Council OKs Expansion Plan for Santa Paula

Despite heightened public concerns about developing Ventura County farmland, the City Council endorsed a plan Monday night that could quadruple this rural community’s size.

The 20-year plan would add 9,570 acres to the community’s current 2,908 acres.

More than 3,600 homes, millions of square feet of commercial and industrial space--including three hotels with accompanying golf courses--and three schools could be built in six separate expansion areas. If completed, the proposed plan would add an estimated 11,420 residents to the city’s population of 26,500.

The council approved the plan by a 3-2 vote, despite overwhelming public opposition from the capacity crowd of about 50 people in City Council chambers.

“I think doubling the size of the city is out of step with the sentiment to control growth in the county,” said Councilman John Melton, who added that such an expansion would not help attract visitors.

“Why would tourists want to come to another congested, suburban community?” he asked.

*

The proposal is part of a revision of the city’s General Plan, a blueprint for growth that hasn’t been updated since 1978. It would have to be approved by Ventura County’s Local Agency Formation Commission, which determines city boundaries.

The council is expected to decide in two weeks when and how much of the plan it will present to LAFCO at one time.

Before the council meeting, city officials had expressed surprise at the seeming lack of opposition to the potentially massive expansion of urban development in the rural Santa Clara Valley.

But on Monday, not one person in the audience spoke in support of the plan.

Resident Rose Chacon objected to the upscale housing proposed, saying it would benefit neither the city nor existing residents.

*

“How is building in Adams and Fagan canyons going to bring more jobs into Santa Paula?” Chacon asked. “I don’t see an interdependence between the residents of that area and downtown Santa Paula. . . . What is going to stop them from going right down Telegraph Road and shopping in Ventura?”

Earl McPhail, Ventura County agricultural commissioner, said after the meeting that he had never seen a city in the county attempt to grow by the scale being proposed by Santa Paula.

“What it says is the council doesn’t care about agriculture,” he said. “It is kind of the pot calling the kettle black when you look at the Newhall Ranch project they’re opposing.”

Newhall Ranch is a proposed city of 70,000 people planned along Ventura County’s eastern border adjacent to the Santa Clara Valley that has sparked widespread concern for its effect on the rural area.

County Engineer Robert Brownie wrote in a report to the city that, once completed, the sheer scale of Santa Paula’s expansion would dwarf that of Newhall Ranch.

“The entire Newhall Ranch project will generate only 7,740 additional vehicle trips per day on Ventura County roadways,” Brownie said. “The Santa Paula General Plan generates 12 times the volume of traffic on Ventura County roadways that is anticipated to be generated by the Newhall Ranch project.”

Santa Paula officials have said the city needs to expand to bring in sorely needed jobs and tax revenue.

“This plan does not exceed the growth-management policies we already have in effect. So I’m going to vote for it,” said Councilman Jim Garfield, who approved the plan along with Mayor Don Johnson and Councilwoman Robin Sullivan.

Councilwoman Laura Flores Espinosa and Melton voted against the proposed General Plan update.

The same council majority voted down a motion by Melton to place the issue on a future ballot so the voters could decide.

*

Summing up the comments of most speakers at Monday’s meeting, Espinosa agreed that the city needs to grow, but said the current plan is too big.

“It doesn’t matter if we’ve been good boys and girls for 100 years, what you’re proposing is urban sprawl,” she said, adding that the city’s no-growth legacy did not justify it growing irresponsibly now. “I’m a bit disappointed we couldn’t find some room to compromise.”

A county agricultural advisory panel has protested that the plan would result in the loss of 541 acres of agricultural land in the greenbelt between Santa Paula and Fillmore. And county planners have noted the proposed expansion would lead to a 25% increase in commercial space, 117% increase in industrial area and 45% more residential units.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Santa Paula Expansion Plans

If approved, the six proposed expansion areas totaling 9,570 acres would more than triple the city’s current acreage. Up to 3,600 homes and more than 4.4 million square feet of commerical space could be built.

*

Area: 1. Adams Canyon

Acres: 5,413

*

Area: 2. Fagan Canyon

Acres: 2,173

*

Area: 3. East area 1

Acres: 541

*

Area: East area 2

Acres: 26

*

Area: 5. South mountain

Acres: 1,292

*

Area: 6. West area 2

Acres: 125

Source: Rincon Consultants Inc.