Ventura ad hoc’s plan to remake advisory groups draws preservationist pushback

The committee on committees reviewed an ad hoc report that would rename most advisory groups as commissions, move many bodies to district-based appointments and change meeting frequencies — proposals the ad hoc members said would streamline staff time and strengthen council-commission ties. Staff presented slides proposing some changes to take effect Jan. 1, 2027, and recommended that the Design Review Committee (DRC) and Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) be folded into the Planning Commission once objective design standards are adopted.

Preservation advocates and several public commenters said the changes would weaken technical oversight and reduce transparency. "If your objectives and goals today are bad design, less transparency, less public input, less accountability, or historic property degradation, then disbanding DRC and HPC are a step in that direction," said Steven Schafer, president of the San Buenaventura Conservancy. He urged keeping a seven-member HPC of trained preservation professionals and updating the preservation ordinance rather than subsuming those duties under generalist commissioners.

Historic preservation experts who spoke warned that DRC and HPC provide distinct technical reviews — architectural design and preservation assessments — that are not interchangeable. Ann Houston, a historian and former National Park Service employee, told the committee Ventura's archaeological and historic resources warrant subject-matter review and recommended preserving separate expert panels or elevating them to commissions. "Handing off the duties of the Historic Preservation Committee and the Design Review Committee to the Planning Commission does a disservice, both to the Planning Commission and to the city as a whole," she said.

Ad hoc members defended the changes as practical responses to process limits set by state law and to staff workload. Committee members said many advisory meetings produced no agendized items and that the ad hoc estimated roughly 27 staff hours per commission meeting. They argued district-based appointments could speed recruitment and strengthen direct council-commission relationships, and they emphasized that the application process itself would remain unchanged even if appointments became district based.

City staff said the proposals are intended to preserve oversight while reducing redundant hearings. Rachel Deivan, community development director, said objective design standards (ODS) under development would apply to multifamily, mixed-use and commercial projects — not single-family or industrial projects — and that staff would use ODS to assess ministerial compliance. She also told the committee that state density-bonus rules allow projects providing affordable units on-site to seek concessions and waivers, which can affect how ODS are applied.

The committee made no final decision. Instead it asked staff to return with additional information, including examples from other jurisdictions that combine preservation and design review functions, caseload numbers (landmark and Mills Act applications per year), and any CEQA implications of structural changes. The city attorney was asked to review whether charter provisions affecting port or other outside-body appointments conflict with state Harbors and Navigation Code language. The ad hoc's recommendations will be returned to the committee for further consideration and may be forwarded to the full council.