Ventura council upholds approval of 75-unit Thompson Court Apartments, denies neighborhood appeal

The San Buenaventura City Council on June 30 denied an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the 75-unit Thompson Court Apartments, upholding the project by a 5-2 vote.

Staff presentations and legal advice focused on state density-bonus law and the requirements for a local "base density" calculation. Planning staff told the council the proposed project qualifies for a 50% density bonus because eight units are reserved for very-low-income households, and that the project would provide 57 covered parking spaces, rooftop and courtyard amenities and required conditions of approval. Assistant Community Development Director Maruha Klense and Planning Manager Shanna Farley summarized entitlements and told the council staff's recommendation was to deny the appeal and adopt the resolution upholding the planning commission.

"Because this project provides 8 very low income units, it qualifies for a 50% density bonus," the planning manager said during staff's presentation, noting the statutory tests for concessions and waivers and the limited circumstances under which a city may deny a bonus.

The appeal, presented by Kelly Dorsey on behalf of the San Buenaventura Tract neighborhood, argued the developer's base-density study was flawed: Dorsey said the study used an inappropriate average unit size, omitted required objective standards (including certain parking and courtyard dimensions) and therefore inflated the number of units the site could lawfully support. "If the base density is wrong, the entire project is wrong," Dorsey said, asking the council to overturn the planning commission.

Developer representatives countered that the base-density exercise is a conceptual statutory test distinct from the final buildable project. Paul Sheehan of Dyer Sheehan Group said his team had worked with staff over multiple reviews and that the design provided a feasible way to deliver the proposed number of units and eight very-low-income units dedicated for 55 years. "Our belief is that because 82% of these apartments are studios or one bedrooms, there are people who either don't want or cannot afford a car," the applicant said when asked about parking.

Public comment was extensive: the council heard more than three dozen speakers. Neighbors and technical experts raised concerns about parking spillover, narrow side streets and emergency access, shading and privacy impacts from a partial fourth floor, the timing and completeness of public notices, and questions about the completeness and timing of base-density and geotechnical materials. Housing advocates, social-service providers and several residents urged the council to allow the project to proceed, noting the city's shortage of very-low-income units and the project's eight dedicated units.

Council discussion repeatedly referenced the state standards that limit local discretion under the density-bonus and Housing Accountability Act frameworks. Several council members said they were troubled by process errors (including a missed courtesy mailing and a clarifying base-density submittal), asked the applicant to consider additional mitigations, and pressed staff on whether denial would withstand likely legal challenge. The council received verbal commitments from the applicant during a brief recess to explore increased bicycle storage and screening measures and to work with staff on construction management and neighbor protections.

Council Member Jesse Duran moved to approve staff's recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission approval; the motion was seconded by Council Member McReynolds and carried 5-2. The council directed staff to finalize the resolution with the corrected exhibit referenced in the supplemental packet and to incorporate follow-up conditions and negotiations with the applicant on screening, bicycle parking and construction controls.

What the decision does and what comes next

The upheld approval allows the project to proceed to the building-permit/plan-check stage, subject to the conditions of approval the council adopted and to further plan-check review (including final geotechnical and engineering details). The eight very-low-income units the council cited in staff presentations will be subject to a recorded covenant to maintain affordability for 55 years, staff said.

The council's action reflects the tension local governments face between state housing-production mandates and neighborhood concerns about scale, parking and safety. Opponents said they plan to consider whether to pursue additional legal remedies; proponents said the project provides modest but important additions to very-low-income housing stock.

The council adjourned with instructions for staff and the applicant to continue negotiating targeted mitigation measures for neighbors while the project advances to permit review.