Ventura May Let Stalled Projects Proceed : Development: Pro-growth council members say building, delayed by the drought, should resume. Limits set by the Comprehensive Plan are being studied.

Nearly 20 years ago, Kent Sterling bought five acres in Ventura’s prestigious Hidden Valley with the dream of someday building several custom homes and retiring on the profit from the sales.

But by the time he was ready to build two years ago, the lingering drought had spurred Ventura’s slow-growth City Council to place a moratorium on water hookups and adopt a Comprehensive Plan that strictly limited residential development.

Sterling, stuck holding a useless piece of property, got little sympathy from the City Council--until now.

With the recent sweep of three pro-business candidates into office, Sterling and eight other small residential developers may have a chance to build, even though the projects would push Ventura’s population over the 102,941 limit set under the Comprehensive Plan.

Councilman James L. Monahan and newly elected councilmen Tom Buford and Jack Tingstrom say it is unfair that the projects, which would increase population by an estimated 270 people, cannot go forward when many developers had most of the permits they needed before the water crisis hit.

At the request of the council, the city’s staff is looking into what the council must do to allow the projects to proceed under the restraints of the Comprehensive Plan. A report is expected to be completed by the end of the month and sent to the City Council for review.

Battle lines are being drawn between the pro-business council members and the council’s three slow-growth advocates, who say the developments would “open the flood gates” for growth.

“A drop becomes a river and a river becomes a flood,” said Councilman Gary Tuttle. “We don’t have the water for the people we now have.”

He said Buford and Tingstrom appear to be breaking their campaign promise to support the Comprehensive Plan and tightly manage growth. “Perhaps the public was fooled,” Tuttle said.

But the two new councilmen deny that they are turning their backs on the plan, which restricts development until an alternate water source can be secured. Because most of the proposals are small, they would require little water and services, they say.

“I’m not ready to open the thing up for everyone to jump on the bandwagon,” Tingstrom said. “Some of the projects got caught in a difficult circumstance. We need to have another look at it. I think this is a total fairness issue.”

Besides, Buford said, just because the council has the option of approving the developments does not mean they all will go forward. He predicted that some might still be weeded out. But at least officials could make a choice, he said.

“We ought to take a close look at it to see what needs to be done,” he said. “The magnitude of what we are talking about is not that great.”

Mayor Gregory Carson, also a recently elected pro-business candidate who could be the swing vote, said he wants more information on the small developments before deciding on the issue.

“I would consider it,” Carson said. “Some of the people have made some pretty substantial investments and they were not able to proceed. They were caught in a black void area.”

The developers are proposing to build projects in locations throughout the city. The nine projects are:

- A 20-unit single-family home development north of Foothill Road at Victoria Avenue.

- An eight-unit apartment complex at 1042 E. Main St.

- A 20-unit single-family home development at Clay Avenue and Telephone Road.

- A 14-unit condominium complex at Olive and Barnett streets.

- A 15-unit apartment complex at 1256 E. Main St.

- A 10-unit condominium complex at the southeast corner of Poli and Oak streets.

- An eight-unit condominium complex at Telegraph and Day roads.

- A five-unit single-family home development on Hill Road.

- And Sterling’s eight-unit single-family home project on Bridgeview Drive.

Many of the developments have already been approved by the city’s Planning Commission.

Glenn Hartman, general partner of Westland Inc., said his company was waiting for final approval from the City Council two years ago to build the single-family homes at Clay Avenue and Telephone Road. But two weeks before the project was scheduled to go to the council, the moratorium on water hookups for residential units was put in place.

“It all stopped,” Hartman said. “We have a little over five acres . . . you can’t use any of it.”

Sterling, 52, said he hopes the council will let him proceed, since he has already dedicated part of his land for a road, and the water hookups are in place.

“I’ve been here for 30 years,” he said. “Good God, one minute you have a piece of property, and then suddenly you don’t. This was our pension fund. It’s like the bank closed and took it away from us.”

Longtime Councilman Monahan said he is pleased his new colleagues want to give the developments a chance.

“These projects have been in the pipeline and have gone through so much scrutiny over the years,” he said. “They’re the survivors.”

And the developers should be able to recoup their investment, Monahan said.

“It’s not fair to penalize these people,” he said. “We’re supposed to provide services, but that does not mean giving away the store. It means working with those people who have already contributed to the city.”

Besides, he said, the projects would give Ventura’s economy a small boost.

“Ventura already has a bad name because of a lack of housing,” he said. “We keep saying we want the economy to improve, yet with the other hand we keep slapping (the developers) down.

“We have council members that have their ears turned off and their minds closed. They should wake up and look around.”

But Councilwoman Cathy Bean said the projects only spell trouble.

“If you open it up for one thing, you could open it up for another,” she said. “We’re getting into deep waters.”

And slow-growth Councilman Todd Collart said Ventura officials have an obligation to the community to abide by the limits set under the Comprehensive Plan.

“I’m not saying I don’t have any sympathy,” Collart said. “But there are lines that get drawn, and someone is on one side and someone is on the other. There are hard and fast decisions that have to be made, and some people will be at a disadvantage.”

FYI

The Ventura City Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 1989 to limit growth as the drought gripped the city. According to the April 1, 1990, census, the population in Ventura and its sphere of influence was 98,578. Under the Comprehensive Plan, Ventura’s population should not exceed 102,000 by the year 2000, unless adequate water supplies are secured. But the population ceiling was unofficially lifted to accommodate 102,941 people after council members realized they had approved enough developments to increase population by 4,363 before learning the exact census figures. The nine projects that are now the subject of debate would increase population by another 270 people. Even if adequate water supplies are secured, the maximum population as of 2000 should not exceed 109,000, according to the Comprehensive Plan.