Council Takes Middle Path on Development

Not wishing to step into the political fray, a split Ventura City Council rejected a plan to spend $26,000 to study a ballot initiative that would allow further development of the city’s hillsides.

After two hours of debate, the council voted 4 to 3 to ask City Atty. Robert Boehm to instead prepare a bare-bones summary of the initiative.

The council’s debate centered on two questions: Should the city fund studies based solely on the developer’s information, risking the appearance of partiality? Or should it do nothing, leaving voters to rely on public discourse for their information? The council’s action landed it somewhere in between.

“The council wants to reduce [the initiative] down to its essential elements and describe those for members of the public,” Boehm said. He said the summary, most likely in a question-and-answer format, will be presented to the council July 1. Councilmen James Friedman and Neal Andrews and Deputy Mayor Brian Brennan voted against the action.

The Open 80 ballot initiative, if adopted by voters, would allow construction of 1,390 homes on hillsides north of downtown Ventura and would set aside about 3,000 acres as permanent open space. The area stretches roughly from Grant Park to just east of Arroyo Verde Park.

“We’ve never had a development agreement go before [Ventura residents] to vote on,” Mayor Ray DiGuilio said. “It’s a legal, binding contract,” he said, one that circumvents the regular approval process, which includes detailed analyses.

Councilman James Monahan referred to it as “planning by ballot box.”

A representative for the landowners has said that they are simply fulfilling the mandate of Measure P, which essentially requires that hillside development be approved by voters.

Friedman said the council should abide by the spirit of the measure.

“Measure P basically said, ‘City Council, we want you to stay out of this,’” Friedman said. “Let the landowners bring forward their information and let the opponents bring forth their information and let the voters decide directly.”

DiGuilio said he doubted that any limited studies the city might do could change the minds of voters who have already staked out their position, but that the council has a responsibility to inform the public anyway.

Under state election codes, the city is prohibited from spending any money on a study that might be construed as either in favor of or in opposition to an initiative. But it could have ordered studies on how the project might affect traffic, the city’s ability to attract and retain businesses, and scenic views.

Community Development Director Susan Daluddung told the council that the studies, if the council had requested them, would have been based on information furnished by the developer of the master plan. Council members expressed concern that spending the $26,000 would not be enough to get all their questions answered.

“A cursory study does not do justice to what people need to see,” Friedman said.

Meanwhile, a representative for the landowners said they have gathered more than enough signatures to get the proposal on the November ballot. Proponents are in the process of verifying the signatures, he said, and will turn them over to the city clerk by Tuesday.