Development’s Foes Win Another Round : Appeal Court Upholds Drive for Miramar Ranch Referendum

An appeal court Tuesday refused to block a citizens group’s drive for a referendum on the Miramar Ranch North housing project, setting the stage for a San Diego City Council decision on whether to place the measure on the ballot.

The 4th District Court of Appeal refused to reconsider Superior Court Judge Kevin Midlam’s April 3 decision that a petition drive by the Save Miramar Lake Committee was conducted legally.

James Milch, attorney for the developers of the project, BCE Development, said Tuesday that he plans to take the battle to the state Supreme Court today. Milch said he will argue again that the petition drive was invalid because each of the 37,718 signers was not shown the entire 25-page development agreement that authorized the project north of Scripps Ranch.

The development agreement between BCE and the city sets the terms for construction of the Miramar Ranch North project, which consists of 3,360 homes on 1,200 acres. It calls for BCE to construct certain improvements, including a road, a library, two parks and a fire station.

Opposed to Part of Project

The Save Miramar Lake committee is not opposed to the entire development, only to 658 of the homes, a four-lane road and an industrial park planned on the hills of the lake’s northern shore. But the group said it had no choice but to seek rescission of the entire development agreement in order to make the changes.

The ruling sends the issue to the council, which on Monday will be asked to decide whether to place the referendum on the ballot or rescind the development agreement. Councilman Ed Struiksma, a strong supporter of the development in his district, announced unexpectedly last week that he would ask the City Council to rescind the development agreement if the appeal court upheld Midlam’s decision.

But the Save Miramar Lake Committee’s attorney said Tuesday he will urge the council to put the issue on the ballot, unless repeal of the development agreement includes provisions to protect the hills north of the lake from development.

Struiksma’s plan to send the issue to a task force of Scripps Ranch community groups is merely an attempt to delay the issue and keep it off the September ballot, on which he is running for re-election in the city’s first district-only elections, said Bob Glaser, the attorney. Slow-growth activists have targeted Struiksma for defeat, and at least one poll has shown him to be vulnerable on the Miramar Lake issue.

Struiksma could not be reached for comment Tuesday.