City to Pay $450K
A judge awarded $450,000 to the environmental groups and attorneys who challenged the City Council's approval of a bridge connecting the two ends of Regents Road in University City.
  The activists alleged the city didn't properly study the impacts of building the road across Rose Canyon or consider other alternatives to ease the traffic flow between the northern and southern portions of the University City community.
  The city decided to do the studies after the lawsuit was filed, but said it didn't owe the environmentalists' legal fees, claiming its decision to do the studies weren't spurred by the lawsuit. Monday's ruling requires the city to pay more than the environmentalists were willing to settle for months ago, said Marco Gonzalez, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.It’s the latest legal setback in environmental disputes for the city, in which Sanders and a council majority often ignore the advice of City Attorney Mike Aguirre.
  Read here for more about how that dynamic has played out unfavorably for the city in recent cases.
-- EVAN McLAUGHLIN, Voice of San Diego, Nov.12, 2007

Appeal Denied
NEW EIR/EIS NEEDED!
On Dec. 4th the City Council heard the Navy Broadway Complex Coalition's appeal of the CCDC's approval of the revised Manchester plan for the Navy Broadway Complex, and their determination that the 1992 EIR/EIS covers the current 2007 plan.  To say that the 1992 environmental document applies to the conditions in Downtown San Diego today or in the future is absurd. To cite subsequent EIRs is also invalid.  The EIR for the Downtown Plan Update was successfully challenged, and the EIR for the North Embarcadero Visionary Plan has been violated by the Port with their proposed contruction of a second permanent cruise ship terminal on Broadway Pier.
 The City of San Diego is saddled with the pension fund deficit; they may soon be responsible for the Soledad landslide (there is a fault line under the area); then there are the costs of the recent wildfires; not to mention our unfunded infrastructure, potholes etc.  The Council found that the Navy Broadway Complex 1992 environmental document covers the current development proposal when there is evidence that there are fault lines under the project?  They ignored the potential liability of a terrorist attack! Think what an inviting target: Navy Headquarters surrounded by office buildings filled with the military industrial complex, the symbolic Midway docked in front, potentially four cruise ships with more than 10,000 passengers.  Furthermore, the development agreement requires the City to provide services to the site, but given that the site is federal property, the City will not get property taxes to cover the costs of services!
  — Diane Coombs, Co-Chair, Navy Broadway Complex Coalition

The arrogance of “San Diego Insiders,” (as seen in the following UT article) feeling they are entitled to everything, including being the only ones with access to government officials is appalling.
  Paid lobbyist from the private sector, and some partly paid from public funding (Remember Julie Myer Writes huge paycheck funded partly by taxpayers?), have heavily lobby on every large controversial project in our city.
  Yet, when citizens what to contact their elected officials Manchester’s Lawyer whines! Use “YOUR RIGHTS”, be active and let your voices be heard...CONTACT COUNCILMEMBERS to say, "YES to the Appeal!" — Coastal Alliance  
Flap over Navy site, , Developer says foes courted votes
By Jeanette Steele, Union-tribune STAFF WRITER, Nov. 13, 2007
 The fight over the Navy Broadway Complex redevelopment project is getting increasingly nasty and personal.Developer Douglas Manchester's camp has discovered an e-mail they say suggests that opponents improperly courted votes from two San Diego City Council members to block the project.
  This comes after opponents last month accused Centre City Development Corp. President Nancy Graham of giving Manchester inside information he used to kill a settlement offer in the opponents' lawsuit against the city.
  The project would rebuild the Navy's regional headquarters and add hotels, offices and shops on the 14.7-acre waterfront site. Last week, the City Council postponed an appeal of the Centre City Development Corp.'s July approval.
Overview
  Background: Developer Douglas Manchester's plan to redevelop the 14.7-acre Navy Broadway Complex site remains contentious. Manchester's proposal was approved last year and survived an appeal from a coalition challenging the development on environmental grounds. After some tweaking of the plan, Manchester went back for another city approval in July. Opponents appealed again.
  What's changed: The San Diego City Council last week postponed an appeal of the Centre City Development Corp.'s July approval.
 The future:
  The coalition's appeal is scheduled to be heard Dec. 4.
  The council's decision to postpone was preceded by a memo from City Attorney Michael Aguirre that suggested the city – and not the CCDC – should have done a new environmental review after Manchester revised the project late last year. Aguirre said the council should grant the appeal.
 The council decided to take it up in closed session before moving forward, as the city is already embroiled in two lawsuits over the project.
  The e-mail under scrutiny from Manchester attorney Steven Strauss is from Diane Coombs, a member of the Navy Broadway Complex Coalition, an alliance of activists, environmental and planning groups, and labor support opposed to the project.
  In the e-mail, sent to members of the coalition Nov. 5, Coombs wrote: “Those of you who have not called or e-mailed your councilmember, please do so today. Donna Frye and Toni Atkins are OK, but we need to contact Hueso, Young and Mainschain. (sic) Expect Scott and Madaffer are lost causes.”
  Strauss said it is improper if Frye or Atkins indicated to the coalition how they would vote.“I would also think it is improper for the coalition to try and procure their vote in advance,” he said.
  Coombs said her comments were based on Frye's and Atkins' votes in favor of an appeal of the Manchester development in January. The appeal was rejected by the City Council in a 5-3 vote.
  Coombs said she hasn't spoken to any council members about the current appeal, and said there would be nothing wrong if she had.“I'm sorry, is this the United States of America where people have the opportunity to contact their elected officials?” Coombs said.
  Frye and Atkins said they have not talked to Coombs. Atkins called Strauss' criticisms “ludicrous,” adding, “Citizens get to lobby their elected officials regardless.”
  Referring to the coalition's earlier complaint about Graham, the CCDC president, Coombs said, “This is the pot calling the kettle black.”
  CCDC officials have called Graham's actions last month a misunderstanding. Graham thought the city would notify the developer of the proposed settlement, so she mentioned it to a Manchester executive at a meeting, they said.
  The coalition's appeal is scheduled to be heard Dec. 4.
  Manchester officials said delays hurt their ability to go forward, but opponents say Manchester won't do much until a federal lawsuit is resolved next summer.

Don't be surprised... PRESENTATION: STATE DENSITY BONUSSadly the City's implementation of the Density Bonus Ordinance was approved by San Diego City Council
When bad projects that use this Ordiance crop up in your neighborhood contact the the Mayor, and the Council Members who VOTED FOR this (1A) Developer/Mayor Rubberstamp Ordiance:

Council approves density ordinance
By Lori Weisberg Unione-Tribune, STAFF WRITER, Nov. 7, 2007
SAN DIEGO – Home builders will be allowed to boost the number of units permitted in their projects and seek other land-use incentives as long as they agree to include affordable housing in their developments, the San Diego City Council decided yesterday.
 The action came despite harsh criticism from community activists who accused the council of selling out to developers and opening the door to high-rise housing without the consent of neighborhood residents.
  Katheryn Rhodes of the San Diego Coastal Alliance said approval of the density-bonus ordinance ensures that council members will have no recourse “when their constituents need help with unscrupulous adjacent developers. The check and balance of power between the City Council and the mayor will be in jeopardy.
  ”The ordinance, four years in the making, arose out of a statewide law enacted in 2003 aimed at removing governmental barriers to the production of low-and moderate-income housing. The council has tried several times since early this year to enact some form of the law but delayed action because of intense concerns voiced by residents in a number of communities.
  Frustrated by the tenor of the opponents' comments, Council President Scott Peters said it was time for elected leaders to start addressing San Diego's affordable-housing crisis.“
  This density-bonus thing was the product of housing advocates around the state who saw what government officials were doing to thwart the development of housing,” Peters said. “ . . . Maybe we do want to impose these costs and barriers to the development of housing, but let's not pretend that will result in affordable housing.”
  The measure passed 5-1, with Councilwoman Donna Frye dissenting and council members Toni Atkins and Brian Maienschein absent. The council did not favor an alternative ordinance recommended by City Attorney Michael Aguirre's office that would have more closely mirrored state law.
  Under the new regulations, developers will be allowed to build additional units in their projects over and above what is permitted in local land-use plans if they make at least 5 percent to 10 percent of the dwellings affordable to low-income households earning as little as $21,000 a year for a family of four.
  The resulting density bonuses range from 20 percent to 35 percent over the total allowable units, depending on how much affordable housing is provided.
  In addition to the added density, builders will be able to seek waivers from parking, height and setback standards.
  In limited cases, they will be able to get those waivers approved without having to go before community planning groups and local legislative bodies.
 That's what has some community members, as well as Frye, steaming.“People spend years and years dedicating their lives to their community planning groups, and then the state comes in and says 'Oh, by the way, some of those things you hold near and dear, such as height, are affected,' ” Frye said. “It's not because people don't want affordable housing.
  Also of concern to opponents are greater density bonuses that will be offered to developers who set aside at least 10 percent of their dwelling units for middle-income households earning up to 110 percent of median income, or $76,350 for a family of four.
 “When did we lose sight that our work force needs housing as much as low-and very low-income households?” asked developer Sherm Harmer, head of the Downtown Residential Marketing Alliance, who spoke in favor of the bonus allowance.
Lori Weisberg: (619) 293-2251; lori.weisberg@uniontrib.com

'Fired in Iceland'
EVAN McLAUGHLIN, Voice of san Diego, August 14, 2007
  Jim Waring, the recently resigned land-use chief for Mayor Jerry Sanders, sent along a note today to some of the department directors that worked for him.
  In an e-mail, Waring lamented that he decided to try to sway Councilwoman Donna Frye that "there may be a better result for the city" than lowering the Sunroad building to the Federal Aviation Administration's 160-foot height limit. That meeting with Frye touched off allegations by City Attorney Mike Aguirre that Waring was trying to appease the company and defy the city's lawsuit.
  He wrote:Stupid of me. It never entered my mind that it would be twisted as somehow not supporting the 160 foot solution, which is now underway.
  He said he had wrestled with the idea of stepping down "for some time." While the Mayor's Office said today that the mayor had accepted Waring's resignation, he said in the e-mail that he was fired.
  Waring wrote: "Amazing to get fired in Iceland." He is vacationing there.
  "Sunroad seems to chase me everywhere," he said.
  Among the recipients were Development Services Director Marcela Escobar-Eck, Real Estate Assets Director Jim Barwick, and City Planning and Community Investment Director Bill Anderson.
  He thanked the recipients for "doing a great job for the city" and noted that he would see them all next week.
  Waring left them with these words: At some point in our city's future, we will get beyond the culture of negativity which seems to dominate our public life today.

Lack of Moral Compass (Letter)
Dear Mr. Peters and Council members,
The newspaper announcement of Deputy Chief Operating Officer Jim Waring‚s resignation was one phrase in one sentence in a long editorial today (Opinion Aug 14, B6).  
  It's welcome news none the  less.
Ronne Froman lacked the intestinal fortitude to do a good job for San Diego.  
  Jim  Waring lacked a moral compass.
JoAnne  Sawyer-Knoll, who should resign next, is utterly ignorant of ethical propriety.
 All this comes from the Jerry Sanders who promised honesty, transparency, com-petence, and good governance.  He gave us Sanders, Froman, Waring, and Sawyer-Knoll.
—Jim Varnadore, City Heights

Approving San Diego's new general plan just first of many battles ahead
By THOR KAMBAN BIBERMAN, The Daily Transcript, August 23, 2007
 Some 28 years since its last update, the city of San Diego's new general plan is scheduled to be presented before the San Diego City Council sometime in October.
 Ratifying a general plan that will provide structure for the next 20 years has been difficult enough, but the challenges faced when trying to update and then apply some 44 distinctive community plans may be daunting indeed.
 As noted during meeting of the Citizens Coordinate For Century III at the Holiday Inn Embarcadero on Thursday, the city is a very different place than it was the last time the general plan was updated.
 In 1979, the city's land resources were relatively limitless. Otay Mesa was nearly empty and Rancho Penasquitos still had plenty of land.
Today, only about 4 percent of the land in the city remains.
 "We can't grow by growing out anymore," said Bill Anderson, city planning and economic development director.
 One of the major challenges is a more than $2 billion infrastructure shortfall.
 For example, some city water pipes date back to the early part of the 20th century.
 Another major challenge is convincing residents of the wisdom of density, and the need to provide an economic strategy to make the general and community plans work.
 The general plan is based on numerous directives including the preservation of a citywide open space network, diverse neighborhoods, walkable mixed-use villages, strong employment centers near housing if possible and an integrated transportation network.
 Leo Wilson, Uptown Community Planning Committee chairman, said there already is plenty of opposition to the City of Villages effort that is a cornerstone of this plan.
"Even supporters are getting serious doubts," he said, suggesting that many are wondering whether smart growth is coming at too high a cost to the historic neighborhoods of the city in particular.
 While the general plan update will be the framework, the battles in the trenches will be fought when the community plans are updated.
 "It's going to be really hard to get community plans updated ..." said Russ Haley of CityMark Development, whose firm is developing mixed-use projects from downtown San Diego to Oceanside in San Diego County. "People don't see how density benefits them."
A case in point was after the downtown community plan was completed in the spring of last year.
 When it was revealed the downtown population would approach 90,000 at buildout, Save Our Forest & Ranchlands filed a lawsuit in Superior Court against the Centre City Development Corp. and the city last year saying the plan was too dense, especially without adequate public transportation.
 The case was settled when the city agreed to study SOFAR's transit-oriented transportation plan and incorporate provisions into the downtown document.
 Save Our Heritage Organisation also challenged the planning document in court last year on the basis of possible impacts to historical resources.
 That case was settled after issues such as the transfer of development rights as they relate to the moving of historic buildings, were resolved.
Anderson, who said the goal is to update all 44 community plans within about 10 years, said there is any number of things that can impact that schedule.
 Not the least of these is what happens when there is a lot of opposition to the plan.
 Anderson estimated that each community plan update should take 1 1/2 to two years to complete, and will tend to come in clusters.
 There has been some measure of controversy with most of them. The Otay Mesa community plan update was to be completed before year's end, but city officials have questioned the role of developers who bankrolled the effort.
 The balance of industrial land to housing has been another issue.
Ocean Beach's update, also being wrapped up, doesn't appear to be nearly as controversial.
 However, Barrio Logan -- which doesn't have a community planning group -- may be more of a challenge because of old industrial sites that many would like to get rid of, coupled with old homes that were spared when Interstate 5 came through in the 1960s.
 The Grantville community plan update -- which like Barrio Logan is in the pipeline -- has been controversial, because of a proposal to convert the industrial properties to mixed use with residential and retail.
"Some don't like redevelopment or they're worried about traffic," Anderson said.
 A controversial project that the Uptown community plan update will have to deal with is the proposed 12-story, 96-unit condominium development planned at 301 University Ave. in Hillcrest.
 La Jolla Pacific Development, the developer, said the project will conform to the updated plan. Detractors say the project is completely out of character for the area.
 "You don't build 12-story skyscrapers in these neighborhoods," Wilson said. "The only way you're going to be competitive economically is to keep San Diego a nice place to live."
 Plans also call for community plans to be updated for North Park and Golden Hill, beginning some time next year. The Midway area, which could include Old Town, would come after that.
 All told, Anderson said there are about 15 community plans in need of an update in the near future.
 Whenever the plans are updated, Haley said they will need to take a hard look at parking requirements that may be so stringent as to make housing unaffordable.
 "When you consider that each parking space costs $35,000 to $40,000 and more. That could translate to $100,000 added to the cost of a unit," Haley said. "When looking at these community plans, parking is something that will really need to be addressed."

Real estate brokerage vote delayed
By ELIZABETH MALLOY, The Daily Transcript, July 30, 2007
 At the request of Mayor Jerry Sanders, the San Diego City Council did not vote on a brokerage firm to help the city sell off $32.4 million in commercial real estate.
 After questions arose about Sanders‚ decision to let Burnham Real Estate and Grubb & Ellis|BRE Commercial sell the land, particularly because Grubb & Ellis officials had made donations to Sanders‚ mayoral campaign, Sanders reportedly asked the city attorney‚s office to look into potential conflicts of interest.
 The council has not yet rescheduled a date to vote.

Council to look at business improvement fees, real estate brokers
By ELIZABETH MALLOY, The Daily Transcript, July 27, 2007
 With a summer hiatus on the horizon, the San Diego City Council has two lengthy meetings scheduled Monday and Tuesday.
 For the business world, two of the bigger votes will be a decision on business improvement district fees, and whether or not to accept Grubb & Ellis|BRE Commercial and Burnham Real Estate as the city‚s brokers for the commercial real estate it's putting on the market.
 Certain sections of the city are divided into business improvement districts, and to make these areas thrive or keep them active, businesses within these zones must pay a fee. The fee is up for renewal this year and the council is set to discuss the matter Monday. The fees are not expected to go up.
 On Thursday, Mayor Jerry Sanders announced his office has selected Burnham and Grubb & Ellis to broker $34.4 million in commercial land deals for the city. The decision could prove somewhat controversial as officials from both companies donated to Sanders‚ mayoral campaign, but Sanders said they were chosen because they could meet a council-imposed 6 percent commission.
The council is expected to review this matter on Monday as well.
Send your comments to Elizabeth.Malloy@sddt.com Latest on Navy Broadway/CCDC Developer Giveaway Deal:
CCDC served its client, Manchester, well today.
But it may not be over.
by Pat Flannery, Blog of San Diego, 07/25/07                                       
Excerpt: As expected the five member CCDC board voted 4 to 1 to rubber stamp Manchester's Navy Broadway project today. They were too far invested in this project to turn back now. Manchester can start excavation work for the Navy headquarters building immediately because, by its decision today, the CCDC board has ruled that he does not need a permit from the California Coastal Commission.
  That was the purpose of today's meeting.
  One of the biggest land use decisions in the history of San Diego was made by four non-elected officials.
  This once-in-a-century decision was not even worthy of recording by CityTV, Channel 24.
  My little YouTube camera and a lone Channel 10 reporter were all there was to record this historic event.
  But this developer-compliant board may not be out of the woods yet.  They may even have sown the seeds of their own disbandment. It is intolerable that a developer-serving body like CCDC can put on a show like they did today and thumb their noses at the citizens of San Diego and the California Coastal Commission.
  The citizens of this great city need to take back control of government from the developers and their hand picked "officials". Nancy Graham dealt with my discovery of her coached Perry Dealy letter by saying that it was distributed to the board.
  Yes it was, but only AFTER I discovered it. She tried to avoid today's publicity by putting this historic decision on the Consent Agenda!
FULL ARTICLE Nancy Graham DID coach Perry Dealy in writing that letter. 07/25/07
by Pat Flannery, Blog of San Diego                                       
Excerpt: The U-T did a story today confirming that Manchester was coached in writing the letter that temporarily took condo-hotels out of his Navy Broadway submittal in order to side-step the Coastal Commission: "CCDC President Nancy Graham said she asked Manchester to write the letter about deleting the condo-hotel language".
  Nancy Graham requested that letter as a CYA, but nobody was supposed to see it until after today's hearing, otherwise it would have been in the staff report. It is not.
  Nancy Graham knows that this is not about condo-hotels per se, it is about dodging the Coastal Commission bullet. She is an advocate for the developer, not the 1.3 million people of this city.
  She is still a land use attorney at heart, not a civil servant.
  But the cat is out of the bag now so it is up to the 1.3 million to make their voices heard at 2:00 P.M. today at City Hall. I think we can safely rely on the fact that it will be "pulled" from the Consent Agenda today. FULL ARTICLE Manchester sues the California Coastal Commission. 
07/03/07, by Pat Flannery, Blog of San Diego 
Excerpt: Manchester has sued the California Coastal Commission (CCC) asserting that it cannot require him to obtain a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) before developing Navy Broadway because it is on federal land and thus excluded by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) from the California "coastal zone" and from the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction.The Coastal Commission on the other hand asserts that it can indeed require Manchester to obtain a CDP because the project will be developed by Manchester, not by the Navy. CCC also asserts that substantial changes have occurred since 1991 that will require a supplemental federal consistency review of the project under CZMA.
  Doesn't this remind you of Sunroad thumbing its nose at the FAA? It should. It is the same cocky attorney, Steve Strauss of Cooley Godward, that isnow taking on the CCC. Full Article: http://www.blogofsandiego.com/

A California city may not legally plan higher density housing without minimizing impacts
  An important court decision from San Francisco:  A California city may not legally plan higher density housing without minimizing impacts on traffic congestion, parking, air pollution, noise, preservation of existing housing, aesthetic quality, etc.  
 Relying on an old, limited environmental report is not good enough. In San Diego, a group of affordable housing advocates filed a lawsuit in Dec. 2006 against the City's  Housing Element.  The issues are similar:   Little benefit for affordable housing; maximum threat to residents' quality of life.
—Tom Mullaney, Friends of San Diego

Smells of Insiders Deals:
Logan Jenkins, Union-Tribune, July 28, 2007
A brick – the Feeding the Fire award – to Mayor Jerry Sanders for proposing that San Diego hire two well-known brokerage firms – Burnham Real Estate and Grubb & Ellis – to sell nine municipal properties. I'm in no position to dispute the facts Sanders presented Thursday: These two firms may very well have agreed to the lowest commissions of the 11 firms bidding for the right to sell the commercial parcels, which have a total appraised value of more than $32 million.  The firms could serve the city well.
  Still, Sanders could not have raised more eyebrows unless he'd proposed that developers Mike Madigan and Paul Nieto team up with Sunroad owner Aaron Feldman to dispose of the city's property.Call it a bizarre coincidence.
  Or call it political tone deafness.
  As mentioned in Monday's column, Burnham Real Estate is the broker for Sunroad's ill-starred Centrum project next to Montgomery Field. (Go to www.sunroad-centrum.com to see what soaring ambitions Burnham still holds for the three-tower project.)
  What's more, an agent for Grubb & Ellis allegedly misrepresented Madigan and Nieto as agents of the San Diego Community College District. District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis is investigating the $534,375 windfall for the two clients of Grubb & Ellis.
 In the run-up to the '08 election, the great challenge for Sanders, it seems to me, is to shake off his image as the Establishment's hail-fellow-well-met who instinctively follows the lead of power brokers adept at rigging the game in their favor.In selecting these particular brokerage firms to flog public land, Sanders is making it tougher for his many instinctive admirers to take his word on faith.
  On Monday, City Council members will express their own view of Sanders' winners. Their ears may be more finely tuned to political irony. Aguirre accuses broker of fraud
Complaint filed over property purchase
By Sherry Saavedra & Tanya Mannes,  Union–Tribune, 7/25/07
  City Attorney Michael Aguirre filed a civil complaint yesterday alleging fraud by the real estate broker who misrepresented his businessmen-clients as agents for the San Diego Community College District's bond-financed expansion plan.In the complaint, Aguirre states that broker Linville Martin and his clients began “an aggressive campaign” to acquire 13 properties in a two-block area downtown, telling numerous owners they were authorized to do so by the college district.
  Martin and the men he represented, developers Mike Madigan and Paul Nieto, did not have such an arrangement.
  Nevertheless, the businessmen purchased one property for below-market value and sold it to the district for a profit of more than $500,000.
  The complaint alleges that Martin made “untrue or misleading statements” and “false promises” and that his conduct “constituted fraud” in violation of the state Business and Professions Code.
  The complaint, filed in San Diego Superior Court, seeks an order stopping Martin from future similar action. It asks for penalties of at least $100,000 against Martin, as well as restitution.Martin did not return calls yesterday. In an interview earlier this month with The San Diego Union-Tribune, Martin said he spoke to the college's development chief, Damon Schamu, before sending a letter in which he claimed to represent the district. After that conversation, he said he felt he had permission to proceed.Schamu said in a separate interview with the newspaper that he told Madigan and Nieto to “cease and desist” when he found out about that letter.
  Martin is a licensed independent broker affiliated with the real estate firm Grubb & Ellis BRE Commercial.
  The college district was eyeing multiple downtown sites for its expansion plan, financed by Proposition S, a $685 million bond measure approved by voters in 2002, and Proposition N, an additional $870 million bond measure approved by voters in November 2006.
  The Union-Tribune reported on July 13 that Martin told the sellers of a 15th Street duplex that Madigan and Nieto's company, TMG Partners, had a deal to handle the college district's expansion. Madigan and Nieto paid $750,000 for the duplex at 1025-1027 15th St. in January 2006. They transferred it to a private trust and sold it to the college at a $534,375 profit in September 2006.Nieto did not return calls yesterday. Madigan said his attorney has advised him not to comment.
  After learning of the misrepresentation, college district Chancellor Constance Carroll last week asked the District Attorney's Office for a felony-level investigation.
  Aguirre's complaint says that Martin contacted “numerous” owners besides the sellers of the 15th Street duplex: Jean and Milton Creek and Glenda and Esao Sumida. He made the same claim that he represented the district.
  It describes how he approached four other property owners. WATCHDOG REPORT: Pair was not authorized to buy land for collegeDistrict official knew but didn't halt duplex deal
By Tanya Mannes & Agustín Armendariz, Union-Tribune, 7/13/07
Mike Madigan and Paul Nieto, two prominent businessmen who made a half-million dollars selling a downtown duplex to the San Diego Community College District, originally obtained the property by telling the owners they had a deal to handle the district's bond-funded expansion.
  They did not.Paul NietoThe district's development administrator, Damon Schamu, knew Madigan and Nieto had misrepresented themselves but chose not to intervene in the transaction, he said this week.
  The duplex owners, Jean and Milton Creek and Glenda and Esao Sumida, gave The San Diego Union-Tribune a letter they were sent in 2004, which says Madigan and Nieto were the college district's official representatives in the negotiations. It mentioned tax advantages the couples might receive by selling.
  The couples, who had held the property for more than 25 years as a nest egg for their retirement, agreed in 2005 to sell the property to Madigan and Nieto for $750,000. After the sale closed in January 2006, the men transferred the land into a relative's trust and sold it to the college district nine months later for $1,284,375, a profit of $534,37 FULL REPORT Who is the Mayor's real real estate broker?
 07/09/07 by Pat Flannery, Blog of San Diego 
Excerpt: Earlier this year, a Janice Weinrick was appointed by Mayor Sanders to "oversee 11 City-managed redevelopment project areas throughout San Diego, encompassing more than 7,600 acres and representing more than $2 billion in investment underway and in the pipeline." Here is the  news release announcing her appointment. Her developer-related credentials are impressive.
  But here is  an article in the San Diego Metropolitan magazine (a sort of gossip column for the "in" crowd of San Diego) that raises some questions. According to the writer, Manny Cruz, Weinrick "shares the home with her boyfriend,  Lin Martin, a retail commercial broker with Grubb & Ellis|BRE Commercial." 
  I spoke with Mr. Martin today and asked him about his involvement in the  $750,000  purchase of the duplex at 1027 15th. St. for Mike Madigan and Paul Nieto. At first he couldn't remember the transaction. Understandable, considering he does so many.  FULL ARTICLE
What's that smell? Critics look hard for foul play in duplex deal
UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL, July 5, 2007
  Sweet real estate deals involving public money can smell sour, like this one: In 2005, Mike Madigan, a consultant well known around town; Paul Nieto, a local developer and also well known; and the San Diego Community College District negotiated fruitlessly about developing two East Village blocks the district owns.
  In January 2006, the two men bought another East Village property, a duplex, and transferred it to a trust. That's whiff one. In September 2006 they accepted the district's second offer for the property, making $534,375 in profit. That's whiff two, clinching for critics that something nefarious went on here.
  But in a board meeting in April 2005 to discuss and approve the district's master facilities plan, the district openly targeted this property. Negotiating a purchase price, district officials say, may be done in closed session but not developing a master plan.  Anyone who was paying attention and had the wits and funds to bet on the then-soaring market could have bought this duplex. As for transferring the property to a trust, maybe Madigan and Nieto wanted anonymity, or some tax advantage, or an arm's length deal with any purchaser, particularly the district.
  Then there's the whopping profit. The two men bought it below market. The district always pays fair market value. Somebody else might have paid even more. And prior and failed negotiations to develop blocks the district already owned don't require altruistic pricing by Madigan and Nieto.
  We're speculating here, but so are the critics. It would help if Madigan and Nieto explained these transactions fully. But they're not talking. And they don't have to, however much lack of explanation widens the public gulf between the legality of a deal and the smell test.

Mayor lied to the people of San Diego, Again?:
Sunroad report, records at oddsCity examined how tower was approved
By David Hasemyer & Jeff McDonald, Union Tribune, Aug.12, 2007   Work may start soon to lower office tower. Top officials at San Diego City Hall knew at least four months earlier than Mayor Jerry Sanders has publicly acknowledged that the Sunroad Enterprises building near Montgomery Field violated federal height limits, according to records obtained by The San Diego Union-Tribune.Memos show that then-Development Services Department director Gary Halbert, assistant director Kelly Broughton, and James Waring, the chief of land use and economic development, all knew about the problem in June 2006 – before the building had reached its halfway point.
  The Sunroad report by Mayor Jerry Sanders' office contains numerous findings not supported by records.
  Yet Sanders has insisted that neither he nor Waring knew about the controversy until October, when the structure had reached its full height and City Attorney Michael Aguirre was preparing to issue a stop-work order on the project.
  The conflict between what the mayor said and what the records reflect is among numerous inconsistencies in a report Sanders' staff produced about how Sunroad was permitted to build an office tower despite Federal Aviation Administration warnings.
  The investigation exonerated Sanders and his top deputies.
  E-mails show that Halbert and Broughton received a detailed outline of the FAA's concerns June 19, 2006, the same day the FAA notified a senior city planner that the building, planned for 180 feet, would be a hazard to pilots landing in bad weather.
  “The FAA has a significant issue” with the building, the planner wrote to Halbert and Broughton. The letter also pointed out that San Diego could lose federal airport funds if the office tower exceeded 160 feet. FULL ARTICLE Pilots Scathe Sunroad Report
Voice of san Diego, E-MAIL POST
  An attorney for the Community Airfields Association of San Diego argued in a letter today that the report on the Sunroad office building released by the Mayor's Office is inaccurate, the second time in as many weeks that a lawyer close to the case has complained about the investigation's findings.Gerald Blank, a lawyer for the group, said a crucial letter from Mayor Jerry Sanders was "glaringly absent" from the cache of records Sanders ethics chief JoAnne SawyerKnoll used to craft the report.
  The letter, sent May 18 to the Federal Aviation Administration, states that Sanders was trying to divert traffic away from the structure in order to accommodate the building at heights above the 160-foot ceiling set by the FAA.  It's one of the several instances in which Sanders pursued alternatives to strictly enforcing the FAA's height limit.In her report, SawyerKnoll said the mayor rejected the idea outright, but she omitted the document that said otherwise from the sources she references throughout the 40-page report.
  In an recent article by San Diego CityBeat, SawyerKnoll said she had no idea why the May 18 letter was left out.
  "My client feels you missed a very important issue, should question the Mayor about it, and issue a clarification," Blank said.
  He continued:At face value, it appears to be an inexplicable contradiction. Perhaps there is an answer. Absent the Mayor’s response, the issue presently screams of cover-up.
-- EVAN McLAUGHLIN, Friday, August 10 -- 1:50 pm
ONLY IN SAN DIEGO
Sanders' scenarios on Sunroad just don't fly
Gerry Braum, Union Tribune, July 25, 2007
  Mayor Jerry Sanders says he accepts “full responsibility” for the Sunroad building fiasco and for the trail of bureaucratic blundering spelled out last week in the special investigation he commissioned.
  But the investigation provided Sanders an escape on a critical issue – his credibility – with a hole wide enough for even a full-responsibility mayor to slip through.At issue is how Sanders explains his role in obtaining the services of Ted Sexton, a veteran airport official, to engineer a compromise that would allow the nearly completed building near Montgomery Field to exceed federal height limits. Sexton developed a pitch and flew to Texas earlier this year to lobby the Federal Aviation Administration. He was unsuccessful.Yet in a radio interview at that time, Sanders flatly denied that Sexton was working on the Sunroad issue. A similar denial was contained in a “Fact Sheet” issued by his office.The investigation by the Mayor's Office of Ethics and Integrity determined that his comments and the Fact Sheet were inaccurate. “Unintentionally inaccurate.”
  How did the mayor's ethics police know the mayor's intentions? The question was asked when the report was issued last week. The answer: That's what the mayor said, and they believe him.Hmmmmm.
  To believe the mayor, you have to believe that a number of truly remarkable events – logic-defying stuff – occurred in the mayor's office at that time.
  The first Remarkable Event was when Sanders signed, but did not read, the letter that led the Airport Authority to lend Sexton to City Hall.Sanders told investigators he did not recall the letter, which contains the word “Sunroad” in its first line and seeks help in determining whether changes in Montgomery Field operations could lift the building's hazard designation.
  The report states: “Although he recognized his signature on the letter, he did not recall reading its contents at the time he signed, or understanding that the letter specifically asked for assistance with the Sunroad issue only.”
  Hmmmmmm.
  The second Remarkable Event occurred nine weeks after Sexton arrived. Sanders appeared on the Roger Hedgecock Show utterly unaware that Sexton had been diligently trying to extricate him from the Sunroad quagmire.Hedgecock asked the mayor if it was true that Sexton was looking into a compromise that would remove the FAA's hazard designation from the Sunroad building. Sanders said, “No.” He claimed Sexton was working on a general review of airport operations, though there is no evidence of that.The mayor's investigators determined that Sanders was completely in the dark, that “at the time . . . he did not know that Sexton was working on Sunroad issues . . .  .” That's what the mayor said, and they believe him.Hmmmmmmm.
  The third Remarkable Event occurred when mayoral spokesman Fred Sainz, a canny operator devoted to Sanders and to knowing everything that happens at City Hall, issued the Fact Sheet while similarly oblivious to what Sexton was up to.
  Sainz told reporters he got bum information from Ronne Froman, the now-departed chief operating officer. This suggests that Froman, a widely admired former admiral, orchestrated the deception, blindsided the mayor's inner circle and, presumably, tricked Sanders into signing that letter.Are you buying any of this?
  Me neither.Let me propose an alternative scenario in the spirit of Occam's Razor, which holds that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
  The mayor was looking for a win-win solution, one that would ensure aviation safety while accommodating Sunroad. Asking the FAA to compromise was the equivalent of a Hail Mary pass to the end zone. The last thing he needed was the media, or the city attorney, getting in the way.So Sexton was brought on board with a ready-made cover story that he was working on unrelated aviation issues. For nine weeks, no one was the wiser. When news of his activities leaked out, the cover story was floated, but nobody bought it.
  By then, the mayor had decided the building had to go, and he no longer wanted to be associated with any scheme to aid Sunroad. There was no sense disputing what Sexton had been up to, but he could plausibly deny knowing about it. He did, and he does to this day.
  This version is more consistent with what we know about Sanders' character. He's a nice guy who wants to be a hero and avoid making enemies, not some oaf who signs things he doesn't understand and is clueless about what's going on in his own office.
  But he's also willing to shortchange the truth, intentionally, when it suits his purposes.That's my read of the situation, and I take full responsibility for it. Honest Probe? Ha Ha Ha Ha
By Don Bauder, San Diego Reader City Lights July 5, 2007
http://www.sdreader.com/php/cityshow.php?id=1651
  A beggar comes to the door and asks for food. The housewife says he can have dinner if he will whitewash the porch. Ten minutes later he is back, claiming the job is done. The housewife is incredulous. "I covered every inch with thick white paint," he boasts. "But it isn't a Porsche. It's a Mercedes-Benz."
  A similarly blunderheaded whitewash attempt is going on in San Diego. The city hall gang that can't shoot straight is trying to pull off a whitewash with purple paint. Just wait until Jay Leno and David Letterman get wind of this. The Sanders administration, with the enthusiastic backing of the Union-Tribune, is trying to bring back the Sedition Act of 1798. That act made it illegal to "write, print, utter, or publish" anything critical of the president or Congress. You could go to jail for two years for casting aspersions on a public official. Understandably, people raised hell, and the act was gone in three years.
  Now Sanders and his minions want to bring it back. In a letter to the editor of the U-T on June 15, City Attorney Mike Aguirre, responding to a prior attack on him by former Copley Press official Herb Klein, pointed out that when Sanders took office last year, he had noted that government had become a "corrupt impediment to progress" under his predecessors. Sanders had promised to "tell the whole truth." But now, Aguirre wrote accurately, Sanders has been engaging in an "embarrassing and corrupt course of action" by doing a multimillion-dollar favor for a campaign contributor -- Aaron Feldman, owner of Sunroad, who not only gave the mayor money but also held a big fund-raiser for him. Sanders allowed Sunroad to construct a building in defiance of federal and state flight-safety regulations. Then, noted Aguirre -- again, accurately -- Sanders borrowed an official from the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority to lobby the federal government to change flight patterns near Montgomery Field, so Sunroad could keep its illegal building.
  Then the comedy really got going. FULL ARTICLE
Sanders hasn't got a shred of credibility left. 06/13/07
by Pat Flannery, BLOG OF SAN DIEGO 
  I went to Mike Aguirre's press conference on the 13th floor of City Hall yesterday. It promised to be a big one, and it was.
As I set up my little home video camera I joked with the big boys to move over that YouTube was here. Gene Cubbison (NBC 7/39) quipped "oh, oh, we're going global".
Seriously though, the Internet is a beautiful thing and is doing wonderful things for democracy.
  Mike started out by telling us that he discovered Sunroad documents in Ted Sexton's airport office. These documents had been illegally moved from Sexton's city office to his airport office (Sexton is on loan to the City from the Airport Authority).
  He went on to tell us that he has been told, apparently by the airport authority's legal council, that there are more Sunroad documents in Sexton's airport office, but they will not be turned over to the City Attorney and that Ted Sexton has left town. Wow!
I have posted below the various documents Aguirre has obtained, as they become appropriate in my narrative. They really do make a liar out of Sanders. FULL ARTICLE W/ VIDEO CLIPS:
http://www.blogofsandiego.com/City's building inspector fired for not repealing Sunroad's Stop Work order, 06/15/07
by Pat Flannery, BLOG OF SAN DIEGO                                    
 Here is a transcript of Roger Hedgecock's interview with Jerry Sanders yesterday. I have provided links to relevant documents and written some comments of my own.
  Today, Mr. Aguirre released this News Release. In it he says: The Mayor recently confirmed on KOGO radio that a City building inspector refused to sign a December 21, 2006, modified stop work order that allowed weather-proofing of the Centrum building ..... today the City Attorney spoke with the inspector and he confirmed to Aguirre that he refused to sign the proposed modified stop work notice because it went far beyond weatherizing the building.
The inspector no longer works at the City and is employed in San Francisco. This feels more and more like Watergate. The lies keep tumbling out. Was a City building inspector fired for not repealing the Sunroad stop work order? Where is Ted Sexton? Why did Ronne Froman suddenly quit?
 
Documents Show Sanders Pursued Other Angles on Sunroad
By EVAN McLAUGHLIN and WILL CARLESS Voice Staff Writers
The mayor says the Kearny Mesa office building must be lowered to 160 feet, but documents show he charted a more compromising path until recently, including direct cooperation with Sunroad.
FULL ARTICLE Breaking Stories: Hearing No Evil
By Matt Potter, Reader City Lights, June 14, 2007
  Fighting a two-front war with the Federal Aviation Administration over the too-tall high-rise he is building near Kearny Mesa's Montgomery Field and two towers he's proposing for Harbor Island near Lindbergh Field, Sunroad Enterprises' Aaron Feldman has gone to Washington for some heavy-duty help.
  According to a February filing with the clerk of the U.S. Senate, Sunroad has retained the services of lobbyist David Schaffer, whose duties are listed as "ensuring that a building does not create an unsafe condition for aircraft."
  Formerly senior counsel and GOP staff director for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's aviation panel, Schaffer