Home › News › Other News
Ventura council rejects plans for Casden development
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Other NewsA proposal to build some 300 apartments and shops on Johnson Drive has too many houses and too few commercial uses, the Ventura City Council said in a rare split vote.
The council voted 4-3 to reject a request to allow upwards of 300 homes and some 10,000 square feet of commercial space along the struggling commercial corridor near Highway 101. The prevailing council members all agreed on more commercial and office space on the eight-acre parcel on the southeast corner of
Johnson and North Bank Drive.
The four, however, had varying desires.
As a result, the full council agreed to hold a special workshop in coming weeks to clarify what mix of uses they want on the vacant property.
"We will schedule that as soon as possible so these people can move forward," Mayor Christy Weir said, "because we don't want any more hurdles in their way."
Casden Properties LLC said its conceptual proposal for 306 apartments would add rental housing in a community with expensive and limited for-sale homes and provide a needed boost to the struggling commercial area where several storefronts sit empty.
The 300 units, however, were too many for the mayor and others who preferred a mix of more commercial and retail options facing Johnson and North Bank Drives with fewer apartments located behind or above.
Everyone agreed Johnson Drive could use more shoppers and that competition from new developments in nearby Oxnard was likely to grow. But council members wanted to see different things on the site.
Councilman Neal Andrews said he was open to a high-rise office complex, while Councilman Ed Summers felt Casden's proposal was fine as is.
Casden specializes in housing, not commercial projects, company officials acknowledged during questioning. After the vote, Ventura City Manager Rick Cole urged the council to give the developer and city planning staff responsible for processing the project more clear direction on what they wanted on the site. A Casden official said a suggested requirement of at least a quarter of the project be reserved for commercial or office uses likely would kill the proposal.
The council, having already spent more than two hours discussing the project, couldn't articulate what they wanted and ultimately chose to meet again. "I think it will be a train wreck to do this tonight," Summers said.
Posted by Ms_California on April 8, 2008 at 7:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That is a terrible place for housing. With such space why can't they put the area to good use. How about another mall! RIGHT! I challenge the city council to make the best use of this site, for the tax payers and the consumers of Ventura. I don't think we need more apartment complexes and housing. Especially in that area.
Posted by ecarson1958 on April 8, 2008 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's a novel idea. How about making the area a park. A place where people can go and relax. Also, have a work out course that can be constructed so people can go around a circuit and do exercises in between the walking. I'll bet that it would be filled with people every morning and evening and weekends. When will the commercial building stop?
Posted by caskier on April 8, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ecarson, why don't you buy the parcel from casden and donate it to the city so it can become a park? Oh, I see, you want the city or park district to purchase it... with tax money and a strapped budget. Sure, that's gonna happen!
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on April 8, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ventura is going down hill rapidly, neighborhood by neighborhood. Another apartment complex will simply add crime and additional burden to our public safety folks. To add apartments at that location would be unconscionable.
Posted by youngpro on April 8, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TimeArrow I agree, young professionals who can’t afford to buy homes in Ventura and are forced to rent are dirty rotten criminals. They bring nothing to the community and will bring down the neighborhood brick by brick. I believe if you can’t afford to buy a home in this community then you are not worthy of living in it. Please support NIMBY [Not In My Backyard], community members afraid of change.
Posted by fbgomerguard on April 8, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That area is ugly. Motel-6 and the Century 16 Plaza are crime infested dumps. The mini mall north of Toys-R-Us is ugly and dated.
Johnson is a gateway off-ramp to the city. I hope they build a nice mix of upscale mid rise apartments, condos, retail and commercial. It would be a nice bookend to downtown.
They need to overhaul the west side of Johnson too. Make the whole area a place where people will want to go stay watch a movie dine and shop. With the exception of downtown the rest of Ventura is behind the times when it comes to nice development. The Gateway to Oxnard will soon put it to shame with Wholefoods and PF Changs.
Posted by fungus on April 8, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ecarson: maybe you don;t know the area in question very well... there are TWO parks well witin walking distance on the area in question. The last thing the area needs is another park!
I agree with the Counsel that the area needs some business rejuvenation, and housing is a good solution. However, finding the right balance between commercial and residential is crucial to keeping the economics of the area moving forward in a positive direction.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on April 8, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
youngpro, I'd have no problem with apartments that are suitable for young professionals ... but it is essential that none are subsidized. Go the the VPD web site and drill down to crime statistics within reporting districts (RD's) within the city where apartment complexes are located. There are winners and losers. Facility-wise, there are some nice apartment complexes in town that have become ghettos and hotbeds of gang activity.
Posted by shaver_one on April 8, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Put Wal-Mart there.
Posted by youngpro on April 8, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Time Arrow, I think it is agreed upon that a safe community it of the utmost importance. That is why it is important that there is a mix of market rate and affordable units in development developments such as this, as opposed to just subsidized. I think the main issue here is that there needs to be diversity in the housing options within our community if Ventura wishes to thrive.
As far as this ruling is concerned, I believe that Johnson drive in its current state is already run down with failing businesses and empty storefronts and for the city to say this development needs more commercial space seems a little ill conceived. To have a thriving commercial corridor you first need a consumer population that will support it. At this point it doesn’t seem like Johnson drive has that, and a denser housing development might be just what it needs.
Posted by THX1138 on April 8, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As mentioned in response to the earlier article - high-density housing is not a practical choice for that area just based on the increase traffic. I do agree that commercial development may be the best option.
I'm not sure what the demand is for office space is, but that would probably work there. The workforce would bring more biz to the existing eateries etc.
Also I'd suggest a high(er)-end restaurant, [ie Applebee's or a Carrow's?].
Another idea is recreational commercial biz such as an indoor race track like the one going up in the T.O. area. Or a rachet-ball / Tennis club.
Posted by FedUp on April 8, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Also I'd suggest a high(er)-end restaurant, [ie Applebee's or a Carrow's?]."
I know you meant well by this comment, but I had to laugh a bit, when I saw that applebees and carrows were suggested as high(er) end restaurants.
I am glad they are not allowing more housing. we dont need more homes going up in ventura.
I really dont know what should go in there, but the whole area is rundown. perhaps a mixed use park, with running track, bike track, circuit training type of stuff. I dont know. I just know we dont need more housing.
fungus - where are the other parks that are within walking distance??
Posted by sgoenner25 on April 8, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is an often touted misconception that high density housing equals more traffic. If placed correctly, it is the very thing that reduces traffic. If located near jobs, commercial and other services, high density housing actually allows people to get out of their cars and walk or take a short commute to meet their daily needs. Having people located in a centralized location also allows for mass transit to be viable. Hence, housing near the Johnson Drive area could be just what the area needs, not more commercial.
Granted not everyone wants to live the same way, but the single family home lifestyle is the biggest addict of the car right now in Ventura. Let's offer people the option of not even needing to drive most places, if anywhere.
If you say it cannot be done, I am living proof. I live in an apartment, have a good job in downtown and walk to work on a daily basis.
Posted by mohadib on April 9, 2008 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It seems to me that commercial is struggling in this area all ready. To add more seems like a bad idea. I think Casden got it right for this part of town. The other use that would go well there is an upscale office building similar to the Nordman, Cormody, and Hair building across the river. It would be a great location for a building with some height. But to create a vibrant Johnson drive, it seems to me adding the housing there with a little commercial would be best.
Posted by THX1138 on April 9, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@Fedup: my intention of "higher" is relative to the eateries in that area, [Carl's, Subway etc.].
If I recall there's little or no industry in that area, just some service & retail level jobs; so getting people out of cars is un-likely...
If there was someway to stagger the start time of employees then perhaps traffic won't be as much of an issue - again un-likely.
(Requires free registration.)
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:
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.