Home › News › County News
Historical Willett buildings to remain on site
Under settlement of lawsuit, structures will be renovated
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from County NewsThe homestead of a pioneer Ventura farming family will be renovated and remain at the historical Willett Ranch site off North Ventura Avenue, under a lawsuit settlement announced this week.
Retaining the decades-old structure, along with an employee cottage, office building and garage, is a victory for the San Buenaventura Conservancy, a local preservation group. The conservancy filed a lawsuit against the city to prevent the proposed destruction of the buildings to make room for a housing development on the ranch site.
"We made our point that this project could be a win-win situation — for the developer and for a city eager to keep the affordable housing component and still preserve the historic resource," said Stephen Schafer, a professional photographer and conservancy president.
The settlement averts a potentially expensive legal battle that could have dented the city's reputation as it tries to market its historical character and inches toward strengthening protections for historical structures.
In an ironic twist, the settlement, approved by the City Council at its Monday night meeting, arrived only hours before an all-day educational seminar Tuesday at Ventura City Hall titled "Preservation Matters!"
Calling the deal a "positive resolution," Mayor Christy Weir said the changes would improve the housing project while respecting city history.
The conservancy's lawsuit, filed in June, argued the city failed to uphold a California law requiring study of alternatives before historical structures, such as the ranch buildings, can be torn down.
The Willett Ranch was the latest in an ongoing "pattern and practice" of approving projects that remove historical structures and cultural heritage without adequate review required by the California Environmental Quality Act, the suit said.
The suit came after Centex Homes won city approval to build 120 detached homes, 36 condominiums and 50 seniors-only affordable apartments on 27 acres north of Seneca Street.
The proposal also includes 1.5 acres of parkland. Centex has since abandoned the project, and a new developer has taken over.
Under the settlement, the city admits no wrongdoing, and the council's approval remains in place. The new developer, however, agreed to change the project as part of the settlement.
"We are pleased," said Gary Gorian, president of Thousand Oaks-based Colton Lee Communities, which now has the controlling share in the project.
The four historical buildings will remain at the ranch but be moved to the northwest corner of B and Cameron streets and be rehabilitated to federal standards for historical properties. As a result, four townhouses will be eliminated from the project.
In addition, the main entrance to the project will be called Willett Street, and citrus trees — a former Willett family crop — will be planted on landscaped areas.
Schafer said it only took about a half-hour meeting with Gorian and others to come to an agreement.
"We were surprised at how little energy it took to get us here," he said. "We truly hope to be standing on the podium on opening day and proclaiming this has been a really good partnership."
Posted by juandeveras on February 27, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The Willetts Ranch was the latest in an ongoing 'pattern and practice' of approving projects that remove historical structures and cultural heritage without adequate review...."
Stephen Shafer and his friends.
There are several points about this project which have yet to be adequately reported:
1. The primary 'historical' building on the site has sliding aluminum doors, was not originally at its current location on the site and has been attributed by an alleged historical 'expert' referenced by Mr. Shafer's group as "possibly' being the work of a late well-known architect. Not true. The buildings have been given credit by another 'expert' for having exterior siding details which are not present.
2. Mr. Shafer et al filed this lawsuit four years into this project, after the project was already approved, after the developer, Centex Homes, as well as the City of Ventura, spent a lot of time and money to bring it on line both aesthetically and with a view to its historical location. Why did he wait so long? Was this the point at which Centex, in a difficult housing market, felt the need to bail ? What does Shafer have as comment on that point ? He could care less. In his mind, he simply 'won'. Won what ?
3. The four townhomes which will be deleted as a result of Mr. Shafer and Friends' late-date efforts are affordable housing units which will no longer be available for that purpose.
4. The proposed movement of the buildings in question to other points on the site had already been discussed prior to the suit. So what's your point, Mr. Shafer ?
5. So far, I've yet to hear what the alleged ' pattern and practice' of the City is in this area. The only evident 'pattern and practice' is that of Mr. Shafer having fits. So far, he has possibly caused Centex, the City and its citizens to lose a lot of revenue [ as well as a great project ], delayed the project, decreased the affordable housing component in the City, and re-hashed issues which had already been thoroughly addressed [ The 'old' houses will still be sitting there on the property in their sliding-glass door historical glory.
Posted by michael on February 27, 2008 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
juandeveras,
Where did you do your homework on this issue? Why such a rant against Mr. Schafer? It so happens that Mr. Schafer and the Conservancy did not know about the project until the 11th hour. When they did find out, they tried at several public hearings to get a proper review of the project per CEQA guidelines.
By the way, this project will not produce significant revenue to the city and they will still be required to provide the appropriate number of affordable units.
No, you've got a personal issue here that renders your rant somewhat irrelevant.
Posted by juandeveras on February 28, 2008 at 7:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Michael: I did my homework last year, after visiting the site on several occasions, communicated via e-mail with a member of the Conservancy, and submitted my comments at the time to the appropriate people within city government. I have reviewed the plans on several occasions as well. Attrributing to me the word "rant" is far off the mark. A "rant" is defined, among other things, as a " rambling and repetition of nonsense ". I do not speak or write in such a fashion or manner, Michael. I do not have a "personal issue here". I retain the e-mails to me at the time, and I believe Mr. Shafer had, just as did every citizen of Ventura, ample time [ four years ] to address this matter. He elected to make this call at the "11th hour" of his own volition. Further, I fail to follow your reasoning re. your claim of the project's inability or " failure to produce
significant revenue to the city ". The only proposed townhomes on the site [ the only ( four ) units selected for deletion in the piece in this paper ] are the affordable units. Period. End of story. The rest are all individual residences - well over 100 - 150 , which will certainly and inevitably bring revenue to the city. Obviously the four units in question were deleted to make room for these alleged "historical" buildings with their aluminum sliding glass doors.
Posted by atroll2 on February 28, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, finally we are moving forward after four long, long years with a wonderful project and a great group of dedicated builders. My congratulations to Mr. Gorian for hanging in there with us, who live and care so much about the Westside of Ventura, four years and we have not broken ground. Now we are told that we had to give up our affordable townhomes at a time when Ventura needs quality housing for so many. We did look carefully at the Willits property. We did talk to Mrs. Willits and her neighbor who grew up next door and played in the home and on the grounds. The home has been modernized and moved from its original location. The builders were willing to move the home to another location and to give the home to the Conservancy. I am sure that this project will still be a wonderful one. One, the entire City of Ventura can be proud of. The shame is the time frame it takes to get anything done on the Westside and the cost to developers. The developers were always willing to name the street after the Willits family and to put in a special park setting with a plaque telling the history of this property and the family that lived their dreams there. They were also willing to save some of the trees. Now all will move forward, hopefully. Four deserving and hard working families will not be able to move into this wonderful area because of the loss of the affordable units. We need to pay respect to our past and to honor those that came before us. There has got to be an easier and faster way than to sue the City and delete housing that is so desperately needed in Ventura. Hopefully this will be the last time that the City, developers and the Conservancy will be at odds. Lets all work together in the very beginning so that future projects will move forward in a timely manner and that we will be able to continue to honor our past without limiting our ability to take care of today while looking forward to Ventura’s future.
Sincerely,
ST
Posted by Spinocity on February 29, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"...won city approval to build 120 detached homes, 36 condominiums and 50 seniors-only affordable apartments ..."
The relocated Willett buildings will not be donated to the Conservancy, they will be moved, restored, and sold by the developer. The affordable senior housing was not affected. The 36 townhomes were reduced to 32, then add the 4 Willett Ranch buildings. The affordability mix on the project did not change as a result of this lawsuit.
Posted by juandeveras on February 29, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Town homes are one thing, condominiums are a second thing, and affordable apartments are a third thing. No one has specified whether the townhomes are condominiums or affordable apartments for the sake of this discussion. I assumed that townhomes were affordable apartments [ reporters are frequently vague ]. Spinocity assumes townhomes are condominiums.
Posted by Spinocity on March 3, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't assume.
Posted by juandeveras on March 3, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So where are the settlement terms of this matter posted for public viewing ?
Posted by kind1 on March 10, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
uhhh, where is "B" Street in Ventura? They said they were moving the houses to: B and Cameron streets which I could not find on mapquest. You know there was a house on Bristol Road, very near the Barranca, not far from the limonaria, that is now on the top of Palm St. above of Main Street,in Ventura, which sat on Santa Clara and Ventura Avenue for years and years before it got moved and remodeled. Now it looks like any other house on that block and has lost the charm and history of it's own and original location as one of the original houses of Montalvo. Just cuz you move it, and preserve, does not mean you are giving our local history the respect and honor it deserves. I hear the land where where the Vatican sits is worth a lot of money - as far as real estate goes. Could we move it please? I want to build there.
Posted by Spinocity on April 14, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"B" street in this case is a temporary placeholder name for the streets inside this project. It is important not to move resources whenever possible, and if as a last resort, as short a distance as possible. In this case less than 100 yards from their original location. On the same parcel.
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.
There are 10 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.