10 |
|
Coastal Commission's "April Fools" Staff Report. |
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
Yielding to intense pressure from Carnival Cruise Lines,
a Panamanian Corporation, and its political allies, the
Coastal Commission staff has issued
this Report in an attempt to provide political cover
for the Commission to grant an illegal "conditional"
permit for the Port's cruise ship terminal on Broadway
Pier.
The Coastal Commission will hear the combined appeals,
marked 15a on the
Commission's Agenda for April 14, 2010, at the Board
of Supervisors Chambers, 800 S. Victoria Avenue,
Ventura, CA 93009. The Staff is recommending a "Yes"
vote on: "The
Commission hereby approves a coastal development permit
for the proposed development and adopts the findings set
forth below on grounds that the development as
conditioned will be in conformity with the policies of
the certified Port Master Plan."
This development "as conditioned" represents a
substantial amendment to the certified Port Master Plan.
The Coastal Commission is therefore set to do something that
it does not have the power to do (ultra vires). A master
plan amendment cannot be granted as a condition attached
to a coastal development permit. That's not how it
works.
Here are the relevant sections of the Coastal Act:
Public Resources Code 30714: “The commission may not
modify the plan as submitted as a
condition of certification.”
Public Resources Code 30716: “Any proposed
amendment shall be submitted to, and processed by, the
commission in the same manner as provided for submission
and certification of a port master plan.”
These two code sections mean that a port master plan may
not be amended by the Commission as a condition of
granting a development permit, no more than an amendment
can be granted as part of an original certification. It
is clear therefore that this particular port master plan
amendment must be processed by the Commission "in the
same manner" as the original port master plan was certified. The
reason is obvious: if the Commission could amend a PMP
as part of the process of granting a development permit,
the entire Coastal Act would be defeated.
Moreover, this amendment has already been ruled a
"Substantial Issue" by the Commission, so the "de
minimis" provisions do not apply. See the Commission's
own appeal process
flow
chart.
Here is the Port Master Plan
Amendment that is being illegally added as a condition.
They have introduced a whole new Phase to the project,
Phase 1C. It is as blatant as that.
"Phase 1C of the permit, addressed in this Plan,
consists of identification and evaluation of an
alternative park site, and implementation of a plan to
develop a Waterfront Destination Park as an alternative
to, and replacement of, the oval-shaped park/plaza shown
on Figure 11 of the certified Port Master Plan (PMPA)
adopted by the Coastal Commission March 14, 2001. This
Plan identifies the requirements of the Waterfront
Destination Park, the components of the associated EIR
and the PMPA, and establishes milestones which the San
Diego Unified Port District, must meet during the
environmental review and approval process, to ensure the
Waterfront Destination Park will be constructed in a
timely manner."
Yeah, right.
This is not the first time the Coastal Commission granted
the Port District a development permit on a wing and a
prayer. In 2001 it permitted the "Midway" project to go
ahead on the Port District's false promise to provide "alternative parking".
Here is the Coastal Commission
Staff Report
dated June 28, 2001. Read pages 18 & 19 re.
"Parking/Public Access", particularly this
part:
"The EIR requires that 79 additional off-site parking
spaces be provided, if not on Navy Pier, then at a
nearby location. Thus, adequate parking to accommodate
the demand generated by the Midway will be provided."
Does that sound familiar? So, here we go
again, with an "Alternative Park" promise. The Commission now
wants to grant the Port District a
Cruise Ship Terminal Permit based on a promised
"Alternative Waterfront Destination Park", that will
surely go the same way as the 2001 "Alternative
Parking", promised by the
Port District to obtain its Midway permit. Years from now we will still be talking
wistfully about a "Waterfront Destination Park". We are still waiting for the Midway
"Alternative Parking". We
will be told it was "not feasible" - how Steve Cushman
dismissed the now defunct Broadway
Landing Oval Park.
You would think the Coastal Commission would have
learned its lesson. No. Such is the power of Carnival
Cruise Lines over our venal officials. This Panamanian
Corporation is effectively running the Port of San
Diego. It is buying massive TV advertising using public
money to promote its cruise ship business, quoting a
bogus "economic benefit". In fact the opposite is true -
it sucks business from our hotels and therefore tax
revenue.
The Broadway Pier project is part of the North
Embarcadero Visionary Plan (NEVP). As the Councilmember for District 2 where the project is located
and Chair of the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that is
implementing it, Kevin Faulconer is the key elected
official involved.
The (JPA) consists of the City
of San Diego, the Redevelopment Agency acting through the Centre City Development
Corporation, and the San Diego Unified Port District. Without Faulconer's continued
support the Carnival Cruise Lines Corporation will not get its
dream cruise terminal.
Here is what I wrote about Faulconer in my blog
on August 27, 2009:
"To fund
his toxic "pork" project he has to get this
Joint Exercise of Powers Amendment
passed at City Council on September 15, 2009. He is
attempting to amend the Joint Powers Agreement without
amending the Port Master Plan because the latter would
require public hearings. Only a slick PR guy like
Faulconer would attempt to pull off something like that.
All the public hearings he now brags about, took place
before the "Park-to-Cruise-Terminal" switcheroo.
The public was never consulted on the new Cruise
Terminal."
Faulconer tried his very best to ram it through City
Council last year without a Master Plan Amendment but Donna Frye "had an idea". She got
it sent back to the Mayor's office until the Oval Park
issue could be resolved at the Coastal Commission.
If
the Commission now adopts its staff's recommendation, no
doubt Faulconer will quickly get it docketed again at City
Council and again try his very best to ram it through for
Carnival Cruise Lines Corporation.
The reason it is vital for Carnival and Faulconer to avoid the proper
processing of a Port Master Plan Amendment is that such
a public process would have to deal with post 9/11 security requirements
that were not part of the original certification.
The Port District has informed me, as part of a public
records request, that there is a requirement for a
100 yard security zone around all cruise
ships while in dock. If enforced, that requirement would
blow away, not just the Oval Park in front of Broadway
Pier, but the entire 105 foot wide esplanade in front of
the entire cruise ship part of the "Visionary Plan".
That's their dirty little secret.
The truth is that anti-terrorist security requirements
make the operation of a cruise ship terminal infeasible
outside a fully secured marine terminal such as San
Diego's 10th Avenue Marine Terminal.
Once this security impact is enforced and felt, it will lead to major legal challenges
of this permit. However, the Port
District has indemnified the Coastal Commission and
Carnival Cruise Lines has indemnified the Port. The
legal risk Carnival is thereby willing to take is a
measure of how lucrative a San Diego Broadway Pier
Cruise Ship Terminal would be. But
Faulconer is still putting the San Diego taxpayers at
risk for
enormous liability if there actually was a terrorist
attack. And his action is negatively impacting the
property value of thousands of downtown condos.
Once the public, particularly downtown property owner/constituents of Faulconer's Council District 2, realize what
he
has pulled on them, he may well find himself back at his old PR job
with Porter
Novelli sooner than he ever expected, maybe even
with a huge "honest services" personal judgment against
him for the "taking" of their property values. Because
that is what this is.
|
|
|
10/23/09 |
|
"Mean" bloggers draw fire from a
Port Commissioner.
|
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
Port Commissioner Lee Burdick wrote an
op-ed piece in the Union-Tribune today. I posted a
comment there only to have it taken down by the U-T. I
guess it was too "mean" for the tender ears of Ms.
Burdick.
Here, you be the judge:
"Spoken like the true corporate lobbyist that she is,
from her time as government affairs lawyer (that's what
lobbyists prefer to call themselves) for Jimsair, to her
present job with lobbyist/law firm Higgs, Fletcher &
Mack, where according to
its website she "recently helped a local winery
overcome Riverside County land use regulations to
establish an approved vineyard plot and planting plan."
Note the word "overcome".
Fellow
lobbyists successfully engineered her appointment to the
Port Commission to help the Port District "overcome"
California land use regulations such as CEQA in the Port
District's North Embarcadero Visionary Plan.
At the time of her appointment she admitted that she
knew very little about Port District issues but promised
to listen. Yes, but to whom? My concern is that as a
veteran corporate lobbyist she will listen more to
Carnival Cruise Lines, than to "mean" bloggers like me
who happen to care about the waterfront."
That was my comment. Who does this woman represent that
it gives her such power at the Union-Tribune? I reached
her on the telephone later. She fully condoned the U-T
censorship. She said the reason the U-T removed my
comment was because it was "offensive". Offensive to
whom? I have no doubt it was "offensive" to Cardinal
Cruise Lines. Does she represent them?
I asked how her problem with the independence of blogs
comports with the following sentiments in her op-ed
piece: "So I vow to listen more and to speak less. I
will seek to understand others before I try to impose my
understanding on them." When she had finished her
lecture on blogs, our conversation was over. So much for
being a good listener.
It seems corporate interests have another puppet on the
Port Commission. The U-T's action today, once again,
gave positive proof that corporate interests dictate its
editorial policy. After all, corporations like Carnival
Cruise Lines advertize in "newspapers".
|
|
|
|
|
09/14/09 |
|
Angry citizens protest walling off Broadway Pier for a
private cruise ship company - Carnival Cruise Lines.
|
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|

|
|
|
09/01/09 |
|
Hueso muzzles public comment on the Embarcadero.
|
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
I went down to City Council today to give the
Councilmembers a "heads up" on the vote they must take
on September 15, 2009 regarding the proposed
Amendment to the Embarcadero Joint Powers Agreement
(JPA). The JPA Amendment, if passed, would authorize
CCDC to pay for "improvements' that would effectively
turn the Embarcadero into a marine dock subject to the
same Homeland Security requirements as the Tenth Avenue
Marine Terminal.
The
Port District's web site clearly shows that access
to the B Street Cruise Ship Terminal is currently
subject to the same strict security as Tenth Avenue
Marine Terminal. The City Council needs to know that the
Broadway Pier Cruise Ship Terminal, if approved, will
become a marine terminal under Federal Law: the
Maritime Transportation Security Act.
This is part of that law: the
"Transportation Worker Identification Credential"
known as TWIC. It means that the City is lying to you
when it says that the public will have access to
Broadway Pier after it becomes a cruise ship terminal.
Federal Law says otherwise. To underline this deception
the planners call it a "Public Access Improvement"
project.
Hueso didn't want me speaking about turning the
Embarcadero into a Cruise Ship terminal. He knows what
it means: the public will need TWIC passes to get on
Broadway Pier. A previous public speaker had referred to
the Embarcadero when making a general point about "bad
decisions by City-appointed officials". He talked about
CCDC and some Port Commissioners in terms of conflicts
of interest resulting in giveaways. My subject was quite
different, the upcoming JPA amendment vote. Nevertheless
Hueso seized upon that excuse to suppress my comments.
An hour earlier he had sent George Bianci, the City
Clerk's assistant, down into the audience to question me
on what I intended to speak about. I told him that I was
going to speak about the September 15th vote on the JPA
amendment. Obviously Hueso did not want that to happen.
There
were dozens of other public speakers. Many of them spoke
on the same subject e.g. homelessness, as people do
every week .
Hueso used his power as Council President to send the
City Clerk down to muzzle me and when that didn't work
he tried to rattle me and put me off my message.
He kept me waiting until the very last. If I sounded a
little nervous at the end it was because when a Council
President abuses his power to that extent it can be a
little challenging at the mike. He did succeed in making
me forget some of what I had intended to say, but I
think I achieved what I went there to do: to put the
Councilmembers on notice that their vote on September
15th is critical to the long-term use of the waterfront.
Hueso did not want me lobbying them. He badly wants an
affirmative vote on that JPA amendment. He has
promised private use of the waterfront to the special
business interests who are supporting him for the State
Assembly. One member of the audience protested Hueso
interrupting me. The Council President is not supposed
to do that during non-agenda public comment. It is the
one time when the public gets to speak. But Hueso would
suppress even that. He does not serve the public
interest, he serves only those who pay for his political
ambitions.
|
|
|
08/30/09 |
|
Steve Cushman promised a Convention Hotel to his
friends.
|
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
"This
makes me an honest man" said Steve Cushman Chair of the
San Diego Port District, when he and Mayor Sanders
broke ground on the Harbor Drive Pedestrian Bridge on
October 23, 2008.
He went on to explain: "Over five years ago I promised
the Hilton Corporation that they would have a bridge the
day they opened". That's what Steve does. He promises
things to corporations. The trouble is, he keeps his
promises and, according to him, that makes him an honest
man.
I have been studying some of Steve's other promises -
to
5th Avenue
Landing LLC for example. His promise to that
corporation is what the Convention Center Expansion is
all about. It may be his biggest yet. It involves his
old friends Arthur Engel and Ray Carpenter, owners of
5th Avenue
Landing LLC. With an LLC one never knows who the
real owners are. It usually ends up in a Caribbean
island corporation.
Like Cushman, Engel and Carpenter have been around for a
long time and have business interests up and down the
port. In many ways these three believe that between them
they own the waterfront.
Engel
and Carpenter have a lease from the Port on the land
upon which the
proposed Convention Center Expansion
would sit. It is marked in red opposite.
They would gladly sell it back to the Port for their
asking price of $14.5 million and the Port would gladly
pay it.
But that's not the whole story. They also own a lease on
all the land shown in the bottom right of the picture
(minus a narrow right of way to the Embarcadero Marina
Park behind their property). In addition to all that
they own a lease on the water, that's right, the water
you see in the picture. They currently rent berths to
luxury mega yachts, provide marine facilities to the
Oracle America's Cup challenge and Engel operates
his Harbor Excursions
business out of there.
Cushman's
promise to these two enterprising gentlemen is to
facilitate the permits and financing of a 250 room hotel
which Engel and Carpenter hope to build, as shown on the
left side of the picture opposite.
Note the Convention Center Expansion that if built would
essentially be an annex of their hotel. It doesn't get
better than that for a hotel owner.
If Cushman gets his way, his friends at
5th Avenue
Landing LLC
would get $14.5 million for what is currently
essentially a parking lot lease; it would retain a lease
on the very valuable ground the hotel would sit on and
it would retain the lease on what is billed in
international yachting magazines as one of the finest
mega yacht facilitates in the world. It is good
business to know an honest man like Steve Cushman. He
keeps his promises.
Mayor Sanders was at first cool to the idea of spending
almost $1 billion on a Convention Center Expansion that
many believe the City does not need right now, but once
Steve "explained" matters to him he came around. Here is
his hand picked
Citizen Task Force Report. Of course they looked at
various other options but eventually agreed that Cushman
knew best all along. That is why they were
hand-picked. That's how things are done in San
Diego.
Bear in mind that the Port does not own any
land. It is merely trustee of tidelands on behalf of the
People of California. The trouble is that Cushman thinks
the Port owns the tidelands and that he and a few of his
friends own the Port.
|
|
|
08/27/09 |
|
Kevin Faulconer's "Elephant on the Waterfront".
|
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
Come on down! "This is a good project" beams Kevin
Faulconer, the City Council's salesman for Carnival
Cruise Lines on Broadway Pier, on July 28, 2009.
 |
 |
I expected any moment to see Cal Worthington riding
down the center aisle of the Council Chamber on the
elephant he called "My Dog Spot". Kevin almost broke
into a Carnival Cruise version of Worthington's "If you
want a car or truck, go see Cal, if you want to save a
buck, go see Cal." If you want to bait-and-switch, a
Marine Terminal for a Park, go see Kevin.
We still have a chance to move this monster from our
front porch to the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal, where it
belongs.
The original NEVP design was fine, before Faulconer "porked"
it up. It is this Cushman/Faulconer bait-and-switch
"Park-to-Cruise-Terminal" amendment, that is the
problem.
But he is not home and dry yet. To fund
his toxic "pork" project he has to get this
Joint Exercise of Powers Amendment
passed at City Council on September 15, 2009. He is
attempting to amend the Joint Powers Agreement without
amending the Port Master Plan because the latter would
require public hearings. Only a slick PR guy like
Faulconer would attempt to pull off something like that.
All the public hearings he now brags about, took place
before the "Park-to-Cruise-Terminal" switcheroo.
The public was never consulted on the new Cruise
Terminal.
As part of this ugly deal he wants to move $9 million
from the C Street public works project to his Carnival
Cruise private project, which means in effect that his
Broadway Pier monstrosity is being partially funded by
the eminent domain "taking" of private property in
Grantville, from where redevelopment money is being
shifted to C Street.
Here is the
proposed budget Amendment for September 15, 2009.
There is nothing a well-connected business cannot do if
it has friends in high places. Kevin Faulconer is a
businessman, not a public servant. With his background
in PR and lobbying, he uses his seat on the City Council
to advocate for gifts to private businesses, such as
Carnival Cruise Lines.
Below is what the B Street Cruise Ship Terminal has done
to our embarcadero already. The excuse is "security".
This is not construction, this is permanent. Look at
that spiked iron fence and those guards. That is what
Broadway Pier will look like. Carnival will "secure"
its terminal.
Below is what Broadway Pier looks like today. Do
Not Enter signs everywhere. And Faulconer wants his
San Diego City Council colleagues, on September 15th,
to vote the money for a
second "secure"
Carnival
terminal on our priceless Broadway Pier. For the loss of
our Pier and our tax dollars we will get more
Do Not Enter signs. That's your "Good Project"
Kevin? No! We're not buying! And any Councilmember who
votes for it will face an outraged citizenry.
Make no mistake about it, Carnival Cruise Lines will
post guards on Broadway Pier as they do right now on B
Street, even more, because B Street is only a
"port-of-call" while Broadway Pier will be a
"home-port". They have to keep the terrorists out,
right? They will own Broadway Pier.
I have lived in San Diego for 33 years and I have never
seen anything as outrageous as this. They have turned
our gorgeous embarcadero into a working docks and call
it "visionary". If Faulconer rams this through
City Council on September 15, 2009 he deserves to be
recalled.
|
|
|
08/25/09 |
|
The battle lines are drawn in the fight for Broadway
Pier.
|
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
I have obtained a copy of the
implementation agreement for the
"North Embarcadero Visionary Plan" (NEVP). The Agreement
is known as the "Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement" (JPA). It is an
important document because its stated purpose is
"funding, designing and constructing" a project defined
as "the use and development of the North Embarcadero
area", as outlined in a boundary map called "Attachment
A", which includes Broadway Pier.
It means that the Port is trying to have it both ways.
On the one hand it claims exclusive jurisdiction over
Broadway Pier and wants to develop it as a cruise ship
terminal for Carnival Cruise Lines, while at the same
time it wants to act as part of the "North Embarcadero
Alliance Visionary Plan" through a "Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement" with the City and CCDC.
The development of this area is governed by various
planning documents including this
Coastal Development Permit (CDP) which is
currently in the De Novo stage of the California
Coastal Commission's
appeal process. The
Commission recently found
a "Substantial Issue" (SI) regarding (among other
findings) a "public plaza" area switched to truck access
for a proposed home-port cruise-ship terminal on
Broadway Pier, which was
graphically illustrated
as an oval-shaped park in the "Park/Plaza"
segment of its core planning document - the
Port Master Plan.
That switch is unacceptable to the public and to the
Coastal Commission.
This tactic by the Port has been described as a
"bait-and-switch" by members of the public who have
already filed two lawsuits, one by the
Public Rights to Bay Access and Parks and one by the
Navy Broadway Complex Coalition. Both groups allege
that the Port's departure from its approved
Port Master Plan
makes the cruise ship terminal illegal.
They are right.
These
competing uses, Cruise Ships vs. Park, are mutually
exclusive. One use must give way to the other. Therefore
the looming battle will take place within this re-drawn
Red
Square, where a
Park was sacrificed for a truck access/security zone
serving the Carnival Cruise Terminal on Broadway Pier.
We may yet see the San Diego equivalent of
Beijing's "Tank Man", confronting a line of cruise
ship refrigeration trucks trying break through to the
illegal Terminal.
A better name for this whole Port (Pork) Project might
have been the "North Embarcadero Carnival Cruise Lines
Visionary Plan". It was certainly visionary from
Carnival's perspective.
If the Port wins this battle there could be up to four
cruise ships berthed at North Embarcadero at one time.
Each giant cruise ship requires 12 megawatts of power while
berthed. Therefore approving the berthing of four cruise
ships is equivalent to building four diesel-burning
power stations on the Embarcadero.
Right now there is no shore power (cold-iron) available
for any ship on the Embarcadero. The Port proposes to
spend $6 million for trenching and cables to draw 12
megawatts from the nearest SDG&E substation, enough for
one ship only. After that SDG&E has no more capacity in
the area and has no plans to add any. Cruise ships
however, prefer to generate their own electricity. Can
you imagine the hydro carbon they discharge? It is more
than all the car engines downtown at any one time.
To justify this, the cruise industry quotes an
(unsubstantiated) "economic benefit" of $2 million per
call, which Cushman and Faulconer parrot like the former
car salesman and former PR guy they are. If the figure
were true, each of the ship's 2,600 passengers would
have to spend $770 per call ($2,000,000 ÷
2,600). That's a lot of pedicab rides. Sorry Steve &
Kevin we're not buying it.
Apart from the legal challenges, I can see the public
outrage taking many new forms. It is just beginning to
dawn on San Diegans the fast one Steve Cushman (Port),
Fred Maas (CCDC) and Kevin Faulconer (City Council) have
pulled. The downtown condo owners are the worst hit.
They are being told that there is no money to build a
train "Quiet Zone",
so they can get some sleep at night, yet CCDC is willing
to finance a cruise ship terminal that belongs at the
10th Avenue Marine Terminal and is willing to help
permit a joint project that is the equivalent of four 12
megawatt power stations a couple of blocks from the most
expensive waterfront condos.
The pollution from these cruise ship smoke-stacks is
blowing right into condo owners' bedrooms as they lay
awake listening to the continuous honking of train
horns. Yet it is these condo owners who provide the
lion's share of CCDC's Tax Increment revenue.
Because of the way Prop. 13 works, it is the condo
owners who pay for downtown redevelopment, not the
businesses who get all the grants and public amenities,
while there is a serious park deficit for residents.
Residential condos have a much higher
per square foot assessed value than commercial
buildings. The combined assessed value of any condo
building downtown is many times greater than any
equivalent-sized office or hotel building. I added up
the total assessed value of a few downtown condo
buildings and was amazed when I compared it with the
assessed value of similar office and hotel buildings
nearby and of the same age.
This inequity is compounded by the fact that many owners
of older commercial buildings hide behind LLCs or
corporations to avoid a reassessment when there is a
change of ownership. Many such buildings have not had a
reassessment since 1978 yet equitable ownership (of the
LLC or corporation) has changed many times.
Now, these hard-pressed condo owners will have to listen
to refrigeration trucks rumbling through the night
delivering tons of booze and food to home-ported
Carnival Cruise Lines mini-cities.
They will have to breathe the fumes from
refrigeration trucks lined up all night along Broadway
with their engines running. And CCDC is promoting living
downtown? This may break the camel's back and drive many
potential buyers away.
It seems to me that the City and CCDC are shooting
themselves in the foot. The over-taxed,
under-appreciated, long-suffering downtown condo
dwellers should ponder all this as they lay awake at
night
listening to this. It is time the condo owners
claimed ownership of their downtown.
|
|
|
08/17/09 |
|
"Cushman's Gift" - the Privatization of Broadway Pier.
|
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
Below
is where
Carnival Cruise Lines currently loads the
food and booze for its 2,600-passenger cruise ships
together with their personal luggage. The site is part
of the well-equipped Port of Los Angeles, designed to
handle the heavy traffic associated with provisioning
such large ships.

San Diego has
the perfect location for a cruise ship home-port to rival Los
Angeles, Miami or anywhere else in the world: our
10th Avenue Terminal. Here is
a schematic and an aerial view:

Note the vacant transit sheds, the proximity of
freeways, the truck parking and the berthing space equal
to or better than Los Angeles. But Port Commission
Chairman Cushman wants to appropriate Broadway Pier for
the private use of Carnival Cruise Lines as its home
port.
Below is how the Broadway Pier and its civic park is
depicted in the Port District's Master Plan. Yet, as
recently reported by KPBS, Cushman "doesn't
even remember" ever seeing such a Plan. That's what
being Chairman of the Port means to this
Sanders-appointed Commissioner - the ability to give
away a public asset and not even remember you did it.
Having given away the Pier he then had to give the
cruise line a driveway. So he just scratched the civic
park. You would think he would remember something
as big as that. Either he is lying or he has
Alzheimer's. I suspect it is "Political Alzheimer's".
Sanders has had it for a long time.

In any case, Cushman and Sanders must not be allowed to
get away with this giveaway. We are business-friendly -
but not that friendly. There is a big difference
between a "port-of-call" and a "home-port". A home-port
facility needs a port environment. The Embarcadero is
not a port.
|
|
|
08/14/09 |
|
Coastal Commission takes charge of the Port's permit.
|
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
Here
is a video clip of the California Coastal Commission
taking over jurisdiction of the Coastal Development
Permit the San Diego Port District issued to itself
putting a "home port" cruise ship terminal on Broadway
Pier, in breach of the Port Master Plan previously
approved by the Coastal Commission.
Here is the flow chart of the Commission's
appeal process that found a "Substantial Issue" (SI)
supporting a De Novo Coastal Commission hearing
that will decide whether the North Embarcadero Project
gets its Coastal Development Permit or not,
sometime over the next 6 months.
|
|
|
08/11/09 |
|
Congressman Filner weighs in on waterfront issues.
|
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
Congressman Bob Filner points to cumulative
issues that the Coastal Commission must consider on
Friday when it will decide whether to uphold or deny an
appeal against a Coastal Development Permit
issued by the Port allowing it to renege on its
promise of a 10 acre park at the bottom of Broadway. In
a
Press Release today Filner says:
"The California Coastal Commission is
correct that an update to the Port's Master Plan is
required in light of the many development projects
approved over the last two years including the Navy
Broadway Complex and offsite parking, Lane Field North,
Lane Field South, the B Street Pier Cruise Ship
Terminal, the Broadway Cruise Ship Terminal, Rucco park,
the Old Police Headquarters, the deletion of the 10-acre
gateway park and the planned public park and open space
on the Broadway Pier."
It is now looking more and more like a full-blown update
to the
Port Master Plan
is inevitable. There have been too many "accommodations"
to business interests, who never seem to be satisfied.
The cancelling of a 10 acre "gateway park" was the straw
that broke the camel's back.
Up until last week the Port still thought it could "work
things out", that it could square things with the
Coastal Commission. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported
on
August 5, 2009: "Rather than
fight the appeals, the port plans to work with the
commission staff to sort out differences. “There may be
some changes made to the plan,” Helmer said, adding that
one change that will not be made is restoration of the
large oval park."
That sounds like wishful thinking. The "accommodations"
have gone too far. "Sorting out differences" behind
closed doors will put the Port and Coastal Commission in
breach of the California
Brown Act. If the Commission votes to uphold the
Coastal Development Permit the Port issued to itself,
based upon faulty CEQA findings, it will undoubtedly be
added as a respondent in this
legal complaint.
|
|
|
08/09/09 |
|
Tideland Activists sue Port Commission over
bait-and-switch. |
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|

This is New York's
Washington Square sitting at the foot
of Fifth Avenue, its triumphal arch modeled after
the
Arc de Triomphe in Paris, pointing up Fifth Avenue
past the Empire State Building all the way to Central
Park. It is a sight that makes every New Yorker proud.
Developers, most notably
Robert Moses, wanted to run Fifth Avenue through
this square to the Hudson waterfront. But thanks to
dedicated activists like
Jane
Jacobs the NY park is still there.
Look at the ten acre
Broadway
Landing Park San Diegans were promised by the
Unified Port of San Diego in its
core planning document, the
Port Master Plan
(PMP). On page 73, Figure
11, it
graphically illustrated
an oval-shaped park.
It later incorporated by
reference the entire
North Embarcadero Visionary Plan
(NEVP), which included a
Broadway Landing Segment,
centered on the Broadway Pier,
containing a
narrative and
illustration of the oval-shaped park.
Without doing a Port Master Plan
Amendment, the Port is attempting to drop this
Broadway Landing Park.
The Port says it is merely moving planned "green
space"
around. In a
Press Release the activist group accuses the Port of
"trying to cancel
three major public parks on downtown San Diego Bay
tidelands -- Broadway Landing Park, Broadway Pier, and
"green spaces". It
alleges that there
is not one blade of grass left in the North Embarcadero
Visionary Plan -
that "landscape" has become
"hardscape" throughout.
In its
North Embarcadero Visionary Plan (NEVP)
the Port
was very specific regarding this Broadway Park:
"Because of its one-sided configuration, with buildings
only to the east, the scale of the bay gives the space
an expansive feeling larger than its actual size, much
as in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor or the harbor in
Barcelona." And:
"It is a landscaped public open
space, accommodating recreational activities on a daily
basis or large public gatherings. The park includes a
central plaza punctuated by a landmark element such as a
fountain or sculpture, orienting visitors and drawing
attention to this important public precinct."
According to the activists, that was all just car-sales
talk. Port Commission Chairman Steve Cushman,
is an ex-car salesman.
His car sales motto was
"We're not satisfied 'till you are". The
activists say: "we're not
satisfied Steve. Far from it. You sold us a lemon".
It seems that Cushman and his Commission never had the
slightest intention of doing what it promised.
The Broadway Landing Park was huckster bait-and-switch
from the start. Here is a
pretty picture of the 1 1/2 mile Embarcadero
Visionary Plan. The centerpiece was to be the
Broadway Park, designated green space in the Port
Master Plan.
The Port Commission is dominated by the hotel and
tourism industry. While its PR team was showing the
citizens pretty pictures of oval parks and leafy
esplanades, it was busy planning a "Greyhound
Station" for a gaudy Miami-based cruise ship operator on
Broadway Pier.
Watch
the video of
Cushman announcing how they had
"obviously waited for this day for a long, long time".
Yes Steve, obviously you have been planning this
bait-and-switch for a long, long time. That was why the
hotel industry lobby broke the term limit law to get you
a third term. This
traffic circulation plan was finalized in 2006,
indicating it was planned a long time ago.
To fully appreciate the enormity of this
bait-and-switch, compare what Cushman broke ground on
and what was promised. Here is the promise:

Here is the ugly bus-and-truck
circulation system taking up half the pier's length.
There is a big difference between a "port-of-call"
cruise terminal, which we already have, and this "home
port" cruise terminal we don't want.
It takes approximately six hours for embarkation and
three hours for disembarkation at a home port. And now
they want to put one on our front doorstep!
The
architect for this unbelievably ugly building, Luis
Ajamil, describes on
the video
how difficult it was to
"find places" for home port
terminals.
I'm not surprised. Look at it. It's an ugly customs shed
- on our civic pier.
Cushman offered
Carnival Cruise Lines San Diego's front door
- Broadway Pier itself. He justifies
this outrageous civic give-away on
the video by
saying
"we need to keep up with competing
ports". Other ports are lining up to donate their
front doors for ugly cruise terminals? He and his
architect might at least try to get their stories
straight.
If this is allowed to stand there will be buses and
supply trucks clogging Broadway, backed up all the way
to Horton Plaza. As proof of this, the Port had to hire
Katz,
Okitsu & Associates (KOA), a large traffic
engineering firm, to design for this massive loading and
off-loading nightmare. Read how KOA planned the Ground
Transportation Area (GTA) in the
Addendum to the NEVP Master EIR and CEQA Initial Study.
This thing belongs at 10th Avenue not at Broadway Pier.
According to Kevin Faulconer,
Carnival Cruise Lines
will load and offload one million bodies per year (Faulconer's
numbers on
the video)
together with their luggage,
right on our front doorstep. That represents 384
ship calls per year (1,000,000 ÷ 2,600). Each time a
Carnival Cruise Lines
ship arrives, 2,600
low-budget
transient cruisers will be processed through this 50,000
square foot, two-story, tin shed.
Carnival's spokesperson was
"pleased to be here almost five
years later to celebrate this major milestone",
confirming the fact that for five years Carnival and
Cushman have been conspiring on how to
use public funds to build this private facility on a
public pier. Cushman wants to put the naming rights out
for bid. Will anybody bid? Carnival will probably get it
for $1. They should then name it "Cushman's
Gift".
The Port Commission has been feeding pretty pictures to
a gullible media and people, showing oval parks with
water fountains in front of a geranium-covered Broadway
Civic Pier, while all the time they were conspiring
behind closed doors with a Miami-based cruise ship
operator. Councilmember Kevin Faulconer's job, in whose
District it is, was to smooth-talk its entitlements
through the City and its developer-controlled CCDC. Who
does Faulconer represent? Certainly not the citizens of
San Diego. At heart he is still a big-business PR guy
for
Porter Novelli.
Everything in San Diego is for sale. It is a "business
friendly" city.
Will they get away with it? Maybe not. The California
Coastal Commission is not happy. Here is a
letter dated April 2, 2009 written by its Coastal
Planner, Dianna Lilly, to her opposite number, John
Helmer, at the Port Commission,
commenting on the Port's
Addendum to its original
Master
Environmental Impact Report (MEIR). Ms. Lilly
points out, among other matters, that the oval-shaped
park has been
"redesigned as a driveway
to the proposed new cruise ship terminal on Broadway
Pier". Did they think she wouldn't notice? Or do
they think they have the political muscle to ram the
Coastal Development Permit through at Commission level?
Even if they do, California (CEQA) law is very clear:
you can't make major changes to a Master Environmental
Impact Report (MEIR), as the Port is attempting to do,
by simply writing an "Addendum". Major changes
must be done through an "Amendment" process, which
involves public hearings. That is why Cushman ignored
Ms. Lilly's April 2, 2009 letter. To comply would have
required public hearings! The bait-and-switch cat would
be out of the bag.
So Ms. Lilly wrote them again on
July 2, 2009. This time she spelled it out:
"the Port Master Plan is not a guidance document;
the policies and standards contained within it are to be
followed closely and specifically."
Then her coup de grâce: not only must the
policies and principles of the Master Plan be
consistently and accurately implemented, the Plan
includes those represented graphically and
by reference.
Remember that graphic
illustration
in the
Port Master Plan
and that
narrative incorporated by reference from the
North Embarcadero Visionary Plan? They are part and
parcel of the core planning document - the Port Master
Plan. It's the law.
Ms. Lilly laid it out:
"Once a policy, figure or project is inserted into the
PMP, it is no longer guidance, but the standard of
review." The oval-shaped park graphically
depicted in the
Port Master Plan
must be implemented or there must be new public
hearings.
Late on Friday August 7, 2009 came the inevitable
lawsuit. A recently formed non-profit entity, based
in San Diego, called "Public Rights to Bay Access and
Parks" has sued the San Diego Unified Port
District asking for a Writ of Mandate setting aside
and vacating various decisions made by the Port
Commission including "redacting a
PMP-designated 10-acre waterfront public tideland park".
We may now have our own version of New York's
Jane
Jacobs vs.
Robert Moses titanic battle right here in San Diego.
Our world image for generations to come is at stake.
Here's how the U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command
depicted San Diego's version of New York's
Washington Square on page 33 of its
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for its
proposed Navy Broadway Complex.
There was always going to be a San Diego
signature park at the bottom of Broadway extending onto
Broadway Pier.
Everybody, including the U.S. Navy, incorporated that
park into their downtown and waterfront plans -
everybody that is except Steve Cushman and his
Carnival Cruise Lines
client.
The next round in this epic battle will be in San
Francisco this Friday August 14, 2009 when the Coastal
Commission will hear an appeal by various San Diego
citizens against the
San Diego Unified Port District alleging that the
Port's findings in granting itself a Coastal Development
Permit are inconsistent with its certified Port Master
Plan. Many San Diegans are flying up for the hearing.
Here is
its
Agenda and
Exhibits.
| |
|
07/21/09 |
|
What is going on at the Navy Broadway
Complex? |
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
Those of us who have carefully followed this waterfront
saga over many years have long believed that there has
been deep collusion between the City, CCDC, the Navy and
Doug Manchester. As the Office of the California State
Geologist put it: “San Diego is playing loose with the
law.”
This
troubled complex is back in the news again since last
Friday July 17, 2009 when Superior Court Judge Prager
finally
finished off the lawsuit brought by a citizen group
called the "Navy Broadway Complex Coalition".
This group is convinced that the City and the Navy are
in breach of State law and is expected to file an appeal
within 30 days.
I sat through the entire hearing before
Judge Prager on April 22, 2009 when he appeared
impervious to any citizen argument but rather bound and
determined to give the Navy and the City what they
wanted.
Although she is not a party to the lawsuit, nobody
has followed the Navy Broadway Complex (NBC) more
doggedly than Katheryn Rhodes, a
Professional Engineer (PE). As a PE she is licensed
to provide professional civil engineering services to
the public. Ms. Rhodes has been doing just that with
regard to Navy Broadway FREE for several years.
Here is
her latest work. She has accused the US Navy, CCDC
and the City of San Diego of conspiracy to commit
"honest services fraud". If proven, that is a
very serious charge. She backs it up with 86 pages of
convincing evidence against the City and the Navy. Her
main focus is on the fact that the City and Navy have
not conducted a valid geotechnical fault investigation
for the Navy Broadway site as required by State law.
All development projects located in an “Earthquake Fault
Zone” (formerly known as a “Special Studies Zone”) are
required to submit valid geotechnical fault
investigations at project submittal. The Navy Broadway
project is located in the City of San Diego’s Downtown
Special Fault Zone as defined in the City's General Plan
and approved by the State, even though not yet shown on
State seismic maps, which are years behind.
How then was the Navy able to avoid doing "a valid
geotechnical fault investigation" at project submittal?
Simple. It did an invalid one.
The Navy hired a company called
Geocon Inc, who
did an investigation and, conveniently for the Navy,
reported that they had found no earthquake fault on the
site. However, on January 9, 2007 Walter Landry the City
of San Diego's geologist, told the City Council that the
Geocon report was inadequate. No qualified third-party
reviewer or government official has ever found the
Geocon report adequate, as required by State law. Nor
has it ever been released to the public.
In a bizarre effort to validate this invalid seismic
report, the Navy brass has grossly misrepresented
an
Oct 6, 2008 letter from Dr. Hough of the U.S.
Geological Survey to Admiral Herring. Judge Prager
relied heavily upon that misrepresentation. The Navy had
pounced on this partial sentence in Dr. Hough's letter:
"... the section presents a
thorough and up-to-date summary of known geological
hazards to which the Broadway Complex is potentially
exposed". Judge Prager largely based his judgment
on it.
The Navy and the City used Dr. Hough's letter, over and
over again, to support their false contention that the
U.S. Geological Survey supports the Navy position. Dr.
Hough has since vehemently denied that it was ever her
intention to comment on, let alone validate, the 2006
Geocon report. She points out that she was merely
offering general comments on a draft Environmental
Assessment (EA) sent to her by the Navy for comment.
Ms. Rhodes: "There
is a high likelihood that the active Coronado Fault,
[located within] the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone, the
State-Recognized City of San Diego Special Fault Zone
and reclaimed Port tidelands, is subject to liquefaction
and strong seismic shaking and traverses the Navy
Broadway Complex exactly were high-rise structures
including the Navy’s proposed West Coast Headquarters
are located in the Master Plan." .... "Osama bin Ladin,
who is a Civil Engineer, could not have chosen a more
unsafe site for our Navy West Coast Headquarters".
What drives this irrational
determination of the U.S. Navy brass to build its West
Coast Headquarters atop a known earthquake fault,
alongside a busy railway track where a ship's container,
loaded in some far away port with just about any kind of
explosive device, including nuclear, that could be
detonated yards away from a high-value U.S. Navy
facility, right in the heart of San Diego's waterfront,
one of the most popular tourist destinations in the
world?
What is going on? It makes no sense for our Navy to be
in such a place. Isn't there somewhere else? It's almost
like they are courting another Pearl Harbor. It just
needs to be stopped.
|
|
|
06/12/09 |
|
PLA Money talks - the environment walks. |
|
|
|
|
by Pat Flannery
top^ |
|
|
There are only two Republicans on the San Diego City
Council, Kevin Faulconer and Carl DeMaio, the other six
are all Democrats. That should suggest a definite
leftward tilt, a strong labor and environmental bias. We
might even expect a move towards increased local taxes.
But that is not at all what we are seeing. The left in
San Diego consists of gay rights and project labor
agreements (PLAs). The concept of social justice does
not exist. Socialism is as much an anathema to the left
as it is to the right. Gay rights have nothing to do
with economic justice and project labor agreements are
the antithesis to social leveling.
Organized labor in San Diego is primarily about
collecting union dues and political power.
PLAs are ugly partnerships between union bosses and
corporations to "stabilize" the workforce.
The union bosses do not need to recruit the old fashioned
way, their dues are guaranteed by the corporations.
Thus the workers right to strike is bargained away for
the stabilization of union dues.
Without the right to strike, a worker is
little more than a slave. In modern society, they are
economic slaves.
Labor leaders routinely answer such charges by asserting
that PLAs benefit all workers, that every worker
benefits from the good fortune of a few. I struggle to
understand that logic. The truth is that it splits the
labor force into the "haves" and "have-nots". Old
fashioned labor leaders were social levelers not social
elitists. PLAs are the opposite to leveling.
It is widely believed that labor's insistence on a PLA
drove away Gaylord from Chula Vista. If Gaylord was
allowed free access to the job market, would Chula Vista
be better off today? The hard fact is that jobs are the
life blood of any economy. A prime waterfront site lies
silent and a city stagnates because union dues were not
guaranteed by a developer.
This whole question came into sharp focus this week with
the City's appointment of a little known attorney from
the lobbyist community to the Port District, Ms. Lee
Burdick. What happened has been the subject of much
speculation. I believe it reveals the primacy of PLAs
for labor.
Only three of the six Democratic Councilmembers, Frye,
Gloria and Lightner voted for the obvious Port choice,
Diane Takvorian, executive director of the Environmental
Health Coalition, from an environmental and labor point
of view. Many and lame were the excuses given by Hueso,
Young and Emerald for voting in a lobbyist.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happened.
Steve Cushman, Port Commissioner and master of
waterfront PLA negotiations, told Ben Hueso (Council
President) and Lorena Gonzales (Labor Council President)
that Takvorian would not be acceptable to Port employers
in negotiating PLAs. Cushman advised Hueso and Gonzales
to find somebody more "acceptable". Takvorian bears the
scars of too many fights with Port business interests on
behalf of children's health.
So what does a Council President do in a situation like
that? Why, he calls in the lobbyists, of course. They
know who is "acceptable" and who is not. Lobbyist Adrian
Kwiatkowski, who works for Jack Monger and represents
various developers and corporate aviation interests,
stepped up to the plate. He and Monger "suggested"
fellow lobbyist Lee Burdick, Jimsair former general
counsel for government affairs and now working for the
politically well-connected law firm of
Higgs Fletcher & Mack.
So, Diane Takvorian gets blindsided by her politician
and union "friends" who, like good capitalists, put
union dues (profits) before the environment. Cushman
gave them good advice: if you want PLAs, dump Takvorian.
So the political posturing began.
Politicians will agree to anything if you give them
cover. The Chiefs of Staff and the lobbyists went to
work writing the script for Monday's Council meeting. It
was like watching professional wrestling. And the media
printed it all, like a professional wrestling announcer.
Lorena was like the Godfather at a christening, loudly
protesting her loyalty to Takvorian, while her soldiers
put five bullets into Takvorian's
Environmental Health Coalition. Hueso, Young and
Emerald's bullets were the unkindest cuts of all. Now if
you want something from the Port Commission, go talk to
Kwiatkowski and Monger. Money talks and the environment
walks.
|
|
|
Keep
Government Honest.
Read source documents
HERE.
Most media merely repeat
Government Spin. |
|
To refinance your
home |

"The Paperless Way®"
www.thepaperlessway.com
(We do it the paperless way) |
|
I am an approved
broker for all
Government Loans |
 |
|
|
Up to 105% Loan To Value!
No Mortgage Insurance!
Call me at
the deal.or email me at
pat@patflannery.com
for a free consultation.
|
|
Picking a Realtor® |
|
With over 32 years full-time experience, right here in San Diego county,
there is very little I don't know about Real Estate.
 |
I
have never had a lawsuit or an ethics complaint filed against me.
I was trained in the old-school of follow "The Golden Rule". |
If my Real Estate expertise can be of assistance to you or
yours, please
email me
or call me at (619) 600-5845. |
|
|