Lines Drawn in Struggle Over Open Space

They want to lock up Ventura County--and give voters the key.

With the strictest set of growth-control measures ever proposed in Southern California, activists behind the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) campaign are hoping to halt urban sprawl here this fall by stripping politicians of the power to permit it.

Convinced that elected leaders are steering Ventura County down the same mini-mall-laden path as Orange County and Los Angeles--with small, distinct cities merging into a homogenous mass of concrete--SOAR activists say the time has come for voters to take the reins on critical land-use decisions.

A countywide SOAR measure would prevent farmland and open space outside cities from being rezoned for development without voters’ approval through 2020, forcing politicians to stick to existing blueprints for growth.

SOAR measures in Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Camarillo, Oxnard and Santa Paula would bar the cities from expanding beyond a set of designated borders unless approved by voters. Another city measure will go before Moorpark voters early next year.

Not surprisingly for an area that prides itself on its countrified feel, SOAR has become the hottest political issue to hit Ventura County in a long time.

“We are not going to turn into another San Fernando Valley overnight,” said Steve Bennett, the former Ventura councilman who founded SOAR with the city’s former mayor, Richard Francis. “But we’re doomed to become that if we don’t change the process.

“It’s our future, so why shouldn’t we decide?” he added. “Year after year, people vote for politicians because they say they’re going to stop urban sprawl, and year after year, the politicians go and do something different after the election.”

With equal fervor, however, opponents argue that Ventura County’s existing land-use policies--already the toughest in Southern California--have clearly stemmed sprawl, and that so-called “ballot-box zoning” measures are a radical step rife with unintended consequences.

All major farm leaders are strongly against SOAR, characterizing it as a selfish effort by Johnny-come-lately suburbanites to protect pretty vistas without purchasing the land.

Farmers say the measures would limit their ability to change crops and adjust to the ever-changing global marketplace because they would require election campaigns to put up simple agricultural buildings.

“We in agriculture are the poster boys for SOAR, but this is not good for agriculture, and the ag community does not support it,” said Rob Roy of the Ventura County Agricultural Assn., a leader of the anti-SOAR Coalition for Community Planning. “This is a very deceptive measure. It has nothing to do with saving agriculture and everything to do with no-growth.”

Every major business organization and nearly every chamber of commerce oppose SOAR, saying the measures would drive up land prices, hurting the county’s economic competitiveness and possibly even forcing expanding firms out of the county.

Housing and building industry groups also condemn the measures, saying the initiatives would drive up housing costs so high, and keep new construction so low, that many county residents would find it impossible to afford a home here.

The shortage of low-cost housing for families on the lower end of the economic ladder--already a major problem in nearly every city in the county--would only worsen under SOAR, they argue.

Many local Republicans even question the true aims of SOAR proponents, saying Bennett and Francis--both Democrats--have expressed strong interest in running for the county Board of Supervisors and House of Representatives, respectively. Both acknowledge an interest in higher office but say it has nothing to do with the SOAR campaign.

In short, opposition to SOAR is fierce among the county’s traditional power brokers, and voters will surely be flooded with a flurry of opposition mailers, media ads and telephone pitches in coming weeks.

Although they initially appeared invincible, growth control measures in Orange and Riverside counties died at the polls in the 1980s following well-organized, heavily funded opposition campaigns.

*

As always seems to be the case with Southern California’s slow-growth activism--the last major drives came during building boom of the 1980s--SOAR comes as earthmovers are picking up steam following the recession and a hot real estate market that is bursting through the roof in response to pent-up demand.

In fact, a similar measure will go before San Diego County voters this fall. Dubbed the Rural Heritage and Watershed Initiative, it seeks to keep urbanization out of San Diego’s back country for the next 30 years unless voters say otherwise.

Like SOAR, which became the largest petition drive in Ventura County history earlier this year, the San Diego campaign shattered local signature-gathering records.

“The history of land use down here demonstrates that initiatives are the only way to break the stranglehold of special interests,” said Duncan McFetridge, a former Ojai resident who leads the San Diego drive. “This is a great example of the right to petition the government, because we can document there’s been a massive legislative failure allowing urban sprawl.

“If you think about the film ‘Chinatown,’ that’s what we’re talking about here,” McFetridge added. “The first exploitation is relatively minor. But look at Riverside. Look at Orange County.”

Growth-control drives designed to take zoning power away from politicians have become commonplace in the Bay Area. But urban planning experts say the Ventura and San Diego county campaigns represent the most militant attempts ever to crack down on runaway growth in Southern California--a region ridiculed worldwide for unsightly sprawl and tacky strip mall development.

“These would clearly be the toughest restrictions on geographical growth expansion in Southern California,” said William Fulton, author of “The Reluctant Metropolis” and editor of the California Planning & Development Report. “There’s a major shift here. It started in Northern California, and it will make its way to all of Southern California before long.”

Indeed, some opponents are worried.

They worry if the measures carry Southern California, a longtime building industry stronghold, is there anywhere in the nation they would not pass?

Giving NIMBYs--the put-down affixed to homeowners who cry “not in my backyard” at any development in their vicinity--such veto power has caused growth to leapfrog farther inland in the Bay Area, they say.

“I see the direction this is heading in, and it’s disastrous,” said Dennis Moresco, president of the California Building Industry Assn., one of the groups funding the anti-SOAR campaign.

“We can’t build inside the cities, because the NIMBYs come and shut us down. We can’t build on farmland, because people want to save the farms. So where do you want us to build? People are going as far as Manteca. People are living in Tracy.”

SOAR’s Roots Spread From Napa County

Although they deeply resent SOAR and the way its backers are attempting to sell it to the public, even the most spirited opponents concede one point: The measures are legal.

The basis for SOAR is a 1990 Napa County initiative known asMeasure J that was eventuallyupheld by the California Supreme Court in 1995, capping a lengthy legal fight that attracted friends of the court on both sides of the issue. The landmark ruling dismissed the opposition’s key argument--that a General Plan, or state-mandated growth blueprint, could not be amended by initiative--and has spawned a handful of copycat measures.

Indeed, SOAR backers cut their teeth passing a measure based on the Napa model in Ventura three years ago.

“The electorate of Napa County has sought to ensure a greater stability in land use policy than shifting political and economic currents might otherwise provide,” Justice Stanley Mosk wrote in the Supreme Court’s majority opinion.

“We cannot say whether Measure J is the best policy for the county, or for the state. But we also cannot say that the measure, as it comes to us today, thwarts the basic purposes of the planning law. On the contrary, it appears to be a reasonable attempt to effectuate those purposes.”

Land-Use Policies at Heart of Issuel

At the heart of the SOAR debate lies a simple question: Are the county’s land-use policies working?

Many believe they are.

The county’s Guidelines for Orderly Development--only half-jokingly known by their acronym GOD among local planners--have since 1969 dictated that growth should be directed to existing cities, and that those cities should remain separated from one another by swaths of farmland and open space.

Since 1967, county and city leaders have also created six nonbinding “greenbelts”--or sections of farm and ranch land deemed off-limits to urbanization--totaling more than 83,000 acres.

Ventura County has lost just 10% of its farmland over the past 25 years, contrasted with 90% for Santa Clara County and 70% for Orange County.

With relatively few exceptions, most cities have stuck to their general plans, or growth blueprints, according to local planners. And nearly every city in the county has passed growth-control ordinances limiting everything from development of hillsides to the number of houses that can be built in a year.

In Thousand Oaks, for instance, development of publicly owned open space cannot occur without a vote of the people, and elected leaders cannot increase zoning densities within city borders unless they obtain approval from voters.

“It is no accident that Ventura County has developed the way it has,” said Thousand Oaks senior planner John Prescott, who sat on the committee that drew up the Guidelines for Orderly Development nearly three decades ago. “That was really by design, to keep the cities distinct and stop hodgepodge development, because that is the direction we were headed in.”

Some urban planning experts say the county’s growth policies are already so strict that they have funneled development inland into desert boomtowns such as Palmdale and Lancaster.

*

But a growing number of residents--not just homeowners, but politicians as well--believe the Guidelines for Orderly Development are beginning to crumble.

Many cite the Board of Supervisors’ approval of 3,050 houses on Ahmanson Ranch--a picturesque site near Oak Park that had seemed to be protected by open-space zoning--as proof that a 3-2 vote is all that is needed to trample the guidelines. The project is one of the largest in county history.

More recently, SOAR backers cite the Moorpark City Council’s approval of Hidden Creek Ranch--a 3,221-home development that would increase the city’s size by one-third--as a perfect example of the need for tougher regulations. Slow-growth activists have launched a referendum drive to undo the council’s decision.

One of the most frequently heard complaints in Ventura County is the creeping urbanization of the Oxnard Plain--one of the most fertile farming regions in the nation.

Dubbed “Sales Tax Canyon” by urban planner Fulton, the plain’s transformation into strip-mall “sellscape” is widely considered a textbook case of what occurs when cities allow the thirst for new tax dollars--caused by passage of Proposition 13--to influence land use.

The Oxnard Plain is perhaps the most visible example of the loss of county farmland, which a state report estimated at 1,000 acres a year between 1984 and 1994.

A 1996 study by University of California researchers concluded the county is steadily losing some of its most productive cropland and that housing for new residents will consume another 10,000 acres by 2010.

“There are a lot of people who feel strongly that they want to protect the quality of life they have here,” Thousand Oaks Councilwoman Linda Parks said. “People can’t believe where some of these developments are being allowed. SOAR would make it less likely for those lands to be lost by requiring a vote of the people. It’s a more democratic approach, and it’s the ultimate defense.”

Fears Over Growth in Neighborhoods

That democratic approach to planning is precisely what worries SOAR critics.

The city initiatives, in restricting expansion by setting “urban growth boundaries,” could force more building within existing neighborhoods. Planners say that is what occurred in Napa County, Portland, Ore., and other areas where such measures have already taken effect.

Large lot, single-family ranch homes must make way for townhouses and apartments, otherwise sprawl will just carry over to a nearby community, continuing the cycle of poor land use, they say.

“It’s important for voters in Ventura County to understand what will happen with these initiatives,” Napa County Planning Director Jeff Redding said. “I don’t think the impact of the initiative here was fully discussed. It carried the day on emotional terms.

“People need to realize that the growth is going to go somewhere,” he added. “If the growth is not going to take place in the unincorporated areas, it’s going to take place in their neighborhoods. I feel it in my own neighborhood. We’re growing by leaps and bounds.”

*

But SOAR opponents say such a radical philosophical shift in community planning would never fly in Ventura County’s bedroom suburbs. What would more likely occur if SOAR became law and development decisions were left to voters, they say, is an increase in NIMBY attitudes within cities--and no growth.

“When we tried to bring up the issue of mixed-use zoning in Simi Valley, people just freaked,” said County Supervisor Judy Mikels, a former Simi Valley councilwoman. “They were like, ‘Here we go. They want to turn us into the next Chicago or New York.’ They don’t like urban areas. They like single-family homes with wide streets and baseball diamonds.

“What I’m really worried about--how do I say this nicely--is that the average resident is not going to take time to study a project on its fiscal and environmental impacts,” Mikels added. “They are probably going to make a decision based on emotion, ‘No more,’ and that worries me.”

SOAR leaders acknowledge that by forcing all development inward, their measures will very likely lead cities to alter their approaches to land use, possibly resulting in denser housing.

But they also strongly believe there is plenty of room within cities to accommodate future growth without radical changes. They add that SOAR would only hold cities to existing growth plans, which allow for more than 60,000 houses to be built in the county by 2020.

“Cities will look around and see that what they have is finite,” Francis said. “Those borders are going to result in better projects, because there isn’t going to be room for mistakes anymore. It’s about time some of our elected leaders started thinking that way.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Growth Control

Convinced that Ventura County politicians cannot be trusted to corral urban sprawl, the citizens’ group Save Open space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) wants voters to approve the strongest set of growth control measures in Southern California history. The measures seek to prevent elected leaders from allowing more growth than current plans allow. They would strip county leaders of their power to rezone farm and open space land for development unless voters give the OK, and would prevent city leaders from expanding their borders without voter approval. Opponents, however, say the measures would hurt local farmers’ ability to change crops to survive in the global marketplace. They also say the measures would drive up land prices inside cities, increasing the cost of housing and hurting the county’s ability to lure and keep businesses.

Growth

Although it is among the slowest growing areas of Southern California, Ventura County still experienced rapid urbanization over the past three decades, with new cities cropping up in the east and older cities expanding in the west. From 1960 to 1990, the county’s population more than tripled, and is now estimated at 738,000. Slow growth activists say it is time to keep cities from sprawling further. They want to hold politicians to existing growth plans unless voters decide otherwise.

SOAR Boundaries

In addition to a countywide growth control measure, SOAR is hoping to pass six city measures restricting outward expansion in Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, Moorpark, Camarillo, Oxnard and Santa Paula. The measures would contain city growth to a set of designated borders called “CURB” lines unless voters change the boundaries. The borders would be in place through 2020 everywhere but Thousand Oaks, where they would last an additional 10 years. Voters will consider all the measures in November except for Moorpark SOAR, which will appear before voters in a special election early next year.

For Intro to growth control map

Convinced that Ventura County politicians cannot be trusted to corral urban sprawl, the citizens’ group Save Open space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) wants voters to approve the strongest set of growth control measures in Southern California history. The measures seek to prevent elected leaders from allowing more growth than current plans allow. They would strip county leaders of their power to rezone farm and open space land for development unless voters said it was OK, and would prevent city leaders from expanding their borders without voter approval. Opponents, however, say the measures would hurt local farmers’ ability to change crops to survive in the global marketplace. They also say the measures would drive up land prices inside cities, increasing the cost of housing and hurting the county’s ability to lure and keep businesses.

San Diego Initiative

San Diego County voters will consider a growth control measure similar to SOAR this fall. The Rural Heritage and Watershed Initiative would contain urbanization to the eastern third of San Diego County by establishing an urban growth boundary only voters could change. If the measure is approved, Growth could only occur in existing urban areas or in urban reserve lands within the boundary for the next 30 years.

City Expansion in

Population

*--*

City 1960 1970 1980 1990 Camarillo U* 19,219 37,797 52,303 Fillmore 4,808 6,285 9,602 11,992 Moorpark U* 1/2* U* 25,494 Ojai 4,495 5,591 6,816 7,613 Oxnard 40,265 71,225 108,195 142,216 Port Hueneme 11,067 14,295 17,803 20,319 Santa Paula 13,279 18,001 20,552 25,062 Simi Valley U* 56,464 77,500 100,217 Thousand Oaks U* 36,334 77,072 104,352 Ventura 29,114 55,797 74,393 92,575 Unincorporated 96,110 93,219 99,444 86,873 County Total 199,138 376,430 529,174 669,016

*--*

U*: unincorporated

Dwelling Units

*--*

City 1960 1970 1980 1990 Camarillo U* 5,535 14,234 18,731 Fillmore 1,586 1,935 3,039 3,528 Moorpark UP U* UP 7,915 Ojai 1,667 1,983 2,671 3,130 Oxnard 10,972 21,022 35,087 41,247 Port Hueneme 2,799 4,147 6,788 7,481 Santa Paula 4,263 5,769 7,172 8,062 Simi Valley U* 13,960 22,643 33,110 Thousand Oaks U* 10,524 27,491 37,765 Ventura 10,447 19,503 30,412 37,346 Unincorporated 28,964 27,755 33,847 30,163 County Total 60,698 112,133 183,384 228,478

*--*

U*: unincorporated

Source: Ventura County and SOAR

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

(A1) The SOAR Debate

County Report

Tired of watching urban sprawl eat up Ventura County’s farmland and open spaces, agroup of activists is looking to pass the strictest set of growth control measures in Southern California history here this fall. The Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) measures would take key zoning power away from elected leaders, giving it directly to voters. But oppopnets say SOAR is an extreme step full of unintended consequences for the county. The Times’ look at SOAR begins today. B1

About This Series

County Report: The SOAR Debate is a four-part series examining the consequences of the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources initiatives on the fall ballot across Ventura County. Today’s story is an overview of the initiatives and efforts to control urban sprawl over the years. Future stories, running on consecutive Sundays, will explore SOAR’s effect on housing, landowners and politics.