Lake Miramar Project : Council Yanks Permit to Avoid Referendum

The San Diego City Council, choosing to avoid a citywide referendum on construction proposed for the hills north of Lake Miramar, Monday repealed a controversial development agreement governing the proposed Miramar Ranch North housing project.

The council’s 7-2 vote complies with the Save Miramar Lake Committee’s demand that the council scrap the development contract or place it on the ballot, but denies the group the victory it most wanted: a halt to BCE Development’s plans to build 658 homes, an industrial park and a road on the lake’s picturesque northern shore.

Instead, the fate of the home construction--the key to hammering out a new development agreement--will be sent to a task force of community members that even some council members believe is stacked with supporters of the 3,360-home housing development.

Guaranteed Right

The decision also ends BCE’s obligation to build million of dollars of roads, libraries, fire stations, schools and parks before the first resident moves into the development. The package would have included a badly needed east-west highway designed to reroute heavy traffic from Poway.

BCE had traded the benefits for a guaranteed right to build all 3,360 homes at an agreed-upon rate in the coming years. If no new development agreement is achieved, those facilities may be built months or years after residential construction begins, city officials said.

The district’s councilman, Ed Struiksma, a longtime backer of the housing project, Monday asked the council to rescind the development agreement after three courts refused to invalidate the Save Miramar Lake Committee’s referendum campaign. After a monthlong petition-gathering effort, the group qualified for the ballot by gathering more than 37,000 signatures to repeal the contract between BCE and the city.

The vote also eliminates the possibility that Struiksma will face a September re-election vote on the same day that residents citywide go to the polls to decide the lake’s fate. One poll of voters in Struiksma’s district--who will elect their council member in the city’s new district-only format--showed overwhelming opposition to the construction project.

Struiksma said Monday that he was unafraid of the political consequences of having the referendum on the ballot on election day. “From a political point of view, I’m not running away from this. I’m not concerned about it,” he said.

However, J. Gary Underwood, chairman of the citizens’ group, said in a news conference before the vote that he expected Struiksma’s opponents to attempt to batter him with the issue.

“It’s possible that (the vote) could hurt him very, very badly at the election,” Underwood said. “His opponents will make a big issue over that. It shows that he’s in favor of the developers all the way.”

Underwood refused to commit his group to working against Struiksma, but said that “if we can change the consistency of the City Council by one vote, we could possibly save Miramar Lake.”

Underwood said his group may mount an initiative to protect the slopes, but had not made a final decision. Even if the 51,000 signatures needed to place an initiative on the ballot could be gathered quickly, the council is not obligated to schedule a vote for the next citywide election in June of 1990.

Group Implores Council

Underwood and members of his organization Monday implored the council to place the referendum on the ballot or delay repealing it until protections for the hillsides can be worked out. Underwood reasoned that the developer would accede to those protections only if it faced the threat of the referendum.

“I hope you will listen to the little people and maybe we can have a miracle here today,” said Paula Marrone, a member of the citizens group. “All of you should know by now that it’s not in your political interests to ignore us. People are tired of big business having their own way . . . and government backing them up.”

But only council members Bob Filner and Abbe Wolfsheimer sided with the group. Under Struiksma’s task-force plan, “there are no assurances whatsoever that the same (development agreement) may not come back again,” Wolfsheimer said. “There may be no changes.”

Struiksma, who was joined by Mayor Maureen O’Connor and council members Ron Roberts, Gloria McColl, Wes Pratt, Bruce Henderson and Judy McCarty, argued that a repeal of the agreement and review by the task force allows the affected community to decide its own fate.

The task force “represents every group on Scripps Ranch,” Struiksma said after the vote. “This is the community. That is the Ranch.”

Some council members said they were opposed to paying the $300,000 needed to add the referendum to the Sept. 19 election or the $660,000 price tag of a special election.

Underwood said his group will refuse to work with the task force named by Struiksma, claiming it is composed of organizations that back the proposed development as it stands now.

‘Overwhelmingly One-Sided’

He was supported in that contention by Filner and Roberts, who observed that the task force “would appear to be overwhelmingly one-sided.”

With the development agreement rescinded, BCE is free to win approval for its project parcel by parcel. But, at Roberts’ urging, the council also unanimously voted to scrutinize each group of proposed new homes in an effort to protect the hills.

Roberts and others made it clear that they will not accept a development plan that is substantially similar to the one they just repealed. According to Alan Ziegaus, a spokesman for the developer, BCE has not yet determined which parts of the development--if any--it is willing to bargain away.

“We haven’t said that anything is acceptable or unacceptable,” Ziegaus said. “We’ve said that we’re willing to work with the community.”