Milking of Wetlands Fund Leaves Slough, Parkland Protectors Irate

A City Council decision to dissolve a $4.6-million wetlands acquisition fund and use the money for other programs has infuriated environmentalists who wanted the money used to purchase a 20-acre marsh near Ocean Beach.

The unanimous move Tuesday also angered Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer, who was absent for the vote and viewed the fund as a source of revenue for the purchase of open space in the San Dieguito River Valley.

When she learned of the action after returning to the council chambers Tuesday, Wolfsheimer reacted angrily and said it was “unconscionable” to deplete such a fund. Her colleagues refused to reconsider the matter, but Wolfsheimer vowed to win back the open space money.

“I am making all haste to reinstate the funds,” said Wolfsheimer, who wants to create a 43-mile-long regional park along the San Dieguito River, which lies in her district. “What the council did was expend the wetlands money . . . despite the fact that we’re well under way with our (plans for the park.)”

Meanwhile, backers of a drive to purchase Famosa Slough, a degraded marsh along West Point Loma Boulevard, said the vote was a clear signal that the council had reneged on its commitment to protect the region’s wetlands from development.

‘Sneaked This Through’

“They just sneaked this through without a word,” said Jack Sanders, chairman of Friends of Famosa Slough. “I’m still pulling arrows out of my back. We see it as going back on their word. They may say they’re still committed to wetlands and open space, but if there’s no money in the bank, what proof of that do we have?”

Jim Peugh, another member of the Famosa Slough group, said the move was “an irresponsible act of taking long-term investment money and using it for day-to-day operations. I was really appalled at this. Why set up a fund if you plan to take out the money for these pork-barrel expenditures?”

Tuesday’s action came on a recommendation by City Manager John Lockwood, who was searching for money to cover $24 million in “unfunded needs” for the coming fiscal year. Lockwood said he recommended using the wetlands fund because the purchase of open space was of a lower priority than other programs in need of financial support.

“Looking at those unfunded needs, it was my opinion there are some priority items . . . that should take precedence over the need to buy wetlands,” Lockwood said. “Take the $500,000 for brush management, for example. Remember the Normal Heights fire? I think when you have brush growing on a hillside and a dry year coming, that’s pretty important.”

Lockwood said there were no “moral or legal restrictions” on the money when the wetlands fund was established a year ago, so “I thought the disbursement of those funds made sense. And a council majority agreed.”

Among other projects covered out of the $4.6 million were a building abatement program, lifeguard service at Blacks Beach, improvements along Mission Bay, and a street-sweeping program, Lockwood said.

Will Start Over

According to Sanders, abolishing the fund at least temporarily “removes any chance we had at negotiating a fair purchase price” with Famosa Slough owner Terry Sheldon. Sheldon, who has fought for years to build a 400-unit waterfront condominium project on the site, has recently expressed flexibility in his selling price, Sanders said.

He said the group plans to mobilize environmentalists throughout the city and pressure the council to revoke its decision.

Mayor Maureen O’Connor was not available for comment on the wetlands affair Tuesday. But her press secretary, Paul Downey, said a public hearing on July 21 will allow the environmentalists to have their say.