Builder Wants $12 Million Back From Oceanside

Just hours after election officials tallied the final votes giving Oceanside a tough new slow-growth law, a development firm filed a $12.3-million claim Wednesday contending that the new measure effectively scuttles its project.

Meanwhile, the Oceanside City Council voted unanimously Wednesday to adopt a citywide moratorium on building permits to allow city planners a chance to determine how to implement the new measure.

The claim, filed by Chula Vista-based Robinhood Homes Inc., represents the first legal action spurred by Proposition A, the growth-controlling measure approved by voters Tuesday.

Opponents of the initiative, which puts a strict cap on the number of homes that can be built in the city each year, have consistently pointed to Proposition A as a measure that would prompt a spate of lawsuits from developers.

“I think we’re going to get several of these,” Mayor Larry Bagley said Wednesday, noting that a slow-growth measure approved by voters in San Clemente prompted more than $200 million in lawsuits against the Orange County city.

Robinhood Homes, which was planning a 300-acre residential project on the southeast side of the city, contends in the claim--a necessary legal step before a lawsuit is filed--that Proposition A would block the timely construction of the development’s 1,200 dwelling units.

Because of Proposition A, the firm “will be unable to obtain building permits in an amount and at a pace sufficent to recover in a reasonable time the costs” of the improvements, according to the 20-page claim.

With that in mind, the company is seeking reimbursement of the more than $12 million it has spent or contracted for to build roads, sewers and other public improvements for the project.

The firm maintains that the city has “been unjustly enriched” by the completed public improvements on the land and that the city should pay the company back for the work.

City Atty. Charles Revlett said Wednesday that he had not yet reviewed the claim.

In the meantime, the council took steps to immediately put the brakes on the city’s building boom, adopting a 45-day moratorium on issuing building permits.

The holding pattern will give planners a chance to work out the fine details of how best to implement the new slow-growth law. And the moratorium will give the council a chance to grapple with the abundance of building permits already issued for this year.

More than 3,000 building permits have been issued since the beginning of the year, well above the cap mandated under Proposition A, city officials say. The measure, which is modeled after similar slow-growth initiatives passed in almost 60 cities nationwide, limits construction of new homes to 1,000 in 1987 and 800 in each subsequent year through 1999.

With the number of building permits issued more than triple what is called for in Proposition A, city planners say the council appears to have two options: Either extend the moratorium through the remainder of 1987 or rule that the measure should not be enforced retroactively, a move that would allow builders to obtain permits for an additional 1,000 dwelling units this year.

Officials note, however, that a vote by the council to allow the construction of more homes this year could prove politically difficult considering the mood of the electorate.

Indeed, the message from voters came through loud and clear Tuesday.

Proposition A received 56% of the vote, while a rival council-backed measure, Proposition B, failed with a 47% share. Proposition B was designed to ensure that growth does not outstrip public facilities.

The election was marked by a high-stakes campaign by developers and other opponents of Proposition A, who spent more than $100,000 to defeat the measure. Supporters of the slow-growth initiative, the grass-roots Oceanside Taxpayers for Orderly Growth, spent about $8,000.