A question of balance
This morning's Star gives a strong endorsement to the City Council's unanimous approval of the Citrus Place development on the eastern edge of the City:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/ opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_5355060,00.html
Drawing on reporter Kevin Clerici's earlier story on the controversial project, the editorial says "some residents expressed opposition and had called for dramatically fewer housing units, but the proposal , eventually OK'd by the Council, calls for only five fewer houses, slightly larger lots and moving the garages to the front of the houses."
Not a bad summary, but in congratulating the City on supporting housing (particularly affordable housing), the editorial slights the significance of the alternative plan.
In fact, after years of arduous process, lengthy hearings, redesigns and controversy, the applicant partnership responded to the neighbor's appeal by offering a compromise. While not solving all the neighbors' concerns about traffic, flooding and parking, it improved an already thoughtful design to make the new addition to the neighborhood more livable for both existing and future residents. The goal was not "slightly larger lots," but adequate backyards and frontyards for the families who live there by removing an inefficient single-sided alley that would have run directly behind the back fences of the surrounding homes. It reduced the number of homes by five, but it introduced another housing type into the proposal, strengthening what will make this new area stand out -- a variety of different kinds of homes, instead of the red-tiled roof monotony of the crowded subdivision tracts of virtually identical boxes you see all over the rest of Southern California.
The decision should be seen in its larger context of seeking balance throughout Ventura. Five weeks ago, the Council approved a draft new set of rules for Midtown's east-west corridors of Main and Thompson. The Council reduced the allowed height along most of the frontage from six stories to three, but made some exceptions (two stories in some cases, leaving six stories in others.) For neighbors who wanted virtually the entire length to be limited to two stories, this was seen as a defeat. But viewed from the perspective of encouraging new investment along tired streets full of run-down motels and car lots, it represented a careful balance (that will get further tweaking before adoption later this year.)
In fact, "balance" continued to be the common theme as the Council the next week took up the Sondermann-Ring project, which was delayed by a major redesign to be more accessible and open -- to look like a neighborhood instead of a project. It was evident on Victoria Avenue, where the street's longtime character as an eight-lane traffic carrier was re-examined for promoting higher quality office and retail development. It carried through to the discussion by the Council and Planning Commission planning the Saticoy and Wells area, where developers have come up with their own designs, while the City wants to make sure they connect together and have adequate schools, parks and transportation alternatives. Finally, it was painfully obvious how important balance is when the Council earlier Monday night unanimously overturned a Planning Commission decision to allow a second home to be squeezed onto a large lot at the end of Mound Avenue near Ventura College. Legally, the lot was big enough to be subdivided. But putting in another home would have required either butchering a windrow of trees along the barranca to the rear or sawing off part of a handsome home that has been on the property for half a century.
If your single perspective is that we need more housing -- or that we need to protect existing neighborhoods from losing views -- or that we must promote economic growth -- or that we should stop growing because there is already too much traffic -- the hard decisions of the last five weeks will be disappointing. No single issue triumphed and no side unilaterally prevailed. The Councilmembers each have their own views, reflecting the diversity of the community. But unlike the voters and interest groups that keep score on whether their views won or lost, the Council looks for common ground. It's a question of balance -- which is what the vision of the 2005 General Plan was all about. In a series of high-profile votes over the last five weeks, the City Council has been carefully implementing that vision -- one neighborhood at a time.
http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/ opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_5355060,00.html
Drawing on reporter Kevin Clerici's earlier story on the controversial project, the editorial says "some residents expressed opposition and had called for dramatically fewer housing units, but the proposal , eventually OK'd by the Council, calls for only five fewer houses, slightly larger lots and moving the garages to the front of the houses."
Not a bad summary, but in congratulating the City on supporting housing (particularly affordable housing), the editorial slights the significance of the alternative plan.
In fact, after years of arduous process, lengthy hearings, redesigns and controversy, the applicant partnership responded to the neighbor's appeal by offering a compromise. While not solving all the neighbors' concerns about traffic, flooding and parking, it improved an already thoughtful design to make the new addition to the neighborhood more livable for both existing and future residents. The goal was not "slightly larger lots," but adequate backyards and frontyards for the families who live there by removing an inefficient single-sided alley that would have run directly behind the back fences of the surrounding homes. It reduced the number of homes by five, but it introduced another housing type into the proposal, strengthening what will make this new area stand out -- a variety of different kinds of homes, instead of the red-tiled roof monotony of the crowded subdivision tracts of virtually identical boxes you see all over the rest of Southern California.
The decision should be seen in its larger context of seeking balance throughout Ventura. Five weeks ago, the Council approved a draft new set of rules for Midtown's east-west corridors of Main and Thompson. The Council reduced the allowed height along most of the frontage from six stories to three, but made some exceptions (two stories in some cases, leaving six stories in others.) For neighbors who wanted virtually the entire length to be limited to two stories, this was seen as a defeat. But viewed from the perspective of encouraging new investment along tired streets full of run-down motels and car lots, it represented a careful balance (that will get further tweaking before adoption later this year.)
In fact, "balance" continued to be the common theme as the Council the next week took up the Sondermann-Ring project, which was delayed by a major redesign to be more accessible and open -- to look like a neighborhood instead of a project. It was evident on Victoria Avenue, where the street's longtime character as an eight-lane traffic carrier was re-examined for promoting higher quality office and retail development. It carried through to the discussion by the Council and Planning Commission planning the Saticoy and Wells area, where developers have come up with their own designs, while the City wants to make sure they connect together and have adequate schools, parks and transportation alternatives. Finally, it was painfully obvious how important balance is when the Council earlier Monday night unanimously overturned a Planning Commission decision to allow a second home to be squeezed onto a large lot at the end of Mound Avenue near Ventura College. Legally, the lot was big enough to be subdivided. But putting in another home would have required either butchering a windrow of trees along the barranca to the rear or sawing off part of a handsome home that has been on the property for half a century.
If your single perspective is that we need more housing -- or that we need to protect existing neighborhoods from losing views -- or that we must promote economic growth -- or that we should stop growing because there is already too much traffic -- the hard decisions of the last five weeks will be disappointing. No single issue triumphed and no side unilaterally prevailed. The Councilmembers each have their own views, reflecting the diversity of the community. But unlike the voters and interest groups that keep score on whether their views won or lost, the Council looks for common ground. It's a question of balance -- which is what the vision of the 2005 General Plan was all about. In a series of high-profile votes over the last five weeks, the City Council has been carefully implementing that vision -- one neighborhood at a time.
posted by Rick Cole at
7:33 AM
1 Comments:
You do not present the "middle" ground..only the extremes. The choice is not either/or...either empty car lots or 45 ft buildings that destroy our sense of place. Midtown can be a charming historic village like area that showcases its beautiful natural setting instead of eclipsing it. ...Where is the creativity and thinking outside the New urbanist building template? Try one stories on the corners to accommodate parking and open up window parks to the hills.
Post a Comment
<< Home