Overall, There’s No Concrete Conclusion in Growth Wars

For all the campaign contributions that developers threw into Tuesday’s election, there was no clear return on the dollar, as slow-growth measures were approved in two Orange County cities and voted down in two more.

In addition, developer support of a cityhood campaign for Saddleback Valley was for naught, as voters there clearly rejected incorporation.

Still, John Gardner, one of the supporters of June’s defeated countywide slow-growth measure, saw a “unifying element” in this week’s results.

“Voters are eminently practical,” he said Wednesday, “and they respond to present, clear, concrete--literally and figuratively--threats.

“Abstract measures are less grabbing,” he said.

He noted that Costa Mesa voters emphatically rejected two versions of specific plans for a $300-million development, “and the high-rise (measures) had strong enough coattails to carry” a slow-growth measure in that city.

If the high-rise referendums had not been on the ballot, the slow-growth measure would have had a tough time passing, he said.

He added that in Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, where the slow-growth measures stood alone as abstract proposals, they were defeated. Yet, 2 years ago, Newport Beach voters resoundingly defeated an Irvine Co. plan for a $300-million expansion of Newport Center, he said.

“People have common sense. They react to real things that are out there. And while things could get worse in Newport Beach, they’re not bad now, and the vote reflects that,” he said.

The San Juan Capistrano vote in favor of slow growth, by a margin of 51.6% to 48.4%, does not fit such tidy categories because of the “different demographics down there,” Gardner said. People move to that area specifically for the more rural life style, he said.

Developers outspent slow-growthers nearly 17 to 1 in Costa Mesa, according to campaign expense reports through Oct. 22, but residents approved three measures to control growth. After pouring at least $191,843 into the campaign, C.J. Segerstrom & Sons was thrown to the mat as voters soundly turned down two plans to build a 20-story office building and business complex in north Costa Mesa.

The city’s Measure G, which requires traffic and public services to meet certain standards after building permits are issued, appeared to have been narrowly approved, despite a $77,589 campaign financed largely by developers. However, uncounted absentee ballots could affect the 139-vote margin.

In Huntington Beach, Measure J--nearly identical to Costa Mesa’s and San Juan Capistrano’s measures--lost by an 870-vote margin, much to the pleasure of the Huntington Beach Co. and other developers who campaigned against it.

The Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa and San Juan Capistrano measures were patterned after last June’s failed Measure A.

And Newport Beach’s confusing Measure K, which would have closed loopholes in the city’s existing traffic phasing ordinance, was defeated by a 53.8% to 46.2% margin.

But the elections in Costa Mesa and San Juan Capistrano may not be the final word. Officials in both cities said Wednesday that the measures are likely to wind up in court, because a court test invalidated a nearly identical measure in San Clemente last month. Measure G opponents in Costa Mesa said the inevitable lawsuit will put the City Council--which did not favor the initiative--in the uncomfortable position of spending tax dollars to defend the measure in court.

The vote on the three measures in Costa Mesa was “a very clear message to our present City Council and to developers that we don’t want high-density high rises,” said Diane Goldberger, chairwoman of the Costa Mesa Residents Political Action Committee, which campaigned for Measure G and against the two Segerstrom projects. The Segerstrom projects were rejected by 3-to-2 margins.

Malcolm Ross, Segerstrom’s director of planning and design, said the developer has no other plans in reserve for the Home Ranch property. Asked if Segerstrom might challenge the election in court, Ross said, “I doubt it, but I don’t even want to comment on that.”

While Costa Mesa residents may have been clear on the slow-growth issues, their election of three City Council members left many observers scratching their heads. The slow-growth residents committee, so victorious on the measures, saw one of their three candidates--Sandra L. Genis--finish first. But second place went to Ed Glasgow, a planning commissioner who enthusiastically supported the Segerstrom projects, and the third spot was captured by Mary Hornbuckle, an incumbent moderate. John V. (Jay) Humphrey, a slow-growth candidate, trailed by only 213 votes and said he hopes the uncounted absentee ballots will move him into the third open City Council seat.

In San Juan Capistrano, a member of the anti-Measure X forces said the group has no immediate plans for litigation.

“All I know is developers are talking between themselves about what to do,” said David S. Hanson, who worked with Citizens for Preserving San Juan Capistrano against Measure X.

Hanson said the measure was unnecessary because San Juan Capistrano already has “one of the best growth management programs in the state of California.”

In Huntington Beach, the vote to defeat Measure J was close, 50.6% to 49.4%, unlike the campaign spending. Almost nothing was spent by proponents of the Huntington Beach traffic initiative, while the No on Measure J camp raised $231,713 and spent $186,500.

“They spent tremendous money on the measures and candidates, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and for us to come this close must have really worried them,” Geri Ortega, co-author of Measure J, said Wednesday of opponents.

In Newport Beach, slow-growth proponents sought to downplay the defeat of Measure K, the traffic management initiative that sought to alleviate traffic conditions by placing restrictions on new building permits, saying the loss does not necessarily signal a victory for pro-growth forces in the city.

“I think it’s too bad that Measure K didn’t succeed,” said Jean Watt, a slow-growth candidate who handily defeated her developer-backed opponent. “But the margin of defeat tells me there is something out there in the community that has to be recognized. I think the No on K had a lot of visibility while maybe we didn’t do as good a job of explaining the measure to people.”

Mayor John C. Cox Jr., one of two pro-growth incumbents reelected, said it was difficult “for voters to understand why there was a need for Measure K, because this city has so many regulations already. It also hurt that there wasn’t a project they could associate it with, like the Home Ranch project in Costa Mesa.”

In the Saddleback Valley cityhood race, developers contributed the vast majority of the $180,000 that proponents of incorporation raised over the past 2 years to persuade residents to vote for their plan.

But an anti-cityhood group that raised only a quarter of that amount--and received no developer contributions--managed to scuttle the cityhood plan, convincing local voters to reject Measure R by an almost 2-to-1 margin.

Cityhood leaders have defended their developer contributions, saying that their movement was well under way before the money started rolling in. Dale White, chairman of the Yes! for Cityhood committee, said the developers would have had no undue influence in the new city.

One of the major contributors was the Mission Viejo Co., which donated more than $10,000 to the Yes! for Cityhood committee and the Citizens Committee for a Saddleback Valley.

Times staff writers Jim Carlton, Mariann Hansen, Carla Rivera and Nancy Wride contributed to this article.