Oceanside Delays Vote on Builder Fees

The Oceanside City Council, in a move that could have serious political ramifications in an upcoming ballot showdown over growth, refused Wednesday to hike developer fees until after the election.

Council members were considering fee increases of up to 45% as part of a managed-growth plan that is the centerpiece of a ballot initiative that goes before voters April 21.

The council-backed initiative, Proposition B, is pitted against a rival slow-growth measure, Proposition A, being sponsored by local residents. If the two competing measures get a majority vote in the election, the one with the larger percentage would prevail.

While Proposition A would put a cap on the number of dwelling units that could be built in Oceanside each year, the council’s initiative is designed to insure that public facilities such as roads and sewer lines keep pace with growth.

4-to-1 Vote

After a two-hour public hearing Wednesday, the council voted 4 to 1, with Mayor Larry Bagley dissenting, to delay a decision on the developer fee increase for a month, a move that puts the matter off until a few days after the election.

Bagley said in an interview following the meeting that he felt the council should have “bitten the bullet” and reached a decision so voters could see that city officials are serious about managing the effects of growth in Oceanside.

Moreover, he predicted that slow-growth advocates supporting Proposition A would make political hay out of the council’s indecisiveness on the developer-fee issue.

“Proponents of Proposition A will point the finger at us and say we’re not doing anything,” Bagley said, adding that “I don’t think this is helping us any.”

Bagley stressed, however, that council members “are unanimous” in their desire to increase fees, noting that “it’s just a matter of how much.”

Other council members said they wanted to delay making a decision until the city staff has time to reevaluate the proposed fee increases. They maintained the fee hikes were bloated and reflect too high an estimate of the cost of public services that will be required as building continues.

Councilman Sam Williamson said he felt the staff had “loaded the thing” with extraneous items that should not be funded by new development. “Now they should bring it back properly,” Williamson said, adding that he “would rather do it right and take a shellacking” at the polls.

In particular, Williamson and other council members expressed concern because the fee increases were based on several multimillion-dollar road projects and bridges that likely will never be built. They also complained that the additional fees should not go to finance projects designed to make up for current shortfalls in public facilities.

“Undoubtedly, we need to raise the fees,” Councilman Walter Gilbert said. “But when you try to pay for everything we’ve done in the past, then something is wrong.”

Developers Complain

The council’s decision came after a parade of developers complained about the effects of the fee hikes. Several developers said they felt the increases were unjustified or outright illegal, while others predicted that the rise in rates charged for new building would choke off the city’s building boom.

“If you raise your fees, there’s not going to be much demand to build in this town,” said Nick Banche, an attorney who represents numerous developers before the council.

The fee increases were recommended by city staff members as part of a managed-growth ordinance that prohibits new residential development unless public services and facilities are ensured.

As city officials see it, one of the key elements to the new ordinance is adoption of the higher developer fees, which are designed to provide the necessary funds to construct public facilities such as roads and parks that are needed as Oceanside grows.

William P. Workman, acting community development director, said the increased fees would insure that “the general citizenry of Oceanside will not be saddled with the public facility costs related to residential development.”

According to Workman, all the fee hikes would be “directly attributable to public improvements required to maintain quality of life for residents occupying new dwelling units throughout the city.”

Uses of Fees

Under the plan before the council Wednesday, fees would be for parks and recreational needs, water and sewer facilities, roads, traffic signals and public facilities such as more office space for the police department and library.

Staff members recommended a $2,800 increase to the council Wednesday. Currently, developers pay fees ranging between $6,000 and $10,000 per housing unit depending on the location and type of dwelling unit. The hikes proposed by the city Wednesday would result in fees of about $8,800 to $12,800--an increase of up to 35% for single-family houses and up to 45% for condominiums, apartments and other attached units.

City officials estimated after the meeting that the $2,800 increase would be cut back to between $2,000 and $2,300 under the council’s directive.

The managed-growth plan was prompted by the concerns of city officials over the slow-growth measure, which they said would virtually shut down development and rob the city of fees needed to construct roads, parks and other facilities.

Committee Created

While slow-growth advocates were gathering signatures for their ballot measure, the council formed an ad hoc committee to come up with an alternative proposal.

Under Proposition B, the council could not permit new building unless adequate public services were in place. In addition, it would commit officials to following the city’s general plan, which was recently revised to reduce densities so that the ultimate population shifted downward from 350,000 to less than 225,000.

Proposition A is the brainchild of Oceanside Taxpayers for Orderly Growth. Its aim is to prevent development from outstripped public facilities by limiting the number of homes built each year.

Under the measure, 1,000 housing units could be built in the city in 1987 and 800 could be built in each subsequent year through 1999.

The initiative also calls for creation of a development evaluation board that would rate project applications and determine which would be allowed to proceed under the annual quota. Criteria for approval include a project’s impact on public services, its architectural strengths as well as a developer’s provisions of parks or open space.