Supervisors Vote to Put Two Growth-Limit Measures on Ballot

Ending months of one debate while launching another, broader battle, the Board of Supervisors Wednesday placed on the November ballot two sweeping growth propositions aimed at restricting development, protecting environmentally sensitive lands and adopting a countywide approach to growth management.

Struggling to present a united front on arguably the most politically charged issue in San Diego, the supervisors unanimously voted to place the two measures on the ballot, but in the process displayed some of the rancor and philosophical differences certain to be repeated in this fall’s countywide campaigns.

Wednesday’s meeting ended, in fact, with two supervisors warning that they may provide only limited support--or remain on the sidelines--in the campaign over the more substantive and controversial ballot measure this fall.

Final Action Needed

That proposition, called the Sensitive Lands and Growth Control Measure, had been tentatively approved by the board last week but, following several proposed amendments, required final action Wednesday.

Proposed by Supervisors Susan Golding and George Bailey, the measure--a consolidation of two separate plans--would restrict building on environmentally sensitive lands and establish “quality of life” standards limiting residential, commercial and industrial development in the unincorporated areas of the county.

The other measure, written by Supervisor Brian Bilbray, calls for an advisory vote on the creation of a Regional Planning and Growth Management Review Board to promote a regional approach to growth issues. With cities and the county now independently handling growth matters within their own boundaries, actions taken in one jurisdiction often cancel out those taken in adjoining areas, Bilbray argued in support of his proposal.

3 Growth Measures

Combined with a slow-growth proposal called the Rural Preservation and Traffic Control Initiative that a citizens’ group qualified for the ballot, Wednesday’s board actions mean that countywide voters will be confronted with three major growth measures this fall. Two similar growth proposals will be contested within the City of San Diego, and as many as half a dozen more are expected to appear on other local ballots.

During literally hundreds of hours of debates before the board and various community groups, the supervisors have sought to cast their sensitive lands-growth control proposition as a less costly, more balanced alternative to the restrictive slow-growth citizens’ initiative.

Recognizing that their unanimity could enhance the board measure’s chances of approval in November, the supervisors strove Wednesday to maintain the spirit of cooperation and agreement that has dominated most of their discussions on the politically thorny growth issue. However, on one key point--a somewhat esoteric provision of the ballot measure--the supervisors’ mutual good will broke down, providing a harbinger of what is certain to be a heated countywide debate this fall between environmentalists and developers.

Local Advisory Votes

Bailey’s original “Quality of Life” proposal called for, among other things, local advisory votes within communities before density increases, zoning changes or other major land-use changes.

Under compromise language proposed by Golding last week as part of the blending of Bailey’s proposal with her own, such votes would be held only for proposed land-use actions differing with community plans. Her version, Golding contended, would accomplish Bailey’s goal of permitting communities to vote on major land-use changes while saving money by precluding the need for elections on routine, minor adjustments.

After being on the losing side of a 3-2 vote on that point last week, Bailey and Supervisor John MacDonald opened a new front in the same battle Wednesday, offering an amendment calling for advisory votes by a community’s registered voters before most major land-use changes. Golding, in turn, made a counterproposal designed to uphold last week’s decision.

‘Great Disservice’

Bailey, who last week complained that Golding’s proposal “very clearly gutted” the ballot proposition, argued Wednesday that limiting the community elections on land-use changes “is a great disservice to everything we’re trying to do.”

But Golding, reiterating her arguments from last week, said that she saw no need for votes on zoning or land-use changes consistent with community plans. Under Golding’s questioning, county planners also acknowledged that the Bailey-MacDonald proposal conceivably could lead to thousands of local land-use elections annually.

“We’re talking about the community plans being the Bible,” Bilbray added. “I don’t see the problem with that.”

With Supervisor Leon Williams siding with Golding and Bilbray, Golding’s version of that provision of the proposition again was passed by a 3-2 vote.

While Golding characterized the disagreement as a largely semantic one with little practical effect on the measure’s overall impact, Bailey and MacDonald said it could affect their support for the proposition this fall.

“I’ll vote to support putting it on the ballot; I will not be active in supporting it,” Bailey said, echoing comments made by MacDonald.

Warned by Golding that such equivocation could undermine public support for their proposal, Bailey later described his feelings about the proposition in more positive terms.

“When you compare it to the (Rural Preservation) initiative, it is a tremendous amount better,” Bailey said. “There are many areas I’ll speak in favor of. I’ll try not to be derogatory on . . . parts I disagree with.”

Other Concerns

In addition to differing with the board’s majority on the nature of the local land-use votes, Bailey said after the meeting that he also has some concerns about the provisions of the proposition aimed at protecting sensitive lands, including wetlands, flood plains, steep slopes, sensitive animal and plant habitats and historic sites.

“When you say . . . you can’t build in valleys because of water and you can’t build on hillsides because of slopes, you’re making it very difficult for the person in the backcountry to do his job,” Bailey said.

MacDonald, meanwhile, suggested that he might remain neutral in this fall’s campaign, saying “I have to think about” whether to actively push for the proposition’s approval in light of Wednesday’s actions.

Golding, however, took pains to minimize the board’s differences.

“Considering the complexity of what we’ve put on the ballot, I think our differences have been few,” Golding said.

After the meeting, though, Golding expressed frustration over the possibility that the board itself could send mixed signals to voters this fall.

“It’s ridiculous to vote to put something on the ballot and then say it’s not something you’re actively supporting,” Golding said. “Don’t vote to put it on the ballot if you don’t support it.”

Under the Bailey-inspired components of the Sensitive Lands and Growth Control Measure, limits would be imposed on residential growth; a set percentage of building permits would be reserved for single-family homes; community plans would be balanced with a mixture of residential, industrial, commercial and public uses; and communities would conduct the advisory votes on major land-use changes.

Interim Law OKd

The provisions of the Golding-backed sensitive lands measure, meanwhile, would control development on environmentally sensitive lands. To ensure that sensitive lands are not endangered by a rush of development proposals before the Nov. 8 election, the supervisors have already approved an interim ordinance encompassing most of the major parts of the ballot measure.

Bilbray’s proposal for establishing a regional growth panel has aroused little controversy to date, with Bilbray hailing his plan as a way to “tear down the walls that have been stopping” local governments from approaching growth from a regional perspective.

In order for such a regional board to be effective, Bilbray notes, the supervisors themselves and elected officials in cities must be willing to relinquish some of their existing growth-management authority. Given elected officials’ customary reluctance to diminish their own power, Bilbray admits that the plan could draw skeptical responses from other politicians.

“There’s been concern expressed about a loss of local control,” Bilbray said. “But this is an enhancement of local control, if implemented properly.”

One unresolved legal question that could extend debate over the various competing propositions beyond November involves what would happen if several--or all--of the countywide proposals are approved. The answer to that question is critical, because while the plans are complementary on some points, they are contradictory on others and would establish different growth guidelines.

Seeking to clarify the situation, Golding on Wednesday proposed, and the board unanimously approved, the addition of a so-called “killer clause” to the county’s growth-sensitive lands proposition specifying that, if both it and the Rural Preservation Initiative are approved, the one that receives the most votes would take precedence.

“We’re trying to create a winner-take-all situation,” Golding said.