Different Communities See Different Impact From Proposition A
by Joe Naiman

The Rural Lands Initiative, which will be Proposition A on the March 2 ballot, has supporters and opponents arguing the impacts of the initiative as well as the merits. Proponents of Proposition A argue that limiting growth in the backcountry will reduce infrastructure costs as well as limit urban sprawl, and proponents also cite the need to limit growth in groundwater-dependent communities. Opponents cite the need for small farm parcels to keep land viable for farming and the need for sufficient housing to serve San Diego County’s future population.

If the Rural Lands Initiative is approved, it would place minimum 40-acre, 80-acre, and 160-acre parcel sizes throughout the unincorporated county. The initiative would also mandate goal and policy statements in the county’s General Plan. Any changes to land use and development patterns prior to December 31, 2023, could only be modified by a majority of the county’s voters.

The overlay would cover a total of 694,121 acres, although that area includes 136,000 acres of public land, and 95 percent of the parcels in the overlay area are already smaller than the minimum parcel size.

"It establishes a cornerstone goal to ensure that clean water, forest land is protected," said Duncan McFetridge, the chair of the Rural Lands Initiative Committee, during a Dec. 3 Board of Supervisors hearing to place the initiative on the ballot and accept the impact report. "It takes planning out of the hands of special interests."

San Diego County Farm Bureau president Janet Kister noted that city residents would be making land use decisions regarding agriculture. "We’re outnumbered by voters in Oceanside, Escondido, La Jolla, National City, and San Diego," she said at the hearing. "We’ll have no recourse against decisions made by voters in the cities."

Kister told the supervisors that such a process threatens community character. "It is the local residents who need to decide what’s best for our communities and not the large voting blocs of the cities," she said.

David Van Omerling and his brother own the last remaining dairy in Lakeside. The two brothers have a total of seven children and would like to subdivide the land so that each of their children will have parcels. "This gives no flexibility," Van Omerling said. "It hurts the people’s ability to use the land that they have."

Third-generation farmer Mike Hillebrecht also cited the desire to subdivide his San Pasqual Valley family farm among family members. "Under this initiative we would not be able to divide this land up between my three children," he said. "Then we’d be forced to sell it."

A majority of the county’s existing farms, including many orchards in Julian, are on parcels under ten acres. Opponents of the initiative also noted that the lack of flexibility may also cause potential problems with regard to agriculture-urban interfaces.

Eric Bowlby, the executive director of the Sierra Club’s San Diego chapter, speaks about the positive effect the initiative would have on the protection of groundwater. "Twenties and forties do not protect groundwater and biological resources," he said. "The initiative does it decisively."

Bowlby said that 90 percent of the lands covered by the initiative are in groundwater-dependent areas. "That water supply is continuing to go down," he said.

The concept of "smart growth" by using an urban limit line also requires recognition of the reality that Indian reservations have sovereign land use jurisdiction. "There will be large parcels of property ranging from, say, 40 to 160 acres, and some of those parcels will be near those tribal lands," said Supervisor Pam Slater during the hearing.

Slater asked Deputy County Counsel Tom Harron about the possibility of a property owner selling his land to an adjacent tribe. "We would have no ability to constrain the land. They can develop it at any level they want," Harron said. "They can ignore the Rural Lands Initiative."

That could foil "smart growth" planning. "I think that is probably an unanticipated problem by most people," Slater said.

Various debates about minimum parcel size have also produced opposing statements about the impact on the infrastructure. Although fewer homes in the out-lying areas would require fewer road services, insufficient housing which forces workers to commute from Riverside County or Baja California could lead to additional impacts on roads leading into the urban core.