Initiative Slowing San Clemente’s Growth Is Revived

A ballot initiative that could slow residential development in San Clemente to a trickle will appear on the November ballot, thanks to a decision announced Monday by the California 4th District Court of Appeal.

“We feel great about it,” said Nancy Padberg, a lawyer representing the authors of the Residential Building Permit Moratorium Initiative, of the decision by Presiding Judge David G. Sills. “At least the voters will get a chance.”

The ruling reverses an earlier Orange County Superior Court decision that would have invalidated the measure.

“We are ecstatic that the appeals court understood our petition,” Padberg said.

If successful, the initiative will halt all major residential development in the city until a second regional roadway is built from Avenida La Pata to Ortega Highway just east of San Juan Capistrano. Currently, the only major north-south corridor through the city is Interstate 5, which initiative proponents say will become unduly clogged by such new developments as the 4,900-home Talega project underway just east of the city.

“That would increase traffic by 40,000 trips per day” once completed, Padberg said. Though the Foothill South toll road has been proposed to help ease the congestion, she said, its future is uncertain and the imposition of tolls on residents undesirable.

“Our point,” Padberg said, “is that the only access is already gridlocked--the city has an obligation to actually construct [a road from] La Pata to provide a second access.”

Some City Council members, fearful that the initiative would effectively halt or delay the Talega project, expressed disappointment that the earlier decision had been reversed.

“I think it’s bad news,” said Councilwoman Lois R. Berg. “It’s costly and could hamper all the building that’s going on.”

Mayor Pro Tem G. Wayne Eggleston agreed. “I’m always for the residents voting on an initiative,” he said, “but the initiative needs to be valid and legal, and I have doubts that this one is.”

He said the agencies needed to approve the road are outside the city’s jurisdiction, and he thinks the courts will ultimately overturn it as a result.

According to Monday’s decision, however, the legality of the initiative is an issue that should be decided if and when it’s approved by voters, rather than before it even appears on the ballot.

“A preelection challenge to a proposed initiative will not be upheld except upon a clear showing that the initiative is invalid,” Judge Sills wrote in his decision.

“Given the complexity of the issues involved and the short time within which to act, the Superior Court wrongly attempted to determine the validity of the proposed measure before the election.”