Resident Stands by Principles in Canyon Battle

Joe Marciano has seen quite a few land-use debates come and go during the 25 years he has lived on the rim of Tecolote Canyon. And not many of his neighbors have shared his viewpoint that personal property rights should supersede laws designed to protect the surrounding open spaces.

It isn’t that Marciano, an attorney, doesn’t cherish his sweeping view of the canyon as much as the “Friends of Tecolote Canyon,” the dogged group behind the drive to preserve Tecolote Canyon Natural Park and its environs. But the myriad of preservation measures approved over the years by the City Council run counter to his “legal principles.”

In recent months, Marciano’s principles have been severely tested. Next door, a sizable two-story addition will jut beyond the canyon’s rim, cutting off his view of the Tecolote Canyon golf course. It’s likely the last project of its type that will be built in the neighborhood before the city adopts more stringent measures regulating construction on the rim. And its considerable effect on Marciano’s property epitomizes the situation the ordinance is being drafted to prevent.

Nevertheless, Marciano has worked tirelessly against formation of the Tecolote Canyon Environs Development Overlay District. And this time, after all these years, his words are not falling on deaf ears. Following a stormy public hearing before the Planning Commission at its most recent meeting, the commissioners for the third time delayed a decision and ordered the Planning Department to revise the proposed ordinance.

“I admit I don’t like what’s being built next door,” Marciano said. “But why should that new family moving in be limited in adding onto the house? They’ve got kids to raise. I have to stay true to my principles.”

The Planning Commission action came as a surprise, given support for the ordinance by Mike Gotch and Ed Struiksma, the two City Council members whose districts would be affected, plus the recommendation for approval by the Planning Department and the prediction by some commissioners, including Chairman Ron Roberts, that the hearing would “allay public fears about this proposal.”

The objections by Marciano and scores of other residents, including a good number of those who previously have supported canyon development restrictions, center on how much clout city regulators will have in reviewing improvements of existing homes, and whether rim homeowners should be forced to grant public easements on their canyon properties.

Marla Leira, a planner working on the formation of the Tecolote overlay district, which would place special development restrictions on the canyon neighborhoods, admitted Marciano and other speakers at the public hearing “made some failings in the ordinance as it was proposed very clear.”

Reflecting on the overwhelming opposition to the ordinance expressed at the hearing, Marciano said the commission ordered the revisions “to pacify an unruly audience.” The revised ordinance will go before the Planning Commission in mid-September, and once the commissioners agree on the specifics for formation of the overlay district, its recommendations will be passed on to the City Council for final approval.

The canyon floor below September Street was a pristine greenbelt when Marciano moved there in 1959, but unlike many of those living on the rim, he didn’t complain when a residential subdivision sprouted up there in the mid-’60s.

“People have to live somewhere; why not there?” he said, peering over his patio to the houses below. “I don’t think it’s all that much of a blight.”

Marciano also was one of the few canyon-area residents who balked at the formation of the assessment district formed to buy the 900-acre canyon park (2,500 property owners were assessed a total of $1.4 million over a five-year period beginning in 1969, 25% of the purchase price).

Two bond issues to purchase the land had been narrowly defeated in citywide elections, and Marciano said the fact that more than 45% of voting San Diegans were willing to put up money to save Tecolote Canyon proved the park would be used by a large number of people living far from his neighborhood.

“I didn’t object to the idea of saving the canyon, but it just wasn’t fair for us to carry the whole burden,” he said. “Enough people at the city finally came around on that one, and we did get our money back.” (The City Council voted in 1980 to return the money, although a number of residents returned the reimbursements to form a trust fund to maintain the park.)

But none of those controversies angered Marciano as much as the most recent one swirling through the canyon. What began as a battle force of one has swelled to more than 300, all canyon rim residents who are viewing the proposed formation of the overlay district with considerable trepidation. Marciano has contacted more than 1,000 local homeowners by mail in his drive against formation of the overlay district.

Even some residents who have been active in the “Save the Canyon” movement are concerned about this latest proposal. Felix George, who was among the community residents who helped plan Tecolote Canyon Natural Park, said he was “disturbed by the course the city was taking. We pay more and more (to the city) only to see more and more of our land taken away,” he said.

Harry Steinmetz, another rim resident, said, “I like being on the canyon, and years ago I sided with the idea of preserving it. I enjoy watching the hawks fly through, and I share the concern for retaining the natural character of the area. But this proposal interferes substantially with the use of my lot. I rue the day that we start over-reacting, and over-protecting.”

Jim Milch, an attorney whose proposal to build a 19-story condominium project on the canyon rim was perhaps the most controversial land-use issue ever in the Tecolote area (although the City Council originally approved the plan, it was scaled down to low-rise structures after overwhelming opposition from local residents), mused that “those who have fought like hell against anybody developing the canyon all of a sudden are forming groups against this idea because they don’t want their land to be saddled with restrictions.”

Leira said, “We’re addressing those concerns in our revisions. That’s how the public hearing process is supposed to work. But the bottom line is that the design guidelines for the rim now are very sketchy, and they are so flexible that they are difficult to enforce. We need a better way of regulating development in the canyon, so we can better enhance a major city resource.”

Leira insists the easements would not force private landowners to allow the public to use their property, but Marciano said the language in the ordinance that was most recently brought before the Planning Commission would have accomplished just that.

“We can’t be lulled into a euphoria by what the planners say will happen, because the law makes this very clear,” Marciano said. “No reasonable homeowner would succumb to an easement, because it amounts to a virtual confiscation of his land. It would forgo altogether, or drastically curtail, any future use of his property.”

Marciano added that the forces working in favor of the ordinance “flat-out tell you they want public access (to privately-owned canyon land). That’s what they’ve been working for more than a year to accomplish.”

Among the people Marciano referred to was Sherlie Miller, a longtime leader of “Friends of Tecolote Canyon,” and a supporter of the overlay district proposal. “I’m aware of the concern of the property owners,” said Miller, herself a canyon rim resident. “But I’m in favor of the benefits a measure like this will provide for the preservation of the canyon.”

John Nordstrom, chairman of “Friends of Golboro Canyon,” which would be included in the overlay zone, said in supporting the proposal, “We must protect this valuable asset--all 900 acres of Tecolote Canyon.”

Leira said her revisions would include “a better definition of the city’s intention behind the easement. We aren’t confiscating anybody’s land and we aren’t talking about public access to private property.

“But the easement,” she said, “will allow us to regulate things like landscaping and other developments on the canyon slopes and rim. Also, we’re narrowing down the number of issues that will have to be discussed when a person comes in for a building permit. I think we’ll be able to reach a consensus to answer the various concerns.”