Santa Paula Official Voices Opposition to City’s Expansion Plans

A Santa Paula city councilman was the lone speaker during a hearing Wednesday to oppose the city’s plans to triple its geographical size because it would mean encroaching on farmland.

Councilman John Melton told the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission, which is charged with approving cities’ expansion plans, that he objects to encroachment on more than 600 acres of the greenbelt between Fillmore and Santa Paula. The greenbelt is made up of 34,200 acres.

“Since 1967, the greenbelt agreement has been respected,” he said. “I don’t want farmland used for development . . . using up more ag land presents a threat to the health of Ventura County.”

The county has six greenbelts, which are agricultural or open space areas between cities where development is discouraged.

In April, Melton cast the lone council vote against Santa Paula’s growth plan, citing its threat to agriculture.

The plan would require the annexation of more than 9,000 acres, tripling the city’s size. Preliminary plans call for the development of as many as 3,600 homes, more than 500 acres of industrial and commercial projects, three hotels, three golf courses, three schools and more than 250 acres of parkland.

The commission made no decision after the 30-minute informational presentation. It will be next year before LAFCO rules on Santa Paula’s request to expand its sphere of influence--the area a city ultimately expects to develop--and an expected subsequent annexation request.

However, Arnold Dowdy, the agency’s executive officer and Santa Paula’s former top administrator, said the present political climate in Ventura County means that the city can expect a “tough look” at its expansion plans.

Dowdy was referring to a growing farmland preservation movement across the county prompted by increasing development pressures. Among LAFCO’s charges is the preservation of open space and agriculture.

Still, city Planning Director Joan Kus said she was encouraged by the commission’s response, despite some questions from panelists about minimizing the loss of greenbelt.

“They did have concerns about the greenbelt,” she acknowledged. “I’m happy because I did not hear them say, ‘No, you can’t do that.’ ”

The city plans to place a swathe of largely hilly farmland to the north that is not presently protected into the greenbelt to compensate for the loss of flatter land on the valley floor that is easier to develop.

However, some commissioners did oppose the city’s plans to expand onto more than 1,000 acres of farmland south of the Santa Clara River. Kus said the city anticipated such concerns because of the difficulty of extending services to the area. But she said the city doesn’t expect to intensively develop the area anyway.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

NEXT STEP

The Santa Paula City Council is expected Aug. 12 to endorse an updated General Plan, which is necessary before the city can move forward with its expansion proposal. A final General Plan is expected to be completed by year’s end after extensive public hearings and preparation of an environmental document. Once this is done, the Local Agency Formation Commission will consider the city’s boundary change request.