WHY “DEEMED COMPLETE” DOES NOT OVERRIDE health and safety
You would think they would care about the health and safety of our Farmworkers
WHY “DEEMED COMPLETE” DOES NOT EXCUSE BUILDING IN A VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD ZONE
Ventura Ranch Partners and AMCAL argue that the project should be allowed because the application was deemed complete before the site was mapped as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, claiming it is therefore “grandfathered.” That argument is flawed.
An application being deemed complete does not grant a right to build. It only obligates the County to continue processing the application. Under California law, vested rights do not arise until construction begins based on valid building permits. That has not occurred here. No permits were issued and no construction commenced before the fire hazard designation.
Fire hazard regulations are not ordinary zoning rules. They are life‑safety protections, and governments retain broad authority to apply new health and safety standards to pending projects. Wildfire risk does not depend on filing dates, and evacuation dangers do not disappear because paperwork was submitted earlier.
Ventura County’s Agricultural Worker Housing Ordinance is explicit. It states that a farmworker housing complex is prohibited in any location designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The ordinance contains no exception for projects deemed complete and no grandfathering language. If the County intended such an exception, it would have said so. It did not.
Allowing a massive, permanent residential complex for families in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone would defeat the purpose of both the fire hazard mapping and the ordinance itself. Farmworker housing is meant to reduce vulnerability, not increase it. Safety rules exist to protect people, not projects.
Calling this project “grandfathered” does not change the real‑world fire risk. When the law clearly prohibits farmworker housing complexes in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, that prohibition must be honored.
PESTICIDE HISTORY AND HEALTH RISK AT THE VENTURA RANCH SITE
Pregnant Mom's, Kids, Elderly and all Household members BEWARE
The Ventura Ranch site has a long history of commercial agricultural use as a lemon and avocado orchard. Like most intensive agriculture in Ventura County, this use involved repeated pesticide applications over many decades, as documented through California’s pesticide reporting system.
Under California law, farmworker housing is treated as residential use and is classified as housing for “sensitive receptors.” Sensitive receptors include children, pregnant individuals, elderly residents, and farmworkers who may already experience occupational pesticide exposure.
When agricultural land with a documented pesticide history is proposed for permanent residential housing, health‑risk standards require careful evaluation of potential residual soil contamination, groundwater impacts, and ongoing exposure pathways such as pesticide drift from nearby fields. These risks are considered cumulative, meaning exposure at home adds to exposure at work.
This concern is not theoretical. Ventura County is among the highest pesticide‑use counties in California, and orchard crops historically rely on pesticide classes known to persist in soil or migrate under certain conditions. For sensitive populations, even low‑level chronic exposure is treated differently than short‑term agricultural exposure.
The presence of a pesticide history does not automatically prohibit housing, but it does require heightened scrutiny, transparency, and mitigation. This is especially true when the proposed residents are farmworker families, whose health protections are a core purpose of farmworker housing policy.
Placing long‑term family housing on former orchard land therefore raises legitimate health‑risk questions that must be addressed directly, not minimized. Housing intended to protect farmworkers should reduce cumulative exposure risks, not add to them.
VENTURA RANCH LOCATION AND farmworker risk and safety
Farmworkers Housing In The Middle Of Nowhere? Really?? Why???
There is no dispute that Ventura County needs farmworker housing. The real question is why this project is located so far from where farmworkers actually work and so disconnected from daily family needs — forcing them to travel everywhere and exposing them to unnecessary risks every single day.
Ventura Ranch is well north of the County’s main agricultural belt. Most farm employment is miles away, meaning longer commutes, higher transportation costs, and more time away from family. Housing intended to reduce hardship should not require farmworkers to travel farther to reach their jobs.
Farmworker housing is family housing. Families need access to schools, childcare, healthcare, groceries, and basic services. Placing a large, permanent housing complex far from both agricultural employment and community services raises a reasonable question about whether this location truly serves farmworkers — or simply uses the label of “farmworker housing” to justify an otherwise unsuitable site.
And when you add risk and safety to the equation, the location becomes even harder to justify.
Ventura Ranch is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, on a single‑access road that repeatedly floods, in an area with documented pesticide drift, and far from emergency services. Distance from jobs and services means more time on the road, more exposure to wildfire evacuation failures, more exposure to hazardous driving conditions, and more exposure to environmental risks that families cannot avoid because everything — work, school, groceries, medical care — requires travel.
A project that forces farmworker families to drive farther for every basic need is not reducing hardship.
A project that places families in a high‑risk hazard zone is not protecting them.
And a project that does both simultaneously raises serious questions about whether this location is appropriate, safe, or equitable for the very families it claims to serve.
soar and the misrepresentations that surround it
SOAR Law governs, not the two face SOAR nonprofit organization.
SOAR IS TWO DIFFERENT THINGS
The name “SOAR” is used to describe two separate and very different things. They share the same name, but they are not the same entity and they do not have the same role or authority.
Understanding this difference is important, especially in land‑use and legal matters.
SOAR AS LAW
SOAR, as law, refers to a set of voter‑approved initiative ordinances called “Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources.” These ordinances were adopted directly by the voters of Ventura County and several cities.
These initiatives are binding law.
They limit what local governments are allowed to do. They require voter approval before agricultural, open‑space, or rural land can be rezoned or urbanized, unless a very narrow exemption applies.
SOAR as law removes discretion from elected officials. It applies to General Plan amendments and land‑use decisions. It operates as a legal gate that must be cleared before a project can proceed.
In Ventura County, SOAR is incorporated into the County’s planning framework and functions as a voter‑imposed limitation on the authority of the Board of Supervisors.
This version of SOAR has legal force. Courts can enforce it. Government actions taken without complying with it can be overturned.
This is the SOAR that controls land‑use decisions.
SOAR AS AN ORGANIZATION
SOAR is also the name of a private nonprofit organization called “Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources.”
This organization advocates for farmland and open‑space protection. It educates the public, raises money, and supports ballot initiatives. It takes public and political positions even going against what they supossedly stand up for. like in this Ventura Ranch Proposal. The SOAR group publicly voiced that they were for this Agriculture land grab.. This only goes to show how two faced they are..... on one side they say they want to save our ag land from urbanization, but then they muddy the waters by giving the public the impression that they are the SOAR law as well and since they are for this project then it is instantly OK to proceed with converting prime farmland into urban housing forever..in the name of Farmworkers. For three years they have not returned one phone call of responded to the umpteen e-mails we have sent for verification of why they are representing themselves like that.... Sad, they act like they care but at the end of the day they turn coat.
I want to reiterate, this organization is not part of government.
It does not approve or deny projects. It does not grant SOAR exemptions. It does not interpret the law in a binding way. It does not control the Board of Supervisors. It has no regulatory or enforcement authority.
The organization may speak, advocate, oppose, support, or even file lawsuits like any other private group. But it cannot make legal decisions and cannot substitute for compliance with the law.
WHY THE DIFFERENCE MATTERS
Because both the law and the nonprofit use the same name, they are often confused. But legally, the difference is clear.
Courts do not enforce advocacy. Courts enforce voter‑approved law.
Whether the nonprofit organization supports or opposes a project has no legal effect on whether the County has complied with SOAR. Only the text of the voter‑approved ordinances and the public administrative record matter.
SUMMARY
SOAR is both a set of voter‑approved land‑use laws and a separate nonprofit advocacy organization. They share a name and a mission, but they are not the same thing.
Only one of them, SOAR as law, has legal authority