Got a permit for that, Manchester?

From helicopters to Adirondack chairs. The city and the state shut down Grand Del Mar’s non-permitted use of this landing pad.
  • From helicopters to Adirondack chairs. The city and the state shut down Grand Del Mar’s non-permitted use of this landing pad.

An $87,000 fine and 150 hours of community service sounds like a harsh penalty for a couple permit violations — but not in the case of Doug Manchester’s Grand Del Mar resort, where repeated permit violations over a ten-year period were committed. Especially not so when the infractions include destruction of natural habitat, construction of an equestrian center and horse trails, placement of three new parking lots, and a landing pad for helicopters — all without the necessary permits.

Public records show that ever since he acquired the golf course and hotel, Manchester was unwilling to obtain city permits and willingly ignored permit-violation notices from the City of San Diego.

To better understand the feud between the city and the wealthy hotelier, developer, and current owner of the city’s sole daily newspaper, one must go back to January 2003 when Manchester’s company purchased the struggling golf course and hotel for a reported $35 million.

Just eight months after his purchase, city officials began to notice code violations at the Carmel Valley resort.

City inspectors found that construction crews destroyed environmentally sensitive lands to make room for five elevated tee boxes. Crews also cleared a 4000-square-foot area of upland habitat for a grass picnic area.

Over the past ten years, Doug Manchester’s Grand Del Mar hotel has built and operated such facilities as an equestrian center and a heliport without required permits.

Over the past ten years, Doug Manchester’s Grand Del Mar hotel has built and operated such facilities as an equestrian center and a heliport without required permits.

In the first violation notice, issued on September 26, 2003, inspectors estimated that more than 3.4 acres of sensitive habitat were disturbed by the so-called improvement projects.

But the notice of violation didn’t stop Manchester. In early 2004, the company fired back by sending the city a draft legal complaint over damages caused to their property during a city project to build a hiking and horse trail just south of the golf course.

“Instead of a four-foot-wide unobtrusive and environmentally sensitive trail, the City’s Contractor cut a 30-foot wide swath of destruction through the hillside, thereby destroying one-half mile of this once pristine hillside,” read a draft complaint obtained through a public records request.

At the end of the 19-page complaint, Manchester’s lawyers estimated that the company was owed nearly $20 million in damages, plus attorney fees.

To avoid expensive litigation, the city and hotel executives agreed to settle the matter out of court. In February 2005, the two parties signed a settlement agreement. The terms: Manchester needed to obtain all necessary permits and refrain from additional “significant adverse environmental impacts” to the property. He also agreed to pay $250,000 for a horse trail.

In exchange, the city agreed to drop all violations.

But little more than one year later, the two sides were back at it, each claiming that the other side failed to live up to its side of the bargain.

“We all worked extremely hard, and my client has reached deep into its pockets, to provide more to the City for the alleged offences than anyone ever has in a case such as this,” wrote Manchester’s attorney at the time, Mark Mazzarella. “What has happened since we signed the [settlement agreement and release] just isn’t right. In fact, it’s very, very wrong.”

At the same time, city officials noticed that work continued on the property without the necessary permits.

“The development that has occurred on the site, without benefit of any permit authorization, is not minor in nature…” Gary Halbert, then director of the development services department, wrote to an assistant city attorney in February 2006.

Halbert and his staffers denied granting any permits to Manchester.

During the next four years, the two sides went back and forth. Lawyers for the hotel demanded that the city live up to the settlement agreement and grant permits. The city ordered the work to stop and that any permit infractions or damage to the land be mitigated.

Then, on October 25, 2010, the city sent a new notice of violation to the hotel. The notice threatened to fine the company $2500 per day for each of the 26 violations.

Despite the threat of penalties, the only progress that occurred was in the form of new amenities being built, without permits, on the property.

In September of 2011, the city sent another notice of violation. This time, new infractions appeared on the notice. They included unauthorized grading to create a 34,700-square-foot equestrian center with riding and grooming corrals and horse trails around the hotel.

The center was even featured in an April 2011 edition of the Chicago Tribune. “Horse play has been added to the activities roster at the upscale Grand Del Mar resort in northern San Diego,” read the article.

“Guests can get off the beaten track and ride through the 4,100-acre Los Peñasquitos Canyon Preserve which borders the resort. The preserve is made up of steep slopes, streams, flat mesas, and grassy hillsides.”

In addition to the equestrian center, Manchester also decided to put in three parking lots, a total of 2.66 acres, again without any permits.

Again, the city warned hotel executives of stiff penalties. None were handed down. And work continued at the Grand Del Mar.

The company opened a new nightclub onsite called Club M. No permit. The hotel began allowing helicopters to land and take off from the hotel, by way of a heliport for those guests who didn’t want to hassle with traffic; again, no permits.

The hotel wasn’t exactly trying to keep quiet about it, either. They took to Facebook to promote the helipad. “Touch Down. Check In. However you arrive, we look forward to welcoming you to The Grand life,” read a February 25 post.

But eventually word reached the city and the Department of Transportation contacted the hotel.

“It has come to our attention that helicopters have been landing at The Grand Del Mar. Your facility does not have a State-permitted heliport and does not appear to meet any of heliport permit exemption criteria,” read the letter addressed to Tom Voss, president of the Grand Del Mar.

The new infractions seemed to be the final straw for the city, which finally decided to settle the matter in court. That didn’t mean hotel executives didn’t feel entitled to some leeway.

Comments

Money rules in $an Diego, especially now in these tough times when a little publicity goes a very long way! Add to the equation, that they also own the only newspaper in town plus they have lots of lawyers and you begin to see why they feel they are above the laws meant for others less fortunate than themselves.

As far as the landing pad goes, why is San Diego so helicopter unfriendly? I'd like to see a landing pad at every freeway cloverleaf, so we could have a Helicopter Air Taxi Service.

The scenarios that govern Code Compliance Action are convoluted. A violation for Doug Manchester provides a perfectly legal way for Mr. Manchester to give money to the city. It is hard to take anything at face value, with the cast of characters we have here. The best way for the TMD to publicize San Diego would be to make a mini-series about what goes on here. Set at the Grand Del Mar Resort, of course.

In the second paragraph, there is the comment that "Manchester . . . willingly ignored permit-violation notices from the City of San Diego." I think you meant that he "willfully" ignored such notices. Willful suggests deliberate, voluntary or intentional action. "Willingly" is something much more passive, and I doubt you meant anything short of intentional.

Of course I meant willfully, Visduh. It was a test to see if my editors would catch that. Unfortunately they failed this time. Just trying to keep them on their toes...

It took the writer 11 minutes to blame the editor while pretending to be joking. It usually takes less...

You know, if he plunked down 35 MILLION then I don't find it any of the City's business, really, if he wants to install "tee boxes" (wth?) or grade part of the property for a horse area.

Does the City have some Department of Useless Minutiae with commensurate forms (in triplicate) which must be stamped with the Official Stamp and, of course, a FEE must be paid. All administered by a small but dedicated cadre of pompous bureaucrats. Probably an annual inspection and a renewal form to fill out, too.

does not have a State-permitted heliport and does not appear to meet any of heliport permit exemption criteria

And as far as a helipad? Seems pretty cool to me. Is there a problem? Is there another form in the Department of Useless Minutiae if one wants to add a helipad to one's $35 million property? ("heliport permit exemption criteria" reeks of some small minded bureaucrat with a handful of forms he intends to force you to fill out, just because he can)

put in three parking lots, a total of 2.66 acres, again without any permits.

Not as cool as the helipad, but, again, this is any of the City's business? Does the Department of Useless Minutiae have a finger in this pie, too? $0.05 per parking space? And we have to have INSPECTORS to measure the width of the painted lines dividing up the parking spaces, I'm sure.

I'm no millionaire, but the "violations" detailed bring to mind a slang term for insect excrement. The City comes off as a bunch of wormy little grey bureaucrats, running after every little violation, bleating in their ineffectual nasal voices, measuring how tall the grass is and vigilantly enforcing City Lawn Height regulations. If somebody buys a $35 million property, I'd say let them do as they please with it. I don't see any harm whatsoever. It seems like a petty vendetta.

I love all the moaning and handwringing over "disturbing environmentally sensitive areas"... but all of those moans go away if he pays enough money. Either up-front for a permit, or after the fact in fines.

If the land is so "environmentally sensitive", then someone who gives a poop should buy it from him and keep it the way they want.

Log in to comment

Skip Ad