City to Craft Growth Plan by March 20

About all that emerged clearly Thursday night at the end of a marathon San Diego City Council session--called to debate that ubiquitous City Hall conundrum, growth and its impact on city services--is that the council has committed itself to develop a new growth-management plan, the framework of which should be ready by March 20.

What remains most definitely unclear is what the new plan will look like and whether it will be able to bridge the gap that has split the community and the council, and defined the fractious debate on the issue in the 1980s.

The council spent 5 1/2 hours listening to supporters and opponents of two competing and complex growth proposals, both of which were criticized by city staff members and the city attorney.

On top of that, the council was faced with a blizzard of paper from the mayor’s office, other council members, the city attorney’s office and the planning department, which analyzed, reviewed, amended and, in short, complicated the debate. Councilwoman Linda Bernhardt, for example, submitted at the last minute an intricate 20-page proposal.

The council, on an 8-1 vote, supported Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer’s idea of turning over the task of creating a growth-management ordinance to a committee consisting of the city attorney, the city manager and the planning director, and having them finish an ordinance by March 20.

As fodder for its work, the committee will consider elements of a plan created by Prevent Los Angelization Now!, or PLAN, the successor to Citizens for Limited Growth, as well as parts of a rival measure developed largely by the building industry and embodied in a group callled the San Diego 2000 Committee, according to council members interviewed after the hearing.

Exactly what else the committee will review is a bit ambiguous.

Certainly, said Wolfsheimer, the committee will review all proposals by members of the City Council. That would include detailed proposals such as Bernhardt’s, plus ideas not yet put on paper, including some from Councilman Bruce Henderson.

Post-hearing interviews with council members, however, showed that several had different interpretations of what else the committee will look at.

“We have no idea what this document is going to look like,” said Councilman Ron Roberts, who, along with Councilman Bob Filner, stressed that the ordinance that is finally approved will have to include safeguards to ensure the development of affordable housing.

During the hearing, Wolfsheimer said it is the council’s responsibility to draft a growth plan to avoid yet another initiative battle on growth restrictions. She said it is important for the council to give everyone interested in the matter--developers, business people, citizens, slow-growth advocates and others--a chance to participate in creating the plan.

For example, after the staff committee finishes its work, the ordinance will be reviewed by the Planning Commission, which will hold public hearings. After that, the ordinance will be reviewed by the City Council. In the meantime, all new development proposals filed with the city as of today will be governed by the ordinance, according to Wolfsheimer.

As part of the approval process, the council agreed to hire Robert Freilich, its consultant and longtime growth-management guru from Missouri. He will help in drafting the ordinance and updating the city’s general plan.

It was Freilich, among others, who analyzed the competing proposals advanced by PLAN and the San Diego 2000 Committee. He presented his analysis at Thursday’s session and raised substantial questions about both plans, ranging from procedural and administrative questions to legal and practical problems. He told the council it is premature to adopt either one outright without further study.

Other questions were raised by City Atty. John Witt, who noted that both proposals--drafted as initiatives to be placed on the ballot--are the work of others and not his office; he said he is nervous about the council approving them as city ordinances.

He said it would be “extremely risky” for the council to approve either one and then expect it to be upheld in court. Witt called for a 60-day review.

Several council members claimed that, although it is important for the city to have a new growth plan, even though it has adopted various measures in the recent past, the pressure for a solution may not be as great because the number of building permits issued by the city has fallen dramatically. The number is about half what it was four years ago--a level below previously discussed but never approved building caps.

Councilman Wes Pratt said the decrease means the council does not have to respond in “a knee-jerk reaction” while implementing a plan.

“This City Council is committed to deal with this problem,” Pratt said, adding that “dueling initiatives aren’t going to work, they don’t do the job.”

The lone vote against the council’s action was lodged by Judy McCarty, who said she was frustrated that her colleagues were embarking on “another crash program.”

“We keep going in fits and starts,” she said.

Peter Navarro, the University of San Diego professor who heads PLAN, said afterward of the council’s action, “This was as good as we could have gotten.”

He said he envisions the staff committee taking “critical concepts” from PLAN and augmenting them with proposals from the council.

Asked whether he thought his group’s proposal will remain largely intact once the city gets done with it, Navarro responded, “That’s the $64,000 question.”