‘Smart growth’ plan met with opposition

Critics say the county’s proposals hinder development in rural areas

By Bob Cuddy

Two dozen ranchers, contractors and real estate agents—most from the North County — asked county supervisors this week to delay or, preferably, kill the county’s long-awaited “smart growth” proposals, fearing the measures would erode property rights—and their incomes.

Five people out of the 30-member audience spoke in favor of smart growth when the supervisors heard the matter Tuesday. One of them was Adam Hill, who is campaigning against 3rd District Supervisor Jerry Lenthall.

Although the definition is malleable, in this county smart growth generally calls for encouraging homes and businesses to be built in urban rather than rural areas, and for preserving open space and agricultural land.

“It encourages people to build where it makes more sense,” said 5th District Supervisor Jim Patterson, the board chairman.

Its underlying principle is that uncontrolled growth into rural areas increases traffic and smog, consumes excess energy, dumps unnecessary costs — especially those for public safety—on taxpayers, and threatens tourism and the county’s subjectively defined “quality of life.”

The board adopted the principles in 2005, but Tuesday’s session marked the supervisors’ first look at their planners’ proposals for implementing them.

But as soon as planners laid out guidelines, an onslaught against them erupted.

“Stop this today,” real estate agent Olivia Wittstrom said.

“It’s another layer of rules and regulations,” Bill Martony of Morro Bay said. He called the plans a Trojan horse, designed to turn rural areas into open space, where little to no new development can occur.

One contractor said smart growth would kill the building trade, and others said it is foolish to do any anything to threaten housing when the economy is on a down slope.

“Why you have to rush to over-regulate the people of this county is beyond me,” said North County rancher Jan Davis.

Supervisor Harry Ovitt, among others, complained that the proposals were “one size fits all.”

Others said they would be costly, take away property rights, lead to crime in urban areas and work against providing the affordable housing the county needs.

Davis and several others who spoke out also lined up last year against the county’s so-called viewshed ordinance, which was designed to protect views of North Coast ridges without endangering property rights.

Charles Daugherty, the attorney for Protect Our Property Rights, a group that wrote the scaled-back viewshed ordinance the county adopted, also opposed the smart-growth proposals, writing a 30-point argument against them.

All this raised the question of whether implementation of smart growth is going to be the latest in a long line of public squabbles over local growth — how much, how fast and where.

Hill argued that the county needs a sound plan for expanding, if it does not want to face greater social and economic costs.

Smart-growth principles use water and energy more efficiently, he said, and the wrong type of growth in rural areas increases the risk of wildfires and makes them more difficult to fight.

“This is not about stopping growth but about growing in a more efficient and sustainable way,” he said.

Mike Winn and Jon Seitz of the Nipomo Community Services District also backed county planners’ proposals.

Some opponents of the proposals asked for more time to work out dif ferences. The Farm Bureau said it had three dozen areas that need further discussion.

Supervisors scheduled further discussions in July. They asked planners to bring together interested parties and, following on Lenthall’s suggestion, told them to explore whether it is feasible to find a pilot area to try out the principles.