Development Projects Target Greenbelt : Ventura: Two proposals would carve up protected agricultural buffer. Several council members have expressed interest.

Avocado orchards, lemon groves and celery fields spread across hundred of acres of open space that break up the rows of tract houses in eastern Ventura.

A reminder of the city’s agricultural roots, these 900 acres of farmland stretching from Foothill Road to the Santa Clara River are protected from development until the year 2010.

But proposals from two of the area’s largest landowners threaten the longevity of the agricultural buffer set forth in the city’s Comprehensive Plan.

In about a week, the Ventura City Council is scheduled to consider preliminary review of two proposed projects that, if approved, would carve up the greenbelt established by a previous council in 1989.

One developer wants to build 815 houses and condominiums on a fragrant lemon orchard. Another proposes building a park on about 90 acres of celery fields in exchange for being allowed to build houses on agricultural land at the city’s east end.

Under Ventura’s Comprehensive Plan, these proposals would not be allowed because the agricultural zoning for the east Ventura greenbelt is off-limits until the year 2010.

But the majority on the Ventura City Council has shifted philosophically over the two most recent elections. The council that was controlled by environmentalists is now dominated by business boosters. And, several members on the current pro-growth council have expressed interest in the proposals to begin developing the greenbelt.

Former Mayor Richard Francis, who helped establish the greenbelt when he was on the council four years ago, said the agricultural buffer is unique in that part of the city.

“It’s like protecting virginity,” he said. “You keep saying no, but you only have to say yes once. It is the last large contiguous area of open space left in the city. Developers have been eyeing it for years.”

Technically, the east Ventura greenbelt is county land. But it is surrounded by city boundaries and could be annexed at any time.

Brad Jones and Ron Hertel, the developers who want to build in the greenbelt, contend that their projects will benefit the city and say their proposals should receive serious consideration.

Hertel is suggesting swapping his 92 acres in the greenbelt for 87 acres of city-owned land at Telegraph Road and Petit Avenue. The Ventura-based developer wants to build single-family homes on the city-owned land. In exchange, he would give the city $2 million to build a park on the land he owns at Telephone and Kimball roads.

“From a traffic and access standpoint, my land is clearly a better location for a regional park,” Hertel said. “I contend that this will give the city a legitimate foothold into the inner-city greenbelt.”

Hertel said if a park is built on his land, it would still be considered open-space area and would not violate the spirit of the greenbelt.

Councilwoman Rosa Lee Measures, who chairs the City Council’s housing subcommittee that would review Hertel’s proposal, is enthusiastic about the idea.

“I look at the Hertel swap as a golden, one-time opportunity,” Measures said. “We’re looking at youth programs as being a priority on the council, and a park would fulfill that.”

But Councilman Gary Tuttle, who was reelected last year on an environmental platform, noted that Hertel’s proposal would mean allowing the developer to build on land zoned for agriculture. Hertel would not be allowed to develop on his land until 2010, and the city’s land is also designated agricultural.

“Any way you cut it, you lose open space,” Tuttle said.

Because it involves developing a park, Hertel’s suggestion has not drawn as much ire from environmentalists as Jones’ proposed residential project.

Jones, in partnership with the property owner Limco Del Mar Ltd., wants to build a large complex of residential and commercial buildings with parks and bike paths on 222 acres between Foothill and Telegraph roads, just east of Hill Road.

Jones noted that the area is surrounded by residential neighborhoods on three sides and is ripe for development.

“I think we’re proposing something real exciting,” Jones said. “This will have a village center that will offer community amenities like an amphitheater. It’s something that would be a real asset to the city.”

Councilman Jim Monahan, a consistent proponent of development, said he plans to seriously consider Jones’ proposal.

A major development in that area would mean adding more roads and widening Foothill Road, Monahan said. “It would improve the circulation plan of the area, and provide housing closer to the schools in the area,” he said.

Critics say Jones’ proposal would be a significant erosion of the greenbelt.

“The Hertel project is not so bad because it preserves some open space, but the Jones project is a serious assault,” Francis said. “I think there will be a strong inclination to allow projects to go forward in spite of the Comprehensive Plan.”

Former Councilwoman Cathy Bean, an east Ventura resident who has long favored preserving agricultural land and open space, mourned the potential inroads into the greenbelt.

“East Ventura is already a sea of houses,” Bean said. “This would destroy the semirural ambience of the city.”

Bean predicted the greenbelt will fall to development interests. She said the makeup of the current seven-member council is decidedly pro-growth, and remaining environmentalists Tuttle and Steve Bennett do not hold enough clout to stop the trend.

“They’ve got the votes,” Bean said of the pro-growth majority. “Unless the people get into an uproar, they’ll cover up every square inch of farmland.”

With the exception of Tuttle and Bennett--both of whom express reservations about breaking up the east Ventura greenbelt--no formal opposition to the development proposals has emerged.

Bennett said the city’s environmental interests are not yet aware of the threat to the greenbelt and have yet to organize any significant opposition.

“This stuff kind of ferments behind the scenes,” Bennett said. “This is coming up fast. The developers are trying to push their projects forward now.”

The two moderates on the council, Mayor Tom Buford and Councilman Gregory L. Carson, also expressed reservations about Jones’ proposal.

Carson noted that several housing developments on the city’s east end have not been finished because the real estate market has fallen and demand for housing has dropped.

Buford said developers have the right to ask for changes to the Comprehensive Plan, but added, “it should not be lightly regarded by anybody. It would take a lot to convince me to move out of our plan.”

In the next few months, the council is scheduled to vote on whether to change the Comprehensive Plan to consider Hertel’s land swap and will decide whether to allocate housing units to Jones and Hertel.

Community Development Director Everett Millais said none of the other property owners in the greenbelt have come forward with development proposals. But when the greenbelt was established in 1989, a majority of the them objected.

“They all wanted it to be zoned for some kind of urban use,” Millais said.

Councilman Jack Tingstrom, who was elected on a pro-business platform, said property owners should have the right to develop their land.

“Economically,” he said, “you don’t want to stop the growth of the city.”