Not enough of a buffer for owl
Re: your Oct. 2 story, “Owl rescued from Ventura’s Cemetery Park released into wild”:
While reading the story on the successful owl release of the Cemetery Park owl, I was taken aback by some responses from Chris Eksteen from Ojai Raptor Center. He blamed the community for having to take in an owl and the wasted money at rehabbing a healthy bird.
The community was doing exactly what any community would do, watch with interest.
The mistake made was not setting up a large enough buffer. Typically, 500 foot is the standard. I am a state biologist, and this has worked successfully numerous times. There was probably a reluctance to take that much park out of use is all.
As to cost, it would be a nice gesture if the city paid for this bird’s costs. Glad
it turned out well.
Paul Caron, Ventura
Where did low-income units go?
As someone who has followed the 211 Thompson luxury apartment — and now luxury condominium — project for several years, I was very disappointed to learn that the developer has removed the 13 low- and very-low-income rental units and instead plans to offer eight moderately priced units for sale.
This is a significant change from what was originally presented to the community. One reason the project received support from members of both the Planning Commission and the Ventura City Council was the inclusion of affordable rental housing. Removing those units fundamentally changes the public benefit that helped justify the project’s approval.
Who does this change serve?
The project is located near the San Buenaventura Mission and historic homes and has already raised concerns about its impact on Ventura’s character, as well as views of the ocean and surrounding hillsides. The affordable rental units were intended to provide a meaningful public benefit by helping lower-income residents live near where they work. Replacing 13 low- and very-low-income rentals with just eight moderately priced units for purchase does not appear to provide the same benefit.
There was substantial public opposition to this project from the beginning. For those of us who followed the approval process, the affordable housing component was an important part of the project’s overall public benefit. Its removal is deeply concerning.
Going forward, the city should consider safeguards to ensure that major changes to affordable-housing commitments cannot be made after approval without meaningful public review. When fundamental elements of a project change, the city should reassess whether the original approval — and the public benefits that supported it — remain appropriate.
This type of bait-and-switch approach to development does not serve any income level resident of Ventura.
Scott Spencer, Ventura
This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Issue with owl response, upset about low-income exclusion | Letters
