2 Environmental Groups May Settle Suit for $500,000

Two prominent San Diego environmental groups are quietly negotiating an unusual legal settlement under which they would drop a highly publicized land-use lawsuit in return for about $500,000 from the developers of the controversial parcel.

The deal, under consideration by San Diegans for Managed Growth and the local chapter of the Sierra Club, was assailed as “extortion” by a building industry official and “inappropriate” by a slow-growth leader, both of whom questioned whether environmental principles were being sacrificed for cash.

“If the Sierra Club and San Diegans for Managed Growth are backing down from what their previously stated principles were, I have to question the principles,” said Robert Morris, executive vice president of the Building Industry Assn. “Are they going to continue to do this? Are they going to continue to file more lawsuits against other property owners? And if they are, they’ve just found a unique form of income.”

‘A Dangerous Precedent’

Peter Navarro, chairman of the slow-growth group Prevent Los Angelization Now!, also questioned the propriety of the proposed settlement.

“A dangerous precedent is being set here,” Navarro said. “I don’t think you want to start trading small dollars for big pieces of land, and $500,000 is small dollars.”

Leaders of the two groups and their attorneys refused to discuss the settlement negotiations, other than to acknowledge that discussions are taking place. Officials with the two development companies involved and their attorneys also declined to discuss the proposed deal. A negotiating session is scheduled for today, according to a source close to the discussions.

However, Deputy City Atty. Les Girard and other sources close to the negotiations said that the two environmental groups are considering an offer from the Donald L. Bren Co. and the Brennan Katkov Development Corp., owners of land in the controversial 385-acre “county island” annexed last year by the city of San Diego.

The two developers plan to build 676 homes on more than 180 acres of the parcel in the city’s northern tier. But the two environmental groups last year filed a lawsuit against the city of San Diego claiming that 320 acres of the land belong in the city’s “urban reserve,” which is off-limits to development unless voters specifically approve the project. Those rules were established by the voter-approved Managed Growth Initiative in 1985.

Last June, a Superior Court judge ruled against the environmental groups and lawyer Michael Eckmann, a former plaintiff in the lawsuit. Eckmann withdrew from the legal action, but the two environmental groups have appealed to the 4th District Court of Appeals.

Girard, who is defending the city, said he was told about the settlement negotiations during a meeting with lawyers from both sides Tuesday, though few details were made available.

“That’s my understanding. It’s around $500,000,” Girard said.

Still unclear is whether the money would be earmarked for specific environmental projects or whether restrictions would be placed on how it could be used. Barbara Bamberger, the Sierra Club’s conservation coordinator, said that one possible use of the money would be future lawsuits on environmental topics.

At one point, the environmentalists turned down a proposal to use the money to help the city buy Famosa Slough, one source said. Preserving the slough has long been a goal of local environmentalists.

Not for Political Use

Another source close to the negotiations said that the Bren company wants assurances that the money would not be used for political purposes. Without such restrictions, for example, the money might be used to bolster environmentalists’ opposition to pro-development San Diego City Council candidates Gloria McColl, Ed Struiksma and Judy McCarty who face reelection Sept. 19.

Earlier this month, the Sierra Club released an analysis of 45 key environmental votes over the past 32 months, labeling Struiksma and McCarty members of an anti-environmental “Steamshovel Brigade” on the council.

Also undecided is when and how the money might be paid, and whether it would be split by the organizations or placed into a separate fund, according to a source close to the negotiations.

The developers are not prohibited from proceeding with the construction projects, which were approved by a divided City Council on June 5, 1988, but as long as the lawsuit is pending they face the risk that the appeals court will rule against the city and place the land off-limits to development.

Eckmann, who lives near the area and is a candidate for Struiksma’s council seat, said that vegetation has been cleared from some of the acreage and that preparation for water and sewer pipe hookups has been made.

For the developers, a $500,000 settlement is a “straight business deal,” said one attorney close to the settlement negotiations. “Five hundred thousand dollars may sound like a lot of money, but not when you’ve got huge interest payments that you’re making. From the developer’s point of view, it’s cheaper to go forward like this.”