SAN MARCOS -- Voters rejected Proposition O, a controversial growth-control initiative that would have limited the City Council's power to change San Marcos' development plan without voter approval.

According to 100 percent of precincts reporting early this morning, 63.08 percent of voters cast ballots against the measure, compared to 36.92 percent in favor of the proposition. The measure needed a majority to pass.

Also known as the San Marcos Growth Management and Neighborhood Protection Act, Prop. O would have required the city to hold a public vote for most new developments that do not conform to a growth plan created for the city in the 1970s.

Nonconforming projects that would be smaller or less dense than the plan calls for on a specific property would have been the only ones exempt from Prop. O.

Steve Kildoo helped form a political action committee that spent more than $128,000 to get an anti-Prop. O message out to the public.

Interviewed by phone while he and other Prop. O critics watched election results at Legends Bar & Grill Tuesday night, Kildoo said the group was happy with Prop. O's early numbers and expressed confidence that the numbers would hold up through the evening. They did.

"We've gotten where we need to go," he said. "We're very pleased that the city saw the value in supporting our opposition efforts. This number shows (residents are) happy with the way the city has grown and the plans we have for the future."

Cynthia Skovgard and Susan Wait led a petition drive that got Prop. O on the ballot.

Residents were deeply divided over Prop. O in recent months, and the debate ended up eclipsing this year's City Council race and a local ridgeline protection initiative that was also on the ballot.

Prop. O was sponsored by residents who were angered by the council's approval last year of the controversial Palomar Station development. The project calls for a mix of condominiums, retail shops and offices to be built on 14 vacant acres south of Palomar College.

Prop. O's supporters said the initiative was needed to rein in a council intent on overriding the city's growth plan to accommodate development projects that residents don't want.

Opponents said the initiative would scare away developers, damage the city's economy and stop the flow of money coming to the city for new roads, parks and other infrastructure.

Prop. O's critics also said the initiative was a "sour grapes" response by people who don't like Palomar Station's proximity to their own homes or businesses.

The two sides took widely different approaches to their campaigns, with the initiative's backers relying on a grassroots effort that raised and spent less than $10,000.

Prop. O opponents hired a high-powered consulting firm to oversee their campaign. They collected and spent more than $100,000 worth of donations, with most of the money coming from developers, real estate firms and construction companies.

Contact staff writer Andrea Moss at (760) 739-6654 or amoss@nctimes.com.