Ventura Council Weighs 20-Year Growth, Development Plans

Calls for a referendum on key city growth issues and speculation on a political compromise in population planning surfaced publicly this week as the Ventura City Council opened an extraordinary series of hearings aimed at determining the city’s future for the next 20 years.

The council grappled with a series of alternative planning proposals ranging from one mandating a virtual no-growth policy to one calling for a population of 147,000 by the year 2010.

However, the debate focused primarily on whether the city should plan for a population of 102,000 or 122,000 over the next two decades. The considerations included such controversial issues as obtaining more water, developing agricultural lands for subdivisions and building a California State University campus on the slopes of the Taylor Ranch.

Early in the debate--the public culmination of more than three years of planning--came a series of pleas to put the city’s future to a popular vote.

Urging that the council delay any decision on future population until it decides whether to commit to the costly task of obtaining more water from the State Water Project, Ventura County League of Women Voters President Ruth Hibbard told the council that the pivotal water issue should become a ballot question.

Need for Water

“The city simply does not have enough water,” she said. “The water plan should be put to a vote of the citizens. That’s only fair.”

Some residents urged the inclusion of other controversial growth issues, such as the future of the proposed Taylor Ranch university site, on a city referendum.

Wayne Overton, who said he represented a group of 30 homeowners in an East Ventura hillside area, made it clear that he believes that any popular vote would send a clear no-growth message to the council.

“I’ve seen orchards and bean fields and tomato fields succumb to progress,” Overton said. “Do we want another Los Angeles or Orange County? That’s where we’re headed.

“I’ve always been amazed that the City Council is opposed to putting controversial measures on the ballot,” he added. “Put Taylor Ranch on the ballot and three or four alternative growth proposals on the ballot. And listen to the people.”

Support for Plan

While listening to Overton and several others urging a public vote, the council also heard from dozens of developers, farmers and other residents supporting the proposal of the Ventura Planning Commission that the city commit to a population of 122,000, pending the acquisition of additional state water.

The prospect of council agreement to a city vote on growth issues was privately dismissed by some council members. But, as the debate continued, members also acknowledged the possibility of a successful initiative if the council takes any action perceived by residents as being too pro-development.

Raising the possibility that the council might strike a compromise on the population question were council members Don Villeneuve and John Sullard, who both told The Times that they have heard discussions in favor of some population ceiling in the 108,000 range.

“My prediction is somewhere between 102,000 and 110,000,” said Villeneuve, who was elected as an advocate of limited growth. “But it’s hard to read this council. Some people have talked about a 108,000 figure. That would be about the same growth rate over 20 years as the city has experienced in the last decade.”

During a break in the public hearing, Sullard, a former Ventura mayor and professional planner, also said he has heard talk of some compromise population goal in the 108,000 to 115,000 range. He predicted a possible voter revolt if the council is perceived as strongly pro-development.

Development Decision

“We could have an initiative in three days if the council votes to develop the greenbelt in the city and get the pipeline for more water,” Sullard said. “I could go out and get 5,000 signatures myself for something like that.”

Deputy Mayor William Crew said that although an initiative campaign is always possible, he believes that “80% of the people will be very pleased” by whatever action the council takes on the growth issue, a vote expected as early as tonight.

Crew also dismissed the likelihood of the council submitting any growth issues to a public vote.

“I don’t think the council will put it to a vote,” he said. “It’s our job to take a leadership position on this.”

In addition to the larger issues of total population growth and water needs, much of the early public dialogue on Ventura’s future centered over the question of whether to develop more agricultural land inside the city for housing development.

The debate brought with it a curious juxtaposition of advocates. Those arguing most strongly for the preservation of greenbelt open space and farmland were ordinary residents with no farm interests, while the farmers lined up solidly in favor of turning their citrus trees and row crops into shopping centers and new housing tracts.

Among the residents urging the council to stave off development of the greenbelt areas in East Ventura and near Ventura Harbor was Cathy Bean, a Ventura resident for 26 years.

“This is not an ambitious land-use plan; it is rapacious,” Bean said. “We are talking of taking 1,000 acres out of the inner-city greenbelt and replacing it with 10,000 people, literally cheek to jowl. It will make wealthly people richer and the rest of us poorer for all time.”

On behalf of many Ventura farmers seeking development of their lemon orchards and lettuce fields was Rex S. Laird, executive director of the Ventura County Farm Bureau, who told the council that the city has enjoyed its greenbelt at the expense of farmers for too many years.

“For a decade and a half, ‘ag’ owners in East Ventura have been forced to maintain open spaces for the enjoyment of their neighbors,” Laird said. “This is a tremendous financial burden on the farmers. What I can’t understand is why this should be balanced on the backs of so few people. These open spaces should be filled in by the same land uses that have surrounded them for years.”

Commerce and Industry

In addition to a well-coordinated appeal by the city’s farming interests, the council also heard strong support voiced for the 122,000 population goal from the Ventura Chamber of Commerce and the Building Industry Assn. of Southern California, representing 300 Ventura companies.

“I’m here to let the council know we support the 122,000 figure,” said Jim Barroca, executive vice president of the Chamber of Commerce. “That figure is very reasonable, and we’re certainly going to need more water. From what I hear on the growth issue, I think it’s an overblown concern.”

Also supporting a pro-development position was Paul Tryon, executive officer of the Building Industry Assn., who said Ventura’s population grew by only 2,000 people a year from 1980 to 1989 and now stands at about 90,800.

“If that increase continues over the next 20 years, it would add another 19,000 people,” Tryon said. “The fact is you have experienced growth and you will experience more growth. We support the plan for 122,000 people.”

Some of the strongest comments were focused on whether the city should encourage development of about 475 acres of ocean hillside on the Taylor Ranch for use as a college site by the state university system.

Campus Opposition

Reprimanding city planners for proposing that the hillside area be zoned institutional in anticipation of construction of the college, Paul Tebbel of Patagonia Inc. urged the council to take a strong stand against allowing Cal State to confiscate the privately owned land under eminent domain against the wishes of its owners.

“What safeguards can possibly be put on that land once it belongs to the state?” Tebbel asked. “Cal State wants that parcel to enhance their prestige. We’d like to have the City Council tell Cal State not to develop the property at all.”

Arguing in support of building the college was Barroca.

“I can’t understand why Patagonia would oppose something that will bring as much prestige to this community as the proposed new college,” he said.