Split LAFCo vote keeps Adams, Fagan
canyons in SP’s sphere-of-influence
Published:  September 18, 2015

After an almost three-hour hearing a split vote by LAFCo (Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission) kept Adams and Fagan canyons in the city’s sphere-of-influence, but the clock is still ticking on finalizing development plans.

The 4-3 vote at the September 16 hearing at the Ventura County Government Center was witnessed by city elected officials and staff with only a few members of the public — both for and against the proposed move by LAFCo — as well as those representing Adams Canyon interests were in the audience. 

At issue was an apparent bid by a state agency to shrink the city’s sphere-of-influence by removing two canyons long targeted for future growth.

LAFCo is the state agency with local commissioners that controls urban boundaries that last considered Santa Paula’s expansion areas in 2013.

The reconsideration of the sphere-of-influence caught city officials by surprise, as they expected no further consideration on the boundaries of Adams and Fagan canyons for more than two years based on LAFCo’s own timeline. 

In addition, several speakers told LAFCo Wednesday, when the commission deadlocked on the 2013 vote, then Commissioner Supervisor Kathy Long noted “See you in five years…”

Kai Luoma, LAFCo executive officer, gave an overview of LAFCo and the history of the Santa Paula canyons, noting that with voter approval of a boundary acreage approved for development dwarfed the city’s total area and making the city “the only one with more unincorporated land than incorporated” property.

The county’s General Plan shows that the canyons have 6,600 acres of open space and 1,000 acres of agriculture but the city’s General Plan has the 10.3 square mile Adams Canyon  slated for 495 custom homes, a golf course and 300 acres of open space. Fagan Canyon’s 2,173 acres is planned to have 450 homes, commercial space and 220 acres of parks and open space.

The city said Luoma, has not adopted any land-use plans and has not complied with General Plan law.

The issue of the city’s sphere he added was prompted by a 79-home development long planned for Peck and Foothill roads going through the approval process.

The city’s 1997 General Plan did not show growth north of the city but a 1998 update identified the canyons for development at that time with Adams planned for 2,500 residences, hotels and golf courses.

LAFCo only approved Fagan Canyon for the expansion area and the city created a  White Paper report arguing its case for Adams’ development. 

Although voters approved a CURB (City Urban Restriction Boundary lines) in 2000, Luoma said LAFCo “is not subject to the CURBS” and such votes have “no force or effect in unincorporated areas…”

There have been several ballot initiatives relating to growth in the canyons and on its third try development was approved in Adams, a measure that Luoma said expanded the property boundary by 1,000 acres.

Several LAFCo Commissioners had questions with Mary Anne Rooney of the Oxnard Harbor District noting, “Isn’t the city updating its General Plan?”

Luoma said the process has barely started with selecting a consultant. 

Rooney also asked about contact between the city and LAFCo and Commissioner Bruce Dandy of United Water Conservation District said, “We did have a meeting but the meeting was cut short by City Manager Jaime Fontes…”

Dandy noted he brought the issue of reviewing the canyons up at the March 18 LAFCo meeting.

According to the minutes from that meeting Dandy said he was unable to attend the April hearing and he requested that the issue be brought back at the May 20 session. That meeting was continued due to a city request.

Supervisor Linda Parks said, “It took an off year election” for voters to finally approve Adams Canyon development on the third try.

Luoma noted that LAFCo must make determinations on growth based on several factors including avoiding urban sprawl and municipal services that he said are lacking for Adams Canyon. 

“Planned orderly and efficient development,” is the LAFCo watchword and he noted Limoneira East Area 1 and 2 are slated for development.

Following a question from Dandy, Luoma confirmed that a switch of sorts had been proposed in 2013 when LAFCo approved the Limoneira development and suggested that Adams be removed from the sphere.

Rooney asked a series of questions ranging from voter expectations to costs to LAFCo and the city, which she described as “vague” in the agency’s handbook. 

“I did not ask for this,” said Luoma, “the commission did…”

For the most part public speakers kept it brief with Mayor John Procter noting, “We were told see you in five years, that was our expectation.” The city is planning an extensive General Plan update including public input to “create something good” for the city, and Procter said he believed “there would be some synchronicity here,” with the LAFCo review and General Plan update.

The update said City Councilwoman Ginger Gherardi is an expense the city can ill afford and LAFCo will be a part of the process. 

In addition, the city’s wastewater treatment plant was built to be able to serve both canyons and “we’re paying for that every month…the public has clearly spoken,” for canyon development.

Changes she noted, would be “telling the public that every vote counts…except in Ventura County. It’s an issue of trust.”

“How many voted?” asked Lou Cunningham, a public member and LAFCo chairman, who noted there are elections where many don’t bother to vote.

Removing the canyons Dandy noted is “not stopping you” and the city could still plan for future growth.

Gherardi said she did not agree: “We’re asking just let us get on with governing our community…”

Councilman Jim Tovias said Parks gave the impression that the Adams Canyon proponents “wore people down” and he gave a history of the votes including the final effort that included Steve Smead and then City Councilman Bob Gonzales.

That measure he noted received 62 percent of the vote and the project could bring millions to city coffers.

Supervisor John Zaragoza said the panel “respects what the voters have done but we have to put our LAFCo hats on,” when considering the issue.

Santa Paula Chamber of Commerce President-CEO Fred Robinson said the city loses $1.8 million in sales tax each year and he noted the proposed growth areas do not impact agriculture. 

“It’s what the no growth people told us — build in the canyons!” he added.

Bob Gonzales told the panel it was not being “fair” to Santa Paula, which needs development that was delayed by the Great Recession.

John Wisda urged the panel consider water: “Adams and Fagan canyons are big water catchers,” that replenish the aquifers.

Although his group We Care created the CURB adopted by voters, Wisda said, “There is no water to support these projects…”

Remarks by Sandy Smith representing Adams’ owners about slopes and other challenges that would limit where development could take place in the canyon was asked by Cunningham, “What about Indian burial grounds?”

“Even if you dig in Downtown Ventura,” said Smith such a study would have to be done.

“For now the highest and best use for both canyons is green space,” said Delton Lee Johnson, but if the council commits to present development plans it would be workable.

CoLAB VC (Coalition of Labor Agriculture and Business) Executive Director Lynn Jensen brought the sharpest reaction when she questioned whether commissioners also serving on the SOAR (Save Open-Space and Agricultural Resources) board should consider the issue.

“If LAFCo changes the boundaries,” it is to SOAR’s — returning to the polls in 2016 to reaffirm no growth areas — advantage.

SOAR she added, “Has taken a stance” against the canyons showing them as “at risk” on its website.

Jensen also asked that commissioners consider filming meetings that could be accessible on the LAFCo website.

The LAFCo attorney said a conflict would only exist if there were a financial component.

Whether meeting the legal definition or not, “Two LAFCo commissioners are on the SOAR board,” which Jensen said is an “ethical” issue.

Dandy sharply criticized Jensen’s remarks and noted he does not serve on the SOAR board. 

Commissioner and Oxnard City Councilwoman Carmen Ramirez said although she has concern  the city should be given the opportunity to later return to LAFCo.

Zaragoza agreed noting the city was embarking on a General Plan update: “What also changed my mind is that 80 percent of Adams Canyon will be left open space,” he noted.

“What’s most important to me,” said Commissioner and Moorpark City Councilwoman Janice Parvin, “is ‘We the People’ ” that voted for expansion.

Ramirez, Rooney, Parvin and Zaragoza voted yes on the motion to let the canyons remain in the city’s sphere-of-influence; Dandy, Cunningham and Parks voted no. 

“It makes sense to me,” said Procter after the vote. “There’s no rush…”

Said Gherardi, “I’m glad we are able to continue the proper planning,” for future growth.

“It’s a good day for Santa Paula,” said Connie Tushla of the Chamber of Commerce and Chair of the city’s Citizens Economic Advisory Board. 




Site Search

E-Subscribe

Subscribe

E-SUBSCRIBE
Call 805 525 1890 to receive the entire paper early. $50.00 for one year.

webmaster