Builders Say Court Ruling Brings Them, Oceanside Closer to Trial

A state appellate court has dismissed an attempt by the Building Industry Assn. to have an Oceanside slow-growth ordinance deemed unconstitutional.

In the latest round of legal skirmishes to nullify the ordinance, which curbs construction of houses and was approved by voters in 1987, attorneys for the BIA and developers of stalled Oceanside housing projects had asked the 4th District Court of Appeal to direct the Superior Court that originally heard the case to rule the law unconstitutional.

In doing so, developers hoped to avert a protracted court battle and end the legal squabble in one, swift maneuver.

But, in a 34-page opinion issued Thursday, Justice William Todd upheld the Superior Court’s decision to dismiss the builders’ motion.

Local Authority Backed

In his opinion, Todd rejected builders’ claims that the cap is unconstitutional and said local government clearly has the authority to decide land-use issues.

Although city officials found the ruling supportive, attorneys for the BIA and developers minimized the court’s decision and said it simply draws the opposing parties one step closer to trial.

“If anyone thinks this was a resolution (for the city), it wasn’t,” said James Milch, an attorney for the BIA.

Don Worley, an attorney for Robinhood Homes--developer of Oceanside’s Del Oro Hills project--said the BIA and developers will ask the appellate court for a rehearing.

The BIA lawsuit, which sought no monetary damages, and Del Oro Hills’ $12.8-million lawsuit against the city were consolidated in October.

Unless the builders win at the appellate level, the case will be scheduled for trial in Superior Court.

The building cap, which was adopted as Proposition A in 1987, limited construction to 1,000 units that year and set a limit of 800 units a year through 1999.

The building association’s suit contends that the cap discriminates against home builders because similar restrictions are not placed on industrial development. They claim the exclusion of any restrictions on industrial development is an “unconstitutional favoring of one group over another.”

Furthermore, the BIA says that the cap allows the city of Oceanside to shirk its responsibility to accommodate its fair share of the region’s housing needs as required by state laws.

Under state regulations, BIA attorneys say, Oceanside is scheduled to absorb an average of 1,733 units a year through 1991. The cap would allow far fewer new dwellings than that. With fewer homes being built in Oceanside, builders argue, other cities in the area will be forced to absorb the region’s booming growth.

Developers also say the cap is inconsistent with the city’s general plan, which advises that the imposition of strict numerical housing caps be avoided.

“Our general plan says numerical caps should be avoided, it doesn’t say that we can’t have them,” said Oceanside City Atty. Charles Revlett(. “Besides, it’s not even a strict numerical cap. There are numerous exemptions, especially for low-income housing and the redevelopment area.”

Revlett claimed the court’s ruling strongly supports the city’s case.

“We thought there were very good statements on our behalf,” Revlett said. “Especially when it said that even, if the court should find an inconsistency (between the cap and state requirements and/or the city’s general plan) that the remedy would not be to overturn it, but to simply correct the inconsistency.”