Fagan Cyn. critics, supporter address proposed development
By Peggy Kelly
Santa Paula City Council
Published: February 25, 2005
The City Council again heard from a Fagan Canyon development critic who asked that voters have a chance to cast ballots on the number of homes in the canyon and to allow a new political action committee to give a presentation at a council meeting.
By Peggy Kelly
Santa Paula Times
The City Council again heard from a Fagan Canyon development critic who asked that voters have a chance to cast ballots on the number of homes in the canyon and to allow a new political action committee to give a presentation at a council meeting. During public comment, John Wisda of We CARE (Citizens Advocating Responsible Government) asked “Why, why is it so difficult for the council to listen to the people?” about the proposed 2,150 home development proposed by Centex Homes.
Wisda noted that the recent Fagan Canyon workshop did not allow for real discussion or public input. He asked that We CARE be allowed to put two items on the council agenda. Wisda said that one item would seek a public vote on whether or not to keep Fagan Canyon development to the General Plan number of 450 homes, and the other item would be to allow We CARE to oversee a Power Point presentation of a “downscaled project.”
“I will submit this one more time to be put on the agenda,” said Wisda. But, he noted, “The main reason I’m here tonight is to give a no-confidence vote in the consultants,” RBF Consulting, which is overseeing the environmental impact review of the proposed project.
Wisda said that since Centex Homes is reimbursing the city for the study’s costs, the relationship represents a conflict-of-interest. RBF Consulting is “clearly biased with their own agenda,” Wisda said.
When voters imposed the CURB through Measure L it only passed by 10 percent, and if the number of homes in Fagan Canyon had been 2,500 in the General Plan voters would have rejected the measure, Wisda said. In addition, a “balanced” view of the project is not being presented through the workshop format, said Wisda. Only when the issues are aired “fairly, ultimately” development in Fagan Canyon can be “embraced by the entire community,” Wisda noted.
Ralph Fernandez agreed and asked if the council should not also be looking at the General Plan’s 450 homes in the canyon. Fagan Canyon is “not the only development on the horizon,” with Limoneira Co. proposing development in East Area 1, Fernandez noted. “What would be the total number of homes if both projects were approved?” Fernandez said he is supportive of growth in the city, but quality of life – including canyon fire hazards - must also be considered.
John Chamberlain, a member of the city’s Economic Development Advisory Committee and director of the Chamber of Commerce as well as the Heritage Valley Tourism Bureau, told the council that he and others support the proposed development. “A lot of people out there support Fagan Canyon…I know you have a really hard job to do when you hear only one side of the story,” Chamberlain noted.
“I’ve lived here eight years,” and have observed the city’s struggle for economic vitality, he added. “Let’s look at this from the overview of a lot of people out there that do support this development…there was a community-wide charrette process” that utilized the input of hundreds of citizens who helped craft the proposed project.
Later in the meeting Mayor Mary Ann Krause asked that the council consider an agenda item to discuss appropriateness of a We CARE presentation. City Attorney Karl Berger’s suggestion that he study the issue and return with a report was accepted by the council.
|
