Coalition Files Suit Over Greenbelt Measure

A coalition of farmers, landowners and members of an east Ventura church has filed suit to block the greenbelt preservation initiative that city voters passed in the fall.

Filed Tuesday in Ventura County Superior Court, the lawsuit contends that owners of farmland were unfairly targeted and points out that owners of land adjacent to the city are affected by the law but were unable to vote on it.

“Planning decisions should be made by the governing body where the land is,” said Sacramento attorney Ronald A. Zumbrun, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of about a dozen plaintiffs.

The initiative, passed by 52% of the electorate, forbids changing the zoning designation of farmland unless approved by a citywide vote. The measure also reduced the farmland’s value by as much as a third, the suit alleges.

Further, the suit challenges the widely used “sphere of influence” concept that allows cities to make planning decisions on property adjacent to but outside city limits.

If successful, the suit could alter how planning decisions are made statewide. It asks a judge to declare Measure I in violation of the state and federal constitutions, and to give Ventura County--instead of the city--planning authority over property just outside city limits.

For example, Measure I prevented the First Assembly of God Church from building a new church and school on 25 acres it owns on Montgomery Avenue just outside the city limits.

Because it needs such city services as water and sewers, the church had been wending its way through the city’s planning process when the initiative passed. But two weeks ago, city officials told the church in a letter that the only way it could develop would be to organize its own initiative election.

To change its zoning, the church would have to convince a majority of voters to allow the land-use change.

Farmers and other property owners outside Ventura’s city limits, including Leavens Ranches, McGrath Farms and the Contreras family, among others, have similar complaints and joined with the church in filing the lawsuit.

First Assembly of God also argues that its constitutional rights were violated because federal law prohibits churches from taking part in political campaigns.

“The church is placed in the intolerable position of being subject to a popularity contest” to gain development approval on its property, the lawsuit states. This could lead to projects being evaluated on “whether the electorate approves of [the] church and its teaching” instead of on planning laws, the suit alleges.

Environmentalists last year qualified two initiatives for the November ballot: Measures I and J.

*

Designed to protect farmland and other open space within the city’s sphere of influence through 2030, they were known as the SOAR initiatives, short for Save Our Agricultural Resources.

Measure I was modeled after a Napa County law that was later upheld by the California Supreme Court. Measure J qualified for the November ballot before the Supreme Court ruling early last year and was rejected by voters.

Mayor Jack Tingstrom, who campaigned against both open-space initiatives, had an I-told-you-so reaction to the lawsuit.

“What they have done is exactly what I said would happen back during the debate,” Tingstrom said. “You’re going to get lawsuits because you’re taking property rights away.”

Now, the mayor said, Ventura taxpayers are left paying to defend the initiative.

“That was my complaint all along. When I said that this will cost the city millions, I meant it,” he said.

*

Ventura City Atty. Peter D. Bulens said late Tuesday that he had not yet reviewed the full complaint. But he said he doubts that the lawsuit will hold up in court because the law it targets is so similar to the Napa County measure.

Proponents of Measure I said they had been expecting the suit.

“I knew it was coming,” said Richard Francis, the former Ventura mayor who wrote and campaigned for both measures. “But it always concerns me when the city has to spend money defending frivolous lawsuits.”

Francis said landowners outside the Ventura city limits are not subject to the measure unless the property is annexed.

Therefore, he said, there are no grounds for property owners outside city limits to complain that zoning on their land is subject to the whims of a majority of Ventura voters.

“The multiple Fs--friends, farmers and fools--are tilting at windmills,” Francis said. “They’re to make the city of Ventura pay for their personal aggrandizement.”

Farmers and other agriculture interests spent more than $165,000 in the fall trying to convince voters to reject both Measures I and J.

*

Councilman Gary Tuttle said he is willing to spend city tax dollars to defend the initiative.

“The SOAR initiative was a good initiative and it was the will of the people,” said Tuttle, who campaigned in favor of the measures. “I support the concept, and I’ll support it with city dollars if I have to.”

The plaintiffs include the First Assembly of God Church, James A. Williams III, James M. Sharp, the R. H. Smith family partnership, Leavens Ranches, Robert Tobias, Steven Tobias, J. D. McGrath Farms, Howard & Howard Ranch, Daniel Campbell, Ito Farms, the Contreras family and the Hiji Bros. partnership.