Elbow room for families -- just right the second time?

Last Monday (April 23rd) the City Council unanimously adopted a revised plan for the Aldea Hermosa housing proposal in the Saticoy and Wells area. The plan had been through numerous reviews and when it first came to the Council last month, the Council voted 5-1 for to ask the developer to revise the project (see “Not Too Hot, Not Too Cold” posting), imposing a minimum lot width of 40 feet.

That original vote triggered quite a response. Some decried the Council “at the last minute” making changes to a project that had been through numerous commission and staff reviews over several years, leading up to final Council consideration. Others lamented that the project was not scaled back even further. An impassioned plea from the project’s major investor was headlined in the paper, further adding to the commotion.

What a difference a month makes. The developer’s architect simply presented the new plan and expressed the hope that it met the direction of the Council. One neighbor spoke out against approval. The Council voted unanimously to approve the project as redesigned.

So was the change significant? Did it make for a better project? See the attached location finder, side by side site plans, sample elevations of what the smaller homes will look like and a detail of the private space expansion in the redesigned project:

http://www.cityofventura.net/cmblog/aldea_hermosa/

You be the judge. As originally proposed, the project had 50 single-family homes. Twenty-one were larger homes on lots ranging from 4004 to 6155 square feet (nine of which also had small second-units above the garages that could be used by the owners or rented as “granny flats.”) The remaining 29 units were on smaller lots (2520 to 3740 square feet.) Fourteen of those (or more than a quarter of the total homes in the project were on lots smaller than 2880 square feet.

What concerned the Council was the size of usable private space for the families on such small lots. Each had what amounts to a side patio between their homes and the home next door (an easement accomplishes the same purpose as a “zero lot line” which gives all the space between homes to one owner rather than divide it up into two five foot wide strips.) By widening the lots to a minimum of 40 feet width, it increased the size of the sideyards, in some cases by more than 100 square feet (from 560 to 678) and in others by more than 200 square feet (from 539 to 743.)

For those used to looking out their back yard at 2000 square feet of patio and lawn (or a pool), even the revised numbers may seem absurdly skimpy. But from the standpoint of today's smaller families facing whopping mortgages, the extra elbow room may make a substantial difference.

Ideally, the project wouldn't have gotten this far without the change. But we don't yet live in an ideal world. As we work to apply the grand vision of protecting our farm land and hillsides from being paved over while still providing new homes for today's families, we are faced with some tough choices. Aldea Hermosa is just one square in a much larger quilt. But it may be a little more special example of achieving our vision, one neighborhood and one project at a time.

Glowing Sunset

Check out the cheery profile of Ventura in the latest Sunset Magazine.

Great restaurants and more in the new Ventura
A historic surf town in Southern California spiffs up but keeps its charm

"Ventura has undergone a major facelift, with renovations to the historic downtown, a burgeoning art scene, and an influx of cutting-edge restaurants.

"Although it keeps its mellow pace and still has its surfers, the rest is history. It's now the kind of place where the man in the white jacket perusing produce at the farmers' market turns out to be the chef who prepares your meal that evening . . . "

www.sunset.com/sunset/travel /article/0,20633,1612931,00.html

Stashed away?

Tonight I formally present the City Manager's Budget recommendations to the City Council as mandated under our City Charter. For a detailed outline of the plan, go to the Transmittal Letter on the City's web site at:

www.cityofventura.net/enews/smartgrowth/issue3.asp

The Star and KVTA have already carried reports on the highlights, particularly the funding for six additional police officers and three additional firefighters. I'm gratified that our Three Year Plan to balance the budget is working and that we could make progress toward additional resources for our number one goal of improving public safety. But, inevitably, some wonder: why now? Was the City crying wolf with the P6 ballot measure last fall? One anonymous on-line comment inquired suspiciously:

Interesting that the bond measure failed to pass and now you guys have come up with money to do hiring and raises. What is this all about? Was this money stashed away somewhere?

I understand this kind of knee-jerk suspicion. We live at a time when many fear that government is perpetually hiding something.

But, no, the money wasn't stashed somewhere. The truth is much less sinister -- by holding down increases in spending and benefitting from increased revenue, we have eliminated our deficit and can begin to direct increased revenue to improving services. The Council and staff have worked hard to make this possible.

Here is what I wrote back in response to the citizen comment:

Measure P6 was a quarter cent sales tax. If it had received 2/3rds support and passed, it would have provided guaranteed funding for ten years for an additional 14 police officers, 11 firefighters as well as additional public safety logistical and facilities support, including an additional fire station.

It received 62% support. There are any number of conclusions that might be drawn from this result, but what the Council and staff concluded was that the citizens supported adding as much additional public safety support as we could without a tax increase. With what looks like the last year of hefty property tax increase from the once strong housing market, we were able to fund 6 officers and 3 firefighters for the coming year.

Prior to the election last fall, I was asked repeatedly what the alternatives were to a sales tax increase. My answer was outlined in detail in the Ventura County Star editorial supporting P6. I did not support doing nothing, nor spending our reserves on ongoing expenses. I said the only two realistic options were to make deep cuts in other city services to reach the level of P6 funding -- or preserve other services and fund public safety with what we could afford from revenue growth over the next several years. While others may differ, neither the Council nor I believe that the majority of residents support deep cuts.

We are proceeding on the course that was clearly outlined in black and white prior to last November's election.

Of course, I don't expect this will satisfy those who want to find a hidden agenda for everything. But the fact remains that we face real fiscal challenges to provide quality services in a changing community. We will continue to face tough choices between what Ventura wants and what we can afford. Ultimately, it is the citizens who will make the fundamental choices about what kind of community Ventura will be.

Target at the Mall . . .

Another Target – at the Mall?

Have they lost their minds?

I’ve been a little surprised at the visceral reaction as news spreads that Macerich, the company that owns the mall, has leased the old Robinson’s-May store to Target, which already has a store less than a mile away.

I understand the disappointment. How will a second Target improve the fortunes of the mall? Especially when I hear more and more complaints that the mall is less and less attractive as a shopping destination.

I also understand the frustration that residents have as they pass the long-vacant north end of the mall. Why no Nordstrom’s? Why no COSTCO? Why no Fry’s?

But as one who follows retail trends very closely, I wasn’t surprised at Macerich’s decision – or Target’s for that matter.

Retail competition across the nation is brutal – and our area is no different. In the absence of rapid housing growth, chain stores are slugging it out to hang on to their share of the market – even if it takes opening a second store down the street from an existing one. Target, which currently has 1500 stores in the United States, is pushing to add 500 more during the next five years.

Today’s consumers have endless choices within an easy drive – or with a couple of clicks, they can have merchandise arrive at their doors. Since shoppers are in the driver’s seat (literally and figuratively), we are increasingly demanding value (low prices) AND experience (fun, service and variety.)

Target has done relatively well in this demanding environment because they have done as good a job as anyone in combining the two. With their single-minded focus on value, Walmart has grown into the world’s largest corporation, but neither their investors nor shoppers are satisfied with their performance in other areas. All the mainstream department stores have tanked except Macy's because they offer a mediocre experience and little value. At the high end, stores like Nordstroms excel at offering a pleasant experience, but the difference in merchandise quality doesn’t justify the sky-high prices to the vast majority of shoppers.

Of course, brilliant city leaders have access to all sorts of magic tools to influence the marketplace right? Zoning laws, tax subsidies, fast-track permitting and good old fashioned salesmanship! Why settle for a Target? Why didn’t we go out and snag a (you fill in the blank with the store of your choice.)

It’s a fair question for any city in California, nearly thirty years after Proposition 13. City governments no longer succeed just by making sure the streets are patrolled, paved and swept. Now we are measured on how successful we are at hustling in the cut-throat world of shopping centers and auto malls.

And by that score, Ventura has done rather well. In fact, in per capita retail sales we outperform eight of the other nine cities in our county. The only city that does better is Thousand Oaks, with a household median income 50% higher than us.

Realistically, however, everyone else is out hustling to knock us down a peg. So we can hardly rest on our laurels. And I’d be the first to admit that another Target is not going to give us an edge.

We are focusing on three priorities. First, we have reached agreement with Macerich to work together on a redo of the north end of the mall. Just adding a couple of stores isn’t enough. We need to reposition the mall as a thriving shopping district for the next twenty years. Let’s face it, malls aren’t a fresh concept into the every-changing retail world. The latest trend is lifestyle centers. A recent Star column by neighbor Katherine Warner is on target – today’s shoppers are increasingly drawn to a mix of uses that offers more variety and convenience. That’s the General Plan vision for the area. By integrating new retailers into a north end master plan, we can strengthen the mall in the short run – and for the long haul.

Second, we are working with adjoining landowners on extending Olivas Park Drive to open up the land behind the auto mall for additional dealers – and regional retailers that aren’t in our market, like IKEA and Bass Pro. No deals have been signed, but there is enough interest that we are fast-tracking the long-planned extension of that key freeway connection now that construction on the Santa Clara river bridge is winding down.

Third, with the recent adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan, we will be working with Caltrans and others on bridging over the 101 Freeway at California Street. By linking our Downtown directly to the beach, we open up the opportunity to redevelop the aging parking structure and put a unique destination in a fabulous location next to the pier.

Of course, other opportunities and challenges will open up and we will need to respond to them. But these three priorities are our best bets to not only stay competitive in the retail arena – but also ensure that Ventura residents have a range of shopping alternatives close to home.