CON: SANTA CLARITA COUNCIL TOO ANTI-CITIZEN TO TRUST.

Byline: Isaac Lieberman

The Santa Clarita Valley is growing too fast.

Last year, I started going to Santa Clarita City Council meetings to urge active opposition to the rapid growth that was quickly destroying our quality of life. Although the council was cordial, as a whole its members were not helpful. They threw up their hands and plaintively complained it was Los Angeles County, not the city, that was responsible for the destruction.

But during a meeting I watched from home about a year ago, the council took a vote that was shocking to me. They voted 4 to 1 to visit the site of a proposed housing project of 1,900 units called North Valencia 2, near McBean Parkway and Decoro Drive, and to stop hearing public comment on that project.

I couldn't believe my ears, so I went to City Hall to see if I had understood what just happened. I wasn't mistaken. The lone dissenting vote was Jill Klajic's, and although at a meeting later Jan Heidt joined with Jill in trying to reopen hearings on the project, the rest of the council opposed.

The city of Santa Clarita is requesting a sphere of influence forthe Santa Clarita Valley. Theoretically, this is a no-brainer. Thecity formed in 1987, largely to attempt to get a handle on growththroughout the valley. Many people felt at the time, as they do now,that an unholy alliance between the developers and county Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich was depriving residents of any significant input into the planning process and allowing Newhall Land - essentially one resident and a corporate one at that - to do whatever it wanted without significant regard to the effects on its neighbors and without being required to pay an appropriate amount to cover infrastructure needs of their developments.

So, the city was formed. It would have been appropriate for the city tohave some official say in what was happening in the valley beyond itsstrict limits - a sphere of influence. Unfortunately, these samedevelopers were able to stack the City Council with a majority ofmembers who were ever-so-friendly to their financial interests. TheCity Council has been pro-developer and anti-citizen since thebeginning.

In Tuesday's election, there was a measure on the ballot, Measure A,offering hope that we will regain control of our valley from Antonovich, who has served as our county supervisor for some 20 years. The measure would increase the number of supervisors, giving us the opportunity to elect someone who represents us, rather than 2 million people from the San Fernando Valley.

Unfortunately, Measure A did not pass on Tuesday, which puts us in adifficult position. Given the 13-year history of our city, thelikelihood of getting proper pro-citizen majority representation onthe City Council seems remote. But the likelihood of getting apro-citizen county supervisor is even more remote.

The county has a number of features that should help mitigate theimpacts of development. There are the Significant Ecological Area designations for certain regions, and there is a Develop MonitoringSystem. The city, although it has a hillside ordinance, doesn'thave comparable protections. It should. Because of this, and becauseof our unanimously pro-developer, anti-citizen City Council, I cannotsupport a sphere of influence at this time.