Could Have Aided Developers : Governor Vetoes Chacon Bill Linked to Prop. A

Although uncertain about the bill’s impact, San Diego city officials expressed relief Wednesday that Gov. George Deukmejian had vetoed a bill by Assemblyman Peter Chacon (D-San Diego) that could aid developers in anticipated court challenges of Proposition A.

“We are very pleased with the veto,” said John Witzel, the city’s Sacramento-based lobbyist. “We feel it is an issue that deserves full committee hearings. . . . I’ve never understood what the hurry was.”

Deukmejian, who vetoed the measure Tuesday night as his midnight deadline for acting on bills neared, cited a need for closer scrutiny of the measure as one of the reasons for his veto.

“Since this amendment never had the benefit of a committee hearing, it should be considered next session,” Deukmejian said.

The key provisions of Chacon’s bill surfaced during the waning days of the legislative session, and were approved with little or no debate.

Chacon, who said he had no intention of undermining the far-reaching anti-growth initiative approved by San Diego voters in November, had contended that the bill would have done nothing more than make state statutes conform to a May state Supreme Court decision.

Chacon was not available for comment Wednesday, but an aide said he has tentatively decided to “just let the Supreme Court ruling stand.”

Chacon’s bill was based on the May Supreme Court ruling over a 1981 local initiative in Camarillo limiting condominium development. The court ruled that local voter initiatives that limit growth--like slow-growth ordinances adopted by city councils and county supervisors--must be warranted to protect “public welfare.” The ruling also said that local officials must prove, in court challenges, that an anti-growth initiative has no adverse impacts outside the affected city or county’s border.

The ruling was a major victory for development interests, who were reeling from a series of losses in communities throughout the state. Essentially, the ruling shifted the burden of proof on the legitimacy of local initiatives from pro-growth to anti-growth forces.

Officials in the city attorney’s office said Chacon’s interpretation--that his bill would have merely codified existing law stemming from the Supreme Court ruling--may be correct.

But Deputy City Atty. Curtis Fitzpatrick said that without the bill, a lawyer might be able to argue that there are distinctions that make the law apply differently to the San Diego and Camarillo initiatives.

Chacon said such an argument would merely delay the inevitable.

So far, the only court challenge to Proposition A has been a lawsuit filed by a subsidiary of Campus Crusade for Christ, which charged that it was “unlawful discrimination” that the initiative has stalled its City Council-approved plans for a 1,000-acre Christian university, surrounded by housing and an industrial park.

But builders and developers, who spent more $600,000 fighting the initiative, have made no secret they too might challenge its overall validity.

Proposition A, considered one of the most far-reaching growth control measures ever proposed in California, requires voter approval for any development in the 52,000-acre “urban reserve,” most of it along the City of San Diego’s northern fringe.