Ventura Council Candidates Speak Out on Growth Limits : <i> The 14 candidates for the Ventura City Council were asked questions on three key issues facing the city. Today, they answer the second question, outlining their views on limiting growth in the city. </i>

The Question: The city’s Comprehensive Plan limits Ventura’s population to 102,000 by the year 2000. But the council in May passed a measure that has the potential to boost the city’s population to about 106,578 by 1996, in effect discarding a key component of the city’s planning guide for the future. Do you favor the population limits set forth in the original Comprehensive Plan, or should they be relaxed to encourage growth and business development?

Steve Bennett

42; Nordhoff High School teacher

I support the Comprehensive Plan and its limits. A key component of the plan is to have Ventura establish a greenbelt agreement between Ventura and Oxnard, protecting the valuable agricultural land that separates our two cities. The plan calls for this agreement to last until the year 2010. But some City Council members are currently working with developers to develop this valuable agricultural buffer between Ventura and Oxnard. The council on 4-3 vote rejected long-term greenbelt protection. Instead, the council voted to review the greenbelt protection within only five years. You can’t be following the plan and planning to develop the greenbelt at the same time.

Nancy Cloutier

61; owner-publisher Ventura County & Coast Reporter

The measure passed in May requires that a stable water source be found before increasing the population to 106,578 by 1996. We have met that requirement through the heavy rains of last year and through our proposed desalination plant. Bearing that in mind, however, we are at risk as a city of further amending this blueprint as we panic from lack of state funds, tax revenues and recessionary woes. We must bring vitality to our downtown, midtown and Avenue areas, while at the same time ensuring that the beauty and pristine environment which defines Ventura does not fall victim to unchecked development.

Todd Collart

45; incumbent councilman, county land-use planner

The General Plan set a population limit of 102,000 by the year 2000, unless additional supplies of water could be secured. This population limit was set based on historic demand and available supplies. The council made a finding that new sources of water exist through toilet retrofits sufficient to allow additional population beyond the original 102,000 limit. However, no new development is permitted unless new supplies are provided. Therefore, the General Plan’s intent to link population and water supplies has been maintained. I support this linkage and pressed for its inclusion in the housing allocation program (RGMP).

Neil Demers-Grey

28; secretary

I support the Comprehensive Plan. If Ventura relies on a growth in population to bring a growth to its economy and vitality, we are kidding ourselves. We should bring quality to what we have before we start compromising the Comprehensive Plan, or we will have all the negatives of urbanization with very little of its positives.

Charles Kistner

33; part-owner job evaluation/testing firm

If I had a dollar for every time one of us candidates said, “controlled growth,” I wouldn’t need to raise any money for my campaign. However, it shows there is no desire to be another Orange County and yet if we don’t build housing, our children won’t be able to stay in the area and we won’t have the variety that makes for a well-rounded community. The Comprehensive Plan is a good guideline, but we must be flexible or miss out on opportunities like the housing needed for revitalization in downtown and in the Ventura Avenue area.

Dick Massa

53; owner Ventura Medical Supply Inc.

The Comprehensive Plan is a plan. From time to time, all plans must be reviewed to see if they need modification or revision. All successful businesses have a five-year plan that is constantly reviewed and modified. We must review our Comprehensive Plan as well. Things change and we must have the flexibility to modify our plans to adjust to changes. When our Comprehensive Plan was adopted, no one foresaw the depth or length of our current recession. Ventura must modify the Comprehensive Plan to encourage business so we can provide clean, well-paying, environmentally safe jobs for our people.

Rosa Lee Measures

56; manager of her family’s trust investments

We have the ability to grow reasonably within the limits of the Comprehensive Plan. We must be imaginative in implementation of permits for growth, to protect our unique resources and maximize revenues. Population is not the only factor. The Downtown Specific Plan, the Blueprint for Community Investment and the City Cultural Plan provide excellent agendas for enhancing economic vitality. While respecting the philosophy of the Comprehensive Plan, I do not feel it’s in conflict with the Downtown Specific Plan. If it generates an increase in population, that could offset population exodus to other states, where business options are more abundant.

Jim Monahan

58; incumbent councilman, welding contractor

Growth in Ventura is inevitable, since we have more births than deaths. The Comprehensive Plan does not limit growth, it provides the blueprint for accommodating growth. The current plan has not changed, it simply implements what was originally drafted. It states that when services become available, we will continue implementing the measures that are necessary to sustain our growing population. We are addressing the largest deficiency--water availability--and therefore must continue planning. It is not possible for a council to “limit” growth--only to plan for the services and facilities necessary for growth that is occurring anyway.

Clark Owens

57; real estate broker

The resolution passed in May doesn’t vary from the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The plan allows indexing to a population cap of 109,578 in 2000 if adequate water supplies have been secured. In passing the resolution, the council felt the “water supply” test had been met and approved the indexed population through 1996. Thus, your 1996 population figure of approximately 106,578 matches the indexed population approved for the plan for 1996. I believe current Comprehensive Plan limits are sufficient to ensure a vibrant community and should not, at this juncture, be relaxed.

Brian Lee Rencher

33; Ventura College student

I have a difficult time believing San Buenaventura’s population projections at all! In 1992, the city projected its population will be 109,000 residents in the year 2010. In 1985, the Ventura Planning Commission projected the city’s population will be 123,150 residents in the year 2010. In 1991, the Ventura County Economic Development Assn. projected the city’s population will be 128,307 residents in the year 2010. Who do you believe? They’re all reputable sources. I believe we need to get our projections straight before we can make well-informed, rational decisions regarding the city’s Comprehensive Plan population limits.

Ken Schmitz

33; certified public accountant

The population limits set by the Comprehensive Plan are indexed when the census figures are released, resulting in the additional allowance. I would support the higher population limit of 115,000 stipulated in the Comprehensive Plan if additional water supplies are found. I would pursue those water sources because the population trends indicate that our population will reach 115,000 whether we secure additional water or not. We need to provide available resources to the residents of Ventura, and not try to control those resources as a means of controlling growth.

Gary Tuttle

45; incumbent councilman, owner athletic shoe store

I favor and support Ventura’s Comprehensive Plan. The Plan sets limits to the speed of population increase. The rate of growth is tied to the city’s ability to provide resources and services. The seeming difference between 102,000 and 106,578 population limits was based on underestimating the city’s population in 1988, and the actual 1990 census count. We can provide services for those additional 4,000+ people, so the intent of the Plan is followed. I believe the city can sustain itself and encourage business development within existing boundaries, thus maintaining our greenbelts, our individuality and our quality of life.

Virginia Weber

44; educational grants administrator

I favor the Comprehensive Plan but I am not blind to the fact that we have to consider opportunities available to us to strengthen our economy or to preserve our job base. If it could be shown to me that there were overriding benefits to the citizens of Ventura at the expense of considering a variation from the Comprehensive Plan then I would be open to consider it, but only on a case-by-case basis and only if there were overriding benefits.

Carroll Dean Williams

51; manufacturing engineer

Now is the time to look inward. I believe the Comprehensive Plan has proven itself for a population to 102,000. I have always said I favored the original Comprehensive Plan. I have seen the empty stores, and the increased “For Rent” signs in our city. I have lived here for 48 years. I remember one other time when things “went down,” the company I worked for laid off for its first time. A short time later our city boomed again. I believe it’s worse this time.