SD COASTAL ALLIANCE

MISSION

POLITICS

ETHICS QUESTIONS?

SCORECARDS
How did Council Vote?

ISSUES

NEWS

SCHOOLS

REDEVELOPMENT
ABUSE

ENVIRONMENTAL "Fs"

AIRPORT

STRIP CLUB TRIAL

COMMENTARY

LINKS/CONTACTS

Archives:
PENSION
COVER-UP

MAYOR RACE '05"

PAST POLITICS

 LETTERS TO THE Union-Tribune EDITOR Mon., June 14, 2010 Put redevelopment cap to a public vote Your June 6 Opinion piece, "Continued development downtown crucial," was quite a contrast to your news article June 2 that the county grand jury recommends "convening a panel of bankruptcy experts." Obviously, downtown redevelopment has not benefited the rest of the city. I would gladly trade a less developed downtown to get back our browned-out fire engines, our closed libraries, our laid-off lifeguards and our closed bathrooms in Mission Bay Park. We should be told why a new downtown football stadium is more important than public safety. The question of raising the cap on the dollar limit of redevelopment should be put to a vote of the public.—MELVIN SHAPIRO, San Diego
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/14/catch-geezer/

$TRONG MAYOR WAS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY THE WHEALER DEALERS... Watch as the citizens lose their power and tax dollars!
$ Forces us to pay for bigger government.
$ Lobbyists need only buy-off the Mayor... City Council becomes obsolete.
$ Limits public access, transparency and accountability by the Mayor
   being hidden behind closed doors.
$ Favoring “Puppet Press” press, while sanctioning other media.
$ Accelerating San Diego’s debt by pushing “Big Money Boondoggles”.
$ Strips our neighborhoods of vital services and facilities...
   libraries, parks, police, streets, etc.
San Diegans should have voted NO on "Prop D"

Jerry Sanders’ idea of lifting the cap is nuts
Peterson Excerpt: But, does downtown redevelopment really help every neighborhood? Anecdotal evidence over the 40 years, or so, of downtown redevelopment certainly suggest otherwise. Can Mayor Jerry Sanders even say that San Diegans enjoy a higher level of municipal services than in the 1970s? READ FULL ARTICLE 

READ: Blog of San Diego:
04/07/10 The Union-Tribune is negotiating for the Port District

SAVE OUR BAYFRONT PARKS --Stop the Carnival Terminal
The California Coastal Commission will hear this issue April 14, 2010.
STOP THE BIG BAY GIVEAWAY!!
Remember the Charger Ticket Guarantee? Here they go again...
• Can our waterfront be just as open and beautiful as Santa Barbara’s and San Francisco’s - a great attraction for residents and tourists alike?
• Are Faulconer, Sanders, Peters, and Hueso breaking the law
to deliver $28,000,000 and the N. Embarcadero to Carnival Corporation?
• Does the law, the PORT MASTER PLAN, defining the Coastal Act, really guarantee a ring of green public parks and piers on San Diego’s downtown waterfront?
SAN DIEGO PORT MASTER PLAN
Page 60: Broadway Landing Park and Broadway Pier: “The Plan proposes two major parks...the foot of Broadway, and includes recreational piers and associated public facilities...on Port tidelands.”’
Page 60: Grape Street Pier: “...a 30,000 square-foot curvilinear pier
designated as park/plaza.”
Page 63: N. Embarcadero recreation and picnic parks: Re Harbor Dr. “Parking areas along the street and lawn areas.” “Passive green spaces (parks) are proposed between the plazas on the esplanade, providing recreational opportunities and places for people to relax, play, and enjoy Bay views.” Cruise Ships and Terminals - Terrorist Targets?Coast Guard regulation 33cfra65.T11-030:
Security Zones; Port of San Diego
“(a) Regulated area. Temporary moving security zones are established 100 yards around all cruise ships while entering or departing the Port of San Diego.”
“Temporary fixed security zones are established 100 yards around all cruise ships docked in the Port of San Diego.”A BIG Victory!
Posted Jan. 15, 2010,If you have been concerned or fought over the City misguidedHigh Density Bonus Ordinance from several years ago (Past info on SD Coastal Alliance Site) we actually have had a victory! But.. the questions remain…Have the developers been told about this ruling?
Have the planning boards been told, and do they know that the City has been feeding them  bogus propaganda for the last few years? Read the following by Tom Mullaney to understand the importance of this ruling. And THANK YOU Cory Briggs!
Favorable Ruling of Density Bonuses Ordinance 
Cory Briggs notified me of a favorable ruling by the court, in which the City must pay attorney fees.  That's good news for the citizens who opposed the City's  misguided Density Bonus ordinance in November 2007.  The fee ruling  follows a December 2008 ruling in favor of the citizens.  
  As you may remember, the City altered the formulas from state law so that developers could get large density bonuses for moderate-income housing. This would have made low-income and very  low-income housing relatively less profitable, and less likely to be built.   Harmful impacts were mostly ignored, including threats to public views and assess in the coastal zone.  Overburdened public facilities were not considered.
 I reviewed my files, and reread the 12/8/08 order from Judge Quinn. "No basis for conclusions reached in the supplemental EIR".  That's a damaging portrayal of the city's approach to ordinances-- making important decisions without any factual basis whatsoever.  
 —Tom Mullaney, Friends of San  Diego  "Preserving the environment and quality of life in the San  Diego region"

Mayor Sanders Opposes Historic Preservation
City Council item Wed. Dec. 2, 2009
Jerry Sanders proposed eliminating the senior planner position that manages historic districts in San Diego. Mayor Sanders sent a pink slip to Kelly M. Saunders, the senior planner, a position that designated historic houses. This action hurts historic districts and preservation. It also means slowing down individual house designations by 50%.
  The historic districts are key to protecting our neighborhoods. Without the historic district staff person, dozens of historic buildings will remain unprotected.
Ironically, Sanders must have forgotten that he passed a every 5 yr. Mills Act fee to keep a historical planner at the City. See below:
Common sense and fairness beat out the Mayor’s bad plan!
Dec. 2, 2008, GOOD NEWS! Donna Frye moved to raise the Mills Act limit to $200,000 (which would mean about 100 Mills Act contracts each year).  They also clarified this is to be applied to voluntary historical designations only, not to districts. There is no limit on districts.  It passed unanimously!    
  Then Donna moved to reduce the pipeline "intake fee" from $1,185 to $500 for nominations submitted before the Council meeting today.  That’s a savings of $685 over what we had expected.
  It passed 5-2 with Scott Peters and James Madaffer voting no.
  It was a great day for historic preservation!Hundreds of historic preservationist actively working together were able to save the Mills Act implementation and ensure our neighborhoods and community character will be better protected in the future.
  This was the last act of a mostly lame duck council, we look forward to the new council members who look favorably upon historical designation and the Mills Act program.

Jim Waring still hasn’t figured out what the word “PUBLIC” means!
Do you think he has ever seen a park? A place for residents and tourists alike, with trees, views, play areas and walking paths?
Bait and switch on waterfront park Re: “Park switcheroo / Commission could reinstate waterfront gem” (UT Editorial, Aug. 8):
Come on — all great cities design their most visible and important pieces of public property to accommodate trucks and occasional visitors.
JIM WARING, San Diego
Park switcheroo, Commission could reinstate waterfront gem
Union-Tribune Editorial August 8, 2009
  A 79,000-square-foot park can't just disappear, can it?
  Well, it can if the San Diego Unified Port District is in control of the renderings.
  For years, the Port Master Plan for transforming San Diego's downtown waterfront into a spectacular esplanade for tourists and county residents alike has featured a large oval park at the foot of Broadway.
  But in the port's latest version of the first phase of the $228 million North Embarcadero Visionary Plan, which will be considered by the state Coastal Commission (Fri. Aug. 14th ) next week, the park is nowhere to be found. In its place, plans show a 16,000-square-foot hardscape plaza seemingly conceived primarily to serve as the driveway for the port's new cruise ship terminal at Broadway and North Harbor Drive rather than as a signature element of a revitalized waterfront.
  Activists and Coastal Commission staff spotted the change and brought it to the attention of the commission.
  The port insists that the ostensible bait-and-switch was no such thing. The expansive oval park was just an illustration, never meant to be considered a formally designed part of the master plan. Perhaps. But the fact is those who have followed the proposals for the Embarcadero have always assumed it was part of the plan.
  The port says it will work with Coastal Commission staff to address concerns, but insists that the big oval park is not going to happen. We are not wedded to every detail of the original park. Perhaps a suitable compromise can be reached, so long as it involves significant new parkland and broad unobstructed access to the bay.
  If it can't, the Coastal Commission should order the port to amend its master plan – amend it to include the long-depicted oval park.

Two very import issues that greatly degrade the quality of life for many residents were heard at the: California Coastal Commission in
San Francisco August 14, 2009
WE SUPPORTED Appeal No. A-6-PSD-09-43
Coastal Commission voted in favor (plans will have to be revised).
c. Appeal No. A-6-PSD-09-43 (San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego) Appeal by Katheryn Rhodes, Conrad Hartsell, Ian Trowbridge, Catherine M. O'Leary Carey, John M. Carey, Scott Andrews, Navy Broadway Complex Coalition & Commissioners Sara Wan & Mary Shallenberger from decision of Port of San Diego granting permit with conditions to San Diego Unified Port District for various improvements along North Harbor Drive to include construction of 105 ft. wide esplanade, public plaza at foot of West Broadway, gardens, shade pavilions, ticket kiosks, information building, walk-up café & restrooms; also included are median improvements on West Broadway between North Harbor Drive and Pacific Highway and re-striping to provide additional turn lane to Grape Street and North Harbor Drive intersection, at North Harbor Drive, from the B Street Pier to south of Broadway Pier, San Diego, San Diego County. (DL-SD)

SADLY Coastal Commission voted in favor of App. No. 6-09-15
WE OPPOSE (This issue should had been heard in a San Diego location, so San Diego residents can have a say). Expands flights over South OB and parts of Point Loma. Creates pollution, traffic and noise.
Also, SOHO opposes plan to demolition some very historical buildings at the former Ryan facility. *See below
d. Application No. 6-09-15 (San Diego Regional Airport Authority, San Diego) Application of San Diego Regional Airport Authority to construct a two-story, 468,389 sq.ft. expansion of Terminal 2 including 10 new aircraft boarding gates, ticket lobby areas, security screening area, concessions, baggage handling facilities & restrooms. Also proposed is the construction of new second level roadway for departures at upper level Terminal 2 and three ancillary structures in existing Terminal 2 visitor parking lot, including 10,000 sq.ft. replacement USO facility, 6,000 sq.ft. parking management building & 13,500 sq.ft. expansion of Central Utility Plant. Expansion of existing airport parking lot at intersection of Pacific Highway and Sassafras Street to replace all 500 spaces parking spaces lost as a result of terminal expansion, at San Diego International Airport, North Harbor Drive, San Diego, San Diego County. (DL-SD)

San Diego Coastal Alliance has been flooded with stories of threats of Eminent Domain, NTC and Redevelopment abuses, corruption, harassment of seniors and minorities involving redevelopment in Sand Diego. Huell may want to think twice and do some research before doing another infomercial style pro- redevelopment piece on San Diego! Huell doesn't learn, he followed up with another fluff piece on notorious CCDC downtown San Diego Redevelopment.
Huell Howser is a Shill for the California Redevelopment Assoc.
The LA Times reports that PBS TV personality Huell Howser is taking $320,000 from the California Redevelopment Association to produce 14-part series on redevelopment areas in California. 
 If you saw the show on NTC or downtown San Diego, you know this is a 14-part infomercial for the redevelopment industry. 
Contact Huell at Huell@calgold.com, or 323-953-5380. Ask him to present all sides of the redevelopment story.

  Grand Jury: Revelopment agencies 'opaque' at best
By THOR KAMBAN BIBERMAN, San Diego Daily Transcript, 5/7/09
A new San Diego County Grand Jury report said the actions of the city, its redevelopment agency, the Centre City Development Corp. and the Southeastern Economic Development Corp. must be made transparent.
 The report concluded the city's redevelopment activities lack distinct lines of responsibility and authority.
 "City employees are often unsure whether the official chain of command is the same as the de facto chain through which they carry out their redevelopment duties. The structure was described by one senior city official as a 'legal construct' that is hard to follow even by those who are part of it," the report stated. "There is also substantial duplication of staff in the operations of the City's redevelopment office, CCDC and SEDC."
 The Grand Jury report comes out just days after former CCDC President Nancy Graham pleaded no contest in a conflict of interest case that forced her resignation from the board within the past year.
 The report said there is much reorganization to be put in place for the agencies to function efficiently and restore the public's trust.
 "Unfortunately the public perception of the city's redevelopment activities today is one of dysfunctional organizations, weak governance and opaque operations," the Grand Jury wrote.
 The Grand Jury said one inherent problem is that while the mayor is not a Redevelopment Agency board member and cannot vote on its decision, he is nevertheless the agency's executive director of and has a veto over those decisions.
 The report had numerous recommendations. One of these would appoint an executive director to the city's Redevelopment Agency -- a person who shouldn't be the same as city mayor as it is today, so as not to constitute a conflict of interest.
 This executive director could then help develop new operating agreements for entities such as CCDC and SEDC.
 The report said another problem is that many of the decision-makers simply don't have what they need to run the respective agencies effectively.
"The information and tools currently available to the Redevelopment Agency of the city of San Diego, City Council, and mayor to oversee the city's redevelopment activities are inadequate to ensure effective operational and financial accountability," the report states.
 The report then added that when information is disseminated to the public about the agencies via the Internet, it often isn't in a timely fashion.
The Grand Jury said annual reports should be prepared detailing the financial activities of the agencies, and independent financial audits should be conducted to ensure accuracy.

Frye: Consolidate CCDC, SEDC
Voice of San Diego, 5/5/09
Excerpt:  "It's really problematic where we are held accountable, but we don't have the authority to tell the head of the agency it's time for you to leave, where we're being ultimately flipped off."
—City Councilwoman Donna Frye Full articles

Judge Thomas McKnew's ruling (below) is right! Community height limit laws must be followed. Developer schemes to run around community laws need to be stopped. In San Diego many coastal resident have watched this issue carefully as the developers try to end-run around the publicly voted in 30 ft. height limit law that has been the saving grace of our coastline for over 35 years.
Judge tosses out portions of L.A. housing density law
The ruling throws scores of proposed developments into doubt if the density is greater than authorized by state law, and might affect projects already approved or under construction.
By Jessica Garrison  April 15, 2009
  A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge Tuesday tossed out portions of a city law approved last year that allows developers to build taller buildings in exchange for setting aside some units for affordable housing.
  Judge Thomas McKnew's ruling throws scores of proposed developments into doubt because it prohibits the Planning Department from processing any project applications in which density would be greater than what is authorized by state law.
  The ruling also might affect projects that already have been approved and are under construction, said Jan Chatten-Brown, a lawyer for the Environment and Housing Coalition, which brought suit against the city. "This ruling will force the developers and the city to go back to the drawing board," she said.City officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
  The Los Angeles ordinance was passed in 2008 following approval of state Senate Bill 1818, which required local governments to allow developers to build denser projects if they include affordable housing. But the lawsuit said that the city's law went far beyond the state mandate, in some cases allowing three times more density than what was intended.
  A group of Los Angeles homeowners associations and other residents filed suit over the ordinance last year after the president of the city's Planning Commission sent them an e-mail informing them it would be vulnerable to a legal challenge.  The opponents of the law claimed that it was hurting local communities by increasing traffic and creating parking shortages. They also claimed that far from leading to more affordable housing, the law paradoxically was reducing the supply because developers would raze existing apartments for low- and moderate-income residents and replace them with condos, mostly selling at market prices.
  McKnew's ruling can be appealed. jessica.garrison@latimes.com

HERITAGE PARK BED & BREAKFASTAS PLAN WILL BE ANYTHING BUT A BED & BREAKFAST.
On June 24, 2009 the San Diego County Board of Supervisors approved a 58.5 yearHeritage Park, located in Old Town San Diego, to the Pacific Hospitality Group, Inc.intends to convert the existing structures to overnight accommodations and constructthat will create 84 additional hotel rooms with no additional parking planned on the
ARCHITECTURE:The building of the structures as proposed in the Heritage Park Master Plan ImprovementsDeclaration dated October 30, 2008 are oversized and are not representative of theHeritage outlined in the original vision of the Park. The buildings as proposed willdensity from its current state and detract from the beauty of the neighborhood. averagesize of the existing structures is 2,214 square feet where the average size of structuresis 7,709 square feet, the largest being 10,500 square feet. That is 3 1/2 timesfootage of the existing structures.
The SMALLEST building proposed is 250% of the existing Victorian buildings. 3 of the 4 proposed buildings will be 3 ft. above 30’ height limitation, with little articulation to break up the mass. Thesebe more like dormitories than the quaint “Bed & Breakfast” Victorian style structures
PARKING:With the additional 84 hotel rooms PHG does not plan to add any additionalcurrent plan is to use the parking lot on the corner of Juan and Harney with 25 parkingaccount for the shortfall on the site of 46 stalls. Using the Harney parking lot the parkingof the 84 stalls required by city planning (one per unit). If PHG receives a permit they 21 stalls.
SAFETY:All B&B guests will use the existing Hacienda Hotel reception lobby on Harney to checkrequiring them to cross at the already overwhelmed intersection of Juan and Harneyproposed crosswalk mid-block at the Acapulco Restaurant. The mid-block crosswalk create an extremely dangerous condition for pedestrians and motorists alike.

He’s Back!
SD hires baddies… and they even hires them back a second time!
Mr. Waring, who left town in disgrace.Now, Mayor Sanders and Councilmembers  (other than Frye and Lightner) have brought Waring back to head the to the City of San Diego Housing Commission.
From the READER
By Don Bauder <www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/don-bauder/> 6/9/09
Jim Waring, who championed Sunroad while he was Mayor Jerry Sanders's real estate czar, was approved for a seat on the Housing Commission today (June 9) by a 6-2 vote of city council. Councilmembers Donna Frye and Sherri Lightner voted against Waring, in a balloting that some have called a litmus test of the corruption level of the current council. Frye argued vociferously against Sanders's nomination and is still mad about the council's vote, according to an aide. When the Federal Aviation Administration complained that Sunroad had built an office building too close to Montgomery Field, Waring stood up for the company, complaining that real estate developers should not have to lose money. Waring also stood up for an affordable housing density bonus that opened the door to the breaking of the 30-foot height limit. And Waring did not force developer Doug Manchester to do a valid earthquake fault study for the Navy Broadway Complex, according to activist Katheryn Rhodes. Sunroad's chief executive had raised big bucks for Sanders, and huddled with the mayor over the FAA problem. Sunroad eventually took down the top part of the structure. Waring departed abruptly. Before being appointed, Waring had been an attorney for trusts of the late gangster Moe Dalitz and his Rancho Santa Fe daughter

STOP the Governator from Selling Off or State Parks and Land!
 An article during Arnold's first weeks in office said that he was putting together an list of CA public lands and looking to what could be sold.
  He can now claim the State is broke and try to sell to all his developer buddies (many from San Diego) before he leaves office.
  Watch out as the Governator actually plans to shut down 274 parks.
  A developer handed the Governator drawings for hundreds of condominium units to be erected at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Sources tell us the Governator plans to sell the fair grounds to the developer. They are going to bulldoze the Don Diego Tower!

Sierra Club Wants to Save Our Parks http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=kNRwPRSzKY9iaCIMI7gWDQ.
 On July 1st, the Governor plans to cut the state parks budget in half and  then eliminate all funding for parks in 12 months. In other words, the  Governor plans to close 80% of the state parks system, approximately 220 State Parks across California.
 Tell the Governor and your state legislators that you want them to keep our California parks open. Take Action 

“It’s great that you heard us about our library, Mayor Sanders, just don’t pit us against the unions.” 
By Frank Gormlie, OB Rag  April 14th, 2009, http://obrag.org/?p=6307 Excerpt: As expected, Mayor Jerry Sanders held a press conference this morning in front of the Ocean Beach library. And as expected, Mayor Sanders announced that in his new city budget proposal, no libraries or library services will be cut for this year’s budget.“We heard you, Ocean Beach,” the Mayor said. “There will be no library cuts.”...
  The Mayor wanted this: he wanted a bevy of community leaders and people to surround him this morning as he made his announcement in front of the cameras.
  Why?
  In his Office press statement - handed out before the event - it read:Mayor Jerry Sanders was joined by library supporters and community members of the Ocean Beach Branch Library today to lay out the stakes in this afternoon’s labor impasse hearing before City Council.The “Fact Sheet” went on:
To address a $60 million deficit, the mayor’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2010 includes a 6 percent reduction in the overall compensation of the city’s approximately 10,500 employees.  This will be achieved through wage reductions as well as decreasing the portion the city covers of employee health care, retirement and other employment benefits.Without those compensation concessions, however, about $30 million in savings will have to come from job and service cuts.
  The last paragraph flatly stated:The city and the unions reached impasse last week: the City Council is expected to conduct an impasse hearing today at which they can impose the necessary concessions to maintain city services.
  So, that’s it.  Our Library is saved and no service cuts, but the librarians have to take a 6% cut in pay and benefits. The Unions are balking of course. They’re doing their job.The Mayor explained: he was expecting an impasse to be declared today, an impasse in contract negotiations with all the five city worker unions. That will allow him and the Council to mandate employee conditions. So, naturally, he wants to show a ‘united front’ of himself and community members holding the line against library cuts facing off with the unions that his negotiators are sitting down with right now.
  I mentioned this angle to a number of library supporters milling around before the press conference started. They were in general agreement that we - the community members - did not want to be pitted against the unions.  But, we didn’t get a chance to make that point, as once Sanders, Faulconer and Judy Harris of the Library Foundation had spoken, it was over, and Sanders was soon surrounded by media.
  You should have seen the media there. There must have been eight television cameras. And of course with each camera, there’s at least 2 or 3 people. There were nearly as many media present as community members. It was great coverage. Today.
  Yet, during our couple of rallies in protest of the library closure last Fall, we hardly saw any cameras. The media can be such a fair weather friend...And let’s not forget, either, that it was the mayor who wanted to close our library. 
  I told Gerry Braun - now on the mayor’s staff and formerly a wonderful columnist with the Union-Tribune, - when we crossed paths inside the Library this morning before the press thing, to get a good look around.
  As if on cue, these kids emerged from the library just as the mayor was winding up his press conference. They had been attending a storybook reading inside the library. It was packed.  Thirty small children sat listening to stories in the west wing of the library. In the east wing, the tables were solid, and there were lines for the computers.  People were backed up at the counter.  Get a good look around. This is a place the mayor wanted to close 6 months ago.
  I commented to a library volunteer, that wasn’t it a great day, you know, with the mayor, and the media, and the announcement of no closures or cuts in services.  “Yeah,” he muttered, “the day the librarians get a 6% pay cut. A great day.”It’s true. It’s a great day. And it’s great that you heard us, Mayor Sanders, about not closing the libraries.
  But you know what, just don’t pit us against the unions who represent our city workers. Don’t pit the communities against the unions. No, we’re better than that...
Responses to “It’s great that you heard us about our library, Mayor Sanders, just don’t pit us against the unions.”
DebbieApr 14th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
It was a dumb idea to even talk about closing the libraries. Get everybody all worked up and have them go to council meetings and plead to keep the library and rec center open and take away from the real issues that burden our city and taxpayers….HUGE PENSIONS and lots of contracts for independent consultants and high paid city jobs. What I wish my Mayor would have done is to get rid of a body guard or two, immediately cut everyone’s salary that makes more that 100K in the city and then maybe if would be justified in talking about cutting the very services everyday people want, need and enjoy. So I don’t hold Jerry in high regard for his action(S) because it NEVER should have come to this. Guess I sound a little teed off huh? Plus, now Mr. Sanders is collecting his salary and his pension….he salary could have paid for keeping our library. Maybe Jerry can step down as Mayor and go take a job with the Padres making bigger bucks since he needs the money so bad and then….DONNA FRYE FOR MAYOR …if wishes could only come true! Full Article and Responses

The last paragraph sounds quite familiar to all that have had to deal with this city's Developer Services Department over the years.
The City and Hillel lose their court battle with the citizens. 02/18/09
by Pat Flannery, (the following is a truncated version)
The California Appellate Court today published its Judgment <http://www.blogofsandiego.com/Issues/Hillel/D052084.pdf>  regarding San Diego Superior Court Judge Linda Quinn's trial court decision in the matter of a disputed development permit for a Hillel Jewish student center in a residential neighborhood of La Jolla near UCSD.
 The Appellate Court not only upheld Judge Quinn's finding, that the City needed to conduct (unspecified) "further proceedings" pursuant to CEQA, it modified that judgment with a new finding that went much further: Beginning on page 24 <http://www.blogofsandiego.com/Issues/Hillel/D052084.pdf> , Judge McIntyre reveals that the City actually coached Hillel on how to get around certain "Biological Impacts". The City suppressed the first biological impact report and suggested alternative contents that would allow it to make a "no significant impact" finding.

ALERT: Mayor Diverts Library $$$ to Donor
Mayor:  Economy Killing Downtown Library by Scott Lewis
Nov 25, 2008 Full Article: voiceofsandiego.org article to library/rec center champions)
Excerpt: The mayor declares the downtown library dead.
Will Mayor Sanders devote taxpayer funds set aside for the canceled downtown library to save branch libraries and rec centers from the same fate?
No!
 When asked about the $80 million in the CCDC budget for the downtown library,
Sanders said,
 "We are going to need the money saved at CCDC for the Embarcadero and other uses."
Note: the Embarcadero is being redesigned for highrise condo developers.
The design firm is Manchester's Navy Broadway consultant.
So, the mayor will try to close even more libraries next year.
He will give Manchester our library tax money to redo Harbor Dr. in front of Manchester's proposed Navy Broadway hirise development.
Manchester donated $50,000 to Sanders' strong mayor campaign.

Protect the Mills Act
Stop the Mayors Gutting of the Mills Act that keeps our communities unique and our history alive.
There are a few premises that the Mayor's office used that are incorrect in coming up with additional eligibility requirements for the Mills Act.  We are recommending that the eligibility requirements are not implemented.
Incorrect Premise 1.The process can be easily obtained by homeowners in lower income areas even if his/her houses is not in good condition.  
Reality: Some houses in great condition are rejected if they do not have historic integrity and condition does play a factor in the decisions that are made by the board.  Simple houses without a master builder or architect identified get demolished in all of the time. Also, the process is not easy.  If it was, you probably would not have consultants help you prepare the reports.
Incorrect Premise 2.  The Mills Act costs the city money it doesn't have right now
Reality: This is simply incorrect.  The city has a net gain in revenue from the Mills Act. An analysis shows that the overall property values are higher for the historic properties based on a study conducted by Andrew Norwald, University of San Diego.  Additionally, there is a halo effect that applies to neighboring properties. Add that to the significant dollars that homeowners spend to reinvest in their homes contributing to sales tax revenues and the city's insistance of new eligibility would actually have a negative fiscal impact  as proposed.

Budget Cutting Decision will again be at City Council
Mon., Nov. 24th, 1 PM., 202 C St. 12th flr. (No public will be heard)
Hundreds at OB Rally to Save Their Library From Closure
Hundreds attended the OB Rally to try and keep Sanders and Council from closing the OB Libray. Hundreds of others have signed a petition. One thing in OB that everyone agrees with is that they want to KEEP OPEN their historical Library. Sanders has awaken a sleeping giant that is united. More: OB Rag blog
City service that doesn't get cut . . .
Union Tribune Letter to Editor, 11/14/08
I see no legitimate reason for San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders' slashing cuts in the city budget – not while the city's Redevelopment Agency owes the city over $200 million.
 Did you notice that the mayor's cuts don't include redevelopment?
 Redevelopment is not a separate city. It is totally owned and controlled by the City Council. Nevertheless, it is treated like royalty, totally immune to budget cuts, given a higher priority than the fire department, the police department, the branch libraries, the parks and the rec centers.
  There is a good reason for this. I admit that the downtown developers throw great parties, make large campaign contributions and command an awesome public-relations operation.
  You must have heard that they make us prosperous. Closing seven libraries must be part of our prosperity.
  If you examine the downtown redevelopment budget, you will find $63 million squirreled away for new downtown library. This $63 million has been in the budget for years, courtesy of the mayor and the council.
  It appears that the planned downtown library is more important than the seven branch libraries that will be closed.Six City Council members (not Donna Frye) vote to turn their backs on the people who voted for them and close libraries in their own districts so there will be money available to build the fabled downtown library.—MELVIN SHAPIRO, San Diego

Searching for the 'Why' in Mayor's Cuts
City Councilwoman Donna Frye is one of the City Hall officials criticizing Mayor Jerry Sanders' proposal to shave $43 million from the city's budget.
Voice of San Diego, Nov. 12, 2008
Excerpt: When San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders presents his package of proposed emergency budget cuts to the City Council on Wednesday morning, he will likely get an earful from upset city residents who want to know why he chose their libraries and recreation centers for closure.
READ FULL ARTICLE

Mayor announces deep budget cuts
By ELIZABETH MALLOY, San Diego Daily Transcript, Nov. 5, 2008
 San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders announced deep budget cuts Wednesday to make up for the city‚s $43 million deficit, including cuts to the police and fire departments.
 Seven libraries, nine recreation centers and a gym all will be closed for the foreseeable future, Sanders said. The city's customer service department will be eliminated too. And despite Sanders‚ promises throughout his term to not make cuts to public safety, police and fire will have to shoulder the burden as well.
 The fire department will reduce the number of crews on duty on a revolving basis and cut one academy per year. The police department will cut its academy classes by half. Both departments will cut civilian personnel.
The budget cuts all are subject to City Council approval.
  ˜"We have no low hanging fruit, no slush funds that we've squirreled away," Sanders told reporters, explaining that there were no easy cuts left for the city. "Instead we have something that will serve us better over the long haul: Our ability to identify reforms that value efficiencies, cost savings and transparency.
City Hall has cut staff as well, including four of its seven deputy chief officers, which is a high-ranking position. The mayor‚s office is reducing its budget by 15 percent, and Sanders is cutting three members of his staff.
"I'll be getting by without some valuable, hard working people," Sanders said. I'm calling attention to these executive layer cuts because it‚s important for the mayor to lead by example.‰
Sanders said he asked other city departments that don‚t fall under the mayor to cut their budgets by 10 percent as well.
 The mayor first announced the $43 million budget deficit about three weeks ago, and said he has been working with his staff ever since to find ways to close the gap. He said city workers offered about 200 suggestions, and some of those may yet be put into place with more time.
 The city has considered making changes to the workweek as other municipalities have done, but Sanders said that would take time because it would involve a meet and confer process with the city unions.
Jay Goldstone, the city‚s chief operating officer, said the suggested cuts would close the city‚s $43 million gap, and go a long way toward filling projected gaps in the 2010 fiscal year budget as well.
 In total, the San Diego Police Department will see $8.3 million in cuts, including cuts to the academy classes, 37 civilian positions, and a reduction in new equipment, permitted it doesn't put officers in danger.
The fire department will see a $4 million reduction. This would largely be accomplished by cutting the number of engine and truck companies on duty by two. This would be on a rotating basis, essentially having the fire department always act as it does when one company is responding to a large emergency.
 Both Police Chief William Lansdowne and Fire Chief Tracy Jarman were present at the mayor‚s press conference and said they supported his cuts. Lansdowne said despite the decrease in training new recruits, he doesn't expect the number of the city'‚s uniformed officers patrolling the streets to go down.
 The libraries slated for closure are: University Community, Ocean Beach, University Heights, Mountain View/Beckwourth, Carmel Mountain Ranch, Clairemont and Allied Gardens/Benjamin. Libraries also will have to cut about 34 staff members.
 The recreation centers designated for closure are: Penn, Adams, Azalia, Carillo, Cadman, Tecolote, Stockton, Presidio and Lopez Ridge. Black Mountain gym also will close, and the competitive swim program has been cut. Waterfront fire rings will be reduced, and the assistant parks and recreation center position has been cut, along with 49 other positions.
 Each of the libraries and recreation centers closed were chosen because they were the least used, Goldstone said. Sanders pointed out that there one library per each council district was chosen, except district 8, which only has three libraries to begin with. Ball fields will remain open at all rec centers.
 The libraries and recreation centers are technically only temporarily closed, and the city will review their status in 2010, but Sanders said he sees them as closed for the foreseeable future. There was not yet a plan in place to sell the buildings.
 Sanders said he still does not want to raise taxes, but if citizens decide they can no longer take the cuts and want to put a tax hike on the ballot, he would listen.
 The deficit has largely been caused because costs are going up, while revenue from sales and property taxes are going down. Sanders pointed out that other cities are going through similar or worse situations. For example, Phoenix, which is comparable to San Diego in size, is facing a $200 million budget deficit.
 "We're in better shape than a lot of cities," he said. "We‚re in better shape than the state."

The San Diego taxpayers are paying twice for schools. 08/09/08         by Pat Flannery, Blog of San Diego
Excerpt: San Diegans are taxed enough. The assessed valuation of all properties in San Diego County grew from $10 billion in 1979 to almost $400 billion in 2008. The graph below traces the course of that explosive growth. FULL ARTICLE

The Redevelopment Agency is stealing from the schools. 08/08/08
by Pat Flannery, Blog of San Diego
Excerpt: Section 33680 of the California Redevelopment Law clearly states:"(a) The Legislature finds and declares that the effectuation of the primary purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law, including job creation, attracting new private commercial investments, the physical and social improvement of residential neighborhoods, and the provision and maintenance of low- and moderate-income housing, is dependent upon the existence of an adequate and financially solvent school system which is capable of providing for the safety and education of students who live within both redevelopment project areas and housing assisted by redevelopment agencies.  The attraction of new businesses to redevelopment project areas depends upon the existence of anadequately trained work force, which can only be accomplished ifeducation at the primary and secondary schools is adequate andgeneral education and job training at community colleges is available.
  "Has this been happening in San Diego? Obviously not, otherwise the School District would not be strapping the taxpayers with another $2.1 billion bond measure.
  The School District should first require the Redevelopment Agency to fulfill its obligations under Redevelopment Law.
  The fact is that whatever portion of this $2.1 billion that should have been shouldered by the Redevelopment Agency is a taxpayer subsidy to developers who have made billions on so-called redevelopment in so-called blighted areas like the Marina District, Little Italy and NTC.  Over 90% of downtown property taxes are diverted to the Redevelopment Agency. FULL ARTICLE

Feds Investigate Millions in City Redevelopment Loans
By WILL CARLESS <http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/author_lookup/?byline=will_carless>   Wednesday, July 30, 2008 | For months, federal auditors have been camped out at City Hall poring through documents in an attempt to establish whether tens of millions of dollars in federal grants were actually spent on the purpose they were destined for: removing blight from San Diego's poorest neighborhoods.
 Auditors from the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban Development have recently honed in on 35 loans made by the city to redevelopment projects under the federal Community Development Block Grant program, a fund set up in the 1970s to provide grants for low- and moderate-income communities around the country.
 The auditors want to know whether the money was really spent on projects that are eligible under guidelines laid out for the CDBG program. The city has admitted that it did not properly document more than $10 million in CDBG loans it made between 1999 and 2006, and the City Attorney's Office has estimated that in total the city made CDBG loans worth between $150 million and $200 million that were not documented correctly.
 Joan Hobbs, regional inspector general with HUD in Los Angeles who is overseeing the audit, said she can't comment on San Diego's issues until her inspectors have finished their investigation. But Hobbs said that generally, if a city's officials can't prove that their CDBG money was spent on eligible projects, the city can ultimately be forced to pay back the money to the federal government.
 Jay Goldstone, the city's chief operating officer, said the audit is just one of the elements of San Diego's CDBG program that are being investigated by HUD. He said the problems the auditors are looking at predate the administration of Mayor Jerry Sanders.
"There were a lot of sloppy procedures in this city prior to us arriving, to the extent that we're still discovering some of them," Goldstone said.
 Every year, San Diego is awarded a chunk of HUD funding via the CDBG program. The money, which is supposed to be spent on alleviating blight and benefiting low- and moderate-income residents by building projects like affordable housing developments in needy communities, is awarded to thousands of cities and counties around the country.
 In San Diego, much of the CDBG money is given to either the city's Redevelopment Agency, the Southeastern Economic Development Corp. or the Centre City Development Corp., agencies which are tasked with alleviating blight in the city. Each year, the agencies apply to the City Council for funding and the council allocates CDBG money for eligible projects.
 But, rather than simply doling out the money in grants, for many years San Diego instead loaned the money to the redevelopment agencies. The agencies then paid back the loans to the city as they received tax increment income from their respective redevelopment areas.
 What has caught the eye of federal auditors is that, for many years, after the initial CDBG loans were paid back to the city, the city then immediately re-loaned the money straight back to the redevelopment agencies.
 Under CDBG rules, any money used to pay back CDBG loans must, in turn, again be recycled and spent on CDBG-eligible projects. So, when the redevelopment agencies repaid the CDBG loans and the city issued them new loans, the new loans should have only been spent on CDBG-eligible programs and should have been spent according to the CDBG guidelines.
 The federal auditors want to know how the city ensured that happened.
 As of June 11, the city didn't have an answer.
 That day, in a letter to the auditors, Scott Kessler, a city official who works on the CDBG program, admitted that much of the documentation requested by the auditors simply does not exist. The auditors had asked the city to provide the initial applications for the CDBG loans and the CDBG monitoring reports for the loans. The city couldn't find them.
 Goldstone confirmed that little of the necessary documentation appears to exist. He said for several years -- he's not sure how long -- city officials did not properly document the loans and re-loans and therefore cannot prove to the auditors that the loans were spent on eligible projects.
 Without the paperwork, the federal auditors have been left trying to confirm that the CDBG loans were actually spent on eligible projects, or whether the loaning and re-loaning of the money allowed the city to bypass restrictions on how to spend the federal money.
 Brian Sullivan, a spokesman for HUD in Washington, D.C., said any scheme that is used by a city to skirt CDBG would be troublesome for the federal government.
"If that's the case, then that's a problem," Sullivan said.
 City Attorney Mike Aguirre, who has himself been investigating the city's CDBG program, said the loaning and re-loaning of the CDBG funds could also violate state law, which prohibits governments from transferring redevelopment funds from one project to another or from one redevelopment agency to another.
"The auditors are attempting to establish whether the loaning and re-loaning of the CDBG money effectively washed the funds so that they could be used by the redevelopment agencies on whatever projects they wished, regardless of the federal guidelines," Aguirre said.
 "I hope that's not the case," he said.
 Aguirre said his office is currently interviewing past and former city officials who worked on the administration of the CDBG funds. He said everyone in the city is working hard to meet the needs of the federal auditors.
 Hobbs said the audit is likely to be completed before year's end. Earlier this year, city officials pledged to reorganize San Diego's CDBG program after auditors revealed several other flaws in the city's process for administering the grants.

Save the Mills Act program and historical designation in the City of San Diego. The Mills Act should be available to everyone in any location in the City
READ: www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2008/apr/16/cover/
Deficient Transportation a Reacurring Theme 
  City of SD in February 2006 approved a community plan update for Centre City (downtown).  This plan was controversial, as it proposed to double commercial development and triple residential development.
Many activists found that the Downtown Community Plan was sorely deficient in transportation, as well as parks and recreation, water quality impacts, police and fire stations, etc.
 Duncan McFetridge and SOFAR sued the City over the lack of sound transportation planning. A settlement agreement was reached in May 2007, in which CCDC agreed to conduct further transportation planning.
 The settlement includes a provision regarding phasing-- the linking of new development to the completion of milestones in infrastructure improvement.
  This is the same type of link that Land Use and planning boss Bill Anderson declined to support in the General Plan update earlier this month.
  The SOFAR lawsuit and settlement has implications for the adopted General Plan and all future community plan updates.
  It is disturbing to see repeated evidence that our City officials will not do meaningful planning unless forced to do so.
  Congratulations to Duncan and his supporters at SOFAR for requiring that our City officials start following sound planning principles!
 —Tom Mullaney, Friends of San Diego
"Preserving the environment and quality of life in the San Diego region" GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS
Many residents and community planning leaders are very concerned about the proposed Draft General Plan, which went to the Mar. 10, 2008 City Council meeting. Many of the below issue are still of concern.
Our major concerns are these:
1.  Lack of balance among the elements. The plan is strong on added development, but weak on dealing with the added burdens.
2.  Lack of internal consistency.
3.  Lack of adequate project definition,and adequate analysis of impacts. (If the project is so loosely defined that the impacts can't be predicted, how can the City be confident that  desired goals will be achieved, and that the plan won't make conditions worse?)
4.  Unsubstantiated statements and conclusions.
5.  Failure to include provisions which will ensure adequate public facilties at the time of need.
6.  Lack of implementation for each goal, with timelines.
7.  Cursory coverage of the Theoretical Buildout, according to the El Dorado County case. The EIR does not even attempt to estimate the Theoretical Buildout under the new General Plan, but instead uses the existing General Plan!  Under the existing plan, the City could get up to 54% more housing units and 439% more non-residential space.  We should be adopting the City of Downzoning.
8.  Most serious, the lack of program-level mitigation for most impacts.  These include water supply, climate change, transportation, air pollution, parks, loss of affordable housing, etc.
    a.  The EIR states repeatedly that the City cannot know exactly where new development may occur as a result of the new General Plan and subsequent Community Plan amendments, and therefore must defer most analysis and mitigation until later.  Also, the City must find that significant unmitigated adverse impacts may occur in all categories.  
   b.  The General Plan does not contain needed links between development approvals and adequate facilities.
    c.  The plan proposes to defer mitigation for 10-12 years while community plans are being updated.  How could cumulative impacts and citywide impacts be identified with such an approach?
   d.  We believe that the lack of program-level mitigation is completely unacceptable under state General Plan and CEQA laws.
8. The Planning staff and City Council appear to be unconcerned that they are about to unleash a growth-inducing, traffic clogging, park crowding, air polluting General Plan, which is ill-defined, poorly analyzed and lacking in mitigation.  
This is especially dismaying when recent reports, such as the ones in Los Angeles, cast doubt on the "smart growth" concept.  The LA Times reported that their "urban infill" project have created serious increases in traffic while producing negligible increases in mass transit ridership. Our city is preparing to embark on a 1980-era plan which would induce more growth and development, at a time when we should be focusing on reducing our City's total water and energy usage.
—Tom Mullaney, Friends of San Diego
"A countywide group dedicated to preserving the environment and quality of life through effective growth management
  Aguirre says La Jolla can't consider parking plan yet
San Diego Daily Transcript , March 19, 2008
 In a letter to the La Jolla Community Parking District Advisory Board members Wednesday, San Diego City Attorney Michael Aguirre advised them that they cannot consider a controversial parking plan until board members file financial disclosure statements required under the California Political Reform Act.
 Aguirre's decision stands in contrast to the City Council's recent attempt to free the board of the constraint.
 "The decision means that the board cannot move forward today on a controversial plan to bring parking meters to downtown La Jolla, a plan that has drawn widespread and fierce opposition in the community," Aguirre said.
 The council last month rejected a proposed„ Conflict of Interest Code, that would have required board members to publicly reveal financial holdings that might influence their votes.
  Although the council asked the city attorney's office to modify the controlling city council policy, Aguirre ruled Wednesday that state law demands the disclosures.
 For the council to attempt to change the policy while the board deliberates, Aguirre said„ would merely attempt to place form over substance.
 Although a board like the La Jolla group can, in theory, be exempt from disclosure if it merely gives advice to the city, according to Aguirre, he found that in this case the board‚s practical sway over city decision-makers means that it must file the forms.
 Aguirre's letter to board chairman Martin Mosier states there is evidence of an inappropriate level of deference from city staff, including city staff referring media inquiries on parking in La Jolla to Mosier.The city attorney also wrote, "Review by a City Staff unit that has expressly stated its intention to defer to you is not significant intervening substantive review‚ of the Board's recommendation." Feb. 7, 2008 we had a presentation by the developer at our Grantville Action Group meeting.  Allied Gardens and Grantville residents are very disturbed by the prospect of this development adding tens of thousand of automobile trips to roads already overburdened with traffic.There were very few, if any, positive responses to their presentation.
—Brian Peterson, DVM, Grantville Action Group
Old Grantville rock quarry may gain new life as mixed-use development
By THOR KAMBAN BIBERMAN, The San Diego Daily Transcript,  February 8, 2008
Excerpts: The proposed transformation of a Grantville quarry into a major mixed-use development is about three years away, but the plans are starting to take shape.
 The 375-acre Superior Ready Mix rock quarry property is located along Mission Gorge Road between Old Cliffs Road and Mission  Trails Regional  Park....
...Rick Engineering is preparing the plans for the site that will include housing, a business park and neighborhood retail -- all of which have been designed to embrace, rather than turn their backs on the San Diego River.
 Specifically, plans call for 2,156 multi-family units with about 70,000 square feet for a neighborhood shopping center, about 1 million square feet of technology park space on the northern and southern portions of the property and parks along the river banks. More than half of the property will be in passive and active open space, including a trail system that will link to Mission Trails Regional  Park.
...The project has raised concerns in the Grantville and surrounding communities. The main issue is what the project will do to traffic along Mission Gorge Road. Along with the Grantville, the project area also touches on the Tierrasanta and Navajo community plan areas.
  "The main concerns are traffic, and how the project will interface with the river," McDade Byrne said. "We are conducting regional traffic studies, and are preparing a public facilities finance plan,"
  Arndt said tax increment financing could be among numerous vehicles to bankroll the infrastructure. He says along with highway improvements and new nodes and access points that will allow easier pedestrian circulation, a sewer line will need to be constructed beneath the San  Diego River to accommodate the residents.

City continues to support eminent domain by not allowing voters to votes by rejecting San Diegans’ propsal to limit eminent domain .
Jan. 23, 2008, the Rules Committee  rejected our charterchange proposal to limit eminent domain by 3-1. (Tony Young had left by the time they voted.)
 Madaffer suggested to wait and see how the state initiatives shake out.
 Peters said eminent domain for private gain isn't that bad, because the areas have to be declared blighted beforehand.
  Donna Frye acknowledged that eminent domain abuse is a serious issue, that the charter should be reformed, and that the City Council should review it later-perhaps for the fall election.
— Brian T. Peterson, DVM, Grantville Action Group
Move to limit eminent domain fails panel vote
By Helen Gao, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER, Jan. 24, 2008
SAN DIEGO – A proposal to amend the city charter to outlaw the use of eminent domain for economic development was shot down by a San Diego City Council committee yesterday.
  Representatives of the Grantville Action Group asked the Committee on Rules, Open Government and Intergovernmental Relations to limit eminent domain use to public projects. In other words, take private property only for parks, roads and other public facilities.
  Under the group's proposal, the city would be unable to condemn private property and transfer it to a private developer to build new projects, such as shopping malls or industrial parks that could generate a higher tax base.
  The proposal is modeled after a June state ballot initiative called the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act. The measure seeks to rein in government's eminent domain power and its authority to enforce rent control.
  A majority of the council committee declined to forward the proposed charter amendment (which has no references to rent control) to the full council for consideration.
  They said they wanted to see how the state initiative fares before taking action.
  The Grantville Action Group is fighting the city's designation of certain commercial areas in Grantville as a redevelopment zone, where eminent domain may be used. Grantville is east of Qualcomm Stadium and north of Interstate 8.
  “I do not want the city to come in and seize my property and business in order to hand it over to a larger developer to turn it into something else,” said Brian T. Peterson, president of the group and owner of a veterinary clinic on Friars Road.In 2004, San Diego's Centre City Development Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment agency, condemned a successful cigar shop to make room for a hotel project.
 That action became part of a national debate over whether government should oust a property owner for economic development. The good old boys had a rough day!
What the UT did NOT report... Please READ and watch clips: 
Close encounters of the scary kind.  
01/17/08 by Pat Flannery, Blog of San Diego
Excerpt: The People won a timely victory at City Hall on Monday night. But it was a close call.   
 John Davies and his "San Diegans for City Hall Reform" came within one vote of making our City Council irrelevant for decades to come.This "Reform" organization raised $1,008,225 between Jan. and Dec. 2006 and  $68,349 between January and June 2007, to finance its power grab. Full Article: http://www.blogofsandiego.com/ Read details: The City Council met in special session
on Mon., Jan. 14, 2008 at 6 PM in Chambers.  
"Save Hillcrest" Wins Again!
 The "Save Hillcrest" group, working with the non-profit organization Friends of San Diego, scored another victory in their year-old lawsuit against the "3rd & University" project.  
 On December 7, the Superior Court awarded Friends of San Diego 80% of the legal costs which they petitioned for.  According to "Friends" president Tom Mullaney, this award was made under California laws which recognize the public benefit  received when a citizens' group sues to uphold state and local laws.  The court had previously overturned the project approval in August of this year, when the judge agreed that the project violated the law in seven ways.
 The recent court order requires both the City of San Diego and the applicant to pay legal costs incurred by the "Friends" group.  However, under the terms of an indemnity agreement, the applicant is required to pay the award to "Friends", and also to reimburse the City  for their legal costs.  
 "This recent decision by the court is a further victory by Hillcrest citizens and our supporters" said Mullaney.  "The '301' project will have to be redesigned to meet our zoning laws regarding parkland, traffic improvements and 'community character' requirements.  The latest ruling by the court will allow us to get back most of our legal costs, so we can continue to protect the rights of residents and local business owners."
 People interested in joining Friends of San Diego can contact the group by email at FriendsofSD@aol.com .   

Densty Bonus Ordinance
The City planning staff has done a serious disservice by misquoting state law, in an apparent attempt to deceive community planners and other citizens.  
The draft General Plan states in several places that communities will need to "maintain or increase" the capacity for new homes.  They claim that this is required by state law.  
That is just plain untrue.  The state law requires cities to stay in compliance with their regional "fair share" allocation for housing.  Since the City of San Diego in 2006 added 29,400 new housing sites to the capacity of downtown, on top of an already large city housing capacity, the City has a huge excess of housing sites compared to the demand.

• Consider that the City of San Diego has capacity for  122,000 homes, based on existing community plans and zoning, as stated  in the Nov. 2006 Housing Element.

Then consider the latest official SANDAG forecast, which   projects that the City of SD will need an average of 4390 new homes per  year between 2004 and 2030.  So the City of SD has a 28 year supply of  housing sites, compared to the state requirement for a 5 year  supply. It becomes evident that the City of SD has ZERO CHANCE of falling out of compliance with state law regarding housing capacity-- not in the next 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. Any claim by City staff to the contrary in the draft General Plan is patently false, and should be removed from the plan.
IT GETS WORSE
 The most sinister part of the Planning Dept approach is that they would lock-in high planned densities in the communities, even where future studies show that the infrastructure can't handle it. How would they do this?  State law requires that any density reduction be "consistent with the adopted general plan".  So, by inserting provisions in the City's General Plan which prohibit downzoning, our Planning staff would be purposely placing a community in conflict with state law if the community found that they needed some selective downzoning.
 It's circular and fiendishly clever!  The City's Planning staff first blames state law for requiring the "maintain or increase density" provision in our General Plan. Then staff can later claim that state law won't allow a community to make downward zoning corrections, because our General Plan prohibits this!
 If you are interested in the details, the three-page attachment contains the applicable state law, section 65863. The two page attachment cites the offending provisions in the draft General Plan, and includes recommended revisions. What happened to Mayor Sanders' pledge for honesty in government? Why is the Planning Department trying to mislead residents, and tie their hands during Community Plan updates?
— Tom Mullaney, Friends of San Diego
"Preserving the environment and quality of life in the San Diego region" Kevin Faulcner campaigned at forums on how important it was to preserve our historic buildings/communities…At council on Nov. 20, 2007, he spoke a bunch of about the importance of the OB's community's charactor then voted in the developer's favor! HOLD HIM ACCONTABLE! He is to BLAME for the entrance to OB, our "unique beach town" in becoming what PB!——San Diego Coastal Alliance

OB ENTRANCE will become Gentrified…the Two single story craftsman style homes, built in 1912 and 1914 at 4824 & 4836 W. Point Loma Blvd. (Seen from Sunset Cliffs)
 These 2 single story craftsman style homes are just one lot in from our new “OB Entryway Project” will be torn down and replaced by seven units 3-stories tall at street-level, with little setbacks… it will sit out way in front of the other homes on the street. At this time the street is lined with old (early 1900's 1-level homes) The bulk & scale is too much for the existing neighborhood
Key points:

• The BULK & SCALE of the project is way too much for the location.
• This development will mar the character of the entryway/gateway to Ocean Beach.  
• This street is now lined with single story homes built in the early 1900s/some with boat house from when they use to sit on the waters edge.
• The project is slated to sit way out in front of the other homes on the block.  Let's have them honor the established setback.
• Three stories on the street is way overpowering for this location.
• The proposed development sits at the heart (in the midst) of the entryway/gateway to Ocean Beach.
• People in the future will come into Ocean Beach and say 'how in the world was this every allowed to happen
• Density can be accomplished tastefully and in keeping the character and standard of the existing neighborhood
• This is going to cause traffic nightmares so close to the busiest corner in Ocean Beach

• lot-line to lot-line,
• high as they want (except in the coastal zone)
• include commercial / retail outlets in housing projects (even on residential streets).
  

The developer could choose 1 to 3 of these benefits depending on how much affordable housing is included.
- wall off views. (example: Bird Rock's Seahuas Condos)
- have residents, not the developer, pay for off-site improvements such as alley paving, street lights, and sidewalks.
 To get stealth approval of a project that otherwise would make a community curdle, all the developer would need to do is to make 10 percent of the units affordable.  Under the city's ordinance, which goes far beyond the state's mandate, an affordable housing unit is one that a person making approximately $70,000 per year would qualify.  
 The city council is considering two proposals:
1A— Which brassily shuts the public out.
1B— While 1B on the surface says it allows public participation, the attempt is solely cosmetic.  1B provides loopholes for developers to do end-around public review. It also reinterprets state law to benefit developers.
Both reinterpret State Law to benefit developers.
City Attorney Draft—  An ordinance which would have strictly compled with state law and no more was drafted by the City Attorney. This draft was blocked from public view by the Mayor and City Council.

Here are highlights from the city  report:
Mitigation
 Ministerial projects are not subject to CEQA, and such projects would not undergo environmental review or be required to provide mitigation. However, specific mitigation measures would be determined on a  case-by-case basis for any future projects that go through the discretionary environmental review process. It is anticipated that impacts related to aesthetics may be mitigable through architectural treatments, such as faqade articulation and building textures and colors. Substantial view blockages could not be mitigated. Severe contrast with community character resulting from increased height and bulk may be reduced through architectural treatments, but likely not to a level below significance in every case.
Proposed Project Impact
 The density bonus incentives included in the revised ordinance would potentially allow for up to three deviations from the bulk and scale regulations of the underlying zones without requiring the project to process a discretionary permit. The deviation(s) allowed  would be on a case-by-case basis, and could include deviations from the underlying zone requirements related to height, lot
size, FAR, and setbacks. The allowed deviations and additional density could result i n structures that are larger and taller than surrounding buildings, closer to adjacent structures and roadways, and/or cover a larger portion of the property. These differences may result in direct impacts on neighborhood character and aesthetics. Larger structures also have the potential to block public views. Construction of several projects with bulk and scale deviations in any one area may also result in localized cumulative visual quality impacts.
 Proiects Subiect to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA)
Discretionary projects are subject to CEQA while ministerial projects are statutorily exempt.... a project would have been discretionary without the requested density bonus or incentive(s) it would continue to be discretionary and would be subject to CEQA. If a project would have been ministerial without the requested density bonus or incentive(s) it would continue to be ministerial and would not be subject to CEQA review. Additionally, projects requesting incentives that otherwise wou!d require discietionaiy review (without a density bonus) now may become ministerial using the density bonus regulations. By approving the amendments to the LDC, the City Council would be codifying how projects proposing to use the density bonus regulations would be processed.
Impact - Proposed Density Bonus Ordinunce Revisions
 The  increased density resulting from the proposed revisions to the City's Density Bonus  Ordinance could result in maximum densities of 35 percent over the existing zoning for qualified projects; and, if requested by the applicant, reduced parking standards with options to include tandem or uncovered parking (Please see Attachment C). In addition, projects within the Transit Area Overlay Zone currently receive 10 to 20 percent parking reductions (LDC Section $142.0525). and those projects providing very low income housing already receive reductions of 10 to 20 percent of the required parking or 50 percent for very low income single room occupancy hotels (LDC Section $142.0530). The implementation of the ordinance could exacerbate existing transportation  congestion.
The density achieved with the implementation of this ordinance could result in new potentially significant direct and cumulative parking impacls. In addition, the project could result in new direct transportation impacts and would add to the cumulative impacts already identified in the LDC EIR.
 Only the adoption of the "No Project Alternative" would reduce parking and transportation impacts. More info read: City Attorny Alternative, Deisity Bonus SEIR

Sanders fixes it for Manchester.
10/12/07 by Pat Flannery, http://www.blogofsandiego.com
Excerpt: The Navy Broadway environmental appeal hearing was pulled from the City Council Docket for Tuesday, October 16, 2007 by Nancy Graham, President of CCDC. Why?
  It now says "NOTE: This item has been taken off the docket." It was to be "a public hearing on the matter of the Appeals of the Environmental Determination by the Centre City Development Corporation on July 25, 2007 regarding the Navy Broadway Complex project consisting of challenges to the Determination that no further environmental review is required for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)"  It had been properly noticed by CCDC in the San Diego Daily Transcript on Tuesday October 02, 2007. Here is the publication. Letters were mailed to the appellants.
  Emails were also sent to the appellants, which were then widely re-circulated among the public. 
  Everything was set for Tuesday October 16, 2007 when the Mayor had the votes lined up to defeat challenges to the CCDC Environmental Determination regarding Navy Broadway dated July 25, 2007.
  But two things went wrong: Soledad Mountain had a landslide, raising awareness of San Diego's seismic vulnerability and the environmentalist litigators made an unexpected settlement offer.
  Stuff happens. The enviros wanted to narrow their concerns and focus on the seismic issue. A double whammy for Manchester. Everybody knows that the Mayor wants Manchester's waterfront project to proceed unimpeded.
  Everybody knows that Doug Manchester contributed $50,000 to Mayor Sanders campaign for Proposition B and C in 2006, to that end. FULL ARTICLE The La Jolla Landslide Made the Front Page Time of the New York Times, LA Times and the Union Tribune
Is the City of San Diego going to start putting safety ahead of developer bucks or continue down a dangerous path. Maybe they need to start listening: Landsliding at Soledad Mountain Road and Desert View Drive and the Relationship to the Navy Broadway Complex
October 4, 2007— The following is background information regarding the Rose Canyon Fault Zone and Geology in the vicinity of the current landslide at Soledad Mountain Road and Desert View Drive. As shown below, there were 47 recorded earthquakes near San Diego in a two week period in early September 2007, with a maximum Magnitude of 4.0., and 3 recorded earthquakes in a two day period this week, with a maximum Magnitude of 3.0  
This amount of seismic activity is not normal for the San Diego region. http://www.data.scec.org/recenteqs.html 
  Also attached is a digital copy of the USGS Geology Map of the San Diego Quadrangle. http://www.laplayaheritage.com/Documents/CALIFORNIA%20-%20UNITED%20STATES/sandiego_map2_ai9.pdf
  The maps show the Ardath Shale (Ta) formation in pink. The Ardath Shale is prone to landslides. Also shown are traces of the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone (RCFZ) in black. As can be seen on the map, there were already documented landslides in the area of Desert View Drive and Soledad Mountain Road before any of the current landslide movement took place. There are also many documented fault traces in the vicinity.Hopefully, now you will realize that the Rose Canyon Fault Zone (RCFZ) is active and is currently moving now. During a Council Meeting in January 2007, a City Council member stated that we do not have to be concerned with the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone because it has not moved since the prehistoric time of the dinosaurs. Again, hopefully this is a wake-up call that not all sites should be built upon due to inherent geologic features that can cause catastrophic failure resulting in loss of life and property. This is a basic Health and Safety issue.
  This natural geologic incident can be related to the Navy Broadway Complex project that will be coming before the City Council on October 16, 2007. Both areas are in the path of the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone and geologic studies are needed before construction starts. The City of San Diego Design Guidelines and Information Bulletin requires a fault investigation be conducted on liquefiable soils before plans are to be looked at. CCDC has not only looked at the plan, but has approved the Master Plan without a valid fault investigation. This is irresponsible behavior on the part of the City which should be protecting its citizens from physical and financial harm. Both the Navy and Manchester Financial have stated that since the Navy Broadway Complex is on Federal land, they will not turn in a valid fault investigation or receive Building Permits from the City of San Diego before construction starts. "NOTE after this was written this item was taken off the docket." October 16, 2007 will be your last chance to require Manchester Financial to turn in a valid fault investigation before construction starts. If you do not hold Manchester’s feet to the fire, you will be personally responsible for possible deaths from surface rupture of the Coronado fault of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone.
  Also, because the original EIR was conducted by the Navy, both the Navy and Manchester have to pay for any additional environmental studies for the new EIR.
  The City of San Diego and CCDC will not have to spend any money conducting the required studies. 
  We hope this information will help you make the right decision to require a subsequent EIR in less than two weeks.
Regards, Katheryn Rhodes and Conrad Hartsell, M.D, rhodes@laplayaheritage.com 

For Insightful Watchdog Reports Click On: http://goodgovsandiego.blogspot.com  for up-to-date reports on the future of San Diego's Mayor/Council form of government RoseCRAM?
By Don Bauder, San Diego Reader City Lights Sept. 20, 2007
Excerpt: People of that once-perfect peninsula, Point Loma, fear that a perfect storm is gathering. Governments at the federal, state, county, and local levels are taking actions that threaten to increase the noise, traffic, pollution, population, and housing density, while worsening neighborhood character, infrastructure, services, aesthetics, and property values. In some respects, Point Loma could be the victim of social engineering made antisocial by quick-buck artists and their bureaucrat servants.
  The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority plans to expand Lindbergh Field, adding boarding gates and parking facilities, and perhaps a new runway and terminal. Air and ground traffic will escalate sharply -- generating more noise and road rage. The City of San Diego's Liberty Station giveaway has already added 350 homes, High Tech High, shops, offices, and restaurants that jam up Rosecrans Street and surrounding areas. The Rock Church at Liberty Station, which opened August 26, has 8000 worshippers attending five Sunday services and another six for young people. Plans for the 650-room Nickelodeon resort hotel at Liberty Station, replete with water park (which a resident calls "butt-ugly"), will tangle traffic even more. FULL ARTICLE

Golden Hill residents sue city; allege illegal use of funds, ballot stuffing in creation of maintenance district
Golden Hill residents filed a lawsuit in Superior Court on Friday, Aug. 31, 2007 against the City of San Diego. The suit alleges that the City violated the State Constitution in allowing the spending of funds within the Greater Golden Hill Maintenance Assessment District (“GGHMAD”) for purposes other than maintenance as defined by the California’s Proposition 218.
  The lawsuit also charges that the City, which had a vote in the GGHMAD election, added City-owned property not in Golden Hill, including portions of Balboa Park, and inflated that properties’ value to ensure that the GGHMAD passed.
  When the votes were tallied July 30, the GGHMAD passed by a “weighted” vote margin of $123,266.56 ‘yes’ to $105,236.16 ‘no’. The City’s weighted vote value was $38,072.11, providing more than enough additional votes to secure passage of the measure.

"Monster  Building"

America's Smartest City
By Joe Deegan, San Diego Reader, City Lights, Oct. 4, 2007
Excerpt: After numerous San Diego Union-Tribune hit pieces, a brand on the city attorney's head now reads "frivolous and futile liti-gator." No need to heed this guy's advice. Could that be what the city council was thinking when, on September 12, 2006, it ignored Mike Aguirre's 20-page warning that a huge mixed-use project in Hillcrest would be illegal on a number of counts? By a 7-1 vote, the council approved the proposed 12-story structure that local residents called "the monster building."
  The 96 condominiums, along with retail space and a parking structure, were to go up on the south side of University Avenue between Third and Fourth avenues. Until January, that is, when the community action group Friends of San Diego filed a lawsuit to stop the project. According to Friends president Tom Mullaney, "We took on the suit in conjunction with a residents group called Save Hillcrest. We then hired a land-use attorney and were assisted by donations of time and money from numerous residents and business owners in the Uptown and Hillcrest communities."
  John Taylor was a founding member of Save Hillcrest and owns a home on Third Avenue across the street from the proposed condos. Last year, Taylor organized a petition drive and sent over 2000 signatures to the city council opposing the development. "Even our councilmember, Toni Atkins, ignored them,"
  Taylor tells me. "Her standing in our community really went down after that."
  The La Jolla Pacific Development Group planned to build the condos for landowners Michael McPhee and Bruce Leidenberger. "
  After we filed the lawsuit," says Mullaney, "the developers told us how surprised they were at how much community opposition there was. But the community had been universally against it from day one. In the early planning stages, the developers acted like they were listening carefully to complaints voiced at the Uptown Planners meetings. Then they'd make some minor changes and go their merry way.
  "Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Mullaney got his own surprise. A representative from the mayor's office attended the meeting the two sides held to discuss the case. It got Mullaney to thinking -- and to searching at the city clerk's office. There he discovered in a 2005 report that the "Jerry Sanders for Mayor" committee paid rent for office space in a Fifth Avenue building owned by Leidenberger and McPhee. He also saw that in 2005 Leidenberger and his wife Joanne donated $600 to the Sanders campaign. But Mullaney isn't making accusations yet.FULL ARTICLE Hillcrest Project "Monster  Building" Overturned
 The Hillcrest neighborhood is celebrating today, after the  court overturned the City Council approval of the Third & University  project, dubbed the "Monster  Building".
 The lawsuit was brought by Friends of San  Diego, working with a group of residents and business owners known as  Save Hillcrest.
 The attached summary covers the points that were decided in  favor of the citizens' group. The ruling is a sweeping victory because the  project was declared invalid for seven different reasons.
The court's ruling puts  the City Council and Mayor on notice that large-scale projects cannot be  forced upon communities. The City cannot ignore traffic  problems, park shortages and community character issues while promoting their  City of Villages strategy.
The Tentative Ruling, which was upheld Aug. 23, 2007, can be found  at this link:  
— Tom Mullaney , Friends of San Diego  Sanders today created a powerful enemy - Marcella Escobar-Eck.  08/23/07 by Pat Flannery, Blog of San Diego
Excerpt: Well, she's gone. Marcella Escobar-Eck is now  officially in the private sector, where she always was, even while you and I were paying her salary. She quit or was fired yesterday.
  These two emails from former Chief Building Official for the City of San Diego did her in. FULL ARTICLE

Marcela Escobar-Eck... Sanders Big Mistake
Regarding “Mayor trying to step out of Sunroad's long shadow/Another official leaves; Sanders vows changes” (A1, Aug. 24 Union-Tribune):
 City of San Diego Ex-Development Services Director Marcela Escobar-Eck was queen of “Bait and Switch” and “public giveaways,” as illustrated in the UT article “Regarding “Mayor trying to step out of Sunroad's long shadow/Another official leaves;” “Escobar-Eck was a key player in the deal that awarded development rights for the former Naval Training Center to The Corky McMillin Cos. The final agreement had the city losing out on potentially tens of millions of dollars. In an interview earlier this year, she was unapologetic about the contract terms.” 
 Escobar-Eck always favored the powerful developer interests by putting the screws to the public taxpayers.
  She thumbed her nose at Grand Jury reports, community planning groups, and anyone that wasn’t an insider.
  Safety and environmental concerns took a backseat to her developer friend’s projects.
  Many active community members were thrilled when Escobar-Eck left the city the first time. But, Mayor Sanders proved he was just another in a long line of “development mayors,” when he hired back the cities reliable “shill”.
  Sanders, seems to be following in Murphy’s footsteps, both claiming to be “reformers,” but appointing the same casts of rubber stamps.
  How long before Sanders follows Murphy into “Time Magazines, Worst Mayor List?”
  With appointing department heads like Marcella and Waring he is on his way.
—Kathleen Blavatt, Watchdog

Sunroad E-mails Speak Volumes about a Missing Signature
Workers recently began dismantling the top floors of Sunroad's controversial Kearny Mesa office tower.
By WILL CARLESS and EVAN McLAUGHLINVoice Staff Writers, Aug. 22, 2007
  For months, the Mayor's Office has said that Isam Hasenin, the city’s chief building inspector, didn’t sign off on a crucial document in the Sunroad saga for a simple reason: He didn’t want to weigh in on a divisive political issue. But internal e-mails and interviews show that Hasenin had already declined
  Sunroad’s request and continued to argue against authorizing the document right up to the day it was eventually issued by his boss, Development Services Director Marcela Escobar-Eck.
  A Missing SignatureThe Issue: In December, the city’s top building inspector declined to give approval to a request by Sunroad to continue work on their controversial office tower.
  City officials have said the inspector didn’t sign the document because he wanted to stay out of the political fray, but e-mails show he had serious concerns about allowing the work.
  What It Means: The city granted approval to Sunroad to continue its controversial development despite advice from its own staff not to do so. The inspector tasked with reviewing Sunroad's request rejected it.
  The Bigger Picture: The Mayor's Office has been caught in a string of contradictions between its public statements and what was happening inside City Hall.That document allowed Sunroad to all but finish the 180-foot building, which has been at the heart of an ongoing political storm.
  At that height, the Federal Aviation Administration claims the building is hazardous to aircraft using nearby Montgomery Field Airport."[Chief City Inspector Joe Harris] tells me you’re about to sign a letter allowing them to do work in the roof area," Hasenin wrote to Escobar-Eck on Dec. 19, 2006. "I have reviewed the plans with senior structural staff and would recommend against allowing any work in the topmost floor, the roof, and penthouse."
  The decision to override Hasenin has proven to be a key step in the city’s accommodation of Sunroad’s controversial tower.
  The e-mails, obtained through a Public Records Act request, show Hasenin had concerns about allowing any work to continue on the top stories of the Sunroad building and advised Escobar-Eck against issuing a letter that would allow such work to take place.
FULL ARTICLE

Density Bonus Alert
by Pat Flannery, 05/16/07, Blog of San Diego                                       
Here we go again. DSD is coming back at us with another Density Bonus attack. This time they have done their homework. They have created a new slick Supplement to their original EIR. Bob Manis has been busy reworking the original, which correctly stated that the coastal 30 foot height limit is not protected by the Coastal Commission. Now all of sudden it is. Being the political hack that he is, Manis rewrote the original EIR as instructed by the developers. And we pay his salary! Or do we? Maybe that's the problem: we don't, they do. This is the same guy who wrote Doug Manchester's $50,000 EIR "finding" that the environment hasn't changed downtown in 15 years. Here is Manis' freshly minted lies, dated today. Soon they will be put before the Council.
  A quick look at the Supplement makes it clear that DSD is recycling the same basic lie: "deviations from the 30 foot coastal height limit cannot be considered as incentives".
  A deviation from the coastal height limit is available as a density bonus concession, the very same as a height limit concession outside the coastal zone. Being part of the LCP is not grounds for refusing a developer. The Coastal Commission does not enforce local height limits, voter approved or otherwise. And Manis knows it.
 Â Mike Aguirre has to come to terms with the fact that one of his deputy city attorneys, Shannon Thomas, wrote a lying MOL for DSD back in September 2006, while DSD and the developers were paying her salary. Her time was charged out to DSD. That is a remnant of the old Casey Gwinn "legal advice for sale" days.
  But has it stopped? I've been told that it has.
  Then who wrote this new Ordinance?
  Does DSD have its own attorneys over there now? Who checked the EIR for legal issues? Manis? DSD or any City Department, should not be able to purchase the legal advice it likes from the same City Attorney we elect to ensure City staff obey the law. Yet that is exactly what has been happening for many years.
  The problem still is: who does the City Attorney represent, the people or City staff? If he represents DSD staff, he effectively represents the developers. That must be clarifed. Shannon Thomas's lying September 8, 2006 MOL is a direct result of this dubious situation. Her salary was paid by DSD, which is an enterprise fund, not part of the General Fund. DSD relies entirely on developer fees for funding.
  They are therefore its clients. The bigger the project the more it earns. They love the big developers. Developers' service staff  actually meet with DSD staff every month to "advise" it on how to improve its services. It is called the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
  So, not only do they get the service they require, they get the legal advice they require. Our City Council is little more than a rubber stamp for the legislation written by the developers through the DSD, using legal advice purchased from the City Attorney's office. The pending Density Bonus legislation is just an example.
  The developers get to write the EIRs and the Municipal Code. The people have become mere spectators. I had hoped that by now the Shannon Thomas's September 8, 2006 MOL would have been withdrawn by Aguirre's office.
  If it had, Bob Manis could never have written this Supplement to the Density Bonus EIR.
  Nor could whoever wrote this new and improved developer-serving Density Bonus Ordinance have written it.
  Jim Waring will once again quote the City Attorney as his authority that the 30 foot height limit is protected.
  This new Ordinance is much the same as the one sent back to the Mayor's Office a few months ago. We have to fight the whole sordid fight all over again.

Why Council Item 333 needs to be opposed:
THEY CHANGED IT! The City Council cannot certify this changed version of the EIR as having been "reviewed and considered" by the public. EIR No. 96-0333, together with its Supplement, was "reviewed and considered" before being presented to the City Council on January 30, 2007. But it has been altered since, without any further "review or consideration" by the public. This is grounds for an automatic continuance tomorrow. You simply cannot do that. Not even Jim Waring.Major problems with From Option 1

1. Wants to delete Municipal Code Section 142.0760, which currently requires a Site Development Permit each time a density bonus concession is granted to a developer. Wants the line "Shall be processed in accordance with Process One" inserted in the Ordinance, in two places. This would change the existing Ordinance by depriving the public of any say in these concessions. It would deny the public the ability to appeal any concession to the Planning Commission or to the City Council.
2. Wants to insert into the Municipal Code the power to grant exemptions from the regulations governing Environmentally Sensitive Lands. These concessions would be based upon a DSD "finding" that not to grant such a concession would "interfere with the applicant’s reasonable investment-backed expectations" i.e. an "economic finding".
   READ: The comparison Option 1 & 2 shows side by side <http://www.blogofsandiego.com/>

Review this action taken by Councilwoman Donna Frye
READ: Councilmember Frye Memorandum 2/20/07 (7 pg PDF)
to ensure a full environmental assessment is done prior to any council vote. 
When high-rise condos start going up on the beach, people will wake up 2/23/07, This site has the responses of Developmemnt Servies Department (DSD)'s and City's Planning Dept. response to Donna Frye's 20 questions regarding density bonuses. Nobody has signed it. Most of the questions are legal questions, yet no attorney would put their name to it. Was the City Attorney consulted? If not why not?
READ: Blog of San Diego, by Pat Flannery for the full information,
in-depth analysis, important updates and vital documents.

After the Union-Tribune wrote several development / pro-density spin pieces this last week, blaming all the woes of San Diego on high housing costs, a  couple letter to the Union-Tribune editor told of many of real problems:
Housing costs just one reason for exodus
Regarding “Fleeing paradise/Cities spark exodus with high home prices” (Editorial, March 23):
  High home prices are only one of many reasons for the exodus. Other factors: wages that simply aren't keeping up with the high home prices; the city's woefully poor fiscal management and the fact that most of the council members involved are, remarkably, still in office; seemingly artificially high gas prices, which affects the costs of groceries, soft goods, durable goods, you name it; and a city government close to bankruptcy, which will inevitably cut its minimalist services even further and require higher fees to make up the difference, putting a bigger bite on residents.
  And then having to navigate one's car around the city's ubiquitous potholes, or suffer the suspension damage. I mean, there's no extreme cold freezing weather on which to blame the poor condition of the city's roads. I won't even mention the pathetic deals with the sports teams.
America's finest weather, maybe.—GEOFF HILL,

San Diego Union Tribune: Your editorial indicates that the current exodus from San Diego is due to economic factors alone. But there are considerations in addition to the economics involved, and they have to do with quality of life.
Paradise?
The special interest groups, aided and abetted by generations of corrupt, incompetent political leaders have bled San Diego so hard for so long that the only paradise-like element we have left is the weather – and even that's changing for the worse.
  Our beaches are polluted, our neglected streets are being only minimally maintained, water and sewerage systems are constantly breaking down after years of neglect, we have gang violence that is out of control, our waterfront continues to be defiled by the developers, the “public service” unions are arrogantly and defiantly resisting giving up any of their sweetheart deals, and after many years of giveaways and cooperation with our local military branches, the Navy and Marine brass now are (ignoring San Diego and) looking out for themselves.
  And now that all these chickens have come home to roost, what are our illustrious leaders doing about it? Arrogantly stonewalling, shifting blame, resisting significant, positive change and generally trying to continue business as usual. At the current pace of change, things are going to get much worse before they begin to get better. San Diego's resources have been drained for many years by greed and cronyism, and paradise is no longer paradise – but the prices are higher than ever.
—BOB SHERMAN, San Diego

Miami Beach on the way for San Diego?
Faulconer, Peters & Sanders say "no".
But the documents says otherwise, all that matters is in a court of law.
 The City of San Diego City Council plans on voting on voting on a change to the Density Bonus ordinance.  This change would mandate that Development Services Department give developers the ability to ask for, and receive, a waiver of any city ordinance limiting the height of buildings.  This would happen without public review.
 The city says this would not effect the 30 foot coastal height limit  which for decades has kept the coast accessible to all San Diegans. Yet city documents say that any opinion or action of the city would be trumped by the state ordinance.  The state ordinance says that height concessions must be granted.
 How did we get into this mess?
 For years, the developer industry has been infuriated by the limits the 1972 Prop D 30 foot coastal height limit has placed on coastal development.  The problem has been that no local government action could overturn the limit.
 On the books since the late 1970s was a state law mandating that cities give developers concessions if they included low income housing in their development.  What cities did to comply is allow minor variances in how buildings looked or could be used to comply.
 In 1984, two San Diego state legislators introduced two bills, Senate Bill 1818 and Senate Bill435 (20050, to make cities give bigger concessions to developers.  The two  authors were State Senators Denise Ducheny (D) and Dennis Hollingsworth (R).  Both have portions of the City of San Diego as part of their district.  Both receive heavy contributions from local developers.
 The two bills introduced by Ducheny and Hollingsworth mandated that if a developer included as little as one affordable unit per 20 that they would automatically receive an increase in the amount of units they could build on site.  In addition, they would be able to choose a concession, which includes but is not limited to: less parking spaces, greater footprint or height.  The local government would then have to grant this concession unless there was a health, safety, physical environment or historical issue.  Since the law specifically states that height is a concession, it would be difficult for a judge to say that breaking the height limit was a physical environment concern.
 These two laws also changed the definition of what  qualifies for a density bonus from only low incomes to moderate incomes as defined by average salaries in an area.  That means a developer could qualify to break the coastal height limit and go 10 or more stories by enabling one unit to be able to be bought by an individual making over $70,000 per year.
 This Tuesday February 27 the city council has docketed an ordinance to ensure that developers can get rolling with their requests to break the 30 foot coastal and other zoning limits. The challenge is that the city has sweetened the pot further for developers while doing nothing to protect citizens from the harsh reality posed by the state density bonus law.  Plus Mayor Sanders, Councilman Faulconer and Councilman Peters want to grant the major concessions over-the-counter with no public review.
 Why the coast is most threatened by the density bonus ordinance is that is where it is most profitable for developers to build high rises. That  is likely what the drafters of this ordinance - the local developer community - had in mind.  They simply then had to have two of their most beholden state legislators carry the bill.  Legislators from other areas of the state simply could not see the dark, evil ulterior motives that drove the change in the density bonus law.
 Demand no action until the public is fully informed of the enormous consequences of this state bill, our local representatives Ducheny and Hollingsworth are brought on the carpet to explain their actions, and the people are satisfied that the density bonus is being modified at both the local and state level to prevent developer abuse abuse.

Debate over affordable housing bonus continues
Activists say amendments are guise to give city more power
Kailee Bradstreet, Peninsula Beacon. March 22, 2007
<http://www.sdnews.com>
  A resident-organized presentation Thursday, March 15, outlining the proposed amendments to the affordable housing density bonus ordinance sent a key message to coastal community members: Get involved before it’s too late.
  About 80 residents from Pacific Beach, Ocean Beach, Point Loma, La Jolla and Clairemont gathered at the Christ Lutheran Church in Pacific Beach to discuss impacts of the proposed measure, which would allow developers to increase building heights and floor area ratios in exchange for providing a percentage of affordable housing.
  “It’s very difficult for people to get involved in planning groups and volunteer all their time to then find out that some law came in and says that it’s all out of the community’s hands,” District 6 Councilwoman Donna Frye said in reference to changes that would allow developers to receive ministerial, or over-the-counter, approval on project incentives. “It’s wrong, and I don’t like it, and I will fight with you to stop it.”
  Frye, who asked for a continuance on the issue at a Feb. 27 council meeting, said she did not believe the amendments would be presented March 27 to City Council as an ordinance. Frye added that she believes council can and should work together to develop language that protects the public.
  City officials created the amendments in response to a series of changes to the state’s affordable housing law. The amendments will update a section in the city’s municipal code that references the affordable housing density bonus.
  But many residents fear that the proposed changes go beyond what state law requires and jeopardize the coastal zone’s 30-foot height limit, which was put in place in 1972 by Proposition D. The voter-approved initiative capped building heights in areas that extend eastward from the shoreline as far inland as Interstate 5 in some areas.
  Existing code indicates that developers can build more units per building if they are providing a percentage of affordable housing. The proposed amendments would increase the number of additional units from 25 percent to 35 percent and would add a provision that provides incentives such as smaller side-yard set-backs and less parking, according to the city’s Development Services Department.Incentives under the amendments will also be provided for moderate-income housing, as the existing code allows bonuses for low-income housing only, city officials said.
  At the meeting, representatives from the San Diego Coastal Alliance, the Historic Preservation Group and Friends of San Diego as well as State Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña voiced opposition to the proposed amendments.“I wish developers did want to build true affordable housing,” Tom Mullaney, a member of Friends of San Diego, said. “It’s under the guise of affordable housing that they want to expand the moderate housing into the range of $60- to $70,000 homes. The developers in this city want to build market rate housing because that’s how they make money.”
  "But according to Jim Waring, the city’s deputy chief of economic development, Mayor Jerry Sanders’ priority is to provide affordable housing in San Diego.
  “There is absolutely no hidden agenda to this,”  Waring said at Thursday’s meeting. “We have no idea, if this ordinance passes, whether it will produce 20 units or 200 units of affordable housing. We want to make sure it’s as understandable as possible and that this ordinance will never be used to bust the 30-foot height limit.”
  Waring also told residents that all projects proposed for the coastal zone must obtain Coastal Development Permits and go through the Coastal Commission, making them subject to community planning group review.
  John McNab, a member of the San Diego Coastal Alliance, told residents to be wary of promises made by the City and said it was the communities’ duty to make sure the law at federal, state and city levels be as clear as possible.“
  The City of San Diego has consistently said that Prop D is safe because the Coastal Commission protects it,” McNab said. “The Coastal Commission is a discretionary body that can do whatever it wants. If you think the Coastal Commission is going to protect you, think again.”
  Point Loma resident Katheryn Rhodes, who gave a PowerPoint presentation on the issue, alleged that under the new amendments environmentally sensitive lands such as steep slopes, wetlands and canyons would be not be protected.Projects would also be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), meaning developers would not be required to mitigate for environmental impacts, according to Rhodes.
  Rhodes asked Waring to reconsider the first option for the amendments, a plan that would implement the ministerial process and possibly endanger the height limit, she said. The second option, which she discussed in her presentation, would only enforce the state’s changes to the law, she said.Waring, who told Rhodes and audience members that some statements in her presentation were incorrect, said that he was working closely with the City Attorney’s Office in order to narrow the options down to one.
  Despite unanswered questions from the audience, Waring left mid-meeting, announcing that he was late for the Eric Clapton concert.
  City Council is scheduled to meet Tuesday, March 27, at the City Administration Building, 202 C Street, to vote on the amendments for the affordable housing density bonus.
For more information, visit www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil.
(One minor correction—over 150 people signed in that attended the town hall meeting.— SD Coastal Alliance)

A high price for affordable housing
By Lori Saldaña, Union-Tribute, February 27, 2007
  Late last month, something almost slipped past the San Diego City Council that would have effectively changed the character of San Diego's neighborhoods for the foreseeable future. Docketed by the council president for the consent calendar – that is, for a vote with no deliberation – was a proposal by the Development Services Department that would strip the city of much of its power to enforce community planning standards.Included in this proposal is what amounts to a bill of rights for developers who would extract extraordinary concessions in exchange for the minimal numbers of “moderately” priced units for sale.  These concessions would be provided ministerially, a term of art indicating that concessions would be granted by the city without input from elected officials or the community.
  Possible concessions to developers for providing a nominal number of affordable housing units could include exemptions on the height limits, protection of natural and historical resources, parking, architectural detail and developers' impact fees. What that means is, if a developer argues that the Mission-style architecture requirement or a height-limit ordinance restricts profits, the developer can get a waiver on these requirements if only one unit out of 20 is set aside at below market rate. That is in addition to the four additional units the developer can sell or lease at market rate. Such a concession would be in addition to the extra units already approved for the development as a result of a density bonus.What is especially disturbing is that this kind of giveaway to developers has become the standard statewide as a result of recent changes to California's Density Bonus Law.
  The law was enacted with the intent of addressing the state's housing affordability problem by providing incentives to developers to include low-and moderate-income housing in their projects. While not always popular with localities, this law was intended to increase the stock of the type of housing we need to support the state's work force.As originally written, these incentives included certain concessions to developers on design, setbacks, sidewalks and other design elements in exchange for the inclusion of 20 percent affordable units in their projects. The developer would agree to construct 20 units out of 100 and in exchange could get concessions on some design standards.
  But over the last three years the Density Bonus Law has been tampered in a way that will be disastrous for California's efforts to increase affordable housing and local government's interest in maintaining quality of life in their communities.
  These changes are the product of a strange – and some would say unholy – coalition of lobbyists who sold the Legislature on a deal that turned the legislative intent of the original Density Bonus Law on its head.
  On the pretext of attracting more developers to participate in the program, they persuaded the Legislature to pass changes that remove the incentive and made these waivers and concessions entitlements for developers by lowering the percentage of affordable units required from 20 percent to 5 percent of units.
  That is as few as one affordable unit in 20 could entitle developers to major concessions that would significantly affect the design and character of communities.
  It bears repeating that new development has serious impacts on communities. The construction of new development can put stress on existing infrastructure and require additional emergency services, affect the character and population of neighborhoods, increase traffic volume and increase the need for parking. New development frequently displaces affordable housing stock and decreases available land for development and open space.
  Likewise, there are significant social and environmental costs associated with a lack of affordable housing. Employers cannot attract and retain qualified workers to San Diego when housing costs greatly outdistance average salaries. Families struggle to balance the costs of housing near their workplace instead of making long and expensive daily commutes from more affordable neighborhoods. Unfortunately, poor air quality coupled with congestion on our freeways tells us many more people are making these commutes.
  Clearly, choices about infill and affordable housing are significant parts of long-term planning. However, density is only one public policy tool for addressing the problem. In the end, providing a few moderately priced housing units should not be used as cover for a developer to trump a community's right to maintain neighborhood design and character.
  The Legislature will be revisiting these debilitating changes to the Density Bonus Law during the coming year. Meanwhile, the City Council should carefully scrutinize Development Services' recommendations regarding density with an eye to maintaining local involvement and design standards.
Saldaña, a Democrat from San Diego, is chair of the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development.

The Mayor and council changed city law to allow uncontrolled growth in all neighborhoods
This can lead to loss of residential property values and views, traffic and parking gridlock. What is the Density Bonus Ordinance?
The Density Bonus is a State Law- California Government Code Sections 65915 - 65918 http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/pzd/1997/plan_12.html
which aims to provide incentives to developers to build low to moderate-income housing.  It does this by mandating that cities provide incentives to developers to build low to moderate-income housing.What is the problem with the Density Bonus Ordinance?
In 2004, the State decided that local governments were not providing enough incentives to developers to build affordable housing. Two bills were prepared, Senate Bill 435 and Senate Bill 1818 to address this.
  These bills gave developers concessions that to break local zoning ordinances. These include, but are not limited to: the amount of units allowed, size, setbacks and height. 
 The developer would ask for a specific concession, and the local government would have to award it unless there was a health or safety finding.
  In addition, it became easier to get a Density Bonus entitlement.    Instead of being solely for low-income housing, it now could also be used for moderate income, which is relative personal income in a specific community. 
 For example, that means somebody living in a nice beach community, making over $70,000 per year can qualify for an affordable housing unit!
  With this ordinance, more housing units can be built than zoning allows, and they can be built higher than the Prop D and other height limits.Why are the mayor and council taking action now?
The City has to rewrite their municipal code to be in compliance with the state ordinance. 
  Most cities have not yet rewritten their local code, but San Diego is in a hurry to get it done. That is why it is on the docket for Tues.,February 27.Is the city ordinance the same as the state ordinance?
NO. 
The local ordinance will make it even more profitable for developers to build using this ordinance.At council, Councilmembers Faulconer and Peters said, “This will not affect Prop D.”  Is that true?
NO. 
 The amendment is not effective in the Coastal Zone until the Coastal Commission unconditionally certifies the amendment.
  ”The State Density Bonus Ordinance trumps the Prop D voter initiative.  According to the City Attorney Office, that is because State passed initiatives trump State legislation. State legislation trumps Local voter initiatives. Local voter initiatives trump City Council passed ordinances.
  According to the City Attorney Office, the Prop D local voter initiative that established the 30 foot coastal height limit is overridden by state legislation.
  That is one example why developers keep a strong lobby in Sacramento. 
  What Faulconer and Peters must be referring to is the coastal zone, where the California Coastal Commission has jurisdiction. 
  "This section of City Council Item-335 if approved by the Council will then go to the Coastal Commission to seek approval...
“The proposed amendments to the Land Development Code would apply to the Coastal Zone, therefore the City Council’s decision requires amending the City’s Local Coastal Program.  As a result, the final decision on the amendments to the Land Development Code and associated Local Coastal Program amendments will be with the California Coastal Commission." 
 The City of San Diego must submit the amendments to the Land Development Code as an amendment for certification to the Coastal.
  Since the Coastal Commission was established by a voter initiative, the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission does not have to follow all state laws.
 For example, in the case of San Diego, the 30-foot height limit is part of what is called the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP is a set of guidelines the Coastal Commission is supposed to follow in regard to development in San Diego’s coastal zone.
  Yet the Coastal Commission approved hundreds of buildings over 30 feet at Naval Training Center, which fell entirely inside the coastal zone.  These included one hotel 60 feet tall and another 85 feet tall.
 San Diego Coastal Commissioner, developer Pat Kruer (New Chair of the Coastal Commission), was upset that more buildings did not significantly exceed the 30 foot height limit at Naval Training Center.
  Another problem with the Coastal Commissions’ coastal zone is that it is smaller than the area that the Prop D 30 foot height limit covers.
  The coastal zone winds along the coast while the "Prop D, 30ft. limit" extends from the coast inland to Interstate 5 from the northern Del Mar border south to Laurel Street as well as south of downtown. 
 Large areas such as the Sports Arena district are outside the coastal zone, yet today is subject to the 30 foot limit. 
  If this council item passes, areas outside of the coastal zone will not even have the discretionary protection of the Coastal Commission.   Therefore, despite the assurances of Faulconer and Peters, Prop D would be effectively destroyed by passage of the Density Bonus Ordinance as presently drafted. 
 Developers could build as high as they wanted.Ok, so Prop D would be gone. Is that all that would happen?
NO. 
  Buildings can be built from lot line to lot line, and height limits anywhere in the city can be disregarded. 
  What makes this worse is that these changes can be approved without notifying neighbors or having public hearings. 
  The way the city statute is written, developers can get these concessions over-the-counter.
  These changes are alarming.  Is this the way all cities are implementing this state mandate?
No.  Other cities are tightening zoning to ensure their quality of life.  San Diego is the exception that is making the deal sweeter for the developers while showing no concern for the public.So what can I do?
 First, call all of City Council and the Mayor.
  Demand that councilmembers hold public hearings in every district neighborhood prior to any council action. The public has every right to have everyone understand how this proposal would radically change our city.
 Second, call Assemblywoman Lori Saldana and State Senator Christine Kehoe and insist they change the State Density Bonus Ordinance so the enormous loopholes in this law do not destroy our quality of life.
  Remember, this ordinance as written will provide no actual affordable housing.
  Third, become informed. 


A press conference was held with community leaders from around San Diego, and two of the original 30 foot height limit leaders. The location looks over cliffs that cost millions of dollars to build seawalls after caving away because of high density buildings were constructed before the Coastal 30 foot height limit was passed. The seawalls are once again falling apart, and the once popular sandy beach (that was promised to be put back the same) is full of boulders and rocks.

Commentary— The Peninsula Beacon, Feb. 22, 2007
City’s affordable housing bonus attacks coastal height limit
  I’ve lived in San Diego since 1977 and learned about the 30-foot height limit on construction at the coast a long time ago.  I also lived and traveled a good deal on the East coast and the Gulf Coast. I thought the height limit was one of the smartest things California had done and always assumed it was part of the California Coastal Act.  Having seen what happened in Florida and other beach communities, with the beach virtually walled off to public access, I knew what a smart thing this was. But, I only learned recently that the 30-foot limit is unique to San Diego.  Back in the early ‘70s, a group of activists got together, created a ballot measure, and got it passed. For 35 years this has protected our shoreline and the developers have never accepted it. This unique and precious protection is once again under attack and everyone needs to know about it.
 I had the distinct pleasure of sitting in a room last week with three of the original activists. They are a little grayer and a little more bent, but the fire still burns in all of them.  I was personally in awe of this group hearing how they sacrificed so much time and effort that resulted in something that benefited so many people for so many years.  I certainly cannot point to anything in my life that matches their accomplishment.   
 They, along with many others, are worried that the 30-foot height limit may be in jeopardy because of an action by the City Council. The state passed a law that provides a density bonus for projects that provide a certain amount of affordable housing units. The City Council will be deciding on amendments to the local application of law on Tuesday, February 27. The proposed changes will allow developers to circumvent the 30-foot height limit if they satisfy certain affordable housing requirements in their developments. Make no mistake about it; this is a back door attempt to defeat this development restriction that has added greatly to the quality of life in San Diego but that developers can’t stand.
  The Peninsula Community Planning Board is having elections the week after the Council hearing.  This is one of the many issues the Board works on every day in an effort to preserve the unique and wonderful community we all live in against dollar driven development that sees the Peninsula as a cash cow. Of everything I have seen, the threat to the 30-foot height limit is probably the most serious.  People need to get involved.  Run for a position on the board or get involved in any way you can.  Come to the City Council meeting and see what is going on.  Or, send letters and e-mails and let Council members know that this is one valuable legacy the peninsula residents want to maintain. —Geoff Page is a Point Loma resident and
member of the Peninsula Planning Board.

The City's draft approach has fundamental flaws that go beyond the excessive zoning exceptions. 
  Regarding the City Council agenda item on density bonuses and zoning deviations:The Affordable Housing guidelines from LA are an example of a more limited implementation of the State mandates.   This more limited approach makes sense for San Diego, rather than the "anything goes" approach that would override zoning provisions with few restrictions.
  The lack of limits in the San Diego draft ordinance could lead to buildings with NO SETBACKS, DOUBLE the intended height, and luxury units with DOUBLE the intended Floor Area Ratio. 
  If the City adopts the "anything goes" approach, and approves some projects that are totally incompatible with existing zoning, the public backlash would set back legitimate efforts for affordable housing.  
 I previously pointed out that the draft San Diego ordinance has several major weaknesses. For example, by increasing incentives for moderate income housing to nearly the same levels as low income housing, the City would be ensuring that little low income housing would be built.  The City's draft approach has fundamental flaws that go beyond the excessive zoning exceptions. Stay tuned for a future missive from me, based on my conversations with two prominent local economists:  "How density bonuses and zoning deviations increase developer profits and the price of land, while providing little public benefit".
— Tom Mullaney, Friends of San Diego,email: tmullaney@aol.com
"Preserving the environment , and quality of life in the San Diego region"

Community leaders look at problems caused by pre-30 foot Coastal Height limit buildingsThe information on this website does not constitute legal advice to any party and is correct to the best of our knowledge.