County Puts Sweeping Growth Measure on Ballot, Plans Another

Setting the stage for perhaps the most dramatic growth-management debate in San Diego County history, the Board of Supervisors voted Wednesday to place a sweeping growth proposition on the November ballot, and made it clear that another measure will be added next week.

Described by Supervisor Susan Golding as “without a doubt . . . the greatest environmental protection ever suggested” locally, the ballot proposition unanimously approved by the board combines two previously separate measures--one restricting building on environmentally sensitive lands, the other establishing “quality of life” standards that would limit residential, commercial and industrial development in the unincorporated areas of the county.

Proposed by Golding and Supervisor George Bailey, the newly named Sensitive Lands and Growth Control Measure--strongly supported by environmentalists but just as vigorously opposed by developers--will be before the board for final approval of its ballot language next week.

Minor Modifications

At the meeting next Wednesday, the board is also expected to place a proposal on the ballot calling for an advisory vote on the creation of a regional growth-management board. While the supervisors voiced solid support for that measure, authored by Supervisor Brian Bilbray, they deferred action on it Wednesday to allow time for minor changes.

Combined with a slow-growth proposal called the Rural Preservation and Traffic Control Initiative that has already qualified for the ballot, Wednesday’s board actions--and those anticipated next week--mean that countywide voters will be confronted with three major growth proposals. Two similar growth measures will be contested within the city of San Diego, and as many as half a dozen more are expected to appear on other local ballots.

With the supervisors describing their actions in historic terms and effusively praising each other’s handling of the politically thorny growth issue, the only discordant note Wednesday came over a somewhat esoteric provision of the ballot measure that bitterly divided the board.

Bailey’s original “Quality of Life” proposal called for, among other things, local advisory votes within communities before density increases or other major land-use changes at variance with “the General Plan or applicable zoning” occur there.

Under compromise language proposed by Golding as part of the blending of Bailey’s proposal with her own, such votes would be held only for proposed land-use actions differing with community plans, and the reference to zoning was dropped entirely.

That amendment prompted the normally placid Bailey to angrily complain that the entire ballot measure had been “very clearly gutted” and that the proposition would not “have a snowball’s chance” of being approved by voters in November if Golding’s language was accepted.

“Zoning is the place you have the big changes . . . that really upset people,” Bailey said, an argument with which Supervisor John MacDonald concurred.

Dispute Called Semantic

Golding, however, characterized the disagreement as a largely semantic one with little practical effect on the measure’s overall impact. Noting that zoning changes must be consistent with community plans, she contended that her suggested language would accomplish Bailey’s goal of permitting communities to vote on major land-use changes while saving money by precluding the need for elections on routine, minor adjustments.

Bailey and MacDonald, however, argued that the change--approved on a 3-2 vote with Bilbray and Supervisor Leon Williams siding with Golding--seriously undermined the measure and might cause them to oppose it next week.

Golding, hoping the supervisors will present a united front to enhance the measure’s chances of approval in November, told Bailey she would “hate for this one small disagreement . . . to take precedence over the strong agreement.”

Noting that her sensitive-lands proposal had been altered by the board, Golding also gently chided Bailey for his unwillingness to accept what she saw as a relatively minor amendment to his plan.

After the meeting, Golding expressed confidence that Wednesday’s dispute will not be repeated next week. When Bailey and MacDonald study the issue further, she argued, they will realize that the language change “is entirely consistent with what George wants to do.”

With the exception of that dispute, however, Wednesday’s meeting--the culmination of literally hundreds of hours of hearings and debates before the board and various community groups--saw the supervisors repeatedly displaying unanimity on the politically charged growth issue.

Leaving few superlatives unspoken, the supervisors went to great lengths to hail their two-part ballot proposition--which they have billed as a moderate alternative to the more restrictive Rural Preservation Initiative--as the most important growth-management push in the county’s history.

Capsulizing the tenor of the meeting, Golding argued that the proposition would “guarantee that our children . . . will see the natural wonders of San Diego.”

Many public speakers were similarly generous in their praise, as typified by Sierra Club official Emily Durbin, who lauded the supervisors for “such an historic step . . . that sends a message to the voters that you’ve heard their concerns.”

Developers and building industry representatives, however, were considerably less sanguine in their assessment of the proposition.

For example, Kim Kilkenny, legislative counsel for the Construction Industry Federation, criticized Bailey’s “Quality of Life” measure as “a (building) cap in sheep’s clothing” that could lead to higher housing costs and other assorted long-range problems.

Under the Bailey-inspired components of the ballot proposition, limits would be imposed on residential growth; a set percentage of building permits would be reserved for single-family homes; community plans would be balanced with a mixture of residential, industrial, commercial and public uses; and communities would conduct the advisory votes on major land-use changes.

The provisions of the Golding-backed sensitive-lands measure, meanwhile, would control development on environmentally sensitive lands, including wetlands, flood plains, steep slopes, sensitive animal and plant habitats and historic sites.

To ensure that sensitive lands are not endangered by a rush of development proposals before the Nov. 8 election, the supervisors have already approved an interim ordinance encompassing most of the major components of the ballot measure.

The other measure expected to be placed on the ballot next week calls for the establishment of a Regional Planning and Growth Management Review Board to promote a regional approach to growth issues. With cities and the county now independently handling growth matters within their own boundaries, actions taken in one jurisdiction often cancel out those taken in adjoining areas, according to Bilbray.

Another major decision to be made next week deals with the unresolved legal question of what would happen if several--or all--of the countywide proposals are approved. The answer to that question is critical because though the various plans are complementary on some points, they are contradictory on others and would establish different growth guidelines.

To clarify the situation, county lawyers are studying the feasibility and legality of adding a so-called “killer clause” to the ballot proposition specifying that, if more than one measure is approved, the one that receives the most votes would take precedence in cases where the plans conflict.

“After the vote in November, I want it to be very clear what has passed and what has not passed,” Golding said. “I don’t want . . . to spend the next three to four years in lawsuits and the legal jungle.”