Oceanside Boosts Fees for Builders

With an election showdown over growth less than two weeks away, the Oceanside City Council tooks steps to prove they are serious about managing the effects of development by agreeing to increase builder fees by about 14%.

The council voted unanimously to raise the rates charged for new development from $8,653 for an average dwelling unit to $9,882--a jump of more than $1,200.

But the council stopped far short of the fee increases being recommended by the city staff, which ranged as high as 45%.

The council opted for the less-costly hikes after a stream of developers took turns lambasting the fee increases as the sort of action that could choke off Oceanside’s building boom.

Nonetheless, several council members stressed after the vote that they feel the rise in builder fees proves that they are serious about making new development “pay its own way.”

The Ballot Measures

The fee increases were enacted as part of a managed-growth plan that is the centerpiece of a ballot measure that goes before voters April 21.

Proposition B, the council-backed initiative, is vying 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 percent age 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 ensure that public facilities such as roads and sewer lines keep pace with growth.

The council’s decision to approve the fee increases marked something of a political victory for Mayor Larry Bagley.

Two weeks ago, the council refused to enact the fee hikes until after the April 21 election, despite a warning from Bagley that opponents of Proposition B would point to the delays as a sign that the council is soft on developers. Other council members said they felt the fee hikes were bloated and wanted to give city staff adequate time to study alternatives.

In the days that followed, however, Bagley’s colleagues began to have a change of heart. Eventually, the council members agreed that a decision should be made before the election and asked to reconsider the matter Wednesday.

Even though the council acted to raise developer fees, Bagley predicted that slow-growth advocates would try to make political hay of the issue.

“If we had dropped our fee increases by 30 cents they would still make something of it,” Bagley said.

Bagley stressed that the less-costly jump in charges were deemed necessary by the council because of legal concerns about justifying the hikes that were originally proposed. Those steeper initial estimates were based on the amount of money needed to construct several roads, bridges and other projects that are not included in any city planning document, he said.

‘Reacted to Pressure’

Indeed, slow-growth advocates pushing for Proposition A reacted to news of the fee increases Wednesday by complaining that the council lacked the true grit needed to steer Oceanside to a successful future.

“They reacted to developer pressure,” said Melba Bishop, a former councilwoman helping to lead the slow-growth forces. “The developers come on strong and, as we all know, there is not a surplus of backbone on that council.”

Bishop said the council never really had any intention of “charging developers what it would really cost to bring facilities in this city up to par.” Nonetheless, Bishop said she was surprised at the extent to which the council “backed down.”

“I actually thought they’d be a lot tougher with an election facing them in two weeks,” Bishop said. “They must feel the public is stupid and won’t notice. I think they may find that’s not the case.”

Funding Projects

City staff members, however, stressed that the council’s action would prove sufficient to fund the capital improvement projects that will be needed as the city continues to expand.

“We’re very satisfied that the City Council has addressed the question of new dwelling units paying their fair share of public facilities,” Assistant City Manager William Workman said.

Under council-backed Proposition B, the council could not permit new building to take place unless adequate public services are 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 figure dropped from 350,000 to less than 225,000.

Proposition A aims to prevent development from outstripping 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.