A trio of elections were held yesterday (Nov. 2) in communities outside the San Francisco Bay area that almost certainly will be repeated in other communities across the country in future years as Americans try to come to grips with "urban sprawl" and attempt to develop reasonable growth plans.

Although worded differently in each community, citizens in Livermore, San Ramon and Pleasanton, Calif., were all asked essentially the same question: Is it time to clamp even tighter controls on growth?

Generally (but not always) builders, real estate brokers and other business leaders opposed the plans. Advocates primarily were the Citizens Alliance for Public Planning and environmentalists.

Almost everyone concerned, however, conceded the actual outcome of the vote was less important than the message being sent nationwide - has so-called "sprawl" reached a point that drastic action is needed to deal with the problem, or are local controls already adequate to preserve the spirit of local communities despite accelerated population growth.

The initiatives in the three California communities were to virtually require builders and contractors to put any new developments before the voters before they could go forward.

In Livermore, for instance, the initiative was to create an "urban growth boundary" that would set the community's growth rate at no more than 1,000 new residents per year, said Doug Mann, a spokesman for the Citizens Alliance.

Growth is figured on a basis of new housing units allowed per year. Occupancy averages are 2.9 people per unit.

Currently, the city's legal growth rate is pegged at between 1.5 percent per year and 3.5 percent per year. The current City Council has adopted a minimum rate, 1.5 percent, but the Citizens Council argued that decision should be taken out of the hands of council members.

"All it would take is for one rogue City Council to be elected to let growth get out of hand," said Mann. "With the 1,000 person limit, even a rogue Council could only do so much damage in one year. It would give the people a chance to come back and vote them out without too much damage being done."

The professional real estate community tends to oppose control on growth. Development, they argue, is a sign of a healthy economy.

Some real estate brokers, however, indicated support for the plans - suggesting that regulated construction of new homes would tend to boost prices of existing homes and create more demand. Builders extensively involved in remodeling work also tended to support the package, believing that regulated growth ultimately could become a driver for improvement of existing homes.