3 Cities Could See Voters Put Lid on Growth

Voters in three Orange County cities fed up with endless traffic and encroaching bulldozers could decide in the coming election to slow development.

Hotly debated measures in Brea, Newport Beach and San Clemente are among a spate of local land-use initiatives across California and the nation.

Developers, Realtors and others are pouring money into opposing the measures, saying they infringe on property owners’ rights, and could kill a booming economy. Supporters, in spite of being outspent by as much as 17 to 1, are gaining momentum because residents worry that local officials are rubber-stamping construction.

The Newport Beach and Brea measures would subject many major developments to a citywide vote, while the San Clemente initiative would prohibit issuing most building permits until a key roadway segment is built. If any pass, landowners say they’ll sue.

Newport Beach’s Greenlight Initiative, Measure S, is being watched across the state. If approved, proposed developments that exceed the city’s general plan by 100 residential units, 40,000 square feet or 100 peak-hour car trips would trigger a citywide vote. Smaller projects in highly developed areas of the city--defined by a complex equation--could also trigger a vote.

“The city . . . is doing piecemeal development--millions of new square feet--that we believe will inundate the Pacific Coast Highway,” said Jean Watt, a former councilwoman who is a key backer.

Even before the vote, the initiative has had an impact. The Irvine Co. withdrew a proposal in January that would have added 200,000 square feet of shopping space, two office buildings, apartments and other development to Fashion Island. Soon after, two other companies withdrew expansion plans nearby. All cited the initiative.

Future projects that could face voter scrutiny include a hotel and convention center at Newport Dunes, and 1,750 homes on Banning Ranch.

Supporters raised $38,461 by Sept. 30, while the opposition reported $204,061. Major contributions include $52,000 from the California Assn. of Realtors; $34,000 from the Irvine Co.; $24,500 from the Building Industry Assn. of Southern California, and $10,000 from the National Assn. of Home Builders.

The initiative would “place the city’s planning process, if not its future economic viability, in jeopardy,” Irvine Co. executive vice president Gary Hunt wrote in a recent letter.

The opposition has come up with a competing initiative, Measure T. If voters are not eagle-eyed in the voting booth, the similarly worded measures could be confused. If both are approved and Measure T receives more affirmative votes, it would nullify the Greenlight Initiative.

In Brea, voters will consider Measure N. It would give residents the right to veto major development on more than 5,000 acres in Carbon Canyon and hills north and east of the city. Major developments would have to be approved by Brea voters through 2021. The measure also would require the city to set limits by 2002 on impact to traffic, water quality and supply, and flora and fauna.

“The current process does not work,” said Claire Schlotterbeck, lead backer of the measure and head of the group that helped create Chino Hills State Park.

The striking ridgelines define the community, she said. They are also home to endangered species, an active fault line and natural tar and methane gas seeps.

Although there has been active oil production there for a century, thousands of homes are planned in coming years. Landowners are handsomely financing the initiative’s defeat--as of Sept. 30, Nuevo Energy Co. has contributed $205,267, while Aera Energy LLC has given $49,225. In fact, the opposition has raised more than $17 in contributions for every $1 supporters have received.

Rex Gaede said such a large expenditure is necessary.

“They have framed this issue in such a way that it’s hard for someone to say no,” said Gaede, one of 11 former Brea mayors opposing the initiative. “Everyone approached would sign the ‘Save the Hills’ petition. . . . What are we going to come out and say--destroy the hills?”

He said the city already has strict hillside development codes, requiring more than 50% be open space and banning ridgeline building.

Gaede said such measures are a threat to representative democracy. “If they don’t like what’s going on, get rid of the people on City Council,” he said.

*

In San Clemente, Measure U would prohibit major housing developments until a 5.4-mile four-lane segment of Avenida la Pata is built between Avenida Pico and Antonio Parkway.

By 2010, San Clemente is expected to add 6,500 homes, which will add 80,000 daily vehicle trips in the city.

“We have serious traffic problems here in San Clemente. . . . Interstate 5 is the only major road in and out of city, north-south,” said Tom Padberg, initiative author and a City Council candidate. “The problem--as bad as it is--is going to get worse.”

Padberg said if there were a major fire, earthquake or accident at the San Onofre nuclear power plant, residents and emergency vehicles would have problems.

Mayor Susan Ritschel said developers are already paying for $52 million in city roadway improvements. She also said the measure was illegal because it would try to ban development retroactively.

Other opponents have paid for two full-page ads in a local newspaper and a mailing to residents, arguing that Measure U is a “horrible idea” that will cause costly, taxpayer funded lawsuits, cuts in public services and delays in traffic improvements.

Conservative Orange County has a surprisingly strong initiative history. A landmark 1980 California Supreme Court ruling that local voters could veto a Costa Mesa project proposed by developer George Argyros paved the way for such measures statewide.

In March, 67% of Orange County voters approved Measure F, which would require voter approval before an airport could be built at El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, or toxic waste dumps or jails near residential neighborhoods.

The latest initiatives are part of 50 land-use measures on the Nov. 7 ballot statewide, the most since 1990. Other states, most notably Arizona and Colorado, will decide similar measures.

Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent on polling by the opposition to determine the measures’ chances. Several refused to make the results public. Slow growth has won out at the ballot box 57% of the time in the last 15 years.

The surge for local control is fueled by the booming economy, said William Fulton, a land-use expert.

“Ballot measures generally follow the economy--the economy ramps up, building ramps up, people get mad and put stuff on the ballot,” he said.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Ballot-Box Planning

Voters in three Orange County cities will decide the fate of local slow-growth measures on Nov. 7. Bars show amount of money raised by pro and con groups: