Suit Against San Juan’s Growth Law to Be Heard

A lawsuit challenging San Juan Capistrano’s Measure X, a slow-growth initiative adopted by city voters last June, is expected to go before an Orange County Superior Court judge Tuesday.

In separate suits that were eventually consolidated, Verde San Juan Estates General Partnership and Kaiser Development Co. challenged city plans to implement Measure X late last year. The suits claimed that the measure requires developers to build all the streets in their projects as well as deal with traffic problems on the city’s existing roads, said Jeffrey Thomas, an attorney representing the Building Industry Assn. and Kaiser Development.

“The initiative requires the developers to make donations and improvements that have nothing to do with their development, but rather with the existing population of the city, which is unconstitutional,” he said.

Initially Filed Separately

Kaiser Development Co. holds title to the 17-acre Rosan Ranch in the south end of San Juan Capistrano, on a hilltop parallel to Camino Capistrano. Verde San Juan Estates General Partnership--also known as Capistrano Partners--owns four residential lots off Toyon Drive, in the hills above Ortega Highway.

A Jan. 10 hearing for the first of the two original suits, filed by Charles Benninghoff, the attorney representing Verde San Juan Estates, was postponed until Feb. 8 after Verde and Kaiser Development agreed on the consolidation. Superior Court Judge William F. McDonald postponed the case until Tuesday.

Measure X passed by 379 votes in the city on Nov. 8. It is identical to Measure A, the countywide slow-growth plan that failed on the June ballot, and San Clemente’s Measure E, which passed last June but was declared unconstitutional by Superior Court Judge John C. Woolley in October.

San Juan Capistrano’s mandate from voters was intended to require that “developers participate in a program to improve the problem of traffic congestion . . . through a financial package in which the developer would contribute an equitable part,” said attorney Daniel Spradlin, who is defending the city’s implementation of Measure X.

‘Balances Needs’

Spradlin, who unsuccessfully defended San Clemente’s Measure E, said Measure X “balances the needs of developers and new developments against the needs of the community’s residents” and should be ruled constitutional.

While city residents accepted the slow-growth initiative, Mayor Gary L. Hausdorfer said he and several other city officials initially opposed Measure X because it did not properly augment the city’s existing slow-growth plan, which limits the number of new housing units to 400 per year. Hausdorfer said the city averages about 250 new homes built per year.

“Although our growth-management ordinance may not be perfect, it has stood the test of time,” Hausdorfer said. “Why should we have to take on a measure that was not properly designed to suit the city’s needs?” Hausdorfer complained that Measure X focuses more on widening streets than on development of new housing, which he said is the more important issue.

Measure X “says to the developer, ‘If you spend enough money to widen streets and get things on target, then it’s OK for you to develop what you want here,’ ” he said.

However, Hausdorfer added that since residents approved the initiative, the city will support it.

Besides, a clause in the initiative requires the city to defend it in court.