Vote on Santa Paula Expansion Plan Delayed

Opponents of Santa Paula’s plan to more than triple its size and develop high-end housing say it is a recipe for disaster--a scheme that would cost the city more than it could ever earn back, pitting rich against poor while encroaching on open space.

But supporters passionately argue that the plan to stretch into two neighboring canyons will pay for itself and is the only responsible way for the city to expand.

Growth, they say, is essential if the agricultural city of 27,000 residents, now almost entirely built out, is ever to turn around its lagging economy.

More than 100 people from both camps packed the County Government Center on Wednesday to make their case before Ventura County’s Local Agency Formation Commission, which was set to vote on the proposed expansion, a key step before the city can annex the land.

The seven-member commission instead decided to postpone a vote on the so-called sphere of influence decision until its Feb. 2 meeting. But first, they heard six hours of heated testimony by about 50 people.

“We are probably the poorest city in the county and we need a little economic growth to climb out of the hole we find ourselves in,” City Manager Peter Cosentini said. “Each city must find its own financial answers. Some cities have three times the sales tax revenue of Santa Paula, but for us, the answer is quality residential development.”

John Procter, an electrician and resident for 40 years, disagreed.

“We’ll be replacing orange trees with Orange County,” he said, referring to that county’s sprawl.

Other opponents said the land that the city hopes to develop into homes could be particularly vulnerable to earthquakes, floods and fires.

This is the city’s second attempt at expansion. Key components of the current proposal were first rejected in 1998, with commissioners saying the city needed to better show it could handle increased traffic and sewage, and provide the needed police and fire services.

*

The city chose to withdraw the plan and try again. It produced a 40-page white paper, which city leaders say addresses commissioners’ concerns. Opponents say it is vague and provides no real justification for adding so much land.

LAFCO’s executive director has recommended that the commission approve the request.

The slightly revised plan would add 7,737 acres, mostly through the inclusion of Adams and Fagan canyons to the northwest and north of the city.

City leaders hope that the canyons, now open space used for grazing, citrus and avocado crops, and some hillside orchards, could be developed with as many as 3,600 upscale homes and a golf course. The expansion would also encompass two small patches of agricultural land east and west of the city, to be used for commercial development and some light industry.

In the past several years, the expansion debate has polarized much of the city.

The proposal has even caught the eye of the U. S. Department of Justice, which has suggested that it could further diminish the power of Latino voters in a city where Latinos comprise the majority of the population but do not hold the reins of political power.

Many speakers on each side of the debate told commissioners Wednesday that they were ordinary people not affiliated with any special interests. Several others did admit having biases.

Real estate agents and retail business owners tended to support the expansion. Low-income housing developers, Latino activists, and environmental attorneys and activists generally opposed it.

*

There were some exceptions in each camp, such as a retired oil executive and a real estate agent who opposed the plan, and a biologist who favored it.

Santa Paula’s former planning director and two members of the city’s Planning Commission support the expansion. A former city planning commissioner and a former county planning commissioner oppose it.

Four of the city’s five City Council members favor the expansion. Councilwoman Laura Flores Espinosa, the sole opponent, is also the sole Latina on the panel.

Arnold Dahlberg, a developer who owns most of Adams Canyon, largest of the four areas in the proposed expansion, did not testify at the hearing, but watched quietly from a seat near the front of the chamber.

Richard Francis, co-architect of the county’s SOAR slow-growth measures and a lawyer who has sued to block development elsewhere in the county, said that if LAFCO does approve the expansion, he would consider filing a lawsuit.

Part of such litigation could deal with LAFCO’s move last month to strike many of its more stringent policy guidelines. LAFCO leaders say the changes had no connection with the Santa Paula proposal; critics disagree.

Meanwhile, the commission voted Wednesday in closed session to appeal a judge’s ruling last year in an annexation case brought by Francis and others involving the city of Moorpark.

In that case, the judge overturned LAFCO’s approval of Moorpark’s annexation of the 4,300-acre Hidden Creek Ranch, where developers hoped to build one of the county’s largest housing developments.

Also, in a 5-2 vote, LAFCO approved the city of Oxnard’s request to annex 246 acres of agricultural land at Victoria Avenue and Gonzalez Road. The city plans to build an 18-hole golf course and allow for the development of 426 single-family homes, two churches and an elementary school.

Times Community News reporter Catherine Blake contributed to this story.