🚀 go-pugleaf

Resources Ripped in Proposed Changes to County Resource Protections
Citizen's Report Offers Alternatives  but will the Board Respond?

In the late 1980's, when faced with rampant mass grading of hillsides 
and ridges, loss of wildlife habitat, and deteriorating community 
character, the County Board of Supervisors wisely recognized that a fair 
set of rules laying out acceptable development standards was needed.  
The Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO) has created a level playing 
field for landowners and a stable reference point for elected officials, 
by laying out protection against development on wetlands, floodplains, 
steep slopes, sensitive biological habitats and historic and prehistoric 
sites.

But last November, without warning, County Supervisor Horn moved to 
repeal, break up and otherwise weaken and reduce RPO. His proposals 
resulted in a 100-page staff technical report  released over the 
holidays that has local citizens reeling from a sneak attack and 
scrambling to get the word out to people about the process and the 
changes. This first set of proposed changes will be heard in a public 
session before the Board on Wednesday, January 24th, at 2pm, at the 
County Administration Building, Room 358.

Local citizens are urging for the matter to be continued. Not only are 
the proposed changes extensive, but they are highly complicated, and 
should not be so quickly and drastically pushed through before there is 
a chance for sufficient public and scientific review.  On the contrary, 
the proposed changes call for less scientific review and more dependence 
on outside authorities to control our region's destiny. 

There are ways to improve RPO, but this is not it. 

"I hope that the Board will give full consideration to alternatives 
which continue to protect San Diego's natural beauty.  A rollback - 
which appears evident in these early staff proposals - is hardly what 
the public wants." according to Endangered Habitats League coordinator 
Dan Silver.

The League, a citizen's non-profit group which is helping to evaluate 
the changes has issued a report, "Streamlined RPO," which recommends 
ways to accomplish RPO's important goals while increasing efficiency and 
eliminating unnecessary regulatory burdens on business.

Silver served on a special industry and citizen's committee appointed by 
the Board to evaluate options for improving RPO.  "There is a wide 
diversity of views on the committee, and consensus has not be achieved 
on some policy issues.  However, committee members were able to work 
together successfully on many improvements," said Silver.

"Streamlined RPO" sets forth a constructive middle ground between those 
who insist on no change and those who want major weakening.  It also 
differs from the recommendations coming from staff in very significant 
ways."

Carolyn Chase, a local citizen concerned with quality-of-life issues, 
has a different take on the process: "It's not too hard to figure out 
what's coming down. It's right there in the "CONCLUSION" in the staff 
report : 'If all of the above staff recommendations are eventually 
implemented RPO would be completely rescinded..' And  it will cost the 
taxpayers at least $180,000 just to evaluate the changes. My question 
is,  What's the hurry? And where is the mainstream, public support for 
these changes?" 

Also according to the staff report, "Definitions and regulations within 
RPO regarding floodplains and wetlands generally have not been problems, 
nor has the concept that prehistoric and historic sites of extraordinary 
significance should be preserved."

So why are the proposed floodplain changes some of the most extensive? 
Why should the County spend money to do Environmental Impact Reports to 
evaluate changes to wetlands and historic resources, changes that aren't 
needed in the first place? Why was a report issued claiming that 
significant portions of the proposed changes do not need an 
Environmental Impact Report? This so-called "Negative Declaration" has 
environmentalists looking forward to eventually winning another moral 
and legal challenge against the County � the kind of challenge they have 
fought for and won before.

Down Memory Lane

In 1988, in an effort to avert the passing of a ballot measure that 
would have severely curtailed development, the County Board of 
Supervisors took a pro-active role.  The Board invited citizen group 
members and building industry representatives to help put together 
regulations that provided balance between economic development and 
resource protection. The committee met over several months to put 
together a compromise. At the time it was supported by both 
environmental and building industry interests.

This compromise proposal became the "Resource Protection Ordinance" on 
May 31, 1989. RPO  applies only to discretionary land use permits, such 
as tentative subdivision maps and major use permits. Exemptions are 
provided in RPO for several different types of projects and uses 
including: certain essential public facility projects, certain sand, 
gravel or mineral extraction projects, projects where imposition of RPO 
would result in a "taking" of a property, and continuation of 
pre-existing agricultural uses.

RPO protects:  steep slopes, floodplains, floodways; sensitive habitat 
lands, wetlands and wetlands buffers, and significant prehistoric or 
historic sites. Don't we still need to protect these things ? Don't we 
still wish to allow for  well-designed and appropriate developments in a 
consistent manner? Don't we still want to leave a legacy of open-spaces 
and natural places for future generations?

These questions and many others should be asked directly of the 
Supervisors. 

"We are hoping, praying and calling for the Board to vote to at least 
continue this item and give County residents a fair chance to engage in 
the process," said Chase, "but perhaps some of the Supervisors are not 
really interested in that.

"Elimination of study requirements, elimination of fee requirements, 
elimination of criminal provisions, deletion of floodplain regulations, 
increased 'cut and fill',  increased concrete and rip-rapped river 
allowances, new variances and exceptions....  There is page after page 
to digest and compare.   It's such glamorous work, trying to protect our 
environment," she joked, "well, parts of it. There are only parts of it 
left you know."

The public is encouraged to send their comments to:
County Board of Supervisors, 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335, S.D. 92101
Call or FAX:
	District 1: Greg Cox 531-5511           
	District 2: Dianne Jacob 531-5522      
	District 3: Pam Slater 531-5533        
	District 4: Chair Ron Roberts 531-5544	
	District 5: Bill Horn 531-5555		

***>If you wish you can fax to 557-4025 and request distribution to the 
entire Board. If you're not sure which District you're in call the Clerk 
of the Board of  at 531-5600.

To receive a copy of "Streamlined RPO"  or help with efforts to defend 
our region's natural heritage, please call Carolyn at 272-0347 or send 
emailto cdchase@aol.com. Send contributions to : Endangered Habitats 
League, c/o San Diego Earth Day, P.O. Box 9827, San Diego CA 92169.
## END ##