Floodplain Development and Urban Sprawl

One of the greatest threats to water quality and quantity and our coastal ecosystem is unsustainable urban development. Although Ventura County has some of the most progressive land use guidelines in southern California, constant vigilance is required on the part of the citizens to ensure such guidelines are followed.



Case Studies:

I. Santa Paula, CA

In April, 2011, the Local Agency Formation Commission voted to allow the city of Santa Paula and the Limoneira Co. to move forward on a plan to build a massive master-planned community within the floodplain of Santa Paula Creek. Limoneira plans to build 1,500 homes, community fields, parks, police and fire stations, and new commercial buildings in what would essentially amount to a new 537-acre community. The vote was 6-1, with Commissioner Carol Smith, who also is a Ojai City Councilwoman, opposed because of potential flood risks near the proposed development.

This decision was based upon outdated information, and even that demonstrated that 45% of the area would be underwater. In a 2006 FEMA study completed after the project EIR, the volume of a 100-year flood was increased by 40%.

Citizen Action:

The Environmental Defense Center, Ventura County's only nonprofit law firm, represented Keep Sespe Wild in a legal challenge to the decision. Through its negotiations with Limoneira Co, an Agreement was reached for another environmental report to be done to consider the potential effects the project could have on flooding along Santa Paula Creek.




II. Ventura, CA

In 2005, the City of Ventura adopted a General Plan that called for an infill-first strategy to urban growth. This is a prudent fiscal and environmental policy that would concentrate resources on revitalizing the urban core, rather than promoting 'green field' development and urban sprawl.

In 1998, Ventura County voters passed the countywide SOAR (Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources) initiative, becoming the first (and only) county in Southern California to place urban sprawl issues to a vote of the people.

In 2010, as the Ventura City Council began planning for the Westside, a large property owner re-initiated discussion of expanding the city to annex an undeveloped canyon north of the city limits. Through a 'loophole' in the SOAR ordinance, the property could be annexed without a SOAR vote.



In response to this threat, a coalition of community groups formed to expressed their opposition including The Sierra Club, SOAR, Surfrider Foundation, Wishtoyo Foundation, VCCool, Ventura Audubon Society, Ventura Coastkeeper, Ventura Citizens for Hillside Preservation.

Citizen Action:

Following a year of public meetings, op-ed articles, outreach, and potential legal action, the City of Ventura made the right decision - to keep Westside redevelopment within city boundaries. This decision would not have been made without the high level of community involvement and commitment to protecting a quality of life unique in Southern California.

More info: http://www.venturariver.org/search/label/Canada%20Larga

..

Ventura Drops Annexation Plans

Cañada Larga

On Tuesday night, Ventura City Council made the right decision - to keep Westside redevelopment within our city boundaries. This decision includes forgoing a bid to annex the unincorporated 'Upper Ventura Avenue.'

A coalition of community groups worked hard to express their opposition to the city's expansion, including The Sierra Club, SOAR, Surfrider Foundation, Wishtoyo Foundation, VCCool, Ventura Audubon Society, Ventura Coastkeeper, Ventura Citizens for Hillside Preservation

Thanks to everyone who dedicated their time and energy to help protect the Ventura River watershed since this issue came up last year!

In the news:

After hearing speakers for more than three hours, the council spent 30 minutes debating the details of the Westside plan. On a motion from Councilman Karl Morehouse, the council directed Community Development Director Jeff Lambert to work with the planning and design committees to include community comments to prioritize parks, housing for active seniors and local shopping.

...Even Bonsall, who represents the family who owns the Cañada Larga property, ultimately told the council that they should forego annexation and development at this time in favor of the long-promised plan.

Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/apr/20/ventura-drops-annexation-efforts-due-to-costs/

More info: http://vchp.org/blog/

On this blog: http://www.venturariver.org/search/label/Canada%20Larga

Council divided on Canada Larga

Ventura council postpones decision on Cañada Larga

The meeting featured more than two hours of public testimony, with virtually all speakers urging the council to avoid altering the picturesque canyon four miles north of town. Of 40 speakers, only one — the valley’s owner who would benefit financially from development — spoke in favor of its inclusion into the city.

By a 5-1 vote, the council agreed to spend an additional $45,000 to complete a fiscal and market analysis on portions of north Ventura Avenue and the Cañada Larga area, the results of which Councilwoman Christy Weir said were necessary for her to make a decision on how to proceed. Councilman Jim Monahan was forced to recuse himself because he owns property in the area.

Weir, along with Council members Neal Andrews, Monahan and Mike Tracy, contend annexation of the rural valley to allow no more than 100 executive homes could generate needed property tax funds and help lure the types of big businesses that provide high-wage jobs.

“You have to have some high end homes,” Weir said.

Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/jan/25/ventura-council-postpones-decision-on-ca241ada/

More info: http://www.venturariver.org/search/label/Canada%20Larga

Canada Larga moves forward

Regardless of the issues with annexing undeveloped Canada Larga canyon, it makes one wonder.

How did a developer con our decision-makers
into funding the EIR for his project,
while simultaneously providing a loophole
to our existing SOAR growth ordinance?

It makes for a good show - on Monday evening City Council was first serenaded by hundreds of their own employees protesting a request to 'chip in,' then over an hour of testimony on rezoning the failing auto mall to allow a poker club to move in. Then hours of testimony from concerned citizens destined to fall on deaf ears.

The mayor is concerned this may signal a return to the Bad Old Days "where developers engage in game-playing to try to get four votes, people on either side of an issue call each other names, and everything comes to a halt because it’s so contentious."

Too bad, because as a community, we aren't even asking the right questions yet. While our leaders use taxpayer funds to justify unlimited expansion, regional aquifers are failing and our 'wastewater' continues to be wasted.

Truly the Cycle of Insanity.

Canada Larga annexation

On Monday October 11 the Ventura City Council will vote on whether to study the Canada Larga Valley with the intention of annexing the area for construction of executive homes. The 800-acre rural valley is located four miles north of the current City boundary. This issue has been wrapped into the Westside & North Avenue planning process. The annexation issue will be re-considered on Monday night following a legal determination that will allow Councilman Monahan to vote (to break the 3-3 tie)

The map below is from the City of Ventura 2005 General Plan EIR, available for download on the City's website. It shows the current city limits (red line) and the potential expansion areas considered at that time.



Note that the City of Ventura has not pre-designated land use zoning for Canada Larga, which is currently zoned as 'open space' under Ventura County jurisdiction - this provides a 'loophole' in the SOAR ordinance in which voters would need to approve a land-use change. If the property was annexed to the city of Ventura it would be exempt from a SOAR vote.

Although the issue of expanding the city boundaries was discussed throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update process in the early 2000's, City Council at that time voted to concentrate city resources on infill development/redevelopment. Infill is widely recognized as 'smart growth' from a variety of viewpoints. From a watershed perspective it is always wise to concentrate urban development within existing neighborhoods rather than encourage 'suburban sprawl.' Urban/suburban development always has a negative impact on watershed processes, including water quantity and quality. Expansion of the city may also conflict with the City of Ventura's past support of the Ventura River Parkway plan to preserve the lower Ventura River.

The map below is provided courtesy of the property owner, and provides an overview of the areas that will be considered by City Council on Monday night. Note that the canyon had not been considered in the prior planning documents, but a yes vote on Monday night would result in city funds spent to perform analysis on its potential annexation.




A coalition of community groups has expressed their opposition including The Sierra Club,
SOAR, Surfrider Foundation, Wishtoyo Foundation, VCCool, Ventura Audubon Society, Ventura Coastkeeper, Ventura Citizens for Hillside Preservation

More info: http://vchp.org/blog/

Contact City Council: council@ci.ventura.ca.us