Not too hot, not too cold
We all remember the Goldilocks story, who found the papa bear’s porridge “too hot,” the mama bear’s porridge “too cold” and the baby bear’s porridge “just right.”
For years, public debate in Ventura has been polarized between two camps. One favors piping hot development to bring more business, housing, tax revenue and progress. The other wants to cool things down to protect our history, environment and quality of life.
The deep divide began to be bridged with the “Ventura Vision” effort and the unanimous Council vote to adopt the 2005 General Plan. A third alternative, called “smart growth,” aimed at a balance that was “just right” in our new General Plan:
"Our goal is to protect our hillsides, farmlands and open spaces; enhance Ventura's historic and cultural resources; respect our diverse neighborhoods; reinvest in older areas of our community; and make great places by insisting on the highest standards of quality in architecture, landscaping and urban design."
Nobody said it was going to be easy. And last Monday night brought out the old “too hot” and “too cold” reactions. The City Council debated a proposed project on the eastern edge of the city that included 50 two-story detached homes along with “accessory units” that would be built over the garages of nine of those homes. Although the project has been “in the pipeline” for nearly five years, members of the Council challenged the narrow width of many of the lots (just 35 feet wide), the value of the small neighborhood green space and whether some single-story homes should be required on the periphery of the project, immediately next to the neighbors living in single-story mobile homes. In the end, the Council voted 5-1 to postpone final approval for a month with instructions to the developer to increase the minimum lot width to 40 feet.
The “too cold” side immediately weighed in with fiery comments from one community activist posted on the Star’s web site. She charged “the builders lots were under 3,000 feet, with yard space so small that it was questionable that it could accommodate even one tree.” She went on to tag Councilmembers with derogatory nicknames and sneer at the “math-challenged City Council” going along “with what appeared to be irregularities” and only changing the minimum lot width.
The “too hot” viewpoint was just as vocal. Another commenter argued that “the 11th hour decision to block the development was a completely capricious decision,” insisting “the i's had been dotted and the t's had been crossed and it was time to move forward.”
So which is it? Was the Council derelict in not making greater changes to a deeply flawed project? Or was it reckless in making a last minute change in a project that had been recommended by the Planning Commission after five years of public process?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But what is missing in the “too hot” or “too cold” versions of reality is the Council effort to find a balance that is “just right.”
The Council had many options. It could have rubber stamped the project as submitted. It could have sent it back to the Planning and Design Review Committee for months of additional hearings and changes. It could have tried to design the project itself.
The Council considered all these options and in the end, by a 5-1 vote, chose to impose a single change and ask the developer to adjust his plans and bring them back directly to the Council. That angers both the “too hot” and “too cold” camps. But what the Council did may be what the majority of Ventura residents would have done, if faced with that tough decision. Just about everybody wants to see new quality housing built in our community. That’s what the Council tried to accomplish on Monday night and the extra month it will take to achieve that goal may turn out to be time and effort well spent.
For years, public debate in Ventura has been polarized between two camps. One favors piping hot development to bring more business, housing, tax revenue and progress. The other wants to cool things down to protect our history, environment and quality of life.
The deep divide began to be bridged with the “Ventura Vision” effort and the unanimous Council vote to adopt the 2005 General Plan. A third alternative, called “smart growth,” aimed at a balance that was “just right” in our new General Plan:
"Our goal is to protect our hillsides, farmlands and open spaces; enhance Ventura's historic and cultural resources; respect our diverse neighborhoods; reinvest in older areas of our community; and make great places by insisting on the highest standards of quality in architecture, landscaping and urban design."
Nobody said it was going to be easy. And last Monday night brought out the old “too hot” and “too cold” reactions. The City Council debated a proposed project on the eastern edge of the city that included 50 two-story detached homes along with “accessory units” that would be built over the garages of nine of those homes. Although the project has been “in the pipeline” for nearly five years, members of the Council challenged the narrow width of many of the lots (just 35 feet wide), the value of the small neighborhood green space and whether some single-story homes should be required on the periphery of the project, immediately next to the neighbors living in single-story mobile homes. In the end, the Council voted 5-1 to postpone final approval for a month with instructions to the developer to increase the minimum lot width to 40 feet.
The “too cold” side immediately weighed in with fiery comments from one community activist posted on the Star’s web site. She charged “the builders lots were under 3,000 feet, with yard space so small that it was questionable that it could accommodate even one tree.” She went on to tag Councilmembers with derogatory nicknames and sneer at the “math-challenged City Council” going along “with what appeared to be irregularities” and only changing the minimum lot width.
The “too hot” viewpoint was just as vocal. Another commenter argued that “the 11th hour decision to block the development was a completely capricious decision,” insisting “the i's had been dotted and the t's had been crossed and it was time to move forward.”
So which is it? Was the Council derelict in not making greater changes to a deeply flawed project? Or was it reckless in making a last minute change in a project that had been recommended by the Planning Commission after five years of public process?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But what is missing in the “too hot” or “too cold” versions of reality is the Council effort to find a balance that is “just right.”
The Council had many options. It could have rubber stamped the project as submitted. It could have sent it back to the Planning and Design Review Committee for months of additional hearings and changes. It could have tried to design the project itself.
The Council considered all these options and in the end, by a 5-1 vote, chose to impose a single change and ask the developer to adjust his plans and bring them back directly to the Council. That angers both the “too hot” and “too cold” camps. But what the Council did may be what the majority of Ventura residents would have done, if faced with that tough decision. Just about everybody wants to see new quality housing built in our community. That’s what the Council tried to accomplish on Monday night and the extra month it will take to achieve that goal may turn out to be time and effort well spent.
posted by Rick Cole at
12:02 PM
6 Comments:
When it comes to serious job creation and real estate development in Ventura, I continue to be frustrated by the lack of confidence the City Council displays towards its paid leadership, advisory commissions, and a citizen-centric process that takes years to complete. In my opinion, most of the 'gridlock' that occurs in City politics does so because vocal NIMBYS and others have learned that they don't have to respect process at all....just get the ear of a City Council member and they can circumvent years of hard work at the last minute! Most political decisions are difficult and no civic leader can please everyone. But this City will continue to experience polarization until its leaders consistently show respect for an accountability-based process of civic decision-making. My recommendation to stop the type of 'old camp/new camp' division seen at last week's Council meeting: whenever the City Council decides at the 11th hour to make changes to a plan where the developer has fully complied with all City requirements, then the City will pay the cost of the last-minute change required of the developer.
Virtually all developments in the city begin their public reviews at the Design Review Committee and/or Planning Commission meetings. These are open and publicly noticed and there are manifest oportunities to contribute observations, ideas, opinions, data, etc. Idividuals and organizations have sufficient opportunities to review reports, applications, files, drawings, diagrams, and other records days before these meetings take place. Staff is avalable to answer questions beforehand.
Yet, citizens claim that they were not told of these pending projects and associated review hearings until they read about it in the newspaper on the very day it is to go for final approval before the City Council even though the council's agenda was publicly posted 72 hours prior to the meeting.
It is unfortunate that citizens fail to inform themselves by reviewing these agendas and associated reports and, in many cases, also ignore the notices they receive in the mail from our city Planning Department. Instead, they claim that all the public input points were done secretly behind their backs and then cry foul at the last opportunity for public input -- at City Council meetings.
I know from personal experience that if one chooses to inform oneself and gets in at the beginning of the public proccess that good ideas can be incorporated into most projects under review. Why wait until the cement is almost dry to chisel ones handprint into a project when it is much more constructive and easier to do so when the cement is freshly poured? People should quit crying foul and that the sky is falling at the last minute! Insted, they should inform themselves and eachother and then get involved early when one's thoughts and ideas can be readily incorporated into any given project while it is still being reviewed before the Design Review Committee and/or Planning Commission. This is when good things can happen. People should try it. It works for me!
At your service,
Brian Lee Rencher, MBA
I do not understand the use of the term "deeply flawed" to describe this project, nor do I understand the use of the term "rubber stamp" as applied to an option the City Council had. If, indeed, the only requirement was to create 40' wide lots out of previously-evaluated [ at least 3 times by DRC and more than once by Planning ] 35' wide lots, and the developer loses a lot or two in the process, that is
that. However, the City needs to behave more responsibly in doing this to a developer who has invested 5 years into this project, with all the requisite jumping through hoops before this determination was made - the same is true for the Hilton Inn Project, the Sondermann Ring Project, the Edwards project and the 300 proposed Centex homes at the north end of Ventura Avenue.
If we want an arts community, thenm I suggest we review two communities which have already been there done that - Laguna Beach and Coronado. Coronado has a great 30-page piece on its new rules concerning contextual design elements. Laguna Beach has galleries and galleries.
The kid developers of WAV do not appear to be that sophisticated.
I agree with Meredith. The NIMBY's do not show up at the relevant meetings and form opinions based on partial information. The project in question was a great project and was thoroughly evaluated.
The "extra month" will turn into 3-6 months for a project already thoroughly reviewed for over 5 years because the Council is unwilling to place trust in the professionally-accredited Committees which it appointed to address these issues in the first place. This affects the Council's own credibility.
The problem with the city of Ventura is that the Nimby's and Banana's using illogical thinking always manage to ruin everything that might make Ventura a destination city. The two outstanding projects that come to mind are the building of a four year university on the Taylor ranch property across the Ventura River which most people agree would have transformed the Ventura Ave area into a wondderland, and the second is the building of up-scale homes in the hills behind Ventura which would have brought a pleathora of money to town and also given the city a multi-thousnad acres open space park that would have been taken care for all time.
Post a Comment
<< Home