Home › Growth and Housing
Open-space plan needs voters' OK
James Glover II / Star staff "It will increase the city's operating budget substantially, create jobs and revenue," Harold Edwards, Limoneira Co. president and chief executive officer, said of his company's plan to develop a 501-acre site outside Santa Paula.
STORY TOOLS
More from Growth and Housing
Inside Ventura County's poorest city, residents of Santa Paula are looking for an economic boon from development of land that's been farmed for a century.
Backers say Measure G, which goes to voters June 3, is the best chance the city has had in years. Limoneira Co., a Santa Paula agribusiness firm, is seeking to develop the 501-acre site into a master-planned community it says could pump up the entire city's fortunes.
"It's going to make a major difference," said John Blanchard, president and chief executive officer of the Chamber of Commerce. "They are talking about the permanent creation of 1,000 new jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs — that's the bottom line for anything."
But the sloping, historic property lies east of town and north of Telegraph Road in a 34,000-acre greenbelt, a protected area that requires voter approval to bring it into the city.
If passed by a simple majority, it would represent the largest urbanization of Ventura County farmland since the voters began approving open-space initiatives more than a decade ago.
About 400 acres are in active agricultural production, with the remaining 100 acres in natural undeveloped land and ranch housing, city Planning Director Janna Minsk said. Limoneira would preserve 200 acres with open space, trails and an unknown amount of avocado acreage, with the remainder to be developed into urban uses.
Fillmore concerned; SOAR neutral
The City Council has approved the Limoneira Co.'s plan for the development but needs voters' permission to extend the city's growth limit east to do it. If approved, the limit would be moved east from Santa Paula Creek on the edge of town to Haun Creek and the housing density increased from 900 to 1,500 units. The city would then annex the land, which requires approval from the anti-sprawl agency known as LAFCO.
The Fillmore City Council has expressed concerns, based on the 1980 greenbelt agreement that city signed with Santa Paula. The board of directors of the county's open space movement, officially known as Save Open-space and Agricultural Resources, is neutral.
SOAR leaders cite the positions of supporters who live in Santa Paula for staying out of it.
Jim Procter, for example, battled proposals to build high-end homes in Adams Canyon, but he plans to vote for Limoneira project.
"I hate to see any land go out of agriculture," he said, "but the consensus in town is that some growth would be beneficial, and this was clearly the best project that's been presented in at least 20 years."
Growth pressures in both towns
SOAR has been a powerful political force since the first anti-sprawl initiative passed in 1995, then swept across the county as voters agreed they wanted to decide whether land should be taken out of agriculture or open space.
The organization campaigned against developing Santa Paula's Adams Canyon all three times it went on the ballot and opposed the North Park campaign in Moorpark and the Ventura hillsides measure.
County Supervisor Steve Bennett, who along with attorney Richard Francis kicked off the SOAR movement, doubts Measure G will set off similar moves across the county.
Francis, though, said he's concerned about the impact on the Santa Paula-Fillmore greenbelt.
"There's growth pressures in both towns," Francis said. "That pressure is being increased by Newhall (Ranch) and other development on the L.A. County side. When one plays chess, it exerts pressure all across the board."
But Limoneira executives describe the development as "an extension of Santa Paula" that the city badly needs.
They want not only to offer new housing, public amenities and commercial space inside the development's borders but also to stimulate business outside it. With the departure of a major auto dealership, the town's sales taxes are projected at $1.4 million this fiscal year, down almost $175,000 from 2006-07.
352 acres of prime land would be lost
Restaurateur Dan Diaz say business hasn't been great in Santa Paula since the 1980s, when construction and defense jobs shrank.
"Let's get some disposable income in here; let's get some people who are going to spend some money," said the co-owner of the Familia Diaz Mexican restaurant.
He sees better times in Limoneira's plan to build up to 1,500 homes, plus retail, office and industrial space along with public parks, an assisted living center, athletic fields, an elementary school, a fire station and a community center. The agribusiness company has also pledged a site for a future high school, most likely a small learning academy; land for a higher education center; $6.5 million for renovation and expansion of Isbell Middle School; and $5.5 million toward the cost of a new sewer plant.
The economic gains would be significant, adding close to $850 million in assessed valuation to the property tax rolls and an estimated 1,035 jobs at completion, a fiscal consultant's report says. Over 20 years, the city would gain $14.1 million in 2007 dollars to pay for basic operations through new taxes, the report says.
The project would result in the loss of 352 acres of land designated by the state as prime or unique and 350 acres would be permanently removed from production, according to an environmental analysis. Although Limoneira plans to preserve the stone pump house at the Teague-McKevett Ranch and move farmworker dwellings, the alterations could affect whether the ranch qualifies for landmark status, the analysis says.
Limoneira is turning a profit on the lemon and avocados growing on rocky soil, but executives say the payoff will be greater both for the company and the city if it is developed.
Lowest median household income
"It will increase the city's operating budget substantially, create jobs and revenue," said Harold Edwards, Limoneira president and CEO.
Santa Paula had the lowest median household income in Ventura County at $41,651, according to the 2000 census, and lacks a large tax base to provide city services.
"Santa Paula is so poor," said John Chamberlain, marketing director for Limoneira. "People pretty much get it that we need to do something."
The site known as East Area 1 has been marked for expansion in Santa Paula's planning maps since at least 1998, but the current effort began five years ago when City Manager Wally Bobkiewicz approached Limoneira's former CEO, Pierre Tada. The executive took the idea to the company's board of directors, which reached an agreement with the City Council initiating the process. The final plan is based on the thoughts of professional designers, company and city officials, and community residents.
Limoneira hired architect David Sargent to, in his words, "make more Santa Paula."
"The intention is to make new neighborhoods that have at least as much character and charm as the nicest, older neighborhoods in town but have new housing," Sargent said.
Included in the mix are Craftsman, Spanish colonial revival, Victorian, Italianate and a few Tudor styles.
They go across the spectrum economically as well. About 40 percent are single-family detached, 18 percent are single-family attached and one-third are multi-family. An additional 5 percent are live-work units.
Edwards said couples with a combined income of $60,000 could afford town homes priced from $300,000 to $350,000. Homes on the premium lots were originally priced up to $1 million.
There is no organized opposition
The neighborhoods will be served by a retail center along Hallock Drive, which may offer a small grocery store, an accountant's office, a couple of small cafes and a day care center. Other profit-making enterprises could crop up along the railroad tracks. The middle of the property offers school sites and the community center, with playing fields along the perimeter of both creeks.
Limoneira officials say voters have told them they will support Measure G. There is no organized opposition.
Some tie that to Limoneira's reputation and history in Santa Paula as well as the traffic plan that will send cars onto Highway 126, not the middle of town.
Business and civic leaders agree the development alone won't be enough to shore up the financial fortunes of the town known for its charm, history and friendly people.
"I don't necessarily believe it would be a salvation," said Dan Robles, the city librarian and an elementary school board member. "I see it more as a good start."




Posted by Nosmo_King on May 20, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SOAR started as Save Our Agricultural Resources then as development shifted to hillsides they changed to Save Open space and Agricultural Resources. I suspect a payoff to SOAR on this development, because it is prime farmland and jumps a natural boundary (Santa Paula creek) to infringe on the Santa Paula/Fillmore greenbelt. Development in Santa Paula should be Fagan and Adams cayons which are already voter approved areas.
Posted by vcsexplorer11 on May 20, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fllmore should do the same.
Posted by Nosmo_King on May 20, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
we should decide NOW where the city limits will be. How about Toland road, that gives S P the little red school house, and Fillmore the sycamore tree.
Posted by AnMa on May 20, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Inside Ventura County's poorest city, residents of Santa Paula are looking for an economic boon from development of land that's been farmed for a century"
Is Santa Paula really the poorest??
Posted by oopowpow on May 20, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I've lived in Santa Paula my whole life and personally, I feel it is about time we've had a project that would benefit the city financially, economically, and even socially.
This project is finally going to give both young and older people alike a reason to live, work, play, and STAY in Santa Paula.
Posted by mare523 on May 20, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RE: what mmshoot said. He or she is right. St. Paula is NOT the poorest. It's a nice looking town.
And as for the comment in the above article: "...it would represent the largest urbanization of Ventura County farmland...", is there enough water to support this project ?
LEAVE THE LAND ALONE. Just farm it.
Posted by Redalertmom on May 20, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We do have the lowerst per capita incomes in Ventura County.
Santa Paula is a very charming and unique town and the people here are wonderful, but this town is facing economic challenges.
There has been no real growth here for many, many years to bring in substantial revenue. Santa Paula needs a positive change and I believe this project will bring it. There is something in this project for everybody. It is time for this project to happen. We have a shortage in public park space, playing fields, overcrowded schools and we can go on and on.
I have friends that have left Santa Paula and moved to Fillmore and Ventura because nothing NEW is happening here.
We will still have beautiful mountains and farmland surrounding the City.
Posted by anom1985 on May 20, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Proctor on this - Adams/Fagan were bad ideas. However, this development is much more desirable.
Santa Paula is in a deficit, and we do need some sort of growth. This development is the lesser of all the "evils". On top of that, Limoneira has been around for Santa Paula since the start, so I believe we're in good hands.
And yes, we have plenty of farmland and the mountains surrounding us.
Posted by katiec23 on May 20, 2008 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no concrete evidence that this proposed development will have a significant impact on the local economy of Santa Paula. These people will be just as likely to shop in Ventura around the Wells road area as they would in Santa Paula. And besides, wasn't the recently approved Adams Canyon development supposed to be the solution to Santa Paula's economic woes?
What this will definitely do though is help transform VC into the San Fernando Valley. No thanks.
Posted by Redalertmom on May 21, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Growth has to start somewhere, any suggestions on expansion? Can't expand the High School. Why? It is surrounded by houses. Let's think of the future for the City and what this will bring for the families and keep people from LEAVING?
As for shopping, let's be realistic here. People who live in Piru, Fillmore and Santa Paula and in the Well's Rd area (no shops on Wells Rd) have always shopped in Ventura and even Santa Clarita. We have no large department stores here. Most people don't work in S.P. so they do their shopping in Ventura before they come home. I know that is what I did when I worked in Ventura and Oxnard.
Sounds like a great development and FINALLY a reliable company who supports the City has stepped up to make a difference......!!!
Posted by jerry1020_ on May 22, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just hope that the new schools, parks, stores, and homes are fenced and gated to protect them from the poor folks who currently live in Santa Paula. Wouldn't want them to devalue their property.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.