Land For Sale News : COUNTY REPORT SAVING OUR FARMLAND
REPORT SAVING OUR FARMLAND;
It has been 99 years since William John Pinkerton, an immigrant from Northern Ireland, spent a $ 6,000 oil field stake on 50 acres of sagebrush west of Santa Paula.
Today, Robert Pinkerton, 52, lives in the same simple farmhouse his grandfather built in 1900 and spends his days tending the trees his father planted. The city of Santa Paula presses in on two sides.
"This land is just plain not for sale," Pinkerton said as a warm May breeze rustled the leaves of 40-foot-tall avocado trees and the farmer showed off the cherry-red tractor on which he learned to plow at age 5. "This is our heritage. This is what we do. We are stewards of the land. I'm just borrowing it from the next generation."
For the first time in years, Pinkerton and other farmers are saying that the county's No. 1 industry can survive indefinitely--that the continued advance of cities across prime cropland is not inevitable, and that the persistent demand for houses and shopping centers should be directed inward or onto parcels less important to agriculture.
"There was apprehension that in 20 years or so it would be just about impossible to continue farming," said Pinkerton, a Ventura County Farm Bureau vice president. "I don't think that anymore."
The Farm Bureau, in its first major land-use policy change since 1983, endorsed last month the strengthening of so-called greenbelt agreements that declare vast stretches of the county's best farmland off-limits.
That clear, precise statement that local farmers intend to stay in business, and that their lands should not be considered holding zones for big-dollar developers, is seen as revolutionary by those who make farmland preservation their business.
"I don't know of another farm bureau that has released a set of policies as strong as the Ventura County Farm Bureau's," said Erik Vink, California field representative of the American Farmland Trust.
As important as it is, the Farm Bureau policy is but one current in the political winds that are making farmland preservation the most important local issue of 1997.
Across Ventura County, communities are considering ballot measures or city laws that would keep the suburbs from sprawling onto farmland and open space.
And an opinion poll to be released soon by a University of California farmland trust found that 75% of 400 local adults questioned strongly favor saving the citrus orchards and vegetable farms that still distinguish Ventura County from its crowded neighbors to the south and east.
"Farmland preservation is the top issue not only for this year but for years to come," said John Flynn, chairman of the county Board of Supervisors. "We're right at the intersection, and if we take the wrong road we could see the whole county developed. There are several major projects that, if they all go through, we can kiss agriculture goodbye in Ventura County."
Indeed, Oxnard wants to turn 815 acres of farmland into new homes and--ironically--a theme park dedicated to agriculture. Santa Paula would include about 800 farm acres in its expansion plans.
Camarillo is mulling construction of homes and stores on cropland along the Ventura Freeway, and Moorpark has talked of annexing farms west of the city.
On Ventura County's eastern flank, a proposed 70,000-resident development in Los Angeles County would bring the forces of urbanization to the bucolic Santa Clara Valley.
Even the county government, which is leading a new push for farmland preservation, plans to build an amphitheater and golf course that encroach on one greenbelt zone and has approved construction of a driving range in another.
*
But stopping such incursions into farmland and open space is far from easy, despite overwhelming support for the broader goal of saving agriculture.
Slow-growth advocates want to strip farmers of their rights to develop their land while seizing authority over land use from elected officials. In turn, farmers and local officials say they are working toward a better option, gaining consensus for tough new regulations that spare cropland while respecting the rights of others.
Ventura County--whose population has swelled 5 1/2 times to 717,000 residents since 1950--lost an average of about 1,000 acres of agricultural land each year during the decade ending in 1995.
Today, only about 105,000 acres of irrigated land remains, and a study on farming's economic value last year predicted the possible loss of another 10,000 acres by 2010 as 75,000 more residents arrive. The point at which the industry collapses because support companies cannot stay in business is about 64,000 acres, the study said.
But like Pinkerton, Flynn does not think that is going to happen. He recently joined Supervisor Kathy Long in sponsoring a task force to make the case for saving agriculture--a $ 1.2-billion-a-year industry that employs about 18,000 workers.
Through a series of town hall meetings, the group will also gauge public support for strong new policies to protect farmland.
And public officials seem to have gotten the message.
"Farmland preservation certainly has increased its visibility out there," said county planner Gene Kjellberg, an expert on farmland preservation. "Nobody wants to be seen looking like they're the bad guys."
But the question remains: How can Ventura County declare its best farmland off-limits, and make it stick?
One model is a successful 1995 Ventura ballot initiative that blocks development of thousands of farm acres without voter approval until 2030.
Its slow-growth sponsors are pressing ahead with efforts to put farmland measures on the 1998 ballots in several other local cities. They say chances seem best in Camarillo and in unincorporated areas outside city limits.
Environmentalists are also looking north to Sonoma County, which resembles Ventura County in its agricultural roots and its proximity to a metropolis, as a guide on how to stop suburban sprawl, or at least shape it better.
There, four communities passed initiatives last fall to lock in city boundaries for as long as 20 years--the first so-called urban limit lines imposed by voters in California.
Those measures, and a similar one passed in San Francisco's East Bay, all have one thing in common: They take away the power to approve development in outlying areas from city councils.
The Thousand Oaks City Council will discuss a similar measure Tuesday at the urging of Councilwoman Linda Parks, an advocate of slow growth. She will ask council members to impose their own growth limits.
Farmers' Rights
The prospect of voter-approved limit lines has made farmers and elected officials in Ventura County nervous. Farmers are not keen on having anyone tell them what they can do with their land. Politicians say ballot-box government is bad news, taking away their flexibility to move quickly to close good deals.
"We want to be the ones leading the charge," said Farm Bureau President Mike Mobley. "We don't want to be beat over the head and told what we can and can't do with our property."
So another alternative is emerging as farmers, builders, elected officials and many environmentalists set aside old differences and rally behind principles such as stronger greenbelt agreements and city boundaries that do not expand with each proposal for a tax-rich "big box" store or luxury golf course community.
Both farmers and environmentalists also support a budding movement in which agricultural land trusts buy farmers' rights to develop cropland. About 50,000 acres have been preserved in trusts in nine California counties so far, principally in Sonoma and Marin.
In Sonoma County, the effort is supported by a voter-approved one-quarter-cent sales tax that provides millions of dollars a year. In the new UC poll, many Ventura County residents also said they would be willing to impose a modest new tax on themselves to protect farmland.
*
Just this month, a state agency approved $ 300,000 to help the Ventura County Agricultural Land Trust buy rights to a 135-acre farm near Ventura, a purchase that would be the first of its kind locally.
But despite the talk of common ground, strong doubts remain about whether Ventura County officials can stand firm against farmland development as proposals for new construction--pent up during the recession--are argued before city councils.
Former Ventura Mayor Richard Francis, co-sponsor of the Ventura slow-growth ordinance, said he does not think the coalition's push will end in binding reform because politicians always bend when the price is right.
"I think they're well-meaning, but I'm skeptical because this kind of talk has been going on for 20 years," Francis said. "Politics runs on money. And the sad fact is that development is where the money is at on the local level."
Ventura Councilman Steve Bennett, another sponsor of the Ventura initiative, said his biggest concern is that the current push may end in policies that seem to protect farmland but do not--and that pull support away from meaningful reform such as ballot initiatives that legally lock cities into preservation.
"Because of the timing of this effort, you have to be concerned about the real intentions of some of the players," Bennett said, "whether they really embrace . . . limitation on farmers' rights to develop the land."
Flynn, Long and others said they think changes can be made that protect the land without taking land-use decisions away from policymakers--and without impinging on farmers' rights. Their focus is on the six greenbelts that cover 83,000 acres and protect farmland and open space from urban development.
Possible reforms include:
* New greenbelt agreements approved as local law--or as legal contracts--that would require the county and the cities that create them to all agree before greenbelt lands could be annexed and developed.
Now, greenbelt agreements are nonbinding and can be violated unilaterally with the consent of the Local Agency Formation Commission, whose seven members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, a council of local mayors and a committee representing special districts.
* Approval of a one-quarter-cent sales tax to buy development rights from farmers.
* Adoption of urban limit lines by cities through a vote of their councils, not by ballot initiative.
* Adoption of a new LAFCO policy requiring approval from a super-majority of five of seven members for a city to annex cropland.
* Adoption of a new annexation policy so cities could not expand without both LAFCO approval and a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors. LAFCO, created by the state to oversee growth in counties, now has sole jurisdiction over annexation requests.
"We are in effect the custodians of that land for the people, and yet we have no say as a board when agricultural lands are annexed by the cities," said Flynn, arguing for the mandatory county review. "We brag all the time about our orderly growth, but what's the difference if in the end you use up all the land anyway?"
But no one is saying such reforms will be easy to sell to city councils.
Cities Vs. the County
Supervisor Judy Mikels, a former Simi Valley councilwoman, said it is unrealistic to think cities will voluntarily cede control over growth near their borders.
"I don't think any jurisdiction is going to give up their ultimate powers," Mikels said. "But what we need is a forthright, honest discussion of what greenbelts really are. There are a lot of municipalities that look at them as holding zones.
"You've got Oxnard out there chewing up strawberry land at such an incredible rate; it's like a giant Pac-Man game," she said. "And who would have ever thought Santa Paula would want to expand into greenbelt land?"
Indeed, despite all the talk of preserving farmland, confrontations regularly flare between cities and the county. The finger-pointing is often over greenbelt projects.
The parties nearly always agree in principle: Under countywide guidelines adopted in 1969, development should take place within city limits or, when necessary, extend into the cities' spheres of influence, their probable future boundaries.
*
However, those future boundaries keep moving, even though thousands of acres of undeveloped farmland remain within city limits and thousands more in the cities' spheres of influence. A new county study shows about 5,000 acres in the spheres alone, including 2,185 farm acres in Oxnard, 1,521 in Ventura, 547 in Camarillo, 496 in Fillmore and 224 in Santa Paula.
In Oxnard, the jurisdiction drawing most fire from farmland preservationists, the city has created a plan to build about 3,165 houses and an agricultural theme park on 815 acres of prime cropland--all outside its sphere of influence and in a designated greenbelt.
The city is also reviewing a proposal to convert 305 farm acres outside its sphere into an upscale golf course community.
Oxnard officials say they are expanding logically toward their ultimate borders and will offset loss of greenbelt lands by placing additional farm acres in agricultural preserves.
"So in spite of the criticism, we're not all bad," Mayor Manuel Lopez said. As for greenbelts, "I will not vote to violate them, but I cannot say what somebody in my position will do 20 years from now."
In Santa Paula, the city would more than triple its size under a proposed new master plan to add 9,300 acres to its sphere of influence.
While most of the expansion would be in canyon cattle country north of the city, about 800 acres are cropland, including about 500 owned by lemon producer Limoneira Co. and located in the Santa Paula-Fillmore greenbelt. Limoneira wants to develop the property, arguing that the soil is not top grade.
Santa Paula officials say their farm community has held the line against growth but is struggling financially and must attract more tax-producing stores and luxury homes. "We have a city that basically hasn't expanded in its history, " Planning Director Joan Kus said.
Expansion Plans
In Fillmore, the City Council has just begun to update its growth plan. And while there has been little support so far for expanding current boundaries, one proposal calls for annexing hundreds of acres of citrus orchards north of town, then allowing construction of a small cluster of homes while preserving much of the land permanently as farms.
East of Fillmore, just across the Los Angeles County line, local officials are fighting the 70,000-resident Newhall Ranch community that they fear could lead to housing tracts on thousands of acres owned by Newhall in Ventura County.
In response, the Farm Bureau is backing creation of a new greenbelt along California 126 from Fillmore to the county line.
In Moorpark, the city is expected to expand its boundaries by 4,000 acres this year to approve a 3,200-home community in the hilly grazing land north of town. Although that proposal includes little cropland, the Moorpark council has revived an old discussion about expanding into prime farmland on its western flank.
In Camarillo, a plan to develop 258 farm acres along the Ventura Freeway will soon return to the City Council for reconsideration.
The so-called Ponderosa Corridor is within the city's sphere of influence but outside city limits. A similar plan was rejected in 1994. Camarillo has nearly 1,500 acres of land designated for farm use within its current borders, and city officials have made their preservation a part of city policy.
"If we don't maintain these greenbelts, we're in deep trouble here. We'll lose our rural character," said Mayor Stan Daily, whose grandfather settled a nearby farm in the 1880s.
*
While Thousand Oaks has no cropland left to develop, some officials there have joined west county activists in a countywide effort to preserve open space. They argue that the proposed 326-home Woodridge project would eliminate the last open space between their city and Simi Valley.
Unincorporated Ventura County has not been without its farmland controversies. County supervisors approved a housing project for farm workers near Fillmore in 1989 and a new county jail near Santa Paula in 1992, both in greenbelts. The county also approved the massive Ahmanson Ranch mini-city on open space near Oak Park.
Last year, county supervisors ignored objections of surrounding cities to allow six luxury homes in an open-space area near the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and then in December approved construction of two money-making golf driving ranges, including one in the Tierra Rejada Greenbelt.
Now the county is proposing a 17,000-seat amphitheater and golf course south of Camarillo, and part of the project is in a greenbelt.
Greenbelts Disregarded
While the vast majority of greenbelt land is agricultural, some is merely zoned as open space and is subject to a variety of nonurban uses such as recreation, county officials noted. That is why both the driving range and amphitheater projects comply with greenbelt policies, they said.
Other government entities, exempt from local planning laws and policies, have ignored greenbelt agreements. State officials picked a 260-acre lemon orchard in a greenbelt near Camarillo as the site for a four-year Cal State University campus before opting for the Camarillo State Hospital campus.
And the Oxnard High School District built its newest school on farmland west of Oxnard even though the city opposed the project as growth-inducing and LAFCO rejected it as destructive to agriculture.
Now the city of Oxnard is reviewing a builder's plan for a golf course community on farms north of the high school.
But if one project galvanized the debate over farmland preservation, it was a Britain-based developer's plan to plant 159 houses on 195 acres near the farming community of Somis.
The Board of Supervisors agreed 3 to 2 to review the project and left open the possibility that the county would rezone the parcel for rural residential use instead of agriculture, allowing for one house on each acre instead of one on every 40.
*
Outraged city officials from throughout the county said the subdivision would set a precedent certain to invite leap-frog development in county areas and encroach further on already-squeezed farming operations.
In the end, a task force of city and county officials agreed to change county policy and limit construction of houses in unincorporated areas to lots of 2 acres or more.
Mikels, who had agreed to consider the proposal because of her belief in property rights, said she still thinks the Knightsbridge project was entitled to a review, but she might now counsel the developer against going forward.
"I've learned some hard lessons; I've been slapped around a little," Mikels said. "I've learned that you don't mess with farmland. And I've learned a lot more about what residents want for their quality of life."
Saving Farmland
Ventura County's fertile soil and mild climate help about 2,200 local farmers generate about $ 1.2 billion a year in sales and 18,000 jobs on some of the most productive farmland in the world. California is the food basket of the nation. Ventura County ranks among the state's five leading counties in the production of 10 crops, including nearly half of all lemons in the U.S. But an average of about 1,000 acres of cropland are convertedd to urban uses each year, and a coalition of farmers, builders and environmentalists is saying it is time to stop the erosion of teh county's premier industry.
Greenbelts
Efforts are underway to put teeth into the nonbinding city-county
agreements that have created six greenbelts spanning 83,000 acres since 1967.
The county Farm Bureau has recommended a seventh greenbelt east of Fillmore.
A variety of interests also favor making city boundaries permanent. But as
these efforts move forward, Oxnard and Santa Paula are considering annexation
of greenbelt lands.
DARYL KELLEY, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Site Sponsors
