Impact of Escondido's growth measure could inform San Marcos

By: DAVID GARRICK - Staff Writer | Saturday, August 25, 2007 10:05 PM PDT ∞

NORTH COUNTY ---- As two San Marcos activists move forward with efforts to present city voters with an anti-growth initiative, proponents of a similar measure adopted nine years ago in Escondido are cheering them on, while Escondido city officials are warning that such measures can have harmful consequences.

Proponents of Escondido's Proposition S, which requires a citywide vote for projects that increase density beyond the blueprint established in the city's general plan, said last week that the measure has enhanced local democracy by including ordinary citizens in the approval pipeline for large housing and commercial developments.

They also said the measure, which was approved by 60 percent of Escondido voters in 1998, has created a sense of stability by protecting residents from unscrupulous developers and the City Council members they influence with campaign contributions.

But city officials and developers said last week that Prop. S prevents the city from adapting to new development trends, takes crucial decision-making power away from the city's elected leaders and makes it difficult for the city to attract developers who could bolster the city's downtown and provide important new amenities for residents.

Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler and City Councilman Ed Gallo said it would be exaggerating to call the measure an albatross that has made development in the city nearly impossible, but they said Prop. S has significantly constrained the city's ability to keep up with neighboring cities in the areas of job creation, sales and property tax revenue and bolstering infrastructure.

Deciding who decides
Proponents of Prop. S argue that large developments have continued to move forward in Escondido, but at a more reasonable pace than the City Council would have allowed without the extra layer of voter approval required by the measure. They said the council can't be trusted to plan developments responsibly.

"Who are you going to trust more, your friends and neighbors or the City Council, who are often in bed with the developers," said Margaret Liles, president of the Escondido Chamber of Citizens, a group that advocated for the approval of Prop. S. "Updating the general plan is OK under Prop. S, but they need to include the citizens in the process, not just the developers."

Jerry Harmon, a former Escondido mayor and a longtime vocal proponent of slow-growth measures, said Prop. S has sent a strong message that greedy developers are not welcome in the city.

"It has let developers know that the city is not a pushover," said Harmon. "I can see why Prop. S is unpopular with developers who want to make a quick buck and skip town. Many cities squander their general plan for the short-term gains of an out-of-town developer."

Harmon said he would include San Marcos among those cities.

"I hope the people of San Marcos wake up and do the sane thing," said Harmon. "And then I hope measures like this get approved countywide."

The two activists pushing a similar measure in San Marcos share Harmon's views on giving city councils the power to amend their general plan without voter approval. Their initiative, which could go on the ballot next year if they get 3,042 signatures from city voters in the next six months, harshly attacks the council's approach to development.

"The City Council has abandoned their support of the General Plan and has embarked on a course of wholesale developer accommodation," the initiative petition reads. "The council has repeatedly voted to amend the General Plan to increase intensity or density of land uses."

One of the activists, Cynthia Skovgard, contends that the San Marcos council has begun approving projects at random. Skovgard said she was prompted to move forward with her measure by the council's approval in July of Palomar Station, a mixed-use project that would amend the city's general plan in order to place 333 condominiums in an industrial zone.

Some local residents also oppose the city's plans to create a new downtown grid along San Marcos Creek that would amend the city's general plan to make way for buildings as tall as six stories, hundreds of condominiums and dozens of shops and restaurants.

"This is a critical time because the city keeps wanting to cram in more people," Skovgard said last month. "There are many big projects right now that people hate."

But San Marcos city officials have called the initiative an example of "ballot box planning," which they characterize as inefficient. They have also said the measure could lead to the deterioration of the city's infrastructure, because fees paid by developers cover the costs of many local road improvements and parks.

Mike Preston, a San Marcos councilman, has said the initiative would be a mistake because the council's flexibility to adjust the general plan has allowed several popular projects to move forward in recent years.

"I think voters will look around and see that there are a lot of great things going on in San Marcos, even if there are a few they don't completely agree with," Preston said last week.

Pfeiler and Gallo said they agree with their counterparts on the San Marcos City Council.

"Prop. S has taken decision-making out of the hands of the people elected," said Gallo. "If you don't like the decisions being made, then vote for somebody else. We have an election every two years, and how much trouble can the council make in two years?"

Pfeiler said including city voters in the approval process has stifled development, because voters have shown that their inclination is to reject projects they don't understand. And most projects are too complicated and multifaceted for an average voter to understand without spending many hours reading detailed documents, she said.

Repelling developers?
Two years after Prop. S was approved, Escondido voters were presented with nine general plan amendments that could have been enacted by the City Council if the new measure were not in place, and voters rejected eight of those amendments.

One general plan amendment was approved two years later to allow a hospital complex at the intersection of Citracado Parkway and Interstate 15, but that is the only proposed amendment presented to voters since 2000, according to a list provided last week by City Clerk Marsha Whalen.

"I suspect that some developers don't even bother any more," said Pfeiler.

Attempting to persuade voters to support a complicated project is an expensive and time-consuming task that most developers shy away from, said Gallo.

"The first question they ask is whether their project will be affected by Prop. S," said Gallo. "Developers still consider Escondido for certain projects, but most of them don't want to deal with this crap."

Jim Crone, developer of the Signature Pavilion movie theater complex and several other projects in Escondido, said developers don't want to deal with the risks that come with relying on voters.

"It's a bad idea to put land planning in the hands of citizens because they don't have enough information to make sound decisions," said Crone. "I don't think I'd go forward with a project that had a Prop. S requirement, because projects are more expensive and less appealing when you add that extra layer of risk. Most developers put Escondido on the bottom of their list because of the extra hurdles."

But Liles and Harmon said voters have enough intelligence and information to make good planning decisions.

"Residents vote no on projects because they don't want to change the character of their community," said Liles. "We think this type of enhanced democracy is a good thing."

Harmon said developers condemn voters as ignorant because it is easier to persuade a few politicians to support a project than thousands of citizens.

"To suggest that the average voter doesn't have the time and energy is just developers wanting to go back to the good old days when they could easily buy three votes on the council," said Harmon. "The fact that they approved 2 out of 10 shows they were paying attention, and not just rejecting everything."

City Manager Clay Phillips said Prop. S has not taken Escondido out of the development game, but he said the measure has denied the council some crucial flexibility that could have allowed some ambitious projects.

"It certainly hasn't prompted the developers to run away in droves," said Phillips. "But it has limited the council's ability to adapt to changing trends in the community."

Contact staff writer David Garrick at (760) 740-5468 or dgarrick@nctimes.com.

Proposed general plan amendments presented to Escondido voters under Proposition S, an anti-growth measure approved by city voters in 1998.

REJECTED

November 2000

Proposition J: increase housing density on North Iris Lane

Proposition K: allow industrial development instead of residential at 2005 Harmony Grove Road

Proposition L: change land on Citracado Parkway from residential to commercial

Proposition M: increase number of residential units on Sierra Linda Drive

Proposition N: increase multifamily units on North Centre City Parkway

Proposition O: allow industrial development at between 1839 and 1935 Harmony Grove Road

Proposition P: allow 63,700 square feet of industrial development on Harmony Grove Road

Proposition R: increase residential units on East Washington Avenue

APPROVED

November 2000

Proposition H: allow resident ownership of existing mobile home parks

November 2002

Proposition J: change land on Citracado Parkway from residential to commercial

Related stories

Perspective: Initiative is bad for San Marcos

Perspective: Responding to Nature's Limits

Perspective: San Marcos, beware Escondido's example

Perspective: Prop. S helped save Escondido

Next

More Stories

Tags:

Bookmark and Share

Ads by Yahoo!

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

American Mike wrote on Aug 26, 2007 1:27 AM:"Pfeiler said including city voters in the approval process has stifled development, because voters have shown that their inclination is to reject projects they don't understand." If that's not a condescending statement, I don't know what is. Dear Mayor Pfeiler, I'd like to submit that you have continually disregarded public service commitment where taxpayers are concerned. Without the support of developers and business bent on obtaining revenue from expansion, I have no clue on how you maintain office. Your oversight of city employees is done with blinders, leaving management to constitutes who completely disregard boundaries between legal and illegal activities, such as the case in management of the Escondido Parks and Recreation department, leave me only to think that your concerns are for local real-estate brokers and high dollar developers. The fact that you, without due process, allowed termination a 70 year resident of Escondido for commenting on the conditions at the Dixon Lake reservoir due to unregulated and inhuman use confirms the beliefs I have about your ultimate goal, to transform Hidden Valley into one overflowing with uncontrolled trash, filth, and creating undesirable property locations ripe for grading and repaving for even more low income housing, drawing tenants from San Marcos and Vista into Escondido to fund your budget shortcomings. That was a mouthful, and I’ve held onto it for several years.

Skeptical wrote on Aug 26, 2007 7:08 AM:Unfortunately, the Escondido City Council and Planning Commission have found a way to twist Proposition S to their benefit. Take for instance the approval of the North Avenue Estates development by Innovative Communities. They approved using the aqueduct land as their open space even though that land couldn't be built upon. How generous of them to give up building on land that isn't even developable. Of course the increased density was approved by the Council and Commission. Must be eager for those tax dollars. that goes to show you that the City Council does not always uphold the law.

SM is not Escondido, and won't be wrote on Aug 26, 2007 8:17 AM:The last thing we want is to be anythng like Escondido! - SM Resident

Vote No on Slow Growth! wrote on Aug 26, 2007 8:24 AM:I do believe the people associated with this slow growth measure feel that their point of view is best for our city because they want it to return to some sort of rural ideal of the past. That's admirable....but unrealistic and the reality is that people have moved here for the amenities, for the housing, the chuches, the schools, colleges and a major university, the restaurants and all the other things that make San Marcos great. The internet if full of horror stories about how slow growth has eroded great cities...Escondido being one of them. So, let's band together instead and work with our City Council....get on the planning commissions, send letters, let your voice be heard. People may forget that Palomar Station was redesigned because of concerns by our citizens and the Los Posas corridor isn't blazing through because citizens have posed enough questions to cause our Council concerns. We do have a voice...we don't need slow growth to be heard....we just need to remain involved.

Tim wrote on Aug 26, 2007 8:25 AM:Where do I sign? I think the voters should have a say in their own community, and I say enough housing, especially low income housing.

Donald wrote on Aug 26, 2007 8:53 AM:The citizens need to have the final say on amendments to the General Plan and/or zoning changes through a citywide vote. For projects that don't require amendments to the General Plan or ask for vote zoning changes, then the elected officials should be the people to approve those projects. I will be happy to sign the petition for Prop. S here in San Marcos. The sooner the citizens regain control of Master Plan changes, the better. Don

Jeff wrote on Aug 26, 2007 9:58 AM:Prop. S is the only thing that has saved Escondido from becoming a total mess. The Escondido City Council would have approved high-density residential projects all over town in areas of single family houses. Lower density new single family houses where built in these areas due to Prop. S. The Escondido City Council is totally in the pockets of developers and would approve projects of any density. The conversion of commercial property, which is not covered by Prop. S. to high-density residential by the Council is proof of this statement. Left to the voters, the City of Escondido will be a better place with a better quality of life. Left to the Escondido City Council it will be a disaster built on greed.

Escondido loves Tenements wrote on Aug 26, 2007 10:05 AM:Several of those on the Escondido City Council are from back East. Perhaps that is why they are so in favor of building tenements in Escondido. Back East you hear of tenement fires, meaning fires in high density, low quality building. I couldn't help think of that with the fire at the condo development on Escondido Blvd a few months back. That development is on land which was formally zoned commercial.

Mark wrote on Aug 26, 2007 10:07 AM:San Marcos will be a high-density mess if the the citizens don't control development.

Pablo wrote on Aug 26, 2007 10:41 AM:One simply has to drive through Escondido with their eyes open to realize something is drastically wrong. Yes, Escondido is overcrowded, but not because of new homes being built. The overcrowding comes from large groups living in housing units designed to accommodate far fewer residents. When Escondido's new overnight on-street parking restrictions are put into effect and the slumlords have to become landlords and can only rent to the number of tenants that their rental property was designed for then and only then will Escondido have a policy that other cities should emulate.

Floyd wrote on Aug 26, 2007 12:12 PM:When the voters 'take crucial decision-making power away from the city's elected leaders', that should tell you something about how well those leaders are doing their jobs! It's called a vote of no-confidence.

Hurah for Prop S !!! wrote on Aug 26, 2007 2:01 PM:Can anyone imagine how the current, rabidly pro-business, pro-growth council would vote on any and all developer proposed General Plan amendments IF THERE WAS NO PROP. S??? Thank God (and Jerry Harmon) for the "new" General Plan and for Prop. S "locking it in."

San Marcos Resident wrote on Aug 26, 2007 2:56 PM:The majority of San Marcos residents understand and applaud the "planned growth" that has occured over the past several years, due, in large part, to a City Councli and Planning Commission compsed of ordinary citizens who truly care about their community. And a professional City Manager and Planning Department, hired by the Council, have worked with both developers and citizens to incorporate citizen concerns in every proposed project. That's the idea behind a republican democracy, to empower elected representatives to do the research and make the difficult decisions, supported by a professional paid staff of city engineers who are dedicated to shaping a visionary future for their city. We are blessed in San Marcos. The proposed no-growth initiative has no plusses and only potentially backward-oriented minuses, with the prospect of stifling the visionary leadership that has propelled our town for several years now. It's the old sage advice - if it ain't broken, don't try to fix it. There is only a small, vocal group of residents who thinks things are broken in San Marcos, and even their vote was counted in the last election...and their input invited at each and every Planning Commission and City Council meeting. Don't follow many steps forward with two or more steps backward. Don't be intimidated into signing the petitions for this ill-conceived initiative.

To Tim wrote on Aug 26, 2007 3:10 PM:Escondido is a mess thanks to prop S.

Sad set of candidates wrote on Aug 26, 2007 3:14 PM:In Escondido it's sad that even the candidates who came after the two winners in the last city council election would vote for more density - the socialists among them would just want more of the housing used for illegal aliens. There is no hope but to put questions about development to a vote of the people.

SMTaxpayer wrote on Aug 26, 2007 4:25 PM:I agree with Mike Preston's comments. Overall San Marcos has made good decisions. Yes, there's probably a couple that not everyone agrees with, but take a look around. We have many great projects ahead of us. Our road traffic is mainly due to drivers passing through our city. This initiative will be BAD for San Marcos. I hope Mike has the guts to speak up against it alongside his fellow council members.

JK wrote on Aug 26, 2007 5:01 PM:Any "elected official" who thinks that their "visionary view of the future for the city" should take precedence over what the population as a whole desires should be removed from office immediately. Soon, with the advent of technology such as the Internet, the people will have have their voice heard in all matters. The end of the era of the destructive, greedy, corrupt elected public offical is soon to be at hand.

Escondeeter wrote on Aug 26, 2007 6:22 PM:Oh Mike, the queen has spoken, ours is not to question her superior knowledge. We, the ignorant, must simply endure... Saving our neighborhoods, preserving our way of life, retaining our heritage, all are goals shared only by those who "don't understand".

ToVoteNo wrote on Aug 26, 2007 6:30 PM:"Let your voice be heard"... on the PLANNING COMMISSION??? The Council has been ignoring the voices of the Planning Commissioners for years! The last project they approved had been overwhelmingly rejected by the Commission. Take a look at the last ten projects they've approved and count how many the Commission voted against. The only group they've ignored more often than the Planning Commission is the taxpaying public.

General Plan Guy wrote on Aug 26, 2007 6:41 PM:What is the use of a General Plan IF YOU DON'T STICK TO IT? If it can be modified by any developer that wants to increase density and increase his profit, then it really isn't a plan is it? If San Marcos has a great General Plan, then why wouldn't the "planning powers" (City Council and Staff) want to protect their work product? The only ones that seem to want to lock in a General Plan are the plain old residents who want to protect the General Plan.....SO...those for locking in the General Plan, support it....those who don't want to lock it in DON'T SUPPORT THE GENERAL PLAN.... Funny isn't it that the very people who make the plan DON'T WANT TO PROTECT THE PLAN!!!!

I agree with General Plan Guy wrote on Aug 26, 2007 8:51 PM:I am a strict constructionist when it comes to the general plan. I wish it was never amended to add CSUSM, Santa Fe Hills, Discovery Hills, San Elijo Hills, the Grand Plaza. Do you know what those lousy projects have done to our city? Sadly, they raised the median income and education level of our citizens, our schools now have to suffer through increasing test scores, and we've lost our well-earned reputation has a hick town. ENOUNGH IS ENOUGH.

A plan is a just a plan! wrote on Aug 27, 2007 1:42 PM:What is with these people in SM that think the general plan is what the city should look like 20 years from now. You got to be able to adjust as you go along. Don't equate a general plan with strict specifications. That is simply not the way it is supposed to work.

How can anyone NOT do something ? wrote on Aug 27, 2007 4:00 PM:It is about time that someone brought out the fact that the projects the previous commenters used as examples were voted in by a city council that listened to the people. Case in point - the Palomar Station - before anyone knew about the seeious health effects, the City Council turned it down completely. There was no recreation space (now its on top of the parking garage), and the citizens groups spoke about the known inadvisability of putting residents into an Industrial Zone. Any Industrial Zone. Now we have this new council that finds that it is okay to allow a project with MORE adverse health effects than anyone dreamed of in 2004. It is ok if they just sign those 2 releases, Acknowledgements of Increased Health Risks. How can anyone NOT do something to insure that Palomar Station and others which will follow in its wake - be given to the voters. Not to the developer"s council. If a project is a good project, which CSUSM, Santa Fe Hills, Discovery Hills, San Elijo Hills and the Grand Plaza certainly are (although something needs to be done with the circulation around the Grand Plaza), then the people of San Marcos will approve them. Period.

What will they do next ? wrote on Aug 27, 2007 6:17 PM:Escondido passed Proposition S to stop runaway development of the pet projects of that council- the people voted. They made a choice. Now comes San Marcos into the picture with all of the problems they seem to have had lately. The city counncil and planning commission passed a project with SERIOUS healh risks that required 2 releases from every resident and a Statement of Overriding Considerations from the council to pass the project. They did not seem to have any problems at all passing it and attesting to the Statement, and then the people got REALLY concerned. What would that council do next ?

Apples and Tomatoes wrote on Aug 27, 2007 6:23 PM:Escondido has its problems. San Marcos has its problems. Taking the two and comparing them is like comparing apples and tomatoes. The one thing they did share, until Escondido residents passed Prop. S. was a runaway council ! San Marcos citizens now see the need to protect their quality of life, and adherence to their General Plan before they are both gone !

Eunice wrote on Aug 28, 2007 12:02 PM:Great comment JK!!! When will the City Council address the needs of the CURRENT populace of Escondido, instead of making plans for the kind of city THEY want to see???!! Escondido is NOT San Marcos nor would those of us that love Escondido want it to be. Cookie cutter cities, popping up all over America. Let's slap another Starbucks and Panda Express on the corner and call it a day!

Chris wrote on Sep 6, 2007 4:19 PM:San Marcos is not only "Up and Coming" , but has the potential to be the "Inland LaJolla" No Question. It's a "No Brainer" Done properly, San Marcos can be beautiful, provide jobs, support a fantastic University, and be a "real player"... not just a small town w/ potential... potential that was never realized. It's a "win win" situation... don't miss the boat.

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos

Advertisement