West County Issue / Development Projects...

Dee Boysen, Executive officer, Ventura County Building Industry Assn.

I would agree it is a matter of fairness. These projects were caught in the middle. Each one of these has moved forward and has an investment trapped in the system. I don’t think it will encourage more growth. The city has control over building and if they don’t want it to occur, it won’t. We have some concerns over how the General Plan was set. They set unrealistic limits that were already so close to the population level that they didn’t allow for internal growth. We’re really pleased that the city is taking positive steps . . . to allow businesses to expand their facilities. If managed effectively, this water retrofit program provides for an additional resource for water that could allow these few residential projects to move forward. We would encourage the city to consider that as an alternative and let these individual builders complete their projects. They aren’t large developers. Some have invested their life savings and we certainly should be able to accommodate their property rights as citizens as well as preserving the resources in the community.

Jim Monahan, Ventura City Council member

There are other projects ahead of these nine, like the Weston project in east Ventura that has already built affordable units as a condition of the project and spent millions of dollars on off-site improvements. The conditions placed on the Weston homes are extensive in cost and provide a tremendous asset to the community. The new City Council is so overwhelmed by the whole thing they don’t understand how one project affects another. When you’re talking about fairness, you have to see the whole picture. It’s hard to consider these nine projects as a group. We have to consider them separately. I think the nine projects should be able to proceed through the process, but should be considered one by one. I know people are leaving Ventura in great numbers due to the lack of jobs and affordable housing. Our population has declined and we should accommodate a few more folks. We live in a free country and people should be able to live where they want to live.

Cathy Bean, Ventura City Council member

Of course I don’t believe they should proceed. In the Comprehensive Plan, it states quite clearly that we shouldn’t go over 102,000 population unless we find another source of water. It means going against the Comprehensive Plan. The three new people who came on the City Council all said they intended to follow the Comprehensive Plan. It concerns me. What you’re doing here is opening the door to a lot of development that we don’t have water for. If we allow these to go ahead, there are several others waiting in the wings that I’ve already heard from. These people were not truly stalled. They had the right to go ahead and process their project, but they didn’t have the right to build. The ones that had the right to build went ahead. Some projects are done and others are under way. This group didn’t have the right. So we didn’t exactly cut anyone off at the knees. I don’t think this is the proper time to go ahead and OK even that number of new dwellings because we are absolutely not following our Comprehensive Plan by doing so.

Kent Sterling, Property owner

In my case, the allocations were granted prior to the knowledge of the census report from 1990. So in essence, what they have done is taken the census report and approved low-cost housing and bumped the people who had allocations beyond those. We should have been counted before the census numbers. The allocations were granted, but then they were taken back. Under the current guidelines, it takes away three-quarters of my property. I could build one house on each side of the street, but the lots are not appropriate for one house. My case is a little more severe because all of the public improvements are in. I was at the point when I was going to build eight houses on five acres. Some people put their money into retirement funds; I put mine into land. No other projects could go ahead because there is no process to receive further population allocations at this time.

Tim Downey, Chairman, Ventura Planning Commission

I believe they should be allowed to proceed. It’s a matter of fairness. As chairman of the Planning Commission, I am aware the commission has reviewed these projects and approved them previously. The reason for their delay is primarily due to the issue of water. Once there is sufficient water to be allocated to these projects and because of their place in the process for approval of projects, I believe they should be the first to proceed before any other projects should be considered. I do not believe this is an issue about growth but an issue about fairness, and is more impacted by where these projects were in the process rather than how they affect the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan was put in place by the previous City Council and remains a document that we must live with. These projects do not represent enough population growth to warrant concern about their impact on the Comprehensive Plan.