City to Look at Plans That Raise Cap on Population

With the city’s population growing faster than expected, the City Council tonight will be asked to choose one of four options that would increase a population target set for the year 2000. The number of people living in Ventura is expected to reach 107,566 within the next four years, which exceeds a 105,000 limit set seven years ago.

Community Services Director Everett Millais is recommending that council members agree to conduct a six-month study on raising the cap.

“The City Council at this time is not setting any new population allocation limits,” he stressed in a report to the council. This action would be to set parameters so staff members can study possible environmental effects and prepare an updated report.

Council members took up the issue during a meeting last month, debating for nearly two hours whether to tamper with the 2000 population cap. They eventually agreed to postpone a decision on the matter so alternatives could be developed.

Tonight, the council is scheduled to consider four options that would each require raising the population limit established in 1989. The alternatives are:

* Set a population limit of 107,566. This would allow several housing projects already planned to be built, but would effectively prohibit any additional housing projects for the next four years.

* Set a population limit of 109,000. This would restrict the number of additional housing projects that could be approved by the council, but make room for nearly 1,500 more residents than currently anticipated.

* Set a population limit of 110,000. Adding 5,000 people to the current cap would give added flexibility for future development, allowing more than 2,400 extra residents.

* Set a population limit of 112,000, which comes close to the city’s 2010 limit of 115,000.

During last month’s meeting, some council members requested leaving room in the city’s housing allocation process for specific projects, such as a 400-bed veterans home facility, an east-side regional park and adjacent 400-home subdivision, and plans to add 900 residences in the downtown area.

This option would allow an additional 1,700 housing units to be built, which would add at least 4,250 more people, according to a city report.

Several council members said Friday that they had not decided which alternative--if any--to support.

“I am going to play a little close to the vest on this one because I want to hear what people say,” Councilman Ray Di Guilio said.

Councilman Jim Monahan said he was leaning toward the 107,566-person cap, but was waiting until the meeting before making a decision.

“I am going to listen to what is said at the public hearing and vote my conscience,” he said. “I think I am in favor of alternative one--it is in keeping with our general plan.”

Adding more residential development in the city’s east end, he said, “is going to be hard for schools,” which are already experiencing overcrowding.

Councilwoman Rosa Lee Measures said she favored establishing a population limit that would give the council flexibility to consider future projects, such as the east-side park and housing complex.

“I would say that the 109,000 alternative looks the most promising,” she said. That population cap would allow for the building of roughly half of the housing units tied to the veterans home, regional park and downtown project, the city report said.

Measures said developers of those projects could be granted the right to build on the condition that construction be staggered over the next 14 years. “We can stipulate specific criteria in terms of time of build out,” she said.

Councilman Gary Tuttle, the most vocal critic of the recommendation to increase the population limit, said that he was still studying the options.

“I am going to be consistent with how I always voted,” he said. “I won’t vote for any further allocations which worsen our traffic problems or our school crowding.”

Mayor Jack Tingstrom said he is not supporting any one plan and expects a lively debate tonight as council members attempt to find common ground.

“Somewhere in there, there will be compromise,” he said. “I am looking forward to it.”