Lawyer Denies Prop. A Will Bar Development

An attorney for the North City development that prompted the managed growth initiative approved by voters this week said Thursday that Proposition A does not affect his clients’ property. He said plans for a Christian graduate university and industrial park on the site are going ahead as scheduled.

“We’re going to proceed as if Proposition A never existed until someone says it does affect us,” said James Milch, attorney for La Jolla Valley Properties Inc., the developer.

Milch said the initiative, which requires a public vote whenever the city transfers land from the “future urbanizing area” to the “planned urbanizing area,” is not retroactive, as it has been widely assumed to be.

He said the City Council’s decision in September, 1984, removing the La Jolla Valley land from the future urbanizing zone and thus allowing its development is still valid despite the fact that Proposition A was written to require a public vote for any such change that took place after Aug. 1, 1984.

“You cannot by definition do away with reality,” Milch said. “On Sept. 11, 1984, the General Plan was amended and as of that date the land was no longer in the future urbanizing area.”

But San Diego City Atty. John Witt said Milch is wrong. He said the La Jolla Valley project will go no further unless the courts rule otherwise.

“If there is no lawsuit, then Proposition A means what it says and effectively that property is back into the future urbanizing area,” Witt said. “They’re back to ground zero. They would have to come down to the council and attempt to have it removed from that designation, which would involve a vote of the people.

“If they take the position that it doesn’t apply to them, then it’s going to come to a head when they come down for the next permits they need. Those permits are going to be denied, and then I think we’ll be headed down to the courthouse.”

As written, Proposition A says that “no property shall be changed from the ‘future urbanizing’ land use designation in the Progress Guide and General Plan . . . except by majority vote of the people.” The text defines “Progress Guide and General Plan” as that which existed on Aug. 1, 1984.

But Milch insists that the measure is not retroactive. He said the idea that Proposition A would prevent the development of La Jolla Valley is a mistaken impression fostered by newspaper articles saying that the measure would “roll back” the council’s action approving the project.

“The law is clear that if you’re going to do something to create retroactivity you have to make it clearly known,” Milch said. “How many people besides a few junkies of political action would know the significance of Aug. 1, 1984, versus Aug. 1, 1985, or Aug. 1, 1983?”