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