ELECTIONS / SANTA CLARITA GROWTH : Despite Vigorous Campaigns, Measure A Might Not Get Out the Voters

To its proponents and opponents, the battle over a Santa Clarita slow-growth initiative on Tuesday’s ballot has been intense.

The initiative, known as Measure A, would allow the Santa Clarita City Council to approve only 475 new housing units annually through 2002. It has the potential to change the shape of the city for the next decade.

But despite their own fervor, neither side expects the majority of the city’s 56,478 registered voters to go to the polls Tuesday. Fewer than 30% of the voters are expected to respond to a last-minute barrage of mailers, telephone calls, radio ads and personal visits from campaign workers this weekend, city officials said.

And that could hurt Measure A’s chances of winning, said John Drew, president of Citizens Assn. for a Responsible Residential Initiative on Growth, or CARRING. The group proposed the measure almost two years ago because it believes a growth cap is the best way to preserve the semirural nature of the city and prevent further traffic congestion and school overcrowding. Volunteers collected the 5,757 signatures necessary to put it on the ballot last fall.

“Our support is more massive, but it’s not as motivated to go to the polls,” Drew said, “whereas a guy who is a contractor and has a financial stake in seeing lots of houses built will make sure he gets to the polls.”

When the campaign began several months ago, polls showed that voters supported Measure A by more than a 2-to-1 margin, said Lynn Wessell, a political consultant hired by Santa Clarita Citizens for Managed Growth, which opposes the measure. The group believes a growth cap would hurt the local economy, drive up the cost of housing and result in overdevelopment of the surrounding unincorporated areas of the Santa Clarita Valley.

Since then, the opposition group has spent about $240,000. It has hired workers to canvass the entire 43-square-mile city twice and phone residents four times, Wessell said.

“We think we have a reasonable chance of winning now,” he said in an interview.

Their strategy has been to identify potential opponents of the measure by analyzing previous election results, Wessell said. For instance, precincts that in 1988 heavily supported Councilman Howard (Buck) McKeon, a businessman who opposed a recently adopted hillside and ridgeline preservation ordinance, are likely to oppose Measure A as well, he said.

Additionally, Wessell has gone after the absentee ballot vote in a series of mailers. But although more than 5,000 voters have requested absentee ballots from the city, it remains to be seen which side will benefit.

“There’s a surprisingly heavy senior vote in favor of Measure A,” Wessell said. “But we have the business community.”

The local newspaper and radio station oppose Measure A, as does the United Chambers Coalition, a business group, and state Sen. Ed Davis, who represents the area.

It is endorsed by the Santa Clarita Valley Civic Assn. and Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment. Proponents have only raised about $7,000 and have made an issue out of the fact that most of the opposition’s money has come from developers, including more than $100,000 from Newhall Land & Farming Co., the largest builder in the area. With considerably less resources, they have used volunteers to staff tables at local supermarkets and their mailers have reached far fewer residents.

About 17% of the voters cast ballots in the last municipal election in April, 1990. This time, the turnout is expected to be greater, but many residents are oblivious or indifferent to the campaign, members of both groups say.

“Nobody talks about it,” said Cassie Green, a waitress at a Canyon Country restaurant on Friday. “People have more important things on their minds.”

Across town at each group’s campaign headquarters, it’s a different story. Things got so intense last week that proponents and opponents fought in a parking lot after a radio debate. One of the measure’s supporters complained to police after the incident that an opponent shoved him and then threatened to kill him during the argument, a charge the opponent denies.

Each side has accused the other of wiretapping.

“There’s so much emotional fervor, it’s disgusting,” said Connie Worden, an opponent of the measure. “But the people, even on my street, don’t know anything about it.”

One dominant theme in the campaign has been low-income housing. Under state law, cities must provide lower-cost housing. Measure A would allow the City Council to set aside 25%, or about 118 units a year, for low-income housing, or to exempt low-income housing from growth-cap restrictions altogether.

Both sides have raised the specter of low-income housing in their campaign literature, using language that some political consultants say plays on racial and economic fears. Proponents say a growth cap will reduce the number of low-income housing units because fewer units of any kind of housing will be built, and the council is not likely to approve unpopular projects. Opponents, on the other hand, contend that more low-income housing units would be built because developers would be left with few other options.

Actually, not much low-income housing is likely to be built in either case. Developers say there’s not enough profit in it because land costs so much. And government housing subsidies have dried up.

Santa Clarita Slow-Growth Measure

A Santa Clarita citizens group has put a slow-growth initiative, known as Measure A, on Tuesday’s ballot. The measure, proposed by the Citizens Assn. for a Responsible Residential Initiative on Growth, or CARRING, would expire in 2002. It provides:

* Residential caps--Permits the City Council to approve only 475 new housing units in the city each year, with certain exceptions. The cap on residential development is based on Los Angeles County’s average annual growth rate of 1.2% during the past decade. There would be no limit on commercial or industrial development.

* Annexation exemption--Exempts areas annexed by the city in the future from the 475-unit limit. The 43-square-mile city intends to eventually annex much of the surrounding valley.

* Project limits--Allows the City Council to approve large housing projects, which would be built in phases under development agreements between the city and builders. The council could increase the cap by 10%, or about 47 units, in a given year, but would have to subtract 10% from the following year.

* Water restrictions--Prevents the City Council from approving any housing units when water use is restricted. The city currently fines residents for wasting water under an ordinance that expires July 1.

* Point system--Forces developers of more than four housing units to compete for allotments. The city’s Planning Commission would evaluate proposed housing projects, on a point system, and recommend that the council grant approvals to those that receive the highest marks.

* Low-income housing--Give the City Council the option of either reserving 25% of the annual cap for low-income dwellings, or of exempting such housing altogether. Under state law, cities are required to provide lower-cost housing.

* Time limit--Force developers to initiate construction of their projects within three years of receiving approval.

* Changes allowed--Allow the City Council to amend some provisions of the measure, not including the growth cap, by a four-fifths vote.