Plan Now to Slow Sprawl, Panels Told

Dozens of Ventura County residents pleaded with the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday to avoid the path to urbanization taken by other counties by making tough planning decisions now.

That means changing the way the county draws up its long-term blueprint for growth, speaker after speaker told supervisors.

Tough decisions on when roads will be widened, whether more mass transit should be encouraged and how many more housing units will be planned should all be decided by the county and its 10 cities, residents said.

“It is time for all of us to find our vision for Ventura County and to make decisions that depart from the past,” said Curtis Stiles, a Ventura landscape architect.

The three-hour hearing came during a workshop held by supervisors and the Ventura County Planning Commission to hear public views on a proposed update of the county’s General Plan, a document that will guide county growth over the next two decades.

General plans typically are updated every 10 years, but Ventura County’s has not changed in 14.

Supervisors ordered a review last year but directed the staff to focus mainly on traffic and noise.

But during the hearing, several speakers urged supervisors to expand the review to include how growth decisions will affect air quality, agricultural resources, wildlife and even scenic vistas.

One concern is whether the county plan should call for the widening of some roads from two lanes to four or find other ways to deal with transportation problems brought on by population growth.

Supervisor Steve Bennett said it may be possible to absorb population increases and sustain the county’s semirural feel--but only if some tough choices are made.

For example, the board could insist that all road-widening proposals first be approved by supervisors, Bennett said, or encourage more mass transit.

But the important step is deciding that the county wants to try a different way, the Ventura supervisor said.

County voters took the first steps toward controlling growth when they approved the SOAR laws in 1998, Bennett said.

“Despite being next to one of the biggest metropolises in the world, we want to stay semirural,” said Bennett, a coauthor of the SOAR initiatives. “My bias is to work every option before expanding our roads.”

Several farmers also spoke, urging supervisors to consider changes needed to keep the county’s agricultural industry economically healthy.

One way would be to change a county regulation that limits construction of work buildings to 5% of their farmland.

With changing consumer demands, many farmers need more processing plants and other buildings, farmers said. Supervisors should change the limit to 10%, several speakers said.

Supervisor Judy Mikels said she supported the farmers’ views.

“If we want agriculture, which we do, we’ve got to be flexible enough to let the industry remain viable,” Mikels said.

Supervisors agreed to delay any decisions until the Planning Commission has a chance to hold its own meeting on the issue. County staff will also report back on how much a more comprehensive review would cost and how long it would take.

A delay makes sense if, in the end, the General Plan reflects the collective view of residents and county decision makers, said board Chairman John Flynn.

“I don’t think we can do this in an isolated way,” Flynn said.

“We have 10 cities. We have water districts. We have school districts. And everyone is in a controversy.”