Home › News › Local News
Ventura planners OK project for parks, housing development
Proposal calls for parks and farmworker housing units
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsThe Ventura Planning Commission this week overwhelmingly endorsed a long-anticipated project on the city's east end that would transform a 35.6-acre farm field into parks and a variety of housing, including units reserved for farmworkers.
The proposal, which now goes to the City Council for formal adoption, calls for more than 180 homes, not including potential second units, and 5.4 acres of parks on privately owned land at the southeast corner of Telegraph Road and Saticoy Avenue.
The new neighborhood would include larger family houses, smaller houses, row house condominiums and quadplexes, as well as some 20 homes reserved for farmworkers and their families. New streets and bike lanes, a community garden and agricultural buffers also would be created, plans show.
The property has been controlled by the University of California since Thelma Hansen, the sole survivor of a longtime Ventura County farming family, died in 1992, leaving her estate in trust. The university plans to sell the parcel and entitlements to a developer to construct the homes, with proceeds going to the trust's Hansen Agricultural Learning Center at Faulkner Farm in Santa Paula.
Some Ventura neighbors expressed concerns about increased traffic and other effects of so many homes, particularly those with small lots, being built near older, sprawling subdivisions. But commissioners lauded the proposal, saying it fit the character of adjacent communities and would provide a variety of housing, including smaller and potentially less expensive units for young professionals, young families and people looking to downsize. The proposed lot sizes for the detached homes range from 4,000 to 9,000 square feet.
The university agreed to dedicate 5.4 acres to parks — 3 acres above minimum city requirements — and donate other lots to the Ventura Housing Authority to develop the farmworker homes.
City planners didn't think the donated land was enough for the farmworker component and recommended an additional $600,000 in developer fees.
UC representatives disagreed, saying they pledged to get the site ready with streets and utilities, under a 2006 agreement with the Housing Authority. In return, the authority would design and build the units.
The Planning Commission believed the planners' recommendation, which surfaced in June, was late in the game and ultimately favored a $200,000 contribution proposed by UC as a compromise.
Housing Authority Executive Director Ed Moses testified he could develop the farmworker houses without the full $600,000. Others in the audience experienced with developing farmworker housing said the improved land was a fair contribution.
Commissioner John Hecht said he thought it was important that the original memorandum of understanding in 2006 be honored. "They have done a lot of good things in this project. We haven't seen much farmworker housing built in the city, if any, in the last 10 years."
The project is scheduled to go to the City Council for consideration Sept. 15. City Planning Manager Larry Onaga said he would press for the $600,000 contribution.
Currently used for commercial row crop production, the acreage must be annexed into the city.
It has long been designated for housing, and the project would not need voter approval under growth-control laws.
Posted by worldfxr on August 21, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It won't be long and all land will be gone!
Overpopulation, overwhelmed infrastructure.
Hello, does anyone on the city council and the planning committee drive around and look!
Shoe horn some more problems into Ventura.
Posted by Rocket81 on August 21, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What happened to the water shortage. Why conserve energy when the government allows more and more housing to be built. Its ALL about the money. The Ventura city government is spineless. LA here we come.$$$$$$$$$$$$$. I wonder how much of a kickback these officials get.
Posted by shnyroq on August 21, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Geez people let's freak out a little more! You're here in Ventura so now no one else can come, is that about right? Somebody owns this land and they should be forced to farm it unprofitably forever just so you can look at a field, is that about right? Anything that's already built is good and anything new is bad, is that about right? Land zoned for housing is allowed to have housing built on it - someone applies to do just that and the City has to eventually approve it as long as it complies with all the requirements. No kickbacks involved, no spineless government... just NIMBYs apparently.
Posted by jesus1 on August 21, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
180 Houses vs. 5.4 acres of park land????
I love the way politicians sell us their own interest. "We'll give you new parks, meantime, we'll overcrowd your city while we line our pockets with tons of money from the developers."
I hope the current real estate market crushes these developers!!!
THe city workers and politicians should live outside Ventura and be forced to commute to their jobs , like the rest of us, so they can get a taste of the consequences of their own decisions.
Posted by BeaHappi on August 21, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Ventura city planners - why don't you build some new schools to keep up with the increased housing?
If my kids were part of the Ventura school district, I'd be ticked off. Heck, I'm irritated about it and I don't live there!
Posted by vtagirl on August 21, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree that landowners should be able to do what they would like with their land as long as it is not a detriment to the city. But what were the planners thinking on this one? Our schools are overcrowded, we do not have enough water, our fire and police departments are over-stretched, and traffic is getting as bad as LA. I thought when we passed SOAR and Measure A we sent a message that we did not want to turn Ventura into another LA, but I guess they didn't get the message!
Posted by waasup_H8RS on August 21, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
we need to build up not out!
Posted by worldfxr on August 21, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Once Again! Fundamental Failure of all Govenrmental Entities.
Kiss this natin good bye as we once knew it.
Posted by Wendy_Halderman on August 21, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Overcrowded schools are a definite, MAJOR concern. If our community is going to improve, decision makers need to take responsibility for the big picture instead of just their little piece of the puzzle.
Posted by THX1138 on August 21, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The 118 is packed during rush hour now, I can't wait to see how it'll handle more traffic.
And, there's no mention of when the commercial development [near Darling & Wells] is starting[?!]. There's very few stores to support the existing homes...
I find the last line interesting: "the project would not need voter approval", it doesn't matter anyway, the city will call in their slick lawyer to find a loop-hole even if the public votes down an action.
I can't wait to move to Camarillo - I may pay more tax, but the quality of life is probably better...
Posted by archtmf on August 21, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You people from Ventura, shut your traps. Come to Oxnard if you want to experience massive, crowded housing developments, little or no park land and any that's there devoted exclusively to soccer, "regional" parks devoted to nothing but Big League Dreams and Golf, every corner of the city swelling with immigrants packing our houses and filling our streets with extra cars, and overcrowded schools and not enough new ones built to keep up with the additional housing developments that always go in.
Ventura doesn't know how good you've got it...
Posted by Wendy_Halderman on August 21, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Patti, we already know the answers to your questions. Traffic will increase on existing streets, and kids will enroll at already-crowded schools. The problems will then be sloughed off onto local residents, parents, students, and the school district. Then there will likely be pressure to create bond measures to build new schools and if voters turn these down the government leaders will then try to enact "user fees." Foothill High is already "charging" parents $90 to pay for the school's computers.
Posted by schlederdecopan on August 21, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SOLUTION! SOLUTION! SOLUTION!
District Elections....
The City is divided up into 7 different equally populated districts.
One resident is elected out of each district to serve on the City Council.
The Mayor is elected at-large.
All to receive a salary such as Santa Barbara City Council.
A much more representative government beholding to their home 'district/neighbors' and NOT to the present developers, banks and New Urbanist Carpetbaggers.
We CAN NOT waste our time by running all over town trying to put out the fires that this selfish City Council has started.
We have to get rid of this City Council et al.
Posted by Ironhorse on August 21, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm wondering if maybe now is the time to start looking at a Prop13-style arrangement for our water bills. We are all being asked to conserve water, our bills continue to climb, and yet someone seems to think we've got enough water to build 180+ more homes; with parks(more water for grass). Do we have the capability to supply electricity to these homes; since we are threatened with rolling blackouts and mandatory shutting down of many air-conditioning systems?
This time, I've got to agree, someone is getting their pound of flesh and getting out; leaving a real mess for the rest of us to deal with!
Posted by curious1 on August 21, 2008 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So let me get this straight... they're going to take away farmland, and build housing for farm workers on it. Not enough schools, police, fire and infrastructure to support the project. Am I missing something? Why don’t they see what we see? Is the East side going to become the cities answer to low income housing?
Posted by michael on August 21, 2008 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whoaa, people... citizens, and I use that phrase loosely, you have absolutely NO idea what forces there are behind the policies that the city must deal with. This is not a political nor local policy-driven decision; the city is mandated by the state department of Housing & Community Development to 1. comply with the state approved Housing Element of the General Plan and 2. build a prescriptive (from the Latin to prescribe, or mandate) number of houses to satisfy the expected growth in the state. So get used to it, or, as some of you claim to want to do, move to Camarillo or maybe back to Wichita Falls.... or Tulsa... or Indianapolis, the cheapest place in the country to buy a house.
Until you do your homework and recognize that you know VERY little about the forces that drive our housing choices, you have no right to gripe here.
Posted by Wendy_Halderman on August 21, 2008 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Local governments are (justifiably) frustrated by unfunded state mandates. Just as absurd are requirements to build housing when necessary infrastructure and resources are lacking. Citizens do not need PhDs to recognize that the system is broken, nor to realize when the sheep are following each other over the cliff.
Posted by curious1 on August 22, 2008 at 5:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
michael...
If it's going in my backyard... I have a voice. And despite the STATE MANDATE that's driving this... oh yea, this isn't a political issue right michael? we as city can't support it.
Michael...I'd like the right to gripe here... Educate me. What are the other cities in our county doing to meet the requirements of this state mandate. How much has the city of Ventura contributed to meeting the needs of the state mandate? Enlighten me.
Posted by dickventura on August 22, 2008 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
why doesnt the city just buy 180 forclosed homes. that would be more in keeping with the times.
we need some new faces and BRAINS in city hall.
Posted by shnyroq on August 22, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is not a political issue. This is how cities grow, and despite everyone's objections, our city too must grow. All schools are not overcrowded - many, if not all, of the elementary schools in town have had declining or stagnant enrollment each year for several years now. Only the high schools seem to have too many kids and that will soon change over the next couple years since the lower grades have fewer numbers.
As for council districting, that is one of the all-time horrible ideas. You see how well it works for Congress? Nothing in this city will ever get done because each district will have their own agendas and they'll never agree on where to put what!
Posted by curious1 on August 22, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Shny,
Why is it that Mound Elementary informed parents that the school wasn’t accepting new students because it’s full to capacity? Why is it that Balboa Middle School has informed parents that the 6th grade class is overcrowded and student schedules may have to be adjusted? Are you referencing old data, or perhaps making it up? I agree that cities must grow, but it has to be in a responsible manner. All we hear from the city is we don’t have this, we don’t have that, and yet they’re prepared to allow growth that if you believe what our city council is telling us, they don’t have the resources to support.
(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.