Mind-Boggling Array of Slow-Growth Plans Heads for Ballot

In environmentally sensitive San Diego, land-use debates are a political constant. Even so, the Nov. 8 ballot is likely to be a mind-numbing blur that induces migraines among Sierra Club members and developers alike, much less average voters.

From Poway to Encinitas to San Diego to Chula Vista, a daunting array of ballot propositions and initiatives--most as complex as they are controversial--will be put before voters as, in what has become almost an annual electoral exercise, San Diegans make yet another attempt to toughen the region’s growth-management policies.

Given the somewhat esoteric nature of the subject itself, the multiple growth-management proposals expected to end up on the ballot are likely to be an indecipherable riddle to most voters, local officials admit. The plans are complementary on some points, contradictory on others.

During the hundreds of hours of debates in which the myriad ballot measures have been crafted, numerous public officials--as well as environmentalists, developers and land-use lawyers deeply engrossed in the issue--have conceded that even they are confused over some of the specifics in the various proposals. Moreover, there is widespread uncertainty over whether the competing proposals will, if ultimately approved, neatly mesh or become the legislative equivalent of parts of a puzzle that do not fit.

Put in Perspective

The confused state of affairs that will confront voters this fall was humorously put in perspective last month by land-use lawyer J. Michael McDade when he testified before San Diego County supervisors on one of the ballot measures being considered by that body.

Referring to the green or pink slips that persons fill out to speak to the board for or against, respectively, an issue, McDade told the supervisors: “This is one of those times . . . when I need one of those plaid slips.”

“The best ballot measure is one where voters can say, ‘Yes, I’m for that,’ or, ‘No, I’m not,’ ” McDade said at the time. “I think there’s not a chance in the world . . . that this will be able to be reduced to that kind of analysis. We’re kidding ourselves if we think this is going to help voters decide their own fate.”

With perhaps as many as 10 growth-management measures expected to appear on local and countywide ballots in November, there are almost as many theories about the cause of this year’s slow-growth fever as there are initiatives themselves.

San Diego City Council members talk of a citizen backlash attributable to the visible increase in traffic congestion. Environmentalists mention the confidence inspired by slow-growthers’ upset victory in 1985 on a ballot measure that blocked development on a large parcel of land in the city’s urban reserve. And builders note the long-term effects of Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 tax-cutting initiative that took millions of dollars for roads, schools and parks out of city coffers over the past decade.

But most analysts agree that in the past year or two, the growth rate has intruded into most San Diegans’ lives, crossing a line that activist Linda Martin calls “the perception threshold.”

“People are not really capable of assimilating to change as quickly as it has been happening here,” said Martin, who, as co-chairman of Citizens for Limited Growth, has placed strict slow-growth initiatives on both the city and county ballots. “Every time a community started growing more than 2.5% a year, that community became active” in slow-growth politics.

“I think it’s been building up for quite a while,” said Karin Shurson, regional land-use planner for the San Diego Association of Governments. “But people just started to notice the congestion on the roads. Plus, you notice the homes being built on the hillsides near your home.”

County Supervisor Susan Golding added: “Rightly or wrongly, there’s a feeling out in the community that the (growth) rules in place now just aren’t doing the job. People are upset that it takes them longer to drive to work or home. They don’t like some of the development they’ve seen going up. They see their neighborhoods changing. And from that comes a demand to do something .”

Derisively dismissed by some as ineffectual and dangerous “ballot-box planning,” the propositions are criticized by opponents as an abrogation of the land-use decision-making authority that, from their perspective, more properly belongs in the hands of elected officials than those of voters.

While elected officials presumably develop some land-use expertise and must weigh regional considerations in their decisions, opponents argue that many voters are ill-informed on the

subject and operate from a narrow perspective focused only on how growth affects their own neighborhoods. Moreover, growth-management policies developed at the polls are risky, they contend, because such measures lock cities into formulas that are more difficult and costly to change than routine ordinances that legislators can amend if unforeseen problems arise.

Proponents of the ballot measures, however, argue that local governments’ failure to effectively rein in growth left them with little alternative but to look to the public to do what elected officials were either unable or unwilling to do.

Many believe that the county must look back a decade or more to find the roots of a slow-growth movement blossoming in the late 1980s. When voters capped property taxes by approving the revolutionary Proposition 13, they drastically limited municipalities’ capability to build the roads, schools and parks that residents still demanded, said Kim Kilkenny, legislative counsel for the Construction Industry Federation.

While new growth in the city of San Diego’s urbanizing areas is “more than paying for itself,” Kilkenny maintains, inner-city residents are facing a $1-billion shortfall in their need for public facilities, according to city figures.

“It has galvanized an entire constituency,” Kilkenny said. “They are blaming growth.”

Peter Navarro, a member of Citizens for Limited Growth, agrees that Proposition 13 has curtailed the building of public facilities, but he points the finger at developers who continued building homes during the most recent boom cycle in the construction industry.

While San Diego gave out 9,085 building permits in 1983, that number jumped to 18,285 by 1986, prompting the council to approve the slow-growth Interim Development Ordinance (IDO) a year later, Navarro explained. That ordinance caps residential growth at 8,000 homes yearly.

“There’s just too much change, and from a practical standpoint, the quality of that development is so bad,” Navarro said.

‘Didn’t Get the Message’

Tom Mullaney, Citizens for Limited Growth’s co-chairman, believes that the impact of the rapid growth was exacerbated by elected officials’ unwillingness to take action.

There has been “no change in attitude or change in approach on the part of elected officials,” Mullaney argues. “They didn’t get the message that people wanted a change.”

Change is certainly what people would get if either of the initiatives on the city of San Diego ballot are approved.

San Diego voters will choose between two competing growth-control proposals: a citizen-backed Quality of Life Initiative, which has already qualified for the ballot, and a City Council-sponsored alternative still awaiting final action. The council approved its proposal last week and is expected to officially put it on the ballot later this month.

Though both measures would establish annual limits on residential growth, many business and civic leaders clearly are more worried about the potential impact of the citizens’ initiative. Concerned that the Quality of Life Initiative would be so restrictive as to destroy the city’s economy, opponents plan to raise $500,000 to try to stop the measure and support the city-sponsored alternative--assuming that it still offers a more moderate approach to growth when it is actually approved for the ballot.

If approved by voters, either initiative would reduce residential construction from the 8,000-home annual level established by the IDO. Under the Quality of Life Initiative, home building would be capped at 7,000 to 9,000 dwellings in 1989, with the level dropping to only 4,000 to 6,000 by 1991. In contrast, the council proposal would authorize 7,590 homes annually over a five-year period.

The city’s growth-management plan also includes a number of major provisions written by a citizens’ advisory group that completed 16 months of work last June. One major component of the plan is designed to protect environmentally sensitive lands by declaring some hillsides, canyons and flood plains off-limits to home building. Another key feature would protect single-family neighborhoods by ensuring that, in certain areas, single-family homes will not be replaced by multifamily housing.

Other key provisions call for the construction of streets, schools, parks and other public facilities as part of a new development, rather than after residents have moved into their homes.

Similar proposals will be before voters in San Diego County. One growth-management proposal has already qualified for the countywide ballot, and the board of supervisors is scheduled to take action this week that could result in three others appearing alongside it in the Nov. 8 election.

The measure guaranteed a spot on the ballot is a slow-growth proposal called the Rural Preservation and Traffic Control Initiative, which would restrict development in the 3,600-square-mile unincorporated area of the county and protect rural communities from urbanization. Citizens for Limited Growth collected about 74,600 valid signatures--far more than the required 58,599--to qualify the measure for the ballot.

Under the initiative, a numerical cap on residential growth would be established over a four-year period, commercial and industrial development would be restricted, building on environmentally sensitive lands such as hillsides and wetlands would be banned, and citizen planning groups could veto major zoning or density changes.

Bill McNeely, head of the rural division of Citizens for Limited Growth, argues that, of the various growth measures likely to be on the ballot, only his group’s initiative has “teeth that will slow growth . . . by preventing overbuilding (in) the countryside.”

Last month, the supervisors tentatively approved two other ballot propositions but defeated--at least temporarily--another proposal that would limit development on sensitive lands. At this week’s meetings, the board is expected to make final decisions on whether to place any or all of those measures on the ballot.

Those plans include:

* An advisory measure, sponsored by Supervisor Brian Bilbray, calling for creation of a regional growth-management board to promote a regional approach to growth issues. With cities and the county now independently handling growth matters within their own borders, actions taken in one jurisdiction often cancel out those taken in adjoining areas, Bilbray argues.

Bilbray admits that for such a regional panel to be effective, supervisors themselves and elected officials in cities must be willing to relinquish some of their existing land-use authority--a fact that he acknowledges could draw a skeptical response from other officeholders uneager to diminish their power.

* A proposal by Supervisor George Bailey establishing “quality-of-life standards” that would limit residential, commercial and industrial development in the county’s unincorporated areas.

Bailey’s measure calls for, among other things, residential development limits, local votes within a community before density increases or other major land-use changes occur there, reserving a set percentage of building permits for single-family homes, and balancing community plans with a mixture of residential, industrial, commercial and public uses.

* The sensitive-lands protection proposal, the only one of the three potential propositions tentatively defeated during last month’s supervisorial debate. However, that 3-2 setback stemmed more from several supervisors’ desire for additional time to review the impact of last-minute amendments rather than their displeasure with the measure itself. As a result, Supervisor Golding, who has spearheaded the proposal, remains optimistic of its chances for passage at this week’s meeting.

Described in its own statement of purpose as being designed to “preserve and protect the county’s unique topography, natural beauty, diversity and natural resources,” the proposal would control development on environmentally sensitive lands, including wetlands, flood plains, steep slopes, sensitive animal and plant habitats and historic sites.

Slow-growth measures, some of them calling for strict annual limits on growth, also are expected to be on the ballot in Poway, Encinitas and Chula Vista, according to a spokesman for the San Diego County registrar of voters.

While the sheer number of growth proposals on the ballot seems sufficient to guarantee voters’ confusion, another legal and electoral irony is likely to further muddy this fall’s debate.

Though the county’s sensitive lands measure would, if passed, apply only to unincorporated areas, it would be voted on countywide--meaning that voters in the city of San Diego and other incorporated cities would be the decisive factor on an issue affecting other communities. From the perspective of county officials, that would create a rather unique form of disenfranchisement for voters in unincorporated areas.

“I’m really bothered by this idea of voters in one area telling people who live somewhere else what to do--about growth or anything,” Bilbray said. “It may be legal, but it isn’t fair and it isn’t democratic. And it’s just going to make it harder to explain all this to people. Unfortunately, it’s already confusing enough.”