Fillmore Unveils Plan to Expand

Hoping to lure affluent residents to the county’s poorest city, Fillmore officials on Wednesday launched a new push to nearly double the town’s area over the next two decades.

Fillmore wants to grow from 1,748 acres to 3,238, increase its population from 14,000 to 20,000 and add more than 1,000 homes, many of them geared toward upscale professionals, city officials said.

Critics immediately assailed the proposal, saying it would lead to urban sprawl, eat up productive farmland and pose a flooding risk for residents closest to the Santa Clara River.

They also accused the city of trying to rush the proposal through before Fillmore voters adopt the same kind of growth-control laws approved in seven other local cities in recent years.

“We believe landowner and development interests are fueling this fast-track approach,” said Paul Harding, a Fillmore resident and slow-growth proponent.

But City Councilman Evaristo Barajas said the city has been updating its growth plan for three years and that numerous workshops have been held to inform residents.

City leaders on Wednesday presented a preview of the proposal to the Local Agency Formation Commission. The idea was to give the state agency a heads-up, said Barajas, a LAFCO alternate board member.

After conducting environmental studies, the city plans to bring a formal proposal to the commission this fall. Even if new boundaries are set, construction of residential tracts could still be years away and subject to additional layers of review and approval, Barajas said.

“This is not something that we pulled out of thin air,” he said. “We need to grow out of poverty a little bit. We need a better mix of housing.”

City Planner Kevin McSweeney told LAFCO members that Fillmore has the lowest per-capita income in Ventura County--$11,894 compared with a county average of $19,690. The historic farm town also has the highest unemployment rate and the highest housing density, the planner said.

City leaders believe that some growth is needed to lure affluent residents whose taxes would help pay for services in a city that struggles to provide basic necessities.

The proposed expansion, which would still be subject to public hearings and City Council approval, is similar to a city-backed initiative that was defeated by voters in November.

It calls for growth boundaries to expand by 242 acres along the city’s southeastern edge to make way for up to 1,000 homes, a 20-acre park and a new elementary school and by 832 acres along Goodenough Road to the north that could accommodate up to 155 executive-style homes on six-acre parcels.

An additional 416 acres at the city’s eastern edge is targeted primarily for open space and agriculture, but a few dozen homes could be built there, McSweeney said.

While the city-backed expansion measure was defeated by voters, so was a rival SOAR growth-control initiative, Barajas said. Both initiatives lost by large majorities.

“The message I got when both were voted down is that most individuals are happy with the way that the City Council has been handling future growth,” Barajas said.

Harding, who led the SOAR campaign, disagreed and said there is a “very strong possibility” that growth-control advocates will try again to pass a SOAR measure. SOAR laws ban development on open space and agricultural land unless a public vote is taken.

Speakers at Wednesday’s presentation said they are worried not only about loss of farmland but flooding from the Santa Clara River. Homes along the southeast border would be in a flood plain and levees don’t always work, said Fillmore resident Clarence Freeman. The area is also close to an earthquake fault that scientists believe could produce a major quake.

Fillmore City Councilwoman Patti Walker said she is opposed because of the potential harm to farming operations and a nearby state fish hatchery. So far, however, the four other council members have agreed to go forward with the reviews, Walker said.

LAFCO members Steve Bennett and Linda Parks excused themselves from the discussion because of potential conflicts of interest. Bennett received a campaign contribution from one of the land holders whose property would be included in the expansion, and Parks has worked on SOAR campaigns.

A third alternate member, Dick Richardson, owns property off Goodenough Road.