2 Growth Issues on Simi Ballot Called ‘Flawed’

Two growth-control measures on Simi Valley’s Nov. 4 ballot are badly flawed and contain provisions that may be unconstitutional, according to a legal counsel for the state Assembly in an opinion sought by opponents of the initiatives.

But Jennifer Shaw, the attorney largely responsible for drafting the measures, dismissed the conclusions of the state legislative counsel as “just one lawyer’s opinion” that has “no force or weight” in deciding whether the measures will withstand a court challenge.

The opinion by Deputy Legislative Counsel Robert G. Miller, presented to the Simi Valley City Council on Monday night, is expected to be used by opponents of Measures D & E, which are backed by slow-growth groups in the Ventura County city.

Provisions Described

Measure D would limit the number of building permits allowed per year. Measure E would prohibit construction of industrial, commercial or high-density housing projects in hillside and rural areas of the city unless voters approve the project.

The Simi Valley City Council, which opposes the slow-growth initiatives and has placed two less-restrictive growth-control measures on the ballot, asked Assemblywoman Cathie Wright (R-Simi Valley) to obtain the opinion from the legislative counsel. The counsel is responsible for drafting laws for members of the Assembly.

In his opinion, Miller questioned the constitutionality of part of Measure E that would rezone certain areas of the city, making some existing land uses illegal.

He also noted that both measures state their effective date as Nov. 4, Election Day. But that conflicts with the state Election Code requirement that election results be certified by a city council, which usually happens 10 days after the election.

Wright said the legislative counsel’s opinion means that Measures D & E likely will be challenged in court if they pass. “Parts of the measures are unconstitutional, parts conflict with other statutes on the books and other parts are vague and lead to conflicting interpretation,” she said.

Shaw said, however, that she is not worried about Miller’s opinion because the legislative counsel acknowledged that he reached his conclusions without reviewing documents related to the initiatives, such as the city’s general plan.

“He had very heavily qualified statements that say, depending on this circumstance or that one,” Shaw said. “This is one lawyer’s opinion that has no force or weight in terms of precedent. He has not pointed out anything in the initiatives that would invalidate them.”