Subcommittee weighs outreach approach as waterfront Notice of Availability opens 60-day response window

Jennifer Nance, communications manager and public information officer for the City of Ventura, presented a three-part outreach framework to the economic development subcommittee, asking members to help set no more than three measurable objectives, name primary and secondary audiences, and select engagement tactics tied to those outcomes.

Nance framed outreach options using the International Association for Public Participation spectrum — from providing information to fully empowering residents — and urged a targeted approach that ties engagement methods to clear objectives. "We're trying to make sure that we use industry practices whenever we can," she said.

The staff presentation came as the city released a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the waterfront property on June 4. The NOA starts a 60-day response period that staff said ends Aug. 3; if responses arrive, the city may begin up to a 90-day negotiation period with eligible respondents. Staff said they will update the subcommittee after the 60-day window and the next subcommittee meeting is scheduled for Aug. 20.

Members and public commenters urged setting clear parameters before running an open-ended public process. One public commenter said the city should "already know what our vision is" so developer outreach does not simply solicit a spread of competing ideas. Several council members and commenters pressed staff to complete or secure technical work first, including an ALTA survey, environmental site assessment, biological study, geotechnical study and sea-level-rise analysis, arguing those studies would define what is feasible before public debate. "I don't think we're ready to start the public process because I don't think we've finished the diligence process," a member of the subcommittee said.

Staff responded that some studies are typically undertaken by proposals from private respondents and that limited city resources make doing every study up front infeasible. "Water studies tend to be when the developer comes in; they do the water study," Nance said, while acknowledging the subcommittee's request for more baseline data and committing to coordinate with community development and public works to identify what the city can reasonably compile before broader outreach.

Speakers also raised site-specific constraints: a nearby pump station and coastal exposure, and the condition of a prominent parking structure. Staff told the subcommittee there is an existing condition assessment estimating roughly $2.3 million to $2.8 million in repairs to keep the parking structure usable; staff said they would make that study available to the public web page for the waterfront project.

On sequencing and stakeholder selection, several members recommended starting outreach conversations with environmental organizations (for example, surf and coastal groups) to identify hard limits, then convening a small stakeholder committee representing tourism/hospitality, business groups, sports and community councils to walk through trade-offs. Staff said they will compile the subcommittee's suggested audience list and return with a proposal.

The subcommittee also discussed measures to increase transparency and a clear feedback loop so residents can see how their input shapes decisions. Nance said staff will prioritize a dedicated web page, links to relevant studies, and interim signage to clarify "what is it today and what it is not" to reduce misinformation.

Next steps: staff will post the NOA responses when they arrive, provide links to relevant technical studies (including the parking-structure assessment), and return to the subcommittee after the 60-day NOA window (the next subcommittee meeting is scheduled for Aug. 20).