THE VERDICT IS IN: The Ventura Citizens' Organization for Responsible Development (VCORD) has lost both its court and signature recount battle to force a June special election on its view-protection initiative. The measure will instead go on the ballot during the next regular municipal election in November of 2009.
I am glad there is now more than a year and a half to educate the voters on this legally flawed measure, but the postponement may also put property owners in a very long holding pattern. Ironically, it might propel others to get their projects quickly approved before November of 2009, likely not what VCORD had in mind.
Here in a nutshell is what you'll be voting on in 2009: The establishment of a View Resources Board made up of people appointed for the most part by a special interest group. This group would then draft restrictions on building heights which would affect approximately 93 percent of the properties in the city. VCORD was originally set up as a watchdog group to keep buildings from springing up which block views of the hills from the bungalow homes in Midtown.
I called City Attorney Ariel Calonne and asked him to clarify the legalities of the measure. Letting the board of VCORD, a 501 (c)(4) political organization, decide who appoints the View Resources Board violates the City Charter, he said.
"I'm not for or against it," Calonne said of the measure. "I've given an opinion that a lot of it is illegal."
It's like letting the ACLU appoint judges, or letting the AFL-CIO appoint the National Labor Relations Board or ... well, you get the picture.
AND THERE'S MORE. We could wait several years for this narrowly appointed body to make up its mind! If the initiative passes in 2009, a moratorium restricting building heights to just 26 feet will be put in place for up to 2 years until this board is appointed and drafts a view protection ordinance, with the contents still to be determined.
The ordinance is intended as a General Plan amendment, yet the process completely bypasses legally required review by the Planning Commission. Whatever the board comes up with will eventually be voted on by the City Council. If they vote it down, the measure will go to the voters in a far-off municipal election. If that fails, then what?
To their credit, VCORD has exempted a few business areas such as Downtown, Victoria Ave., and the hospital zone. But if you own property in the non-exempt areas of the city, you better get your project significantly through the pipeline well before November of 2009.
And if you're looking at your property as an investment, be aware that potential buyers may already be casting a wary eye your way. If the measure passes in the fall of '09, the city's already established guidelines will then be in limbo and it will be years before you will know what can be built there.
The City Council and a majority of the citizens support protecting public views and the quality of life in Ventura. But this is not the way to do it.
The city attorney's analysis of this measure can be viewed here: Download file
The Community Development Director's analysis of the measure can be found here: Download file
Camille Harris has done a wonderful job bringing this initiative as far as it has gotten but I agree with Marie that it is fatally flawed.
My big concern is that it limits construction of denser housing on what would be various mass transit modes. Knocking out more affordable housing and traffic mitigation in one blow. Not good.
Or it's like Dick Cheney consulting with Enron and other oil industry types on the nation's energy policy.
I agree with Marie 100% on this. The last thing the City needs to be doing right now is discouraging new construction, particularly in the mid-town area where we have significant blight, underutilization of commercial property, and poor planning/zoning regulations. I think the mid-town specific plan/development code that the Council adopted recently should help to some extent, especially when the economy rebounds, but this ridiculous measure will set us back 25 years.
If I were VCORD, I would withdraw support for the measure -- although it will remain on the ballot for '09 -- and work with the city right now to establish a view resources board that is legal and correct. This measure, because of the time delay, now serves nobody's interests.
Calonne also told me that if it passes and a lawsuit is brought by an outside group because of all the illegalities involved, he would have the duty to defend it. How much would a court battle cost taxpayers? We have already paid $5,000 for a recount that proved the county's original count was correct.
Marie, are you kidding me? Camille Harris wants to use this measure as a platform to run for City Council. Although logic, good sense, and the legal complications you point out would argue for VCORD to withdraw the measure, Camille will continue to play politics with this until the cows come home.
She's running for Council? God help us all!
Running for city council on the VCORD platform makes about as much sense as running for city council on a build Wal-Mart platform. Both are very divisive and I don't think the residents of Ventura want divisive candidates making decisions for them.
Wow,
this sounds like a two person diatribe, against the 10,000 plus citizens who are concerned about protecting one of Ventura's most important assets. You're both way off base. Look at the bylaws of VCORD. The entire organization votes on members of the View Resources Board and the members need not even be members of VCORD. After the View protection ordinance is written, the entire city gets to vote on it. Sounds pretty democratic to me. As to the hold on approvals for buildings over 26 feet while they write the ordinance, why would a developer be so dumb as to design a view blocker when he knows view protection is in the works? Further, the intention of the group is to get it written in 90 days, so a two year moratorium is just what their opponents like to blare out to the public. They will have guidelines written long before it goes to the ballot.
It also sounds like you're afraid that Camille Harris might run for council. I think she has more important and productive things to do with her time.She has thousands of people who appreciate her standing up for the neighborhoods of Ventura, whose input has been ignored.
You two obviously represent developer interests.
VCord seems to have fooled a lot of people. If people realized what was being proposed, VCord would not have received as many signatures as they did.
Interesting blog written by an apparent "ghost" writer as I did not see any name tied to the article. Must be written by some newspaper or city official bad mouthing the general public with developer's misinformation about our neighborhood concerns.
John P. - What blog are you talking about? The thread was written by Marie Lakin. The rest are responses.
The picture above should be in "Ripley's Believe It Or Not." This building has no front or sides, no front yard or backyard and no parking. This nightmare of a "Duret's" architecture slipped through the Planning Commission thanks to the irresponsibility of Stiles by the Santa Monica developer Crumb, no pun intended.
It was a beautiful sloping grass front yard of the 1930 Spanish-Mediterrean house behind this 'Crumb masterpiece' now drawfed, it's giant picture window that looked out onto Main St. now stares at the stucco of this 'square-foot billboard.' This location was the entrance to one of the nicest neighborhoods in San Buenaventura, Hobson Heights.
It seems that Mongo Flamo (Brennan) and Skip (Summers) have just returned from a weekend vacation romping around the concrete canyons and highest residential density of all of LA County: Santa Monica, Venice, Manhattan and Redondo Beaches. Upon their return, the open view of the surrounding hills, they see as significant blight!!! They don't have stupid stuff like that in Venice. They can drive from the post office to the car wash in 3 minutes and call that 'underutilization of commercial property and poor planning.' They call peace and quiet, no or little traffic, no gang violence and finding a parking place...setting us back 25 years.
Please you guys, if you love Venice so darn much, let me buy you a couple of gallons of gas and get your sorry selfs back down there.
As far as Camille, Vcord and her running for city council goes: it's the existing city council that has gotten us into this mess.
We need district elections and rid ourselves of this developer supported tyranny and return Ventura and local gov't representation back to the folks that live here.
Hey, Steve, great suggestion there on district elections (not!!!). Great way to further divide a City that is already overly divided geographically as well as by issues (Wal-Mart, 911 tax, development issues, etc.).
Sorry, John P., I write all my own blog entries. I'm not affiliated with any developers nor do I work for the city. I have spent a lot of time studying the measure, talking to many sources and I think it's bad policy.
I am NOT responsible for the commentary that follows the blog entry unless you see my name with a post.
Sespeangel: What the citizens will be voting on is the EXACT wording of your measure:
"... Within thirty (30) days following the effective date of this initiative ordinance, a View Resources Board shall be established comprised of 23 members of the Ventura Community.
VCORD's Board of Directors shall appoint the community representatives..."
You're locked in by the law.
Steve: Mongo and Skip are not councilmembers. Trust me on that one.
The purpose of this forum is to facilitate discussion of community issues. I appreciate your comments very much.
While I think that 26 feet may be a little extreme, I think that it is necessary that we have some limitations on how high buildings can go. One of the things I like about Ventura is that you can see the hills or the horizon from almost anywhere. I don't want Ventura to turn into another overly developed concrete jungle. When I went to San Francisco for the first time recently, I was struck by the fact that if I didn't know any better, I would have never known that San Francisco borders an ocean because all of the buildings were so high. I was happy to return to Ventura where I am not surrounded on all sides by tall buildings.
I notice Kutie is weighing in on the Wal-Mart issue here as well. I thought she was a business-oriented Republican, apparently we were mislead.
Face it, the population of this town is growing. We have to find affordable places for the folks to live. This means density. The days of pitching your teepee on the wide open plains are gone. We can't grow out into the hills or the ag lands (thanks to other initiative efforts), so we have to grow UP. And some of you (Mongo) need to grow up, too.
Oh please, Skippy, you're the last person to start lecturing people about needing to grow up. Some of your previous posts were just a notch above kindergarten banter, so cut me some slack on the self-righteous comments, dude.
I see lot of issues here. Being a Venturan for almost 47 years (almost birth) I've seen alot of development and changes. We need to seriously look at development in the Midtown area especially because it reflects a time period that cannot be repeated. Go look at these homes - they are not cookie-cutter, in fact they are little custom homes- On that idea alone-the views and all the rest should be left as is We should be all -Even east-end be willing to vote to preserve a Ventura that makes it Ventura- Not somewhere else!
I agree with Bill Winfield that Camille and her band of NIMBY's are proposing a very destructive policy for the City that was falsely represented to the public by the initiative backers, and, by the way, she's still crying in public about two independently validated counts that showed VCORD had insufficient signatures to get it on the June 3rd ballot.
I think it is fairly obvious that my post is regarding divisive platforms.
For the record, I am all for Wal-Mart setting up shop. I would never shop there but they should be allowed to come in.
Mango, you need to examine where you are headed and who you are listening to - you are getting some BAD advice.
Marie - how much do you know about the unit in the picture? Is it condo? Did it replace a house? Was that house in good condition? I'm curious.
It's a office building, Katie. My point in putting this picture up was for height references. It faces out onto a busy intersection. It is a two-story building with the sort of peaked-roof architecture that we are trying to encourage here. I quote from the Community Development Director's analysis of the impacts of the view measure:
"The proposed initiative is unlikely to yield high-quality architecture and urban design, which ... is a fundamental goal of the General Plan. High-quality architecture and
design is unlikely because a 26-foot height limit severely constrains the design of a two-story building. For instance, along Main Street and Thompson Boulevard the zoning code requires a minimum 15-foot first floor. Assuming the second floor is 10 feet, (12 would be preferred) only one foot remains. Consequently, architects will have to design buildings with flat roofs and without parapets, which is counter to our design standards encouraging
house-like forms that have sloping roofs. ..."
For further reference, I have added a new link to the analysis to the entry on top.
I asked these questions in an earlier blog entry, "Unintended consequences": Could it affect property values? Fewer options available to a property make it less attractive to buyers. Will the city be able to able to meet its mandated quotas for affordable housing? If they can’t add additional stories to a project, construction costs may not pencil out for developers and they could walk away. What about the rights of property owners to add reasonable height to existing structures which could go higher than 26 feet? Will any developer find it economically feasible to revitalize a blighted area? Is a vacant used car lot or deserted gas station better for our city than a 28-foot mixed-use building?
Not sure what you're talking about Kutie, but I don't need any "advice" to state my opinion and will continue to do so.
The most dangerous place to be is between Mongo and his opinion.
You got that right, my friend. I value my first amendment rights highly. I assume you do the same.
Bill W. - Unfortunately, most people don't realize what they are signing when they are approached by a signature gatherer outside of a store. VCORD aside, I guess if our legislators did a better job, we wouldn't have so many petitions. I don't sign anything now because it isn't clear what special interest group is pushing a particular petition. Does VCORD has its own special interest funding it? The anti-WalMart does.
They knew what they were signing -- or so they thought. VCORD's petition gatherers were at the Hillsides Conservancy Music Festival saying "Sign the anti-growth petition."
There was indeed a Spanish-style house with a rolling front lawn here. It was part of Hobson Heights. Between around 2001 and 2003, a local contractor who's pretty clever bought it and, under existing codes, got the mixed-use project entitled. The original house is still there. The mixed-use part was built in the front yard. Downstairs is two office suites. The upstairs is a large living unit with a great ocean view.
Nobody remembers this now, but the neighbors on Lincoln went nuts when this was going through the entitlement process. ('Mixed-use' project needs revision, Star page B-1, April 9, 2003.) They all said it would ruin their neighborhood.
Now everybody loves it, including Camille, whom, I think, has praised it on several occasions even though, as Marie pointed out, it wouldn't be permitted under her initiative. I don't think it would be permitted under the Midtown Corridors Code either, because it violates the setback on the block (which is residential scale) but I don't know this for sure.
Admittedly, I have not read all the 29 comments in response to the post about Ventura development. I did though read enough to get the impression that there is an argument here that is getting personal.
I wanted to speak to the multi use building in the photo used as an example of a new development that "fits in nicely with the surrounding neighborhood." Having worked in the building and been friendly with the owners, I know that the plans for that building took no less than 5 years to get passed in which time there many revisions to the building's design. This is the reason that it does "fit in." Santa Barbara is a perfect example of a city with very strict building codes that, while they may be troublesome to a contractor or developer, have helped to give the city a unified and beautiful look. If this has hurt Santa Barbara in some way I have yet to see that. It is currently one of the most expensive places live, eat and shop in the state of California with more businesses moving in all the time, not to mention one of the most beloved by its residents and visitors. So it seems in the case of SB everybody wins—residents are happy, tourists are plentiful and property owners profit—even if it takes a little longer to get a design OKd.
It also seems to me this is what everyone wants for Ventura—not to look like Santa Barbara, but to maintain our style and culture while we grow. The question is not if it will be developed but how and it should take much time and thought to answer this question, just as each project should have to endure a vigorous review.
Good Evening Marie,
A quick note on the VCORD issue. I know Camille Harris personally.
This a a remarkable woman. She gives tirelessly of her time and
energy. Camille is highly intelligent, passionate and totally
devoted to this cause. I am in awe of her stength and resolve.
This is a good, kind and wonderful woman. Whether one agrees
with her or not, she deserves that recognition.
Camille is a great role model for all of us.
Katarine (Kitty)
Hi Kitty,
I have no issues with Camille personally. I just think this measure is very bad policy. In an earlier post, "Unintended Consequences," I did praise VCORD's activism and resolve to protect their neighborhood.
I realize some of the bloggers here have made this personal; I don't encourage that type of behavior.
I believe the already very public process we have in place for protecting the character of our neighborhoods is sufficient. This measure has too many legal problems and would create an array of planning dilemmas.
Thank you for posting!
The building that you keep showing at Main and Linclon does not in the least represent the buildings that were shoved down the throats of the
loudly protesting residents of historic midtown. The building you show is 28 feet and blends down to one story to the home in back of it. The Midtown Code for the rest of Midtown is 45 to 75 feet high. Many of these would violate the state solar laws, and deny Midtowners solar access for energy.
In fairness, why don't you show the Soviet type structure planned and approved for Main and Coronado. Incidentally, the members of the View resources Board are appointed by the Vcord board AFTER they are elected. In any case, unlike the council's efforts to put together a "high rise" oriented task force, the VCORD (Venturans Organized for Responsible Development) ordinance will be voted on by the public. It puts democracy in the front seat and elitism in the back seat with the council and their attendant developers.