San Diego OKs Broadest Conservation Plan in U.S.

The city of San Diego on Tuesday approved the nation’s most sweeping and ambitious land-use strategy--one aimed at protecting a virtual Noah’s Ark of 85 endangered species while setting the pace for development in much of San Diego County.

Passed unanimously by the City Council after a six-hour session before a standing-room-only crowd, the conservation plan sets criteria for what property can be developed and how much will be set aside to preserve nature, while also seeking up to $650 million in government funds to buy private lands.

The framework will guide the future of 900 square miles, from rare patches of seasonal wetlands and graceful Torrey pines to brushy chaparral and sage scrub.

It allows some developers to bypass the Endangered Species Act, a federal law that sets up strict review of development, while preserving as open space the natural habitats of an array of plants and animals edging toward extinction.

The goal is to set aside more than one-quarter of the 900 square miles, or 172,000 acres, as permanent wildlife preserves for species such as the California gnatcatcher and the San Diego fairy shrimp.

U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt called Tuesday’s vote historic, saying it created “the jewel of habitat conservation plans” that will “preserve the most environmentally sensitive pieces of the San Diego landscape” after years of negotiations between battling stakeholders.

Affecting tens of thousands of landowners from tony, oceanfront Del Mar to arid areas near the Mexico-U.S. border, the Multiple Species Conservation Program was born of an often shaky alliance among environmentalists, developers, the Wilson and Clinton administrations and local government.

San Diego County’s wide array of unusual life forms--some found no place else on Earth--is often on a collision course with the region’s coveted real estate and voluminous amount of privately owned land, leaving more endangered species there than in virtually any other locale in the country.

Many San Diego residents and elected officials view the plan as more than protection of wildlife; it is a way to permanently safeguard their quality of life and their city’s identity. Essentially, their goal is to keep San Diego from turning into their worst nightmare--Los Angeles.

“Open space is extremely important. . . . I cannot think of a better legacy to leave,” said San Diego Mayor Susan Golding, a moderate Republican who is the project’s main booster. “Something this complex, this large that affects thousands of property owners . . . is very difficult to accomplish.”

Still, environmentalists remain divided, with some calling it a sellout to developers that allows destruction of many natural areas, while others praise its guaranteed protection of large swaths.

The plan “doesn’t support the recovery of endangered species,” said James Peugh, past president of the San Diego Audubon Society. “Our grandkids are going to think we were really stupid at some point, and we’ll work to make this stronger.”

Many large developers endorsed the plan reluctantly, fearing economic losses. But they say it is less painful than the current system of having each of their parcels subjected to the rigors of the Endangered Species Act, a review by state or federal biologists that often drags on for years. The federal act protects about 1,000 animals and plants.

In exchange for giving up some land as open space inside the preserve, developers get a guarantee from federal and state governments that they will be granted expedited permits to build outside the preserve during the next 50 years. Within the preserve, they are allowed to build on 25% of their property and must set aside 75%.

“I am representing an industry that is walking into this thing with its lips pursed. But all the alternatives are worse,” said James Whalen, president of a coalition of San Diego County builders and developers. “We have balanced diametrically opposed goals.”

Others, including some elected officials, small landowners and anti-tax advocates, oppose the plan as a waste of public money and an infringement of property rights.

“I think it’s a monster created by government, and it is woefully inadequate,” Ken Bernard, a small San Diego landowner, told the council.

Babbitt singled out the city’s Republican mayor for her advocacy, but federal wildlife and Wilson administration officials also played a key role, since they enforce the Endangered Species Act, the nation’s most powerful conservation law. Babbitt calls the San Diego plan proof that the law works without an overhaul contemplated by Congress to ease restrictions on private land.

The Clinton administration has more than 300 habitat conservation plans, all much smaller than this one, completed or in the works.

“We’ve achieved a whole new way of doing business under the Endangered Species Act,” said Marc Ebbin, Babbitt’s special assistant. “There’s never been a plan of this magnitude anywhere. In San Diego County, we’ve been able to go far beyond what we’ve done anyplace else.”

In urging the plan’s adoption, Gov. Pete Wilson said it “will preserve both the outstanding natural attributes of this region and its economic vitality for generations.” He committed $16 million in the 1997-98 budget to acquire wildlife habitat in Southern California.

The plan encompasses private and public land bordered on the north by the San Dieguito River Valley, on the south by the U.S.-Mexico border, on the west by the Pacific Ocean and on the east by the desert.

The city of San Diego only controls the land within its limits--about one-third of the 172,000-acre preserve. But its approval as the lead local agency was the largest hurdle facing the plan, which county supervisors and 11 smaller cities also must adopt or persuade the city to alter.

The city has spearheaded the effort because it has the most valuable land and faces the most contentious development battles, including a plan to build homes in the scenic coastal enclave of Carmel Valley, near Del Mar.

Still, the county’s approval is not guaranteed. The chairman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, Bill Horn, has been the conservation plan’s most high-profile opponent, dubbing it “Multiple Stolen and Confiscated Property.”

The biggest stumbling block, though, could be rounding up government funds to buy and maintain 27,000 acres of private land for the preserve. Under the plan adopted Tuesday, the cities and county must come up with funding sources within three years.

Of the estimated $540 million to $650 million of government money needed, $339 million to $411 million would come from local government, with the rest from the state and federal authorities.

The City Council endorsed a funding mechanism created by Golding that will seek the city’s share through bonds or drawing on future revenue from developers. The other cities and the county might follow that lead, or create assessment districts.

A committee composed mainly of local businesses, including Bank of America and the Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce, concluded “the cost to the public is modest given the benefits.” But it warned that fully financing the plan will take a massive and coordinated effort, especially if property values rise.

Setting aside 27,000 acres of the 172,000-acre preserve is reliant on funding that hasn’t been secured. The rest are existing federal, state and local lands that will be better managed to protect species and open space to be set aside by developers as mitigation for development.

The boundaries of the preserve are not clearly defined, but it is described as a backbone stretching from Escondido to Mexico with ribs jutting out east and west. Passive recreational uses such as hiking and bird watching will be allowed.

The negotiations between the the Wilson and Clinton administrations and private groups began in earnest four years ago, when Babbitt declared the California gnatcatcher a threatened species.

The San Diego plan is part of a broader project to protect Southern California’s sage scrub for the gnatcatcher and other species.

Times staff writer Tony Perry and special correspondent Paul Levikow contributed to this story from San Diego. Cone reported from Los Angeles.