How to Proceed on Growth Issue

Poll after poll has shown that San Diegans want to slow the speed with which the county is growing. Yet in the only poll that counts--the one on Election Day--voters turned down two slow-growth approaches contained in four ballot measures, giving public officials little clue as to how the electorate wants them to proceed.

The one piece of evidence the voters did provide was their approval of Proposition C, an advisory measure calling for a regional body to set growth policy. We agree that a regional approach is the most intelligent course, and setting up the blue-ribbon committee to study it should be given high priority.

But gaining community support and the state legislation needed for regional government to work will take time--more time than that envisioned in Proposition C.

Meanwhile, how should the San Diego City Council and the County Board of Supervisors proceed?

They have no choice but to resume their proper legislative role. Putting complex land-use decisions before the electorate abdicates this responsibility and, as this election showed, fails to produce growth management plans.

That does not mean that the council members and the supervisors should ignore the election’s results. But gleaning guidance from the confusing defeat of the four growth measures will be difficult.

The San Diego City Council deserves credit for tackling this task creatively.

First, the city asked the registrar of voters to analyze the vote to see what percentage of the voters rejected both growth measures on the city ballot. This might tell whether a majority of the voters rejected both or whether a small percentage voted against both and the rest were divided.

But Registrar Conny McCormack said state law does not allow such an analysis of the ballots, a reasonable--although frustrating--decision.

The other creative move by the city was to poll a sample of voters. This could reveal the vote-split information the registrar was unable to provide--although with less accuracy--as well as the reasons behind the votes. The results of the poll should be available to the council before it meets Wednesday to consider its future growth management course.

But while the council plots this course, there are major developments awaiting approval. In fact, nine development agreements come before the council on Monday.

As a result of the intense growth debate over the last couple of years, these agreements will most likely require the developers to pay for a wider variety of roads and other public facilities. But, in addition, many of the projects require major grading that would not have been allowed under the “sensitive lands” provisions of any of the growth measures.

These provisions are important to protect San Diego’s landscape and character, and they seemed during the campaign debate to have fairly broad support. We hope that whatever growth plan the council adopts contains sensitive lands protections.

So, while it would mean an unfortunate further delay for the developers, we think that the City Council should postpone those development agreements that require substantial landscape alterations a little while longer while it decides on sensitive lands protections.