Developers Veto Settlement for Environmental Groups

Two development companies Friday vetoed a no-strings-attached cash payment to two San Diego environmental groups as part of a proposed legal settlement that prompted angry accusations of a payoff from Mayor Maureen O’Connor.

Amid fierce pressure from developers and other building industry representatives, the Donald L. Bren Co. and the Brennan Katkov Development Corp. abandoned discussion of a payment of $500,000 or more to the Sierra Club and San Diegans for Managed Growth, said Kenneth Polin, attorney for Brennan Katkov.

The four organizations had been quietly negotiating the settlement, under which the environmental groups would drop their lawsuit contesting the developers’ right to build on 320 acres of hilly land near Scripps Ranch known as the “county island.” The city annexed the plot last year.

News reports about the proposed deal set off vehement reaction in political and building-industry circles Friday. Development industry sources said that builders, concerned about the precedent of a cash payment to end the lawsuit, heavily pressured the two companies not to consummate the deal.

Earmarked for Environment

“The idea of a cash payment with discretionary use (by the environmental groups) has been eliminated,” said Polin, who would not comment on the reason for the developers’ new position. “There is still the potential for a settlement with cash, but (use of the money) would not be in their discretion.”

Instead, the funds would have to be earmarked for some environmental purpose, such as helping the city purchase Famosa Slough to preserve that wetland from development, Polin said.

Negotiations were continuing Friday night.

O’Connor, a traditional ally of the environmental movement who earlier this month was labeled the council’s top environmentalist by the Sierra Club, chastised both groups in a blistering letter issued Friday afternoon.

“It was with shock and dismay that I read news accounts of the (Sierra) club’s intention to sell out its principles in return for $500,000,” O’Connor wrote to Barbara Bamberger, the organization’s conservation coordinator.

“It appears that the Sierra Club is for sale,” she added. “Is there a price list for the Sierra Club’s support (or lack of opposition) that developers can obtain? What is the selling price of a canyon? Or a vernal pool? Or maybe some acres in Balboa Park?”

An identical letter was sent to Bob Glaser, chairman of San Diegans for Managed Growth, who answered with angry recriminations against the mayor.

“The mayor is out of touch with the difficulties of running long-term volunteer organizations that are attempting to represent the environmental (and) conservationist community on a plethora of issues with very little help from the mayor, the council or major donors,” Glaser said.

Glaser accused the mayor and her aides of idleness on a string of major environmental issues and said that she has turned down requests to help fund environmental groups and support pro-environment council candidates --including him--with money or endorsements.

“She understands the occasional need to make a trade-off to get the overall agenda done,” he added. “Where does she get off telling us not to make the same kind of trade to get our overall agenda done, particularly when we’re not getting support from the mayor’s staff, the mayor’s office or the mayor in terms of leadership or monetary donations?”

Paul Downey, the mayor’s press secretary, responded that Glaser’s “group is selling out along with the Sierra Club. That’s what it appears to be.

“The theory is ‘every man has his price,’ ” Downey added. “And Bob Glaser’s price is a half-million dollars.”

Councilman Ed Struiksma, whose pro-development record had made him a prime target of environmental groups in the Sept. 19 council elections, appeared to be a major beneficiary of the developers’ new negotiating position. The terms appeared to guarantee that the environmental groups would not receive a large amount of cash to use for political purposes during the next three months.

The settlement had been proposed as a way to end the environmental groups’ lawsuit, which claims that 320 acres of the hilly terrain in the city’s northern tier are part of the city’s “urban reserve” and are off-limits to development unless voters specifically allow it.

Those regulations were enacted as part of the voter-approved Managed Growth Initiative in 1985. The city of San Diego is the defendant in the lawsuit, but the two developers, who plan to build more than 600 homes on about 180 acres, have joined as intervenors.

A Superior Court judge ruled against the environmentalists in June, 1988, but the groups appealed the matter to the 4th District Court of Appeal.

Sources said the builders were seeking the settlement to ensure that the project would not be scuttled later by an unfavorable court ruling. Brennan Katkov, which several sources said is paying $12,000 a day in carrying costs on a loan, was said to be under extreme pressure from its lender to settle the lawsuit.

Both builders and environmentalists had questioned the propriety of withdrawing a lawsuit that tests an environmental principle in exchange for a cash payment.