Ojai Wants Fall Traffic Initiative Declared Invalid

Attorneys for the city of Ojai have filed a request with a state appellate court that seeks to have a traffic initiative slated for the November ballot declared invalid.

Called an original writ, the request was filed this week with the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Ventura. The writ seeks to essentially overturn a lower court’s ruling that placed the measure on the ballot.

“We believe [the initiative] discriminates against affordable housing and people who need affordable housing,” said attorney Katherine Stone, who represents the city in the action.

At issue is an initiative that would give voters--rather than the Ojai City Council--the right to approve or reject development projects that would increase traffic on local roadways.

According to Stone, the measure essentially places a 20-year moratorium on all construction projects that would affect traffic.

The sole exception, she said, would be pricey, custom, single-family houses. Projects such as schools, fire stations, hospitals and jails could not immediately be built either, Stone said.

Particularly alarming, Stone said, would be a halt to the upgrades and expansion of the Ojai Valley Inn, a primary source of tax revenue for the city.

The initiative was crafted and proposed by Citizens to Preserve the Ojai. Organization representatives strongly dispute the claim that the initiative is discriminatory.

Kate Neiswender, a representative for the organization, has said the initiative simply requires developers of new projects to prepare mitigation measures that would ensure traffic increases do not occur.

“Development within the City of Ojai and surrounding unincorporated areas should not be permitted to proceed at a rate which overwhelms the road system and produces unacceptable traffic congestion, with attendant air pollution and degradation of the quality of life,” the group’s notice on the initiative states.

After supporters gathered enough signatures to place the initiative on the ballot, the city sued, contending the measure is confusing and would mislead voters and prohibit the city from providing affordable housing.

In early June, Superior Court Judge Henry J. Walsh ruled the measure should appear on the ballot because the court had no “grave” doubts about its validity, which the judge used as a standard to decide.

Instead of filing an appeal, Stone said the city decided on the writ. Filed at the appellate court along with the writ are several letters in support of the city’s position, including one from the Cabrillo Economic Development Corp. and the cities of Thousand Oaks and Santa Paula.

An appellate judge has several options, including denying the request, issuing an order or requesting more information from the citizens’ committee, Stone said.

If the request is denied and the measure remains on the ballot, Stone said the city would consider a post-election challenge if the initiative passes. Similar measures in Newport Beach and Walnut Creek in the 1980s failed.

The growth issue is nothing new to Ojai.

Census data show the city, with 7,862 residents, grew by only 3% between 1990 and 2000. Neighboring communities with less expensive real estate grew by 13% to 16%.

Only three new housing projects, totaling 68 units, have been approved by the city since 1993.

*

Times staff writers Anica Butler and Tracy Wilson contributed to this report.