The Options--and Price--for Saving Farmland

It sounds so simple: just save the farms.

The overwhelming majority of Ventura County residents say they want their homes to remain semirural and avoid the concretized fate of their stucco-saturated neighbors to the south.

Somehow securing a place for agriculture--still the county’s No. 1 industry--in the county’s future would seem to guarantee a halt to urban sprawl.

But what would it actually take to do that? And what are the consequences, not just for farmers, but for everyone from Thousand Oaks to Ojai?

What are people actually willing to sacrifice--if that is what it takes--to preserve agriculture? Would Thousand Oaks residents agree to allow development on their pristine hillsides? Would Camarillo residents share sales tax revenues with their counterparts in Santa Paula? Would Ventura residents embrace more high-density apartments in their neighborhoods?

That is what an unusually diverse task force of politicians, urban planners, environmentalists, building industry representatives, business leaders and farmers has been spiritedly discussing since May.

Dubbed the Agriculture Policy Working Group, the task force has come up with four scenarios--various forks in the road the county can now take on the issue--and is planning to present them to the public for debate at a series of town hall meetings starting Jan. 12 in Oxnard.

The feedback gathered from the meetings could eventually be used to formulate new policies to try and save agriculture--not just at the county level but in cities as well.

“Somebody has to have the wherewithal to stand up and tell people, ‘You can’t have it both ways,’ ” said Rex Laird, executive director of the Ventura County Farm Bureau. “This is one of those instances where--not to be an apologist for city councils--but there is a reason why things have happened the way they have.

“The same folks that will raise Cain over an apartment complex are the ones that will rip the council over not saving enough open space,” he added. “That hypocrisy is something people have to confront.”

At the very least, the task force hopes the public emerges from the meetings with a better understanding of what the group considers to be a widely misunderstood issue, said Supervisor Kathy Long, who came up with the idea.

With slow-growth activists planning a countywide initiative stripping farmers of their rights to develop their land and placing zoning authority in the hands of voters instead of politicians--a step many farmers and political leaders consider extreme and irrational--the public needs to learn the consequences of agriculture preservation efforts, Long said.

“I felt that there was still major concern among the citizens, and there was an interest by the agricultural community to be a part of a process and not leave it up to knee-jerk reactions and sound bites,” Long said.

She denied, however, that the process she put in place is intended to be an alternative to the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) movement, whose members passed a similar initiative in Ventura and are aiming to do the same next year in other cities, as well as the county.

“My concern was that people were trying to find easy solutions to a complex problem,” Long said. “I think what the SOAR initiative in Ventura said to the agricultural community and those who work toward consensus building is that they could not be trusted to make the right decisions.

“This is not intended to be an anti-SOAR, because I believe citizens should have that option,” she added. “But I believe we at least should put the facts out there.”

*

To former Ventura Mayor Richard Francis, one of the leaders of the SOAR movement, the task force’s findings only solidify his belief that there is a serious farmland preservation crisis in the county, and that power to convert farmland for development belongs in the hands of voters.

“If you assume their objective was to show that SOAR was not the answer, it wouldn’t be the first hypothesis to prove the exact opposite of what it was supposed to,” said Francis, who attended some of the working group’s meetings. “Those who contend our current land-use policies are working must not be watching very carefully.”

The truth, according to the task force, is that every action to preserve farmland--from freezing the growth blueprints in every city to allowing unimpeded development San Fernando Valley-style--would have both positive and negative consequences on Ventura County and its residents.

That is because there are complex factors influencing the gradual loss of farmland and the county’s growth patterns--unswerving forces such as statewide population jumps, cities’ reliance on tax-generating shopping malls to fill budget coffers, and the basic suburban ideal of a house with a yard for all.

‘ “Do you like agriculture?’ ‘Do you like open space?’ Those are meaningless questions,” said Alana Knaster, a professional mediator who helped build consensus from the often opposing viewpoints of task force members. “We know what the majority of people think about that. The real questions are, ‘Are you willing to pay higher taxes to save farmland?’ ‘Are you willing to live in denser housing?’ ‘Would you be willing to share sales tax revenues?’ ”

*

To that end, the 23-member working group came up with four scenarios representing what it saw as the spectrum of options on farmland preservation. Each is based on a set of assumptions on the effect of certain land-use policies on farmland and growth, and contains a set of projected figures on what the county would look like as a result in 2030.

One of the critical points of all the scenario exercises, county planner Gene Kjellberg said, is to emphasize that saving farmland requires residents to rethink the basic way they conduct life in their cities.

If large-lot homes continue to dominate the housing market, agricultural land could be converted to make room for growth. If a certain amount of farmland is lost, then the support businesses that farmers rely on to prepare and distribute their product may not survive.

The end result: The county’s entire agricultural industry could go under.

“If nothing else, we want the public to understand that there are trade-offs involved,” Kjellberg said. “Agriculture requires a certain amount of land to survive as an industry. If you support large-lot housing, it’s going to make it more difficult for the industry to survive.”

The scenarios are intended as a starting point for discussion, not a strict course of action to be adhered to at all costs. Indeed, to present the scenarios to the public without tainting the debate, the group ultimately decided not to give them names, referring to them simply as scenarios A, B, C and D.

Greenbelt Agreements Strengthened in Plan

Scenario A, which comes closest to matching the SOAR initiative, basically outlines what the county would look like three decades from now if voters in all 10 cities approved plans to freeze current city boundaries and general plans.

Greenbelt agreements between cities to protect farmland in their vicinity would also be strengthened and formalized through binding ordinances.

Under that plan, 104,500 of the 113,000 acres of irrigated farmland in the county today would still be untouched by development in 2030, and agricultural land would hold little speculative value, since it could not be paved over for development.

The county’s population would remain relatively low, rising from 717,000 today to 924,000. Most people would live in single-family homes separated from shopping centers and employment centers. And housing prices and rents would increase drastically due to high demand.

Economic growth in the county would continue at an uneven rate, furthering the divide between “have” and “have not” cities, and seriously hindering the tax bases of smaller cities such as Moorpark, Santa Paula and Fillmore by preventing them from expanding.

Landowners and businesses would also be hurt by the freeze, since businesses would be unable to expand and landowners would be unable to do something different with their property.

Scenario A took a pounding when it was unveiled to a group of city managers earlier this month. They argued it was completely unrealistic and probably dangerous to the economic health of the county because it prevented cities from adapting to changing trends. They questioned whether it should even be put before the public.

“There were looks of disbelief,” said group member Mitchel Kahn, president of the Ventura County Economic Development Assn. “They did not know some of the implications of this [task force]. I think we opened some eyes.”

In Kahn’s opinion, the city managers raised some valid points.

Not allowing a city such as Santa Paula--which is looking to more than triple its size under a proposed new master plan--to expand and increase its economic base would amount to writing its obituary, he said.

“Santa Paula has to consume some property to survive,” he said. “When you lose that dynamic state, you die. I hope the county is receptive to their problem.”

Scenario B paints a picture of what the county would look like if voters approved growth boundaries in each city and decided instead to allow building upward rather than outward.

Cities would relax restrictions on hillside development to permit more growth. Greenbelt agreements would be formalized by law or voter initiative. Voters would pass a sales tax increase to fund farmland preservation. And cities and the county would come to some type of agreement to share sales taxes revenue, thereby taking away the temptation for cities to expand into agricultural lands to build tax-generating shopping centers.

*

After the passage of Proposition 13, cities statewide have become increasingly dependent on sales tax revenues to pay for more police officers, parks and the other services their residents desire. The competition among cities for the limited pool of sales tax dollars often leads to sprawl.

Under the plan, 102,000 acres of farmland would remain, and the land would have little speculative value. The county’s population would grow to 1.07 million by 2030. And the drastic change in urban planning philosophy--from sprawling, automobile-based communities to more compact town centers--would mean more people would have to live in townhouses and apartments in older, redeveloped parts of town.

“It assumes that there would be higher density development within cities, and more emphasis on what we in planning call ‘livable communities’ that de-emphasize the automobile,” county planner Kjellberg said of the scenario.

Scenario C projects what Ventura County would look like if current growth-management policies remain the same and large-lot, single-family housing continues to dominate the landscape.

The guidelines for orderly development--the current county law restricting growth in unincorporated areas--would still be in place. So would six existing greenbelt agreements, though cities’ expansion into their “spheres of influence,” or projected future borders, would cut into protected farmland and open space.

*

Under the status quo plan, only 83,000 farmland acres would likely remain in 2030. Agriculture support businesses would be hurting, and the allure of selling farmland would be significant.

The county’s population would rise to 1.07 million, and most people would live in low-density, sprawling communities--including a “new town” in the east Santa Clara Valley. The town would most likely be built on farmland now owned by the developers of the proposed 70,000-population Newhall Ranch instant city just across the Los Angeles County border.

There would be plenty of housing, and it would be relatively affordable. The local economy would also be more diverse, but increasing traffic and air quality problems caused by sprawl would slow its growth. And spread-out cities would feel increased demands for public services from their residents, so the temptation to allow sales tax-generating shopping malls on the outskirts would persist.

Supervisor Judy Mikels, who has also taken an active role in the task force with Supervisor John Flynn, believes it is important for the public to learn more about the laws and guidelines now in place before jumping to conclusions about what is needed to protect farmland.

She pointed out that while the county has grown significantly in the past 25 years, it only lost 10% of its farmland during that time, compared with 70% for Orange County and 90% for Santa Clara County, which, like Ventura County, borders a metropolis.

“I’m not saying there’s no room for improvement, but I think all the policies we have as a county have been working,” Mikels said. “We could have gone the way of Orange County, but we haven’t because it’s not what people want. The fact is, the process has been in place.”

*

Scenario D describes what the county would look like if instead of tightening measures to save agriculture or formulating new restrictions, current laws and guidelines were relaxed and the county population boomed.

The concept of a semirural county with smallish cities separated by farmland and open space would go up in smoke. Unable to agree on greenbelts, cities would gobble up land in their vicinity, and the county would loosen its restrictions on growth in unincorporated areas to promote urbanization.

Under the plan, farmland would take a serious hit, with total acreage dropping to 69,500 by 2030. The agricultural industry would cease to be a major force in the county, and the incentive for farmers to sell their property would be high.

The county’s population would swell to 1.25 million, and most people would continue to live in single-family, large-lot homes. Housing would be plentiful and relatively affordable.

New towns would sprout up in the Santa Clara Valley and Oxnard Plain. And while the local economy would become more diversified--experiencing healthy growth as a whole--traffic and air-quality problems would cramp the economy in certain parts of the county. Sales tax wars among cities would continue.

Major Philosophical Changes Are Involved

Now for the million-dollar question: What will come of the working group’s efforts?

Its members are the first to concede that many of the possible solutions the scenarios raise involve major philosophical changes that will probably be hard for city leaders and the public to swallow.

Whatever consensus surfaces from public reaction will probably be brought to the Ventura County Organization of Governments first, and eventually to every municipality in the county, as well as the county government itself. No one knows what will occur after that.

“It’s going to be very difficult to convince people in Simi and Moorpark and Thousand Oaks to increase densities in their cities to save the Oxnard Plain,” said Kahn of the Ventura Economic Development Assn. “That’s going to be a very hard sell.”

Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the discussion alone at the town hall meetings should result in greater public awareness of the complex tug and pull involved in farmland preservation efforts, said Mike Saliba of the Ventura County Taxpayers’ Assn.

“I don’t know what the public is going to say about all of this, but I know one thing: I want to hear it,” he said. “This is the first series of forums I can think of in a long time where people all over the county will really be allowed to express their opinions on this issue.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Town Hall Meeting Information

Here are the dates and sites for the seven town hall meetings planned countywide by the Agriculture Policy Working Group. All meetings are scheduled from 6:45 to 9 p.m.

Jan. 12: Oxnard, El Rio and Port Hueneme residents at the Oxnard Community Center, 800 Hobson Way.

Jan. 14: Santa Paula, Fillmore and Piru residents at Memorial Building, 521 2nd St., Fillmore.

Jan. 20: Moorpark residents at Moorpark City Hall, 799 Moorpark Ave.

Jan. 21: Ventura and Saticoy residents at Ventura City Hall, 501 Poli St.

Jan. 27: Camarillo, Las Posas Valley and Somis residents at Camarillo City Hall, 601 Carmen Drive.

Jan. 29: Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Newbury Park and Oak Park residents at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, 40 Presidential Drive, Simi Valley.

Feb. 3: Ojai, Meiners Oaks and Oak View residents at Ojai City Hall, 401 S. Ventura St.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Farmland Scenarios

The Agriculture Policy Working Group--a diverse group of farmers, politicians, environmentalists, building industry representatives and business leaders--has been studying ways to save Ventura County’s farm industry. After eight months of work, the group has come up with four scenarios--various forks in the road that Ventura County leaders can take on the issue leading to 2030--and is preparing to present those to the public for discussion in a series of town hall meetings from Oxnard to Simi Valley.

SCENARIO A

Population in 2030: 924,000 (Up 207,000 from 1997)

Urban density: 9.43 people, or 3.1 housing units an acre

Irrigated farmland: 104,500 acres (down 8,500 from 1997)

Based on:

Freezing the growth blueprints for Ventura County and its 10 cities.

Adopting urban growth boundaries in every city, and not allowing cities to annex additional land.

Strengthening greenbelt agreements through initiatives or ordinances.

Impact:

Farmland acreage largely intact from 1997 levels, with little rise in value.

Economic hardship for many landowners and businesses.

Limited expansion opportunities for Santa Paula, Fillmore, Moorpark and Port Hueneme, hindering their tax bases and possibly causing economic stagnation.

High rents and housing prices due to shortage of land to build on.

Little conflict between urban and agriculture uses.

SCENARIO B

Population in 2030: 1.07 million

Urban density: 12.9 people, or 4.24 housing units an acre

Irrigated farmland: 102,000 acres

Based on:

Denser growth within city boundaries, with cities focusing less on automobile travel, more on pedestrian-friendly development.

Adopting urban growth boundaries in each city.

Voters passing a countywide bond, sales tax or some other mechanism to fund farmland preservation.

Altering hillside-protection ordinances to allow development in those areas.

Impact:

Farmland acreage largely intact from 1997 levels, with little rise in value.

More apartments and townhomes, fewer traditional shopping malls designed around the automobile.

Major development in historic and central business districts, featuring mixture of housing, businesses and entertainment.

Businesses and industries will have to “grow up” instead of sprawling out.

Little conflict between urban and agriculture uses.

SCENARIO C

Population in 2030: 1.07 million

Urban density: 7.48 people, or 2.46 housing units per gross acre

Irrigated farmland: 83,000 acres

Based on:

No change in current land-use policies.

City growth sprawls across open space with continued reliance on the automobile.

Increasingly diversified county economy, less dependent on agriculture.

The formation of a “new town” in the east Santa Clara Valley.

Impact:

Farmland acreage continues to decline, land value rises, fueling speculation.

Sprawling subdivisions and strip malls consume large tracts of land.

Adequate housing is generally available and affordable to county residents.

City borders continue to expand.

Increasing conflicts between urban and agriculture uses.

SCENARIO D

Population in 2030: 1.25 million

Urban density: 7.48 people, or 2.46 housing units an acre

Irrigated farmland: 69,500 acres

Based on:

Current land-use policies are relaxed to provide more housing and roadways.

Concept of “rural/suburban” county with cities separated by agriculture and open space is compromised.

County economy grows rapidly, with a larger service-employment sector.

Several new towns sprout in the east Santa Clara and Las Posas valleys, as well as near the Point Mugu Regional Airport.

Impact:

Loss of farmland reduces importance of agricultural industry, and speculative land value is high.

Cities and new towns that spring up start to grow together.

Housing is available and affordable to county residents.

Homes and strip malls sprawl across larger tracts of land.

Major conflict between urban and agriculture uses.