4S Ranch Allied Gardens Alpine Baja Balboa Park Bankers Hill Barrio Logan Bay Ho Bay Park Black Mountain Ranch Blossom Valley Bonita Bonsall Borrego Springs Boulevard Campo Cardiff-by-the-Sea Carlsbad Carmel Mountain Carmel Valley Chollas View Chula Vista City College City Heights Clairemont College Area Coronado CSU San Marcos Cuyamaca College Del Cerro Del Mar Descanso Downtown San Diego Eastlake East Village El Cajon Emerald Hills Encanto Encinitas Escondido Fallbrook Fletcher Hills Golden Hill Grant Hill Grantville Grossmont College Guatay Harbor Island Hillcrest Imperial Beach Imperial Valley Jacumba Jamacha-Lomita Jamul Julian Kearny Mesa Kensington La Jolla Lakeside La Mesa Lemon Grove Leucadia Liberty Station Lincoln Acres Lincoln Park Linda Vista Little Italy Logan Heights Mesa College Midway District MiraCosta College Miramar Miramar College Mira Mesa Mission Beach Mission Hills Mission Valley Mountain View Mount Hope Mount Laguna National City Nestor Normal Heights North Park Oak Park Ocean Beach Oceanside Old Town Otay Mesa Pacific Beach Pala Palomar College Palomar Mountain Paradise Hills Pauma Valley Pine Valley Point Loma Point Loma Nazarene Potrero Poway Rainbow Ramona Rancho Bernardo Rancho Penasquitos Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Rolando San Carlos San Marcos San Onofre Santa Ysabel Santee San Ysidro Scripps Ranch SDSU Serra Mesa Shelltown Shelter Island Sherman Heights Skyline Solana Beach Sorrento Valley Southcrest South Park Southwestern College Spring Valley Stockton Talmadge Temecula Tierrasanta Tijuana UCSD University City University Heights USD Valencia Park Valley Center Vista Warner Springs

The Padres’ Mystery Lineup

Who are the new would-be owners of the Padres, and are they fit to own the team? Recent documents unearthed from city hall under the California Public Records Act suggest that City officials may not be doing enough to find out.

The public face of the Padres’ new ownership is ex–sports agent and former Arizona Diamondbacks co-owner Jeff Moorad. But Moorad has declined to say who else is buying the team with him.

The question of ownership is critical to San Diego taxpayers, who subsidize Petco Park to the tune of $11 million a year, as well as to baseball fans, who want to make sure the new owners have enough money to build a winning team.

The need for information has become more urgent as rumors have grown about whether Moorad and his unidentified partners have the financial wherewithal and business acumen to run a successful team over the long run.

But does the City even have the right to ask about such matters? Section 13.3 of the Petco Park Joint Use and Management Agreement between the City and Padres, L.P., dated February 1, 2000, addresses that issue:

“The Padres have the right to transfer ownership of the Padres’ franchise during the Term to the extent permitted by Major League Baseball, without the City’s consent; provided, however, that in connection with such sale, the new franchise owner must (i) concurrently acquire all of the Padres rights and obligations in, to and under the Franchise and this Agreement, and (ii) concurrently agree in writing, in form and substance reasonably acceptable to the City, to assume all of the Padres’ obligations under this Agreement for the remainder of the Term.”

That seems simple and reasonable enough. The new owners, whoever they are, must furnish the City with a signed statement agreeing to shoulder the same financial obligations to San Diego taxpayers as the previous owner, John Moores, had agreed to. If they don’t, there’s the very real possibility that they might walk away at any time, leaving the taxpayers high and dry.

But the new owners may not be asked to make that written commitment. In a letter dated February 17, Katherine K. Pothier, executive vice president of the Padres, asserts that “neither Section 13.3 nor Section 28.17 applies to the Transaction.”

She goes on to say, “The Transaction involves the sale of partnership interests in the Padres, which will continue to own, operate and manage the Franchise. There is not and will not be any new franchise owner or entity to assume obligations under the JUMA.”

In other words, Pothier, a lawyer, makes a lawyerly argument that Padres L.P., a Delaware limited partnership that technically owns the Padres franchise, remains the owner of the team — even though the partnership’s old owners are being exchanged for new owners, as yet to be identified.

At the bottom of her letter, Pothier provided a signature line for the City to attest that it has “Accepted and Approved” her interpretation of the contract. On the copy of the letter furnished by the City that line remains blank.

If Pothier’s interpretation prevails, the City won’t be able to find out anything about the financial wherewithal and business reputation of whoever is buying the team. Will the City take on the Padres and its new buyers in order to defend the integrity of its agreement with the team?

Apparently the jury is still out.

There is one more wrinkle. The city charter contains Section 225, which requires that anybody doing business with the City must make complete disclosure of the names and identities of those direct and indirect owners.

Tim Moore, City ballpark administrator, says the City hasn’t yet decided whether it will invoke Section 225 and ask for that information.

“No transaction has taken place yet,” Moore said in a telephone interview last week. “It [Section 225] may not be relevant to this transaction.” City emails released under the Public Records Act show that Padres vice president Pothier has been lobbying hard against any disclosure under Section 225.

In a February 12 email to Moore and deputy city attorney Brock Ladewig, she wrote, “I reviewed Section 225 of the City Charter and do not think it applies. The right and the lease have already been granted to the Padres L.P. and is not being altered. No additional rights are being granted. Padres L.P. continues to hold the interest.”

That drew a quick response from Ladewig. “Katie, I must respectfully disagree with your analysis. I believe new persons will be gaining some ‘right, title or interest arising out of a contract’ when the new partners are installed. If the issue becomes a problem, we can look at this more closely.” Reached by phone this week, Ladewig said he has had no further contact with Pothier.

Bruce Henderson, a former city councilman and longtime critic of the 1998 deal between the City and John Moores that created Petco Park and surrounding developments, says there is no question that Section 225 should be applied to the latest transaction.

“Section 225 is a very important rule that government is supposed to be following. Right in its title it says that it is mandatory. And the purpose of 225 is very simple: council members, the mayor, city staff should know whose economic interests are before them in order to be certain there is no conflict of interest, and the public needs to know the same thing, so if there is a conflict of interest they can blow the whistle on it.

“That’s why 225 was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in 1992. There was no real opposition to it. It was added as a charter amendment, not just a section of the municipal code but a mandatory provision of the charter.”

San Diego’s history of finance-related political scandals — including the Valerie Stallings case, in which the city councilwoman was forced to resign after receiving gifts from Padres owner Moores — makes enforcement of Section 225 critical.

“If something is going to be acted on by the city council, staff should at the very outset find out whose economic interests are directly or indirectly affected,” Henderson says. “That way as staff works on it and as the matter works its way up to city council, everyone knows whose economic interests are involved. If you get the disclosures right in the beginning it helps you avoid potential conflicts of interest.”

Henderson adds that scrutiny of those seeking to take over the Padres is also needed to make sure that the franchise is free from any criminal taint. “There are lots of reasons why you need to know who you are doing transactions with. They could be convicted felons.

“If somebody comes in and says, ‘I’d like to do a transaction with the City, but, by the way, I won’t tell you who I represent; you can just do the transaction in my name, although I’m not really the person who is responsible for all this,’ charter Section 225 in effect says, ‘No, you can’t do that.’ ”

Henderson says that the argument made by Padres vice president Pothier that the baseball team would continue to be owned by Padres L.P. doesn’t wash. “The essence of 225 is that you know who the economic interests are that you are dealing with. So if the owners of an entity are changing, you need to know that.

“Just the fact that the entity hasn’t changed, if you think about it, doesn’t really answer the question of who is the City doing business with.

“Is their money dirty, or do you have reason to believe it’s dirty? Is it drug money? You don’t want to do business with people who have drug money.

“But more than that, even if it’s clean money, it’s very important for you to know who’s involved. Councilmembers need to know, are any of these people contributors to their campaigns. That way, if there is an appearance of impropriety, they can address it right up front.

“Secrecy is power. The fact is that Major League Baseball may very well over the years have developed a policy that they want to provide confidentiality so that people really don’t know who owns baseball teams.

“They say it’s just the Padres. If you allow them to get away with that, you never know that local powerbrokers who are influencing legislation at the local, state, and national level have interests that they are pursuing. That’s what corporations and partnerships are often used for, to hide the real economic interests that are involved.

“Obviously those people with economic interests would like to keep things secret. They’d like to be able to stand in front of the council and say, ‘I’m just a concerned citizen, I have no economic interest whatsoever, I just want good government.’

“In fact, that’s the last thing they want, many of them. They want some special decision that will help them economically, and the public be damned. That happens all the time when you don’t have full disclosure.”

Here's something you might be interested in.
Submit a free classified
or view all

Previous article

San Diego's vinyl records surge, but why?

A talk with owners of Re-animated, Folk Arts, Lou's, Beat Box
Next Article

Driving a plane on Interstate 5, buying liquor in Tijuana

Women who love heroin, Seal lover on the Silver Strand, why Dean Martin greater than Elvis

Who are the new would-be owners of the Padres, and are they fit to own the team? Recent documents unearthed from city hall under the California Public Records Act suggest that City officials may not be doing enough to find out.

The public face of the Padres’ new ownership is ex–sports agent and former Arizona Diamondbacks co-owner Jeff Moorad. But Moorad has declined to say who else is buying the team with him.

The question of ownership is critical to San Diego taxpayers, who subsidize Petco Park to the tune of $11 million a year, as well as to baseball fans, who want to make sure the new owners have enough money to build a winning team.

The need for information has become more urgent as rumors have grown about whether Moorad and his unidentified partners have the financial wherewithal and business acumen to run a successful team over the long run.

But does the City even have the right to ask about such matters? Section 13.3 of the Petco Park Joint Use and Management Agreement between the City and Padres, L.P., dated February 1, 2000, addresses that issue:

“The Padres have the right to transfer ownership of the Padres’ franchise during the Term to the extent permitted by Major League Baseball, without the City’s consent; provided, however, that in connection with such sale, the new franchise owner must (i) concurrently acquire all of the Padres rights and obligations in, to and under the Franchise and this Agreement, and (ii) concurrently agree in writing, in form and substance reasonably acceptable to the City, to assume all of the Padres’ obligations under this Agreement for the remainder of the Term.”

That seems simple and reasonable enough. The new owners, whoever they are, must furnish the City with a signed statement agreeing to shoulder the same financial obligations to San Diego taxpayers as the previous owner, John Moores, had agreed to. If they don’t, there’s the very real possibility that they might walk away at any time, leaving the taxpayers high and dry.

But the new owners may not be asked to make that written commitment. In a letter dated February 17, Katherine K. Pothier, executive vice president of the Padres, asserts that “neither Section 13.3 nor Section 28.17 applies to the Transaction.”

She goes on to say, “The Transaction involves the sale of partnership interests in the Padres, which will continue to own, operate and manage the Franchise. There is not and will not be any new franchise owner or entity to assume obligations under the JUMA.”

In other words, Pothier, a lawyer, makes a lawyerly argument that Padres L.P., a Delaware limited partnership that technically owns the Padres franchise, remains the owner of the team — even though the partnership’s old owners are being exchanged for new owners, as yet to be identified.

At the bottom of her letter, Pothier provided a signature line for the City to attest that it has “Accepted and Approved” her interpretation of the contract. On the copy of the letter furnished by the City that line remains blank.

If Pothier’s interpretation prevails, the City won’t be able to find out anything about the financial wherewithal and business reputation of whoever is buying the team. Will the City take on the Padres and its new buyers in order to defend the integrity of its agreement with the team?

Apparently the jury is still out.

There is one more wrinkle. The city charter contains Section 225, which requires that anybody doing business with the City must make complete disclosure of the names and identities of those direct and indirect owners.

Tim Moore, City ballpark administrator, says the City hasn’t yet decided whether it will invoke Section 225 and ask for that information.

“No transaction has taken place yet,” Moore said in a telephone interview last week. “It [Section 225] may not be relevant to this transaction.” City emails released under the Public Records Act show that Padres vice president Pothier has been lobbying hard against any disclosure under Section 225.

In a February 12 email to Moore and deputy city attorney Brock Ladewig, she wrote, “I reviewed Section 225 of the City Charter and do not think it applies. The right and the lease have already been granted to the Padres L.P. and is not being altered. No additional rights are being granted. Padres L.P. continues to hold the interest.”

That drew a quick response from Ladewig. “Katie, I must respectfully disagree with your analysis. I believe new persons will be gaining some ‘right, title or interest arising out of a contract’ when the new partners are installed. If the issue becomes a problem, we can look at this more closely.” Reached by phone this week, Ladewig said he has had no further contact with Pothier.

Bruce Henderson, a former city councilman and longtime critic of the 1998 deal between the City and John Moores that created Petco Park and surrounding developments, says there is no question that Section 225 should be applied to the latest transaction.

“Section 225 is a very important rule that government is supposed to be following. Right in its title it says that it is mandatory. And the purpose of 225 is very simple: council members, the mayor, city staff should know whose economic interests are before them in order to be certain there is no conflict of interest, and the public needs to know the same thing, so if there is a conflict of interest they can blow the whistle on it.

“That’s why 225 was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in 1992. There was no real opposition to it. It was added as a charter amendment, not just a section of the municipal code but a mandatory provision of the charter.”

San Diego’s history of finance-related political scandals — including the Valerie Stallings case, in which the city councilwoman was forced to resign after receiving gifts from Padres owner Moores — makes enforcement of Section 225 critical.

“If something is going to be acted on by the city council, staff should at the very outset find out whose economic interests are directly or indirectly affected,” Henderson says. “That way as staff works on it and as the matter works its way up to city council, everyone knows whose economic interests are involved. If you get the disclosures right in the beginning it helps you avoid potential conflicts of interest.”

Henderson adds that scrutiny of those seeking to take over the Padres is also needed to make sure that the franchise is free from any criminal taint. “There are lots of reasons why you need to know who you are doing transactions with. They could be convicted felons.

“If somebody comes in and says, ‘I’d like to do a transaction with the City, but, by the way, I won’t tell you who I represent; you can just do the transaction in my name, although I’m not really the person who is responsible for all this,’ charter Section 225 in effect says, ‘No, you can’t do that.’ ”

Henderson says that the argument made by Padres vice president Pothier that the baseball team would continue to be owned by Padres L.P. doesn’t wash. “The essence of 225 is that you know who the economic interests are that you are dealing with. So if the owners of an entity are changing, you need to know that.

“Just the fact that the entity hasn’t changed, if you think about it, doesn’t really answer the question of who is the City doing business with.

“Is their money dirty, or do you have reason to believe it’s dirty? Is it drug money? You don’t want to do business with people who have drug money.

“But more than that, even if it’s clean money, it’s very important for you to know who’s involved. Councilmembers need to know, are any of these people contributors to their campaigns. That way, if there is an appearance of impropriety, they can address it right up front.

“Secrecy is power. The fact is that Major League Baseball may very well over the years have developed a policy that they want to provide confidentiality so that people really don’t know who owns baseball teams.

“They say it’s just the Padres. If you allow them to get away with that, you never know that local powerbrokers who are influencing legislation at the local, state, and national level have interests that they are pursuing. That’s what corporations and partnerships are often used for, to hide the real economic interests that are involved.

“Obviously those people with economic interests would like to keep things secret. They’d like to be able to stand in front of the council and say, ‘I’m just a concerned citizen, I have no economic interest whatsoever, I just want good government.’

“In fact, that’s the last thing they want, many of them. They want some special decision that will help them economically, and the public be damned. That happens all the time when you don’t have full disclosure.”

Sponsored
Here's something you might be interested in.
Submit a free classified
or view all
Previous article

ConcertsCafe launches with consumable merch

“Our plan is to mix it up a bit and provide artists a revenue channel”
Next Article

Cobra Kai cassettes

Tijuana’s La Rola records noticed the increase in used cassette sales in 2020
Comments
22

Ohmigod, Bruce Henderson is baaack. Now that he's no longer working in the City Attorney's office under Mike Aguirre, he's delivering opinions again on Padres' issues for Matt Potter. I don't know if I'm glad or appalled....

March 25, 2009

I for one can't understand the reason for NOT disclosing who owners are and their percentage of ownership. Public money has been and is being used to make Petco Park available for use in one form or another. Public financing of the bonds that built Petco Park will be paid for years to come. Non-disclosure, if nothing else, gives the impression somebody has something to hide. In addition, when the Padres Executive Counsel and VP Katherine K. Pothier, works to develop novel interpretations of the law, just to keep ownership information under wraps, ALARM BELLS should be ringing loudly at City Hall.

March 25, 2009

Matt, did the city ever apply Section 225 to Padres L.P. in the first place? My guess is that they probably didn't, or that if they did, the ownership was made up largely of other Delaware companies and that their ownership was not disclosed. I wonder how much of the Padres Valerie Stallings owns? (tongue firmly in cheek)

My understanding is that the city routinely does major business with Delaware companies and rarely invokes Section 225.

March 25, 2009

Paul

According to earlier stories from I believe MLB.com, The Mooreses reportedly own 90 percent of the team. Because of community property laws in California, Becky Moores shares 50 percent of that asset. Their daughter, Jennifer, owns five percent and the other five percent is owned by Glenn Doshay, a San Diego businessman

Strange thing is, when Alderson came about it was reported he would be a minority owner as well, of course he could have sold his share back.

March 25, 2009

For those who would like to directly contact the crooks, er people, involved ...

Katherine K. Pothier [email protected] Tim Moore [email protected] Brock Ladewig [email protected]

March 25, 2009

Monaghan, I had the same reaction to the news that Bruce is back.

Darn Bruce Henderson to heck. -Joe

March 25, 2009

Tiki and Monaghan,

Are you forgetting that just about everything Bruce Henderson predicted came true?

He was vilified, practically run out of town for telling the truth...and you STILL want to blame him for what happened?

Please, direct your anger toward the owners of the Chargers and Padres, and the city staff and elected officials. They're the ones who lied to us, ripped off the city for hundreds of millions of dollars, and are now living in luxury because people like you refused to listen to Henderson.

Why do you think the city is bankrupt? It's precisely because of the deals Henderson opposed. For you to now ridicule him shows a complete lack of class or intelligence.

March 26, 2009

Have to second Fred on that one. While Bruce was a city councilman he did begin the processes that led to a waiver on secondary sewage treatment require by the EPA... Scientist at Scripps Institute of Oceanography still have their doubts on the usefulness of these treatment processes today. His lead save the taxpayers of San Diego BILLIONS in unnecessary costs.

March 26, 2009

It looks like the name on the stadium is going to change too: http://sdheadliner.com/sports/padres-losing-streak-forces-petco-to-pull-name-from-stadium/

March 27, 2009

Fred, darling, do not misunderstand: I appreciate Bruce and most of his work, but enough already. Really. And much more interestingly, cooldude, what names for the stadium are you hearing?

March 27, 2009

Why do I get the feeling that every time our city fathers have to deal with the Chargers and Padres that they're hopelessly overmatched. To paraphrase Dr. Evil, why must we be lead by freaking morons?

March 29, 2009

Why does it matter who owns the Padres?

March 29, 2009

Fred, you had me all the way up to the point that you called me a classless moron.

March 30, 2009

Classless moron is a term of endearment here :)

March 30, 2009

you think he is sweet on me?

March 30, 2009

Tim Moore, City ballpark administrator, says the City hasn’t yet decided whether it will invoke Section 225 and ask for that information.

I hereby nominate Tim Moore, City Ballpark admin, as bonehead of the year.

March 30, 2009

Obviously those people with economic interests would like to keep things secret. They’d like to be able to stand in front of the council and say, ‘I’m just a concerned citizen, I have no economic interest whatsoever, I just want good government.’

“In fact, that’s the last thing they want, many of them. They want some special decision that will help them economically, and the public be damned. That happens all the time when you don’t have full disclosure.”

This is the exact same scenario that resulted in the federal corruption trial of Las Veags mob man Michael Galardi, Councilmen Ralph Inzunza and Michael Zucchet, lobbyist Lance Malone and David Cowan, a former aide to Councilman Charles Lewis- Lewis died awaiting trial.

March 30, 2009

I just emailed Katherine-lets see if she responds.

Dear Ms. Katherine K. Pothier:

Your comments and legal citations (supporting your position on the Padres L.P. documents which are currently pending before the City of San Diego) are urgently needed at the San Diego Reader website.

Please respond ASAP, I know I for one cannot wait to see your legal authority backing up and supporting your position.

Very Truly Yours,

SurfPuppy619

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2009/mar/25/city-light-2/#comments

March 30, 2009

Tiki, you know I've always been deeply attracted to your wit and classiness...

Now just agree that Bruce Henderson was right all along and we should accord him respect and admiration for persevering through all the sneers and trying to do what was best for our city.

The slime balls behind the Padres and Chargers ripoffs of this city have prospered with their lies and corruption. It's time we put the spotlight on them. What they cynically did to destroy a good man's reputation while fleecing the city makes an excellent case for why San Diego is in such trouble today.

Anyone who persists in blaming Henderson for our troubles is indeed both classless and moronic.

March 31, 2009

Fred, his style rubs me the wrong way... but OK.

Uncle.

  • Joe
March 31, 2009

Looks like Katherine K. Pothier is a no show.

Not surprising.

She is probably running for the hills (tail between legs) with her "confidentiality" claims right now.

March 31, 2009

Give her time.

She's probably trying to come up with some typical lawyer-speak response.

SDPH

April 7, 2009

Sign in to comment

Sign in

Art Reviews — W.S. Di Piero's eye on exhibits Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed Best Buys — San Diego shopping Big Screen — Movie commentary Blurt — Music's inside track Booze News — San Diego spirits City Lights — News and politics Classical Music — Immortal beauty Classifieds — Free and easy Cover Stories — Front-page features Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts Famous Former Neighbors — Next-door celebs Feast! — Food & drink reviews Feature Stories — Local news & stories From the Archives — Spotlight on the past Golden Dreams — Talk of the town Here's the Deal — Chad Deal's watering holes Just Announced — The scoop on shows Letters — Our inbox [email protected] — Local movie buffs share favorites Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news News Ticker — News & politics Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated Of Note — Concert picks Out & About — What's Happening Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated Poetry — The old and the new Pour Over — Grab a cup Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers Reading — The hunt for intellectuals Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds SD on the QT — Almost factual news Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes Sheep and Goats — Places of worship Special Issues — The best of Sports — Athletics without gush Street Style — San Diego streets have style Suit Up — Fashion tips for dudes Theater Reviews — Local productions Theater antireviews — Narrow your search Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads Waterfront — All things ocean Your Week — Daily event picks
4S Ranch Allied Gardens Alpine Baja Balboa Park Bankers Hill Barrio Logan Bay Ho Bay Park Black Mountain Ranch Blossom Valley Bonita Bonsall Borrego Springs Boulevard Campo Cardiff-by-the-Sea Carlsbad Carmel Mountain Carmel Valley Chollas View Chula Vista City College City Heights Clairemont College Area Coronado CSU San Marcos Cuyamaca College Del Cerro Del Mar Descanso Downtown San Diego Eastlake East Village El Cajon Emerald Hills Encanto Encinitas Escondido Fallbrook Fletcher Hills Golden Hill Grant Hill Grantville Grossmont College Guatay Harbor Island Hillcrest Imperial Beach Imperial Valley Jacumba Jamacha-Lomita Jamul Julian Kearny Mesa Kensington La Jolla Lakeside La Mesa Lemon Grove Leucadia Liberty Station Lincoln Acres Lincoln Park Linda Vista Little Italy Logan Heights Mesa College Midway District MiraCosta College Miramar Miramar College Mira Mesa Mission Beach Mission Hills Mission Valley Mountain View Mount Hope Mount Laguna National City Nestor Normal Heights North Park Oak Park Ocean Beach Oceanside Old Town Otay Mesa Pacific Beach Pala Palomar College Palomar Mountain Paradise Hills Pauma Valley Pine Valley Point Loma Point Loma Nazarene Potrero Poway Rainbow Ramona Rancho Bernardo Rancho Penasquitos Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Rolando San Carlos San Marcos San Onofre Santa Ysabel Santee San Ysidro Scripps Ranch SDSU Serra Mesa Shelltown Shelter Island Sherman Heights Skyline Solana Beach Sorrento Valley Southcrest South Park Southwestern College Spring Valley Stockton Talmadge Temecula Tierrasanta Tijuana UCSD University City University Heights USD Valencia Park Valley Center Vista Warner Springs
Close