Supervisors Put Growth Measure on Fall Ballot : Legislation: It was either that or adopt it, say board members, who will now work to defeat the plan they call redundant.

A reluctant Board of Supervisors on Tuesday put a far-reaching growth-management plan on the Nov. 6 ballot, then urged people to vote against it.

The plan, the second to be placed on the county ballot in two years, includes ways to control traffic, preserve the environment and require developers to meet infrastructure needs when building projects.

The supervisors voted unanimously to put the plan on the ballot, although two board members said all parts of the plan are either duplications of existing county programs or simply “bad legislation.�

The decision to place the measure on the ballot is an outgrowth of actions by San Diego 2000, a group that last November announced its intention to circulate petitions to that purpose.

Last March, supervisors took a stand against the plan--known as the San Diego Traffic Control and Comprehensive Growth Management Initiative--but supporters continued to collect signatures.

In May, the supporters submitted a petition with more than 90,000 signatures to the county’s registrar of voters. By law, the board was faced with a choice of either approving the plan outright or placing it on the ballot.

“We have no choice but to put it on the ballot,� Supervisor Susan Golding said. “When we do, we need to reiterate our opposition to this initiative. The only way that we could keep it off the ballot would be to adopt it.�

Golding said the county is already dealing with many of the issues the measure is intended to resolve, and that other provisions are “just bad legislation.�

Golding urged city officials within the county to campaign against the plan, and she said the county should file a lawsuit to prevent it from taking effect if it does win voter approval.

Supervisor George Bailey agreed with Golding.

“The good parts of this thing we’ve already adopted,� he said.

The initiative contains 11 provisions targeted at improving the “quality of life� in the county.

For one, it would require developers to pay impact fees on new developments and apply the revenues toward improving the county’s roadways. Also, the county would be responsible for putting pressure on “new development and large employers� to reduce rush-hour traffic.

The initiative would also require developers to build parks, libraries and fire stations, and reserve land for child care centers when their construction plans create a need for such facilities.

And it would require developers to submit reports detailing the effects their projects would have on air and water quality.

The initiative would also require the county to file a report reviewing “existing ordinances, policies and procedures which effect housing affordability.�

But, according to a report prepared for supervisors at a March meeting, most of those suggestions have already been implemented.

The initiative could actually limit the county’s ability to levy impact fees, the report says, by putting a cap on the maximum allowable fee.

The report also says that developers are already required to submit air quality reports to comply with the California Environmental Protection Act.

And the need to develop sufficient support facilities to accompany new development is addressed in the county’s own comprehensive plan, it says.

In addition, the report says the county already routinely reviews its housing policies every five years.

Other similar initiatives have been presented to voters in the past, without success. In 1988, county voters rejected the Quality of Life Initiative, a measure advocated by a group known as Citizens for Limited Growth.

That same year, voters in San Diego rejected a less stringent growth-control initiative that had been proposed by the City Council.

Representatives for Prevent Los Angelization Now, a group supporting the initiative supervisors placed on the ballot, and the Construction Industry Federation, a group that has opposed past “slow-growth� measures, could not be reached for comment after Tuesday’s meeting.