San Clemente Will Put Slow-Growth Initiative on June Ballot

The San Clemente City Council voted 5 to 0 Wednesday night to place a slow-growth initiative on the June 7 ballot. Its decision came one day after county supervisors took the same action on a similar countywide measure.

Several residents spoke for or against the measure during the council session, but most urged that it be placed on the June ballot.

In discussing the initiative before the vote, Councilman Robert Lindberg said an election will provide “a complete examination of the pros and cons of this issue.”

Also the day before, the council members of neighboring San Juan Capistrano voted to place a slow-growth measure on the Nov. 8 ballot.

The county proposal, known as the Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative, would apply only to unincorporated areas. That measure, which will appear on the June 7 ballot, would require builders to pay for road and public service improvements.

“The big job is in front of us now,” C. L. (Curly) Snider, one of the San Clemente measure’s chief backers, said in an interview. “There is so much confusion out there about this measure.”

The county registrar of voters verified 2,888 signatures on the San Clemente petition. That number represents 15% of the 18,887 registered voters in the city.

In keeping with provisions in the election code, the City Council had to decide either to adopt the petition as an ordinance or schedule an election.

Two years ago, San Clemente voters passed Measure B, which limits the number of new homes built in the city to 500 per year. Snider and others believe the slow-growth initiative will mesh well with the limitations imposed by Measure B.

“This way, developers will have to build roads and schools and everything else before they leave town. They’ll have to put funds aside for that purpose,” he said.

However, the city’s traffic and community development directors each pointed out that the provisions in the slow-growth initiative appear to be inflexible, especially in relation to traffic, and that they could have a detrimental impact on older sections of town.

“Traffic would continue to grow as a result of regional growth pressures, but local commerce would be significantly stymied in the original parts of town,” Community Development Director James S. Holloway stated in his report to the council. “Eventually, with no new development and turnover of property, the area could become economically and physically run down.”