NEIGHBORHOOD APPEALTo Reject the

FREENY SENIOR GROUP CARE FACILITY

Proposed for Telegraph Road & Ivy Street

PRESENTED BY

Bob Schilken

• On behalf of the Walnut Park Residents

• Consisting of approximately 100 single family households

OBJECTIVE

• Summarize two years of development in 10 minutes.

• Address the issues that surround this project.

• Present the concerns of the neighbors/families that will be directly affected by facility.

TIME LINE

• Project in-the-works in 2007.

• However, the neighborhood was not notified until final approval stages on July 21, 2009.

• First impression: – Good! Will need more Senior Housing – Will replace an abandon house and clean up an eyesore that has been

next to the neighborhood for years.• However, the reality was quite different

REALITY OF THE PROJECT• Invasion of neighborhood with a 42,000 square foot, 4 story

building right IN, not next to the neighborhood

• It is a commercial business supplying services, not a residence or apartment complex

• It is a massive structure on a small, awkward lot that is overbearing for the given area.

• It is an inappropriate use of land that results in the devastation of the neighborhood character

WALNUT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD

• Over 60 year old• Well established, well maintained• Model neighborhood – 4 Generations of Family,

Little traffic, children, safe• It makes no sense to destroy the character and

integrity of such a defined neighborhood with an inappropriate structure and the misuse of land.

PLANNING COMMISSION• Due to the lack of public input, the PC inquired with the applicants at a

previous meeting and directly asked if the residents were informed and okay with the project.. The response was “Yes”.

• Planning commission realized that this was not the case and was quite

surprised that a mass of residents were suddenly involved at the final stage of approvals.

• Due to the public opposition, the PC asked the Applicants to redesign the project with community involvement.

• Neighborhood request and planning commission agreed. 1. Limit the structure to the Telegraph Road property ONLY to keep the

neighborhood in tact.2. No access from neighborhood3. Reduce the size to be compatible with surroundings.

RESULTS• 1 year of discussions two attempts at adjusting the shape

• Still left with 4 story building that is totally too large for the area

• Back in 2008 the planning commission said such – see handout

• A compromise could not be met, therefore it was passed on to City Council for final consideration.

PLANNING ISSUES• No one was informed of the project at the beginning stages

• There was no input by the residents affected during critical decision making

• It was acknowledged by the Planning Commission that:1. QUOTE: “Missteps were taken by the PC to not actively engaging the

community from the beginning, otherwise we would not be here today”.

2. QUOTE: “We don’t want the to happen in the future”.

3. Director of Development: “Your case is now the poster child for what to do and what NOT to do regarding future projects”.

PROJECT ISSUES

• Height variance – Telegraph sidewalk already 8 feet above neighborhood!!

• Setback variance – not compatible with anything within ¼ mile

• Lot Coverage variance – defies common sense for R1 zoning and is unacceptable when placed inside Single Family Residence.

• Unwillingness to scale the project properly for the neighborhood

• Mis-information on use, drawings, and neighborhood involvement

• Taking away the characteristics that make neighborhood attractive.

• Years of momentum not easily reversed.

NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNSDozens of issues presented by neighbors • The permit for an “active senior group facility” was never fully understood

although many attempts were made to obtain information for a better understanding.

• Due to the denial of the Business Plan, many questions went unanswered such as:1. Since this is not an “Assisted Living” complex, How will you market to active seniors (55

and older) who wish to give up their vehicles and kitchens to live in a dorm like setting? 2. How will the facility restrict vehicles to residents?3. What are the long-term goals if the senior group care facility fails?

• Traffic Control• Unusable building if business model fails.

However, although these are valid points and concerns, we recognize that regardless of what type of “group care” goes into the facility, once the structure is built, the damage is done.

TRAFFIC ISSUE• According to the DRC, there is too much traffic on

Telegraph.

• Requires significant red curbing for visibility, slow down, & merging.

• No other building in ¼ mile is allowed to use street parking as part of the design plan.

• Inadequate on-site parking for residents/staff/visitors/delivery vehicles/emergency vehicles/etc.

TRAFFIC DEPARTMENTIn the early stages of planning…• All of the traffic flowed onto Telegraph Road, which the Traffic Department originally rejected.

• The project was redesigned to satisfy the Traffic Dept. by allowing vehicle access on Ivy Street & Armstrong Avenue.

• The neighbors strongly opposed this, so it design reverted back to the original design with all of the access back on to Telegraph Road.

• This was great news for the residents of Walnut Park and the efforts made were appreciated, but what happened to the traffic department?

• We have come full circle with the traffic issue and we are wondering what the Traffic Dept. thinks of this now?

• Are they not required to look at the new design? Are they even aware of this issue?

• If it wasn’t acceptable then, what changed to make it acceptable now? • REFERENCE: FEB. 2008 DRC MINUTES, Pg. 2

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT• This project is Exempt from California Environmental

Quality Act – Conditional Use Permit.

• A purpose of this report is to evaluate everything we are talking about here.

• Why is it exempt?

• Why not employ the experts to address the issues?

• REFERENCE: THE DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE AMENDMENT TO ADOPT, Page 7

SMART GROWTH & INFILLCity manager directive on Smart Growth has not be met.

To QUOTE:

• “The new vision for Ventura's future focuses on "infill first.”

• “The vision of ‘smart growth’ can’t overcome the powerful forces of ‘dumb growth’ and ‘no growth’ without mobilizing an informed and active citizenry.”

• “Intelligent planning recognizes that there are ranges of appropriate densities in neighborhoods, towns and cities.”

• “The focus should instead be on accommodating our growing population by building new homes that respect neighborhood character, improve community quality of life, safeguard our standard of living and provide an alternative to traffic gridlock.”

SMART GROWTH & INFILL Continued…• This is a well established community.

• Not a vacant lot, abandoned building, or “blighted” neighborhood in need of revitalization.

• This location has not been well thought out due to the small, awkward location, limited parking, and the traffic constraints.

• It does not respect the neighborhoods character.

• It does not improve the existing community’s quality of life.

• It does not provide an alternative to traffic gridlock, but rather becomes a contributing factor.

CONCLUSION

As a compromise to the Applicants project we are hoping to meet half way by formally asking the

City Council to:

• Approve the appeal thus overturning the Planning Commission approval, but limit the applicant to a Use Permit on only the 4010 Telegraph Road property with no variances and no access to Ivy. Maintain the Property on Ivy as is with a single family dwelling.

QUESTIONS

????