Supervisors Poised to Approve 3 Growth-Control Amendments

After months of negotiations, Ventura County supervisors are expected to approve a report today that would guide the implementation of a voter-approved growth-control measure.

Supervisors John Flynn and Frank Schillo are asking their colleagues to approve three recommendations related to Measure A, a growth-control advisory initiative approved by voters in November.

The report recommends that a committee develop criteria for strengthening greenbelt agreements and explore the formation of a countywide land conservation district.

Additionally, Flynn and Schillo suggest that the county work with the League of Women Voters and the Sustainability Council, both county-based groups, to develop a public-education program dealing with land-use issues.

The broad-strokes plan, just three pages long, has the support of Supervisor Judy Mikels, who had criticized an earlier 35-page report as not calling for enough involvement by local officials.

“It appears they took to heart some of the discussion the board had,” said Mikels, referring to an hourlong debate supervisors held in April. “I’m very comfortable with it now.”

Flynn was so angry after the board rejected the April report that he announced he was resigning from the implementation committee. “I don’t want to do more work, come back and be second-guessed again,” he said at the April 13 board meeting.

But the veteran supervisor apparently changed his mind a day later.

“I decided that since no one accepted my resignation, I didn’t really quit,” Flynn quipped.

The dispute, which has pitted Flynn and Schillo against board colleagues Mikels, Kathy Long and Susan Lacey, underscores differences among supervisors over how the county should approach land-use planning in an era of strict growth controls.

Mindful of broad public support for Measure A, which got 69% of the vote in November, and the companion SOAR initiative, an open-space protection ordinance that garnered 63%, Flynn and Schillo have urged the board to move forward quickly with proposals to implement growth-control plans.

But the other supervisors have supported a more cautious approach, involving a wide variety of community members. Mikels, for instance, rejected the April report in part because the language dealing with greenbelts did not involve people in the cities that would be affected.

The revised report suggests that the county committee establish broad parameters for the county’s greenbelts and allow the “home district” supervisor, along with municipal officials, to work out the details.

That is how it should be, Mikels said.

“I was very uncomfortable with the [county] committee doing all of the greenbelt work,” she said.

The county has six greenbelts, with another five potential greenbelts identified in the county general plan. The language for each greenbelt agreement was developed over two decades, and they are not consistent. Under Flynn and Schillo’s proposal, the county committee would suggest standard language and requirements for each greenbelt agreement.

The county would also co-sponsor a series of educational workshops on growth and planning issues. The League of Women Voters and the Sustainability Council have offered to help, Flynn and Schillo said.

Finally, the supervisors suggest looking into proposals to form a countywide land trust or even a taxing district to preserve open space. By forming a conservation entity, the county could accept donations of land or grant money to buy up open space.

Flynn said this issue should be given top priority.

“It has great potential. Everyone in the state is looking at Ventura County on this issue. That might attract some money,” he said.

Schillo said formation of a taxing district would be a last-resort move, to be done only if the other options do not pan out.

“They could all exist simultaneously,” Schillo said. “We need to come back and see what will work.”