NOTE: I first wrote this blog entry back in March of 2008 and my opinion has not changed. I have, however, gotten to know some of the folks involved with this measure. I think they are well intentioned, but have a measure which has some clear problems, including the overly restrictive 26-foot moratorium, which they themselves have admitted was a mistake.

I also wrote an exhaustive entry back in February on the good work the already-established View Protection Task Force has accomplished toward protecting our views.

In general, I am not a big fan of the ballot initiative process. On the state level, it has been hijacked by special interests who have tied up a good portion of the state's general fund with costly mandates which are difficult to later overturn. These measures have contributed mightily to our state's budget difficulties.

HERE IS A PORTION of my March 2008 entry on what is now known as Ventura's Measure B:

Here in a nutshell is what you'll be voting on: The establishment of a View Resources Board made up of people appointed for the most part by a special interest group, the Ventura Citizens' Organization for Responsible Development (VCORD). 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. 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.

If you're looking at your property as an investment, be aware that potential buyers may be casting a wary eye your way. If the measure passes, the city's already established guidelines will then be in limbo and it could be a significant time 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

WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION of our battling state legislators, you couldn't find a group of people with more divergent opinions than Ventura's View Protection Task Force. Thrown together in one room are representatives from each side of the city's pro- and anti-development factions. Yet the group gets along so well that an observer might jokingly wonder if meeting at the police headquarters has something to do with it.

That's not to say it's not a very opinionated group. This 15-member committee is tasked with the nebulous goal of defining exactly what a viewshed is and how to protect it. A passel of new planning terms have been coined since Venturans started fervently worrying about their views. Viewsheds, solar fences, and skypaving are now in the vernacular.

Our city's General Plan spells out in very loose terms that we value our views and access to sunlight from our homes, yet it wasn't until a group of Midtown residents started making a fuss about proposed multi-story infill development along Thompson Boulevard that it became a real issue. Now, many City Council speaker cards later, the council is serious about it. While a ballot initiative pushed by the Ventura Citizens' Organization for Responsible Development to address the issue is slated for this fall, council members who are attempting to complete an overhaul of city planning decided they couldn't wait that long for this issue to be addressed, so the task force was appointed to get a jump start on it.

To explain further, VCORD is seeking to draw up its own view plan, based on input from its own mostly hand-selected citizen's group, a move that our city attorney has already said violates our City Charter. Legal issues plague this initiative. If the council rejects VCORD's plan, it would go to yet another municipal election.

JUDGING FROM THE differing opinions surrounding the issue the night I visited the Task Force meeting, it is not an easy thing, this protection of views, and the focus that night was clearly on Midtown residents and their views. It was not until the end of the meeting that the east and west sides of the city entered the discussion. But for now, the goal just seems to be to protect views as seen from public areas throughout Ventura.

As it turns out, View Protection Task Force Chair Rob Corley said, the group has found that lowering building heights has little to do with protecting many public views. "A 10-foot building blocks just as many views as a 50-foot building. But taller buildings hugging the sidewalk really do cramp views of the hills and ocean."

Solar access has also been a touchy issue with many residents. The night I visited, Town Architects Torti Gallas and Partners ran their first-ever simulation program of how larger buildings at full build-out, following existing planning guidelines with cut-outs in the back, would impact the sunlight filtering into Midtown homes.

AND GUESS WHAT? Because of the way the sun travels in the sky, solar access in most of the city can be protected with some simple calculations and building guidelines, the models showed. Corley estimated the group will only spend perhaps $30,000 of the $110,000 allotted to them for professional services from Torti Gallas.

It would appear that designing buildings with clear setbacks from the sidewalk and cutouts in the back seems to be optimal for protecting flatland views of the ocean and Two Trees. The Task Force will report back with recommendations for adjustments to current planning guidelines some time next month.

But how this information will get incorporated into VCORD's initiative, should it pass, is still undetermined.

"Anybody who buys a house next to a commercial lot has some impacts," Corley said. "Protecting every inch of every lot in the city is unattainable."

It is clear to me that complicated tasks such as this are best left to planning professionals with appropriate citizen input and I hope VCORD takes the current Task Force's recommendations very seriously. But it is also clear that city officials need to better communicate with neighbors about the guidelines for adjacent projects and work harder to allay fears and mistrust.

I NOTED WITH GREAT IRONY the large crowd which filled City Council Chambers and an overflow room a week ago to complain about the closing of one of Ventura's three libraries, a number that exceeds what other cities in the county-run system can provide.

"Just wait until you see what else is going away," I thought to myself as I watched the impassioned speakers. As one of the city's Cultural Affairs Commissioners, I had been briefed just a few days before on the possible cuts our city is facing in the coming months.

Over the last few days, city staff have been huddled in rooms listening to more bad news: the latest revenue figures have come in under what was predicted and the cuts will be more extensive than originally feared. At least $4.6 million in midyear cuts will need to be in place by March 1. By July, another estimated $8 million will need to be trimmed. This comes after a $7 million round of cuts made over the last year.

As the city's Budgeting for Outcomes teams go over the list of city services and prioritize, it has been apparent to many that the Community Services Department will bear the brunt of the cuts. Targeted are arts and historic programs including ArtWalks and both street fairs, recreation and arts classes for children and adults, senior services, winter-time operations of the community pool, parks maintenance, and the list goes on. Many of these cuts could be effective as soon as March 1.

Every single department will feel the sting and jobs will be lost all over. City Manager Rick Cole has been busy trying to put a happier spin on this evisceration: "redesigning city government for the 21st century," he calls it and it does bring opportunities to think out of the box.

THESE DIFFICULT TIMES call for all of us to work together for the common good. Our public employee unions -- especially those in public safety who have lobbied for extra compensation and benefits -- must come back to the table and make some concessions. While they certainly earn their pay, givebacks might be necessary to save personnel in their own ranks.

Our citizens, who are used to government taking care of their needs but are unwilling to pay even the slightest increase in fees or taxes, should ask themselves how much they value their community and consider paying just slightly more to keep the services we all depend on.

To the NIMBYs who would like to micromanage all new private infill projects that could bring sales tax revenue and jobs into our city: you are short sighted and cutting yourselves off at the knees. We can balance quality-of-life issues and still generate revenue.

To those community volunteers, like City Corps and San Buenaventura Friends of the Library, you are the best among us. Public/private partnerships will help keep us afloat. My friends in the education community are also looking at enormous cuts. Groups like the Ventura Education Partnership will help bridge those gaps.

Along with redesigning our government, we need to redesign our attitudes, too.

In a unanimous vote last night, the Ventura City Council failed to adopt Stop Wal-Mart Ventura Coalition's anti-big box initiative and it will instead go on the ballot in the fall of next year. It will join the Ventura Citizens' Organization for Responsible Development (VCORD)'s view initiative for a full vote of the citizenry.

Council members all agreed the measure should be left to the voters to decide. "There are so many implications with land use, our tax base and the future of retail in our city. It's something that we need to let the citizens weigh in on. It could affect retail uses 20 years from now," Council member Ed Summers said.

The City Attorney's analysis of this amendment to the municipal code found it sound for the most part, with the possibilities for legal challenges only coming from its exclusion of wholesale discount stores and its retroactive clause.

It is one of the most tightly written anti-big box measures to go on a ballot. The 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.

Wholesale club stores like Costco would be OK. Other stores such as IKEA or an electronics store, both on wishlists for Ventura, would also be allowed. Another Super Target would not and the ordinance could affect the ability of the existing one at the mall to expand.

Das Williams, a legislative analyst for CAUSE, explained that the exclusion for wholesale membership stores was in response to economic development concerns raised by city staff when they were first presented with a draft of the proposed ordinance. Costco is a store Ventura is one day hoping to attract.

Economic analysis from the city on the measure proved inconclusive. While it could discourage one set of investors, it might encourage another. It will serve to limit some consumer choices in the city and could drive shoppers to travel elsewhere.

THE COALITION RECENTLY PAID for its own study by two economists which concluded the city will not gain new sales tax revenue from a Wal-Mart and it will only cannibalize an existing retail market which is already saturated. "A major new retail facility has the potential to negatively impact current business owners since community needs are already being met," the study concludes.

Another anti-big box measure was soundly defeated by nearly 70 percent of Atascadero voters on Nov. 4. However, that city, which is struggling financially and now operating on its reserves, has less local retail available than Ventura within its city boundaries. It is also a staunchly conservative area, Williams said. It is not known yet exactly how much Wal-Mart invested to defeat the Atascadero measure, but "there was a decent amount of money spent," Williams said.

A poll conducted by the Stop Wal-Mart Ventura Coalition found that a majority of Venturans were not in favor of the retailer coming to Ventura. About 8,600 signed the petition to put it on the ballot.

Williams predicts a battle next fall. "It's going to take a lot of organizing for us. But I've operated a lot of signature campaigns in the past and I've never seen volunteers come out like they did in Ventura."

THE CITY COUNCIL TOOK steps Monday night to protect and define public viewsheds through a citizen task force and by doing so stepped on the toes of the Ventura Citizens' Organization for Responsible Development (VCORD) which has its own initiative on the subject scheduled for the ballot in the fall of 2009.

"Viewshed" is one of those new-fangled planning words and refers to a scenic vista. We know we want to protect them from being blocked but defining from what vantage point is a bit tricky -- is it uphill, downhill, across the street, across the sidewalk or next door? North/South or East/West? Does a large tree constitute a view blocker?

THE MOST DANGEROUS SPOT to be in these days seems to be between a Venturan and his view. Midtown residents have been particularly vocal about it. VCORD started as a group of bungalow owners who objected to multi-story projects going in nearby which would block their views of the hills. Another tempest is brewing with the plans for a 90-foot Ventura County Medical Center outpatient clinic. Neighbors uphill have filed a lawsuit to keep the project from being built.

Viewsheds and solar access, both required to be protected under our General Plan, are issues that just can't wait to be defined, Council member Ed Summers explained. "I think we're going to be stymied in all our community plans going forward if we don't resolve this issue quickly. I see this as consistent with our ongoing priority to conform to the General Plan and give developers clarity."

The trouble with VCORD's initiative is that if it does indeed pass in 2009, it will be many more months before the VCORD-appointed board drafts a view protection ordinance which may or may not meet the council's approval, which means it could get shuttled to yet another far-off election. As drafted, it also violates our city's charter and is subject to litigation.

THE CITY'S TASK FORCE to study the issue would essentially perform the same function by defining terms and creating neighborhood-specific policies, but would deliver results and thus clarity to the planning process as early as next March. The 15-member task force would be made up of members nominated from a wide cross-section of the community.

Judging by the frosty public comments at Monday's meeting, VCORD leaders are unhappy to have their own plans usurped. "It's a transparent attempt to co-opt the power of the neighborhoods," Camille Harris said. Her group's initiative, if passed, also calls for an immediate moratorium on buildings over 26 feet until a view protection ordinance is drafted and approved. No such controls exist under the council's plan.

The VCORD initiative will go on the ballot irregardless of what the new task force decides. if voters do approve their initiative in 2009, all that work from citizen volunteers and city planning staff could be moot.

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

DEMOCRACY IS ALWAYS a good thing in my book and I'm a firm believer in grassroots activism. But I must admit I've been casting a wary eye on the efforts of Ventura Citizens Organization for Responsible Development (VCORD).

This group recently presented the city with a stack of petitions for a ballot measure aimed at keeping building heights in approximately 93 percent of the city at 26 feet or under. The exempt 7 percent is comprised of identified business areas and properties owned by the school district and county. VCORD claims their petitions, which the County Elections Division still needs to count, represent the will of the folks who signed them.

The measure would put a two-year moratorium on building anything over 26 feet until a view resources board, appointed by VCORD, could write a view protection ordinance. Where building heights would eventually end up is still unknown, but 26 feet appears to be the standard.

Launching a petition drive is an incredible amount of work and I salute VCORD for their tireless efforts to be a voice for the quality of their Midtown neighborhood of quaint one-story bungalows. They don't want to live next door to any large buildings which they believe will block their views of the hills.

BUT WHEN YOU CIRCUMVENT through the initiative process the studied work of the paid professionals and elected representatives of our city who have chosen a less stringent course to follow, there is always the possibility of unintended consequences.

Even initiatives which most agree were wise can have unintended costs. Let me cite an example: When SOAR was passed in 1998, preventing growth in our agricultural areas without a vote of the people, St. Joseph's, a small Catholic nursing home in Ojai, was forced to spend nearly $100,000 for an election just to cut down six acres of their own orange trees to add more beds to their facility.

What are the unintended consequences of VCORD's proposed initiative? Already it has been determined to violate portions of both the city's charter and general plan. But this could be remedied later by council action if it passes.

THE LONG-TERM PICTURE is murkier. 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 or design elements such as peaked roofs 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?

These are questions to ponder.

You can view the full text of the initiative here.

I HAD to laugh a bit after the November municipal election when I heard complaints that the off-year contest didn't bring out enough voters and "our citizens just don't care." Nothing could be further from the truth in this little beach town. Citizen activism is alive and well when it comes to protecting the status quo.

If you look back at some of the most important land-use decisions made in the last 10 years for our community, all were initiated by groups of citizens passionate in protecting first our agricultural lands and then our hillsides from development.

Now we have two other groups working to save Ventura from development. In the name of view protection, the Ventura Citizens Organization for Responsible Development is battling at this very moment to keep anything higher than 26 feet from sprouting in much of the city.

And yet another group of citizens, the Stop Wal-Mart Coalition, aided by the grocery union, announced plans to circulate petitions to keep Wal-Mart out of the spot just vacated by K-Mart on Victoria Avenue.

IT SEEMS we have no shortage of citizen activism here. But how unique is Ventura compared to other cities? I asked Deputy Mayor Bill Fulton, an urban planning expert who has studied other cities throughout the state and nation.

"I don't think we are more passionate or active than other communities," Fulton said. "But we do go to the ballot more. Coastal communities tend to do this more than inland communities anyway, but in Ventura we have done it way more than most other cities. It's part of the culture."

Ventura Mayor Christy Weir has often noted the extraordinary passion found in this town. "I do know that many other city councils meet twice a month," she said, "and we meet every week, to give our citizens more of an opportunity to be heard."

Weir also mentioned the numerous neighborhood councils and the abundant citizen input on the city's Ventura Vision, General Plan, and various community plans as another way for citizens to be heard and stay informed.

But there is another group of citizens in the business community who have become more vocal over the years. They point out quite correctly that development fuels our tax base, which pays for city services. Stifle growth at your own peril, they warn.

But it seems many others just want their beach community to remain the sleepy town it has always been.

I heard this summed up best by a woman who stopped by a table I was staffing during our last ArtWalk Downtown. "I just don't want Ventura to turn into another L.A.," she said. "I live here to get away from all that."

What do you think? Use the comments section below.