Development Plan for Famosa Slough Offered by Fish and Game Dept.

For almost a decade, the community groups fighting development of the Famosa Slough have had unbending support from state agencies with influence over the fate of the 20-acre greenbelt in Loma Portal, just west of the Sports Arena.

Their adversaries, who believe at least some of the slough should be developed, complained that the bureaucrats in Sacramento had no business exerting such muscle over a local issue. They include Terry Sheldon, the prospective developer of 416 condominiums at the site, Councilman Bill Cleator and Sen. Jim Ellis (R-San Diego). A bill by Ellis to remove the slough from the jurisdiction of one of those agencies opposing the condominium project--the state Coastal Commission--passed the Senate but was defeated by one vote in the Assembly last year.

Ellis’ bill included a promise that Sheldon would restore 10 acres of the slough as open space to be dedicated to the City of San Diego. Opponents, notably within the powerful state agencies, had previously rejected the development proposal on environmental grounds, saying such a large project would forever destroy the ecology of the slough.

Last week, however, a high-ranking official with the state Department of Fish and Game suggested a plan under which Sheldon would be allowed to build on 6 of the 20 acres--four fewer than a bill identical to Ellis’ introduced this year by Sen. Jim Costa (D-Fresno) but still considered unacceptable by the environmental forces.

Under the DFG proposal, the six acres would be removed from the state coastal zone.

Jack Sanders, head of Friends of Famosa Slough, a local organization that has led the community groups opposing Sheldon’s development, said the new DFG greatly increases the possibility that at least some of the slough will be developed.

A bill by Assemblywoman Lucy Killea (D-San Diego) would keep the slough in the coastal zone but allow the DFG to decide whether it should be developed. Killea could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

After being deluged with more than 1,000 letters from local environmentalists and community activists, Killea last year led the opposition to Ellis’ bill in the Assembly. “She read the political writing on the wall, but we’re just another interest group to Lucy when it comes to this issue,” Sanders said.

“She’s trying to mediate a compromise, but she’s working on her own timetable. We don’t have a huge amount of clout with her.”

In the past, the DFG and the Coastal Commission have opposed any development of the slough, and both agencies have recommended that all of the land be purchased for preservation as a natural wetland.

The two agencies’ positions bolstered local groups opposing the development, but neither the city nor the state was able to negotiate a purchase of the land from Sheldon.

Both sides in the controversy agree on one thing--the slough needs help, and restoration will not begin until the fate of the land is decided. Ellis has called the slough “a mosquito-breeding dumping ground” not worth saving.

“We need some sort of alternative if we are going to save the slough; we recognize that we can’t let it sit like it has been,” Sanders said. “There has been a lot of illegal dumping.”

Given the support of Cleator and other city officials for Sheldon’s proposed development, Sanders said, the erosion of support within the DFG “is something that causes us tremendous concern.”

“The city wouldn’t keep an acre of that slough if it were the last piece of wetland on Earth,” said Sanders. “We feel the Fish and Game plan shows a willingness by the state to fold the tent and give in on the whole thing.

“They’ve offered six acres, now they can never get that back. That’s not negotiating from strength.”

Sheldon was not available for comment, but he has said in the past that he would not relinquish control of more than 10 acres. How many condominium units Sheldon would be allowed to build eventually will be decided by the City Council.

Sanders said Friends of Famosa Slough “realize now that we might have to accept some development on the land. We’re coming to see that the real world does not always offer you everything you want.”