Growth-Curb Initiative May Violate Law, Report Says

A ballot measure to restrict development along the city’s edge may violate state law and could lead to higher home prices and more ridgeline development, according to a report prepared for the City Council.

After more than a month of study, city staff members determined that a local version of the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources initiative could, if adopted by Simi Valley voters, lead to higher development costs for housing, costlier homes, more building on hills and near ridgelines, higher building density and a possible conflict with existing state laws.

Al Boughey, the city’s director of environmental services, was scheduled to present the analysis to council members at their meeting Monday night in response to a plan by residents Jon Palo and Marilyn Richardson to circulate a petition to have a municipal SOAR initiative placed on the November ballot.

The initiative would amend Simi Valley’s General Plan to create a so-called City Urban Restriction Boundary, or CURB line, that would prohibit development outside the boundary--without prior voter approval--until 2021.

The boundary would be frozen at the city’s current sphere of influence, which extends from Palo Comado Canyon in the south near the Bard Reservoir to the rugged foothills of the Santa Monica Mountains to the north. The east and west boundaries would mirror the city limits.

Additionally, the City Council would be stripped of its power to decide on commercial and residential projects on land outside the city’s borders, as it has since the city’s incorporation in 1969. The initiative would give that power to Ventura County’s more than 750,000 residents, who would have the final say on development adjacent to Simi Valley.

And that doesn’t sit well with Councilwoman Barbara Williamson.

“We do know how much people love to vote, don’t we,” she quipped. “It’s completely unrealistic in that sense . . . I don’t think it’s fair to the city if people in Ventura are voting on what goes on here. They don’t know the issues, and if they don’t know, they’re more likely to vote no.”

Councilwoman Sandi Webb agreed, saying that if the initiative passes she fears it would be almost impossible to complete much-needed projects, such as senior housing and affordable housing.

“It’s totally impractical on that point alone,” she said. “Its practical effect would be that very little would get done.”

She added that the CURB lines proposed by SOAR supporters may also trample on constitutional guarantees that protect individual property rights.

The staff report states that because the initiative would only allow Simi Valley to approve construction within its borders, the resulting land crunch would drive up development costs and increase the prices of new and resale homes, making it more difficult for people to move into the city.

With fewer residential parcels on which to build, developers may be forced to pack more homes onto every available acre, which the report suggests is the exact opposite of what the initiative is intended to do.

“It’s not something that the city of Simi Valley needs,” Williamson said. “We already have things like ridgeline-protection ordinances. . . . The city does a good job of protecting what we have.”

The staff report also states that the city might find itself mired in legal problems if the initiative passes, because of potential conflicts with existing state laws and constitutional provisions assured by the Bill of Rights. The 5th Amendment says that no citizen’s private property will be taken for public use without just compensation.

According to Assistant City Atty. Marjorie Baxter, the initiative could eliminate Simi Valley’s ability to annex property, which is now governed by state law.

Palo, who said he was surprised that the city had commissioned a study of the issue, disagreed with most of the report’s conclusions, labeling it a “red herring meant to scare the people.”

“Some of what they’re saying is patently ridiculous,” he said. “We worked with city staff in developing this initiative so that we wouldn’t run into some of the problems they’re talking about.”