Toni Atkins didn’t listen.

On July 11, 2006, the City Attorney’s office sent a memo to Atkins, the San Diego City Councilmember for District 3, and her cohorts. The environmental report, the memo said, submitted by the developer for 301 University was insufficient.

The embattled 12-story retail and housing project proposed at the corner of Third and University in Hillcrest is a divisive issue that warrants scrutiny. Whether unconvinced the City Attorney’s concern was credible, or with a reckless disregard for the law, the San Diego City Council voted 7-1 on Sept. 12, 2006, to approve the project. Donna Frye cast the only dissenting vote.

Now, nearly a year and tens of thousands of dollars of the all-but-bankrupt city’s legal fees later, Judge Linda B. Quinn has ruled the City of San Diego did not follow legal requirements in the preparation of the environmental study for the project.

So, let us get this straight.

Despite the City Attorney’s concerns about the environmental report, and the Uptown Planners board’s 6-4 rejection of the project, the City Council, minus Frye, voted to approve 301 University.

It was a thick-skulled move by the council. Atkins, who made the motion to approve the project, should have listened. She should have listened to constituents, and she should have listened to the City Attorney.

The City Attorney’s memo, which delayed the council’s initial vote, suggested the council deny the proposal until a thorough environmental review was complete. It didn’t ask the council to reject the proposal altogether. It simply asked the council to do its due diligence and follow the law.

Follow the law. What a concept.

Instead, the city chose to approve the proposal based on a Mitigated Negative Declaration in lieu of a full environmental impact report.

The council blatantly hoisted a middle finger at the City Attorney’s office and Hillcrest voters. The project’s design, a large number of residents contend, doesn’t fit with Hillcrest’s character – not to mention the increased traffic the too-large development would bring to the neighborhood. The city wasted time and money by not addressing the full environmental impact of the project to begin with.

So, why did the city council approve the project?

It seems there are two possibilities: stupidity or corruption.

Atkins and the City Councilmembers are either so dense or arrogant that they couldn’t wrap their heads around the scope of the project and didn’t heed the City Attorney’s warning; or, special interest and developers’ dollars have clouded their nearsighted vision.

Neither would surprise us. No, we wouldn’t be surprised if sheer stupidity guided the city’s judgment – after all, The New York Times called San Diego and the current council “Enron by the Sea” for its blatant, gross mismanagement of the pension and disregard for law. The Wall Street Journal said, as an example, the council should be tarred and feathered and run out of town.

And no, we wouldn’t be surprised if corruption was at the heart of this matter – particularly since La Jolla Pacific Development’s Bruce Leidenberger said he contributed to Atkins’, Mayor Jerry Sanders, and Kevin Faulkner’s campaigns, and Bill Beck, Atkins’ campaign finance director, reserved a unit at 301 University. Beck has confirmed that he reserved one of the two penthouses before the City Council voted to approve the project. The developers returned Beck’s money when construction of the project was delayed. Additional supporters of and contributors to Atkins’ campaign also reserved units in 301 University. Both District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis and former club owner and contributor to Atkins’ campaign John McCusker, before he died, reserved units in the high rise.

When asked whether his contribution to the politicians’ campaigns might have influenced the council, Leidenberger said “Absolutely not.”

Likewise, when asked if his investment in 301 University might have swayed Toni’s vote, Beck said, “Absolutely not. That’s ridiculous.”

But the only thing, it seems, that is ridiculous about this whole mess is the City Council’s failure to follow the law – again.

Why did the council have to vote on whether to follow the law? And, if they didn’t think in those terms, why did the council approve a less than thorough environmental study? Particularly in the City of San Diego, the Enron by the Sea, why not err on the side of caution, and proceed with a full environmental impact report?

Why does the city bother to employ a City Attorney and request legal advice only to disregard them? Why do we as voters tolerate dumbfounding stupidity, arrogance, blatant disregard for the law, and the squandering of our hard-earned tax dollars?

What it may boil down to is the City Council’s relationship with City Attorney Michael Aguirre. The council’s distrust and hatred for Aguirre has prompted it to disregard his opinions, no matter the circumstances. We’d be surprised if the council allowed him to pour water on a burning City Hall.

In last week’s editorial, the Gay & Lesbian Times incorrectly reported that the City Council would unveil Pete Wilson’s statue. In fact, the statue was built on private land with private funding, and the council did not unveil the statue. We apologize for the error.