Blog of Otay Mesa

Today the Voice of San Diego reported that the Mayor keeping to his word has returned over $8,000 of political contributions from people and entities that currently have business in front of the City. BUT HE WILL NOT RETURN THE OVER $8900 COLLECTED FROM OTAY MESA PLANNING COALITION MEMBERS. The excellent article by Rob Davis can be viewed at their website at: www.voiceofsandiego.com or this link: http://www.voiceofsandiego.com/articles/2008/08/01/news/01sandersdonations080108.txt.

This article prompted me to write the following editorial to the editor at Voice of San Diego:

RE: MAYOR SANDERS RETURNS THOUSANDS OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS:
They mayor and his staff are being disengenuous regarding not returning the over $8,000 of campaign contributions from developers associated with the Otay Mesa Community Plan Update. Though officially the Otay Mesa Planning Coalition disbanded last year because of the cities concern regarding conflicts and bias by having this small group of developers paying for and funding an over 10,000 acre community plan update, 3 of the 4 update alternatives that are moving forward with an EIR and in final planning stages for the planning commisison and city council to take a final vote on are still the DEVLOPER BACKED ALTERNATIVES. Even the 4th City alternative encompasses most of the developers wishes for changing their land from an industrial zone to residential zoned property. This upzoning if approved would be a financial windfall for these small group of developers who bought their land based on industrially zoned pricing and if the zoning was changed to residential would see their land value soar to many times their initial investment. That is why they have contributed generously not to just the mayor but also to Councilman Hueso whose district includes Otay Mesa. They or their consultants contributed over 30% of the total Hueso received in the last election cycle. One other problamatic issue with the Mayor not returning these contributioins is the Developer Group has sent a formal letter to the city asking the city to reimburse them over $9 million dollars thay they claim they spent on the community plan update. The Voice of San Diego did a good job on reporting on this issue a few months ago, and thus far the Mayor staff has rejected this reimbursement, but a large lawsuit could be in the works. Thus the political contributions to the Mayor and the request by the Planning Coalition members for reimbursements underline that these developers still have “business” in front of the city and by the Mayor’s own words he should be returning these contributions immediately.

THIS LETTER WAS SENT TO ALL 8 CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE ON FRIDAY JULY 18th, 2008. 

July 18, 2008  Council President Scott PetersCity of San Diego202 C St 10^th FloorSan Diego, CA  92101 RE:  OTAY MESA PLANNING GROUP BYLAWS On Tuesday, July 22, in the afternoon session of the City Council meeting, you and the other members of the City Council will be taking action on Item 330 – which is to accept, reject, or send back for changes any Community Planning Group Bylaws that are not in compliance with City Council Policy 600-24 enacted by you and the City Council on May 22, 2007. One of the Planning Groups that clearly appears to be in gross contradiction to the shell bylaws of 600-24 is that of the Otay Mesa Planning Group.  Specifically the deviation to the shell bylaws is the makeup or composition of the Planning Group.   I would like to briefly give the City Council a history of this issue:   The Otay Mesa Planning Group (OMPG) was formed in March 1990 and had an initial set of bylaws that included Attachment A, outlining the makeup and composition of how the Planning Group was to operate as the vast 6,000 acres in Otay Mesa’s vacant land developed over time.   At the time, it made logical sense that as Otay Mesa developed over the years, there would be a transition of seats away from the Developers (who were the only ones in Otay in 1990) to include more of the residences and industrial operators (or businesses) as land gradually.  During the first ten years of OMPG’s existence, the Mesa developed fairly slowly and never reached the 20% build-out level threshold.  However, as the Council is aware, during the last five years, the Otay Mesa area has had tremendous development in both the West-end residential and eastern-end Industrial areas.   According to the last City Staff calculation, Otay Mesa is now over 40% total build out and is actually on its way towards 60% build out — once the MSCP (sensitive lands) areas that will not allow to be developed are excluded.  If the old original bylaws were to stay in effect, the OMPG composition from Attachment Awould have followed the intent of the bylaws and began the transition from a “developer oriented” OMPG to a more “community oriented” OMPG board with far greater residential and business representation.   In May 2007, the City Council updated Policy 600-24, laying out for all City Planning Groups the issues that needed to be addressed in their own bylaws and rules to keep them in compliance with the Brown Act and current City Council Policies.  This was done because the Council was concerned that many Planning Groups were potentially not operating in compliance with current State law and not properly acting as an officially sanctioned entities of the City of San Diego.     A Subcommittee of the Otay Mesa Planning Group reviewed their current bylaws and made recommendations to the Executive Board of the OMPG with updated text that met the requirements of the City Council and Policy 600-24.  The new bylaws complied with almost all of the Policy requirements with two big exceptions: who would be allowed to be a member of the Planning Group, and how the composition of the OMPG would be allocated between the acceptable categories of the public. The section in Policy 600-24 that lays out this Policy is Article III: “Community Planning Groups.”  Section 3 of Article III details the intent of the Council on how a fair Planning Group should be composed.  It states “Members of recognized Planning Groups shall, to the extent possible, be representative of the various geographic sections of the community and diversified community interests.”  Please see Attachment B(enclosed).  Attachment C outlines the composition that the Planning Group approved to be included in the new bylaws and to take effect upon the Council’s approval this coming Tuesday, July 22.  It is discouraging to note that – although Otay Mesa is now at over 40% build (out on the way to 50%), and that the Mesa currently includes over 700 businesses that employ over 15,000 workers on a daily basis (see  Attachment D  a report from Inside Prospects Inc., showing a Summary of Major Business Groups and employment numbers in the Otay Mesa Region) – there are only 3 seats that are allocated to the “Business Community”…out of a total of 16 seats. I have placed “Business Community” in quotes, for a very specific reason:  these 3 “Business” seats are really not onlyreserved for actual companies that operate in Otay Mesa – but the bylaws (as are being presented to Council) would allow any non-profit organization – such as schools, religious groups, and even non-regional owners of real estate.  Let me give a few examples: ·         Recently, the Otay Mesa Planning Group has been approached by the Principal of San Ysidro High School, as they would like to be a member of the Planning Group – an excellent goal that clearly should be considered, but (under the currently proposed bylaw changes) would use a seat reserved for “business”.   ·         While it would appear to be common sense to allocate seats reserved for “Developers” to non-regional real estate owners (instead of a “Business” seat), this has been avoided very specifically by the current members of the OMPG (who include many developers and real estate companies that some would consider as having direct financial interests in decisions made by the OMPG).  As such, the Institutional or Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS) that own almost all of the major industrial complexes in Otay Mesa are left to use one of the 3 “Business” seats (of 16 total) – potentially taking a spot that their own industrial tenants (the actual “businesses” and companies that employ San Diegans and create wealth in our region) would have used. The result of the currently proposed bylaws for the OMPG you and the Council are being asked to consider without comment is that – out of 16 elected seats – it is likely that only 1 or 2 seats might go to represent the 700+ companies operating in Otay Mesa. This despite the fact that the actual community of Otay Mesa has over 12 million square feet of industrially-developed land (one of the largest concentrations in San Diego County), despite the fact that it contains over 700 acres of remaining industrial land to be developed, and despite the fact that decisions made by the OMPG not only affect logistics corridors within Otay Mesa but also the huge flows of international trade, the future Otay Mesa 2 Port of Entry, and the expansion of airport opportunities at Brown Field and with a Crossborder Terminal.  These are crucial business issues for Otay Mesa and the future of San Diego, yet the proposed bylaws would limit business input to such a minority that it will have little, if any, ability to affect an OMPG position. Given the above facts, it should be clear that the new composition of the Planning Group does not meet the intent of Article 3 Section III of Council Policy 600-24 that (again) states: “Members of recognized Planning Groups shall, to the extent possible, be representative of the various geographic sections of the community and diversified community interests.”  Clearly, the proposed composition of the OMPG will not be representative of the diversified community interests – given that only 15% of the elected seats would representing the overly-broad definition of “Business Community” and only 15% would represent the thousands of residences that call Otay their home.  The remaining seats will largely be controlled by developers – a situation that has caused some problems in other communities in San Diego, as has been covered by reporters in our regional media. When attempts were made by me to raise this issue within the Planning Group itself, as a General Member of the Planning Group (defined as anyone who has attended a planning group meeting within the last year and meets the qualifications of living in the community or working in the community as outlined in Policy 600-24), not only were General Members ultimately not allowed to vote on this issue –  but only the existing Executive Planning Board (which, as can be seen in the Attachments) is made up primarily of developers and real estate companies – was allowed to vote.  Thus, while “Business” representatives currently part of the OMPG (at this time, one “Industrial Operator”, and the non-profit Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce) might express their concerns, the majority of the board is comprised of real estate developers and those that directly do business with them – giving a majority vote to those that wanted little change in the make-up of the OMPG. So, as you and the Council consider the blanket adoption of the revised but (in my opinion) biased bylaws of the OMPG amongst the other Planning Group bylaws, I’d like to ask how can the very large and important Business Community of Otay Mesa provide any input to decisions made by the Planning Group?  Given its significant role in both potentially advising the City on  developments to keep our unique border community competitive and helping to grow new jobs for San Diego’s citizens, it would seem to deserve more participation and an active vote on issues brought before the Otay Mesa Planning Group – not less.  If anything, the strangle-hold of Developers on decisions and recommendations being made by the Planning Group would seem a more reasonable change to make, particularly given the direct benefits they have to gain from issues like the controversial Otay Mesa Community Plan Update in our now-maturing community. For the above reasons, I would strongly request reconsideration of the adoption of the proposed bylaws for the Otay Mesa Planning Group unless significant changes are made. Lastly, for your review, I have also included letters (Attachment E) for your review that were sent to Councilmember Hueso last October, and a letter sent to Bill Anderson last September, that outlined this issue – along with others regarding the Otay Planning Group.  Unfortunately I never received a reply from either City official.  I have also sent numerous letters to City Development staff, Bill Anderson in the Mayor’s office, as well as to the Planning Group leadership, but no action is ever taken.   My ongoing frustration with the lack of unbiased input and transparency led to my creation last November of the Blog of Otay  Mesa (which you may see at www.blogofotaymesa.com).  On the Blog (at the top) you can learn about my biography and history of more than 18 years here on the border.  I hope you will consider the concerns expressed in this letter, and the concerns of many business people in the Otay Mesa Community.  If you have any further questions, I can be reached via email at sgross@binationallogistics.com or by telephone at 619-671-0400.   Thank you for your consideration of this issue. Sincerely,   Stephen M. GrossPresidentBinational Logistics LLC 

Today the Otay Planning Group meets again for their scheduled monthly meeting.  I have not attended their meetings for a few months because of a combination of other priorities but also because every time I attend my blood pressure rises to levels that are not safe for my health.  Through all my blog postings regarding the way they conduct themselves, and all the letters I have sent to the City and the Planning Group complaining about their behavior and the manner in which they conduct their business, nothing changes.

They do no follow any City policy that directs them how to operate, nor do they follow the prescribed Roberts Rule of Order when conducting their meetings.  It got me thinking about a how else they try to avoid the public and the community they supposedly represent. 

Does it surprise you that they don’t even hold their meetings any longer in the Otay Mesa community?  Or that they do whatever they can to keep the community blind in what their monthly agenda and meeting will be discussing?  Let me illustrate.

MONTHLY MEETING: 

FACT The Otay Planning Group for over 15 years held their monthly meeting in a location within the Otay Mesa Planning Group legal boundaries.  Those boundaries are I-805 to the West, the County line to the East, the Northern boundaries of Brown Field to the North and the U.S/Mexican border to the South.  In this area there is over 12 million square feet developed of Industrial Property and many retail locations where a monthly meeting could be held.  For many years they held their meeting at Vallarta’s a Mexican Restaurant in the “retail” area of Otay Mesa.  They rented out a room for a nominal cost of around $50 a meeting and the room was plenty large to hold the usual crowd that attended their meetings.  This all changed in November 2006 when for some reason they decided that venue did not suffice and no other facilities in the Planning Group boundaries could be found and they moved their meetings around 5 miles West of the 805 to the Otay Mesa library branch on Coronado Avenue in San Ysidro.  The excuse I heard is that no one wanted to pay the nominal fee that Vallarta’s was charging each month to hold the meetings there.  Even though the Planning Group is primarily made up of wealth developers and Real Estate types they didn’t feel they could afford the $50 monthly rate?  

The City of San Diego in all of their old and new policies demand that a community planning group hold their meetings in the community they represent UNLESS no appropriate facility can be found.  If you go onto the City of San Diego Community Planning Group website at: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/cpg/agendas.shtml you will find that the Otay Planning Group is the ONLY certified Planning Group in the over 42 certified active Planning Groups in the City that DOES NOT hold their meeting in their community.  So what is the real reason?  Is it that they do not want our participation, do they not want us to easily be able to attend their monthly meeting?  Or maybe also the move was made as the Otay Mesa Community Plan was really heating up and they didn’t want our participation?  Coincidental?  I’ll let you answer that question.  But I do have a solution

            SOLUTION:  Move the meeting back to Otay.  If no one on the wealth Planning Group wants to pay the monthly fee my company Binational Logistics will pay the monthly fee to use Vallarta’s for the next year.  And if any of you want to help contribute that would be welcomed.  Secondly, if the Planning Group does not want to go that route then I offer my warehouse for their monthly meeting.  I can easily make enough room in my over 77,000 sq ft warehouse to carve out an area where monthly we can bring in tables and chairs to accommodate the group.  Also maybe some of you readers have facilities that could also host an occasional?  No more than 40-50 people attend the regular monthly meeting.  SO OTAY PLANNING GROUP CAN WE EXPECT TO SEE YOUR AUGUST MEETING BACK IN OUR COMMUNITY? 

2^nd ISSUE PLANNING GROUP AGENDAS AND MEETING MINUTES:

            FACT:  It is City Policy and Ordinance that all City sponsored meetings must adhere to posting their meeting agendas 72 hours prior to their meeting.  This is to allow potential participants and people or entities who want to discuss issues that are on the agenda to have adequate time to attend the meeting.  The policy also states that the Agendas at a minimum, needs to be posted at the meeting site which it assumes will be in the Community.  Unfortunately as you read above the Otay Planning Group meetings are held outside of Otay Mesa so the only place the meeting agendas are posted is on the door of the library where the meeting will be held.  You can see a few pictures of today’s scheduled meeting that are posted here:                                                         Secondly, the City offers the Planning Groups the ability to post their agenda and previous meeting minutes on the City of San Diego Planning Group website that can be found at the same website as posted above.  Almost all, if not all, active planning groups in the City take advantage of the City Website so it is easy for community members to access the agendas and minutes and follow the activities of the Planning Groups.  Well the Otay Planning Group stopped posting their previous meeting minutes in August of 2007 and the Agendas are almost reguarly posted on the City Website AFTER the Planning Group meeting.  If you go there today you will see that July’s meeting which is to be held this afternoon is not posted on the website.  (Better go there quick because once they see this blog posting I assume they will move with lightening speed to post the agenda on the website).  That leads again to the question why doesn’t the Otay Planning Group adhere to what is required by the City and why don’t they do what they can to invite our Community to participate in their meetings?  Do they not want our comments?  Does the developer and Real Estate controlled group want to stay as innocuous and stealth as possible?  Again I think you can answer these questions for yourself. 

            SOLUTION:  By taking the first action item above and moving the meeting into the Community at least the Agenda will be posted within the Community they represent.  Secondly I would be happy to assist the Planning Group in posting their agendas online with the City if they get me their monthly issues a week before the meeting. 

I will personally deliver these issues and comments to the Planning Group at today’s meeting and report back to you all what action they take (or don’t take).  Any other suggestions or comments from you all would also be appreciated.  Remember the business community only has ONE seat on the Planning Group board of 19 seats.  So it is up to us and our grass roots efforts to get anything accomplished with this Developer driven Planning Group. 

In April the “Voice of San Diego” online newspaper, www.voiceofsandiego.com, printed a portion of an interview with Mayor Sanders,

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/04/10/election/945mayor041008.txt.  In this text there is this tidbit:

“We’ve documented his trouble in raising funds. But he added some new information that we hadn’t heard yet: He has a list of about 1,000 people in the development community from whom he won’t be accepting campaign donations.

In an apparent nod to the Sunroad scandal, he said he won’t be accepting donations from anyone with business before the city. That’s certainly shortened the list of possible donors for a man that relied heavily on the development and building communities in his first campaign.”

That comment caught my attention because we know that many of the developers who want to convert their land from industrial to residential in the Otay Mesa Community Plan update that is currently in front of the city have donated thousands to the Mayor’s campaign in direct conflict with the Mayor’s above statement.

I thus have been emailing for the last few months Andrew Donahue and other at the Voice of San Diego pointing out this contradiction by the mayor.  Finally yesterday, Friday May 31st there appeared this article in the Voice of San Diego, http://www.voiceofsandiego.com/articles/2008/05/31/news/01sanders053108.txt.  It was the lead story and identifies my concerns. 

I have not delved into the political scene yet in my blogs and personally I will probably still end up voting for Mayor Sanders for reelection because in my opinion he is still the “best of the least”.  Meaning though I am not enamored with the Mayor and specifically  how his staff is handling the Otay Community Plan Update I am very much suspicious of Steve Francis and why someone would spend over $5 million dollars of their own money to become mayor of San Diego.  But these substantial contributions by Pardee, McMillan, Mike Murphy and their consultants to the Mayors reeelction campaign is very problematic. It will be interesting to see how obligated the Mayor is to these developers and what he does in support of their efforts to make these zoning changes.

But at least the information is now public in a much larger audience in the Voice of San Diego than my Blog of Otay Mesa.  So we can “hold the Mayor’s feet to the fire” and see how he reacts.

Again I want to thank the Voice of San Diego for reporting on this issue and for those of you who do not read the online paper I would highly recommend you to add it to your favorites and look at it daily. 

I know that most of my blog postings have been pretty negative and critical of many of the happenings that are currently occurring in Otay Mesa.  But last night I experienced a real positive in the region.  Though not technically in Otay the Coors/Cricket Amphitheater  (or whatever they are calling it thse days) hosted the Elvis Costello and The Police concert.  19,000 fans,mainly of my generation and I believe most of yours also, going crazy and not sitting down for the whole 2 hour concert.

I was standing there enjoying myself when the thought crossed my mind that we need to enjoy these special occasions and speical moments more often.  I know that a lot of us are going through concerning economic times right now with the downturn in the economy and many of our business’s are doing what we can to survive this challenging period.

So to be able to unwind, relax and thoroughly forget about the negatives last night The Police made me reminisce about the old days and look forward to the future.  It also made me ever the more resilient in my determination that if our unique and opportunistic business community comes together and coalesce we can survive the evils that a few but powerful people from outside our community want to impress upon our community.  People that are not looking out for the long term best interest of our region but are only there for short term gain.

So next time I am at an Otay Planning Group meeting and the lies upon lies are being told, or next time I am at the City and self interest and Politics seem to be taking priority over what is real right, I am going to close my eyes and think about last night and the pure enjoyment and happiness that myself and 19,000 others had with the simple songs of Sting and the Police.

The following opinion editorial was in the L.A. Times on May 4th.  Very appropriate as it relates to San Diego and Otay Mesa also.  Thought you would find this fascinating.

An industrial-strength conundrum for L.A.; If we keep using factory land for housing and stores, what happens to those vital jobs?

 At a time when the local economy is shrinking and City Hall is already struggling to close a $406-million budget deficit, L.A.’s growing population is putting increasing pressure on city officials to build more affordable housing and create more middle-class jobs.Unfortunately, these needs sometimes conflict with one another, and they are conflicting today in what was once the industrial heart of Los Angeles near downtown and in Hollywood. There, City Hall has lately opted for housing over jobs by using L.A.’s industrially zoned land for purposes other than originally intended.Here’s the problem: With the aerospace industry largely gone, the two greatest sources of middle-class jobs in the city today are the garment and entertainment industries. By allowing more industrial land to be used for retail and housing, the city effectively limits the growth of those industries — and the jobs that come with it. At a certain point, the garment and entertainment industries may even leave town.Industrially zoned property — which makes up about 8% of L.A. — doesn’t get a whole lot of love from urban planners. It is usually separated into limited (warehouses or machine shops), light (furniture manufacturing or lumber yards) and heavy (car factories or rail yards) manufacturing, and is home to such things as old movie and television studios and auto repair shops.Much of the industrial land is concentrated where you would expect it to be — around LAX, the port of Los Angeles and in the garment district south of downtown along the L.A. River. But strands of it turn up in unexpected parts of town. There is, for instance, a major strip of land zoned for light industry that follows the freight rail lines running through the middle of the San Fernando Valley and ending in the Chatsworth industrial district. A large portion of the land in Hollywood is industrially zoned and houses support services for the entertainment industry.In 2005, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa declared to his department heads that “these industrial areas are a precious resource that, if lost or severely compromised, will be impossible to re-create.” Yet in the years since, the city has continued to chip away at the land.Its gradual erosion can be traced to two factors. The first is the city’s need to generate more sales-tax revenue. Retail development, by law, has always been permitted on at least 75% of the city’s industrial land, and developers have increasingly pursued the opportunity to build and operate big-box stores on it. Over the last decade, about half of the new development on industrial sites has been for commercial purposes.More recently, a second assault on industrial land has come from the city’s quest to add housing, both affordable and otherwise. Unlike retail, building housing on industrial land requires getting variances in the zoning laws, which the City Council has been increasingly willing to grant. One of the biggest such developments is Playa Vista, near Marina del Rey, which was once the site of an aerospace manufacturing facility but is now home to about 3,200 new housing units, with at least 2,000 more planned.It’s not hard to understand why residential and retail developers are increasingly eyeing industrial land in Los Angeles. A 2006 study by Keyser Marston Associates, a real estate consulting firm, looked at the price of land in the downtown area. It found that industrially zoned land — valued at about $38 a square foot — was far cheaper than comparable residentially zoned land — about $177 a square foot. That price difference has some affordable-housing builders, as well as market-rate developers, looking at sites in the garment district and in Hollywood that they previously would have ignored.The city seems all too willing to give up its industrial land. Two recent cases illustrate the point.In the first, the City Council, in pursuit of more affordable housing, overturned a Planning Commission decision that would have blocked construction of an 180-unit live-work loft project in the garment district. As a result, 2.5 acres of industrial land was lost, a possible location for future jobs.In the second case, the Planning Commission approved a 210-unit market-rate housing development on three acres of land that was previously the site of a local television studio. The commission’s rationale was that the new housing would be located near major bus lines, encouraging residents to use public transportation rather than cars.One problem with allowing residents to live in industrial areas is that once they become exposed to the noise, air quality and other environmental issues presented by their industrial neighbors, they often push for new, stricter regulations that effectively limit future use of the surrounding land for industrial expansion and job creation.It is certainly reasonable for the city to use industrial land to produce new revenue and create more affordable housing. But those gains must be weighed against the potentially more significant long-term cost to the city’s ability to give the garment and entertainment industries space to grow.Consider the entertainment industry. The small support businesses — lighting, sound, scenery and special effects — and major postproduction facilities in the county help keep the industry anchored to Southern California. And they are primarily located on available light-industrial land in Hollywood, the Valley and on the Westside.If L.A. doesn’t bank industrial land to support growth in the entertainment industry, that growth may go elsewhere. Because much of the entertainment industry these days is digitalized, it doesn’t matter if workers who put together movies, soundtracks and TV shows are looking at monitors in Hollywood, Phoenix or Salt Lake City.Garment manufacturers also may be squeezed out of their L.A. niche if residential complexes or big-box stores are built adjacent to them. And the same can be said for other industries — Web-based information services, biomedical research, green industries — that will fuel future job growth in the city.The city Planning Department and the Community Redevelopment Agency have been struggling to define a coherent industrial-land policy ever since Villaraigosa declared these areas to be a precious resource. The two came up with a draft in 2007 that puts the city’s industrial land into categories: either “to be protected,” “potential [for] mixed use” or “[in] transition.” It’s not hard to see that, under such a policy, the City Council could readily find a “community benefit” in converting industrial land to another use, further eroding the city’s industrial base and the jobs it supports.It makes little sense to talk about preserving the city’s industrial lands while at the same time approving selected housing and mixed-use developments on old industrial sites. Such a policy will generate revenue and add housing, but the wage-earners needed to fill the mixed-use projects will probably be working in Arizona, Colorado or Utah.Credit: Bill Christopher is an urban planner and a former member of the city Planning Commission. 

The group of developers who comprised the Otay Mesa Planning Coalition has formally asked the City of San Diego to reimburse them for $9 million dollars they say they have spent on the Otay Mesa Community Plan Update. 

That’s right $9 MILLION!! HERE IS THE LETTER THAT THE COALITION ATTORNEYS SUBMITTED QUIETLY TO THE CITY LAST NOVEMBER. COALITION REQUEST TO CITY LETTER .  This letter is 4 pages for your review.   The complete complaint including exhibits is 40 pages.  I have only included the Coalition letter without the attachments.  If you would like to be sent the full complaint please let me know and I will forward it on to you.  The story that has been consistently  told by the City and the Coalition the last 3 years was that the Coalition would 100% fund the Community Plan update and there would be no cost to the City, the community, or the taxpayers.  Furthermore the Coalition had agreed to pay for the Plan Update with NO GUARANTEES that their plan would be approved.  Well obviously that was A BIG LIE!!!

Thankfully, initially at least, the City has refused that request per their attached reply.  CITY RESPONSE TO CLAIM  But where is this leading to?  What is the next step in this boondoggle?  Stay tuned to Blog of Otay Mesa for further updates.

Last Wednesday’s Otay Planning Group meeting might have hit a new all time low.  Given the groups history that is saying a lot.  The Groups chairman Rob Hixson and other executive member members as well as their co conspirators at the City of San Diego have absolutely no regard for what is best for the Otay community nor do they care about following any policies and procedures for running a City sanctioned organization.  Because of their actions I sent the following letter to everyone i could identify who is involved in this malfeasance. 

March 25, 2008

Mr. Rob Hixson

Chairman, Otay Mesa Planning Group

VIA: Email and Fax

 RE:  Otay Mesa Planning Group Meeting held March 19, 2008 

Dear Mr. Hixson:

The Otay Mesa Planning Group meeting held March 19, 2008at the Otay Mesa Nestor Branch Library was full of improprieties and in direct violation of City council policy 600-24, the Brown Act, and all acceptable procedures for running a meeting of a City of San Diego approved Group.  These impropriates included:

1)      During the Chairman’s report Mr. Hixson discussed all communication that had been sent to the Planning Group in the last month.  He failed to disclose the letter I sent to the Planning Group dated March 16, 2008 and attached with this letterMissrepresentation letter.  This was a formal complaint that required compliance with City of San Diego Policy 600-24 Article 9. 

2)      During the discussion of agenda item 6C, Community Plan Update, there was a motion made by Mel Engals and seconded by Michael Murphy to place on the April Agenda as an action item taking a position on Otay Mesa Community Plan Update Option 4b.  During the discussion period of this proposed motion I made the point that the Planning Group Executive Committee members who had a Direct Economic Interest in this issue needed to recuse themselves from the motion and any further discussion on Option 4b.  The City Attorneys office was also concerned about Planning Groups and the Direct Economic Interest issue so much that on July 18, 2007 City Attorney Michael Aquirre met with the Otay Mesa Planning Group during which he outlined City Policy 600-24 and the ramifications of not adhering to the Direct Economic Interest section regarding indemnification of the individuals and the planning group as a whole for not recusing themselves from items that affect members.  Yet despite Mr. Aguirre giving this warning in person there are many members of the Otay Planning Group who have a Direct Economic Interest in Option 4b of the Plan Update including Mr. Engals who made the motion and Mr. Murphy who 2^nd the motion.  Mr. Muprhy even stated that he didn’t have an economic interest, since he had all his entitlements already.  Though as he is well aware if Option 4b is enacted the zoning for his vacant land fronting Otay Mesa Rdwould be significantly upzoned from Industrial to Mixed use, including allowing residential.  Even with my warnings regarding that each member should assess their economic interest before voting on the motion they all voted yeah to put the item on the April action item agenda.  Thus not heeding  Mr. Aquirre’s warning regarding Direct Economic Interest and recusing them from any action regarding this item.

3)      Election of Planning Group members.  This may be the most egregious violation of all acceptable and approved practices.  At the February Planning Group meeting Mr. Hixson passed out a sample ballot using the formula for Group composition is the proposed new bylaws that were passed by the group last October but have not yet been approved by the City of San Diego.  After witnessing this mistake in February I wrote the attached email to the Planning Group and the City.   I received back correspondence that the Planning Group should use the OLD or still existing bylaws until the City finished their review of the proposed new bylaws.planning group election email #1  I then wrote another email that is attached mentioning that according to the old bylaws the composition of the group is based on the build out percentages of the Mesa.  The composition changes depending on how much of the Mesa has been built out.  This built out calculation should have been included in the 2007 Annual Report from the Planning Group that is due to be submitted to the City by February 15^th 2008per Policy 600-24 and the Otay Mesa bylaws.  Unfortunately there was never an annual report filed and no build out percentages calculated.  This brings us to yesterdays meeting and the March elections.

Prior to yesterdays meeting I sent an email which is attached to Rob Hixsonchair of the Planning Group and Theresa Millette the City of San Diegos responsible party for the Otay Planning Group asking what the status of the March Elections were, given that they used the wrong sample ballot in February, and that there had been no new noticing for an election in March,   Even  March Planning Group agenda that was posted on the city website  Friday March 15^th  shows March Elections under the category of Information Items.  I received no response to my attached email prior to March 19th meeting.planning groupplanning group election email #2.  At the end of the meeting on March 19^th, Mr. Hixson passed out a new ballot reconfiguring people into the existing categories using the same build out composition as last year.  He stated that Theresa Millette said the build out percentages were the same as last year, but gave no back up, no documents showing the buildout calculations as required by the old bylaws..  Mr. Hixson then proceeded with the election.   I objected stating all my concerns that I mentioned above that an election cannot take place.  They proceeded none the less to hold the illegal election and seat the newly elected planning group. 

The above mentioned actions are just the latest in a continuous string of non compliance with absolute no regard to following all Policies and Procedures that the City of San Diego has outlined in how an approved Community Planning Group needs to operate.  It is not fair to our Community for a Planning Group to operate in such a rogue manner.  I ask for an immediate undoing of these illegal acts and for the Otay Planning Group to take the appropriate actions to rectify these wrongdoings.

Sincerely, 

Stephen M. Gross

President Bintional Logistics

Otay Mesa, CA

Cc:  Mayor Jerry Sanders

       Honorable Councilman Ben Hueso

       William Anderson

        Theresa Millette

        Bernie Turgeon

        City Attorney Michael Aguirre

        Assistant City Attorney Marianne Greene   

Otay Mesa Planning Group Executive committee

So far the Blog has not delved into the US Presidential Elections.  As the year progresses I plan on commenting and editorializing on the candidates especially when it relates to the Border, Free Trade, and issues and policies that could affect our way of life. 

Such an issue arose last night during the Democratic debates.  It seems that both Clinton and Obama are very much against Free Trade and specifically NAFTA.  Mr. Obama in particular lashed out at NAFTA and the offshoring of US jobs to China and Mexico specifically.    (here is an add Obama ran in Ohio paper http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/02/1obma.pdf)

But then on the other hand when the subject turned to Illegal Immigration and securing the border both candidates were very non committal and wavering regarding how the U.S should deal with our illegal immigration problem and the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the United States.

So they don’t want U.S. workers to lose out to jobs that are going to Mexican’s in Mexico, but it is okay then for U.S. workers to lose jobs to illegal Mexicans in the U.S?  HUH?  Aren’t the vast majority of the 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the US working in jobs that currently could be performed by U.S. workers? 

Someone is going to have to explain to me how Mr. Obama balances these two contradicting statements.

Seriously though, the rhetoric coming from Mr. Obama regarding NAFTA is worrisome for Otay Mesa, The Border Region and the US Economy as a whole.  Much more to be written on this issue in the near future.

After more than 15 years of being involved with business in Otay Mesa, it has become clear to me that operating companies here (manufacturers, logistics, and other industrially-oriented operations) really don’t have an organization that 100% represents their interests.  I have come to that conclusion after having served both as a Board member of the Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce, and as an Executive Committee member of the Otay Mesa Planning Group. 

Let me explain, starting with the Otay Mesa Planning Group, an organization that is majority controlled by the Real Estate profession in Otay Mesa (including Developers, Property Owners, and Real Estate Brokers).  As Otay Mesa has developed, it was my hope (and would be logical) that this particular Planning Group would transition from a Real Estate controlled group to one that is more diverse and reflects the majority of the different “communities” and groups that now make up the vast majority of Otay Mesa. 

To truly reflect what exists in Otay Mesa, the Planning Group would represent both Residents on the West Side, as well as Business Owners and Operators on the East Side.  In fact, currently, more than 50% of the planned residential West side of Otay Mesa is built out, and over 50% of the Industrial East side is built out – so it would be a natural progression to integrate these proportions (and reflect the “true situation” of the Mesa) into this Planning Group.  Unfortunately, however, in yet another instance of gross neglect by the City over its many Planning Groups, the Otay Mesa Planning Group revised its bylaws late-last year and approved a non-representative makeup that included:

• 9 Real Estate Developers
• 3 individuals that supposedly represent homeowners on the West Side
• 1 individual from the Otay Mesa Nestor Planning Group
• 1 individual from the San Ysidro Planning Group
• 1 representative from the Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce
• and 3 Operating Business representatives – which could include people from the Industrial area, companies that own real estate in Otay Mesa, or any person from an educational facility (i.e. San Ysidro High School or the new Southwest College facility).

Though I personally spent hours with the Planning Group, with officials from the Planning Department, and even our Councilmember, pleading the case for a more-balanced group – in the end, they approved a group structure that gives the biggest voice to developers (most of whom have a financial interest in maximizing their property values, not in creating a better community).  This also despite the fact the these same developers continue to promote placing housing in the middle of the region’s major center of industrial development.

Here you can see a letter from October 2007 that I sent to our current City Councilmember, Ben Hueso, Ben Hueso Letter with copies sent to Development Services at the City and Rob Hixson (the Chair of the Otay Planning Group…and a real estate agent for some of the same developers with something to gain).  The letter details many issues of concern with the Planning Group in great detail (many of which were even being looked at by the City Attorney’s office).  In what may be a sign of where allegiances lie, the Councilman NEVER responded to this letter….

The second group that represents many of the interests in Otay Mesa is the Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce – which, after serving nearly 15 years on the Board, I resigned from last month.  The Otay Mesa Chamber (which I have also been President of) has long been a strong advocate for development and growth in  Otay – in fact, one of the only advocates for many, many years.  However, over time, the Chamber has become a more diverse – and compromised – group when it came for advocating on issues that mainly affect the operating businesses in the region.  A look at its membership shows why:

Of the over 350 members, about 90 (or approximately 25%) are physically located in Otay Mesa.  This document (from the Otay Chamber) Otay Chamber Membership Makeup shows that much of the membership is comprised of Real Estate representatives (over 30 companies), and a category entitled OTHER (over 190 companies) – which is often service providers who want to do business in the region, but are not located here.   My point here isn’t to say this is necessarily “wrong” – it’s a normal progression of many “regional” groups to include a wide variety of organizations that have a wide variety of interests.

Back to my point — currently, there are estimated to be over 800 companies that are physically located in Otay Mesa.  Looking at the Board of Directors, currently only 6 of the 15 Board Members have companies physically located in Otay.  Though for the majority of the issues that the Otay Chamber is focused on, this is probably acceptable, it is not acceptable when trying to reach consensus to aggressively fight such issues such as the Community Plan Update.

Why?  Well, in my opinion, the above mentioned makeup of the Chamber lends it to being more concerned about finding compromises and keeping as many parties that are involved with the Organization “happy”.  Included in this group is the City of San Diego itself, which provides over $40,000 annually to the Chamber’s budget from the Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) funding.  So, politically, it would be easy to conclude that they are concerned about not “upsetting” our compromised 8^th District Councilmember, the Mayor (and his Sunroad friends, still active in Otay), or the City Staff – to avoid jeopardizing an important funding source.   

I’ve been an owner of a company in Otay Mesa for over 10 years, and prior to that I managed another logistics business.  I believe very strongly that the decision being made by the City (and pushed by Residential Developers) to site housing within the Industrial East End of Otay would ruin the great potential of the Mesa forever.  This is the defining issue for this region – which holds so much promise as a border crossing, a business, a high-tech industry, an energy center, and an air transportation community.  Once those first residential units are under construction (along with a new Elementary and High school to the East of Cactus Road) our community will NEVER be able to operate the same again. 

As we see in other areas of the County where developers have convinced the City to mix industry and heavier uses (…like trains next to condos? or houses and schools next to industry in Barrio Logan?), residents become voters, and voters begin to aggressively advocate for their interests – and then who loses?  The hundreds of companies that now call Otay their home, and the hundreds more that will occupy Otay in the future.  Trucks will be restricted on the streets they can travel (and risks of accidents with small vehicles will increase).  Manufacturing and logistics companies will further be restricted on what they can do, and when they can do it….  I think you get my point. 

So, given that the Otay Mesa Planning Group (i.e.: “Developers and their Friends”), and the Otay Mesa Chamber (i.e.: a strong, but divided group) are the two existing options that currently exist in Otay Mesa to render opinions, advice, and advocacy – but are compromised, and really only represent a fraction of the operating companies in Otay Mesa, what can we do? 

Maybe the answer is a new organization in Otay Mesa – one that is comprised solely of companies that actually operate in Otay.  A Town Council type of structure that represents only the Manufacturers and Logistic Companies in the region. This would allow a non-conflicted entity that could strongly voice opinions in a more aggressive and proactive manner on the Community Plan and other issues – without outside interests to distract it.  Such an entity could also be powerful, given that it represents hundreds of employers and thousands of employees that depend on Otay Mesa to operate efficiently to generate the economic engine that we have been able to create.

This is where I need your help.  What are your thoughts about starting this type of organization?  Is it needed? Would it be beneficial to the region?   Write me your opinion as to the strength of this concept.  Would it be formed replace the Otay Chamber or Planning Group – no!  But it would give the companies that call Otay Mesa their home (and their employees who depend on this region for employment) a stronger role in shaping what we want the Otay Mesa community to become in the future – and what we require for it to operate efficiently today.