Growth Curbs Win Council Favor--and So Do Exemptions

In a marathon session marked by outbursts of acrimony, the San Diego City Council on Friday imposed temporary but tough new development restrictions in canyons and wetlands.

But council members didn’t impose the controls without first granting a series of major exemptions for projects along the Interstate 15 corridor--a twist that tempered the victory of a group of environmentalists who had pushed for the new controls.

Before the day was through, hard-pressed developers had something to smile about as the council, putting finishing touches on its controversial Interim Development Ordinance, granted blanket exemptions that could conceivably allow residential development in excess of the 8,000-unit limit originally called for in the measure.

Additionally, City Atty. John Witt rendered an opinion that said the Interim Development Ordinance has no hold over large projects that are in the so-called planning “pipeline” but have, through government approval, already established a right to build. Witt’s ruling came days after attorneys for one of those projects filed suit in federal court seeking to overturn the ordinance.

Series of Measures

The spate of activity at the unusual Friday council session was the latest in the council’s protracted deliberations over a series of temporary measures intended to keep growth in check just long enough so the city can rework its Growth Management Plan in 1988.

In June, council members approved the IDO, which city officials said would cut last year’s growth rate in half. And in July, they gave conceptual approval to putting greater restrictions on development on hillsides, wetlands and flood plains.

But any collective good will between council members over the crucial growth issue quickly evaporated Friday when both measures came back for a reconsideration.

At one point, when the council was voting on exemptions to the environmental protections, Mayor Maureen O’Connor--who voted against the exceptions--looked into an audience laced with land-use attorneys and said, “It’s kind of not what you know around here, it’s who you know.”

During a break in deliberations, Councilman Ed Struiksma--who was successful in pushing through the exemptions--expressed displeasure over O’Connor’s remark. “It was a small comment made by, obviously, a loser,” he said, referring to the council vote.

The environmental protections were proposed by Councilman Mike Gotch and are intended to toughen the safeguards over development of environmentally sensitive lands. Gotch’s proposal would allow only minimal development on wetlands and place more restrictive construction guidelines in flood plains.

But the provision that received the most scrutiny was protection of hillsides and canyons. Current city regulations give design guidelines to developers who want to build on grades of 25% or more.

The new restrictions, however, aim at protecting large expanses of hillsides by declaring as “sensitive” slopes that contain native vegetation or can be seen one mile away from any major city street or freeway. They also set numerical standards for development, limiting developers to encroaching on no more than 20% of any steep slope. If, for example, an entire parcel is considered a steep slope, the measure would prevent a developer from building on more than 20% of the lot.

The hillside restrictions brought squawks from developers, especially those with large projects in the Interstate 15 corridor, and Struiksma persuaded his colleagues to exempt them from the harsher regulations.

Improvements Cited

Struiksma said he wanted to exempt the developers because they have committed to paying millions of dollars for public amenities such as sorely needed roads, schools, and playgrounds. He said that including them in the regulations would be unfair because the council had recently approved the projects after lengthy study.

At his urging, council members lifted the environmental regulations from along Black Mountain Road and Calle Cristobal, permitting development necessary for complete construction of those thoroughfares.

The council also exempted the 385-acre County Island project, which will consist of 1,350 residential units, and the 1,835-acre Miramar Ranch North project, which will consist of 4,650 residential units. The developers of County Island have pledged to pay $16.2 million for public improvements in return for being allowed to construct homes.

The vote for the exemptions was 5-4, with O’Connor, Gotch, and Councilwomen Abbe Wolfsheimer and Celia Ballesteros dissenting.

Despite those exemptions, the environmental standards were approved 7-1, with Councilman Bill Cleator dissenting. A spokesman for Citizens for Limited Growth, which pushed the stronger measures under threat of a citizens initiative, said the group was pleased.

“I’m very happy it passed,” said Tom Mullaney. “I think the council believes overwhelmingly that our natural resources are not getting the protection that they deserve.”

But Mullaney said Struiksma’s exemptions gave him mixed feelings. “I think they are major holes,” he said. “They are huge areas in the northern part of the city.”

After dispatching with the environmental controls, council members began grappling with the nuances of the IDO. By the end of the day, they were trying to figure out how to modify the ordinance, which is good for 18 months, so it wouldn’t pose too much of a hardship on developers whose applications for building permits had been hung up by the measure.

Permits in Limbo

City Manager John Lockwood has declined to release any building permits since June 23, when the council adopted the IDO in concept. Although the measure does not become effective until later this month, Lockwood has used his administrative prerogative to halt the permits in deference to the wishes of the council.

The move has angered builders with pending building applications. One of them, Larry Simon, told council members that his small development firm is being held up from building 29 new units in a Linda Vista. He testified that his lender will foreclose unless he obtains the permits and begins building by the end of August.

That and other hardship stories moved council members to grant blanket exemptions. Developers with projects that require some kind of discretionary approval--such as a public hearing--from the city are allowed to receive building permits for no more than 175 units in each neighborhood, no questions asked.

Developers who need no discretionary approval from the city are allowed building permits for up to 30 units in each neighborhood, no questions asked.

Planning staffers told council members that those blanket exemptions could account for up to 2,800 units allowed under the 8,000-unit cap.

But Witt’s legal ruling releasing other, larger projects from the IDO could conceivably mean that development will exceed the 8,000-unit mark, city officials said.

Witt ruled that developments granted “vesting tentative maps” before the IDO was approved in June likely cannot be denied the right to build. Thus, those projects should be given their building permits regardless of the slow growth measure, he said.

City planning statistics show that the city has issued vesting tentative maps for 8,187 units since Jan. 1. Of those, 1,140 units have been built, leaving a remainder of more than 7,000 that could demand building permits--a number that, added to the previous exemptions, could bring the city over the 8,000-unit cap.

Witt’s ruling was good news to attorneys for Camino Bernardo Associates, a limited partnership that filed suit against the city on Tuesday claiming the IDO violated its constitutional property rights. The partnership received its vesting tentative map last August, but was prevented from getting 205 building permits.

The partnership filed suit in federal court, saying its inability to receive the permits jeopardized a $8.2-million deal to sell off part of the development in Rancho Bernardo. It claimed it had meanwhile committed to making $16 million in public improvements.

After Witt briefed the council on his opinion Friday, the partnership’s attorneys indicated that they would be willing to drop the suit as soon as their client receives its building permits.