Candidates for Board Answer Query

With the primary election for the one contested seat on the county Board of Supervisors approaching June 7, The Times has asked four candidates for the position to respond to a questionnaire on issues crucial to the county’s future.

Incumbent Susan K. Lacey, a former member of the Ventura Unified School Board, has served on the Board of Supervisors for seven years and is seeking her third term. While in office, she spearheaded county programs in juvenile justice and children’s mental health and has consistently opposed development of county greenbelts.

Farmer and businesswoman Carolyn Leavens, a former president of California Women in Agriculture, says she believes that the board needs a representative mindful of business and agricultural interests. She has served as president of the Ventura County Taxpayers’ Assn.

Writer and consultant Robert W. McKay is a former president of the California Wildlife Federation and is current chief administrative officer for the California Sportsmen’s Lobby.

Real estate agent Herschel M. Johnson Jr. is retired from the U.S. Navy after 23 years and is a past honorary mayor of Oak View. He is active in local organizations such as the Oak View Lion’s Club, the Ojai Valley Chamber of Commerce and the Oak View Civic Council.

All four are campaigning for the 1st District seat, which includes Ventura, the Saticoy-Montalvo area and most of the Ojai Valley.

Businessman Gary Wean, whose name also appears on the ballot, has not attended the public forums at which the other candidates have stated their views. He also chose not to outline his qualifications and general positions, as the four other candidates did, for inclusion in the sample ballot sent by county election officials to voters last week.

If no candidate receives 50% of the votes cast, a runoff between the two top contenders will be held in November.

The Ventura County Economic Development Assn. may try to get a measure for an additional half-percent sales tax on the November ballot. The revenues would be earmarked for county road and highway improvements. Would you support or oppose it?

SUSAN LACEY--I would vote to put it on the ballot provided that (a) the proposed road and highway improvements were not growth-inducing, were cost-effective and related to highway safety, and (b) provided that the measure contained a sunset clause so that the tax would not go on after the improvements were completed.

CAROLYN LEAVENS--For the past eight years, nearly nothing has been done to solve our transportation problems. The county blueprint for transportation, the Circulation Element, is only now being updated after a decade of being ignored. I would support it only if the funds are used for projects such as a new bridge over the river, or to widen Central Avenue, to ease congestion on Victoria Avenue and other areas within the county.

BOB McKAY--I am opposed to any tax increase, whether the derived funds are earmarked or not, until the budget and the budget priorities have been completely analyzed. At the current time, 25% of general-fund money--$70 million a year--goes to welfare, and 12% ($33.6 million) goes to health and sanitation. Twenty-three percent of the non-general-fund money ($49.45 million) goes to the hospital. Infrastructure funding, such as roads, has been a low budget priority.

HERSCHEL JOHNSON--I would support it only if the money were never used for anything but construction, improvement and maintenance of county roads and highways.

Within a couple of years, space will run out in current trash-disposal facilities in the west end of Ventura County. One new site under consideration is Weldon Canyon, but opponents claim a landfill at the mouth of the Ojai Valley would generate excessive traffic, air pollution and environmental damage. Would you support or oppose a landfill in Weldon Canyon? If you oppose it, where would you locate the area’s next major landfill?

LACEY--Existing landfills are projected to be sufficient to at least 1993. Any proposed landfill in Weldon Canyon has yet to be subject to an environmental review. The county and cities are jointly reviewing additional sites and strategies such as recycling, to assure that the safest, most environmentally sound, economical solution is arrived at.

LEAVENS--I believe that if the environmental impacts on area residents are too burdensome, we must look at alternatives. If they are not, then we must consider Weldon. In either case, local residents must have direct input into this decision.

McKAY--While the opponents are correct, the best identified site appears to be Weldon Canyon. An application is on file for Weldon Canyon to be the next trash-disposal site. Opponents will have the opportunity to present their views when the county solid waste management plan is revised and reviewed. In addition, each new proposed landfill project requires its own separate EIR, which will address all pertinent issues.

JOHNSON--I oppose the Weldon Canyon landfill and favor reopening the Bailard site, maximizing recycling stations to reduce the requirement for large landfills. My opposition to this landfill is based on pollution, nuisances and increased number of vehicles at the threshold of the unique Ojai Valley.

Many Camarillo residents have vigorously opposed the idea of developing a regional airport there. On the other hand, many members of the county’s business community feel the county is missing out on valuable opportunities for lack of such an airport. Do you support or oppose development of a regional airport? If you support it, where would you locate it?

LACEY--The immediate need at Camarillo Airport is a tower for safety and a more efficient flow of traffic as it exists. The board’s present position is to (1) serve the county’s general aviation needs through 1995 and continue commuter service for Oxnard airport, (2) maximize but not expand facilities at Oxnard airport, and (3) not preclude the opportunity for future upgrade of service at Camarillo should there be technological advances and/or a change in community support.

LEAVENS--I strongly support a regional Class II airport.

An airport with a modern, short runway, with flights limited to waking hours, as proposed in the undeveloped area of Camarillo, may be our best choice. The airport situation underscores the biggest problem that I have with the incumbent supervisor. She says that we should wait and let the next generation decide.

McKAY--I support development of a regional airport. Examining maps indicates the Oxnard airport is the better location. Political arrangements, however, within the current board requiring a 4-5 vote instead of a majority on airport business, grants both Camarillo and Oxnard excessive input in the airport decision-making process, making development of a regional airport at either Oxnard or Camarillo a political impossibility with the current board, including the First District incumbent.

JOHNSON--County growth projections indicate we should have a regional airport within 5 to 10 years. Camarillo housing developments have encroached upon this existing airport, and unless this is checked, the surrounding environments will be in jeopardy.

Ventura County is not in compliance with federal clean air standards and lacks a comprehensive plan to get there. Although it meets Environmental Protection Agency standards for carbon monoxide emissions, it recently was found to have the fourth-worst ozone problem in the United States. What specific measures would you take to improve air quality?

LACEY--The quality of air in our county has actually been improving. Countywide nitrous oxide emissions have decreased by 25% and reactive organic compounds by 31%. We have gone from 25 first-stage smog alerts at the worst to no alerts in the last 4 years. Our peak ozone levels in the inland areas have been decreasing steadily. I have spearheaded a number of measures, including: (1) initiation of a Transportation Systems Management Task Force, (2) use of alternative fuels (such as a methanol van pool), (3) Clean Air Alliance--a public-private partnership, (4) relocation of freight- vessel traffic outside the Channel Islands Corridor and (5) active participation in negotiated air pollution control regulation for offshore oil and gas drilling.

LEAVENS--First we must solve our traffic problems. Much of the pollution from cars comes from cars needlessly idling on congested thoroughfares. One out of every four of our neighbors must drive out of the county to their jobs; if there were more clean industry here, we would cut down on traffic and the resulting air pollution.

If we get down to work, we can repair, rebuild and expand our streets, roads and highways so we can ease gridlock. This will reduce pollution coming from cars needlessly idling in traffic jams. During the past four years, the incumbent supervisor has allowed 6,200 acres of agricultural and open-space lands to be annexed to cities for development. This has only worsened our traffic and growth problems.

McKAY--First get rid of the incumbent, as the 1982 plan, which was flawed in data, method of analysis, and projections, was approved during her elected terms of office. Second, give strong direction to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District that attainment of federal and state standards must be achieved as soon as possible. Third, with input from the various concerned groups within the county, the options presented in the recently published 1987 Air Quality Management Plan would be prioritized, and I would push the board to make the tough decisions that are necessary in order to achieve federal and state air quality control standards.

JOHNSON--Stringent control of the sources causing the pollution. County enforcement officials must cite violators, and we must reduce the number of commuters by car pooling and development of growth management programs.

A county-appointed committee is discussing where the next county jail should be built. Do you think a new jail is a pressing need? If so, where do you think it should go?

LACEY--A new jail is needed. All our present facilities are overcrowded, despite the fact that we have a relatively new pretrial/jail facility. An outside consultant is evaluating a number of sites and their respective environmental impacts, including possible negative effects upon farmlands and other open-space areas. The results of this public environmental review process will have to be evaluated before a final decision is made.

LEAVENS--We have only a pretrial holding facility. We need a jail. We have lost valuable time and money procrastinating on this issue. We have an excellent location. We must now prepare the environmental and economic studies and build it.

McKAY--Ventura County does not, at this time, have a county jail. The pretrial holding facility at the government center has been misused and mislabeled as a county jail. A jail is a most pressing need and should be situated within short driving distance of both the government center and medical facilities. I favor a location near the Oxnard airport.

JOHNSON--Should relocation of sentenced inmates not be possible, there is a pressing need for an expansion of jail facilities. It is imperative that we plan a jail facility in a remote area of the county.

Last year, a severe fiscal crisis forced the county to lend its health care agency $18 million to avert closure of outlying clinics and sweeping cutbacks at the Ventura County Medical Center. What specific steps would you take to avoid a similar crisis in the future?

LACEY--In December, 1986, when the board learned of financial problems at the medical center, swift, decisive and dramatic action was taken to correct those problems--including bringing the billing system completely up to date. As of December, 1987, all loans made from the county general fund to the health care agency have been completely repaid. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1988, the Ventura County Medical Center is expected to show a profit, and our community clinics will remain open to keep access to quality health care alive in our county.

There is still a national health care crisis, with over 100 hospitals closing in the past year, primarily due to inadequate reimbursement for treatment provided to Medi-Cal patients and the medically indigent, or “working poor”. St. John’s Regional Medical Center may cancel its Medi-Cal contract because of drastic losses in this area. As chairperson of the County Supervisors Assn. of California Health and Welfare Committee, I will continue to work with the state and federal governments to increase reimbursement for these mandated expenses.

LEAVENS--Eighteen million dollars of our precious tax dollars were wasted just because no one at the county was watching the store. One key reason that the County Medical Center was in debt was that bills to patients had not been collected or followed up on for many, many months. That is no way to run a county.

Presently the Board of Supervisors breaks issues down into fiefdoms; each supervisor oversees particular issues or areas. The current First District supervisor was supposed to oversee the medical area. She has failed.

The direct oversight committee formed by Supervisor Maggie Erickson is now working with the administration and the auditors office to solve this problem. I will support this new effort, and I will attempt to end the fiefdom approach of managing our county.

McKAY--The problem has already been addressed, with a new director of the health care agency and the incumbent no longer a member of the hospital committee. In addition, I would give strong direction to the chief administrative officer to monitor job performance more closely in the Collection and Reimbursement Department to head off repeat fiscal emergencies.

JOHNSON--Monitor records for proficiency of staff and have quarterly reports to supervisors on findings of inappropriate actions that need remedial attention.

The proposed Reagan Presidential Library is situated in an area that county land-use guidelines deem open-space. If the library is developed, would you also approve development of nearby hotels, convention centers or other major projects on land in the Tierra Rejada greenbelt between Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley?

LACEY--No!

LEAVENS--We should be honored to have the presidential library in our county. I can certainly understand the need for study and conference facilities as part of the project; however, I do not support hotels, restaurants and other ancillary commercial enterprises in that area.

McKAY--I don’t believe the proposed Reagan Presidential Library should be situated in Ventura County. Reagan has never resided in this county. The proper location would be at Malibu Creek State Park on his former ranch site, Yearling Row. There is adequate parking etc., and the land is included within the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. In 1977, this greenbelt was supposed to be earmarked for the East County Government Center, which is now approved to be built at the east end of Simi Valley, which will not significantly benefit residents in Thousand Oaks, Oak Park, and Westlake.

JOHNSON--No. The proposed site should comply with the General Plan. Should a variance be granted, other nonprofit activities and centers should fall into the same land use. Consensus of Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley residents must be considered.

There are two large projects proposed for land now zoned open-space in eastern Ventura County. One is the Jordon Ranch--a 2,300 acre development of 1,848 homes and an 18-hole PGA Tournament Golf Course. The other is the Ahmanson Ranch, a 5,000-acre development that would include 3,000 homes plus a retail and industrial center. Do you support or oppose these projects? If you oppose them, what level of development do you think is appropriate for the area?

LACEY--To the extent that these proposed projects constitute step-out development, I must oppose them. The new countywide general plan identifies an adequate inventory of developable land within our cities to the year 2010 and probably well beyond. The county should not compete with the planned housing and commerce goals of our cities. I remain a strong supporter of separate and identifiable urban communities, as set forth in our “Guidelines for Orderly Development.” Otherwise, our communities will sprawl into each other; our open spaces will be destroyed, and we will become another Orange County.

LEAVENS--Until environmental impact reports are conducted, no one knows what the impact will be. Until public hearings are held, no one knows what nearby citizens and homeowners will support. Until we know more about these projects, it is very difficult to make any decision.

McKAY--I am intimately acquainted with both these properties and their history. My feeling at this time is that the Jordan Ranch property is suitable for planned development providing the mountainous areas are left untouched, but that the Ahmanson Ranch, which has critical wildlife habitat and natural resources, has greater benefit to the county by remaining, for the most part, zoned open space. The Ahmanson Ranch area must be closely monitored, as overtures have been made for annexation to Los Angeles County, which has been very lenient in allowing massive development along Ventura County borders.

JOHNSON--I support these developments providing affordable housing is made available within their plans, that they be phased over a minimum of three years, and that they not exceed available water and sanitation capabilities.

Ventura County’s “Guidelines for Orderly Development” now limit most residential and industrial construction to land in or near existing cities. Much land between the cities, in areas now zoned mainly for agriculture use, cannot be developed. Do you favor revising the guidelines in any way to allow development of such areas? Are there any specific areas currently preserved for open space that would be better suited to residential, industrial or commercial uses?

LACEY--No revisions! Nearly 160 square miles of coastal plains and river valleys are in agricultural production, and nearly 500,000 acres of agricultural, rural and open space lands remain protected. The pro-ag and pro-open space policies of the Board of Supervisors assure the retention of prime farmland production well into the next century.

LEAVENS--There is a need for adjustments to the “Guidelines for Orderly Development.” We must slow the development of prime farmlands. This plan does not discriminate between truly prime, productive lands, and lands which are not productive.

The logical conclusion of the guidelines is that all lands will eventually be developed; it’s only a matter of how long it takes the cities to extend their spheres of influence. We must start now to plan areas on which development should never be allowed and on which agriculture must be retained.

McKAY--I do not favor revising the “Guidelines for Orderly Development” until the mandated air-quality standards have been attained, even though there are some marginal agricultural lands that would be better suited for limited development.

JOHNSON--Consideration should be given to the 2 1/2-mile greenbelts between cities. This should be regulated by a rigid plan for 50 years through the County Planning Commission. Sensible growth in the industrial area would give an economic boost to the county; we need an employer with 700 to 1,000 people on the payroll.