To Grow or Not to Grow: Debate Gets Bigger : Competing Plans in Pasadena Would Curtail Development

The issue of slow growth returned to the forefront this week as community activists and city officials unveiled competing plans to put the brakes on development.

The most far-reaching measure came from the citizens group, Pasadena Residents in Defense of our Environment (PRIDE), which released an initiative proposal Tuesday that would place a cap on all development.

The group proposed allowing only 10% more commercial square footage in the city and a maximum of about 1,180 additional homes, apartments or condominium units. The residential limits are based on allowing the population to rise from the current level of 131,960 to 135,000.

The proposal, still in draft form, would restrict the pace of development by restricting new construction to no more than 250,000 square feet of commercial floor space and 250 housing units each year until the limits are reached.

Developers would be required to reimburse the city for all street and utility improvements related to their projects.

The group will begin circulating petitions next month and hopes to get the measure on the March ballot.

Just one day before PRIDE’s announcement, the Board of Directors began implementing its own long-range plan to deal with the unprecedented growth of recent years.

A measure was passed requiring all developments larger than 25,000 square feet to be approved by the board. This will give the board the power to veto any major project while it works on a permanent plan to control growth.

That plan would be developed over the next six to eight months after an elaborate “consensus-building” process proposed by Mayor William Thomson.

The process would involve dozens of meetings between city officials, community leaders and neighborhood groups.

Thomson’s idea has already run into stiff criticism from Director Rick Cole, who characterized it as too much talk and too little action.

“Why should I or other citizens enter into a protracted dialogue that may not achieve results?” Cole asked in an Aug. 1 letter to Thomson. “I personally will not be involved in any process that gives the appearance that we are waiting to see what is proposed by citizens after which we will attempt to dilute its impact.”

While Thomson agreed the process will be long and involved, he said it will ensure the city will devise a growth-control plan supported by a majority of the community.

The actions aimed at slowing growth come at a time of record-setting development.

During the last fiscal year, which ended June 30, requests for residential and commercial building permits reached $256 million, far eclipsing the previous record of $190 million set last year.

Two months ago, voters soundly defeated the city’s first slow-growth initiative by a vote of 20,411 to 8,971.

During the hotly contested campaign over Proposition G, developers, city officials and business people spent $152,694 to defeat the measure. The Northeast Pasadena Residents Assn., which got the measure on the ballot, spent $3,132.

The initiative called for a moratorium on major residential and commercial development until July 1, 1990, or until the city revised its General Plan to include stricter development standards.

It would have required unanimous board approval for all major projects and created several new development fees to ensure the city was repaid for street, sewer and utility improvements that mainly benefited businesses.

PRIDE’s long-awaited proposal was greeted with cheers from many slow-growth advocates because of its strict controls and efforts to avoid the problems that sank Proposition G.

Instead of requiring an immediate construction moratorium, the proposal would allow a limited amount of growth each year until building limits are met.

The proposal is simpler than Proposition G, which even many slow-growth advocates concede was confusing.

Opponents of Proposition G said it was unclear what projects on the drawing boards would be affected if the measure passed and exactly how the city would implement the building restrictions.

PRIDE’s proposal would leave many of the details up to city officials. For instance, officials would have to decide how to limit commercial construction to a maximum of 10% more square footage than now exists.

The group has tried to avoid some of the political pitfalls that helped to defeat Proposition G.

One of the most damaging aspects of the proposition was a requirement that projects win the unanimous support of the Board of Directors. Opponents called the provision “undemocratic” because it would have given one director veto power over the entire board.

PRIDE’s proposal would require a two-thirds vote of the seven-member board to approve a major project, which is defined as any development larger than 25,000 square feet or involving at least five housing units.

The proposal specifically exempts politically popular projects, such as the Huntington Hotel, the Marketplace shopping mall in Old Pasadena and the expansion of Caltech.

But controversy already surrounds the proposal.

PRIDE officials said they have until Dec. 1 to gather the necessary signatures to ensure that the measure is placed on the ballot next March. But City Clerk Pamela Swift said the deadline is Oct. 28.

The initiative would require the signatures of 10% of the city’s registered voters, or 6,300 people, if the group decides to attempt to have the building restrictions implemented as a city ordinance.

It would require 9,500 signatures if the group decides to attempt to incorporate the restrictions into the City Charter.