Farm Bureau Endorses Urban Growth Limits

Stepping up the debate over how best to preserve the county’s farmland, the Ventura County Farm Bureau on Friday endorsed measures it had previously opposed--most dramatically, urban growth limits that only voters could change.

It presented its plan to the county’s Agricultural Policy Working Group, which has been working for eight months to draft its own set of strategies. The group unanimously agreed to use the Farm Bureau’s plan as the core of its recommendations.

“For an agricultural community, this is the revolutionary document the electorate has asked for,” said Farm Bureau Executive Director Rex Laird. “It’s clear that the status quo is no longer acceptable, and that’s why we’ve done this.”

In many ways, the bureau’s proposal is similar to the one being championed by the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources campaign, which the Farm Bureau vigorously opposes. But there are dramatic differences in the details.

Specifically, the Farm Bureau’s approach would set agricultural land and open space off-limits for 10 years, instead of the 30-year ban proposed by SOAR. A countywide referendum would be required to adopt the Farm Bureau plan.

What’s more, the plan would allow the Local Agency Formation Commission to develop the urban growth boundaries--adding or subtracting land as appropriate for each city; SOAR would freeze limits where they are today.

Steve Bennett, a former Ventura city councilman and board member for the countywide SOAR effort, eyed the proposal with skepticism, saying it presents no iron-clad assurances to the voters that agricultural lands would remain protected indefinitely.

“The fundamental problem is that this proposal, if it’s adopted, can be changed at any time by the politicians,” he said. “What kind of protection is that?”

Bennett said that because SOAR is a grass-roots initiative that would be approved by a referendum, it would have concrete assurances that land will be protected as long as the county residents want.

“The voters know what they’re going to get with SOAR,” he said. “With this they don’t.”

Friday’s meeting of the Agricultural Policy Working Group was the first since it completed a series of “town hall” meetings to discuss strategies for saving farmland and since Supervisor John K. Flynn, who co-chairs the group, endorsed SOAR. Laird introduced the brief and, at times, blunt proposal detailing the steps that should be taken to keep agriculture a viable element of the county’s economy.

The 23-member working group--representing a variety of interest groups--unanimously adopted the proposal as a starting point to guide its future discussions on the issue. Comments collected at the town meetings and other group findings will be incorporated into the Farm Bureau document, the group agreed.

Cautious Optimism

The proposal also calls for an additional greenbelt to be established from Fillmore east to the county line.

Though the document originated from the Farm Bureau and not the working group, most members expressed relief that they would be able to show a restless electorate that they had made some progress.

“Rex is right that the public wants us to get off dead center,” said Supervisor Judy Mikels. “It’s about the same document I’m sure we would have produced.”

Flynn, who had some reservations about the proposal, called it “a step in the right direction” and hoped that it would result in the kind of comprehensive policy needed to balance future growth and agriculture.

“We’re in a crisis situation right now, and unless we adopt some strong rules in the next year, we’re going to be watching this whole county get paved over,” he said. “Even though there are a few rough spots here, I think it’s progress and that’s what we’ve been needing for a while.”

*

Flynn, however, said he was worried about how realistic the plan is, considering that it relies on cooperation from Ventura County’s cities, each of which has different concerns regarding agricultural preservation.

“Too much relies on them, and in my opinion that weakens the whole policy,” he said. “I think it would be better if the county played a larger and more dynamic role here.”

Among its various provisions, the bureau’s proposal must be forwarded to each of the county’s 10 cities for review and approval.

Laird, who said an initiative that doesn’t reflect the input of cities most likely would fail, understood Flynn’s concern.

“In order for this to go anywhere, cities are going to have to put aside their parochialism and look at the bigger picture,” he said. “Maybe they won’t be up to the task, but we’ve listened to their electorate and if they choose not to listen, then that’s a whole other can of worms that could be settled with a recall.”

Reliance on LAFCO Is Criticized

Simi Valley City Councilman Paul Miller said he isn’t sure how his colleagues on the council would regard such an initiative if it were to come before them.

“Basically, neither SOAR nor this is anything new for Simi Valley,” he said. “In fact, it’s kind of redundant. . . . We already have ordinances that have worked for years to do the things they want, so it’s difficult to say where the council would come out on this.”

Jon Palo, organizer of Simi Valley’s SOAR initiative, had greater problems with the Farm Bureau proposal.

“I’m very happy about the fact that they’ve come up with this list of recommendations,” said Palo, who will be challenging Supervisor Judy Mikels in the coming elections. “But there’s a fundamental problem with it and that’s its reliance on LAFCO to determine land designation.”

*

Palo said he understands the importance of LAFCO to any successful land-use policy. But because it consists of elected officials, he regards it as staunchly pro-development and therefore any agricultural preservation measure would be compromised.

“If the makeup of that body were changed, the initiative would be a lot tougher, but right now it’s got some holes,” he added.

Palo also criticized the bureau’s 10-year restriction on development outside the urban boundaries.

“Developers are like vultures,” he said. “They’ll wait on the fence for as long as it takes.”

The working group will spend the next month refining the recommendations, then forward them to the Board of Supervisors and the cities for review.

The plan will then be subject to a countywide referendum, in which voters will decide whether to endorse it.

“There are some real challenges that need to be overcome and we’ll have to wait to see how this all plays out,” Laird said. “It’s still a long road.”