Skirmish Over Growth : Lake Miramar Provides Next Battleground

A nasty intra-community conflict over the future of the undeveloped hills on the northern shore of Lake Miramar, now primarily a picturesque backdrop for boaters, fishermen, hikers and joggers, is emerging as the next test of the city’s beleaguered slow-growth movement.

A handful of slow-growth leaders, working in concert with a local 200-member volunteer commitee, have seized on the debate over the lake’s future as a rare opportunity to attack a large developer and incumbent San Diego City Councilman Ed Struiksma simultaneously.

By allying themselves with a referendum campaign to block construction of homes and an industrial park scheduled to be built on the hillsides, slow-grow leaders say they can force another citywide test of voters’ slow-growth sentiments at the same time that Struiksma, the council’s most pro-development member, must run for re-election in the city’s first district-only election.

‘Back at the Table’

Eager for a more narrowly focused scrape with the development industry after being clobbered in city- and countywide referenda on growth management last fall, some slow-growthers have donated money and time to the Save Miramar Lake Committee petition-gathering campaign.

“I think that many of the environmental community leaders see that qualification of this referendum puts us back at the table regarding growth management policy and shows that we still have the strength and grass-roots network to participate in the political process,” said Bob Glaser, co-chairman of San Diegans for Managed Growth and political consultant for the Save Miramar Lake Committee.

One candidate who has her eye on Struiksma’s seat, Linda Bernhardt, once an aide to Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer, has participated in campaign strategy sessions as an “adviser,” and is likely to look to opponents of the planned Miramar Ranch North housing development for support if she runs.

Another possible candidate, attorney Mike Eckmann, said he has attended three Save Miramar Lake Committee meetings and three other meetings on the issue, but has taken no position in the conflict.

Former City Councilman Floyd Morrow, an undeclared candidate for Struiksma’s seat, said, “I don’t think I need (the issue), but I will be using it, just as I will be using other land-use issues where (Struiksma) has sided with developers against the citizens.”

Bernhardt declined to comment on her activities.

Struiksma and his advisers are not yet losing sleep over the citizens group, which claims it has gathered 31,500 signatures, enough to force a citywide referendum on the 3,360 homes that the council authorized BCE Development to build north of Lake Miramar.

City Clerk Charles Abdelnour will not determine whether the referendum qualifies until next month at the earliest. Even if it does, the council has 11 months to schedule a special citywide election.

Uncharted Waters

Although Abdelnour has recommended the Sept. 19 council primary as the most logical and economical date for a 1989 citywide election, the four Republican council members diving into the uncharted waters of district elections will have ample incentive to oppose placing the referendum on the ballot beside their names. A citywide referendum would increase voter turnout, which historically means a larger Democratic turnout.

Struiksma, who overwhelmingly won reelection in 1985 and runs particularly well in Scripps Ranch, can also point to a rival petition-gathering campaign, financed primarily by BCE Development, that has collected 20,000 to 25,000 signatures in support of the development project.

“If that’s the best thing that (Miramar Ranch North opponents) can reach out for, I’m not at all worried,” Struiksma said, “because I am, frankly, very pleased with the fact that I have represented the wishes of my planning groups, whether in that community or any other community.”

“We are watching it,” added Jim Johnston, Struiksma’s political consultant, who said he does not believe the initiative will qualify for the ballot. “Right now, we’re just looking at the smoke. We’re going to wait and see if there’s any fire.”

Still, Struiksma does not deny that the campaign is a magnet for slow-growthers and his political opponents. He charges, in fact, that they have orchestrated the movement from the outset.

However, J. Gary Underwood, co-chairman of the Save Miramar Lake Committee, said that his organization’s effort is dominated by volunteers from the lake area, who have done the bulk of the fund-raising and leg work.

Some leaders of 1988’s unsuccessful slow-growth campaign, working with Save Miramar Lake Committee include Richard Carson, Citizens for Limited Growth’s economic adviser. Carson contributed $750, the second-largest donation, as well as organizing expertise, Underwood said.

Bernhardt, who recently moved to Scripps Ranch, was campaign manager for Citizens for Limited Growth’s unsuccessful effort on behalf of slow-growth Propositions D and J last November. Lonna Smith, co-chairwoman of the Save Miramar Lake Committee, was a volunteer in that campaign.

Glaser, who is exploring a run for City Council against incumbent Gloria McColl, represents San Diegans for Managed Growth. The Sierra Club endorsed the effort, and Alan Sakarias, chairman of its conservation committee, has been an active campaigners.

Surprised by Support

The Save Miramar Lake Committee was founded when Smith cranked out a flyer on her home computer in November and began to distribute it in a local shopping center. Underwood became co-chairman when he was one of the first to sign up.

The committee actually opposes only 658 of the 3,360 homes planned for 1,200 acres north of the lake. The homes, an industrial park and a road that will come within 75 yards of the lake, will destroy the peaceful, almost rural quality that makes Lake Miramar a popular urban retreat, Smith and Underwood said.

“This is a lovely, scenic area that thousands of San Diegans come to each year,” Smith said. “This proposed development would destroy the beauty and aesthetic nature that make it so special for so many people.”

They also condemn developers’ plans to slice off the tops of hills and fill in canyons in a sizable grading effort that will require the movement of about 17 million cubic yards of earth, according to William Rick, president of Rick Engineering. About 20 million cubic yards of dirt were moved to create what is now Scripps Ranch, he said.

Smith and Underwood also claim that runoff from chemicals used on the lawns of the new homes will contaminate Lake Miramar drinking water, consumed throughout San Diego. City officials say that builders have protected the reservoir.

Although construction is years away, the committee had just 30 days from the council’s Jan. 9 vote on the project to qualify a referendum for the ballot. Because BCE Development was awarded a development agreement guaranteeing it the right to build all 3,360 homes, the committee reluctantly called for repeal of the entire project.

Exempted the Area

The city attorney’s office opposed the agreement, advising that the contract would exempt BCE from any environmental controls enacted by the city. At Struiksma’s urging, the council in 1987 exempted the area from its current, interim environmental protections.

With about 200 volunteers and Glaser’s paid petition circulators splitting the effort, Underwood estimates that the group will collect 40,000 signatures by its deadline at 5 p.m. Wednesday, more than enough to ensure that it has the 25,593 valid signatures needed to qualify for the ballot.

But a rival petition effort, launched by Miramar Ranch North Planning Group member Bob Dingeman, has collected an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 signatures of city residents who back the development, Dingeman said. Although the campaign has no legal validity, the petitions will be presented to the council in a show of support, he said.

Financed by developers, primarily BCE, Dingeman’s Committee to Protect Your Community also hired a petition-gathering firm, American Petition Consultants.

The squabble has been nasty. The Save Miramar Lake Committee, alleging that its circulators had been harassed and intimidated, sought an injunction from a Superior Court judge to allow it to gather signatures unhindered. The two groups also became involved in a competition for circulators, driving up the price of each signature, Glaser alleged.

Settled Out of Court

The legal battle was settled out of court when American Petition agreed to keep its circulators at least 10 feet from Glaser’s workers, and Smith and Underwood retracted their allegations.

Dingeman, who has spent nine years helping plan the Miramar Ranch North development, believes that the planning group and city officials drove a terrific bargain with BCE Development.

Under the development agreement, the developer has agreed to build part of Alternate 8A, the desperately needed highway that will divert traffic off Pomerado Road in Scripps Ranch; contribute $2 million toward construction of a library in Scripps Ranch, and build the Mercy Road interchange to Interstate 15, two parks and a fire station.

He also notes that 25% of Miramar Ranch North will be preserved as open space and that homes on the lake’s northern shore will be no closer to the lake than those on the lake’s southern and eastern shores.

“Development is inevitable under our American law and under the City Council’s directives,” said Dingeman, a retired Army colonel. “My aim over the years is to shape it in the best and most environmentally sensitive way that I can.”

BCE and the “8 to 10 other developers” Dingeman says contributed to his organization have already shown their ability to finance an expensive campaign in favor of the project, if necessary.

Ever Optimistic

Besides paying American Petition, the committee hired one of the city’s most expensive public relations firms, Stoorza, Ziegaus & Metzger, and financed the private phone-banking firm Competitive Edge to campaign against the referendum. It is also using direct mail.

The building industry made heavy use of Competitive Edge phone banks in its victorious $2.4-million campaign against the slow-growth initiatives.

Ever optimistic despite last November’s drubbing and the near-certainty that they would be heavily outspent again, slow-growthers say a referendum covering a small, local area faces better prospects than the citywide and countywide slow-growth initiatives that lost by 11 to 17 percentage points last fall.

They liken the upcoming battle more to the successful 1985 campaign for the Managed Growth Initiative, when just one referendum was on the ballot, than last year’s loss. Unless the council or Dingeman places a competing referendum on the ballot, they said, the vote will note be split as it was last year.

Glaser estimates that a successful campaign will cost about $100,000

“It won’t matter how much the development industry spends,” he said. “They can spend their $2.5 million. It’ll be a single issue.”

“This is very specific,” added Linda Martin, co-chairwoman of Citizens for Limited Growth. People “can look at this, they can see what the local impact is on the community, and they can also see what the regional impact is.”