The city’s developmentn review and application process are already unreasonabley cumbersome. This would simply add another layer into the process.

Doug Halter: Yes

We need to protect the character of existing neighborhoods and utilize our downtown and corridors in a way that is sensitive to our character and economic and housing needs.

Brian Lee Rencher: Yes
City Hall's version of "The New Urbanism" is inappropriate and unhealthy for Ventura. Out-of-town developers behind this concerns me greatly!

Jerry Martin: Yes 
Ventura must maintain smart growth and infill that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.

Mike Gibson: Yes
I think the current principles , including the formbased design code, result in cookie cuter development projects and discourage creativity.

Carroll Dean Williams: Yes



#3 Community Vote: 88% Yes

3. Are you in favor of requiring fiscal impact studies prior to development to assess the costs that will be incurred as a result of the development?

Doug Halter: No

There is already too much cost up front prior to government approval.  At some point we need to make decisions, knowing what we are encouraging and discouraging and what alternatives are available.  As a community, we should be looking at possibilities and consequences of decisions/actions to way the best direction for our community.  We built better Cities prior to all the regulations and processes that we think are protecting us.  We need consolidate, bring public comment to the front, talk about possible options then make decisions.

Brian Lee Rencher: Yes

Jerry Martin: Yes
Developers should bear the burden of additional infrastructure needs created by their developments.

Mike Gibson: Yes 
Within reason of course. I think there are some fiscal impact evaluations that occur, already, but perhaps they are insufficient.

Carroll Dean Williams: Yes



#4 Community Vote 85% Yes

4. Are you in favor of the View Protection Initiative to identify important view sheds to be protected through an ordinance for the city of Ventura?

Doug Halter: Yes

Reasonable view protections from structures and trees should be part of our design criteria.  We are currently very inconsistent in that we know how we all value our views and have codified that for the hillsides, yet you can still plant 50 ft tall canopy trees in anyone’s’ view.  That is wrong.

Brian Lee Rencher: Yes
I began my campaign for a view protection ordinance back in 2000. Glad to have some assistance on pushing this important issue forward at City Hall

Jerry Martin: Yes
Decisions made today will have to be lived with forever. We must protect and maintain the beauty of Ventura

Mike Gibson: No

Carroll Dean Williams: Yes



#5 Community Vote 88% Yes

5. Are you in favor of the City conducting a City wide Historic Survey?

Doug Halter: Yes

Quickly.  We are not starting from scratch, as I have been involved with Historic preservation for over 20 years in our City.  The only thing that has changed is that everything and everyone is getting older!  If necessary then yes, lets quickly finish our review; the last thing we need to do put more unpredictable barriers and risks in the way of the private sector who is trying to provide improvements and amenities that we need.  We have a lot of passionate people here who want to help us achieve our vision but they do not have the holding power to wait out all the studying we deem needed after 150 years of history.  The only players left at this rate will be the national players, and that is not what I believe Venturan’s want.

Brian Lee Rencher: Yes
(see #6)

Jerry Martin: Yes 
The City Council has the obligation to manage Ventura with intelligent design to preserve our historic and cultural charm.

Mike Gibson: No

Carroll Dean Williams: Yes

#6 Community Vote 83% Yes

6. Do you think that development should be placed on hold, or at least have development prescreened by the City Council until specific community plans have been completed?

Doug Halter: No

As my 20 years of involvement in our community has experienced, we will never be finished with planning, nor should we.  We need to figure out how to conduct the plans we deem essential in a time line that is meaningful in our ever-changing world.

Brian Lee Rencher: Yes
Given the current Council’s makeup, I prefer the “Place on Hold” option over the “pre-screened” given only the two options.

Jerry Martin: Yes
All development should be prescreened by the council.

Mike Gibson: No

Carroll Dean Williams: Yes



#7 Community Vote 55% Yes

7. Do you support the transect principle as presented in the 2005 General Plan, i.e. density diminishes as the transect line goes from an urban downtown core to moderate in midtown and then to rural at Well-Saticoy?

Doug Halter: Yes, for the most part. 

I am very disappointed, however, with the downtown form based code.  This code reduced the scale of downtown to less than historic standards without any knowledge of what level of economic vitality we desire.  I believe in general guidelines, higher density and mixed use on our corridors and let people once again be creative.  Form based code is another way to homogenize our City and encourage our uniqueness. 

Brian Lee Rencher: Yes
To some extent as it enhances what we already have in place or is at least compatible

Jerry Martin: Yes
The Transect Principle can be effective but requires specific plans in place for all areas of the city.

Mike Gibson:
Comment only;
Not sure I get the concept 100 %

Carroll Dean Williams: No Answer


#8 Community Vote: 78% No

8. Are you in favor of three story buildings being located next to one story buildings?

Doug Halter: Yes

This question is a little leading as one of the best things about a village or sense of place is the undulation of the rooflines.  Now if you asked me if I would be in favor of 10 stories next to one story buildings that would be a different story.  I do not believe that one story on our corridors is the most effective use of our throughways.  We need to scale down to blend with and give privacy to the neighborhoods behind our corridors, Be respectable of not creating a wall of buildings all at the same height, but understand that the corridors are a great asset for pedestrian friendly businesses, new housing and can also block some noise from the freeway and corridor itself from the surrounding neighborhoods.  In addition, unless we are happy with the empty car lots and rundown motels then we should find a win win to encourage renovation or re use.

Brian Lee Rencher: Yes
In some cases yes; it is a question of context and compatibility. Probably very few in number if objectivity is applied when evaluating such cases.

Jerry Martin: No 
New development and infill in existing areas must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.

Mike Gibson: Yes
In some circumstances I can see it working

Carroll Dean Williams: No


#9

9. Are you in favor of high density projects being located adjacent to low density neighborhoods?

Doug Halter: Yes

If we cannot have high density on our main corridors or downtown then where?  I do not subscribe to the low-density urban sprawl model that we have followed for 60 years and that created the congestion on our roads that we experience today.  We need to create economies of scale to finally be able to provide effective mass transit and other amenities to our community.  I believe first in infill, then building where we cannot grow food then, last resort, our farmland but hopefully that pressure can be kept at bay by good reuse of infill lots.

Brian Lee Rencher: Yes
If transitions are done well; infrastucture and public services can support the project once completed, and makes economic and social sense to do so.

Jerry Martin: No
Intelligent design in new development and infill will eliminate this need.

Mike Gibson: Yes
In some cases I can see it working

Carroll Dean Williams: No


#10 Community Vote 82 % No

10. Do you agree with the existing $850 appeal fee required of citizens in order for them to appeal a Planning Commission's decision to the City Council?

Doug Halter:  No

Everyone should always have the right to appeal regardless of their economic status; especially when we are appealing the decision of an appointed body and not elected.  I have fought this fee for years and have affectively helped to keep it from going to the $3000 that the City keeps trying to obtain!

Brian Lee Rencher: No
This price level has no factual evidence nor any other rational basis to support its existence

Jerry Martin: No.

Mike Gibson: Yes Because it involves additional staff work on part of the city and also works to discourage trivial appeals.

Carroll Dean Williams: No

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Christy Weir/ Candidate Survey

Do you think the City Council should return to the practice of pre-screening projects with five or more units, prior to the projects being allowed to enter into the approval process?

I'd like the Council to discuss this possibility as part of the HAP application (a conceptual pre-screen) and also Specific Plan pre-screen.

Do you believe the Smart Growth and New Urbanism principles should be adapted to Ventura's unique character and small scale instead of vice versa?

Some New Urbanism principles are universal (such as walkability), but many require context-sensitivity.

Are you in favor of requiring fiscal impact studies prior to development to assess the costs that will be incurred as a result of the development?

Sorry, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. I'd need to have some more details before forming an opinion.

Are you in favor of the View Protection Initiative to identify important view sheds to be protected through an ordinance for the city of Ventura?

Partly in favor. We need a mechanism to protect views--the Initiative provides some ideas to accomplish this, but has some problems as well.

Are you in favor of a city wide historic survey being completed to identify our historic assets prior to further development?

I'm in favor of district historic surveys (complete the downtown survey, start midtown and the Westside) to be done in the next two years.

Do you think that development should be placed on hold, or at least have development prescreened by the City Council until specific community plans have been completed?

We need to improve our pre-screen process by potentially adding City Council review and adding Context/Compatibility to the HAP application checklist.

Do you support the transect principle as presented in the 2005 General Plan, i.e. density diminishes as the transect line goes from an urban downtown core to moderate in midtown and then to rural at Well-Saticoy?

In general, the transect applies to Ventura, and it should be used as a guide to appropriate development. Some nodes of higher density are acceptable (hospital district, Victoria corridor, etc).

Are you in favor of high density projects being located adjacent to low density neighborhoods?

Technically, MEDIUM density projects next to low density are appropriate IF they are compatible architecturally and stepped up gradually in height.

Do you agree with the existing $850 appeal fee required of citizens in order for them to appeal a Planning Commission's decision to the City Council?

The $850 fee accomplishes its purpose--keeping frivolous appeals from using up staff and Council time. The fee can be shared by several neighbors.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Overall Comments on Planning and Development in Ventura

by Bill Fulton

Many of VCORD’s questions deal with implementation of the 2005 General Plan, so I first wanted to provide my view about that subject generally.

The 2005 General Plan contains an “all-infill” strategy that anticipates accommodating all additional growth inside current SOAR

(Save Our Agricultural Resouces) boundaries. Most new development will be concentrated in specific focus areas, including Downtown, the Saticoy-Wells area, the Main & Thompson corridors in Midtown, the

corridor on the Westside, and the

area.

The City Council has decided that it is necessary to prepare Community Plans and new zoning codes for each of these areas. We began with downtown (now complete) and are now working on Saticoy & Wells. Pending completion of these plans and codes, we have chosen not to place a moratorium on all development in these areas but use interim steps to ensure that the General Plan’s principles are implemented. These interim steps include the Housing Approval Program, which requires a pre-screen before either City Council or Planning Commission of most housing projects in areas where community plans are not complete; and the interim zoning code for Midtown, which is now pending.

We are currently in the middle of implementing these many efforts, and so I understand that there are many questions about how this implementation effort is going.

1.     Do you think the City Council should return to the practice of pre-screening projects with five or more units, prior to the projects being allowed to enter into the approval process?

I will answer this question in answer to Question No. 6, which deals with the same issue.

2.    

Overall Comments on Planning and Development in Ventura

by Bill Fulton

Many of VCORD’s questions deal with implementation of the 2005 General Plan, so I first wanted to provide my view about that subject generally.

The 2005 General Plan contains an “all-infill” strategy that anticipates accommodating all additional growth inside current SOAR

(Save Our Agricultural Resouces) boundaries. Most new development will be concentrated in specific focus areas, including Downtown, the Saticoy-Wells area, the Main & Thompson corridors in Midtown, the

corridor on the Westside, and the

area.

The City Council has decided that it is necessary to prepare Community Plans and new zoning codes for each of these areas. We began with downtown (now complete) and are now working on Saticoy & Wells. Pending completion of these plans and codes, we have chosen not to place a moratorium on all development in these areas but use interim steps to ensure that the General Plan’s principles are implemented. These interim steps include the Housing Approval Program, which requires a pre-screen before either City Council or Planning Commission of most housing projects in areas where community plans are not complete; and the interim zoning code for Midtown, which is now pending.

We are currently in the middle of implementing these many efforts, and so I understand that there are many questions about how this implementation effort is going.

1.     Do you think the City Council should return to the practice of pre-screening projects with five or more units, prior to the projects being allowed to enter into the approval process?

I will answer this question in answer to Question No. 6, which deals with the same issue.

2.    

Do you believe the Smart Growth and New Urbanism principles should be adapted to Ventura's unique character and small scale instead of vice versa?

Smart growth and New Urbanism contain many enduring principles of placemaking, such as pedestrian orientation and mixing land uses where appropriate. These principles can be applied in any development setting, whether big city or small town, though obviously they must be tailored to local conditions. I favor doing so here in

Ventura.

3.    

Are you in favor of requiring fiscal impact studies prior to development to assess the costs that will be incurred as a result of the development?

It is imperative to understand the fiscal impact of development projects and hold developers fiscally accountable. This is one of the reasons I am a big fan of doing Community Plans and Specific Plans. By planning out our neighborhoods in advance, we can estimate the amount and type of development up-front. We can do an environmental impact report and a fiscal analysis that will determine whether development will create a surplus or not; and create a fee schedule for development projects in that neighborhood that will meet the needs of the neighborhood. If we do this kind of up-front planning well, there is no need to do project-level fiscal impact studies.

4.    

Are you in favor of the View Protection Initiative to identify important view sheds to be protected through an ordinance for the city of Ventura?

I believe view protection should be incorporated into our community plans and our revised codes, especially in those areas that the 2005 General Plan identifies as focused growth areas. For example, I believe the proposed Interim Code for Midtown – and eventually the community plan as well – should address the issue of views. If we effectively deal with views in these communitywide planning processes, there should be no need for a separate view protection ordinance.

5.     Are you in favor of a city wide historic survey being completed to identify our historic assets prior to further development?

Again, I believe that these issues are better dealt with at the neighborhood level. I favor conducting historic resource surveys as soon as possible for each of the neighborhoods targeted for growth and change in the 2005 General Plan. We should not have to wait until the Community Plan process  begins to do this.

6.    

Do you think that development should be placed on hold, or at least have development prescreened by the City Council until specific community plans have been completed?

I

do not favor placing development on hold in these areas.

  Under the strategy put forth by the council, we hope to eliminate the need for extensive review in front of the council. We currently prescreen two types of projects:

1. 

Projects requiring General Plan Amendments

2.  Large residential projects under the HAP

Considering the delay in both Community Plans and new codes, I think the Council should consider temporarily lowering the threshold for prescreen so that more projects are prescreened at the Council level. However, I am frankly not sure what the temporary threshold should be.

7.     Do you suport the transect principle as presented in the 2005 General Plan, i.e. density diminishes as the transect line goes from an urban downtown core to moderate in midtown and then to rural at Well-Saticoy?

The 2005 General Plan uses the transect as an organizing principle but does not specify that densities should diminish from west to east within the city. This is partly because densities do not currently follow this pattern, but, rather,

vary throughout the city. The medical area around Loma Vista and Five Points contains some tall and high-density buildings. The Victoria Corridor contains dense multi-story office buildings, including the CountyGovernmentCenter, and the pending corridor plan would reinforce Victoria’s role as a center of office development.

The purpose of the transect is to help us understand the current development context in each neighborhood, so that new codes and plans will be appropriate for that neighborhood. I favor use of the transect as a tool to help us tailor our development strategy in each neighborhood identified in the General Plan as a focus area for additional development. Again, however, this does not mean creating steadily diminishing densities from west to east (which is not possible because of current development patterns); rather, it means understanding, respecting, and building on the current development context in each neighborhood.

8.    

Are you in favor of three story buildings being located next to one story buildings?

As a general rule, no. However, it depends on the development setting. A three-story building might be appropriately located next to one-story if the distance between the building is sufficient and the landscaping and other design elements are sufficient to protect the privacy, light, and air of the occupants of the one-story building. I also think there is a difference between a three-story building that backs up to a one-story house (much less acceptable) and a three-story commercial building adjacent to a one-story commercial building along a commercial strip (possibly more acceptable).

9.    

Are you in favor of high density projects being located adjacent to low density neighborhoods?

Again, as a general rule, no. But I would add, once again, that it depends on the development setting, as I stated in answer to Question #8. I am unable to answer this question more specifically without a better definition of “high density” and “low density”.

10.   

Do you agree with the existing $850 appeal fee required of citizens in order for them to appeal a Planning Commission's decision to the City Council?

There are currently two alternative mechanisms for a project to be appealed to the City Council. Any interested party can pay $850 and the City Council can vote to bring it up on appeal.

I believe these mechanisms are sufficient because we must strike a balance between legitimate appeals and frivolous appeals. If either the applicant or the neighbors are sufficiently concerned about a Planning Commission decision, I believe that the two mechanisms provide access for them. These two mechanisms also guard against frivolous appears, either by gadflies or by applicants.

Appeals should be the exception, rather than the rule. If we institute both the temporary and permanent reforms described above – including temporarily lowering the threshold for prescreens, passing interim codes, and eventually adopting Community Plans – this should eliminate the need for almost all appeals.

Updated 10/31/07

02/24/2008