Planners Back Move to Aid Growers

Hoping to protect the interests of growers, Ventura County planners recommended Thursday that new development projects adjacent to farmland be designed and operated to minimize their impacts on agriculture.

The onus would be on developers--not farmers--to prevent or reduce the threats of runoff, erosion, disease, pests or the potential for trespassing or vandalism on the agricultural land in unincorporated portions of the county, under recommendations adopted by the county Planning Commission.

In a 4-0 vote, commissioners recommended adding the category of “agricultural resources and operations” to the list of criteria that must be considered when the county determines how dense a residential or commercial development can be or whether a special-use permit should be issued.

The recommendations go to the Board of Supervisors for final approval.

Developers could be required to limit the scope of their project, build in buffer zones, construct fences or otherwise protect neighboring agricultural land in consultation with the county’s agricultural commissioner.

“One of the issues we continually encounter is the conflict between agricultural uses and urban uses,” planner Debby Millais said. “This puts the onus on the new use coming in next to the agricultural use.”

While farmers already have some protection under existing law, “it’s better to have it spelled out right from the start,” Millais said. “You look at all those issues before you build your project.”

Under the proposed change, farmers whose land borders other farms would bear the same burden of protecting that neighboring land if they wanted to initiate a project that could have spillover effects.

Rex Laird, executive director of the Ventura County Farm Bureau, applauded the move and said it is in keeping with a policy supervisors have been advocating in concept.

“It is something that should have been included some time ago,” he said. “It’s one thing to give lip service. It’s another thing to actually codify your rules and regulations so that these things will be considered.

“This is the very issue the city of Ventura is going to have to deal with in the development of their [proposed] sports park,” he added. “Now that will be in a city, but irrespective of the jurisdiction it will have significant impacts on the people trying to farm adjacent to it.”

Thursday’s meeting was the first and is expected to be the least controversial of several to be held throughout the year. The meetings are being held at the urging of environmentalists, farmers and the cities of Moorpark, Thousand Oaks and Fillmore, in hopes of solidifying anti-growth protections such as greenbelts.

“Their general direction was that we had been too lax in allowing things out in the agricultural zones that really weren’t agricultural,” Millais said.

At future meetings, commissioners probably will be asked to ban mining operations, government buildings, golf courses and greenhouses on agriculturally zoned land.

Meanwhile, planning commissioners also voted Thursday to recommend other restrictions dealing with agricultural land. Those recommendations also must be approved by supervisors before they can be enacted.

One measure would limit how many extraneous goods that operators of fruit and vegetable stands can carry when the stands are on agricultural land.

Commissioners approved a plan limiting smaller stands to carry only raw and unprocessed goods grown either on site or elsewhere in the county. At larger stands of 500 square feet or more, at least 80% of the goods would have to meet that standard. The remaining 20% could be processed goods or crops not grown inside the county.

“We believe they should be selling produce” if their stand is on agriculture property, “not Matchbox cars and cups and soft drinks,” Millais said.

Also, commissioners supported limiting to 15% of a permitted agricultural site the amount of space that can be taken up with promotional or sales facilities.

Commissioners drew fire from farmers for an earlier proposal that would have set that limit at 10%.

Richard Rogers, the Camarillo farmer who operates the Amazing Maize Maze, a family oriented attraction in which people pay to find their way out of a giant maze of corn rows, said under that restriction he would not be allowed to operate it. He also said the limits would have placed a heavier burden on smaller farmers who already were struggling to get by.

While Rogers argued no limit was necessary, commissioners said it was important to set some boundaries so that agricultural land would be used as intended.