Despite a joint last-minute attempt by Mayor Bob Filner and San Diego Unified School Board (SDUSD) member Scott Barnett to save the Mission Beach Elementary School property from sale on May 14 to La Jolla-based McKellar-Ashbrook LLC, SDUSD trustees voted 4-1 to approve the sale for $18.5 million. In a personal appeal to the school board, Filner gave his assurance that he would be willing to work with the school district to secure the prime coastal real estate and preserve the land for public use. “What I would have liked to do — and I think Mr. Barnett thinks we can still do it in a timely fashion — is keep public lands in public hands,” he said. “It seems to me that we ought to be working very closely together on these lands.” Although the city was offered the property prior to auction, Filner said he was unaware of any such sale and apologized for his 11th-hour proposal that he feared might have come too late. “I’m embarrassed because I’m here on the day you’re making a decision. I should not do that,” he said. “Frankly, when you notified the city that property was surplus and for sale, it went to a department that did not notify me. Otherwise, I would have gotten involved a lot earlier.” According to Barnett’s plan, the city would pay $11 million over the next two fiscal years for the property and the school district would retain equity ownership of $7,500,001 — which amounts to one dollar more than the top bid offered by McKellar-Ashbrook at auction May 4. “The city and San Diego Unified should work together with the community to determine short-term and long-term use of the property, which should include dedicated public uses and public revenue-producing opportunities,” said Barnett in his motion to the board. The motion failed because of the lack of a second. “We [board members] will be gone in two, four or ten years, but that property is an asset that we’ve had since 1926,” Barnett said. Community representatives from local planning groups and school cluster boards voiced strong support for Barnett’s proposal during the meeting. “This is the biggest land-use change in Mission Beach in 50 years,” said Debbie Watkins, chairwoman of the Mission Beach Precise Planning Board. “This is 2.23 acres of prime real estate in the heart of Mission Beach that is an important city resource. Our beach community would have to live with the negative impact of this sale, and SDUSD, the City of San Diego and Mission Beach will lose a valuable resource if it is sold to developers.” Some community members expressed concern that if the developer builds a high-density condo in that location it would increase traffic congestion and criminal activity in the already densely populated beach community. “Selling this incredible property would be a tragic, tragic loss to the district, the city and certainly to our community,” said Jennifer Tandy, past chairwoman of the Mission Bay Cluster of Schools. “You will have your one-time dollars for this sale, but we will live with the longtime ramifications of your decisions forever.” In October, the same Mission Beach property drew an auction bid of $16.5 million by the San Francisco-based Carmel Partners, but the property was taken off the chopping block at the last minute by the school board — sparing it only temporarily. This time around, the majority of school board trustees assured Filner and Barnett that they are interested in pursing joint partnerships for surplus properties in the future, but they could not justify the risk that would be taken in pursuing a last-minute change of heart for the Mission Beach site a second time. Some said another last-minute retreat may send the wrong message to the real-estate community and the bond market, thus damaging SDUSD’s credibility and handicapping its ability to complete other real-estate sales. “We have to make sure we are doing our fiduciary duty because we are being watched,” said school board trustee Kevin Baiser. “The bond markets are watching, and we have to have our TRANs (tax and revenue anticipation notes) approved so we can make payroll. I think it’s a travesty and it’s unfortunate that it has come to this point, but unfortunately, there are no other alternatives I can see at this time.” Trustee Marne Foster and board president John Lee Evans said the educational milestones they have worked so hard to achieve, despite difficult financial times, would be at stake should the school district fail to meet its financial responsibilities. “We’ve had to balance our education mission and our financial solvency,” said Evans. “We are trustees for the education of the children of San Diego, and we will do what we can to preserve and protect their education. That’s why this is so necessary and so important that we accept this bid tonight.” McKellar-Ashbrook principals Chris McKellar, Tim McGowan and Jeff Johnson said they are longtime San Diego residents who are interested in working with the community to craft a plan that is in line with the unique beach community character. “We look forward to working closely with the community, the city and other stakeholders to develop a plan that is in keeping with the unique character of Mission Beach,” said McGowan. “We look forward to a project that everyone can be proud of.”

A Finnish group of researchers currently based at San Diego State University is launching a study in Pacific Beach with a unique online map-based survey to collect information about how people use the PB area in their daily life, what they value in particular and what they would like to see improved. Beautiful PB Initiative Project organizers invited the Finnish team to assist with the survey. The so-called softGIS-method has been developed in Aalto University, Finland, to collect and analyze data collected from the residents. It has become an established part of Finnish participatory planning, according to the Finnish scholars. It has also been used in Australia and Japan, but Pacific Beach is the group’s first study in the U.S. The scholar group said it does not have a particular research grant but it has an exchange period at SDSU and is conducting the survey for free. The Finnish scholars said the survey is very comprehensive and takes quite a long time to complete, but survey participants can skip some sections if they wish. No personal information is collected and the data will always be represented in a way that anonymity is not endangered. The Finnish scholars stress they maintain very high standards in the collection of data for such surveys. To participate in the survey, visit www.softgis.fi/pacificbeach.

The Weather Channel’s airing of “Lifeguard! Southern California” may put a heroic spotlight on local lifeguards and showcase San Diego’s pristine beaches and great weather, but lifeguard union spokesman Ed Harris said there are a few downsides to the show that need to be addressed if another round of filming begins this summer. From overzealous shark hype to distractions from real-life rescues, Harris said the impact of the show on lifeguards and citizens affects the smooth operation of the rescue department, and the lifeguards are simply not getting sufficient compensation for their burden. The “Lifeguard!” docudrama series features an up-close-and-personal look at the lifesaving men and women of Southern California’s beaches as they conduct rescues and law enforcement measures. The show is airing its second season, but San Diego lifeguards have also been stars of TruTV’s “Beach Patrol” and “Ocean Force” in previous years before the city was approached by Encino-based LMNO Productions two years ago. “At first, they wanted to shoot a pilot program, but it ended up being a 13-part series,” said Harris. “There seemed to be a decision made with no contract and no deal. The lifeguards were informed a week or two prior to filming.” In the first year, lifeguard services received an $8,000 quad runner for its participation. In the second year, LMNO Productions agreed to a $37,446 contractual payment to the city, plus reimbursement totaling $1,641 for labor and equipment use. Although that revenue reflects the highest negotiated compensation rate of the seven cities featured in the series, Harris said the city signed a poor deal because of soft costs associated with the production, ranging from retakes, film review and liability issues that were not accounted for. “People don’t like to be filmed when they’re in distress,” Harris said. “You increase your risk of exposure to the filming of very tragic incidents, which could potentially raise liability issues with the city. [Some lifeguard officials are] also concerned that production crews change the way we react to things. It certainly adds stress to the lifeguards who are doing these calls and distracts us from an already dangerous job.” He said there is also no guarantee that city revenue generated by the production will be used for lifeguard services. “We have a really skeleton crew patrolling the beaches, and they’ve turned lifeguards into actors,” he said. “It does not make financial sense. They need to cover all costs, eliminate impacts on lifeguard staff and pay the city a fair price.” While Harris agreed that there are positive aspects to the show like good tourism exposure, there are exceptions when the show focuses heavily on shark attacks that scare off tourists and ocean-oriented businesses or films citizens when they are most vulnerable. “The problem is the impact on the lifeguards, the impact on the beach for producing it and the lack of funds. It’s not paying for itself,” he said. “We’re not opposed to it if the city wants to do it, but there needs to be some changes to how it’s structured.” In addition to higher quality and more clandestine production equipment to ease the victims’ comfort level, it needs to make fiscal sense for the city, said Harris. “No part of our operating budget should be used to support it,” he said. “At the end of the day, this is the fifth year of the show, and it really hasn’t had an impact on us budgetarily and it really hasn’t helped us explain what we do.” San Diego Lifeguard Services Chief Rick Wurts, however, said the department has had “excellent experiences” with the documentary-based productions and believes the show is successful in educating viewers about the lifeguards’ roles, promoting safety on the beach and identifying how beachgoers can avoid hazards in and around the ocean. “With both production companies, the department has been very pleased with the way in which our lifeguards were showcased, their level of professionalism and the series in general,” he said. “Our lifeguards have recognized the value of the various TV series as an educational outreach to the public allowing them to see in a graphic visual manner the conditions under which lifeguards work and the challenges they face in their everyday duties.” Wurts said he also feels the city is getting sufficient compensation monetarily and in terms of other assets like the enhancement of the city’s ability to attract and retain corporate sponsorship and showcase San Diego as a tourist destination. “During every episode of ‘Lifeguard,’ San Diego’s beaches and bays are prominently featured to hundreds of thousands of viewers. Having the opportunity to feature our beautiful beaches to a national audience has intrinsic value to tourism and supports jobs and the community,” he said. Wurts and the department’s senior leadership feel they are capitalizing on a rare opportunity to educate a national audience about the key role lifeguards play in the community and display the skill and professionalism of their guards. “Our partnership with LMNO Productions educates the public on the value that lifeguards provide to the community and replaces negative notions and stereotypes about the role of lifeguards with the image of professionalism,” he said. Regarding allegations of safety concerns, Wurts said his guards have absolute veto power if they believe the film crew will complicate a scene, increase the risk of a rescue or act as an obstacle in any way. In such scenarios, the lifeguard can direct the cameraperson, citizen or other film crew personnel to back off or discontinue filming. “At all times during the filming of the TV series, the production company was strictly supervised by a designated lifeguard officer,” said Wurts. “Both the lifeguards and the production company staff were briefed regarding the absolute need for the film crew to provide appropriate space to the public and our personnel.” While he admits that each lifeguard and citizen has varying levels of comfort and tolerance while being filmed, he said it is no different than when local TV news crews or members of the public film public safety personnel during the course of their duties. “It’s no secret that we’re living in a YouTube world by virtue that almost every person over a certain age has the ability to video public events,” he said. “Within the department, there is an expectation of emergency skills expertise and professional conduct under all conditions.” Lifeguards are not currently in negotiations with the production company for a new round of shows, said Wurts. However, if the show returns for another season, a contract would have to be approved by the mayor before any filming can begin. Should the production company decide to return this summer, Harris said he hopes the lifeguards get a better deal for their trouble. Otherwise, the show is simply not worth doing, he said. “I agreed to do it because they told us we were getting money, and we didn’t get money,” he said. “Now, most of us are over it. The lifeguard union is opposed to it. We did it for free. You put us on your website. We’ve done the whole deal. We’re done.”