Delton Johnson has a large amount of common sense. In his letter, Delton recommends waiting until Limoneira is finished in order to understand all the impacts of new development especially on our water and traffic before approving more. That is why tonight we are asking that the council put a future agenda item to discuss a moratorium on any project that falls under L-6 guidelines.
Here is what we propose.
A five year moratorium on all projects that trigger the L-6 guidelines.
If the property is over 80 acres and the developers want to increase the density of the general plan, L-6 is triggered. Any project that triggers L-6 would have a 5-year moratorium. Dickenson Canyon would trigger an L-6 moratorium because it increases density up to 1,900 units, instead of 450 units per the general plan.
Dickenson Canyon would not be prevented from building 450 units as a total project. However, If 450 are built, Dickenson Canyon would be subject to the “piecemeal clause” of L-6 which says that should the 450 units be built, additional future units would trigger L-6 again. You can’t just keep having 450 unit projects until you reach 1,900 units.
Larry Sagely and I hope that the council will have cool heads that prevail and use Delton’s common sense advice. A moratorium is the common sense answer. We need to stay on track and not be sidetracked by a traffic intensive development that was already rejected by the voters. We hope that the council will put an L-6 moratorium on a future council meeting agenda.
John Wisda
Santa Paula
The wrong solution
To the Editor:
It was disappointing to see that a Special City Council Meeting was held Monday July 12th to bring back an item the council rejected just last month because some of the City Administration and Mayor Tovias did not agree with the majority vote. Equally disappointing was seeing the council vote on the item again even though Councilman Fernandez, who voted against the item last month, was absent.
While the discussion was going on about if the city should or should not go out for Request for Proposals (RFPs) for refuse service, Mayor Tovias posed the question “What are we going to do in a few months if we have another $400,000 shortfall?” This was in response to Councilman Aguirre stating his opposition to the proposal. While I agree that is a difficult question to answer, getting RFPs and contracting out Refuse services is not the solution. The Refuse department is self sufficient and operates in the black. If you eliminate that department, you will still be $400,000 short. In fact, since Refuse helps fund several other services within the city, including office staff and mechanics, privatizing Refuse may even INCREASE the shortfall due to those positions needing funding from another source. Even with franchise fees, the consultant’s report stated it will take seven years for the city to realize a positive cash flow if refuse services are privatized. The city will also lose control on the rates the citizens pay. Privatizing a self sufficient department will not provide a positive impact on the budget now or in the near future, but will be a drain in comparison to today.
It also is going to be very difficult to analyze the RFPs when comparing them to the service that is provided now. It was stated in public comment that Santa Paula has the second highest refuse rates in the county. But we are the only city that provides a free second pick up, 2 large item pick ups a year, plus the several community drop off events each year. In fact residents are not limited to how many loads they bring to the drop off event, some making more than a few trips. It was also incorrectly stated that all the other cities are privatized. Both the Cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme successfully provide municipal refuse services for their citizens. Several other cities never have provided refuse services since their incorporation. Also not every private refuse company is unionized so we don’t know equal wages for our current employees could be guaranteed.
While I understand the difficulty with balancing the budget in these tough times, setting aim on a department that is self sufficient, provides excellent customer service and is not a drain on the budget is ridiculous and irresponsible. The passion expressed by a few city staff and council members about approving this item is suspect and does raise concern. Other options must be looked at to close future budget gaps.
Roger Brooks
Santa Paula
Why Fagan (Dickenson) Canyon?
To the Editor:
The infamous Fagan Canyon project (think Centex a couple of years ago) is rising from the ashes and is being reborn as Dickenson Canyon Ranch, but it is basically the same concept, give or take a couple of hundred homes (now 1,900) as opposed to the earlier 2200 plus homes and town homes. The Centex project was defeated by the voters by a comfortable margin. Its defeat was primarily due to the excessive amount of traffic that it would generate, as well as other environmental and financial (for the city) issues. The opposition to the Fagan project won both an initiative and a referendum battle at the polling place, and also prevailed in two court cases. Very little about the project has changed, and virtually nothing about the Canyon, by whatever name, has changed; it still has very poor access and egress to the freeway. There have been a couple of excellent letters to the Editor in the past few weeks on the subject by Delton Johnson (July 2nd) and by Richard Main (June 21st). Go to the Santa Paula Times office or go to Santa Paula Times on the internet and look at both letters to the Editor; they are well worth reading. These letters reminded us that when Fagan (or Dickenson, if you prefer) was brought into the city “curb line,” most voters thought that it was done based on 450 homes, that being the number in the General Plan. The number of 450 is not an arbitrary number, but rather one that was derived from a study done by Rincon Associates, which was commissioned by the city to make a recommendation. That study dealt with the topography, geology, drainage and access, all factors equally important today.
What you will hear in the near future is that the landowners have done a survey, and that the majority of people in Santa Paula want the project to go forward with 1900 homes. Remember that Centex did multiple surveys that concluded the same thing, but the voters did not follow what the poll had indicated when the day to vote came down - and many believe the same result would ensue today and tomorrow. You will also likely hear, as we did last time, that a traffic study has been done and that a few humps, bumps and traffic lights will improve our traffic with an additional 1,900 homes over what it is today - phooey! I have lived in Santa Paula for about a decade and find that we have very nice and reasonable people. I would encourage the landowners to get creative and reconfigure the project to meet their needs as well as the needs of the community. We could use senior housing, an upscale development, something along the line of what was planned in Adams Canyon would fit nicely, possibly a resort of some kind, or any number of other “think outside the box” possibilities, but we don’t need a massive number of cookie cutter homes jammed full of people and overflowing with cars, trucks and the usual service vehicles. Just saying a better or smaller development won’t pencil out is just another excuse for wanting to eat the whole apple without regard to current residents’ lifestyles and property values. Dickenson Ranch is a perfect location to demonstrate ingenuity and to work with the community. With East Area One having been approved by the voters with 1,500 homes plus stores and offices, and the current depressed condition of the economy, the question remains: why Fagan (Dickenson) Canyon, and especially why at this time?
Larry S. Sagely
Santa Paula
