Growth Plan Makes Ballot; Council Has Its Own Idea

The San Diego City Council on Tuesday reluctantly agreed to place on the Nov. 6 ballot a growth control plan advanced by the San Diego 2000 Committee. But individual council members immediately began campaigning against the ballot initiative and in favor of a competing growth control plan the council is developing.

The council’s sentiment against the initiative, sponsored by the group San Diego 2000 Committee, was apparent Tuesday when it allowed the initiative to qualify for the ballot via a circuitous route that involves the city clerk’s office, rather than through a simple council vote.

That route became necessary after Councilman Bruce Henderson’s motion to place the initiative on the ballot failed to win the required five-vote majority. By failing to place the issue on the ballot, and by also declining to pursue a route through the courts to keep it off the ballot, the council sent the initiative into a back-office limbo where it will remain until late June, when, according to the City Charter, it will automatically qualify for the ballot because it has more than enough valid petition signatures.

The council also indicated that it wants City Atty. John Witt to prepare a legal opinion on “complications and difficulties” that would arise should voters embrace the San Diego 2000 Committee initiative in November.

Both growth proposals would tie future development to the building of infrastructure, such as roads and sewers, to support the growing population. Each side maintains that the other’s plan fails to provide enough funding to build the infrastructure.

Councilman Bob Filner asked Witt to prepare the legal opinion because of “significant legal problems” identified by Robert Freilich, an attorney who advises the council on land-use issues.

Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer unsuccessfully sought support for a motion that would have placed the council on record as opposing the San Diego 2000 initiative. But Mayor Maureen O’Connor argued that taking a stand against the initiative before receiving Witt’s written opinion would not be “following the prudent man rule . . . the motion was premature.”

Filner urged Witt to investigate the legal concerns because, if the initiative passes, “your office must defend it.”

Though Henderson introduced the motion to place the San Diego 2000 issue on the ballot, he later distanced himself from it, arguing that the council could craft a “rational approach” to growth management through ordinances that made the initiative attempt unnecessary.