A Developing Problem

In approving Santa Paula’s controversial expansion plan by the narrowest possible margin, the body that guides Ventura County’s future development demonstrated the pitfalls that lie ahead.

Growth will come to the county and all 10 of its cities--whether they like it or not. The vigorous birthrate alone guarantees that. Now that voters have passed Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) growth-control measures to steer development away from farmland, where will new homes and businesses be built?

One option is already-developed urban areas, where vacant and underused space will eventually fill up and population density will rise. Another option is city hillsides that, by the standards of the past, were considered too expensive or too scenic to build on. A third option is rustic canyons, where common sense and simple economics have discouraged development--so far.

By today’s standards, Santa Paula’s proposal to redeem its dismal financial situation by developing Adams Canyon seems absurd. The 5,413-acre canyon is steep and rocky, accessible by just one narrow road. It has too many old oil wells, too little water. The danger of flooding and wildfire is profound; difficulty of evacuation is so great that the fire chief talks of a “shelter in place” strategy that would encourage residents to stay put no matter what.

Addressing all those problems to make way for construction of expensive homes in the canyon would cost many millions--millions that Santa Paula doesn’t have. Dozens of Santa Paula residents implored the City Council and, last week, Ventura County’s Local Agency Formation Commission to reject the idea. Nonetheless, LAFCO commissioners led by Supervisor Judy Mikels and Santa Paula Councilwoman Robin Sullivan voted 4 to 3 to include Adams Canyon and three smaller areas in the city’s sphere of influence. Several commissioners commented that such decisions ought to be left up to the individual cities.

We believe Adams Canyon should remain undeveloped. We challenge LAFCO to demand full analysis of the proposal’s costs and hazards before even thinking of allowing annexation, the next step on the road to development.

Will standards be different 20 or 50 years from now? With other options limited, will canyon development look like a bargain? Only time will tell.

But the question of where to build new homes and businesses must be addressed on a countywide basis, not left piecemeal to the cities. To that end we support LAFCO’s instructions to Santa Paula to reach binding greenbelt agreements with Fillmore to the east and Ventura to the west. Better yet, the question should be addressed regionally. That’s the only way to avoid range wars like the ongoing battles over Newhall Ranch and Ahmanson Ranch.