Measure Would Limit Growth in Santa Paula

Voters here will be asked Tuesday to help determine how much their city should grow in coming years, a decision that will also shape its financial, ethnic and political future.

Measure I would limit how far and how fast growth can occur over the next 20 years in this cash-strapped and largely Latino city of 4.5 square miles and 27,000 residents.

If approved, the growth-control measure would effectively block City Council-backed plans to expand into Adams Canyon with construction of 2,250 homes, a resort hotel, commercial center and golf course. Development could only proceed if voters later elect to waive newly established growth limits.

Expansion into neighboring South Mountain and two other areas also would be blocked. Measure I, however, would allow the city to proceed with plans for limited expansion into Fagan Canyon and a 26-acre industrial patch just east of the city.

On its face, Measure I isn’t much different than slow-growth measures passed by most Ventura County cities in recent years. It seeks to limit sprawl and preserve agriculture, even if that means restricting a city’s tax revenue base.

Some proponents of Measure I worry that tripling the city’s size and building luxury homes would flood the community with traffic and forever change its small-town character. Others believe the financially troubled city--and not developers--will have to foot the bill for necessary road and sewer improvements.

Opponents argue the City Council has the power to require developers to pay for necessary improvements. Also, they say, developing 5,400-acre Adams Canyon may be the only way to save the city’s lagging tax base and finances. They say the influx of wealthier homeowners would energize the local economy, luring new businesses and improving city services for all residents.

“We’ve seen this town deteriorate over the last 20 years,” said Councilman Jim Garfield, a real estate broker who opposes Measure I. “You either grow or deteriorate.”

But Mike Miller, an agricultural marketing consultant and supporter of the slow-growth initiative, dismisses Garfield’s argument.

“The idea that a big housing development in the canyon is going to rescue us is absurd,” Miller said. “It would drain our limited resources even further. The real opportunity is encouraging development within.”

If residents later want major expansion, Miller says, they can vote to waive growth limits. But Garfield said it’s unrealistic to count on that, because such a debate would become heavily politicized.

“That’s going to be the biggest circus you’ve ever seen--hype, misinformation, emotion,” he said.

The Measure I debate comes at a tumultuous time in the city’s history, one in which it is grappling with highly sensitive racial and political issues.

White politicians here hold a 4-1 majority on the City Council, even though Latinos make up about two-thirds of the population.

The Department of Justice has taken the city to court in a showdown set for next summer, charging that the current at-large system of elections has perpetuated racial discrimination and violated the federal Voting Rights Act.

In an unusual step, Department of Justice officials went a step further and aired concerns that expansion into Adams Canyon would further dilute Latino voting power by inviting a richer, more white population into the community.

Only Councilwoman Laura Flores Espinosa, the only Latino member, agrees with the charges levied by federal investigators. Espinosa is the sole opponent of the proposed expansion.

Many citizen activists who oppose canyon expansion also have supported the Department of Justice probe and lawsuit. “If Measure I is voted down, it will add to the divisiveness of the community,” Espinosa said.

*

Tensions from the investigation have carried over into the Measure I debate.

Opponents say the initiative provides perks in Fagan Canyon for low-income housing developers and others who supported the Justice Department probe.

Supporters deny that, saying the most vocal opponents are either in real estate or are members of a so-called white power structure.

This isn’t the first time Santa Paula voters have considered a slow-growth measure.

In 1998, when most other cities in the county passed growth limits proposed by the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources campaign, voters in Santa Paula and neighboring Fillmore rejected the SOAR effort. But this spring, after the Local Agency Formation Commission dropped several guidelines from its own rule book and signed off on a key step toward Santa Paula’s expansion plans, SOAR leaders decided to make another run at a growth-control campaign.

A committee supporting both Measure I and Measure J, a similar effort in Fillmore, had raised $39,606 by late October, including a $5,000 contribution from Westlake trial lawyer Ed Masry and $12,500 from Fillmore landowner Eric Johanson.

Opponents of the Santa Paula measure have powerful supporters of their own, including the California Assn. of Realtors, which provided most of the $41,906 campaign opposing Measure I. Kay Wilson-Bolton, a former Santa Paula mayor and president of the local Realtors’ group, helped secure the funds for the opposition campaign.

“You can see why this would pass in areas that have built out their towns,” Wilson-Bolton said of SOAR initiatives. “But this is not a one-size-fits-all situation. Santa Paula and Fillmore haven’t even begun to reach their potential. They’re languishing under economic constraints already, and to tie their hands like this is just unfair.”

Miller maintains Measure I’s opponents are driven by visions of personal wealth, not concerns for the city’s existing population. “There are entire blocks contiguous with Main Street that are vacant-lot-next-to-tin-shed-next-to-burned-out-restaurant. There’s an opportunity down there. But they’re not interested in that.”