AFTER A SIX-HOUR MEETING, and many years of revisions, the Ventura City Council finally approved the long-anticipated planning code for Victoria Avenue. It is a document which follows closely the spirit of the city's 2005 General Plan, which was developed after years of citizen input.
The plan spells out the city's desire to avoid "big-box, mega-block, auto-oriented strip development" in the Victoria Corridor, and instead move toward an area with high-wage jobs and walkable blocks. Passing the new code, however, has the adverse effect of rendering some existing buildings non-compliant. In an effort to be fair to property owners while transitioning to the new code, the Council on Monday night passed a few exemptions which would allow modernizing changes for facades, loading docks and energy efficiency without requiring a variance.
All this would be pretty standard planning stuff, if not for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s stated intention to occupy the now-vacant K-Mart building. When first heard from, the retail giant presented a plan for an attractive, multi-level mega-store with underground parking. It was not a fit for this particular location with its General Plan mandate against big box development. Recently, Wal-Mart returned with a plan to reoccupy the existing K-mart building and two adjacent stores for a total of 130,955 square feet.
Council member Bill Fulton pointed out the irony of forcing Wal-Mart into a "crappy building with minimal improvements" while requiring good design for other Ventura projects. "This is not raising the bar," he said.
Council member Ed Summers countered that he preferred to see the General Plan's requirements followed for that area. "I'd rather force them to a smaller footprint than let them make a larger, prettier footprint" or mega-store.
THE COUNCIL ALSO APPROVED staff's recommendation to limit retailer size in the area to 100,000 square feet. So Wal-Mart is free to occupy the old K-mart building, but they are unable to substantially add to their space. The passage of the anti-big box initiative on the November ballot would underscore this mandate with a provision to limit retail with non-taxable items such as food to 90,000 square feet citywide.
Mayor Christy Weir pointed out that the initiative would also prevent stores such as Super Targets. "The initiative targets Target and doesn't capture all Wal-Marts," she said.
The Stop Wal-Mart Ventura Coalition, a mix of citizens and others from labor groups and the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Community (CAUSE), filled council chambers Monday night with those who had undoubtedly received mailers and emails over the last few weeks urging them to attend. And the focus seemed to be on the addition of the loading docks to the revisions.
City Manager Rick Cole assured the group that the revisions were added to ease the burdens on all property owners and retailers in that area. "The recent direction ... is to not create a ghost town of retailers and office buildings as we move toward the transition of the Victoria Corridor Plan."
Council member Ed Summers says:"I'd rather force them to a smaller footprint than let them make a larger, prettier footprint"
This is the problem with the City Council and the nimbys. Until the City/State/Federal governments build a NB126 to SB101 interchange Victoria will be a MAJOR traffic cooridor. Wanting it to be pedestrian friendly isn't going to happen in this car culture of ours.
If the city were really forward thinking, they would allow REAL re-development and allow Wal-Mart to FIX the traffic/parking issues with a NEW building with MORE parking and better ingress/egress. Forcing Wal-Mart into the existing building makes absolutely no sense whatsoever from a planning view. But it allows the empty suits that sit on the dias in the ivory tower to claim that they are trying to preserve the uniqueness of Ventura. What a crock.
What this does is tells businesses (AGAIN) that they really aren't wanted in Ventura. Unless of course you are providing one of those 'high paying jobs' we keep hearing about. Never mind all of the empty store fronts in the 'Work/Live' developments that are supposed to provide for those 'high paying jobs' as well.
Anyone been to Laguna Beach recently? Quaint little sea side town filled with artists and (wait for it) a Wal-Mart. The two CAN go together.
It's time for change!
No it tells Walmart they aren't wanted in Ventura. It's pretty straightforward.
I still think that the few instances of loading dock changes (and they will be very few and very site specific) would be better handled under the code rather than through an exemption. I don't like that the neighbors and citizens who live in the Victoria corridor have been told their voices won't have an influence.
The exemptions adopted last Monday do not ignore the voices of the community. Not one of the additions or modifications to any of the buildings in question, including the possibility of modifying loading docks, will be permitted without a Design Review Committee public hearing, and I believe the community can rely upon the DRC members to be strong advocates for the public interest. They always have been.
Please read carefully what has been adopted and try to understand it fully. No one voted to give Wal-Mart or anyone else a free hand. We simply voted to make it reasonable and possible for property owners to upgrade their properties over the next 10 years without having to raze perfectly good buildings and start over at great and unnecessary expense. That would have been a formula assuring the ghettoizing of the corridor.
Neal Andrews
Neal,
Thanks for interacting with the public on a blog. It shows you are trying to be a decent public servant and reach out using new tools to communicate the actions you are supporting.
Thanks for the clarification, Neal.
NO APRIL FOOLS JOKE AFTER ALL
"I thought Ventura Breeze Sheldon's April Fool's spoof was hilarious! I got it right away, as I'm sure 99.9% of the readers did as well, Pete LaFollette notwithstanding.
It got worse. Monday night’s City Council meeting brought out someone else who was appalled at the thought of this particular retailer slipping in the back door. Launching into a protest speech, he was quickly set straight by the council who assured him it was just a joke."
OK so it had me going. I would be the happiest April Fool if it had really been a joke, but my knee jerk reaction was because the city council and redevelopment is so growth oriented
that a thinly disguised joke in print could really become a WalMart plan in the works for Ventura. Why else would their be a StopWalmartVentura campaign in place, even before all this started? If I have to bare the humiliation of 99% who didn't fall for it
that still would be worth taking a stand against this project.
The existing Target on Main Street was approved ( over a year ago ) for a complete gut, remodel ( inside and outside ) and parking lot renovation - and it is larger than the WalMart building under discussion on Victoria - one of two Targets in Ventura. The term " transect-based" used on the City document is Form-based Code lingo.
So instead of allowing Walmart to take over the real estate, in an "anti big-box" legislation, and being able to charge them property tax, they are going to be forced to limit the amount of space they can even limits inexpensive food purchases for the hard hit citizens of ventura. Walmart will probably still probably buy out the other spaces, and convert them to stores that have entrances from both inside and outside the store, but not require any sort of variance. This action would also limit employment in this store, and demonstrate to other businesses that they will be at the bottom of the list of priorities of the city. Congrats. Business is just so booming I guess you don't need any growth.
Haha, do you agree cities should follow their General Plan documents for a specific area? Ours specifies that the Victoria Corridor is not an appropriate place for big-box development. There are other places where that type of store is more appropriate.
Wal-Mart should have understood this long ago.
A larger store means a larger grocery section; groceries are non-taxable items. Property tax is being paid on that parcel.
If you believe the people of Ventura should have the final say, then it should be voted on by the people, not the council. But assuming the council really does represent the people, then their decision is questionable for the future of the city, even with preservation of old town looks, and energy conservation in mind. No one wants their city to lose its "charm". The fact is that Walmart could have stayed within code and built an underground parking structure, and they could have made it look good, and the city could sue them to make sure that they kept in line with the code you have passed in 2005, or drafted then. The facility would have been larger, and paid more property tax. Also this would facilitate the hiring of many employees, most of whom would be local residents for both construction, and inside Walmart itself. The "Kmart" Could have been renovated to sell to another competing company like Tesco, or have a local Farmers Market there, or some other creative solution.
""I'd rather force them to a smaller footprint than let them make a larger, prettier footprint" or mega-store."
This makes no sense other than big box paranoia. The fact is, he is saying it could have looked better if we let them build a bigger store the way they wanted to, but we are afraid that competition will somehow eliminate all local competition, rather than allow it and have some creative, 'buy from small business' campaigns or something.
"The passage of the anti-big box initiative on the November ballot would underscore this mandate with a provision to limit retail with non-taxable items such as food to 90,000 square feet citywide"
This mandate limits the amount of space a store can stock food in. This doesn't make any sense, other than to force the citizen to pay a higher cost of living because of a government mandated lessened competition for goods, and because these stores will then likely carry more taxable items than food items, which also raises the cost of living because of the recent hike in sales tax. In order to get a good deal on both food and taxable items on the same trip, you end up having to drive outside of Downtown Ventura, which costs money in gas and usage on the vehicle to get there, another way to raise the cost of living.
I guess it is all about priorities.
In Sacramento, there is a catacombs of underground storefronts from the 1800's and the days of the Gold Rush. Most of the property that sits on top of these tunnels has recently been purchased by the Westfield company, and they will be completely gutting these store fronts, and historical catacombs. They will become part of an already built indoor mall, and the only remaining part of these historic original streets will be near the port of the river where all that remains underground is a few tunnels, and hollow sidewalks that have been refitted with concrete and metal grates for drainage.
Simi Valley has an old railroad station, and used to have an airport. They also used to have a place to go see the western movie sets, and a Drive in Movie theatre. Those are all gone, and Walmart is right next to Costco there. I don't think one is related to the other, but I know I don't have to pay as much for tires because even the smaller companies in that city would have to compete with those "big boxes" and other local stores.
In Agoura hills, thre is another accidentally built man made lake near Westlake that will eventually dry up because it has no natural source. Will they have the money or water to keep it full and beautiful, or will that project have to be set aside for more pressing issues?
On another note, Walmart, and Tesco have a history of asking for permission first, then doing whatever they want regardless of whatever the town council says, with the knowledge that it costs the city/county more money to sue the Company than it would to allow the competition to drive out smaller fledgling and inefficient local business. As a warning. I've even heard of a case of a store where they purposefully built the store 700 sq ft larger than it was supposed to be in the permit, and the council ruled that the store had to leave 700 sq ft of the store empty, which is creative, and funny to look at, but not a serious or effective solution.
on the property tax issue as far as I understand it Walmart does not own the Victoria property. They have leased it and the taxes are paid by the owner not WalMart.
Correct, Brian.
Haha, our General Plan is a citizen-driven document formulated after years of public meetings, focus groups, and public comment. It contains copious public input. It was approved by the City Council in 2005.
It is not a series of planning codes. That's what the Victoria Corridor Plan is all about: writing the code which conforms to the plan. I am assuming that any serious deviation from this would require an amendment to our General Plan. This would not be advisable with an initiative on the ballot this fall.
The proposed ordinance would prevent a major retail project that sells goods and merchandise -- primarily for personal or household use -- and whose total sales floor area exceeds 90,000 square feet and which devotes more than three percent of the sales floor area to the sale of non-taxable merchandise such as food.
And the people WILL have chance to vote on this.
Even if the property is owned by someone else, the fact still remains that Walmart could have made it worth more, which would effect the property tax, if they were allowed to build their own structure. That is the point I was trying to make.
Also, the basic message is that increased restrictions on business, will negatively effect the business growth in Ventura city.
It sounds like a bad idea to start having the citizens vote on city codes that would effect the attractiveness to business of Ventura in order to keep the "attractiveness" of the area.
Because most voters have never studied economics.
I don't mind you guys having a plan so you don't lose your "charm", But you're shining a rotten apple anyway.
Many land use decisions are made by ballot box here. That's democracy.
Ventura is a wonderful place and I'm not fond of your rotten apple analogy. We were recently named one of the top places to raise children in the United States. Also one of the top places to retire.
And we have now discovered your revenue problem. Children and Retirees don't work. It's about balance sometimes too.
Sorry, I didn't mean the apple remark as a slam, but more as a reality check.
If you vote on everything, and everyone votes that is democracy. What do you expect in terms of turnout for this election? Also, if most issues are decided by vote of the people, then there should be less government institutions, and interference, but that isn't my understanding of Ventura city politics.
I'm a fan of democracy, don't get me wrong, but I like representative republican democracy better, and I know you don't right now.
We were also named one of the top places to start a business.
We are one of only nine cities in California to make Fortune Small Business magazine's list of the 100 best places in the U.S, to live and launch a small business. We pulled in at No. 68.
But I had already reported that earlier. I recently learned about the other two designations.
Simi Valley has a revenue problem, too, apparently. $8.2 million. A bastion of Republican governance. Land of Reagan. Guess times are tough all over, huh?
Maybe we can quit blaming everything but the recession started under the Bush watch.
Things are tough all over. That's why raising taxes isn't a good idea. Simi Valley, in fact had a HBJ headquarters during the election, and there has been a fair amount of liberal spillover from the Valley.
It's not me holding individuals responsible for the recession unless you include those from 9.11.2001, but now I feel bad for falling back on that soundbyte. In reality, Everything is pretty messed up in this state.
I'm quite aware of Hannah-Beth's Simi office; my friends staffed it. But one little office does not a liberal stronghold make.
Things are pretty messed up everywhere.
I love the fact that AFTER the city approves the BIG BOX Ralphs and BIG BOX Long's and BIG BOX 24 Hour Fitness, they decide that maybe BIG BOX stores shouldn't be on Victoria. Then the city gets 'public' input on the situation.
I'm wondering what would have happened if K-Mart was as profitable as Wal-Mart, was still in business and wanted to update their building. You think that the nimbys would be up in arms?
This whole issue is a blatant process to stop Wal-Mart from coming to Ventura by a vocal minority.
Spare me the whole "General Plan is a citizen-driven document formulated after years of public meetings, focus groups, and public comment. It contains copious public input. It was approved by the City Council in 2005." AFTER the city allowed all of the other BIG BOX retailers in the area. Where were the nimbys when these other BIG BOX retailers were being suggested?
Wanting a tree-lined pedestrian-friendly lane that connects two major highways and is responsible for 1,000s of employees' route to and from work is counter productive.
At 58,000 square feet, the Ralph's on Victoria is not a big box. The Long's isn't, either. The closest thing we have to a big box is the Target at the mall. Is a gym a big box? It would not seem to generate the traffic patterns.
The initiative is most definitely aimed at Wal-Mart. The city's General Plan may or may not have been. Both are citizen driven.
Marie says:
"At 58,000 square feet, the Ralph's on Victoria is not a big box. The Long's isn't, either. Is a gym a big box? It would not seem to generate the traffic patterns."
All of the stores located across the street from K-Mart appear to be much larger than the K-Mart building (to me).
"The closest thing we have to a big box is the Target at the mall."
And where were the nimbys when the new target was proposed? It didn't get nearly the same negative comments that Wal-Mart does.
"The initiative is most definitely aimed at Wal-Mart. The city's General Plan may or may not have been. Both are citizen driven."
Proving that just possibly the "citizens" that participate don't know what they are doing.
How do the "citizens" plan on keeping 1,000s of automobiles off of their 'pedestrian-friendly', 'tree-lined' roadway? It's simply ludicrous.
Everytime I hear about the "citizens" doing something or the city's 'blue ribbon panel' of 'experts' (tax initiative) I think of Ford and the Edsel. "The aim was right, but the target moved". "The wrong (plan) at the wrong time". The Edsel story shows that even with 'effective marketing' sometimes you come up with a lemon (anti Wal-Mart folks, city council)
Haha,
All 5 members of the Simi Valley City Council endorsed Tony Strickland and Elton Gallegly. Nice attempt to blame "libruls" but they are all Strickland supporters.
I have said often here that I am not a fan of ballot initiatives. It is the people who are the most well financed who have the best shot at getting their custom legislation passed by voters who don't seem to reason out the unintended consequences.
There are some that I like, though.
The city tries REALLY hard to get people out for all these citizen meetings to help shape our future. Guess what? It's the same few folks who attend all these meetings and I am one of them.
The K-mart building is 84,000 square feet. If you add in the two adjacent stores, the building is 131,000 square feet. Wal-Mart can go in there at that size, but if they knock out the interior walls, they can't do improvements outside unless they stay under 100,000 square feet.
Seems to me Ventura's chronic problem is not so much choosing wrong structures and businesses, but putting them in the wrong place.
Wal-Mart and all big-box stores should be south of 101 near the auto center, NOT on Victoria north of 101.
The main library should be near VC, not downtown.
The new high school (Foothill) should have been east of Buena, not west of it.
The CSU campus should have been in Ventura, not in Camarillo.
An Oppenheim sculpture (Bus Home) should be highly visible from 101, not dropped in an obscure Telegraph Road parking lot.
I could go on and on.... =)
CSUCI is in a beautiful location. Don't hate.
haha... ha ha
C'mon. You know Ventura deserves better. ;-)
Decision makers keep tryin' to mess things up but somehow we survive despite their antics.
And, I must agree with you. Cal State Channel Islands is certainly in a beautiful location.
Cal State Ventura, however, is not.
CSUCI was a very smart governmental move - it was the old Camarillo State Mental Hospital campus with well-built traditional Mediterranean architectural elements sited in a terrific land cove. When Walmart decides to put its foot down and challenge Ventura's " general plan" constitutionally, this may be when Ariel Callone decides to find a different city in which to conclude his legal career. They will steamroller Ventura one way or another. A parallel to what Ventura planners/councilpeople see as the future of the Victoria Corridor is the new billion dollar Santa Monica Blvd. corridor connecting Century City ( starting at Beverly Glen )to the 405 Fwy ( ending at Sepulveda Bl. ). It has more lanes and has parallel side streets. Howver, it has no new larger scale buildings as yet, as envisioned by our city fathers/mothers as a concomitant natural result of this Victoria Corridor effort. What Ventura really needs is visual "detailing". The DRC rarely discusses the use of compatible color, signage, street furniture and a lot of little thing which, taken together, can have a huge impact. It's not necessarily their fault - it is not part of the agenda. There are lots of ways to visually enhance the city, but these issues seem not to be high on various lists. The city staff tends to whine a lot if you, in their minds, challenge their agendae. The relatively cheap use of Code Enforcement to address aesthetic issues arround town and just do what teh code already says they are supposed to do ( several hundred illegal backflow devices improperly installed as to color and landscape requirements, dozens of illegal temporary signs and banners, failure of planning to be proactive concerning DRC orders which should have been implemented over a year ago - like B on Main ) is rather appalling, but the general public has no way of knowing this goes on and the council is not particularly invested in this stuff. Details are key.
Locating CSU in Camarillo may have been a smart state move, but it was a very dumb Ventura move.
You are right, John, the visual details are extremely important. They don't come together accidentally. When no one watches over them we end up with a mess.
Re: Wal-Mart, even if they build an attractive building at the old Kmart site, the impact in that location will still be ugly.
Ugly, Ugly, Ugly.
There is no Wal-Mart in Laguna Beach, JohnDoe
Chris Caesar
Laguna Beach
whalderman:
" .... even if they build..... will still be ugly." Kindly explain what you are attempting to say.
CITY STAFF HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THIS
This matter concerns me. First, the city "staff" ( read "planning department" ) recommended that Walmart be limited to 100,000 sq. ft. - Why ? The council agreed with this limitation. A staff explanation is in order. Over 50% of the city "staff" are members of the SEIU union, which has contributed to ACORN, an organization which is opposed to Walmart - because Walmart allows no unions. ACORN is under criminal indictment in at least eleven states and are intertwined on a national level with SEIU. It seems to me city "staff" who are members of SEIU have an inherent conflict of interest when making a judgment as to the suitable size of any Walmart in this city, and should be disallowed from participating in this report. Where is Ariel Callone on this ? A review of this issue by the County Grand Jury is in order.
CITY STAFF HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THIS
This matter concerns me. First, the city "staff" ( read "planning department" ) recommended that Walmart be limited to 100,000 sq. ft. - Why ? The council agreed with this limitation. A staff explanation is in order. Over 50% of the city "staff" are members of the SEIU union, which has contributed to ACORN, an organization which is opposed to Walmart - because Walmart allows no unions. ACORN is under criminal indictment in at least eleven states and are intertwined on a national level with SEIU. It seems to me city "staff" who are members of SEIU have an inherent conflict of interest when making a judgment as to the suitable size of any Walmart in this city, and should be disallowed from participating in this report. Where is Ariel Callone on this ? A review of this issue by the County Grand Jury is in order.