Voters oppose development

In four other California cities, it’s rare for developments to get public approval.

Erik Ortiz - Yorba Linda Star - May 25, 2006

Complete Text - Requires Registration

Excerpts:

But also a place where residents and elected officials clash over development projects and cries for a recall of council members are not uncommon. Also a place where an election on June 6 will decide who has the final say on changes to the general plan.

Sound like Yorba Linda? Not quite.

Eighty-one miles to the city’s north is the town of Apple Valley in San Bernardino County. But unlike Yorba Linda, the town’s electorate in 1999 already passed its own version of Measure B, known as Measure N, which ignited a firestorm of debate and has led to a ballot initiative next month that would clarify a part of the measure no one seemed to understand.

Over the past several years, communities across the region, from Escondido to Newport Beach, have adopted their own laws that in some way restrict building sizes or curtail how many homes can be built, leaving that decision up to the voters.

Apple Valley Mayor Mark Shoup said Measure N was pressed by residents who wanted to ensure the town’s low-density character. In 1999, three council members were recalled after they tried to increase residential zoning in the city from two units per acre to between four and six units per acre, Shoup said.

“‘Two units’ became the rallying cry,” the mayor said.

An overwhelming majority of voters approved Measure N, setting a limit of no more than two homes per acre on residential lots. Although it passed, it seemed that no one understood what it inadvertently provided: Any amendments to the town’s general plan or zone changes must go before the voters.

That provision – brought to light earlier this year by town attorneys – had been unclear; the Town Council has been the one voting on the changes.

To clarify, a June 6 ballot measure would ask voters to allow town officials to formally hold that task.

Proponents say leaving it up to voters would deter developers from investing time and money into a project that could be killed at the polls.

The argument is a common one in other communities, such as Newport Beach, which approved the slow-growth Greenlight Initiative in 2000.

“They have to do traffic studies and get permits, and once they go through all of those steps, then they have to face the electorate and explain their projects in laymen’s terms,” Luehrs said. “Investors don’t see Newport Beach as a viable option and can look elsewhere. I know of these projects that have not gone forward and Greenlight will be a problem during redevelopment projects.”

The initiative – unique in Orange County – requires voter approval for general plan amendments for residential projects that increase housing by more than 100 units, for any increase in non-residential square footage by 40,000 square feet or more, or for a project that increases peak hour traffic trips by 100 or more. Developers and real estate groups spent $750,000 trying to stop voters from passing Greenlight.

Twice have projects – a proposed $50 million, 10-story office building and a separate five-star hotel – gone to a vote; both were rejected.

Escondido’s equivalent of Greenlight is called Proposition S, which since its passage in 1998 has become a thorny subject among officials in the San Diego County city. Some are calling for a repeal of the law, which requires voters to approve general plan amendments that rezone residential lots or increase existing residential densities.

Connie Witt, a 30-year resident who helped to push for the proposition, said the impetus behind it is to ensure projects are of “a quality residents can accept.”

“The City Council was just allowing any type of development,” she said. “What’s the matter with having citizens vote on projects in their own neighborhood?”

In one of Proposition S’s first tests, voters in 2000 rejected eight ballot measures, including one for an animal hospital that offered $2 million in property and money to local charities and churches.

In an editorial, the San Diego Union Tribune said the proposal “would change the zoning on a 5.3-acre tract northeast of I-15 at Citracado Parkway from residential to commercial. It would allow 92,000 square feet of high quality commercial development, including a state-of-the-art animal hospital, to be built there instead of 17 homes. The site is too noisy for homes, and the only adjacent property owner, the New Life Church, favors the measure.”

But that same project, coupled with another plan to build a pediatric center, was again sent to voters in 2002. It passed, becoming the only project approved under Proposition S. Paul Shigley, researcher and co-author of the book, “Guide to California Planning,” said that while arguments for and against these initiatives are similar among communities, the challenges and effects after they’re passed can’t be predicted.

“People like initiatives that they feel give them more control over what gets developed,” Shigley said. “Whether they really are beneficial depends on whom you’re talking to.”

APPLE VALLEY
Law: Measure N requires all residential lots to be no more than two housing units per acre. Passed: 1999 Effect: The City Clerk’s office said no developer has gone in front of the city to build more than two units on a residential lot.

ESCONDIDO
Law: Proposition S requires voters to approve general plan amendments that rezone residential lots or increase existing residential densities. Passed: 1998 Effect: Only one project, a commercial one, has been approved at the polls. Several have been killed.

MOORPARK
Law: The Save Open-Space and Agricultural Resources ordinance subjects any development projects outside of the city’s limits that would become part of the city to go before voters. Passed: 1999 Effect: Voters have twice rejected plans to increase the city’s boundaries, recently stopping the annexation of 3,544 acres of unincorporated county land so a developer could build 1,680 homes.

NEWPORT BEACH
Law: The Greenlight Initiative requires voter approval for most general plan amendments. Passed: 2000 Effect: Two projects have gone to a vote; both were killed.

Complete Text - Requires Registration