Lawsuit Over Oceanside Cap : Legal Group Backs Builders on Growth

The Pacific Legal Foundation, a public-interest law firm and advocate of limited government, has filed a legal brief supporting a lawsuit by a San Diego builders group that challenges the constitutionality of Oceanside’s slow-growth law.

The legal action, known as a friend-of-the-court brief, was filed Thursday in the 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego by the nonprofit foundation, which is based in Sacramento. It is up to the court to decide whether it will review arguments included in such a brief, which is used to raise additional points or reiterate positions made by a litigant.

The brief, which was also filed on behalf of four San Diego organizations--People for Affordable Housing, the Urban League of San Diego, the San Diego County Taxpayers Assn. and the Hispanic Bankers Assn.--supports the lawsuit filed by the Building Industry Assn. of San Diego County.

The BIA contests the validity of the slow-growth ordinance, approved by Oceanside voters in April, 1987, which sets a strict limit on the number of dwelling units that can be built in the city each year through 1999.

“The ordinance is inconsistent with Oceanside’s general plan, which gives the City Council discretion to approve new housing, provided that adequate public facilities can be built to support the new development,” said Edward J. Connor Jr., a foundation attorney.

“But the no-growth ordinance denies such discretion and sets an arbitrary numerical cap without any regard to housing or public facility needs,” Connor said. “These no-growth ordinances are a bad way to plan for California’s future. We feel it causes housing scarcity and a rise in prices, undermining low- and moderate-income people from finding housing.”

Filing No Surprise

The filing of the brief came as no surprise to Oceanside officials or the city’s legal counsel, which is involved in a prime example of growth-management controversy that has captured statewide interest. With similar ordinances being challenged in several other cities, the outcome of Oceanside’s case could have statewide implications, attorneys say.

“I wasn’t surprised at all,” said Deborah Fox of Freilich, Stone, Leitner & Carlisle. The Los Angeles-based firm, which specializes in municipal law and land-use and environmental issues, is representing the city of Oceanside.

In fact, Oceanside’s case has also been bolstered by a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the city of Riverside, which in turn, has been supported by more than 50 other cities, Fox said. The city also has support of the San Diego Assn. of Governments and the League of California Cities, which recently recommended that its member cities support Oceanside’s ordinance.

Number Not Unusual

“The number of briefs filed is not at all unusual in these cases,” Fox said. “It just indicates the great interest that exists in growth management.”

But Louis Wolfsheimer of Milch & Wolfsheimer, the San Diego-based law firm representing the BIA, welcomed the foundation’s support.

“We’re glad and grateful that they’re coming in on our side of the issue,” Wolfsheimer said. “And we’re very excited that organizations such as the Urban League and the Taxpayers Assn. are taking interest in this case. We believe the ordinance is reducing housing for minorities. It really is an elitist, protectionist piece of legislation.”

Connor, the foundation lawyer, agreed.

“The ordinance is single-focus in nature,” he said. “The people who write these ordinances seem to think that, if you deny people housing, you can deny population growth.”

The foundation argues that such an approach violates state laws that require cities to share the burden of population growth by absorbing a number of newcomers to the region.

“We understand the frustration of people who live in a community where population is growing rapidly,” he said. “But, by denying housing to these people, all you do is shift the population growth to the neighboring city, which forces that city to adopt similar ordinances. The cumulative effect is that people will not be able to find housing.”