The BIA is shameless in its propaganda.  They seem to have no concern about adhering to facts or using logic.
  Unfortunately, our City planning staff and our elected officials frequently use concepts that were borrowed from BIA literature.  For example, the current draft Housing Element still makes frequent use the term "housing shortage", in spite of the evidence of a housing glut, and in spite of objective reports, like a PPIC report,  showing that previous estimates of a housing shortage are not credible.
  The Housing Element qualifies the meaning in some places as "shortage of affordable housing", but this still follows the BIA mantra:  If the City would only allow them (and assist them) to build more housing, then housing would become more "affordable".  They are careful not to claim that prices would fall.  Nor should we assume that developers intentionally build so many homes that prices are driven down.  
  The website below describes an action taken by the City of SD in creating the Strategic Framework Element in October 2002.
http://www.biasandiego.org/Watchdog_Log/alert35khomes.pdf
My comments:
1.   The BIA website chastises the City of SD for "removing 35,000 homes from its general plan".   Those familiar with the events of 2002 should understand the following:
    a.  The figure of 35,000 (actually 37,000) was based on a preliminary SANDAG forecast, which was revised in summer 2002.  There was no longer any justification for the figure of 37,000.
    b.  The City's figures showed that existing planning and zoning contained more than enough housing sites to satisfy projected demand for over 20 years.
    c.  In the Strategic Framework Element, the City omitted explicit mention of a goal to add 37,000 more housing sites, but left this figure in the EIR.  The apparent purpose was to provide "cover" for the City if they later decided to intensify zoning to allow more housing sites. This should have satisfied the BIA.
2.  The BIA website goes on to state: "Today, San Diego's prospective home buyers are certainly feeling the sting from that action, as it limited the housing supply."
   a.   This is far out!   First of all, the 2002 action affected only the Strategic Framework Element. (SFE)   This was intended as an outline for the general plan update, which is still in work as of October 2006.  The SFE adopted in October 2002 had no potential to influence housing between 2002 and 2006, either the number of housing sites or the number of units built.
   b.  The recent Housing Element from the City (10/13/06 draft) provides evidence that a huge number of housing units were built or applied for after 2002 in the City of San Diego.  Page 218 reports an astounding 67,860 housing units completed since 2003, under construction, permitted and in the review process.  When compared to the SANDAG Series 11 forecast of an average annual demand of 4,593 units from 2005 to 2030 for the City of SD,  the reported figure of 67,860 represents over a 14 year supply!    This is not housing sites, but actual units completed or in process.  The evidence suggests a huge glut of new housing built or in process.  
 3.  A review of other BIA website pages reveals other classic developer misstatememts.  For example, they claim that impact fees have increased the price of housing, even though most economists believe that fees affect primarily developer profits and land values.
 4.  We can hope that our City officials will become more aware of the propaganda efforts of the BIA, and seek out unbiased information when creating new policies.   
Tom Mullaney, Friends of San Diego
"Preserving the environment and quality of life in the San Diego region"

Some growth costs are only whispered about
RICHARD LOUV , Union Tribune, September 12, 2004
  Enron-by-the-Sea. Wonderful. We'll see if The New York Times' haiku headline replaces America's Finest City any time soon.
  It won't, but give that headline writer an award anyway; in four tidy words he or she summed up San Diego's cumulative financial woes – the ransom deal cut with the Chargers, the pension scandal, the lethal firestorm fanned by the region's smug refusal to pay its own way for basic services. At the root of each of these woes are two questions: who pays for government services, and whom does government service?
A handful of few public figures have been asking those questions all along. Among them, San Diego City Council member Donna Frye, who quietly attends a less-mentioned cause for municipal budget pain: the hidden, unpaid costs of redevelopment.
  To anyone interested enough to endure the numbers confetti, Frye will explain the significance of the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA, says Frye, "is a bee-U-tiful law." Under CEQA, government is required to identify any significant environmental (human or otherwise) impacts of its actions, avoid those effects, where feasible, or figure out how to mitigate them.
 "Take the City of Villages proposed development, which called for about 37,000 additional dwelling units above and beyond the community plan build-out for the entire city," Frye says, flipping through the city's 2002 CEQA-required environmental impact report. "Outrageous! Under the mandatory discussion areas of this document, the city reported that City of Villages would have no impact on the need for police and fire facilities. "Effects not found to be significant," according to the report. How can we add this number of units – equivalent to a medium-sized town – and not require additional public safety facilities?
  The reason is that traditional tax-and-pay-as-you-go government has been replaced by a fee-based, sleight-of-hand system in which responsibility for public services is deferred to everyone from developers (and passed on to homebuyers) to working poor families now required to cough up money just to use a public pool.
  In this shell game, taxpayers are never required to know or to pay for the true cost of growth-related government services, and public officials are never held fully accountable. Under CEQA, local communities decide their own impact-threshold levels. In the case of the City of Villages proposal, and countless other developments, the threshold is set so low and enforced so mysteriously, that the city escapes responsibility – instead of raising taxes or requiring developers to pay added fees to offset the need for additional public safety facilities, or more parks, schools, libraries, parking areas, or sewers. The shell game becomes a blur.
"When the city starts automatically saying there's no impact on services, it precludes public discussion and we keep digging ourselves deeper into the budget hole," says Frye. Just for fiscal year 2004, the city has racked up a staggering $532 million in unfunded basic public services, according to a city report released Aug. 30. Add police and fire facilities and the figure is $656 million.
 Talking to city officials and a former urban planner, I heard several defenses of the current system: the City of Villages is a poor example because the original plan has been truncated; and higher density doesn't automatically mean you need more fire and police facilities. Instead of a new fire station, they say, just require new development to include good sprinkler systems.
  "What they don't tell you is that most firefighter responses aren't for fire, but for health emergencies," says Frye. "Unless someone puts holy water in the sprinkler systems, sprinklers aren't going to help anyone with a heart attack." Moreover, San Diego's failure to defend itself from this year's firestorms was partly due to inadequately funded fire services. More realistic CEQA impact threshold levels might have helped avoid that tragedy. But that assumes environmental impact reports are done in the first place. Frye estimates that the city does not require EIRs for most development proposals, because environmental impacts are dismissed as insignificant from the start.
  The real reason for low threshold requirements, some city officials say, off the record, is that urban redevelopment would never occur if the impact thresholds were set higher. Facing substantial fees for retrofitting older neighborhoods, most developers would prefer the more profitable sprawl model. Building a suburban fire station from scratch on open land is far cheaper than building it on already occupied urban turf. Frye's real agenda, these officials say, is the adoption of a city infrastructure bond measure to dig us out of the hole. Fine, she says, but first let's quit digging the hole.
  After two years of nagging by Frye and others, the city is finally holding public hearings on resetting the significant-impact levels under CEQA. Some city officials are skeptical, given the likely resistance from developers. But in a more perfect world, developers and Frye should be on the same side. Why not reduce fees – whether they're for builders or folks using the parks, and require taxpayers to pay as we go?
Frye doesn't want to let developers off the hook that easily. "All I'm asking is that we identify the real cost of growth," she says. "Let's tell the truth, and go from there."

Public Land Sales:
City to Sell $30M in Land
 Mayor Jerry Sanders is set to announce tomorrow a plan to sell 21 properties for a total of more than $30 million in the coming fiscal year. The announcement is part of the mayor's plan to sell $100 million of the city's vast real estate holdings in the next five years.
  The city of San Diego late last year took the preliminary step toward its first large-scale land sale in recent history by offering a batch of properties to other government agencies. Governments are required to offer surplus land to other public agencies before putting it up for sale to the general public.
  The mayor will announce at 11 a.m. the lots that have been chosen for sale.
 Here's another story we did on how the city came to be a major landowner in La Jolla and some of the rents it was charging (and, in one case, not receiving).
-- ANDREW DONOHUE, Voice of San Diego, 3/15/07
A point brought out at the March 15, 2007 San Diego Coastal Alliance Townhall Meeting, was the hypocracy of the city saying they are trying to create low income housing, at the same time they are selling of La Jolla propertie/homes that are in the community plan as future LOW INCOME HOUSING! —SD Coastal Watchdog

Taking public land sales and decisions away from the public purvue only adds to the San Diego’s problems.
(refer to "For Sale Signs" below)
 We paid Grubb & Ellis Corporate how many thousands of dollars for consultant services to rubber stamp the Sanders/Warring plan to sell off public property that mainly benefits their buddies?
Grubb & Ellis recommendation: Selling land through a broker rather than public auction…."That otta guarantee big campaign contributions to Sanders from the big brokers."
  Public auctions have been set up for a reason. Keeping cronyisms at bay and the public involved are two reasons. As far as promoting the parcels the press has been very receptive in informing the public of the of the properties for sale since this has become an issue.
  The department is also asking the council to give it more discretion to sell property.
 Currently, the council must approve each sale. This purposed bypassing ocouncil practice is very disturbing because it bypasses the public process.
 The public and community planning boards will have no public forum to weigh-in or oppose sales. They will take away any power the councilmembers have weigh in on the sale, as Frye did for the residents of the Linda Vista trailer court. 
  It may limit the rights to sue the city or throw a wrench into the current process. The way that the process has been set up to take legal actions with the city is that you must bring up your reasons for suing at the Council and/or Planning Commissions Meetings.
 Bundling properties also limits public participation by only allowing the wealthy a chance in buying the properties.
 Another concern that hasn’t been address is that if we sell off our city properties, we loose the assets that we use to acquire bonds. Leasing needs to be looked at more closely.
 One property on the current list, zoned for future park, is one that the Peninsula Community Planning has really wanted to turn into a park. It is on the edge of Roseville where massive high-density projects are being built just where a park is needed. Will the city have to pay more or eminent domain to get the needed parkland in the future if it sells off this property?
 We need a publicly minded Mayor. Not a Mayor that hires a realtor consultant and finds ways to fast tract sales of our valuable public lands to his buddies..
 —K. Blavatt, Watchdog

Grubb & Ellis is fined... for breaking the law twice.
(Look at the FPPC web page-agenda.) Why does San Diego reward lawbreakers? —Mel Shapiro
For Sale Signs
ANDREW DONOHUE, Voice of San Diego, 2/3/07
  The city of San Diego's Real Estate Assets Department, which is poised to unload $100 million in property over the next five years, is asking the City Council to break with its past practices and sell that land through a broker rather than a public auction.
  In a report today to the council's Land Use and Housing Committee, department officials say putting the properties on the traditional real estate market will increase exposure and spur multiple offers for properties -- factors that the officials say will drive up the sale prices.
  The City Council's practice of selling land through public auctions limits its properties' exposure on the market and minimizes the pool of potential buyers, according to the report. Others believe that public auctions can also drive up the price of properties if there is sufficient interest and competition.
  The report is a summary of a department-wide review performed by consultants with Grubb & Ellis Corporate Services.
  The department is also asking the council to give it more discretion to sell property. Currently, the council must approve each sale. The report recommends that the real estate department be able to sell batched properties in groups or through predetermined strategies and that council approval only be necessary when the sale departs from established standards. Mayor Jerry Sanders wants to sell $20 million in real estate each year for the next five years.
  The report states that selling land will provide revenue for infrastructure projects, relieve the city of potential liabilities and maintenance cost, return the properties to the tax rolls, and stimulate the economy "by providing opportunities for private sector development."
  The strategy does have its opponents. They say the sale of certain city land, such as residential homes, is short-sighted because the city will lose the long-term revenue stream it could rely on from leasing the land.
  We recently did a story on the first batch of possible sales. We did another one this week about how the city came to own some of the properties for sale (such as a Border Patrol station and homes in La Jolla) and how it wasn't collecting the full rent that was likely available.

Insider's limited polls once again give the wolves an excuse to go after the publicly owned Sport Arena .
 Will they once again go after the Sr. Orchard Housing and Stone Wood Apts. that were included in past giveaway efforts by insiders? And dejavu, the  insiders want to try and rid themselves of the 30 ft. height limit citizen's voted in law that has protected our coast. — Watchdog
Bold steps with the city's real estate
By W. ERIK BRUVOLD, San Diego Daily Transcript, January 24, 2007
Excerpt: We need to be honest with the citizens. The crushing obligations the city faces, without bold steps and new ideas, will create the kind of municipal austerity that diminishes what our city can be and the civic hopes to which we can aspire.
  It isn't "meat and potatoes" as much as it is noodles and stove-top rice for at least a decade or more.
 What is encouraging is that San Diegans are following this crisis and forming a consensus as how to proceed. In the most recent SDI/CERC barometer of public opinion, we found San Diegans have a clear idea as to how they want this problem addressed. We asked 503 residents of the city: If they had the power to make decisions on how to deal with San Diego's fiscal situation, what would be their top choices?
  61.8 percent said selling off prime city assets such as Montgomery Field and the Sports Arena would be either their first (37.7 percent) or second (24.1 percent) choice. Only 12 percent opposed this plan of action. In contrast, raising taxes was the first or second choice of only 44.7 percent, with only 30.3 percent favoring drastic cuts to city services. Even fewer (28 percent) favored declaring bankruptcy.
 Selling Montgomery Field or Sports Arena? I can smell the tar and feathers from the users of the airport or attendees of N'Sync concerts. But SDI specifically asked this question in such a provocative and challenging way because we wanted to know how serious San Diegans were in addressing our fiscal challenge. We also believe the city must solve its fiscal problems in a way that ensures long-term fiscal health and does not diminish our civic aspirations for decades. That will require, we believe, bold and dramatic measures involving real-estate assets, which have value in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
This isn't to say we should sell Montgomery, Sports Arena or Torrey Pines. Instead, it is to call for an open and honest dialogue about what these properties are worth and what role they might play in alleviating the debts that will otherwise crush our city.
 Take, for example, Montgomery Field. It includes more than 500 acres in the heart of our city, well served by three freeways and major arterials on all four sides. It is also one of the nation's busiest general aviation airports and has significant environmental resources (vernal pools) that will require preservation.
The Federal Aviation Administration has made several grants to the city of San Diego that would need to be unwound -- either by paying off the FAA or waiting until whatever time limits expire.
  But these difficulties should not preclude a substantive discussion about whether and how the region could continue to support general aviation activities while maximizing the value of this prime real estate. If part or all of Montgomery Field were closed, the net proceeds could dramatically reduce the city's debts and position San Diego for a much healthier fiscal outlook.
 Or consider the Sports Arena. It is widely acknowledged that the ipayOne Center is reaching the end of its life and needs to either be replaced or torn down. Aggressive action to help solve the city's fiscal situation could take the form of relaxing the 30-foot height limit on the site in exchange for significant increases in the payments to the city and improvements to the surrounding roads and freeway interchange.
 Mayor Sanders' recent action to move forward with liquidating some of the city's surplus real-estate holdings is a good and necessary step. We imagine he is going to face criticism for taking even these modest steps.
 We also believe and hope, however, this is the start of what will be a serious and public dialogue with San Diegans about the city's major real-estate holdings. The public is there. It is time for our leaders to join them in frank, honest and admittedly difficult discussions.
Bruvold is the president and CEO of the San Diego Institute for Policy Research. Send comments to erik.bruvold@sddt.com. Comments may be published as letters to the Editor.

Hide the Pea, Bury the Head
By Don Bauder, Reader City Lights,January 4, 2007
Excerpt: Sell the family jewels cheap and then go into the tank. That's Mayor Jerry Sanders's secret long-term plan, say more and more observers of city hall. His strategy is, first, to sell or lease San Diego's valuable land to his developer buddies, who are also his major contributors. Then do the inevitable: take the City into bankruptcy.
 Sanders and the Union-Tribune say a tax increase and bankruptcy are off the table. But that's a fairy tale and an admission that there is no Plan B, C, or D.  The City recently issued a five-year plan. It is called "City of San Diego Five-Year Financial Outlook." The name really should be "We're Broke. Help!"
Full Article: http://www.sdreader.com/php/cityshow.php?id=1533 City Prepares to Sell First Batch of Land
Excerpt: Mayor Sanders plans to sell $20 million in real estate a year for five years. The first group of 34 parcels includes homes, raw land and a mobile home park. Full Article: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/01/11/news/01land.txtL

ALLERT: San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Housing Policy Recommendations for the City of San Diego
The SD Chamber of Commerce (using Urban Speak) is pushing plans to fast tract development, by-pass oversight, privatize redevelopment, and create more developer entitlements and down parking requirements. They are also using the excuse of the need for Single Room Occupancy, SRO Hotels and low income housing after the City, hoteliers and developers wiped out large quantities these for developer high-end projects. SD Chamber of Commerce PDF Doc
Developers Work To Circumventing Oversight & Communities
 Many community members have expressed concern about the fast tracking future proposals put forward by Land Use and Housing very conflicted pro development Technical Advisory Committee members appointed by Chair, Council Member Madaffer.
Land Use and Housing TAC Mission: “To proactively advise the Mayor and the Land Use and Housing Committee on improvementsto the regulatory process through the review of policies and regulations that  impact development. And to advise on improvements to the development  review process through communications, technology and best business  practices to reduce processing times and  improve customer service. And to advocate for quality development to meet the needs of all citizens of San  Diego.
Technical Advisory Committee Members:
Kelly Broughton-Staff**, Jaymie Bradford-LU&H, Liaison Mike Conroy-Accessibility, Michael Dunbar  Michael Galasso-Developer, Rob Gehrke-CELSOC, Gary Halbert-Staff, Steve Halsey-Landscape Architect, Reese Jarrett-Developer, Scott  Kessler-BID* Janay Kruger-Permits Consultant, Alfonso Gastelum-Staff, Walter Stricker-Contractor Michael Nagy-SD Chamber,  Kirk O’Brien-AIA, Kevin Pollem-AIA, Kathi Riser-BIA, Mark Rowson-EDC, Jane Signaigo-Cox-EDC, Richard Sims-SBAB, Mike Turk-SEAB, Derrick Johnson-StaffI am concerned about the makeup of this committee (above). It would appear to be too heavily weighted with special interest entities. This is the same kind of weighting that has habitually compromised the best interests of the general public (need I mention the past pension boards?). With all due respect, why is a McMillin representative (Kathy Riser) on this committee when they already have another developer? Community planning boards have to deal with all of the confrontations between developers/architects/other special interests and residents. There should be a balance of representation in my opinion. Otherwise community planning boards get outweighed by multiple special interest groups (BIDs, EDC, B.I.A., Chambers of commerce etc.) that work in concert with Development Services and the Redevelopment Agency. The Technical Advisory Committee should really be named "Tactical" Advisory Committee. In that their goal , I believe, is how to shortcut community input, circumvent and/or speed up the review process, often to the detriment of the community. —Point Loma Community Watchdog Where is the "Public Representatives" on this Technical Advisory Committee? —Uptown Community Watchdog I found it interesting that this subcommittee is all pro developers industry people and their agenda is fast tracking and eliminating public participation bypassing oversight like Community Planning Boards and Coastal Commission. —OB Watchdog

PERMITTING SPEED
Residents Decry Possible Fast Tracking of Coastal Zone Permits
Blake Jones, Penisula Beacon, May 24, 2006
 Build-up in coastal neighborhoods could become a whole lot easier for developers and homeowners if the California Coastal Commission approves a change to the city’s permitting process yet to be submitted.
  The Development Services Department plans to revive an unanswered 1997 request to categorically exclude single-family homes in the non-appealable areas of the coastal overlay zone from the Coastal Development Permit process. By eliminating the need for coastal permits for a majority of homes, remodels and new construction on those sites would be able to proceed without noticing neighbors or visiting the local planning board. Thus, projects in eligible areas that meet certain size criteria could apply for “over the counter” permits from the city without any community review.
  The implications are broad for such a change. The coastal zone extends inland to Interstate 5 in many places, further in others. According to Development Services, the majority of the zone consists of single-family residential. In fact, certain neighborhoods are almost entirely single-family, namely La Playa and parts of La Jolla.
  The exclusion would apply to homes already zoned for single-family units, not property zoned for condos or apartments. It is also exclusive to non-appealable portions of the coastal zone, or areas under the city’s jurisdiction. Currently, the state presides over the first 300 feet from the inland extent of beaches (in some cases to the first coastal roadway), as well as 100 feet from wetlands.
  Kelly Broughton, deputy director of land development review for Development Services, said the exclusion would provide an incentive for developers and homeowners to build smaller homes by allowing projects that do not exceed approximately 80 percent of the maximum height and floor area ratios to bypass the public process, which can be costly and time consuming. With major opposition from neighbors and local planning boards, the process can take up to one year and cost thousands of dollars after appeals and consulting fees to defend a project’s legality or viability.
  According to the exclusion, project applicants insisting on anything greater than the proposed 80 percent would have to apply for a coastal permit, as would homes that are already bigger than those measurements. For reference, the coastal height limit for single-family homes is 30 feet, meaning eligible projects could not surpass 24 feet.
  The proposal is a huge change from current regulations that only allow a ministerial, or over the counter, process for remodels changing less than 50 percent of a single-family home, as everything else needs a coastal permit and a discretionary, or public, process.While the coastal permits would not be necessary, eligible projects would still be reviewed and permitted by city planning staff.
THE COMMUNITY
  The city says the request will streamline the permitting process and allow homeowners to get the most out of their property. Some residents worry that they will be silenced and big homes will crop up all around them, blocking views, crowding neighboring properties and creating an inconsistent aesthetic within the community.
  “Why shouldn’t I have the ability to build to the maximum height, which is only 30 feet in the coastal zone, and build to my setbacks – your setbacks and your height are what protect views,” Broughton said.
  Katheryn Rhodes, a Peninsula Community Planning Board (PCPB) member and La Playa resident, said that informing residents of a nearby project is “the neighborly thing to do” and she suspects the department has ulterior motives.“
  [Development Services] wants to try to take away the power of the planning boards, the power of the community and give it to developers because it will make them more money and they won’t have any restrictions,” she said.
  Rhodes and Broughton agreed, however, that the regulations as they stand are not sufficient. The current exclusion for single-family residences, or the 50 percent rule, is often exercised inappropriately to obtain a ministerial process. It was approved in 1987 and intended for small-scale home remodels that change less than half the property.
  Both also agreed that the 50 percent rule’s loose wording allows developers to leave two walls standing on a small cottage and build a new home to the limits without a coastal permit.
  Rhodes evidenced 3252 Lucinda Street in La Playa as an example. The project was submitted as new construction to the Peninsula planning board last year and rejected for its size. Instead of waiting for a final decision from the Planning Department (the city has the ultimate say in all non-appealable coastal permits), the applicant reconfigured the plans to qualify for the 50 percent remodel rule and was approved for a ministerial permit without any further say from neighbors. Rhodes has documented that the house now exceeds the city’s height limit by 9 feet because part of the lower level is below grade and has been excluded from the height measurement as a basement, even though the front portion is above ground.
  “There are so many loopholes and that’s why it’s important for the projects to go through the community,” she said.In an informational presentation to the Land Use and Housing Committee on March 29, Broughton cited the 50 percent rule as reasoning for the single-family exclusion. A Development Services report to the committee stated that “many applicants are remodeling existing structures in order to meet the exemptions offered under the current code” and that staff has to “process and investigate controversial remodels based on complex valuation schedules.” In other words, some people are abusing the rule and some are simply remodeling when they’d rather build a new home, all to avoid neighbors and the planning boards.
  Councilman Kevin Faulconer, who represents the coastal communities of District 2 and sits on the Land Use and Housing committee, declined to comment publicly on the proposed exclusion by press time.Peninsula Community Planning Board Chair Cynthia Conger opposes the exclusion, and said it will “ruin” the coastal area of Point Loma and Ocean Beach. She said that her community will be left with increased density, parking, traffic and safety issues from critical mistakes that go unnoticed at the Planning Department.
  “The city just doesn’t care because they don’t live there,” Conger said. “They didn’t pay $1 million or $2 million to live next door and have this view.
  ”Phil Merten, chair of the La Jolla Community Planning Association’s Coastal Development Permit Review Committee, said he supports the exclusion with reservations and expects it to impact Bird Rock and upper Hermosa, not homes on canyons, the ocean or adjacent to open space.
  “I don’t believe that the voters intended to have [the California Coastal Act of 1976] include the review of single family homes that were away from the coastline, so in the spirit of that Coastal Act I think projects should be exempted,” Merten said. “My only concern is that the coastal review process does act as a check of the city’s work when they review a project.”“Things are just missed by the city,” he added. “I think the process does act as a second set of eyes.”
  The peninsula, like many other coastal zone communities, contains hills, cliffs and canyons that provide valuable views – another major concern for residents.Conger said the exclusion will surely result in decreased property taxes for the city because residents can have their property values reassessed if the price drops due to a blocked ocean or bay view.In fact, that will be their only recourse. Neither the Coastal Commission nor the city are in the business of preserving private views beyond current height and setback limits if a project meets all state and city requirements, said Broughton and Sherilyn Sarb, district manager for the Coastal Commission’s San Diego office.
  “We don’t preclude somebody from adding a second story on a house because a neighbor currently has a view from their house out through,” Broughton said.
  “If you are building in accordance with the rules of the municipal code, there is no appeal and we legally can’t say no to it,” he continued. “If a particular community felt it was important to control development even further than the zoning that’s there now, the appropriate place to do that would be to apply a new zone.”Therein lies the crux of the problem. Local planning boards often recognize the importance of neighborhood character issues that the city does not or could not at a ministerial level. But Broughton insisted that these issues should be incorporated in city zoning and code for a more consistent result, instead of dealing with them project by project, which yields an inconsistent outcome over the years as boards and communities change.
  Rhodes dismissed this logic, saying that the boards are very efficient and most projects are approved without any problem.
  “That’s why the community planning boards are around – otherwise, why have them?” she said.
  According to Broughton, the boards are not an essential part of permitting for single-family homes, nor is their participation required by the Coastal Act. Ironically, Coastal Development Permits in state-controlled, or appealable, areas do not require a public process and are much quicker to obtain.
  And should the exclusion pass, Broughton said the local planning boards will still review coastal permits for projects that push the limits.“Somebody’s always going to want to build bigger houses than our categorical exclusion request would propose,” Broughton said. “There are always other reasons that people have to get other permits and the board serves as the recommending body on those.”
THE STATE
  The single-family homes exclusion was first requested to the Coastal Commission in 1997, the same year it was approved by the City Council. The commission never followed through with a decision.According to Sarb, the commission considered the city’s initial request too broad for a decision. She said the state agency only approves exclusions specific enough to ensure against potential adverse effects or violations of the Coastal Act.
  “It was recognized that more specific mapping needed to be done and [the request] just hasn’t gone anywhere since then,” she said, adding that nothing has been submitted to date.Development Services is just beginning to correspond with the Coastal Commission about reviving the request, Broughton said. He feels that now is an appropriate time due to a change in city leadership and new strong mayor form of government.Mapping technology has also improved since the 1990s. The city’s Geographic Information System now allows staff to determine if a project is located in an area of high density, steep slopes or environmental sensitivity, without ever seeing the property.
  “With the mayor’s perspective on doing what we can to make some sense out of our regulations, this is one of those areas I thought made sense to revisit,” Broughton said.Similar single-family exclusions have been approved in San Diego County. The commission granted an exclusion to the City of Del Mar for single-family residential on vacant lots zoned as such, though for a much smaller geographic area than proposed by San Diego. And a single-family exclusion for Encinitas is currently on the table while the commission and North County city attempt to narrow its scope.
  According to Sarb, single-family residential is frequently the subject of exclusions because zoning often precludes the possibility of any development other than what already exists and municipal code already regulates the height and scale of coastal homes.
  The city has yet to formally reapply for the exclusion. Once submitted, it must be thoroughly vetted. The lengthy process requires an amendment to the Local Coastal Program, or city plan approved by the state to regulate the use of land and water in the coastal zone. The City Council must approve the amendment prior to a commission decision on the matter, which it did in 1997. However, it is unsure whether the commission will accept that dated vote for this round of decision making. If the commission approves the exclusion, their decision will again go before the City Council for a final vote.Broughton said that the city’s goal is to obtain commission approval by December of this year, but Sarb is not so optimistic.
  “The staff here would have to check the mapping and do the environmental review and make sure that it was narrowed to the point that there was no potential for an adverse effect. That would be awfully quick,” she said of the city’s timeline.Adding to the mix, Broughton said the commission does not fully trust the city to implement the protections of the Coastal Act.
  “It appears to the city, or at least the staff, that [the commission] is throwing obstacles in the way of that [exclusion] actually getting approved. They continue to ask us for information that we believe has no bearing on it,” Broughton said.
  Public opposition is also well established, as many residents protested the first application for the single-family exclusion. Broughton said Development Services will not seek additional public comment on the matter, though, as he previously canvassed the community for five years and does not anticipate a change in sentiment.
  “There have always been folks who want to stop people from building and always people who want to build,” he said, adding that he also expects a controversy this time around.

More Neil Morgan, Voice of San Diego,  9/30/06
Full Article: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/columnists/neil_morgan/
Excerpt: Our answers may be more important to this city than all our discussions of lifestyle, of goals, of reputation and of the economy of our region.
 San Diego is our very own city, to help guide and to run, whether into showplace or slum.
 What we do -- or fail to do -- can determine whether San Diego grows up as an intellectual oasis or a border sprawl or remains a pleasant, pricey place to live -- and too bad about the waterfront.
...This was one of history's more massive con jobs!
A Potemkin village appears impressive, but in fact lacks substance. It is an empty stage set. There's nobody there.
 Here in San Diego, we watch our own versions of Potemkin villages without noticing them.
 Such casual misuse now threatens that glorious 15 acres of harbor front at the foot of Broadway. It is a site that we should insist on making this city's landmark for the world. As Sydney did its opera house. It should be the site of something that has always eluded this city: an identifying icon.
 Timing is critical. The fate of these acres is being decided right now by Centre City Development Corp.
 But along our bayfront, mediocre taste and greed threaten to fill any empty space. Just look at the foot of Broadway proposal that has the upper hand.
 And standing by, wrapping himself in the flag is the hyperactive developer Doug Manchester, who is always ready to step forward and help out on civic issues if the money is right.
 Manchester says his plan for the foot of Broadway would return more income to the city -- and to him, of course -- but other, better plans are on the boards. Widely favored by architects and environmentalists and certainly by me.
 These plans do not reek of greed. They seek a people's plaza that could help us to define San Diego. Think of San Francisco's Embarcadero, or Seattle's Harbor Front.
This is San Diego's signature property, as precious in the psyche of this big city as La Jolla Cove is to La Jollans. Go look at this marvelous site while it's still there.
 Too often, we have awakened too late to win land-use battles that shape our city.
 The most recent and tragic instance was the debacle by the developer Corky McMillin at the Naval Training Center. We lost the chance to create a Balboa Park on the water, beside that historic old base.
 Mayor Susan Golding had appointed a committee of citizens to make the choice of a developer. The committee unanimously chose Lennar, a national corporation with long experience in military base conversion.
But politics intervened.
 I was angry enough that I spent a long afternoon pacing the corridors of City Hall, watching the perversion of government.
As the council met, McMillin and his staff summoned each council member into the hallway to do and say whatever they needed to get and hold their votes. It was ugly. Such scenes destroy faith in government. But they can serve as lessons!
 With a chance to have created another great city park, this time beside the bay, we turned over the job to a housing developer. It happened just as it does in the movies, in those secret huddles outside City Council chambers at City Hall...
Have we learned anything from such debacles, or will we laidback San Diegans still be standing aloof, as we so often do, and allowing another Potemkin village to define this city's image?
 So let's teach ourselves that City Hall politics is not a spectator sport. This is our city and this is our money.
  What's even more important, it's our future, and our children's future. Let's get involved and watch more closely.

Jerry Sanders' land-use chief, Jim Waring jerks residents around ... Donna comes to Recue! — Watchdog
Not For Sale
-- ANDREW DONOHUE , 1/21/07, Voice of San Diego
  When residents at Linda Vista Village Mobile Home Park found out two weeks ago that the city of San Diego had preliminarily placed the city-owned park up for sale, they immediately worried what a possible sale meant to the future of their park. Residents said the 200-plus units at the park provide stable, affordable living conditions in a city where such digs are difficult to come by.
 City Councilwoman Donna Frye announced today that the park had been taken off of the city's list of prospective property sales over concerns raised by the residents. A press release from Frye quoted an e-mail from Mayor Jerry Sanders' land-use chief, Jim Waring:
 As a matter of policy and out of fairness to residents, in the future we will not place multiple tenant properties on the possible sale list until we've fully informed the tenants, listened to their issues and decide if the sale is the best public policy.
Residents found out about the impending sale from this voiceofsandiego.org story.
The park falls in Frye's District 6. She had this to say in her statement: "The residents were rightly concerned and I am pleased that Mr. Waring agreed to examine all the facts. We are committed to working together to ensure a balanced process that serves the public."
City threated mobile home park exsistance...
Living on a Land Sale
ANDREW DONOHUE, Voice of San Diego, January 11, 2007
  I just got this e-mail from Jeanne Wong, a resident of the Linda Vista Village Mobile Home Park, in response to my story today about the city's land sales: I live at this mobile home park. I tried for nine months last year to get the Mayor's Office to tell me whether they had any intentions of selling the park. They would not respond with an answer.
  Finally, in September, through another source, I was told that the Mayor's office said that there had been no discussions regarding selling the park.  A deliberate lie!!!!!
 There are 220 families in this mobile home park who will be affected. They have a right to know what the City's intentions are before reading it in a newspaper!!!  
  They also have the right as a whole to bid on the park, but the City knows this and also knows that it would take significant time to prepare for this. Therefore, as usual, the City does not inform the residents of the park.  
 I just retired last year and purchased a new home in the park. My future and the future of 220 families is in jeopardy!!! 
  Even if a buyer said they were going to keep the property as a mobile home park, they could change their minds after the purchase. Also, they could raise the rents as much as they want. The people in this park have low-to-moderate incomes. 
  The new Mayor is doing what every mayor has done since the beginning of time... he is selling City property off!!! They can't manage their budgets and so they sell off property and lay people off. I thought this Mayor was full of NEW ideas! Nothing new about this!!!

Navy Broadway Insider Deal:
Navy Broadway's Contradictions and Problems
By Cory Briggs, Voice of San Diego, 1/15/07
  The San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition has been wrongly criticized for its opposition to the proposed redevelopment along downtown San Diego's waterfront. Sure, the proposal was conceived 17 years ago. But it was conceived based on very different circumstances and very different information, and it certainly was not written in stone.  Full Article

"Uncle" Tony
01/10/07, by Pat Flannery
Excerpt: San Diegans as a whole got what they deserved yesterday because a majority of them voted for Sanders at the last election. In doing so they knowingly voted for wall-to-wall development. That is exactly what they are now getting - no more parks or open spaces.
Full Article: http://www.patflannery.com/SanDiegoToday.htm Save Navy Broadway for a Park
Navy Broadway Information Coalitions Newsletter
Advantages of a beautiful signature waterfront park:
Relax and breathe the onshore breezes • attend year round arts and entertainment events • picnic while viewing spectacular views of our bay  • stroll in the sun through gardens and watch kids play • decompress from the downtown bustle in tranquil surroundings • free public use of our land • show our children that we finally can do the right thing • visit www.pps.org and see ideas other cities use to create great places What we avoid: • lower downtown property values from loss of livability • Manchester’s redevelopment draining the city’s budget • loss of land owned by the public to developers • another dirty deal between mayor / council and their developer donors • walling off the entire downtown from the bay - this would be the  last brick in that wall • Mayor appointed CCDC failing to provide regional downtown park • terrorist attack on an exposd Navy Fleet Headquarters.
Print Navy Broadway Contact Flyer PDF
Finances of Navy Deal Come into Focus
By EVAN McLAUGHLIN, Voice Staff Writer, Jan. 9, 2007
Excerpt: The Navy headquarters that Doug Manchester must build in exchange for the rights to redevelop the surrounding waterfront into hotels, offices and shops will cost $160 million, according to the recently released Navy Broadway Complex lease.
  The document detailing Manchester's lease of the remaining 11 acres for 99 years provides the best glimpse yet of how much the local mogul is contributing for the right to develop some of the most prime undeveloped real estate on the West Coast. 
  The 56-page lease documents the economics of a controversial arrangement that has largely remained a mystery to concerned elected officials and the general public alike, although several whole pages detailing the financial aspects of the deal remain redacted. The deal has been largely orchestrated in private, from the secret bidding process that led up to Navy's selection of Manchester last spring to the several months of negotiations that culminated in the November lease.
Full Article: Navy Lease

Filner's NBC Fight
EVAN McLAUGHLIN, Voice of San Diego, January 5, 2007
  As we reported yesterday, the opposition to Doug Manchester's redevelopment plans for the Navy Broadway Complex has found a friend in U.S. Rep. Bob Filner, D-Chula Vista, who has written to various officials regarding his concerns over the waterfront project.
  The development allows Manchester to lease the bayside site for 99 years and develop it into hotels, offices and shops in exchange for building a state-of-the-art headquarters for Navy Region Southwest.
  Filner wrote to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez on Dec. 21, asking that his office investigate several legal concerns that had been raised by his constituents about the development. Among his complaints are that state and federal environmental laws were being violated, that the project's proposed condo hotels would bar the public from access to the tidelands, and that Mayor Jerry Sanders' aides allegedly predetermined the city's development staff's decision on the environmental review.
  Similar requests were sent to outgoing California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and City Attorney Mike Aguirre.The congressman also asked the chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees to delay any progress on the deal until the investigations were completed.
Read samples of the letters here.

Coastal Issues:
As Sunset Cliffs Shrinks, City Looks for Answers
By ROB DAVIS, Voice Staff Writer, July 16, 2007
  Surfers' footprints line this sandy path through Sunset Cliffs Natural Park. Rain-carved gullies cut through the soft soil. Barbara Keiller and Ann Swanson, two leaders of the park's recreation council, walk along a cliff-side trail, narrating the too-fast transformation of a place they hold dear.
  Sunset Cliffs NotesThe Issue: Erosion is carving new paths through Sunset Cliffs Natural Park, and the city is considering how to correct it.
  What It Means: Rain runoff and irrigation exacerbates the natural wave-fed erosion at the park.
  The Bigger Picture: Erosion is a natural phenomenon along San Diego’s coast. But park advocates worry that Sunset Cliffs is particularly being affected by unnatural forces. The city plans to study several options to address the problem. FULL ARTICLE

An onion for Salk's 'blockish' design plan
Union-Tribune, Letter to Editor, 11/25/06
 Regarding “A Design for living: Orchids & Onions” (Lifestyle commentary, Nov. 20): It was particularly galling to read that a Salk Institute representative at the Onions & Orchids awards threatened an exodus to Florida if not given total carte blanche to ravage the 26-acre La Jolla site the public gave to the institute in 1962 if the current master plan is adopted. This is exactly the attitude that has permeated this project all along and got them the Grand Onion.
  All along the design process for the Salk master plan, community and environmental groups were asked by Salk representatives to be part of the process. Many have attended these meetings offering lots of input that would allow them to develop their needed space without compromising the setting of the wonderful Louis Kahn building.
  A well-known architect even offered a design that would cluster development on the far north part of the property, which to this point has not been seriously explored.
  Little input was heeded, and the plan still intends a blockish building along Torrey Pines Road, residences, a day care center and administration building covering the south mesa, and a yet to be revealed complex on the north mesa.
 After all the community input and now a rousing Grand Onion, isn't it time for the Salk Institute to stop pushing this monstrosity and do a serious redesign?
  We all want to support its mission and efforts. How about giving the community a chance – Salk will get a better project in the end, right here in La Jolla.
—DON SCHMIDT, La Jolla

Site 653 UPDATE:
CITIZEN GROUPS SUCCESSFUL IN STOPPING STUDENT CENTER  IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
  Taxpayers for Responsible Land Use and La Jolla Shores Association v. City of San Diego; (Hillel of San Diego, Real Party-in-Interest) San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIC 867378  MARCH 29, 2007 Superior Court Judge Linda B. Quinn struck down the City of San Diego's decision to permit the construction of a 12,000 square foot student center with a 17,000 square foot garage in a single family residential neighborhood adjacent to UCSD. 
  The City must also rescind the sale of City land to Hillel of San Diego for the project, which citizens argued was sold at more than $300,000 below fair market value. In June of 2006,
  Taxpayers for Responsible Land Use and the La Jolla Shores Association sued the City of San Diego, claiming, among other things, the City of San Diego failed to properly follow the California Environmental Quality Act, the City failed to follow the proper procedures in selling City land to Hillel of San Diego, and for selling City Land at price substantially below fair market value. 
  The Court's ruling held that the City was required to prepare a full EIR, finding substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant impact on biological resources and traffic.   
  "We are very happy with the ruling. The ruling puts the City and Hillel of San Diego back to square one." said attorney Todd T. Cardiff, from Coast Law Group, the law firm representing the Petitioners.  Mr. Cardiff added "All permits, resolutions and decisions must be rescinded, including the sale of the property. 
  If Hillel and the City wish to move forward with the project, they must prepare a full environmental impact report."
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT Todd T. Cardiff, Esq. Coast Law Group LLP

San Diego's Speckled Past and Dismal Future:
Audit SEDC
Voice of San Diego, 10/11/06
 Few phenomena have defined San Diego as starkly as the dramatic fluctuations in the local housing market. Once depressed in the early 1990s, real estate values have given area homeowners a great deal of wealth in recent years. The real estate and mortgage industries have employed thousands.
  It was understandable, then, for government officials to worry about the city's less fortunate residents and to ponder the fates of the area's most blighted neighborhoods in the midst of such growth.
  But the affordable housing initiatives of at least one of the city of San Diego's redevelopment projects appear to have proceeded with an alarming lack of oversight. As voiceofsandiego.org reporter Andrew Donohue discovered in an exhaustive probe recently, the Southeastern Economic Development Corp., or SEDC, has allowed taxpayer dollars to subsidize affordable housing developers who did little or nothing to ensure the homes they built remained part of a so-called affordable stock.
  An already awkward attempt at protecting some would-be homeowners from the brutal realities of an expensive housing market went bad. Vital documents meant to ensure that government-subsidized homes went to the families for whom they were intended were not filed. Private contractors were allowed, for no apparent reason, to charge more for the homes than city officials had dictated. And at least one insider, who already benefited from the contracting process at SEDC, found herself at the top of a list of those eagerly awaiting the chance to buy one of the affordable homes.
  All told, the people who secured homes at a reduced price were able to sell their units almost immediately at market prices. Then those buyers were able to flip the homes again for even more. The homes, by law, were supposed to remain affordable. It's hard to imagine when, if ever, they will be affordable again.Inside SEDC, employees warned of what was happening -- crucial documents weren't being filed, homes were being sold for more than they should have, and owners were contractually able to rent the homes out.

Condo conversion craze grinds to halt
Oversupply of units hurts prices, leaves investors in limbo
By Lori Weisberg & Mike Freeman. UNION-TRIBUNE, 9/ 24/06
Excerpt: Financial picture gloomy for those holding properties As recently as last year, the business of transforming aging apartments into stylish condos and selling them to first-time home buyers was seen as an instant pot of gold.
 No property in San Diego County was too old, too derelict, too small to be snatched up by the condo converters.But no longer. Once one of the nation's leading conversion markets, the county now has a glut of gussied-up apartments for sale with too few buyers.
  The Villa Vicenza in La Jolla Village is one of several condo-conversion complexes renting some unsold units to keep a steady flow of income.
  By the end of June, the number of converted units ready for occupancy or earmarked for sale later had grown to 6,922 in 111 projects, according to the Sullivan Group Real Estate Advisors. There was little change in July, and statistics for August have not been tallied.
  The June numbers were higher than those in any major metropolitan area on the West Coast, according to Sullivan. Phoenix, another hot conversion market, was second with 6,024 unsold units in 44 actively selling projects. Los Angeles County, with a population more than three times that of San Diego County, had 22 conversion projects with just 1,326 units.
  The conversion slowdown comes at a time when sales in the overall real estate market are also slumping and once-sizzling price gains have vanished.
 Making matters worse for converters has been the record number of new condos being built in downtown San Diego and elsewhere in the county, also vying for buyers. In June, there were 5,800 unsold condos in new projects, said Michael Carney, a real estate economist with the Real Estate Research Council at California State Polytechnic University Pomona.Conversion rush gluts market and puts owners in financial spot.Couple that with a 36 percent decline in sales during the first half of 2006 compared with a year earlier and it's no wonder few converters are taking on new projects.While the conversion craze was embraced by national developers, it proved especially enticing to neophyte investors. In some cases, they overpaid for older apartment buildings, banking on robust sales to deliver healthy profits. And many chose less-desirable inner-city locations in areas that have been overwhelmed with conversion projects.
  “Here's the problem: A number of people bought these apartment buildings at prices higher than what they should have paid,” San Diego real estate consultant Gary London said. “They purchased knowing they could sell them at a higher price for the converted units, and now they're stuck in a marketplace that will not allow them to do that, which is why you're going to see financial distress.
  “A lot of these guys are still in denial, and as we get into 2007, I think you'll see a lot of these projects introduced back into the apartment inventory.”Newspaper ads hint at developers' hunger to boost sales. “Bottom-line prices.” “Zero excuses not to buy.” “Last chance, summer release incentives.”
  If they decide to put unsold units back on the rental market, many converters face being landlords much longer than they anticipated.
  At the 685-unit Villa Vicenza in La Jolla Village, where condo sales in the project's first phase are winding down, the developer is undecided about moving forward with a 267-unit second phase.
  “We're not sure if we'll keep it rental or go condo, so at this time it's a rental project,” said Brian Duchman, a regional manager with Miami-based Crescent Heights, owner of Villa Vicenza. Crescent Heights is one of the nation's largest condo developers.
  As at the Missions at Rio Vista condo-conversion complex in Mission Valley and The Heights in Carmel Valley, Villa Vicenza is offering renters six-month and one-year leases in order to maintain a steady stream of income.
  “We're keeping our eye on the market,” Duchman said.
  “A lot of condo cowboys jumped into this market, hoping to find the lottery, but we're in it for the long haul.”
Pricing them to move
Developers are using a host of tactics to cope with the downturn, including cutting prices to move their inventory. Full story: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060924-9999-1n24convert.html

Voice of San Diego 9/8/06: Hosting Café San Diego Thursday is planning commissioner Carolyn Chase.
Excerpt: The draft Housing Element for 2005-2010 was heard before the Planning Commission yesterday.
  Yes it's already more than year late. The existing general plan was last partially updated in 1989 (when Bruce Henderson, Ron Roberts and Bob Filner were all on the council).
 The first general plan for the city of San Diego was initially adopted by the council and ratified by the voters in 1967. It was last updated comprehensively in 1979.
  In broad terms the general plan represents our city's planning thought and effort in an attempt to identify, analyze and shape city growth in accordance with recognized community goals and aspirations.
  Thirteen individuals gave public testimony. Several others submitted comments via letter or e-mail.Here's the sad news: first, the Community Planners Committee  that consists of representatives of all the city's local planning groups, voted 22-4 to oppose the current draft.
  In fact, there were only two slips submitted in favor of this draft and they were from the Chamber of Commerce and the Building Industry Association. Everyone else was a member of the community expressing concerns that the city was bowing to industry pressures to eliminate the "influence of outside groups" (other than them) and increase densities at the expense of everything else (infrastructure, parks, community character). ...Housing Elementium (Full Article)
Send Carolyn your thoughts & comments: carolyn@earthdayweb.org City of San Diego has published a "Public Notice of Preparation of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report and Public Notice of A Scoping Meeting" for the General Plan Update.

  Verbal and written comments regarding the scope and alternatives of the proposed Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) will be accepted at the meetings. Written comments may also be sent to Marilyn Mirrasoul, City of San Diego Development Services Center, 1222 First Avenue, MS 501, San Diego, CA 92101, or e-mailed to mmirrasoul@sandiego.gov referencing Project Number 104495 in the subject line within 30 days of the receipt of this notice (by October 7, 2006).
  A draft PEIR incorporating public input will then be prepared and distributed for public review and comment. For environmental review information, contact Marilyn Mirrasoul at (619) 446-5380. For information regarding public meetings/hearings and/or other information regarding this project, contact the General Plan Update Acting Program Manager Nancy Bragado, at (619)533-4549 and/or the EIR Project Manager Randy Rodriguez at 619-533-4524. http://clerkdoc.sannet.gov/Website/publicnotice/pubnotceqa.html)
http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/index.shtml Draft Housing Element for the City of San Diego General Plan at the Planning Commission Meeting Returns in Nov.  
  Certain language in the draft Housing Element is unnecessary, unwise, and in some cases, not in compliance with the law.
  They note that there is already enough housing capacity in the existing general plan (including its 44 community plans) to accommodate forecast demand for 23 years!  Furthermore, the land inventory includes more than enough capacity at the densities required by the California HCD department.
 There is no justification for the provisions stating that the City or communities have an obligation to change zoning to allow more high-density housing. And no justification for loosening regulations or bypassing planning groups. Planning board members are encouraged to attend the Planning Commission meeting to voice their demand that the draft Housing Element be revised.
—Tom Mullaney, Friends of San Diego,, tmullaney@aol.com
The Community Planning Committee Aug. 22, 2006,
Voted 22 to 4 to OPPOSE the the General Plan Housing Element:
The CPC members objected to the tone of the report, which seemed to blame residents and community planning groups for project delays and high housing prices.  They also objected to provisions to eliminate PDO's, standardize zoning throughout the city, and bypass community input by making more projects ministerial.
 — Tom Mullaney, Friends of San Diego

Community Planning Board Member  who attended the Community Planning Committee Comments:
Page 184 includes the following:
"Though these groups formally have only an advisory role in the approval process, they are frequently cited by builders as a major obstacle to development."
 If by obstacle the writer of this passage doesn't mean slowing down the process, then what might that mean? Since we're advisory only it can't mean the CPGs have real authority to shut down an objectionable project. But whatever it means or was intended to mean, I find it objectionable in its lack of balance. To be fair you might say the builders see us as an obstacle, which they no doubt do, but the communities see us as their one and only means of community expression and self-preservation in an otherwise corrupt bureaucracy that all too often conducts business in a closed-door boardroom or council chamber.
 Even more objectionable is the passage on page 175 that says: "As such, the City's open space requirements are clearly a constraint on development of housing."  Much more balanced would be to say the open space is "seen by communities as a necessary, defining and undeniably precious constraint on development."
 Stating an opinion may inappropriate for a document that is meant to embody city policy, but stating a heavily biased opinion without the balance of including the alternate view is simply wrong unless that opinion is in fact approved city policy. It implies the correctness of the political or sociological dogma of the "enlightened" bureaucracy, and the wrong-headedness of the AICP-unsuffixed masses. The continual presence of these tell-tale biases, altogether misplaced when they are included in a city policy document, are why people like me will never trust the bureaucracy to look out for the best interests of citizens, neighborhoods and communities.
 We cannot "just trust you" because it seems, in documents like these, we're given no reason to do so.

I agree with previous comments by community representatives, in the wake of the Planning Dept presentation of the draft Housing Element.
Follow-up by Tom Mullaney, Friends of San Diego:
1.  The draft Housing Element has all the markings of extensive developer input, with little sensitivity to the hard work and good intentions of community leaders.
2.  We have to keep reminding Jim Waring and Bill Anderson, as we did with Gary Halbert, that DSD has 1.25 million "customers" in addition to the customers at the permit counter.  I'm going to suggest that Mr. Waring or Mr. Anderson conduct a survey to find out how satisfied community planning leaders are with the Planning Dept and Development Services. This should fit in well with their current effort to identify areas for improvement.
3.  The top-down approach may work ok in the military.  It works sometimes in business, if it's supplemented with meaningful employee participation and close contact with customers.   The top-down approach doesn't work at all in the relationship between the Mayor and citizens.  Mayor Sanders was elected as the chief executive of the city bureaucracy, subject to applicable laws and adopted city policies.  He was not elected by the citizens to be their boss, or to redesign their communities.
4. The Mayor's management team may eventually figure out that the CPC members, and other community planning leaders, offer a valuable service as a sounding board for initiatives from the Mayor, the Planning Dept or Development Services.    Isn't it better to get some honest feedback in a small-group setting than to bring forward a major new initiative, only to be surprised by widespread opposition?   
The four ballot initiatives endorsed by Gov. Schwartzenegger offer an example of how an executive branch leader can lose touch with the majority of the people.
The case of the negligent bank robber
by Pat Flannery - 08/16/06, Excerpt:                                           
I went to Mike Aguirre's town hall meeting tonight. The best line came from Don McGrath. He started a story about once being asked to defend a gang of "negligent" bank robbers ......... he didn't have to go any further, the audience got it. Let's hope the people of San Diego get it. 

The future of San Diego's waterfront
By Lori Saldaña, Union-Tribune, August 18, 2006 
  Whether swimming at our beaches, camping on Mission Bay, or fishing from the Ocean Beach pier, San Diegans are blessed with some of California's most beautiful coastal areas.
  Many San Diegans, however, take these areas for granted, and are unaware that the access and enjoyment of California's waterfront are the result of protections in California's Constitution and common law. These laws limit private ownership and maintain the public's right to access and enjoy our bays and beaches.  These protections started during the California Constitutional Convention in the 1870s, when the state's delegates wisely took tidelands (that is, properties beneath California's navigable waters) out of the real estate market. The delegates recognized that public access to the waterfront was essential for navigation, recreation and fishing and that private ownership could unnecessarily restrict these public uses. They also saw the risk that financially and politically powerful private interests posed to the public's interest in waterfront property.  
  These “tidelands” came under the sovereignty of the state in 1850, when California joined the Union. As a result, the state acts as constitutional trustee of these public properties, known as the “Tidelands Trust,” and is charged with protecting them on behalf of the California residents.Unfortunately, San Diegans are seeing increasing private uses of Tidelands Trust properties, which threaten the future of our waterfront. Tomorrow, my legislative Subcommittee on Base Closure and Redevelopment will meet in San Diego and examine this trend.Two cases on San Diego Bay have raised serious questions at the state level about the federal government using the courts to condemn public property and facilitate private development.In the early part of the last century, California granted the tideland properties under the Broadway Complex to the city of San Diego, with Tidelands Trust restrictions on use and conveyance attached. The city then granted certain portions of the property to the United States for military purposes.In 1991, with the express purpose of making the Broadway Complex property more financially attractive to developers, the federal government succeeded in persuading a federal court in an eminent domain action to remove the public's interest in the Broadway Complex property, by asserting that a California statute from the 1920s removed the property from the Tidelands Trust, and it was free to allow primarily private development of the property.The court agreed, though the Legislature is constitutionally prohibited – except under extraordinary circumstances – from removing property from the Tidelands Trust.  This condemnation action by the federal government rendered what had been public property open to exploitation by private interests.
  More recently, in 2005, the federal government successfully used its eminent domain powers to extinguish most of the public's interest in tidelands property leased to it at the Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center near Lindbergh Field. No explicit military purpose was cited. The military had been leasing the property – rent free – for 50 years, and had renewed a second 50-year lease in 1996.Unfortunately, the federal judge ruled in favor of the federal government against the state's and the Port District's attempts to preserve the public trust, while the residents of California were offered all of $237,500 for 32.42 acres of waterfront property on San Diego Bay.
  Why the heavy-handed use of the military's power of eminent domain? A passage in the federal judge's ruling provides an unsettling clue:The United States acquired this portion of the land free of public trust restrictions, and the United States may convey this portion to a private party.
  So, it appears that this formerly “public” property may now be taken by federal government not for military purposes, but for future private development.I strongly disagree with this “land grab.” The federal government should not use its privilege to transform public land into a marketable commodity for private interests.
  San Diegans are proud supporters of the military in our city. We have acknowledged its importance with grants of land and our sustained and overwhelming support throughout its history here. Citizens should not, however, lose their right to reclaim these tidelands for public benefit once the military no longer needs them.San Diego is reeling from the results of the Kroll report, complete with allegations of improper private profit over public benefits. Now more than ever, it is important for those of us in positions of public trust to determine whether public land-use decisions are in our citizens' best interest.
  Tomorrow, at 11 a.m. at the Wadie P. Deddeh State Building in Old Town, my Subcommittee on Base Closure and Redevelopment will consider whether the private tidelands development proposed for the Broadway Complex is based on short-term “economic necessity” or is actually in the best long-term interests of the public we are sworn to serve.
  Saldaña represents the 76th Assembly District, which includes many of the city of San Diego's coastal communities.
——
OVERVIEW of Saldaña's forum on the development proposed for the Broadway Complex was appreciated by community members and organizations who all came out in force to oppose the project.

No Third Stories: THE ISSUE OF REZONING LA JOLLA
  Development in the business areas of La Jolla, including Bird Rock, is governed by an ordinance called the Planned District Ordinance, or "PDO," that:
• Limits buildings to 2 stories (The 30-ft height limit is separate from the PDO)
• Requires and regulates commercial use on the ground floor
• Regulates, Floor Area Ratio ("FAR"), building set-backs, etc.
  The current PDO has protected La Jolla from overdevelopment and makes it the desirable place we have today.  Allowing three stories would increase the population density and change our town forever. Estimates in Bird Rock alone are for 200 to 420 new units under a change to three stories. Additionally, the fear is that developers would seek and be granted variations to the existing commercial restrictions and be allowed to put condos on the first floor. The result would be three stories of condos and concrete canyons along our business districts and main thoroughfares. (Watchdog Comment: This is what happens when the City leases to a Corp.(Arena Group 2000) that wants to own the public land and build on it, but lets/needs it to blight first so it will fall under redevelopment.)

Land of confusion, Inaccurate records have San Diego officials guessing how much real estate the cash-strapped city owns
By Brooke Williams and Danielle Cervantes.STAFF WRITER and RESEARCH ANALYST, Union TribuneSeptember 18, 2005
* The Grant Hill lot the city forgot * Once a home, now a hovel The city of San Diego owns thousands of properties, but no one at City Hall knows exactly how many or how they're being used.
  After two months of cross-checking hundreds of public records, a San Diego Union-Tribune investigation concluded that the city's inventory of real estate assets, worth billions of dollars, is seriously flawed.
 A roster of 4,430 parcels the city supplied omits some property, and it also lists land the city has never owned, land it hopes to own and land it sold long ago. 
  A woman left this land in Grant Hill to the city a decade ago. It became an illegal dump site. When neighbor Mary Kelly found it was city-owned, "I absolutely blew my stack," she said.
  The examination of city real estate assets showed:
 The city owns property not on its list. For instance, missing from the roster are more than 74 acres set aside for habitat conservation near Santee, as well as 6 acres of open space in Sabre Springs.
  The city lists properties it doesn't own, including a small parcel in Bankers Hill that contains a house assessed at nearly $1 million. Public records show the city has an easement nearby, but the property belongs to Robert Nelson, a marketing consultant.
 Told his land is on a list of city-owned property, Nelson said, "It's going to be a heck of a surprise to my title insurance company."
  The list includes nearly 200 properties the city sold over the past two decades. Still among the assets, for example, are 13 acres in North Park and 107 acres in Escondido, land the city sold in 1988.
 There are 111 properties that have been approved for sale, about half of which are labeled "sale exclusive," which means they can be sold only to certain individuals or companies. The city's Web site says there is no land for sale.
  It's impossible to tell from the city's inventory which parcels are leased. It shows fewer than 50 are marked as leases, but the Union-Tribune analyzed separate databases of lease information and identified about 1,300 lease agreements on city land.
 A physical inspection of selected properties showed some of the city's holdings are neglected.
  A house on Mount Soledad is vacant and rat-infested. A lot in Grant Hill, which a woman bequeathed to the city to benefit Balboa Park and San Diego Library endowment funds, was covered with trash and home to a transient a little more than a week ago.
  The Union-Tribune undertook the real estate investigation in June, shortly after Councilman Tony Young asked whether the city should consider selling property to help wrench it out of its money mess.
  The City Council on Monday adopted a report from the city manager recommending the city pursue selling up to $100 million in property and put the proceeds toward the pension system deficit, which is at least $1.4 billion.
 Several members of the public spoke against the idea, concerned that the sales mostly would benefit development companies.
  Deputy Mayor Toni Atkins assured the approach would be cautious.
 "Before we talk about selling land, we need to look at the inventory we have and categorize it," she said.
  The newspaper's examination of the city's inventory has raised questions that have no cut and dried answers. The most pointed: How could such an important register be so inaccurate?
  The number of people in the real estate department has shrunk over the years as the city has made budget cuts. Still, its mission is unchanged: "manage the City's real estate activities for the greatest benefit to the residents ... ."
  William Griffith, head of the department since 1999, refused to sit down for an interview, saying his staff was overburdened with requests from the media. However, he answered three sets of questions by e-mail that sought to reconcile anomalies in the city's inventory.
 Each time the Union-Tribune asked, during the past two months, for the number of parcels the city owns, the real estate department provided a different total. Griffith could not say why exactly, other than to suggest it's difficult to track parcel numbers.
  During a brief telephone conversation Aug. 30, Griffith said the city owns some 10,000 parcels, qualifying it by saying: "That's the number my staff has kicked around over the years."
  By e-mail he was more precise, saying his records show the city owns 3,916 parcels. When the Union-Tribune cross-checked the city's official inventory with the county assessor's property list, deed transaction histories and other public documents, the number of parcels that could be verified was 3,662.
  Experts in municipal policy say it's important for cities to maintain an accurate inventory because taxpayers have a right to know how public officials use and manage assets. Some local governments, such as New York City and Las Vegas, frequently update their records to reflect changing uses.
  Peter Detwiler, staff analyst for the state Senate Local Government Committee, said a clean inventory helps to ensure cities aren't wasting taxpayer money on idle capital investments.
  "Cities might want to have a yard sale and clean out the attic sometimes," he said.
  No one can say exactly how much the city's property could be worth, even though the city's charter requires the auditor and comptroller to have records showing the "cost or value of all real estate, buildings, structures, furniture and fixtures, equipment and other property."
  Asked to provide the appraised values of city property, Griffith said releasing them could hurt sale negotiations.
 Errors and omissions
  John Torell, who took over as the city's auditor and comptroller in March, said there hasn't been a good system in place in his office to check the accuracy of the real estate department's records.
  William Griffith heads the city's Real Estate Assets Department, which manages thousands of properties and leases on them.
 Torell replaced Ed Ryan, who had been auditor for more than 20 years when he announced his resignation in January 2004. About two weeks later, city officials acknowledged that San Diego's financial statements, which prospective buyers of city bonds use, contained errors and omissions.
  Federal agencies are investigating the city because of errors and omissions in bond offerings for the pension fund.
 The city retained KPMG in early 2004 to finish its 2003 audit. In the process of conducting the audit, accountants discovered problems with how the city and its redevelopment agencies have valued real estate holdings.
 Rudy Graciano, chief accountant for the city auditor, said KPMG found the city had overstated the value of some properties and understated others.
 For example, he said, when the city acquired property for free, it marked some of it as having little or no value even if it actually was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
 Or, Graciano said, if a redevelopment agency sold a million-dollar property to a developer for $1, the agency might mark the value as $1 million.
  Since Torell arrived, the auditor's office has been examining all the city's real estate assets to ensure, among other things, they are correctly reported in annual financial reports.
  "To be a good custodian of assets, we need to know what we have and we need to know what we don't have," said Larry Tomanek, assistant auditor and comptroller. A flawed inventory of property could affect transactions in which the city uses its land as a guarantee.
  The city has used its property portfolio as collateral for such projects as convention center construction, Balboa Park improvements and Petco Park, said Lisa Irvine, deputy city manager.
 City property also is collateral in a settlement that requires the city to make full payments to the pension fund, which has been underfunded since 1996. Attorneys for retirees combed the city's list and chose parcels that had no public use and could be easily sold, such as the Fairbanks Ranch Country Club in North County and land with an office building in Kearny Mesa.
  In general, experts said, cities own land for several reasons: for public services, such as parks and roads; to fund enterprise accounts, such as airports and marinas; and to lease for revenue. Cities often wind up with surplus property, such as land bought for a street that was never built. 
 San Diego's inventory suggests its property mostly is used as open space and for public services.
  Companies, nonprofit organizations, individuals and other governments also use the city's land, though not all of them pay for that privilege.
  In 1996, the city received this half-acre (dense vegetation in forefront) in Tierrasanta. Once part of Camp Elliott, it's missing from the city's inventory.
 The city's list of real estate assets indicates only several dozen that are leased. The real estate department keeps a separate list of leases and the people and companies that hold them.
  The two lists have little in common, so there is no way to check one against the other to arrive at a single, verified list of leased properties.
 In examining the list of leases one by one and checking county assessor files and other public records, the Union-Tribune found 920 entities hold about 1,300 lease agreements on city-owned land. These include SeaWorld San Diego, the city of La Mesa, Victory Outreach Church in the Southcrest neighborhood of San Diego and Filippi