Budget Crunch Threatens Open Land

Two large housing and commercial projects proposed for an unincorporated area of eastern Ventura County may signal the beginning of development of open land that for years has been protected by county policies, county officials said.

Since 1969, Ventura County has restricted growth to established cities because officials were trying to ensure orderly growth and protect rural land for agriculture and other open space uses.

But cutbacks in money to pay for services such as public health, welfare, police and fire protection, combined with a growing population, have caused Ventura County officials to speak publicly for the first time about the need for development on land outside the county’s 10 cities.

That development would bring much-needed relief in builders’ fees, sales taxes and property taxes that would add millions of locally generated dollars to a county budget that relies heavily on state and federal funds.

“What has changed is the county is broke,” said Supervisor James Dougherty, who represents the part of the eastern county that includes Simi Valley and Moorpark. “It was good planning to force development into the cities, but from an economic point of view it is a disaster. If there is a way that any project might bring a positive cash flow to the county, that might make a difference.”

The two developments scheduled for hearings Tuesday before the county Board of Supervisors would bring 15,000 more residents to the county, which has a population of about 640,000, county records show. The developers seek to change the land’s open space zoning, which calls for fewer than 100 homes, county planners said.

$2-Million Project

Home Savings of America, which owns a 5,500-acre area known as the Ahmanson Ranch, plans to build a $2-billion development there, including 3,000 homes, stores, a 3-million-square-foot industrial park and a 200-room hotel. Ahmanson Ranch is in an unincorporated area of the county west of Woodland Hills between Bell Canyon and Hidden Hills.

Also before the board Tuesday will be a proposal by Potomac Investment Associates, a Maryland-based firm that wants to build from 1,500 to 1,600 homes and a major PGA tournament golf course on the 2,300-acre Jordan Ranch. That property, which Potomac has an option to buy from entertainer Bob Hope, is east of Oak Park and north of the Ventura Freeway at Liberty Canyon Road.

Both firms will ask the supervisors to change land-use restrictions on the properties, but Tuesday’s hearing will be merely the first of many before the projects can proceed. These preliminary hearings will decide whether the projects should even be considered by the county.

The Ahmanson Ranch proposal was rejected last July in a similar hearing, but at the time, supervisors left the door open for the project to be proposed again. At that time, Supervisor Madge Schaefer, who represents the area, said the development violated too many county policies.

On Friday, county planners recommended that the board reject both projects for the same reason. In general, county policies say development in unincorporated areas such as the Jordan and Ahmanson ranches would probably bring too much traffic, sewage and air pollution and use up too many scarce resources, such as water.

“On the face of it, the projects appear to be inconsistent with the board’s policies,” said Bruce Smith, a Planning Department supervisor.

New City Proposed

Last year, Home Savings representatives offered to create a new city out of their Ahmanson Ranch proposal to keep within the county’s policy of restricting growth to cities. The firm is expected to repeat that offer, county officials said.

But much has changed since the first Ahmanson Ranch hearing last July, county officials said. During the 1987-88 fiscal year, the county was forced to make 5% cutbacks in all departments. Officials are predicting that the county will face another 2% in cutbacks when budget deliberations begin next month.

“It’s a deteriorating situation,” said Richard Wittenberg, the county’s chief administrator. “Available money for all of the human services, health care, welfare, the justice system, have not kept pace with costs. A nurse can handle only a certain number of patients; sheriff’s deputies can only go out on a certain number of calls. A 5% net reduction for a growing county is ridiculous.”

Despite local growth controls in nine of the county’s 10 cities, Ventura County’s population is growing at about 7% to 8% a year, Wittenberg said. A population forecast prepared by the county predicts that nearly 900,000 people will live in Ventura County in 20 years.

Popular support for the county’s policy of protecting unincorporated lands from development has kept wide expanses of open space between cities. But profits from the development that it allows has, for the most part, benefited only the cities, leaving the county dependent on state and federal sources for about half of its $500-million annual budget, county officials said.

“We’re going to continue to have serious financial problems in the future, and the question is, what are we going to do about it?” Dougherty said.

Advisory Panel

Some of those answers are expected to come from a 34-member county group called the Beyond the Year 2000 Advisory Committee. The group, which had its first meeting last week, consists of elected city and county officials, as well as representatives from industry, environmental groups and developers.

The group has been charged by the Board of Supervisors with reviewing the existing county growth policies that have restricted development to cities. Among the issues under study are future demand for housing and jobs, the county’s air quality, which now is ranked among the worst in the nation, transportation problems and dwindling water supplies. A final report from the committee is not expected until early next year.

Elaine Freeman, vice president of the Calabasas-based Griffin Homes and a committee member representing the building industry, said that despite an unprecedented demand for housing, growth restrictions in the county reduced home construction 44% in the last year.

“We released 37 homes for sale in Moorpark and had a lottery because we had 1,500 buyers,” Freeman said. “I believe that it’s about time that we start looking at the county’s policies.”

County planner Keith Turner, who is working as a liaison with the Year 2000 committee, agreed that county funding and other economic issues will probably play an important role in the group’s discussions.

Resisting demand for the easing of development restrictions in county unincorporated areas may be difficult if the deals being offered are similar to those presented by developers of the Jordan and Ahmanson ranches, county officials said.

Land Swap

The developers said they are willing to give state and federal park services more than 4,600 acres for Cheeseboro Canyon Park, which separates the two proposed developments, in exchange for $2 million and about 60 acres of Cheeseboro Canyon parkland to be used for a 4-lane road. That offer has quieted some of the local opposition to the two projects. Some opponents maintain, however, that the entire Jordan Ranch could eventually be bought for park use if the board votes down the project.

Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy executive director Joseph T. Edmiston said the land offered by developers would nearly complete the portion of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area north of the Ventura Freeway.

In return for that deal, the developers have asked for the support of parkland representatives, Edmiston said. The conservancy’s board of directors is expected to vote on part of the Cheeseboro Canyon Park proposal Monday.

Schaefer said the park proposals by both developers will figure significantly in her decision on the two projects. About a month ago, Schaefer said, she was invited to Bob Hope’s Toluca Lake house to hear about the merits of the Jordan Ranch project from Hope. She said she spent the afternoon trying unsuccessfully to persuade Hope to donate the property for parkland.

In the past, the board has looked to the supervisor whose district is affected by the project to take the lead in directing the board’s vote.

Budget Boost

Developers have said their projects would provide the county with at least $11 million a year in revenue. In addition, officials say the county can save even more money if the developers agree to form special assessment districts to force future homeowners to pay for county services now provided free.

The outcome of Tuesday’s hearing will be a watershed for Ventura County, Dougherty said. Dougherty and Schaefer declined to say how they intend to vote on the projects, but both said that a preliminary approval of the projects would force developers to pay for studies on the environmental impact of the two developments.

Most county officials agree that projects such as the Jordan and Ahmanson ranch developments could dramatically increase county revenues, but exact figures would depend on negotiations with the builders. The economic benefits will have to be weighed against increased traffic, pollution and other byproducts of development, county officials said.

“While revenue sources are important, it’s even more important that we are not blinded by the dollar; that we look at what the long-term public impact will be,” Schaefer said. “But if the county had no fiscal problems we wouldn’t even have to consider development in its unincorporated areas.”