Advertisement

Supervisors Take Up Growth Restrictions : Sensitive-Lands Plan Similar to Measure Rejected at Ballot Box

Share
Times Staff Writer

Drawing sometimes-sharp accusations of ignoring the public’s wishes, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday began considering development restrictions on environmentally sensitive lands similar to those rejected by voters last November.

Although the supervisors needed no reminder of the political volatility of the issue, Wednesday’s hearing underscored the difficulties that confront them as they seek for the second time in as many years to protect hillsides, wetlands and other environmentally unique lands in the county’s unincorporated areas from development.

Beginning a planned three-month review of a proposed sensitive-lands ordinance similar to last fall’s unsuccessful Proposition B, the board heard wide-ranging complaints and questions about the measure, a complex 88-page document that even several supervisors conceded they find confusing.

Advertisement

Under Fire

Before the debate reached the ordinance’s specifics, however, the supervisors found themselves attacked for even reconsidering the issue so soon after voters spoke on the subject. From the perspective of some critics, the board’s renewed attempt to enact a sensitive-lands measure in the wake of countywide voters’ 59%-41% defeat of Proposition B is patronizing at best and undemocratic at worst.

“The Board of Supervisors said the voters were confused when they defeated Proposition B,” said William Knoll of Fallbrook. “Were they also confused when they elected the members of the board?”

After the supervisors voted unanimously to begin the review, Knoll’s rhetoric became even more caustic. Saying that the board’s actions “fly in the face of voters,” Knoll added that the supervisors “deserve to be mentioned . . . in the same sentence with Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini.”

More Moderate View

Other critics of last fall’s ballot proposition took a more moderate view. Although he expressed reservations about some of the key components of the proposed ordinance, Kim Kilkenny, a lobbyist for the Construction Industry Federation, said he does not fault the supervisors for taking a second look at the thorny subject.

“I’m not going to suggest for one minute that the voters don’t want to protect sensitive lands, because they do,” Kilkenny said. “What the voters rejected was . . . ballot-box planning and unreasonable sensitive-lands regulations. The question now is, what’s reasonable and what’s unreasonable? That’s going to be the subject of debate.”

Meanwhile, Supervisor Susan Golding, Proposition B’s prime mover, argued that voters’ rejection of that measure--one of four major growth-control propositions defeated by San Diego city and county voters last November--”in no way lessens the need or public support for” growth guidelines protecting sensitive lands.

Advertisement

“Whatever ordinance we may adopt would not be the same one voters defeated,” Golding added.

Major Difference

One major difference between Proposition B and the proposed ordinance involves their scope. Proposition B would have automatically applied sweeping development limits on areas such as hillsides, flood plains, wetlands and critical plant and animal habitats, but the ordinance envisions a case-by-case review of particular sites before many restrictions are imposed.

Also, Proposition B would have required immediate identification of all sensitive lands in the county’s unincorporated region. Under the ordinance, however, decisions on whether property is subject to the restrictions could be made when individual community plans are updated or when a development permit is requested--a slower but less costly process, according to county planners.

Among myriad other provisions, the ordinance would restrict development of hillsides with at least a 25% slope; prohibit building or grading on wetlands; ban development, grading or clearing on land where endangered plants or animals are found, unless steps are taken to preserve the affected species, and prevent grading or clearing on historically significant sites except for scientific investigations.

To protect sensitive lands pending the board’s review of the proposed ordinance, the supervisors Wednesday made minor modifications in a previously approved interim environmental protection measure that will remain in effect until June 30.

Advertisement