City Growth at Center of Ventura Debate : Government: Critics say council’s decision to increase population cap violates Comprehensive Plan. Officials defend action.

Four years ago, after weeks of fervid public debate, the Ventura City Council adopted a moderate growth plan that would limit the city’s population to 102,000 by the year 2000.

Last week, the council passed a measure that has the potential to boost the city’s population to about 106,578 by 1996, in effect junking a key component of the city’s Comprehensive Plan and touching off cries of protest from slow-growth advocates.

The action came as the council, for the first time in three years, approved large-scale residential development. Since 1990, a moratorium on water hookups--triggered by drought concerns--had effectively halted all development in the city.

Former Councilman Richard Francis, who was in office when the Comprehensive Plan was passed, is among those criticizing the change in the population cap.

“I think it was deceptive,” Francis said. “It was an intentional end run on the Comprehensive Plan.”

The Comprehensive Plan, a legally binding document used as a planning guide for the city’s future, states that for the city’s planning area: “as of April 1, 2000, the maximum population allocation should not exceed 102,000, unless adequate water supplies are secured. If adequate water supplies are secured, the maximum population as of April 1, 2000, should not exceed 105,000, indexed to the Federal Census.”

At the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1989, city officials say, it was based on the assumption that the city and some surrounding areas had a population of about 94,000.

The council agreed it would use 1990 census figures on which to base the city’s growth. When the census data came out later, the city’s population was 92,575. But, said Everett Millais, the city’s community development director, that number rose to 98,578 when areas near the city--but not actually within the city limits--were included.

“Even though these areas are not in the city’s limits, we approve housing allocations in these areas as well,” Millais said. “More importantly, we supply water to these areas, so they are included in the population estimate.”

Millais said the city provides water, fire and some police service to the Saticoy area, the Montalvo neighborhood and areas of north Ventura Avenue. Although those neighborhoods are in unincorporated county land, they are within the city of Ventura’s planning area.

Those residents outside the city number about 6,000 and helped inflate the 1990 population figure to 98,578--about 4,500 people over the estimate, Millais said.

“We thought it would be over, but not by that much,” Millais said.

Without any public hearing or debate, the council simply added 4,578 people to the Comprehensive Plan, Millais said. This is legal, he said, because the Comprehensive Plan states that the population figures would be indexed to the census data.

The original 102,000 population cap was drawn from an environmental study based on residents’ water consumption, Millais said. However, he added, residents are conserving more now, so more water is available.

Don Villeneuve, another former council member and a slow-growther, disagrees with the reasoning.

“That index thing was weaseled in there,” Villeneuve said. “What they’re doing is a numbers game. The indexing shouldn’t change what the cap was.”

The council last week voted to allocate a total of 500 housing units in the downtown area, plus 35 units for small residential projects and 140 units for larger residential projects each year through 1996. In 1996, the council will re-evaluate its growth plan and may allocate more or fewer housing units, based on how much water is available.

Council members also allocated an additional 335 housing units for two other development projects. According to city planners, the two developments were ongoing projects that got stalled because of the three-year ban on development.

The month before, the council gave the go-ahead for nine small residential projects, totaling 108 housing units, that also were delayed by the moratorium on water hookups. A housing unit is a single family home or an apartment. City officials say that for every housing unit, an average of 2.5 people are added to the city’s population.

Slow-growth proponents charge that the council still does not have adequate water supplies to accommodate thousands of new residents. Therefore, they argue, the council also violated the Comprehensive Plan by approving new housing units.

Millais said the Comprehensive Plan does not explicitly spell out what is considered “adequate water supplies” that would accommodate growth. The seven-member council, elected at large, has the power to determine what is considered sufficient water to handle a population increase, he said.

“We haven’t secured adequate water supplies,” said Councilwoman Cathy Bean, the only member to vote against the housing allocations. “We basically ignored the Comprehensive Plan.”

Although the Comprehensive Plan can only be changed after public hearings, City Atty. Peter D. Bulens said hearings were not needed last week. He said the council adhered to the Comprehensive Plan.

Francis, a civil litigation attorney with an emphasis on real estate matters, said he believes the council’s actions could be reasonably challenged in court.

“It’s a fatal flaw,” Francis said. “It’s obvious to me that we don’t have adequate water supplies.”

According to council members, the end of the drought, two proposed new wells and a proposed desalination plant have given the city sufficient water to accommodate new residents. More water is also available because residents are conserving more and developers are now required to retrofit toilets in order to build, city officials said.

The council has hired a project manager for the desalination plant, but has not formally approved building the project. In fact, some council members have publicly said they oppose or have serious reservations about a desalination plant. In an advisory measure last November, residents voted 55% to 45% in favor of constructing a desalination plant over importing water from Northern California.

The two proposed new wells are in the environmental review stage, and one of them is actually a replacement well, rather than a well in a new area, city officials said. The replacement well would be able to pump more water than the current one in the Mound Basin, city officials said.

“We’ve got progress under way for a number of things,” Millais said, “but in terms of new water, the only thing we can point to is a wet winter.”

Paul Tebbel, environmental spokesman for Patagonia Inc., accused the council of disregarding the city’s water needs for an increased population.

“We can’t get rid of those extra people,” he said, referring to the increased census population. “I think the adjustment certainly should be opened for debate.”

If the council in 1989 decided that 102,000 residents was the maximum that the city’s water resources could serve in the year 2000, then it makes no sense to hike that number, Tebbel said.

Councilman Jim Monahan, who was mayor at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, said the council last week did not violate the city’s planning guide.

“We were never out of water,” said Monahan, who has voted consistently for more development. “It was just used by a no-growth council as a way to stop growth.”

Councilman Jack Tingstrom, who also favors growth, pointed out that the slumping housing market will not accommodate a huge increase in the city’s population.

“This isn’t going to be rampant growth,” Tingstrom said. “Developers aren’t going to build unless there’s a market. You’re not going to see all these skyscrapers and towers going up around the city.”

Tingstrom is part of a pro-business slate that was swept into office two years ago on a platform to turn around the city’s image of being hostile to business.

“The people who are hollering no growth helped create the problems,” Tingstrom said. “We’re trying to turn it around. Businesses don’t want to come here because of the anti-business climate that’s been created.”

Like Tingstrom, Chamber of Commerce-backed candidates Greg Carson and Tom Buford were also elected on similar campaign promises. However, both Carson and Buford went to great pains during their campaigns to say that they supported the Comprehensive Plan and its population caps.

“I think we stayed within the Comprehensive Plan,” Carson said last week. He asserted that the council had made the proper findings for adequate water supplies.

Buford was out of town and could not be reached for comment.

Roma Armburst, a former president of the League of Women Voters of Ventura County, criticized the influence of Tingstrom, Carson and Buford, as well as the fact that councilmen Gary Tuttle and Todd Collart are running for reelection this year.

“I can’t prove anything,” Armburst said, “but there’s something about that whole slant. And Todd and Gary are up for reelection and they may have to court the Chamber of Commerce for the finances, and votes, and as a result they may have to ease up their standards.”

Armburst said the council violated the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan by allocating housing when no new water is available yet.

“I think some of the facts of the numbers bears public discussion,” Armburst said. “The intent of the plan was to try to contain growth so that the infrastructure could keep up with it. Those who are interested in more housing are in control, and the only way we can change that is at the ballot box.”

Collart could not be reached for comment, and Tuttle denied that his reelection campaign influenced his vote last week.

“It was based on the census,” said Tuttle, who has generally voted on the side of slow growth. “We will re-examine it in 1996.”

Tuttle admitted that he has “a hard time seeing these new sources of water.”

But he added: “If it continues to rain as it has, this whole issue will go away and everyone can live with it. I think we’re being a little optimistic, yeah, but this city needs some optimism.”