Supervisors OK Growth Compromise That Pleases Neither Side

Drawing criticism from environmentalists and builders alike, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on Monday tentatively approved a sweeping growth-management measure to protect sensitive lands from development.

Similar to last fall’s unsuccessful Proposition B, the Resource Protection Ordinance is designed to curtail or ban development on steep hillsides, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive lands in the county’s unincorporated areas.

Most parts of the measure were approved unanimously, clearing the way for routine final approval of the overall ordinance today, after minor wording changes.

Although several supervisors hailed the measure as landmark environmental legislation that will protect threatened wildlife and the county’s landscape, environmentalists grumbled afterward that the board had so diluted the measure that many of its major provisions have become inconsequential.

Differing Viewpoints

Environmentalists’ displeasure normally translates into developers’ glee, but that was not the case with Monday’s ordinance, which evolved over more than a year of often acrimonious hearings. Just as environmentalists complained that the measure is too weak to accomplish its stated goals, developers characterized it as overly stringent, arguing that it will strangle needed growth and be a hardship for even small property owners.

Providing a further--if unneeded--reminder of the political volatility of the issue, Monday’s meeting ended with one major environmental group contemplating another potentially divisive initiative drive aimed at getting a tougher sensitive-lands measure on the June, 1990, ballot.

Although they concurred on little else, both environmentalists and developers agreed that the success or failure of the ordinance--and, thus, the possibility that last November’s bitter growth campaigns might be repeated next year--could hinge on county planners’ interpretation of some of its key provisions.

“It’s going to be some time before we see how this all sorts out,” said Bob Glaser, representing San Diegans for Managed Growth, the group that gathered signatures to place two strong growth-control measures--both defeated--on the City of San Diego and county ballots last year. “Everyone’s going to be watching to see exactly what happens.”

A Balanced Approach?

In the meantime, neither side was as sanguine as the measure’s chief sponsor, Supervisor Susan Golding, who described it as “a major breakthrough and something we can be proud of.”

“The whole purpose of this ordinance is to not do things as we’ve done in the past and to do them differently in the future to protect our natural resources,” Golding said. “I think we’ve managed to do that . . . in a balanced way.”

Among myriad provisions, the ordinance would restrict development on hillsides with at least a 25% grade; prohibit building 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 investigation.

The measure is scheduled to take effect June 30, when an interim ordinance including many of those same protections--adopted early this year to protect sensitive lands pending the board’s review--expires.

Many Tough Questions

As it has from the outset, much of Monday’s debate turned on basic yet tough questions, such as how to precisely define a “steep slope.” On that point, Golding favored a definition based on a 25% slope with a 25-foot rise and other supervisors viewed that formula as too restrictive, warning that it could preclude development of huge expanses of northern and eastern San Diego County.

“We’ve got areas of this county where we’ve got to be sure we’re not locking them out entirely,” Supervisor Brian Bilbray said. Similarly, Supervisor Leon Williams pointed out that a hill’s 25-foot rise in elevation “doesn’t seem to me to be a very steep slope.”

With several supervisors arguing that excessively harsh limitations on slopes or other unusual topography could spawn incorporation drives prompted by desires to escape the county’s land-planning control, the board settled on a compromise definition: a 25% slope with a 50-foot rise.

Although less stringent than Golding’s proposal, the compromise was viewed by developers and landowners, some of whom had suggested that slopes of less than 50% be exempted, as “a major victory for the environmental community,” according to Kim Kilkenny, of the Construction Industry Federation.

Environmental activist Glaser, however, complained that the shift from a 25-foot to 50-foot elevation “weakened the whole intent of the measure.”

Status Quo Charged

Glaser also took issue with the supervisors’ rejection of the county Planning Commission’s recommendation to largely ban development along the fringe of flood plains. By opting instead to permit limited development in those areas, guided by existing zoning laws, the board “in essence did nothing and just continued the status quo,” Glaser said.

“When you weaken the hillside provisions and do nothing about flood-plain fringes, it’s a misleading joke . . . to say you’ve passed major sensitive-lands protections,” Glaser said. Over the next three months, San Diegans for Managed Growth will decide whether to mount another initiative drive in an effort to persuade voters to adopt a measure tougher than the ordinance, Glaser added.

But Kilkenny, reiterating his contention that environmentalists have much more to be pleased than displeased about in the ordinance, remarked sardonically that “the environmental community complains about whatever so they can go the initiative route.”

There were serious divisions among the supervisors themselves over another provision of the ordinance exempting parcels of 40 acres or more from the steep slope requirements. The intent of that proposal, Golding explained, is to discourage major landowners from subdividing their property as part of large-scale development, a move that could make the land subject to the ordinance’s limitations.

Bailey, however, proposed lowering the exemption threshold to 8 acres, calling the 40-acre figure “an absolutely ludicrous idea” that could cause the ordinance to be a greater burden to small property owners than large ones.

“If the only thing we’re protecting is 40 acres and above . . . you’re putting something in here that’s going to stop some really fine development,” Bailey said. “It’s a perfect example of government getting out of control. I challenge you to show me any development of 8 acres or less that has hurt sensitive lands.”

But the other supervisors sided with Golding, who noted that reducing the exemption limit as Bailey suggested would create a loophole that could be exploited by large property owners. Other exemptions, Golding added, “take care of the legitimate 8-acre property owner.”