Dairies or Developers? San Bernardino Board Must Make the Choice

Pressure is building on San Bernardino County officials to break up the 17,000-acre “dairylands” agricultural preserve, southeast of Chino, for real estate development.

The preserve, which contains more than 200 dairies and 200,000 cows and produces much of Southern California’s milk supply, is one of the largest tracts of undeveloped acreage close to Los Angeles and Orange counties. As such, it brings a glint to the eye of real estate brokers and speculators and to some property owners in the area.

Last month, more than 80% of the landowners in the northernmost 20% of the preserve petitioned the San Bernardino County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to disestablish that part of the agricultural preserve.

Terminate Contracts

This would enable the property owners to terminate their contracts under the state’s Williamson Act--legislation that provides a tax break in return for the owners’ promise to maintain the land for agricultural purposes--and then sell to developers. County officials and dairy farmers agree that if the preserve’s northern tier is developed, the demise of the entire preserve would inevitably follow before long.

In another petition, the property owners have asked to be annexed by the City of Ontario. The city, now running short of land for residential and commercial development, is eager to oblige.

“We have the right to sell our land for the highest and best use; that’s the American way,” argued Broer Vander Dussen, who operates two dairies in the preserve and also sells dairy real estate. “Hey, this is still a democracy. A majority of the people have spoken and said what they want.”

Others do not agree.

“There is such a thing as the rights of the public, in addition to rights of property owners,” said Joseph D’Iorio, a developer with projects in Orange County and in the city of Fontana.

The landowners who want to break up the agricultural preserve are displaying “an extraordinarily selfish attitude that ultimately results in piecemeal development of low quality,” D’Iorio said.

10 More Years Urged

In a recent report, county planners argued that the preserve should be maintained for at least 10 years because dairies are the county’s second-biggest business and cannot be located elsewhere; because the preserve provides an open space buffer in the rapidly urbanizing western end of San Bernardino County, and because plenty of land is available in other west county locations for housing developments.

The Planning Commission has been holding hearings on the issue, and its members recently toured the dairylands by bus. On Thursday, they are expected to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, which will make the final decision.

Dairy operators are divided. In a 1981 county survey, 65% of them said they wanted to stay in the preserve, but this dipped to 55% in a 1984 survey.

Many owners of older dairies with antiquated facilities would like to sell, especially in light of rumors that land for residential and commercial development at the northern end of the preserve might be worth $80,000 per acre or more.

Jennie DeBoer, who, with her husband, Fred, operates a large, modern, profitable dairy on Riverside Drive along the northern edge of the preserve, nonetheless wants the right to sell.

“If a developer comes along and offers you a big price, why would you want to stay?” Jennie DeBoer asked. “I feel it’s not democratic to lock us in for 10 years because somebody who doesn’t even live here wrote that in a report.”

Incompatibility Cited

She said there is growing incompatibility between the dairies and nearby housing developments in the northern part of the preserve because of the odors, insect problems and noise created by dairy operations.

Or, as Vander Dussen put it: “A dairy is a dairy; it doesn’t smell like a rose.”

Vander Dussen, DeBoer and others who signed the petition are asking for an end to the preserve status that was created by the county in 1968 for 3,300 acres bounded by Euclid Avenue on the west, Archibald Avenue on the east, Riverside Drive on the north and Schaefer Avenue on the south.

This would enable property owners to terminate their contracts under the state’s Williamson Act and make their land available for development.

Under terms of the 1965 legislation, which seeks to preserve California farmland and also control suburban sprawl, landowners enter into contracts with local governments in which they agree to restrict their land to agricultural use for 10 years. In return, they are taxed on agricultural-use value, rather than the value of the land for potential housing or commercial development, which generally is much higher.

If the San Bernardino County supervisors agree to break up all or part of the agricultural preserve, property owners may withdraw from their Williamson Act contracts over a nine-year period, during which the tax rate will rise gradually to market value. Or an owner may buy his way out of the contract in one year by paying a substantial penalty.

Dairymen who want to continue operations in the preserve think those who want to sell are greedy.

‘See Dollar Signs’

“All they see are dollar signs,” said Pete Bosch, whose 20-acre, 400-cow dairy is within the 3,300 acres in dispute but who refused to sign the petition.

Bosch is 55 and has two sons in their 30s who want to stay in the dairy business.

“I really don’t care what the value of the land is,” he said. “This is where I want to live and the way I want to live.”

“Me and Pete are the type who are content with what we got,” said his friend and neighbor, Bill Van Foeken. “We don’t like to be uprooted. I guess we’re not as good businessmen as we should be.”

Many of the dairies within the preserve are operated by a close-knit group of families of Dutch descent. Their lives revolve around their dairies, the Dutch Reformed Church and Christian schools.

Many moved to Chino roughly 25 years ago when housing developments forced them out of their old dairies in Artesia, Bellflower, Dairy Valley (now Cerritos) and other communities in southern Los Angeles County. They do not want to move again.

Nor do they believe that the kind of life they lead in the Chino dairylands can be duplicated in any of the most likely relocation areas--the high desert or in the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley.

Vander Dussen disagrees.

“Believe me, when these people sell out and get their money, they’ll set up the same kind of life someplace else,” he said. “It can always be done again.”

The recent study by county planners found that most of the dairies are financially sound. It predicted that declining federal and state price supports and other economic problems will force only about 10% of the dairies within the preserve out of business in the next decade.

“The vast majority can survive if they choose to closely manage their herd and milking facilities,” the report said.

Pete Vander Poel, a highly successful operator, argues that many of the farmers who want to sell are poor managers.

Vander Poel and his younger brother, Henry, have built identical homes--large, handsome, English Tudor style--several hundred yards apart, deep within the agricultural preserve. In between is the Vander Poel Brothers Dairy, where they milk 1,700 cows. They produce more than 100,000 pounds of milk a day. Their monthly feed bill, mostly for alfalfa hauled in from the Imperial Valley, is about $200,000.

“This is not a little family farm, Pete Vander Poel said. “This is a milk-producing factory.”

Pete Vander Poel said many of the dairymen who want to sell their land bought calves and equipment five years ago, when prices were at their peak, and now are “overextended and strapped for cash.”

He said a well-managed dairy still can turn a handsome profit, a point disputed by Jennie DeBoer.

“Even some very good operators can’t make a living today,” she said.

Another obstacle to development, Pete Vander Poel noted, is that the agricultural preserve has no schools, sewers or flood control facilities.

“Before they can open this area up, they need to do a master plan and figure out where the money for all that infrastructure is coming from,” he said.

The county study found that total infrastructure costs for 7,100 housing units on only 1,500 acres of the preserve would cost between $131 million and $156 million. To open up the entire 17,000-acre preserve for development would cost many times that amount.

The study also found that plenty of vacant land is available for housing developments at the western end of San Bernardino County.

Housing in the preserve would compete with extensive development efforts in Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga and other nearby cities and with the county’s own plans for the Chino Hills, an unincorporated area southwest of Chino where 30,000 housing units are supposed to be built in the next 25 years.

“It’s like entering two horses in the same race and betting against yourself,” County Planning Commissioner Tim Krantz said at a recent commission hearing.

But Commissioner Jim Foster, a real estate developer from Redlands, disagreed.

The county report’s estimate of the number of housing units that might be generated within the agricultural preserve was “totally erroneous,” Foster said. “I’m in the real estate and development business, and I know there’ll be more development than that.”

In an interview after the hearing, Foster said he favored opening up the northern end of the preserve because 80% of the property owners want it done.

“I’m very pro-growth and pro-free enterprise,” Foster said. “Those who govern do so at the favor of the majority. I want to serve that majority.”

The nine-member Planning Commission will consider all these arguments, hold a final hearing and make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on Thursday.

In the past, the Planning Commission and the supervisors have generally yielded to the arguments of developers and property owners.

In 1983, the Board of Supervisors paved the way for the current debate by allowing dairyman and developer Neil Kasbergen and his partners to withdraw about 370 acres of vineyard property from the agricultural preserve.

This was done under a state law that provided a one-time, six-month opportunity for property owners to terminate Williamson Act contracts if their land was in the path of development, if it already contained urban services and if the change was in keeping with the county General Plan.

Withdrawal Approved

Although the Kasbergen property did not appear to meet any of these requirements and despite a county finding that only three of 16 environmental problems could be mitigated successfully, the San Bernardino supervisors approved withdrawal of the acreage from the preserve.

“That tore apart the ag preserve,” said Sherman W. Griselle, professor of urban and regional planning at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. “Once Kasbergen got out, it was inevitable that others would push to get out, too.”

Last week, a group of dairy operators intent on keeping the preserve intact--Citizens on Watch (COW)--filed suit in San Bernardino County Superior Court, contending that the law that allowed the Kasbergen land to be removed from the preserve was unconstitutional.

In a similar suit involving the City of Hayward, a San Francisco appellate court has found that the law is indeed unconstitutional. That ruling is expected to be appealed to the California Supreme Court.

With the legality of their 1983 action in question, the Board of Supervisors may decide to postpone a decision on the removal of the 3,300 acres from the preserve.

In addition, other studies are under way that might have a bearing on the board’s decision. Of special importance is a study of water problems in the preserve, including the question whether residential development would improve water quality in the area or cause it to deteriorate.

Delay Recommended

Gus Skropos, supervisor for the district in which the preserve is located, said he would prefer to wait for the results of the water study and “other environmental studies” before making a decision. Skropos said this could mean a delay of at least several months.

State Sen. Ruben S. Ayala (D-Chino) said he has told the supervisors that “it would be wrong to piecemeal it. . . . If you’re going to break the preserve, you should do it all at once.”

Almost all parties to the dispute agree that sooner or later the agricultural preserve, and most of the dairies, will go because the land is simply too valuable to remain in its present use. The question is, when?