Camps Differ on Degree of Curbs : Growth Measures Face Off in Oceanside, Vista

Six or seven years ago, Oceanside’s population was about 75,000--and holding. A nagging recession had the home-building industry on the ropes. Consequently, the issue of growth was not something civic leaders were losing any sleep over.

But times have changed. Today, houses and condominiums are popping from the ground like weeds after a good rain. More than 100,000 residents now call Oceanside home. The new arrivals have helped clog city streets, pack the parks and drain already overburdened municipal services.

Some Oceanside residents, angry over the erosion of their life style and worried that it may only get worse, have decided to fight back. They have put a slow-growth initiative on the ballot that would place a strict cap on the number of residential units built in Oceanside each year.

Not so fast, city officials have responded. The problem, they stress, is not so much the burgeoning population, but the inability of city services such as police protection and roads and sewers to keep up with the building boom. As an alternative to the slow-growth measure, dubbed Proposition A, the City Council has sponsored a rival managed-growth measure, Proposition B, that will square off with the citizens’ initiative in an election Tuesday.

Fast on the heels of the Oceanside contest will be an April 28 election showdown over growth in nearby Vista. Some homeowners in the inland city of 50,000--like their counterparts in Oceanside--have grown tired of traffic jams and other symptoms of the development tidal wave and have sponsored a slow-growth initiative, Proposition B. As in Oceanside, the Vista City Council has countered with an alternative ballot measure, Proposition A, designed to keep services in line with growth.

The two elections are just the latest chapters in the battle over growth in North County, a region of grassy, rolling hillsides long eyed by the development community. In a high-stakes campaign last November, voters in Carlsbad favored a city-backed growth-management measure over a rival slow-growth initiative sponsored by two citizens’ groups. Similar slow-growth efforts are in the formative stages in other North County cities, among them Escondido.

While the results of the growth-control elections in Oceanside and Vista will be closely watched by politicians, builders and residents throughout San Diego County, the ultimate outcome could be decided Tuesday in a courtroom.

Vista Superior Court Judge David Moo is scheduled to rule that day on a request by Carlsbad slow-growth advocates for a court order invalidating a so-called “killer clause.” That clause made a winner of the City Council-backed ballot measure, which got nearly 58% of the vote, even though the citizens’ initiative eked out a majority share of 51.5%.

In both Oceanside and Vista, the city-backed measures include such killer clauses. If Moon rules in favor of the Carlsbad slow-growthers, it could potentially mean the citizen-sponsored measures in the two communities would need only a simple majority to become law.

That legal wrinkle could add yet another layer of complexity to an issue that already has many residents scratching their heads in confusion. Each of the ballot measures is a detailed proposal, the type of planning document that is rife with twists and turns.

Quota System

The slow-growth measure in Oceanside, Proposition A, is modeled after similar initiatives passed in almost 60 cities nationwide. It would limit construction of new homes to 1,000 in 1987 and 800 in each subsequent year through 1999. At that point, the City Council would review the ordinance.

Proposition A also calls for creation of a “Residential Development Evaluation Board” to rate project applications and determine which will be allowed to proceed under the annual quota. The city Planning Commission would serve as the board to evaluate each development in terms of public facilities provided, architectural strengths and the inclusion of parks or open space.

Among the projects that would be exempted from the annual cap would be remodeling work on existing homes, construction of single-family homes on a single lot, projects in the city’s redevelopment area, and housing for senior citizens or low-income residents.

The rival ballot measure backed by the City Council, Proposition B, was drafted by Oceanside officials late last year in the face of the citizens’ slow-growth initiative.

Vote on Density Changes

As city officials see it, the measure’s key provision is a requirement for a public vote to increase e densities above those outlined in the city’s existing land-use plans, which call for a maximum population of 225,000. That requirement would virtually handcuff land speculators, who typically purchase a piece of property and then appeal to the council to raise the density on the land to increase its development potential.

In addition, the measure forbids development without provisions for adequate public services, and requires the city to adopt a plan setting standards for what facilities will be needed with new development. Finally, the measure requires the city to adopt a neighborhood planning program so residents of the city’s seven neighborhoods can work more closely with city officials to fine-tune land-use plans for the areas.

Vista’s two ballot measures share many of the same features of the Oceanside propositions.

The Vista slow-growth measure, Proposition B, is virtually a carbon copy of its Oceanside counterpart, but does contain some slight variations. The major difference is the number of homes that could be built--569 annually beginning in 1987 through the year 1999. It also outlines the points system under which each development would be judged.

Proposition A, the measure sponsored by the Vista City Council, requires a vote to increase densities, prohibits development without the provision of necessary public facilities and requires design guidelines for new homes. Unlike the Oceanside council’s measure, it sets a housing cap of 500 units a year. A broad exemption, however, is allowed: Developers of projects that have a so-called “specific plan,” which outlines public facilities that will be provided, could proceed unimpeded by the annual cap.

Basic Motivations

While the details of the various ballot measures are enough to confuse a Rhodes Scholar, the basic principles behind each effort are as simplistic as mom and apple pie.

As the slow-growthers in both Oceanside and Vista see it, an avalanche of new homes is smothering the quality of life their communities have long enjoyed. The most logical way to control rampant growth, they maintain, is to simply slow down the pace of development.

“As of now, the public facilities that have been built are inadequate to support those houses that are already here,” said Leo Unger, a spokesman for Oceanside Taxpayers for Orderly Growth, the group pushing the slow-growth measure. “To continue ahead with the unprecedented rate of growth the City Council wants would only be to stay behind.”

City Hall Called Problem

Slow-growthers contend that leaders at City Hall have helped fuel the problem, accepting large campaign contributions from developers and then waving on projects that prove only to be a burden to existing residents.

“The whole concept has been that, when a guy contributes and comes in with a project, the council is not going to be so critical, and they’re certainly not going to turn it down,” said Jeff Baker, a leader of the Vista slow-growth effort. “What we’re saying is let’s remove the political element.”

Melba Bishop, a former Oceanside councilwoman now backing the slow-growth effort, agreed.

“The process that’s used right now is very subjective,” Bishop said. “If the council likes a developer, they can waive all sorts of provisions. If they don’t (like a developer), the council can exact a pound of his flesh at the podium.

“But our measure will use objective criteria for judging projects. It would result in an end to the game playing in land-use decisions,” Bishop said.

Moreover, Bishop and other slow-growthers say, the annual quotas proposed by their measures would help improve the quality of development by spurring competition among developers. On the other hand, they say, the council-backed measures in Oceanside and Vista offer no iron-clad assurance that public facilities will be in place before a new development goes forward.

Backers of the council-sponsored measures view the situation in quite a different light. While they agree that growth has become a problem, they see the solution as one of assuring that municipal services are kept sufficiently up to snuff so residents are not unduly burdened by new development.

Issue of Landowner’s Rights

Underlying that notion is a basic philosophy of the rights of landowners.

“As I see it, these slow-growth propositions completely abrogate the property rights of people who own land throughout the city,” said Oceanside Mayor Larry Bagley. “If a property owner follows all the rules and regulations set by local governments and that state, then they ought to a have a right to use their land.”

Bagley and others see the slow-growth initiatives as overly complex measures that would add a cumbersome layer of bureaucracy to the development process. In the meantime, cities would be robbed of fees needed to build new roads, sewers and other public facilities, they say.

In addition, they warn that, because stringent provisions would discourage other projects, the slow-growth measures threaten to usher in an era in which mostly housing for senior citizens and low-income residents would be built.

Finally, the process for selecting which developers build each year under an annual quota poses the potential for wide-ranging political wheeling and dealing, Bagley and others maintain.

“When it boils down to a relatively few units, the competition will be stiff and there will be an awful big chance for mischief,” Bagley said.

Developers, meanwhile, offer yet another perspective. Mark Faulkner, chairman of the Oceanside Homebuilders Assn., said no new growth-control measures are needed.

“All of these measures are basically short-sighted, reactionary measures to wide-ranging problems,” Faulkner said. “The best way to handle those problems is with good, solid planning.”

Faulkner said the slow-growth initiative in Oceanside would “plunge the city into an artificial recession” in which lenders would be reluctant to take a risk on the city. The council’s measure, he said, is no better, requiring builders to “pay dearly” for the privilege of developing in Oceanside--and those costs will only be passed onto the consumer.

“We all agree there needs to be limits, but they should be reasonable,” Faulkner said. “The public has this perception of developers as snaggle-toothed guys who skulk into the area to get their pot of gold and then slink out of town. That’s simply not the case.”

Aside from the heated debate, the growth campaigns in Oceanside and Vista have prompted large contributions from developers eager to fight the measures.

As of April 4, the building industry has contributed nearly $80,000 to defeat both Propositions A and B in Oceanside, according to the latest campaign disclosure statements. Some supporters of the two propositions predict those developer dollars will double before election day.

Backers of the Oceanside council’s measure, meanwhile, have raised nearly $25,000. Slow-growth advocates have gotten about $6,000 in contributions to support Proposition A.

In Vista, no formal opposition campaign to Propositions A and B has been mounted by developers. The real estate Establishment, however, has contributed most of the money that will be used to fight the slow-growth initiative, Proposition B.

Of the more than $17,700 raised as of April 11 by Concerned Vistans, the group supporting council-backed Proposition A, $15,000 was from the California Assn. of Realtors and $500 was contributed by the San Diego Board of Realtors, according to campaign finance disclosure forms.

Vistans for Honest Government, the organization pushing Proposition B, has raised only about $775, relying instead on volunteers who walk precincts and distribute flyers at grocery stores.

With such large sums of money flooding in, slow-growthers in both communities contend that developers are trying to buy the election. Developers have sponsored telephone polls, hired precinct walkers and posted numerous signs in the two cities.

“I think the entire campaign strategy of our opposition is one of trying to confuse the voters,” Oceanside slow-growther Bishop said. “Their philosophy is money can counterfeit everything, including sincerity.”

Bishop and others predict that confusion among the voters, along with the fact the election is taking place during an off-year, will result in a low voter turnout. Indeed, election officials in Oceanside are estimating a 29% turnout, while a 38% showing is expected in Vista.

With that in mind, the result in each city depends on which camps get the vote out.

“I’m concerned the decision will be made by a small group of people,” Vista Councilman Eugene Asmus lamented. “That’s not good. Whichever way it goes, you just don’t get a good sense of what the people wanted when there’s a poor turnout.”

NORTH COUNTY GROWTH-MANAGEMENT MEASURES

CARLSBAD CITIZENS MEASURE

Proposition G. Would limit construction of new dwelling units to 1,000 in 1987, 750 in 1988 and 500 annually thereafter through 1996. Garnered 51.5% of the vote in the November election, but the City Council refused to enact it because a rival, council-backed measure contained a so-called “killer clause” and got more votes. Killer clause is being challenged in court April 21.

CARLSBAD COUNCIL MEASURE

Proposition E. Endorses the city’s growth-management plan as a way of keeping city services apace with future development and mandates a limit of 54,599 housing units (an estimated population of about 135,000) in the city at build-out. Also contains killer clause, which makes the growth-control measure with the larger percentage of the vote the winner. Was enacted by the City Council after receiving 57.9% of the vote in the November election.

OCEANSIDE CITIZENS MEASURE

Proposition A. Proposes limiting construction of new homes to 1,000 in 1987 and 800 a year thereafter through 1999, when the council would review the ordinance. Establishes the Planning Commission as a board to evaluate applications for new homes based on the development’s public facilities such as streets, sewer systems and water lines as well as aesthetic design qualities, new parks and recreational facilities. Projects exempted from the cap would include remodeling of existing homes, new construction of single-family homes on a single lot, projects in the city’s redevelopment area, and housing for senior citizens or low-income residents.

OCEANSIDE COUNCIL MEASURE

Proposition B. Would require a public vote to increase densities above those outlined in the city’s existing land-use plans, which call for a maximum population of 225,000. Forbids development without adequate public services such as roads, parks and police protection. Requires the city to adopt standards for what facilities are needed before development can occur. Also requires adoption of a neighborhood planning program to promote and fine-tune unique characteristics of each of the city’s 17 neighborhoods. Contains a killer clause so that, if each measure gets a majority vote, the one with the larger percentage would prevail.

VISTA CITIZENS MEASURE

Proposition B. Borrows much of the language and direction of the Oceanside residents’ slow-growth measure. Limits construction of new dwelling units to 569 a year beginning in 1987 and running through 1999. Like Oceanside, sets up the Planning Commission as a board to review projects for design and provision of public services and facilities, parks and other amenities. Exempted projects are similar to those in the Oceanside citizens slow-growth measure.

VISTA COUNCIL MEASURE

Proposition A. Like the Oceanside council’s measure, it requires a vote of the people to increase densities. Prohibits development without provision for needed public facilities and mandates adoption of a plan outlining what facilities are needed. Calls for establishment of city design guidelines for new homes. Limits construction to 500 units a year through 1999, but exempts projects that provide public facilities under a so-called “specific plan.” Also exempts single-family homes and remodeling. Includes a killer clause to counter Proposition B.