Ventura City Council Meeting

October 18, 2010

Reporters swarm City Hall as controversy over Private Sumner's eternal resting place is all but sealed -- Council denies request for disinterment of the American hero's remains while optimg to partially correct the problem by pledging a memorial makeover in Cemetery Park.

To View a listing of the agenda items for this council meeting, go to www.cityofventura.net/meeting/city-council-meeting-15

Mayor Fulton brought the meeting to order, directing the city clerk to call the roll – all present. The mayor then asked that the council and spectators stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

For Library Week – October 17 -- 23, Kathy Thompson, President of the Friends of the Library organization which runs the bookshop at Foster Library, and which raises $100,000 yearly to support the bookshop collection, was presented with a Certificate of Achievement. Kathy thanked the mayor and spoke saying that she was grateful for all that the Friends have done over the last 40 years. The Friends began in 1969 and have donated millions of dollars to Ventura libraries through foundations. Their mission is to raise and donate funds for library programs, construction of libraries and the distribution of information. Kathy invited every member of Ventura to become a member of the Friends of the Library.

The Mayor introduced Tom Balker and the Ventura Deep Six Relay team. The team broke the open water swimming record by swimming 202 miles, beginning in Ventura, then to Santa Barbara, San Diego and back. The swimming team received a standing ovation from the city council and spectators.

Mike McConnell spoke, saying that the water was 54°, and that they encountered jellyfish along the way. He said that there was never a moment of doubt among the six of them that they would finish the swim. Mike thanked the entire city for its work on the water park.

Honoring the Tri-County Easter Seals – Sixth Anniversary – the mayor presented Mary and the Tri-County Easter Seals with the City Council's Certificate of Achievement. Easter Seals serves over 1000 children and adults each season, improving the quality of life of our community. Mary said later that 2000 individuals are now treated. A warm water aquatic pool is used in therapy, which greatly helps children with special needs. An open house is upcoming for the group.

The national alliance on mental illness – Sally, Lou and Carol spoke, thanking the community for their support for mental illness programs. Sally reminded everyone that mental illness is treatable.

Summerfest as an annual event won the Governors Award on physical fitness. Debbi spoke for several Summerfest members, saying that physical fitness is one of the highlights of summer activities. On behalf of the Board of Education, Debbi spoke thanking the city. Business sponsors include the boys clubs, the girls clubs and many other participating groups.

Closed session report – PGE underground versus San Buenaventura -- no reportable actions.

City Council Communications – Councilman Monahan spoke, noting that the golf outing on November 5 at the Seabee golf course is held in support of veterans. The Gold Coast Veterans Foundation can be called or looked up online for more information.

This Saturday is the Kinetic Sculpture Race, as announced by Councilman Andrews, where human powered vehicles launch in a race that traverses land, water and even mud. The event is free, and benefits Ventura County mental illness programs. The vehicles line up at 9:30 a.m. at the launch ramp facility in Ventura Harbor.

Save the date of November 13 – the League of Women Voters will sponsor a program related to the homeless in the Ventura County Board of Education Conference Center in Camarillo.

Council Member Weir hoped that everyone got to enjoy the Art Walk this past weekend. She noted that the restaurants were full. She also encouraged people to visit the Foster Library, and also that the bike path along the Surfer’s Point beachfront area is being rebuilt.

Helen Destin, a longtime resident, passed away this week with Deputy Mayor Tracy asking that the meeting be adjourned in her name.

Regional Boards, Commissions and Committees – no reportable items.

City Manager's Report – the mayor asked Michael Powers from the Ventura County Health Care Agency to issue his report along with congratulations for the opening of the new hospital building. Mr. Powers presented an overview:

Hospital Division – setting the standard in providing comprehensive, compassionate, cost effective care. Item No.2 -- the VCMC regional health system comprises two hospitals 14 community clinics, and 16 specialty clinics, including the Kaiser building. Public health plans include five clinics.

The scope of services includes 1.7 million client contacts with a staff of over 3000 including 300 physicians. At the hospital itself there are in-house physician services and emergency services. A medical home program includes a link to physicians. A teaching institution – includes family medicine residency, affiliated with UCLA making it the largest in the state. A teaching institution includes a nurse training program associated with Ventura College. The quality of care is overseen by board certified physicians, which means that the system is “not a typical county hospital.” 298,000 patients are served each year.

A new facility – the Family Medicine Residency and Specialty Care center – is a five floor facility that includes residency, pediatric, oncology, adult hematology and diabetic treatment. Alcohol and drug programs are included, along with immunization programs, health care for kids programs, family planning, public health, and laboratory services.

The One-Stop Center for the Homeless, which was opened January 2008, provides homeless walk-in services. In one week alone they saw four new cancer patients arrive at the hospital in need of continued chemotherapy treatment. They're in the process of implementing electronic health records also,

Council Member Communications – Council Member Morehouse spoke to the CMH As a great economic engine for the city and the county.

City Council Consent Items – with nine items, the mayor read the list of items (see agenda items).

Public Communications – the mayor asked if any items would be pulled, and there were none.

La Donna Martinez spoke on item number six – Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality and Surface Transportation Program Funds. These were issues that she felt the city council should not be spending their time on. Her feeling was that this money should be spent protecting bike riders who are in jeopardy with the narrowness of lanes and the lanes that end abruptly in specific locations, leaving the riders with no place to go other than to merge with fast-moving automobile traffic.

Chuck Morrison spoke on Agenda Items Nos. 7 &8. The Beacon Award for Local Leadership Toward Solving Climate Change is a result of bad science, according to him, and one that “we need to put behind us.” In speaking of climate change, he noted that over time temperatures rise and fall. (He did not, it should be noted, go back more than 10,000 years in his basic timeline.) “If human activity is responsible,” he said, “laws and regulations that make it harder for humans to live make the law unconscionable.” He referenced the climate on Mars. He called climate change false science and scare tactics. “With regard to the cap on Highway 101,” he said, “we need to reconsider this cap.”

The speaker mentioned McDonald's Corp., saying that in order to vitalize Ventura we need to make Ventura an attractive place, suggesting, it would seem, that the greater the number of McDonald’s in an area, the more attractive the area becomes. “When government chooses, it usually chooses poorly,” he said, referring to the restrictive ordinances that may be placed on new businesses near the auto Center.

Brian Rencher spoke saying he supported Agenda Items Nos. 1 through 9, but specified that on Item No. 5, with Hopkins as the administrator for water quality, it would be desirable to determine how much is being spent with this one contractor. He said that Hopkins has worked with the city for years and is doing a generally good job. He awaits the new information that is forthcoming.

He ran through several other items saying that he trusts Staff recommendations on these items. One of Ventura Redevelopment Agency’s items was spoken to by Mr. Rencher -- bonds for the Municipal Affordable Housing Project – the CDEC stated that service on the bonds, when in an aggregate amount in excess of $316,000, would require the approval of the government governing agency body. He noted that the issuance of the bonds has been delayed, meaning that the city must conduct a new public hearing because of the delay. It was his claim that we will be giving $1.7 million in redevelopment agency funds toward 60 units meaning that $460,000 apiece will be the cost for the public housing unit.

He wondered who is making all this money. He hoped it wasn’t being misspent by going into local officials’ private reelection campaigns. At least one prior project required only $30,000 per unit to complete, he noted.

With public comment on consent items completed, Mr. Brennan moved that the council approve items 1 through 10. The roll was taken all members voting yes – the measure passed.

Item No. 11 – Jeff Lambert, Community Development Director, made a few statements. Sid made the offer to the council. The property behind the Cineplex theater and behind the Bank of America Building -- property that was run by the city and the redevelopment agency -- is property was given up to adjacent property owner who could therefore submit (in the owner participation process) a method for bringing in the property. The Incorporation of the Bank of America property into a larger development scheme has always been a viable option. Then in August of 2009 an unsolicited proposal was submitted to the redevelopment agency and the city. On August 13, 2009 adjacent property owners were notified of their rights under the rules. In December 2009 letters were sent to interested respondents notifying them of the proposal date.

Owner participation continued – two owner participants have provided development proposals. Both appear to be consistent with the downtown specific plan. The Watermark Hotel and Residences are considered the preferred development.

The properties at Chestnut and Main, bordered on the north by Poli street, have come under consideration via a six-month Exclusive Negotiating Agreements (ENA) clause. If at the end of two years, following an acceptable Participation Agreement and if the design can be completed within 18 months, the DNA will agree to participate in a six-month extension and may be granted at the city’s option. The recommendation is to approve and authorize the city manager to enter into a negotiation agreement for the Watermark Hotel and Residences Development project.

Council Communications – Council Member Brennan spoke, wanting to clarify whether there were two reviews or only one on the table. Answer -- only one of the proposals is being considered as a recommendation by Staff at this time.

Deputy Mayor Tracy endeavored to better understand who comprised the RFP committee. Staff reported that there were two proposals which came from the staff manager level, wanting to know if this meant that there were no members from the public in the participation process. This was answered in the affirmative. Pursuant to redevelopment laws, an agency that owns a piece of property can receive an unsolicited proposal to develop that property. The agency is mandated to under those rules to notify the existing property owners in terms of a “letter of interest” for their counterproposal.

The deputy mayor questioned further whether or not the alternate development proposal could be selected by the council beyond the proposal being recommended. This was answered in the affirmative.

The “condo development” and the “hotel development” was Council Member Weir's syntax for the proposal. The hotel development was the staff's preferred development, she said, wondering what happened to the condo developer’s plan. Staff said that both parties were consulted and that one of the plans was preferred by Staff over the other. Council Member Weir noted that the preferred developer received more Staff time than did the other. Council Member Weir also wondered whether or not this was typical – when two competing interests are not brought to the council on an equal footing. Staff said that in the past, the council has preferred that the staff bring in the preferred proposal only.

“Was the alternative proposal planner given equal time?” the councilwoman asked. The answer was, “Not in this case.”

Council Member Morehouse spoke also asking for clarification on the choices. He wondered if the council could go ahead with the plan that was not recommended. Staff said that the council could also propose to “do nothing.”

“That,” the council member noted, “would be the equivalent of the tail wagging the dog,” when the smaller participant obtains a recommendation.

Staff said that a six month performance measure could be included. A longer timeframe expansion of six months could be requested by the council to try to include the Bank of America larger proposal.

Public Communications – six members of the Watermark appeared before the city council – Mark Harvey presented a DVD presentation that introduced himself and the co-developer David Thomas. The AV presentation (six minutes) began, illustrating the proposal in the light of Ventura's history and its historical context. The remainder of the sales pitch included artists renderings showing the potentially advantageous aspects of providing a new hotel in the location now occupied on the property. Activities typical of the kinds of functions offered by hoteliers was shown, including such things as meeting rooms and other amenities.

Sandy Smith, representing Georgino Development, spoke, saying that he was not there to attack the other project or any individual associated with it, saying they were simply comments on the process. He wished to take issue with the staff report wondering what prompted verbal notification of the recommendations and subsequent approval while the process was still in front of the city council. He claimed that a letter was sent out making it official his interest in bringing this project forward. The speaker noted that Mr. Giorgino opposes the project at this point in time. He said that the developer under consideration is not a local organization, but one based in Los Angeles. He claimed that his proposal is one of greater certainty, and adhering to guideline. The speaker also mentioned a litany of reasons why Georgino project is a superior plan. He noted that he preferred a six-month extended proposal.

Council Member Andrews spoke noting that there is a provision in the Watermark proposal with respect to the Bank of America saying that the city will be on the hook for $1.6 million incentive to the Bank of America.

Brian Rencher spoke on behalf of the Redevelopment Project saying that he supported Staff recommendations for many reasons. He noted Parcels 15, 16 and 18 when under a similar project went sour when the developer said “trust me.” Mr. Rencher said he did not want to make the same mistake again. He noted that the Bank of America property is a Proposition 13” property, and that Bank of America simply wants to be “made whole” with a $1.6 million payoff. Mr. Rencher claimed that Mr. Georgino has already had his “bite of the Apple.” The people with Watermark are well-known, local and reliable, Mr. Rencher said.

Randall Richmond, a property owner downtown, said that he was not a fan of exclusive negotiating agreements. He said he might get a refundable fee “fiat” by going with new developments personnel, but the exclusive negotiating agreement for six months makes it non-competitive.

The mayor asked whether Jeff agreed that among the options were to do nothing, or not make a decision at this time.

Council Member Monahan asked Staff if the city had negotiated with Bank of America. The answer – no. Mr. Monahan wondered if it would not be beneficial. Staff said that the six-month process would not be a long enough time. Mr. Monahan wondered if the city could notify Bank of America of a decision to condemn the property.

Council Member Brennan spoke, Noting that he is acquainted with all members on both sides, and that the decision will be a “tough one.” He noted that when a letter went out to Juan Martinez, the reply came back indicating that they did not care to be part of the deal. The councilman believed that the process has not been as “clean” as it might be. He asked Jeff to clarify on how the process went forward on the 1.6 million.

Jeff said that in no way did Staff predispose the council to $1.6 million as an incentive on the property. If the Watermark couldn't bring the Bank of America to the table, it would indicate a more clear and transparent playing field if another six-month negotiating process were to take place.

Jeff indicated that both parties were already adequately informed of the proposal.

Council Member Morehouse, also claiming to be acquainted with the Watermark team, noted that he is “process oriented.” He wished to clarify a slight “pickup” in the process, with the thing that bothered him being the fact that the city owns the property, and it is city participation, including public participation, which has not been performed, feeling that the full process as performed when land-use is involved requires greater thinking.

Council Member Andrews noted that in the staff report emphasis was on financial capability, organizational management structure, professional capability, professional design concept, and the positive economic impact to the city. From the councilman's perspective both developers have exhibited those characteristics. He wished to know what were the deciding factors.

Jeff stated that the Terraces proposal represented a project with more simplicity, while the Watermark proposal was “more exciting.” Mr. Andrews asked whether Staff felt that the economic impact of the Watermark project would be greater.

Jeff did not feel that that was true, saying that “both were pretty equal” noting that one was potentially more do-able than the other. On further questioning, however, Jeff seemed to backtrack saying that economic impact was in fact a driving consideration.

Councilman Andrews continued his questioning, noting that he was having trouble with the compelling nature of the Bank of America property. Jeff replied that a significant corner with a one-story bank building was not effective use of a busy property. Mr. Andrews noted that proposals have been lost in the past for this area, suggesting that the property owner doesn't want to “play ball” without monetary incentive.

Jeff said that the Watermark proposal had a better chance of bringing the Bank of America property into the plan. Mr. Andrews requested further a clarification over the $1.6 million incentive. Mr. Andrews noted that what is amounting to in the proposal is that the city will build the Bank of America a new bank building in that location.

“What is your expectation for the Watermark property proposal actually occurring within six months, and not two or three years,” asked the councilman. Mr. Andrews noted that the terms shall include financial terms and “any other element deal points required by the bank.” He then noted that it's not clear whether there are any other requirements. When Jeff said that those were the paragraphs just read back to to him by the council member, Councilman Andrews agreed, saying that the terms were “not tight enough” for him.

Deputy Mayor Tracy noted that the staff report implied that the Watermark proposal is an optional piece to the project from the council's point of view.

“Originally the proposal was opened as an option,” replied staff, which indicated that they could get Bank of America to agree. The deputy mayor wondered what specifically made it clear that this project will bring Bank of America into the development.

Staff replied that this was the primary principle – that Bank of America would participate. Deputy Mayor Tracy noted that 90 hotel units and 80 resident units could bring into question whether having emphasis on rental units as opposed to home ownership units would be wise. He felt that people invested in downtown living rather than temporary occupancy would be the more favorable of the two offerings. He wondered whether valuations had been done along those lines.

Staff replied that they have relied on the developer, noting that the “smart center” makes sense, and that in an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (Fast Track) pushes market studies, environmental impacts, and many other processes farther down the line.

The deputy mayor asked if the project might be modified to include a “less dense” proposal. Staff replied those considerations could drive fewer units. “It is not uncommon to have the developer provide a comprehensive study,” Jeff said. The deputy mayor noted that with council members and the mayor being involved with both sides and their representatives, the decision may be difficult. He then made a motion to authorize the city manager as executive director to enter into exclusive negotiations with Georgino. A second was obtained from Mr. Monahan.

The mayor wondered if the Watermark proposal fell within the city’s density guidelines -- receiving the reply as in the affirmative.

Council Member Weir asked whether the condo developer is ready to move forward and if he has the wherewithal to build this project. The answer was yes. Staff noted that both have provided “pro forma” proposals. The Councilwoman desired to review a slide which showed a baseline of the property, feeling that the city owns the property and that it should be up to the city council to decide what to do with the property. She asked whether there would be anything to prevent the council from approving a condo project on the city property and that if at a later time a hotel project could be considered. Staff said there may be the problem of joining projects not designed together.

The councilwoman reiterated the fact that the council should be issuing the criteria which includes condos, the replacement of parking facilities and pedestrian friendly frontages on California and Main. “After seeing the condo proposal” the councilwoman believed that those factors best fills the council's requirements. She said basically that she was endorsing the condo proposal.

Council Member Morehouse spoke to the motion, saying that Staff is performing as expected, but the major property owner on this corner may not have had adequate time. He believed that it was in the “fabric of the town” to have a hotel downtown, believing that there would be a pedestrian draw and a tourism draw to the area. He believed that if a proposal for the hotel were to come around, he would approve “right away.”

Council Member Brennan indicated that he would love to see a full presentation from the Terraces project, but he believed that something should come back from both developers. He seemed to be leaning toward bringing proposals back in another 60 days. He seemed to desire a more transparent process.

Jeff noted that on November 22 both parties could be brought to the council for speaking, meaning that a continuance of 30 days would represent still another option. The mayor noted that this was not currently the motion.

The roll was taken with all members except Andrews and Monahan voting no – the measure failed.

A new vote was taken to extend until November 22 – the roll was taken with all members voting yes and the measure passing.

After a 10 minute break, the mayor moved the agenda on to Agenda Item No. 12, the Ten Year Strategy to End Homelessness Update, introducing Peter Brown who noted that they have reached the six month mark in the Safe Sleep program. Staff recommendations – receive a staff report regarding the ten-year strategy – direct the council to prioritize as “low, medium or high” the recommendations in the ten-year strategy – direct the council to return within 100 days its priority recommendations.

The ad hoc committee was transferred to a standard committee and a subcommittee on homelessness. Councilman Andrews spoke noting that on prior occasions, programs such as the Kingdom Center and issues related to the shelter raised questions asking what role the committee should play in terms of stronger leadership. He also noted that the committee agreed to accept the task of prioritizing elements of the ten-year plan at that time.

There was never the expectation that every city would find every recommendation in the ten-year plan appropriate, speaking of cities in Ventura county in this case, Mr. Brown said. The Ventura Social Services Task Force has repeatedly asked the council to assert leadership in the siting of a shelter and determining appropriate facilities -- to include overcoming NIMBYism. Council's posture should be in setting priorities, but what, if any, additional roles are within the council's purview in solving problems?

Mr. Brown spoke to the statistics of the Safe Sleep program noting that there were two original sites with 21 individuals being served in the program. Two faith-based organization parking lots have not generated calls for service nor have they generated complaints. He noted that funding was for one year only, beginning in March 2010 and will expire in March 2011. The Salvation Army facility has stepped forward to join the program. A potentially fatal flaw appeared in the form of the third applicant, meaning that the more comprehensive the neighborhood outreach becomes, the more likely that a faith-based parking lot will be included.

Mr. Brown suggested that the city has not adequately instructed the public as to “who is a homeless person in Ventura.” He went ahead to mention safe sleep details – 100 feet from residential properties private lots only, not visible from public rights of way, PD community services and Salvation Army participation, indicating also that these were guidelines only.

A partial list of activities included – the Homelessness One-Stop, River Haven, El Patio, the Kingdom Center, the Harbor Community Church and the homeless count, among several others. He mentioned that the Winter Warming Shelter will be held at the Oxnard Armory this year, opening December through March and operated by Ventura, Oxnard and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. He noted that 11,000 bed-nights are anticipated, including 400 men, 100 women in 20 children (estimated)

The newest potential project is a proposed Gateway Project, to include Project Understanding, the Turning Point, Under One Roof concept, the Emergency Shelter proposal, Transitional Living, Sober Center, along with drop-in and support services.

Staff recommendations include directing the Council Homeless Committee to work with Staff and the community to prioritize the recommendations in the 10-year strategy as either high, medium or low -- also to direct the Council Homelessness Committee and Staff to return to Council within 180 days with prioritized recommendations, including the limitation action plans for those recommendations that are prioritized as high and medium.

Council Member Andrews spoke, stating that we have had a very successful couple of years, doing a marvelous job of focusing on these issues. It shows that 145 households have been saved over the two year period, speaking of those who become homeless every year or the “newly homeless.” He mentioned also that 94 additional units for low-cost housing have been brought on line with another similar number in the pipeline. He mentioned that the number of people who have become homeless in this economic downturn has doubled over that of previous years.

The councilman noted that the Safe Sleep program has also been a success, with not a single police action or activity having taken place. The River Haven project was praised.

Council Member Brennan spoke asking for elaboration on the Cape Wind project. Mr. Brown mentioned the Glendale/Pasadena model, noting the infrastructure advantages in that area by centralizing the many pieces of the program. He noted that the final design of any physical structure in the Gateway project will be a critical part of the plan.

The Salvation Army, as noted by Mr. Brennan, will remain a major player in the 10-year program.

Council Member Morehouse felt that with multiple levels of homeless, he prefers not to hand cash to a panhandler, but rather a flyer prepared by the city. The homeless that hold up signs were one of his concerns, suggesting that without rounding people up as in Nazi Germany, how do we transition people to a location such as Kingdom Center (even while they are altered states). “How do we handle the ones who scare everybody,” he asked.

[Comment – What if you tried talking to them, councilman? You might find that they’re not nearly as scary as you fear. 99% of what we fear most comes from an unwillingness to open up and communicate.]

Mr. Brown noted that there is an escalation of tensions between those who are chronically homeless and the rest of the community. He noted that public services are already scarce and while there are those who need a “hand up” some agencies are under funded. The feeling among many is that they are not looking for that hand up, but instead a “handout” which Mr. Brown acknowledged as being a tension causing problem especially in Ventura.

An alternative such as taking people to jail costs around $135 a day, whereas a homeless shelter would allow persons to receive treatment and fulfill other needs. Mr. Brown felt that a legal solution cannot be discounted. Deputy Mayor Tracy noted that the county is the general purveyor of homelessness services, and wondered why the county is not taking the lead in location issues and others as well.

Mr. Brown noted that 12 years ago our association with the county was “incredibly acrimonious” which always ended with one party leaving the room in anger. He claimed to have heard that something like the Gateway Project would not result in siting of a project such as this other than in an unincorporated area. He noted that Ventura was the leader in dealing with the county in over with the Rain Project.

Council Member Monahan wondered what percentage of the homeless are veterans. Mr. Brown said it's 30 to 50% of the homeless population, if not greater. There are 125 chronically homeless, according to Mr. Brown. Mr. Monahan stated that an agency exists in Ventura to teach job skills to homeless people specifically veterans, and wondered if Mr. Brown was aware of this. Mr. Brown admitted that he was not, but said that among chronically homeless veterans, very few would be incapable of holding down a job. He thought that the County Veterans Services office would be aware of this third-party.

Public Communications – the first speaker was Melody Baker who characterized the report just given as “hogwash.” She noted that no one in a wheelchair is allowed transportation with the other homeless, again noting that ADA guidelines and laws are not being followed. The Kingdom Center is not ADA compliant, nor is River Haven conducive to wheelchair use. She noted that the Winter Warming shelter does not accommodate wheelchair participants.

Bill Finley spoke to the Safe Sleep program. His duties include a special call number to be used only with problems involving the Safe Sleep program, and according to him he has never had to use the number. He notes that NIMBYism is one of the greater problems associated with any plan designed to help the homeless. He noted that most -- as many as 70% -- are from Ventura. It was his belief that as long as poverty in this country continues to rise, the system will not be able to rely on “stopgap” measures.

Deborah Schreiber, Executive Secretary of the Ventura Homelessness Task Force read a letter to the Council. The letter emphasized the need for more homelessness support programs, and that shelter beds should be seen as a high priority. She credited the Salvation Army but expressed the hope that greater participation and solutions would be forthcoming. On November 13 from 9:00 a.m. to noon, the League of Women Voters of Ventura County is hosting a fourm at the Board of Education office, 1500 Adolfo Road, Camarillo. She encouraged participation with the one-stop program and hoped to entice volunteers into the program. [vcunitedway.org] Is accepting donations to the homeless prevention fund, as is [vsstf.org]

Brian Rencher spoke. noting that with Ventura already 3 years into the program, the 10-year Program to End Homelessness should be called “the 7-year Program to Mitigate Homelessness,” reflecting his pessimism over the prospect of ending homelessness permanently. He supported Staff's recommendations.

Jill Martinez with Community in Action, noted that several local people have been working on the Gateway Program for almost 4 years. She expressed her appreciation to the council for the way they are trying to “grapple” with the homelessness problem.

Mary Stuart of the Social Services Task Force, also on Staff at Foster Library, spoke noting that hopeful changes come “one person at a time,” while also expressing her belief that it must be housing first. Issues such as inappropriate behavior often disappear when housing is available, she said. The Community Outreach Supervisor has reported on cases where people move from being a daily homeless person to instead becoming only a very infrequent shelter patron.

The mayor reiterated that the staff was recommendations were to set program priorities as high, medium or low. Council Member Weir spoke to the issue noting that homeless committee meetings may include police, fire, planning staff and public works staff. Jeff replied affirmatively.

The councilwoman noted that there are persons who choose not to live in a home and therefore we must work to decrease the “nuisance behavior” of those who refuse homes. She assumed that our police and fire departments will help inform the council's decision in terms of the economic situation, and in particular the ways in which homelessness affects the business climate.

Deputy Mayor Tracy noted that the unintended consequences of homelessness are what most citizens see on a daily basis, but when the face of the homeless problem is marked by “vagrancy” -- including those who surround public park restrooms, drink in public -- that this is going to mitigate the public's sympathy for solving the problem. “Until we address the resistance,” we will run into difficulty in solving the homelessness problem, he said. The billionaire makes a distinction between “vagrancy” and homelessness, he said.

[Comment – we think the deputy mayor meant “elitist,” and not “billionaire.”]

Council Member Morehouse moved that the council direct the homelessness committee to work with the staff on the 10-year plan and prioritize recommendations in terms of low, medium and high. The mayor asked that the roll be taken – the vote was unanimous and the motion passed.

Item No. 10 -- the request to exhume the remains of Private Sumner. The presentation with Ralph Deeks and Marty Armstrong brought in the Parks and Recreation division opposing the exhumation and relocation of the remains of James Sumner, with re-interment to be carried out at Bakersfield National Cemetery.

A letter read to the Council stated that in May of 2010 the matter was referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission. In June, July and September 2010 the commission met and made the recommendation to deny the request. After hearing public comment from five speakers centered on three issues (1) it was found to be a nonrelative request (2) a belief in Cemetery Park as a Memorial Park (3) interest in maintaining historical integrity of the park.

The first part of the recommendation was (1) the exhumation and relocation a Private Sumner to be denied (2) any further requests for exhumation of the remains by non-relatives would be referred to the California Supreme Court.

The second part of the recommendation included (1) a thoughtful consideration of a wide range of options in the ongoing process to improve Cemetery Memorial Park and (2) consider improving options that will rectify the mistakes of the past and reestablish a more serene and sacred environment more consistent with a cemetery.

Mr. Donor’s relocation request, as commented upon by the mayor for the city manager, is governed by the fact that there must be a necessity for the movement, and that issue comes up when not dealing with relatives. There must be a fairly solid justification for relocation when non-relatives are involved, he said.

Councilman Morehouse requested clarification on whether or not opposition to the movement stems from the fact that the subject was a part of the historical fabric of our community.

Staff agreed that Private Sumner was a historical figure within the local community and that Mr. Donor should realize that we need to pay homage to this individual and his local community.

Mr. Donor spoke first in Public Communications, saying that he appears as a friend of Private Sumner – noting that there is no family of Private Sumner with whom to consult, and that he – Mr. Donor – speaks in that capacity.

In background, Mr. Sumner emigrated from England and was engaged in a battle with Chief Cochise, charging the enemy and turning them into disarray, allowing the U.S. Army to defeat the enemy. The private was injured in that encounter and was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Ulysses S. Grant. Mr. Sumner moved to California, arriving in the Oxnard-Ventura area where he was laid to rest. The speaker felt that the grave of Mr. Sumner will be disrespected if left in a public park and not in any true cemetery.

Council Member Morehouse spoke noting that Cemetery Park is frequently called a dog park, but the councilman took issue with that characterization. He felt that it's ironic to see a two-page story in a local newspaper noting that famous cemeteries around the country often see picnics in the cemetery and rather extensive foot traffic. His point was that cemeteries are often used for relaxation activities.

The speaker claimed that what people may do doesn't mean they're doing right. He claimed to have visited Ventura on many occasions and noted frequent use by the park as basically a dog run with droppings in evidence and with pickup after the pets not taking place.

Council Member Andrews questioned the authority under which the speaker is offering up his request to the council. The speaker replied that in 1960 all remains in a cemetery that has been turned into a parkland should have been represented by loved ones, of which there were none in Private Sumners case.

The next speaker asked whether packet of material was received. Mike Gray, a resident of Ventura East County living in Simi Valley and Moorpark for 40 years, said that it was time for the Ventura City Council to approve Mr. Donor’s request without delay. He claims to have seen the public's disgust by conversing with citizens in Cemetery Park. He noted that Mr. Donor has agreed to pay all the costs associated with transfer of the grave. He summed up by saying that through news reports the city's image has been impacted.

The next speaker, a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, noted that it's a passionate subject that has received a lot of concern and diligent research. The speaker did not believe that Cemetery Park was being misused as a dog park. She cited a grand jury report outlining what a dog park should be. Commissioner Lopez showed the council a photograph of the Bakersfield Memorial Cemetery, revealing it to be barren un-beautiful.

Billy Mathews addressed the Council as a person who helps train soldiers. His request was to ensure that soldiers are treated with dignity and respect in life and death. He believed that turning the cemetery into a city park was inappropriate and unbefitting the memory of a national hero and a Medal of Honor winner..

Richard Creed spoke as a Gold Star parent, claiming to have been through all of the “good, bad and ugly” with his son who died. Six months later the family was faced with a situation of exhumation and reburial, expressing his anguish over that situation. He noted that he trusted the cemetery to care for his son's remains throughout eternity, as did those closest to Private Sumner without doubt. It meant that when they’d heard about veterans who erected the memorial to Private Sumner on that site, and then with that site and having been turned into a park, he said that he and his wife “were devastated.”

The next speaker, Richard from Fontana and an active member of the Patriot Guard, noted being awed over the fact that a cemetery with no fences even exists. He believed that it was proper to remove the military servicemen's remains from a park into a more hallowed location.

John Gretzinger reeled off an extensive military background and then stated that Isaiah Maize from the Indian Wars was to be moved from his home in Arizona to Arlington national Cemetery. In 2009 the California State Assembly paid their respects to Isaiah before the movement to Arlington National. Isaiah, like Pvt. Sumner, had no surviving relatives. The eyes of the nation are on Ventura under this action, he said. The speaker stated that Private Sumner would be honored by being moved to a site in the National Cemetery in Bakersfield.

Brian Rencher spoke claiming that he attended all three Parks and Recreation Department meetings on this issue, believing that it was a well thought out plan in denying the exhumation. Mr. Rencher called them “graverobbers” and recommended that the council “send them packing”.

The next speaker, Ed, a second commission member, noted that the commission did not receive “help” on the situation in any way that would have helped the members come to a decision. A consultant was hired and a recession occurred, but the history of Ventura should be preserved.

Council Member Morehouse noted that the community appreciates the space as a park, with the speaker replying that with enhancements to the park the city will gain substantially. Mr. Morehouse added that public relations may drive the issue with the press stationed outside as only one example.

The speaker noted that the press was inside Council Chambers but moved to the stairs outside conducting interviews, noting also that we are responding to a “threat” driven in part by publicity.

Brooke Ashworth spoke a member of Parks and Recreation, hoping to bring a new perspective – a logical approach to methods that may guide Mr. Donor’s options – the city could take a legal stance for health and safety with a court order being required. Her belief was that a court of law would be the most logical place for making determinations over the remains of a person whose individual desires are no longer known.

Chris Lopez noted that Bakersfield Memorial Park is among 131 national cemeteries. California is home to eight or more. The commission is dedicated to doing the right thing by making Memorial Park what it should be. He believed that the right thing to do is to educate the community and make the space the appropriate resting place for a community’s heritage. The speaker affirmed the fact that we don't want the subject to leave.

Sharon Troll was the last speaker noting that the commission worked long and hard on the problem. She searched the Internet and found physical descriptions of the subject, noting that he was a laborer for most of his life. She noted that the commission cares for the gravesite placing flags on specific occasions at the site. It was her belief that the site of Private Sumner's burial is not being desecrated. She noted the existence of some 500 other Medal of Honor winners who have not been so dutifully honored.

The Mayor asked of the city attorney to verify any 2 courses that could be followed, the main one being the court of law option. He asked what would be the effect of the Superior Court ruling on Ventura. The city attorney answered “none.”

Mr. Morehouse spoke taking note of Ms. Ashworth's logical approach – then moving that Staff’s recommendation to the three bullet points be approved. A second was obtained.

Council Member Andrews spoke, noting that the gist of the issue surrounds the removal of the remains of an American hero. The health and safety code permissions that might govern the issue here are not applicable, and would have vast implications to the city. He claimed to be unimpressed with the idea that the grave could remain because of some historical quality. “He is a historical figure but not ‘our’ historical figure,” said the councilman. “Becoming ill and remaining hospitalized for five days before passing does not make him a local resident.”

It was the councilman's belief that were the courts to become involved, the finding would not be attained without public hearing, and the councilman was not convinced that a controlling public interest had been obtained in this case. It was his belief that there is a “bias” to keep the remains in place. Perhaps the preponderance of the argument is for disinterment, yet we would be faced with great challenges by saying “no” at this meeting.

Council Member Weir stated that she would be supporting the motion, and that movements are forthcoming to improve the park as a memorial.

Council Member Brennan thanked the visitors who traveled to the meeting and Sgt. Donor for their interest. He thanked the commission for their work in clarifying the issue, and hoped to see a memorial wall and better public education along with signage as part of the solution. He noted that perhaps the community has been “awakened” to the issue

The Mayor asked that the roll be called, with all but Council Member Andrews voting yes.

[Comment – This writer is a veteran who would curse those who would deny a person his or her military right as a soldier, sailor or airman to an honorable burial among comrades-in-arms, no matter how dry, desolate or “un-beautiful” the surroundings. War is un-beautiful as well and one really needs to be a veteran to understand this perspective. Know that we are with you, Private Sumner, and that we feel your pain.]

Jill Martinez offered up a fundraising event in which the council members were invited. The venue was a center in Oxnard which is a hub for green technology education geared for experiencing the green movement. The center is in Oxnard but they are an agency that is county wide, serving Ventura.

The Mayor adjourned the meeting in honor of Helen Destin, with continuation to the next closed session meeting.