SOAR Analysis Assails Ventura Hills Ballot Measure

A ballot measure that would allow further development of Ventura’s hillsides skirts the environmental review process, leaves the city little negotiating power and transfers numerous costs to taxpayers, slow-growth advocates declared Monday in a detailed project analysis.

Backers of the 1,390-home development on hillsides north of the city are attempting to “use a hurried and uninformed vote as a mandate to ram the project through,” wrote Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources in the six-page report on the ballot initiative. “The developer is placing this development decision in front of the city’s voters before any meaningful study ... is completed,” reads the analysis, co-written by county Supervisor Steve Bennett, a director of SOAR.

“We would never allow the City Council to approve a development without all the information [in an environmental impact report], so why should we let voters?” Bennett asked.

But a representative for the landowners said that they are merely following the process put in place by Measure P, which requires that voters approve any hillside development.

The so-called Open 80 initiative would allow landowners to build 1,390 homes in the hilly areas north of downtown Ventura in exchange for dedicating 80% of their 3,800 acres to permanent open space.

SOAR’s analysis briefly addresses specific concerns about the plan, including: lack of affordable housing, the placement of many of the development’s homes on the front of the hillsides rather than in the back canyons and the resulting traffic. However, Bennett made clear that he is most deeply troubled by the strategy developers are taking, and that their actions should give voters pause.

“They’ve written a plan that includes things that would normally be negotiated on the citizens’ behalf by the city,” he said. “It does not give the city the opportunity to protect its citizens.”

However, Ventura Mayor Ray DiGuilio said that even if Ventura residents vote in favor of the Open 80 plan in November, the city still will be part of the planning process.

“In this case, the city would consider how it would be developed but not whether it gets developed,” he said. “The city staff has worked with the landowners during the crafting of the Open 80 plan, so it’s not totally unknown to the staff.”

He added that passage of the initiative would not give the developers carte blanche, saying they’d still have to abide by state environmental standards and other regulations.

Bennett said he would like the developer and landowner to work with the city and complete an environmental impact report before taking the initiative to voters. He accuses Open 80 proponents of “turning Measure P on its head.”

Quite the contrary, counters Jim Anderson, a Los Angeles architect who represents the landowners.

Voters, not the city, have to approve hillside development, so it makes sense to go to the voters first, Anderson said, adding that it wouldn’t make sense to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on an EIR only to later see the initiative shot down by voters.

Anderson said supporters of Measure P seem to be arguing against their own initiative, which requires developers who want to build on hillsides to first get voter approval.

“We’re doing exactly what is required and now they have changed their policy,” he said. “We find that inconsistent and unfeasible.”

The City Council was expected Monday night to approve a proposal to spend $26,000 on several studies of the plan--including a look at traffic and economic benefits--before the election.