Letters to the Editor
Opinion
Published: January 28, 2000
Support Plan
Six years ago we left the San Fernando Valley behind and moved to Santa Paula, seeking a quieter, more rural life style, a city that had a future, perhaps a place to retire. We bought one of the old Victorian houses in the Historic District and began renovation. The airport was a factor in our decision and we base our airplane there.
While the economy wasn’t the greatest, we felt that Santa Paula was on the verge of a turnaround. The downtown renovation project, a major step for the city’s future, was in the planning stages, as were other proposed improvements, some of which have come to fruition.
Some three years ago we started paying more attention to the politics of Santa Paula, and were appalled at the numerous efforts being made to hold the city back. The attacks on growth weren’t necessarily from people philosophically opposed to growth, but from a core group that wanted it on their terms and to their benefit.
Even though the city already had the highest percentage of low income housing in the county and the highest population density, some people wanted even more. These groups were more interested in making all expansion of the city tied to low-income housing. When that failed, they opposed all growth, employing scare tactics to support their position.
At the recent LAFCO meeting to discuss growth, Commissioner Jim Monahan listened to speaker Jess Ornelas and then asked him what his solution to Santa Paula’s housing problem was. "Higher density," was Ornelas’ answer. HELLOO!!!!! Does anyone out there know who Ornelas is? He runs Cabrillo Development, the company that wants to build property tax exempt low income housing in our city.
Higher density is a solution? We certainly don’t think so. We can’t allow special interests to turn Santa Paula into a city of dormitories for the poor. We need to provide higher end, move-up, housing for the current and future residents of this town which will, incidentally, make available many of the less expensive homes for lower income families. We also need new moderate income houses so that families have a choice of housing options without leaving Santa Paula as they grow and prosper.
From what we’ve read in the stories in the Ventura County Star, letters, and so on, we don’t think most people have any idea what the current proposals before LAFCO are all about.
People have been panicked into believing if the sphere of influence issue passes that bulldozers will be moving down Highway 126 the next day to level the Santa Clara Valley. That’s not going to happen; when the proposed areas are included in our sphere of influence, our city will control submitted projects, approving only those that would enhance the city’s economic, social or cultural position.
Santa Paula can’t sit idle waiting for the county or state to graciously give us more money. It isn’t going to happen. We must control our own destiny and that can be accomplished by beginning the process of gaining oversight of our future. The sphere of influence merely gives Santa Paula some control over its destiny.
We urge LAFCO to approve the expansion of Santa Paula’s borders so the city and its citizens can properly plan and control the growth that the city needs. Don’t leave us without a future.
Craig & Carol Mailloux
Santa Paula
A fine attraction
To the Editor:
I am fortunate to be able to serve as a volunteer at our City-sponsored California Oil Museum. The staff and volunteers are great co-workers.
Welcoming local and far-from-local visitors is a privilege! A recent guest from Poland, retired Marine Engineer Marian Stachowictz, shared his lifelong experiences in ship building, and engineering aboard transports and ocean-going tugs, sailing into ports around the world. He came to the museum with his cousin, Nancy Lamp of Ventura.
Mr. Stachowictz expressed (in his few words of English but mostly by his attention) his interest in the displays and the videotapes. Our local history display, Teenagers in WWII, by Ed Arguelles’ Santa Paula High School Academy history class, was one of his favorites.
Thanks to the City of Santa Paula for this fine museum and visitor attraction!
Molly King
Santa Paula
Fillmore Convalescent Center
To the Editor:
At the present time, I with my family am experiencing what I feel is the most difficult time of life: age and the care of a loved one.
The role Fillmore Convalescent Center has in this difficult time is what I would like to share with you. I had always heard many outstanding comments of this facility, one very important comment being “one of the outstanding in the state.” I personally know now this is a true statement.
This facility has many dedicated individuals who take their jobs so personal. There is one individual whom I would like to commend on his outstanding performance with the work he does with the elderly - his name, Matthias Gonzales, activity director. This young man does such great work with the patients and truly deserves much credit.
To see your loved ones feeling happy, loved and wanting to enjoy another day in that “special” activity room makes one feel satisfied. Matthias with no doubt takes his job personal, and does great work with those patients. I have seen my own mother want to sing again, laugh again, and even join in on arts and crafts. Even it it’s just for a while, she feels needed and doesn’t want to miss a thing that Matthias may have scheduled.
To the administrators of Fillmore Convalescent Center, thank you for Matthias Gonzales, and I hope you continue to employ this young man and give credit where it is owed.
To Matthias Gonzales, thank you for your outstanding work with the patients at this facility.
Susie Castaneda Barajas and Family
Santa Paula
Baseball tourney a success
To the Editor:
Just recently the Santa Paula Dukes hosted their 1st Annual Winter Classic baseball tournament on January 14th-16th. Even though it’s rare to play baseball in the winter time we had a great turnout. We had a beautiful day Saturday which made it feel like baseball season. A lot of Santa Paula fans were in the bleachers cheering and supporting the two Santa Paula teams participating. This was one of the many tournaments to come in the future.
It was the first tournament that I’ve organized and it was a great success! Not much of a money maker but the kids had a great time! I do not want to take full credit in organizing this tournament. I would like to thank the following people for their support, help and guidance.
I would like to thank Lloyd Manes and Lorie Morgan. They put a lot of time preparing Richard Ruiz Field. Richard Ruiz, Hank Kornman, Ramona “Mona” Flores, Stephen Paul, Robert “Bob” Flores, Richard Ferrer and Brian Gallimore, I really want to thank you for help on Richard Ruiz Field.
Debbie Mendez, Debbie Lovio and Irma Gomez for organizing the snack bar and scheduling. These ladies worked really hard cooking, cleaning and all of the other dirty work that is done inside the snack bar. And all of the moms from the Santa Paula 12/U traveling basketball team for your help in the snack bar. Jonathan Carrillo for bracket scheduling.
I cannot forget about the men in blue, the umpires. Rey Frutos, Ruben Frutos, Marcos Valenzuela, Mario Ramirez, Mark Gallimore, George Lopez Sr., Tony Vasquez Jr., and Tony Vasquez Sr.
Richard Noriega, thank you for the baseballs. With all of their time, effort and help it made the Santa Paula Dukes’ 1st Annual Winter Classic a great success!
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the parents from the Santa Paula Dukes for their time, contribution and trust given to myself and the team. Also thanks to John and Denise Gallion of M-IV Construction for their contribution and support.
In closing I want to thank everyone for their help once again.
Eduardo “Lalo” Mota, Manager
Santa Paula Dukes
What’s happening?
To the Editor:
What’s happening to Santa Paula? Growing up here in the 70s Santa Paula had that charm and beauty I’d missed over the years. After 20 years away, I felt it necessary to leave the urban sprawl, smog, crowded schools and road raged drivers who reside in Orange and Riverside Counties and return to Santa Paula. Only six months after my return to Santa Paula I’m seeing the beginning of that which I so desperately wanted to leave.
It seems that the City of Santa Paula is planning on developing over 2,300 new homes in Fagan and Adams Canyons. The beautiful open view of the hills and orchards will be replaced with streets, houses, through traffic, noise and even more water runoff than in years past. The schools, which are so important to us as parents, will be packed to capacity. Our students will slip through the cracks because of overcrowded classrooms, inadequate facilities and emotionally exhausted teachers. The city is requiring the developers to build two schools. However, which two schools? Will they eliminate the elementary, middle or high school? Will all of the high school students attend Santa Paula High School? Will they pack Isbell? Maybe one of the elementary schools. Either way, some of our students are going to feel the effect of overcrowded schools, leaving them frustrated and hopeless when these are the years they really need our undivided attention.
Aside from our children, let’s think about ourselves and our spouses. Many of us drive out of town to our respective places of employment. I can only speak for myself, but the freeways are already overcrowded. That’s all we need is more cars, hustling and bustling during rush hour traffic. Let’s see 2,300 homes at an average of two cars per household. Well you do the math. All of this, topped with we taxpayers footing the bill for trash, water and all excess costs which occur during new development.
We need to speak up, write or attend the final LAFCO meeting on February 2nd at 9 a.m. at the Ventura County Government Center. Your voice really does count. You may live to regret not getting involved and find yourself waking up some morning in a noisy, restless, angry bedroom community stressed out because our kids aren’t getting enough attention from their teachers or us because we’re on what will become the 101 or 126 parking lot. Get involved please, and together let’s save Santa Paula.
Debi Gill
Santa Paula
Annexation opposition
To the Editor:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the City of Santa Paula’s attempts to annex Adams Canyon, northwest of the City, for the purpose of residential development. Adams Canyon, which is currently outside of the City’s sphere of influence, consists of approximately 5,413 acres of open space. If the development is allowed, approximately 7,000 people will eventually reside in Adams Canyon in 2,250 dwellings.
Although the City bureaucrats assure us that this development can occur without significant adverse economic and environmental impacts, the facts suggest otherwise. According to the City’s own statistics, this development would result in more than 20,000 automobile trips in and out of Adams Canyon each day. What is the City’s solution? Turn Foothill and Peck Roads into four lane highways, add several new stoplights and completely reconfigure several freeway onramps and City intersections. Whether these expensive changes will actually work is highly questionable. What is certain is that the taxpayers will ultimately pay for these “improvements.”
A host of other problems must also be dealt with. How will we provide fire and police protection to this remote canyon? How will we provide water service? How will we expand our already overworked sewer plant? How will we accommodate for the increased flood risk? How much will all of this cost? Who will end up paying for it? Are the solutions even attainable or feasible?
Once again, the bureaucrats assure us that they will find solutions, but they are very short on specifics. In fact, none of these questions have ever been answered. The only thing we can know for sure is that the overburdened taxpayers will end up subsidizing the developers. While the development of Adams Canyon might enrich a few well-positioned individuals, for the rest of us it would do nothing but increase the population, with the accompanying pollution, traffic, overcrowding and drain on public resources.
What the City of Santa Paula is proposing is a classic example of large scale urban sprawl - the kind of development that robs a small town of its character and, at the same time, loots the City Coffers. This is not orderly or responsible development. It is a misguided attempt to “grow” Santa Paula out of its economic problems and it is destined to fail.
Jim Procter
Santa Paula
LAFCO application
To the Editor:
As a member of “Citizens for Responsible Development” (an informal group) the undersigned wishes to clearly state that we are not a group in opposition to “everything.” On the contrary, we favor growth for Santa Paula - if it is good growth that does not result in disaster to the city and its residents. 7,000 plus acres, at one time, with so little forward planning, not even pro-forma projections, is not worth the risk. Foothill Road is considered a scenic route, favored for Sunday drives, joggers, bike-riders and not suitable to become a four lane highway.
Fagan Canyon and the land just north of Foothill, some additional 500 acres, makes good sense. Let’s see the city move ahead there; build those 600 to 800 nice homes. And remember, Adams Canyon isn’t going any place; it will still be available 10, 15, 20 years in the future if needed for development.
Richard Main
Santa Paula
Change “evil” ways
To the Editor:
Apparently Council Woman Laura Flores Espinosa feels that her fellow council members are all salt of the earth people, wonderful human beings, and just plain fun to be with. It’s just that their attitudes and decisions are evil and deplorable. They themselves aren’t “evil.”
Let’s think about this for a minute. Technically speaking, she didn’t say that “they” were “evil,” just their attitudes were “evil.” Now, I’ve already used the word “evil” four times, so you might get the impression that somebody has called somebody evil. The question is who and when did they say it?
Espinosa supporter Martha Harris wrote that the Council Woman used the word “evil” but it only referred to their attitudes. Ms. Espinosa wrote in the Times that Council Member Jim Garfield was the one that used the word “evil.” He sure did, while responding to Ms. Espinosa after her “evil and deplorable” attitudes harangue.
I sat through the entire Council and Redevelopment meeting and heard the disputed exchange and I thank Ms. Harris for her accurate report. Ms. Espinosa, on the other hand, apparently is denying that she ever used the word “evil.”
Apparently Ms. Espinosa feels that other Members don’t have the right to respond when she makes a personal attack and that she was the one who “conducted myself in a professional and courteous manner.” Sorry Ms. Espinosa, but this one is all yours. Opinions aside, credibility and integrity are everything and you are sorely lacking in both on this issue. You said it, the tape recorded it, your supporters heard it, so quit trying to blame others and take responsibility for your words.
Craig Mailloux
Santa Paula
General Plan support
To the Editor:
I would like to state my support for the Santa Paula General Plan. This is a well thought-out endeavor that was created with a great deal of input from community residents. Voter support for this general plan was twice confirmed when City voters rejected two local initiatives that would have prevented Santa Paula from enhancing its sphere of influence as part of the General Plan.
The Santa Paula General Plan is a plan with a vision, and it addresses the needs of all social-economic segments of the community. It provides for balanced housing, business parks that would attract technology and light industry facilities (jobs), and parks and recreational facilities for both the young and adult members of our city. It’s a structured plan for providing this and future generations of Santa Paula residents with jobs, housing, and the opportunity to fully participate in the American dream.
We want the opportunity to implement this plan so that we may join the other Ventura County cities that have successfully transitioned, economically and socially, into the 21st century. We want to achieve economic parity with the other cities of Ventura County. As a community, all we ask for is the opportunity to be somewhat self-determining in the evolution of our city, and to be given the opportunity to become self-sufficient, so as not to be a continuing burden or drain on the finances of Ventura County.
I urge LAFCO commissioners to support the plan to allow all Santa Paulans to reach for a better life in the 21st century.
Jim Castro
Santa Paula
We can improve
To the Editor:
Many good Santa Paulans have given impressive amounts of time and personal resources to improve our city. Our downtown and railroad depot projects are wonderful improvements. The Heritage Valley concept and Fillmore Railroad are bringing in more tourist dollars. Over 70% of our oil museum visitors are from out of town. We’re adding our third mural to our mural project. Our library and airport are wonderful resources. However, our city has serious economic problems. LAFCO approval of our Sphere of Influence request will allow Santa Paulans to address these negative factors by having some say about adjacent land use.
Site specific plans, EIR’s, new city policies and staff reviews will sort out which projects will benefit our city and which will not. No one wants negative development to happen and Santa Paulans are best able to decide these issues. Without a Sphere increase we won’t have a chance to consider expansion.
A no vote would be a terrible setback for our city and a boon to a small, vocal group with negative personal agendas.
LAFCO approval will allow Santa Paulans to do what other Ventura County cities have already done, to have space available for controlled, gradual growth over the next 20 years. I want this for all our citizens and especially for our children. If we don’t do something now we can only expect stagnation and decline. Please look at the city’s General Plan and Sphere request and you will see they both will benefit all of us. Also, the city’s new Guidelines for Annexation insure that annexation and development costs would be paid entirely by the landowner and developer and also benefit the city in additional ways.
Gerald Schmidt
Santa Paula
Opposing the plan
To the Editor:
The primary economic reason for opposing the Adams Canyon Plan is that residential developments do not, in and of themselves, pay their own way in terms of the property taxes that are collected from them...PERIOD.
To succumb to the allure of large amounts of money paid up front by developers to a city in the form of “impact fees” is tantamount to receiving a large “stake” for gambling the city’s economic future against the probability that the development will somehow precipitate the influx of business that will be necessary to offset its long term drain on the local economy.
It seems to me that the proponents of Adams Canyon are subscribing to what I call a “Field of Dreams” mentality... “Build it and they will come.”
There is a particularly telling economic indicator which has been used in studies since the 1980s that is known as the Cost of Community Services Ratio...or COCS Ratio.
This is what COCS Ratio studies have consistently come up with time after time when applied to the property taxes collected for the three general land use categories:
(1) Residential: For each tax dollar collected, $1.15 to $1.50 is required in services. This means that for each dollar collected there is a net drain on the general tax fund of $.15 to $.50.
(2) Commercial/Industrial: For each dollar collected there is a net gain for the general tax fund of $.35 to $.65.
(3) Farmland/Open Space: For each dollar collected there is a net gain for the general tax fund of $.50 to $.70.
The bottom line is that residential areas are a drain on the local tax base. This is not a blanket indictment of residential development. Obviously, people need a place to live. However, what this does mean is that residential development is financial suicide unless accompanied by commensurate tax revenues from commercial, industrial, farmland, and open space property.
In very real terms, if we apply the COCS Ratio to the original Adams proposal of 1980 houses taxed at a typical 1% rate, if we set the average home value at $500,000 and use the full range of COCS ratios, the yearly drain is about $1.5-$5 million/year. This will, in essence, result in existing businesses providing Welfare for our more affluent new neighbors.
In all fairness, it must be said that new residents do much more than simply pay taxes and demand services. Residents work, earn money, and spend much of it locally, and therefore contribute to the economic base of the community in a substantial way that is not captured in the COCS studies.
However, I think this begs the question: Will the owners of these upscale homes favor a short commute to work in Santa Paula’s primarily agricultural job market and work at such jobs as fruit picking, or will they be going elsewhere? And furthermore, will they be flocking in droves to spend their dollars in Santa Paula’s downtown area and its ever-growing 99 cent store district, or will they be going elsewhere?
The prevailing wisdom of Adams Canyon proponents as expressed by the Santa Paula City Manager is to make developers pay larger than usual impact fees to place big money in the city’s coffers and rescue Santa Paula. Unfortunately, these fees would be a “one shot deal,” but the continuing need for services would not be. This would be a temporary fix, which in the absence of new industry could necessitate more of the same type of residential development in a typical “robbing Peter to pay Paul” scenario which is all too common in construction, development, and almost all sectors of our economy, including the Federal Government.
This could force us into a vicious cycle where we would find ourselves replacing orange trees with Orange County.
John Procter
Santa Paula
Sphere-of-influence expansion
To the Editor:
I am writing this letter to urge LAFCO to support Santa Paula’s efforts to expand their sphere-of-influence. This request for expansion of sphere-of-influence comes at a very critical time for Santa Paula which, as is well known, is struggling to achieve a stronger economic base just to support essential city services such as police, fire and basic infrastructure needs.
With perhaps the exception of the City of Ojai, which has positioned itself by design as a major tourist destination resort area, no other city in Ventura County has done more to restrain expansion and growth boundaries than the City of Santa Paula. Now Santa Paula is paying for this policy as many of our citizens are forced to commute to other cities for employment and our badly needed tax dollars are spent in the more upscale shopping centers in Ventura, Camarillo and Oxnard.
As our recently completed General Plan clearly showed us, we are basically “built out.” We have no significant land space within our city limits that we could use to attract industry and commerce to provide badly needed jobs. Nor is there space to provide for much needed housing and recreation opportunities for our youth and citizens of this community.
Approval of the requested sphere-of-influence expansion is not a move toward rampant growth and loss of the small town way of life we enjoy by living here. Approval would simply give our city an opportunity to examine options, economic and otherwise, that are currently not available to us that would hopefully benefit all our citizens as we move forward into the 21st century.
Gary Nasalroad, Chairman
Santa Paula Planning Commission
Santa Paula
Treacherous location
To the Editor:
In all their discussion about the city of Santa Paula’s push to develop Adams Canyon, the proponents’ main argument is that the voters defeated the SOAR Measure in 1998, therefore giving the council the green light to expand the city. What defeated the measure was not that the voters wanted growth, but the lies that Council Members Jim Garfield and Robin Sullivan resorted to, in order to scare the public and to defeat the measure. In their ballot argument against the measure they stated “the only new housing allowed in the initiative is low and very low income housing.” There was absolutely no mention of housing in the measure.
It is truly sad that these elected officials stooped so low to deceive the public. How can the citizens of Santa Paula trust these devious council members’ plans to develop the city?
Adams Canyon is a treacherous location to develop, as the prominent members of the LAFCO Citizens Committee that was formed by then Mayor Robin Sullivan discovered, after months of extensively examining all aspects of the proposed development. The committee told the city council as much.
The city is ignoring the crucial information that their own consultants provided on the proposed project. The city simply cannot attract the industrial and commercial development needed to adequately support the development. Moreover, how many times does the city have to be told that housing does not pay for itself?
We are trusting the LAFCO Commissioners can see the great harm that would come to the city if Adams is allowed to move forward.
Robert Borrego
Santa Paula
Amazed at attitude
To the Editor:
As a proponent of the expansion of our (city of Santa Paula) sphere of influence I am amazed at the attitude of the people against it. They appear to condemn any growth. With all of their profound knowledge they have never come up with any solutions to our problem. We need the growth that the expansion will allow us.
Bill Mensing
Santa Paula
LAFCO hearing
To the Editor:
Santa Paula’s Sphere of Influence hearing for reconsideration by LAFCO was held last week. Speakers opposed to Adams Canyon clearly articulated the numerous problems associated with the mega-expansion plan. They outlined why the City of Santa Paula did not meet the Cortese Knox guidelines that all LAFCO agencies must follow. This criteria is stringent. The legislation does not support arguments such as “we need to grow” or “we are a poor city.”
The following is the criteria to be used:
1. The present and planned uses which should specifically address agriculture and open space land.
2. The present and projected needs for public services and facilities within the area.
3. The present capacity and adequacy of public services.
4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest.
In order to garner an approval, the city must offer “new and compelling” information that would convince the LAFCO commissioners to approve the plan as stated under Cortese Knox.
The information provided by the city in its “White Paper” made promises to study. The White Paper report was not new, and certainly not compelling.
The final observation I would like to comment on is regarding this newspaper’s final story on the LAFCO hearing, dated 1/14/2000. The article was well written. I question why Mr. Johnson, a city council member and editor of the city’s only local newspaper, would give the single most important issue in the last 20 years of this city’s history a small 2x2 inch lower right spot on the front page?
I encourage the public to attend the next LAFCO meeting on Wednesday, February 2nd at 9 a.m. in the Board of Supervisors hearing room at the County Government Center, 800 S. Victoria Ave. It is expected that deliberations and a final decision will be made. For additional information, please call 525-LISA (Land Issue Service Announcement).
Laura Flores Espinosa
Council Woman
Santa Paula
A sound General Plan
To the Editor:
I would personally like to thank all of the positive minded Santa Paulans who attended the January 19th LAFCO hearing.
We all have a vision for the future of Santa Paula that includes more parks for our children to play in, increased wages for our police and fire departments, and more employment opportunities for our citizens. You know the possibilities for our town, if we’re just given the room to expand and seek out projects that can benefit everyone.
I don’t believe anyone in this town wants to see Adams Canyon become another Orange County. And it won’t, because our elected officials have a sound logical general plan, one that had the input of many citizens. But we need to grow some or we will cease to be the small town that we all love. If the Sphere of Influence application is granted, it will be the first step to growing our way out of poverty.
Mary Deines
Santa Paula
Not in best interest
To the Editor:
After careful review of the issues, both pro and con, pertaining to Santa Paula’s expanded sphere of influence to include Adams Canyon, we have concluded that this would not be in the best interest of the community. We have real concerns about traffic congestion, sufficient water supply, increased run off and flooding during heavy rains, housing built on abandoned oil well sites, and increasing costs of already strained city services. We are especially concerned because the city planners and leaders in favor of expansion and development have given no concrete or factual information to allay these concerns.
We believe it is courting fiscal and ecological disaster for Santa Paula to attempt to solve its economic problems by trusting the promises of developers and taking on greater responsibilities with virtually unknown costs and consequences. How much better it would be to concentrate on listening to and cooperating with all the segments of our community to find the ways and means by which we can improve and revitalize what we already have.
Joanne and Peter Wright
Santa Paula
Scare tactics
To the Editor:
There are hysterics around town yelling that LAFCO’s approval to expand our sphere of influence will mean the destruction of our quality of life in Santa Paula. Do you really believe that developers are hiding in the citrus orchards with huge earth movers just waiting for approval so they can begin to tear down trees?
If LAFCO had previously granted approval for Santa Paula to extend its sphere of influence we may not have had a jail built on our city border, maybe our local trash dump wouldn’t have become THE trash dump for all of Ventura County. We will be able to voice a strong opinion about what will happen in our immediate area. Is that such a bad idea?
Even if LAFCO grants approval it does NOT mean that developers will have free reign to begin tearing our orchards down and building houses. ANY project will have to go through all the usual steps; go before the planning department, the planning commission, obtain permits, get an EIR (Environmental Impact Report). The public will be able to voice opinions on any project that comes up...it will not be automatic rampant development!
Don’t let a few vocal zealots mislead you with scare tactics. LAFCO’s approval of expanding our sphere of influence will benefit everyone. It will allow all of us to have more control over how Santa Paula changes and keep those changes beneficial to our quality of life.
Sunny D. Schmidt
Santa Paula
Sphere of Influence
To the Editor:
I attended the LAFCO hearing last week. I oppose expansion into Adams Canyon because of the many negative issues that were well stated at the LAFCO hearing.
I do support the Fagan Canyon area, however I have found that my grandmother’s grave would be disturbed if access to Fagan Canyon proceeds through Cemetery Road as proposed in the City’s Sphere of Influence application. Obviously, if this happened the grave site would be moved. Even taking that into account, that situation is unacceptable. My grandmother led an honorable life. I admired her for her inner strength and moral courage. I cannot let anyone dishonor her memory by moving her grave.
There are several things that bother me about the proposed increase of the Sphere of Influence, but this one I hold closest. I would like to quote from the city of Santa Paula’s White Paper report on the Sphere of Influence, page 7, regarding access into Fagan Canyon. “The General Plan shows as many as eight local streets connecting from the existing city street system. Cemetery Road, in the canyon bottom, will be the most important of these routes, connecting directly to Santa Paula Street.”
On Christmas Day while visiting my grandmother Luz Maria Espinosa’s grave site, an event of remembrance our family does traditionally practice throughout the year, it occurred to me that her grave site is located directly in the path of Cemetery Road.
I know, in weighing all the facts on this application, this may seem like a minor fact, but this is just one of many reasons why I request LAFCO deny the City of Santa Paula’s application.
Chris Espinosa
Santa Paula
Troubled economy
To the Editor:
One does not need to be an expert on land use or urban planning to see the direction Santa Paula has gone in the past 30 years. The city’s economy is in trouble and will not recover under present conditions. Unfortunately, we have no crystal ball to see what course must be taken. Our best bet is to make reasonable guesses based on the information before us.
Clearly, the course we have followed has not worked. Our low-income housing has reached proportions where the city cannot afford the services required. The revenue is simply not to be had under present conditions. Those who would cling to the status quo ignore the undeniable fact that there is no status quo. Change inevitably takes place whether we help it along or not. Its present course appears aimed at a bleak future for Santa Paula. Our general plan was designed to nudge that course into a more favorable direction.
Expanding our sphere of influence to include our canyons would not be tantamount to paving over prime agricultural land nor would their eventual development threaten the dreams of those who view our valley as simply an agricultural theme park. The fruitful fields would still be here for Sunday outings. Any future development would be subject to all the safeguards assuring control and responsibility. Even the worst outcome opponents of expansion can conjure up cannot compare with the dismal future our town faces if we do nothing.
It troubles me that in trying to get a balanced picture of the arguments pro and con, the main thrust of opposition is from one low-income housing developer whose interest seems not only self-serving, but short-term and unconcerned about the town’s economic survival. The proponents, on the other hand, present a large array of positive, forward-looking considerations.
Santa Paula is already providing much more than its fair share of affordable housing to Ventura County. If we are expected to continue accommodating this trend, we must have room to expand and a tax base to support services. We need to balance our economy with a better balance of affordable people. Expanding our sphere of influence would be the first step to accomplishing this.
Bill Glenn
Santa Paula
A rude awakening
To the Editor:
If you think that being four times bigger will make Santa Paula a better place to live, you’re in for a rude awakening. Wait until you find yourself fighting your way through increased traffic caused by 98,000 more cars and trucks on your streets. How about waking up one morning in your Peck Road home to discover a 12 foot, graffiti covered sound wall in your back yard instead of sunsets over greenbelt orchards. The wall will be needed to dull the 63.5db roar of 26,000 cars and trucks on the new four lane highway into Adams Canyon.
Your city government is saying growth is needed to pay for services. When the bills hit your mailbox it will be too late to complain about having to subsidize your rich new neighbors in Adams Canyon by paying over 60% of the costs of treating their sewage, providing water and other services. Look at the numbers. 2,500 homes in Adams means 10,000 people. Does anyone seriously believe that those 10,000 people will be paying the bills for their 30,000 poorer cousins downtown?
Paving over prime farmland is incredibly stupid. We will wake up one day and realize that we have decimated our agriculture and we will be the ones that can’t feed our children. The city says they are diverting development away from prime farmland. LAFCO was created by the legislature to divert development away from prime farmland. Claims of doing so are ludicrous when one sees that all West Area 2 is prime farmland.
Fagan Canyon has far less opposition. It has many parcels already zoned (RE-1) for single family homes. It is much closer to town with connecting city streets and services. LAFCO should approve amending Santa Paula’s sphere of influence to include Fagan Canyon and part of the hillside facing the valley with ocean views. That will provide enough room for the city to grow about twice its current size.
Urge Ventura LAFCO to approve Fagan and East Area 2 and reject Adams and West Area 2. Send LAFCO your comments in writing before they deliberate. If this is important to you, then attend the hearing at 9 a.m. February 2 at the Ventura Government Center to show your concern.
Ken Chapman
Santa Paula
Working for change
To the Editor:
I wrote an article for another County newspaper on the history of our General Plan process and how we chose to put development into the least productive agricultural land - that in the canyons to the north and west of the city. Their editorial staff blasted me for my “poor mouthing” Santa Paula. I wasn’t poor mouthing, I was being factual. They indicated that we should just follow Fillmore’s lead. I don’t know if they meant we should have an earthquake or what.
At the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) hearing one of the local people who spoke out against any development in Adams Canyon was asked what was his solution to the low income housing problem. He finally responded that the solution was that the City Council needed to vote for higher densities. We already have the highest density of any town in the County. I have read that social ills are not solved, and indeed can be worse, when we increase the density of our housing.
We are working hard to change things. Change is not easy and there are those who oppose change in any form. There were two SOAR type initiatives on the ballot in the election of November, 1998. Both of these measures were resoundingly defeated by the voters. The message is clear that Santa Paula needs and wants to grow.
The 1998 General Plan was adopted after several years of study and community involvement. The plan recognizes a need for room to grow and it directs that growth towards the least productive agricultural land.
With the approval of the Sphere of Influence we will be able to develop plans that will address the pressing need for commercial and industrial sites along the Highway 126 corridor to the east and to the west of the community. These sites, when developed, will give opportunities to our underemployed and our unemployed. One of these sites, West Area 2, has historic flooding problems when Adams Canyon runoff spreads and backs up at the freeway. To cure this problem we need to channel from Adams Canyon to the Freeway to get the water flowing in a straight path to go under the viaduct under the freeway.
The City Council is well aware that the growth must be done in the best possible way to assure that the current residents are not burdened with the new development. In this regard, the Council has already given approval to conceptual plans for impact fees for Water Capital Facilities, Water Resources, Sewer Capital Facilities, Transportation Capital Facilities, Park and Recreation Capital Facilities and General Services Capital Facilities. These will assure that each project pays its appropriate share of capital costs.
I hope that those opposed don’t just say they don’t like this plan. One would hope that they would offer a viable, well thought out alternative. I haven’t heard one yet. Higher density housing does nothing to solve the real problems that we have.
Jim Garfield
Santa Paula
Say NO to Adams Canyon
To the Editor:
To the proponents of urban sprawl, who want to develop Adams Canyon and triple the size of our city, let me say to you: it will not pay for itself!
First, it will not pay for itself as explained in the city’s White Report submitted to LAFCO. The city identifies various new taxes the developers and existing residents will be required to pay in order for the expansion to occur. These include a water capital facility fee; a water resource fee; a sewer capital facility fee; a transportation capital facility fee; a drainage capital facility fee; a park, recreation and community service capital facility fee; and a general service capital facility fee.
Those new taxes can only be considered welfare for the rich. They will be used to subsidize the development of Adams Canyon and merely for the benefit of the future residents of the luxury houses. This means Adams Canyon will be developed at the expense of the existing residents.
Secondly, it will not pay for itself when you take into consideration the amount of services required to serve an maintain the expansion. Highly reputable studies say urban sprawl does not pay for itself. Over time, the city will pay more than it receives in services.
Let’s take police and fire needs as two examples of how Adams Canyon will not pay for itself and over time will provide a lesser quality of life: $1,200,000 in fire and police services, $1,030,000 in property taxes to finance the cost of services. This means the existing residents would subsidize fire and police services for Adams Canyon on a yearly basis of $170,000. This is only for fire and police. What of the cost for other city services and facilities? Who will pay for them?
And, thirdly, it will not pay for itself because it detracts from the quality of life. Why would you want to give up beautiful scenery, good air quality, low to moderate traffic, a rural atmosphere, and sufficient water and essential services? Why would you want increased air pollution; increased vehicle congestion; loss of prime agricultural lands and open space, loss of agricultural jobs; deterioration of the Santa Clara River; depletion of water resources; loss of scenic Foothill Road to a four lane highway; and loss of wildlife habitat?
Not only will development of Adams Canyon not pay for itself, it also will not alleviate the existing city needs for housing, jobs, and public safety.
The said reality is that Adams Canyon is welfare for the rich, at the expense of the existing residents. Developing Adams Canyon will not assist us with our needs for housing, jobs, and public safety. Developing Adams Canyon will not provide us with financial benefit; in fact it will not pay for itself and, over time, will require more in services than it contributes in taxes.
In closing, I ask the residents of Santa Paula to call the LAFCO Commissioners and ask them to save us from the urban sprawl proposed by the majority on the Council. Ask them to deny the city’s request for Adams Canyon because it represents urban sprawl, destroys open space and prime agricultural lands, it harms our water resources, and lacks the fiscal resources to support the public services and facilities required for development.
Jesse R. Ornelas
Santa Paula
Support Santa Paula
To the Editor:
I support the Adams Canyon expansion. I support Santa Paula, and have a desire to help Santa Paula in any way I can that is positive. I am upset by the untruths and half-truths of many of the opposition in an attempt to mislead the public. They delight in seeing the looks on the faces of the public when they make these misstatements.
We have lived in Santa Paula for 24 years and, believe me, Santa Paula has changed radically in those 24 years. The population has increased by approximately 10,000, but other things in the city have not kept up with that change.
Our greatest problem at this time is money for city employees, including Police and Fire. We are losing or have lost many of our city employees. We need money for improving our city. Many of our streets almost shake our cars apart as we drive over them. We need improvements to our schools and parks for our children.
We need to attract business to Santa Paula, but in order to do that we must have a place for them. At the present time there basically is no place in the city for businesses to come. We have missed out on several opportunities of businesses that wanted to move to Santa Paula, but could not locate anyplace within the city, so they went elsewhere.
We drastically need to push out our city boundaries and increase our sphere of influence. We are the smallest city, by area, and the poorest. We need to be able to hold our heads up with pride, because our city is the best, regardless of size or money. The only way we can do that is by increasing our size somewhat, our sphere of influence and our tax base. This in turn will help us to grow slowly and be able to take care of our obligations in our city. We can still maintain our small town charm and accomplish these things.
Alice Mensing
Santa Paula
Say NO to Adams Canyon
To the Editor:
To the proponents of urban sprawl, who want to triple the size of the city, let me say to you: it will not pay for itself.
First, it will not pay for itself, as explained in the city’s White Report submitted to LAFCO. The city identifies various new taxes the developers and existing residents will be required to pay in order for the expansion to occur.
While the city has yet to identify all the fees, the city estimates it will cost a combined $36 million in new taxes to improve/expand the sewer system, and for new water facilities. The City has determined the developers will be charged $18.3, and the existing residents will be charged $17.7 million as their share of the cost. How many more millions are yet to be identified and requested of the existing residents?
Secondly, it will not pay for itself, when you take into consideration the amount of services required to serve and maintain the expansion. Highly reputable studies say urban sprawl does not pay for itself. Where, then, is the benefit to the city?
Let’s take police and fire needs as two examples of how Adams Canyon will not pay for itself.
Police: Using the current one officer per 1,080 residents ratio, the city will require up to seven officers to service the development in Adams Canyon. Accounting for staff, and for operations and maintenance of the building, it would take $650,000 yearly to operate the police station in Adams Canyon.
Fire Services: It will take seven fire personnel to staff the new station in Adams Canyon. Accounting for staff, for maintenance and operation of the building and equipment, it would take $550,000 yearly to operate the fire station in Adams Canyon.
The cumulative total for fire and police services amounts to $1,200,000 per year.
Let’s say half of the luxury houses and all the rental housing proposed in Adams Canyon are built in the first year.
Taxes from the 930 (half of the total) luxury houses with appraised values of $500,000 each would amount to (1% x $500,000 x 990) $990,000. Remember, only 20% of the property tax amount is returned to the city. Taxes from the 270 apartments would generate another $40,000 ($20,000,000 appraised value at 1%).
The property taxes from Adams Canyon come to $1,030,000 per year.
Do the math: $1,200,000 in fire and police services, $1,030,000 in property taxes to finance the cost of services. This means the existing residents would subsidize fire and police services for Adams Canyon residents on a yearly basis by $170,000. And we haven’t yet paid for the construction of the stations or factored in the cost of police cars and fire trucks.
And, thirdly, it will not pay for itself, because it detracts from the quality of life. Why would you want to give up beautiful scenery, good air quality, low to moderate traffic, a rural atmosphere, and sufficient water and essential services? Why would you want increased air pollution; increased vehicle congestion; loss of prime agricultural lands and open space, loss of agricultural jobs; deterioration of the Santa Clara River; depletion of water resources; loss of scenic Foothill Road to a four lane highway; and loss of wildlife habitat?
The development of Adams Canyon will not pay for itself, and it will not alleviate the existing city needs for housing, jobs, and public safety.
Our children and grandchildren will have to move to Bakersfield or to other far away communities to find affordable homes to purchase.
Renter households will continue to experience rising rents and overcrowding due to a shortage of vacancies.
In closing, I ask the residents of Santa Paula to call the LAFCO Commissioners and ask them to save us from the urban sprawl proposed by the majority on the Council. Ask them to deny Adams Canyon because the said reality is that Adams Canyon is welfare for the rich, at the expense of the existing residents.
Jesse R. Ornelas
Santa Paula
|
