Weather | Beachcam
Login | Contact Us | Staff | Site Map | Archives | Alerts | Electronic Edition | Subscribe to the paper

HomeNewsLocal News

Council delays action on a plan for midtown area


Download Podcast  Download this story as a podcast!

After meeting late into the night this week, the Ventura City Council failed to act on a proposal that would limit the heights of future buildings along Main Street and Thompson Boulevard.

Buildings on Thompson Boulevard can be up to six stories high under current city rules, while those on nearby Main Street can be three stories tall.

Under new rules proposed by city officials, most future buildings on Main and Thompson would be limited to three stories. Buildings in the Five Points area could go as high as six stories, while those closer to San Jon Road would have a two-story restriction.

The City Council and Planning Commission considered the new rules at a joint meeting Monday night but did not take action as the discussion stretched past midnight. They will again consider the proposal when they meet at 7 p.m. this Monday.

Camille Harris, a retired publisher who lives on Santa Ynez Street in midtown Ventura and who heads a citizens group that wants even lower height limits, said her group will seek a court injunction to stop the city from implementing the plan if it is approved next week.

The group wants the council to approve a 26-foot height restriction, or about two stories, on all new building in the area until voters can decide on a ballot initiative that would create a view resources board. The board would be charged with protecting important public-view corridors. The citizens group has submitted signatures for the initiative and is waiting to see if there are enough to qualify it for the ballot.

"The City Council would have to be blind, deaf and dumb to not see that the community is opposed to this," Harris said Tuesday.

Harris said that, while city officials are calling the plan "infill," it should be named "overfill." She said her group wants to preserve the city's unique charm and history.

Councilwoman Christy Weir said the council values the input of Harris and others. "We are paying attention to what they are saying," Weir said Tuesday.

For example, the proposed new rules would have a two-story height restriction on future buildings that abut bungalows and other homes. The city also would require a 5-foot setback along north-south streets in the area to give people clear views of the hillsides.

"Protecting the viewsheds is something that is very important to me," said Weir, herself a midtown resident.

Mayor Carl Morehouse said that whatever the council decides, the plan will take many years to fully implement. "Any fears that this will create a canyon of tall buildings are wrong," Morehouse said. Instead, the plan would revitalize and inject new life into midtown, he said.

Discussions

There are 2 comments to this article.   

Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.

Comments

Posted by gingerlou on November 21, 2007 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We need to stay true to what we are and not sell out like Oxnard! There are many pros and cons here, I agree, but we only have so much space so the decision needs to be up to the community. Business can improve in Ventura, get rid of some of the blights on thompson PLEASE! We need to improve, not sell out! There is so much potential all around and it seems like Midtown needs a major shake up if you ask me...so much potential but so much is ignored! Wake up city council!

Posted by michael on November 21, 2007 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"get rid of some of the blights (sic) on Thompson PLEASE!"....and who, gingerlou, will be doing this? The City? no. This is private property; the City has no control over how a property owner takes care of his property. What can the Council do? They can pass the Corridor Plan to provide prescriptive and predictable codes to encourage the private property owners to enhance their property. Will private property owners do it? Not if it does not make economical sense; i.e. they must find it financially reasonable; maybe even profitable, to improve their properties. A "Shake up?" Don't look to the Council for that.





Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.

Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.

We do not allow the following:

  • Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
  • Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
  • Threats, whether obvious or veiled.

We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.

Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Discuss this article
(Requires free registration.)

Username:

Password:
(Forgotten your password?)

Your Turn:

Please download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, or enable JavaScript for your browser to view the video player.