San Clemente : Vote Set for Feb. 25 on Slow-Growth Initiative

The City Council has reluctantly voted to set a special election for Feb. 25 to decide the fate of a slow-growth initiative that would limit new-home construction in the city’s backcountry to 500 units per year.

The vote for a special election was in response to a petition signed by local residents to limit growth in the city. Since more than 15% of the voters had signed the petition, the council had to either adopt the initiative as law or hold a special election. The council voted 4 to 0, with Mayor Robert Limberg absent, to hold the election on Feb. 25.

But voters may end up facing not one but two measures as the council, meeting Wednesday night, moved toward placing its own countermeasure on the ballot.

Mayor Pro Tem William Mecham questioned whether those voters who signed the anti-growth petitions knew what they were signing and submitted a motion for an alternative, city-sponsored measure. The measure, Mecham said, would explain to citizens the safeguards against overly rapid growth that already exist in the city’s general plan.

The motion died 2 to 2 on the first vote. But during a short break called by Mecham, the absent mayor was summoned from his home by telephone, and, after his arrival, the council voted 3 to 2 to have the city staff draft an ordinance calling for the alternative measure to be placed on the special election ballot. The council will consider the measure at a special meeting Nov. 27 so that it can beat a Nov. 29 deadline for adding a measure to the ballot.

City Atty. Jeff Oderman said that while the unorthodox parliamentary procedure “was not the usual way things get done,” there was nothing wrong with it. He added that an initiative may be placed on the ballot either by the petition process or by a City Council resolution.

In the event that voters approve both measures, the one with the most votes in favor would take precedence, Oderman said.

Tom Lorch and Dr. Brian Rice, the initiators of the slow-growth measure, say that building 15,000 homes over the next 10 to 15 years in the backcountry will severely strain the city’s ability to provide services. Opponents of the measure, however, say the 500-unit cap would lead to unbalanced development, as builders would use their scarce permits to put up expensive, high-profit homes. The city also says that without the fees that builders pay for development, the city could not afford some basic services.