Ventura City Council Meeting
November 22, 2010
Ventura City Hall - 501 Poli Street
Interest remains high on pay parking stations in downtown Ventura as well as the future of library services in Ventura. A variety of "tweaking" proposals have been put forward, covering everything from a fee reduction to outright removal of the plastic-friendly machines. Public opinion also remains mixed on the proposed relocation of the Players Card Club from its present location on Ventura Avenue to the Ventura Auto Center.
Mayor Fulton called the meeting to order and asked that all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Closed Session Report – no reportable action.
City Council Communications – Council Member Andrews reminded the community of One City – One Meal, a Thanksgiving feast to which all are invited. The venue is the Knights of Columbus Hall, and there will be three seatings. The councilman also mentioned that the Nutcracker had been performed at the Oxnard Civic Center, and felt that the Valley Company’s production of Tchaikovsky’s seasonal classic was the best ever.
Council Member Weir mentioned that December 4 would be a date for a street fair in downtown Ventura. A few private individuals are sponsoring the event which will commence at six o'clock in the evening. There will also be a tree lighting ceremony. Following the tree lighting there will be a Winter Wine Walk, a first this year.
Capt. Ericson will pass out free parking coupons for the holidays.
The mayor invited health-conscious individuals and other active types to participate in the Mayor's Cup. A new campaign called Grow Your Business, Live Your Life – encouraging business to bring business to Ventura county.
The Mayor's Arts award at the Smith Museum -- the Mayor challenged all in Ventura to purchase one piece of local art to be given as a gift during this holiday season. A Facebook page will be set up wherein people may display the art that they had purchased.
Marc Jacobs, a prominent and attorney, will be the person remembered at the close of the meeting this evening.
Regional Boards Commissions and Committees – Council Member Morehouse at the California League of Cities meeting helped support proposition 22, along with 100 or more elected representatives who were unanimous where goals were presented. No. 1 – the California teachers Association was not appreciative of the heavy-handed approach taken to putting prop 22 through. No. 2 – collaborate with other cities to promote sustainable public pension systems. No.3 – new goal is to work in partnership with other groups to ensure sustainability of the program.
CONSENT ITEMS – With 50 speakers for the evening, the Mayor went over ground rules for speaking. With a large number of speakers the Mayor reduced each speaker’s time at the podium to just two minutes.
With eight items on the agenda, the Mayor listed each and asked the Council if they were items to be pulled and discussed separately. There were not – but Council Member Monahan desired to have agenda item number two pulled. The mayor decided to begin the public speaking on agenda item number eight first.
Agenda Item No. 8 [Back] – Relocation of the Players Club. Mark Hancock spoke stating that he had been a resident of Ventura and that is view was to oppose the moving of the players car club to the Ventura on will. The man expressed a knowledge of law which prohibits the movement of the car club from its present location. He noted that the cities zoning law provides that nonconforming uses shall not be extended. As of May 15, 2011 the players club will have outlived its nonconforming use and its tenure of ownership. Intensifying or expanding the use is clearly in opposition to state and local statute. The speaker claimed that the money spent should be spent on the needy and other uses.
Dan Cormode spoke noting that a letter from Mark states that the Players club does not conform to all municipal codes. Preferable would be moving the Players club to the off-track betting club at the fairgrounds rather than at the auto mall, he said. He wondered if the Players club is compatible with land uses. The car club does not in his view attract visitors to retail establishments, but rather as personal pleasure. His view was that the overall quality of life in Ventura is not enhanced.
Lynn spoke in favor of moving the Players club to the auto mall expansion facility. Her experience is as a harbor area business owner, and her view was that the expansion will enhance business. Her claim was that no crime increases are associated with the club.
Carla spoke expressing her belief that the Players club is a safe operation, and what reminds her of the Chumash operation.
William Allinson, a resident of Camarillo and a retired World War II veteran, claimed to be a fan of poker and prefers it to watching television. He claimed to be a registered California environmental assessment officer, noting that the players is the only club within hundred and 35 miles in any direction located centrally in Ventura. His belief was that the parking situation for the players club at its present location is driving away customers to these neighboring facilities, and that 36,500 gallons of gasoline in his calculation would mean excessive pollution. It was his belief that moving the club would save at least half of the amount of fuel currently being spent.
Glenn Miller spoke as a resident of Santa Barbara and holds a Masters degree conferred in 1960. His background is in teaching sports and track and field, having purchased a poker room license in Oceanside. He claimed to work through local communities without considering Ventura as an alternative for entertainment and shopping. The poker club began a moving sabbatical toward Ventura as he had brought friends for golf tournaments and entertainment venues. It was his belief that the card club was the most heavily taxed business in town.
Don Romberg was from Paradise Chevrolet. He has no problem with the expansion of the card club, but he is opposed to placing the card club on the front row as the gateway to the city of Ventura. He noted that a long-term lease is being negotiated, refuting some of the assertions that a permanent location is still being sought.
Fritz Schneider spoke as a resident of the summit Ojai Valley, And spoke of the current club as sharing the fabric of the old West. Diversity rather than divisive this should be the order of the day, he said. He was pleased to see the club as an institution stepping forward expanding its role as a social gathering place. The hand you're dealt and the way you play it determines your success.
Jim Oliver was against the current club relocating to the auto mall. He claimed that the problem we have in the city is one of revenue. He attended the council meeting when the zoning change was approved, and agreed with a previous speaker that it was all about the card club and really not about zoning. It was thought that the Ikeas, the Bass Pro shops and large big-box stores have taken a backseat now one month later to the Player's Card Club with the prime location in the new developed area. His belief was that card club does not need to be located prominently right on the freeway.
Jeff Sukay from Kirby auto group stated that his establishment and five other auto dealers are in favor of accepting the card club as a business on the property. We need to drive traffic he said.
Joe Griffith claimed to be a regular visitor at the club and regularly brings friends along including his girlfriend. His feeling was that a more attractive building and larger parking would be an improvement though not necessary for the enjoyment he receives. Council Member Monahan asked whether or relocating the card club to the auto center would encourage him to purchase an auto at that location. The speaker claimed that he would. A lighter moment was enjoyed when Mr. Monahan asked the speaker to “raise his right hand.”
Bridgit stated that she enjoyed playing poker, living in Santa Barbara feeling that the card club was more convenient than Chumash. She claimed that the professionals who work there are charming. “The food is quite good,” she said, then adding, “for truck stop food.” While not playing or if she's bored, she claims to be a downtown shopper. She claimed to be a graduate student and that cardplaying relaxes her.
Thomas Gregua spoke that as a guard client has noted that he has lot by Toyotas at the Ventura social auto club, and said he does not consider the players club eight “gambling facility” as in the old West.
Enid Kidd noted that she is a 15 year customer at the players club. She noted that outlying areas have been difficult to access, but that with the players club it's all about the location. She also claimed that she will shop at the auto mall. The speaker claimed to have been going to the players club for the past 15 years. She claimed to have met many friends at the club. She also claimed that patrons of the players club “have a lot of money.”
Brian Stonehoff noted that he is a poker player and a business owner, playing poker the world over. The players club he said is a friendly place but that space is limited both inside and outside at the parking lots. His business provides third-party services for blackjack and table games. His business, he said, is intending to hire 25 to 30 people once the expansion occurs.
David Anter claimed to be a long time patron of the players club, (over 35 years) where there has never been a problem and that there has never been a police event at the club. His feeling was that the freeway location would be an enhancement, and also feels that the auto club will obtain new customers.
Mark Miller stated that he plays poker and has for many years. He says they don't lose enough money to force a failure in their mortgage payments or a loss of food on the table. The speaker claimed that playing poker is a, “family event.”
Shane Morger does publication and marketing for the Bunnin Automotive Group, one of the sponsors of the local event known as the “Turkey Trot”. In an announcement, their best bet is now with Culver City where Bunnin Chevrolet will open business. Culver City opened their arms to the business, according to the speaker. His belief was that the Players Card Club would only be an asset to Ventura and the Ventura Auto Center.
Ariel addressed the issue involving Section 10, which requires the city council to approve movement of businesses from one location to another. The building is also proposed at 7000, as noted by the city attorney.
The mayor turned back to Council Consent Items, asking for a motion that items 1 through 8 minus 2 be approved. Council Member Brennan so moved. The motion was seconded. The city clerk called the roll on consent items 1 – 8 minus number 2 – all voted yes.
Agenda Item No. 2 [Back] – Zoning Amendment to Revise Various Land Use Regulations. With Item No. 2 having been pulled, Jeff reiterated the second reading on edits to the land use and animal boarding issue from two weeks ago. Staff was not able to come up with the vote count, however.
As the first public speaker was taking the podium, the city clerk interrupted – in November the vote was unanimously approved seven to nothing, and that this would become the second reading
Helen Yunker spoke on a legacy issue of interest to Pierpont residents, wherein community leaders wanted to form an improvement district to upgrade the area, including removal of septic systems and joining the Ventura sewer system. A vote for annexation in that beach area of the city stipulated a date of September 28, 1965 for the annexation to occur. The city would benefit in higher taxes, but the people noted that there would be extreme code changes. A second annexation date of February 28, 1968, was set but was again defeated. The measure finally passed only after having the assurance of grandfathering for older buildings. “Will the residents be able to express their vote at the polls over the ongoing persecution type of law enforcement,” she asked.
Terence Gegan stated that he wouldn't dwell on the workability of the new hedge definition but a different issue which he touched upon last week -- the advisability of the ordinance based on privacy. Privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment is called curtilege, he instructed members of the council. Under the Dunn Definition, according to Mr. Gegan, privacy hedges around a residence could be a prerequisite toward ensuring Fourth Amendment privacy protections. He further asserted that to surround a residence with open space is the same as building a home with transparent walls. The speaker claimed that Santa Barbara has eliminated its hedge law. Council Member Morehouse was baffled over the argument unless the issue rests with how dense landscaping is defined. The issue is not with the definition and therefore the hedge law is not a part of this discussion, the councilman said.
Carla Bonney noted that the income generated from granny flats should be allowed to remain, and that the grandfathering revisions should be included. Curtilege should be a granted right, according to the speaker. She claimed to be against the city going in to private homes to check on code violations.
Rosalyn Strobush wished to express her support for the preservation of granny flats. He she claimed that families are living in their RVs while granny flats might be demolished. She claimed that there are senior citizens who need these homes with the alternative being only homelessness. Whether the granny flat is safe should be up to the homeowner, she said. We are in recession, she said, and that it is “unreal” for the council to be considering this ordinance. What is the goal of this law, she wondered. Please wait until December 13 on the issue with the homeless before making this decision, she said.
Luis Campos stated that he has been a resident for thirty-four years living on the Avenue, noting that every other house on the Avenue had a granny flat. “What are the homes in back used for?” people used to ask, according to Mr. Campos. The tradition of granny flats remained a central factor in his argument. He claimed to be suffering from physical ailments and that homecare will be denied to people like him. December 13 will be the date of another public hearing, which the speaker reiterated upon. He claimed that other items such as the budget would be more properly considered in light of the times we’re facing. The speaker suggested further that our fire department and police department pensions and pay are part of the problem.
[Comment] Homecare might indeed be denied to the needy in this country, and the speaker may sense that he’ll be one of them. But neither is the speaker all that sympathetic to the plight of others, apparently, when he states that those who put themselves in harm’s way – our first-line defenders – are overpaid and undeserving of our gratitude and our assistance in helping them create any sort of “old-age” safety net for themselves which just might help them avoid the situation in their elder years that Mr. Campos speaks so sorrowfully about today. There’s just one mindset that causes this and it’s the single greatest growing problem in American society – the “every man for himself” mentality. It will be our undoing, and it’s people like Mr. Campos who are feeding this frenzied movement toward an unsustainable future. [Ed.]
Camille Harris spoke, noting that her concerns were the same as they were two weeks ago. The Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative has the committee recommendations prepared and ready to go on December 13, and should be heard first. The majority of “granny” conversions are on 5000 square-foot lots, she said. Mr. Randall, in the meantime, has said he will make sure “there are no kitchens in there,” according to the speaker. Priority One violations (immediately hazardous such as collapsing buildings) and Priority Two (improper occupancy/illegal construction) are wildly dissimilar, and yet all granny flats had been made Priority One regardless of condition. This will victimize people now living in DP units just because they have not been inspected by code enforcement. She said this is the “us-versus-them” mentality which is causing the worst punitive action by clouding the citizen's title for code violations – not for safety violations. All that many of these people have are their homes, the speaker said. A fine or an abatement of the violation is often not possible. Under these conditions community buy-in cannot and will not succeed, she warned.
Council Member Weir wondered where on the agenda item this comes from, and apparently it was from Section Eight of the administrative report. From 8 November to this evening's meeting makes this a second reading of an item which has already voted upon, according to Ms. Weir. It says clearly that structures containing less than 750 sq. ft. shall obtain a directors permit, said the councilwoman. Council Member Morehouse wished to address Council Member Weir's point. The councilman claimed that there is no change in the language and there is no such talk in the permit.
Council Member Monahan noted that there is a lot of confusion on this issue, wondering why the December 13 date should not be allowed to stand as the second reading. If the council sees no urgency to pass tonight, he said, we may wish to wait until we have heard from all of the citizens of Ventura.
This would amount to a waiver of an ordinance that was passed unanimously two weeks ago by this council.
City Manager Cole noticed that there was no urgency and no validity to the concerns that have been expressed by this ordinance. The ordinance does not say anything other than to include some more fairly restrictive rules over nuisance issues such as barking dogs. He doesn't know of anyone trying to open a cat boarding station, and even at that, these issues could certainly wait another month and a half, according to Mr. Cole. These second unit tweaks do not preclude passage of this amendment, he stated further. On the hedge issue, in Ventura you're not supposed to have large hedges. The rule has not been easy to enforce, it was noted. The speaker may be correct that the law should be stricken (in speaking of the hedges issue) but the law has only been made clearer through these recommendations, making a somewhat vague law less vague. “An ordinance may have wording that makes it sound ominous, but that's really all it is,” Mr. Cole said.
Council Member Andrews spoke, noting that an analysis of the legal situation could be brought up to the city council at a later time. He also noted that there will be a discussion on grandfathering, but to hear what is before us tonight will result in something less than the desired results. “They are not impacted with what is before us,” the councilman said.
Council Member Monahan desired to reiterate that transparency before the public is important, and without it there would be a lack of trust. The councilman also agreed that we could wait until the 13th.
The mayor wished to address the Community Development Director on some questions. Speaking to Helen Yunker's question, “Will residents of the county be able to approve annexation” – all agreed that nothing in this ordinance has to do with annexation. The city manager explained the hedge issue, but a number of speakers raised the issue of second units, with some of the speakers suggesting that the changes were designed for easier crackdown on second units. “Are there changes in priority Two Priority One, and are these concerns valid?” the mayor wanted to know. Jeff said that it clarifies the status of structures that do not require a directors permit – structures containing less than 750 sq. ft. Ariel noted that there is nothing pertaining to second units in this ordinance, and that many speakers who have brought this issue forward have been sadly misled. The only reference to second units in this ordinance, according to the mayor, is to make management of the situation easier – not more difficult.
Deputy Mayor Tracy moved that a waive of the second reading be agreed to, and that adoption of the ordinance be allowed to proceed as proposed. A second was also obtained, with Council Member Weir indicating that she would support the motion, but again that the topics that most seem to be interested in will be handled on the 13th. Mayor Fulton asked that the roll be taken – all voted yes with the exception of Council Member Monahan, who voted no.
Agenda Item No. 9 [Back] – Future of Library Service in Ventura. Elena Brokaw, Director of Parks and Recreation, began with Staff's recommendations in a visual presentation, beginning with “Library service delivery models in the city of Ventura.” A slide showing background information included bullet points with (1) recommended closure of the Wright Library due to a budget deficits – (2) County indicates discussions to revise and hold – (3) City of Camarillo leaves the CL as per Ventura County Library advisory commission joint meeting.
Recent background – January 2009: recommended closure of the Wright Library due to budget deficit – September 2009: County initiates discussions to revise the MOU – October 2010: City of Camarillo leaves VCLS – October 2010: Ventura Council/Library Advisory Commission joint meeting.
Council motion and timing issues – the city attorney reiterated that the California education code requires notice to be provided before 11-2011 – the County MOU requires six months of notice of withdrawal – together these requirements demand city leave VCLS as of 12-31-2010 and “buy back” services.
Ventura's current options – withdraw from VCLS by 12-31-2010; issue an RFP in 1-2011; leave VCLS by 6-2011 – conduct strategic plan with analysis of service options.
Option one: pros and cons – pros may result in cost savings (as did in Camarillo) – cost savings could be used to fund some hours at Wright; cons – cannot be done both in extensively and quickly – should the city council elect to leave the VCLS it cannot be done until 1 January 2012.
The Library Advisory Commission “LAC” consideration – at this point in time the commission feels it does not have enough information to either support or not support the intent to withdraw.
The two options presented are – Withdraw from VCLS by 12-31-2010; issue an RFP in January 2011; select service provider “new or continue with VCLC” in June 2011 – conduct a strategic plan with analysis of service options; select service delivery model in June 2011
Mr. Cole reiterated his grave reservations with option one. Camarillo voted while having a “bid in hand,” he said.
The Council Library Advisory Commission discussion on 10-14-2010 showed a Council motion: (1) for the council to continue the discussion at an upcoming meeting.
Another slide showing timing issues was handled by the city attorney – California education code required notice the provided before: (1) 10-2011; (2) leaving the county; MOU requires a six-month notice of withdrawal; and finally together these requirements demand that city leave the VCLS.
Ventura's current options – (1) withdraw from VCLS by 12-3-2010 and issue an RFP on 1-2011; select a service provider (new or continue with VCLS) in June 2011 – (2) Conduct strategic plan with analysis of service operations and select service delivery model in June 2011. The consultant could be under contract by mid February.
Option No. 1: Pros and cons. (1) May result in cost savings – cost savings could be used to fund some hours at Wright Library. The cons would include waiting, allowing the city to identify and address transition issues – (2) Leaving means loss of unincorporated funding and – (3) notice now may hinder discussions as opposed to the MOU.
Option No. 2: Pros and cons. The pros will indicate means and time to fully analyze and compare options – the cons include: Cannot be done.
The Ventura Library Advisory Commission discussed the issue at two meetings – on 11-8-2010 it declined to make a recommendation to the council.
The future of library service delivery in Ventura: (1) Withdraw from be VCLS by 12-31-2010 and issue RFP in 1-2011 – leave VCLS in June 2011
The mayor asked whether to continue with this meeting – thumbs up or thumbs down. The council voted thumbs up.
City manager Cole noted that with the unanimous vote of the city Council to put this on consideration for this evening, he felt compelled to repeat his grave reservations with Option One. Camarillo voted to withdraw but had a bid in hand, so it knew what it was doing and where it was going. He claimed to have no problem with going this way, but “We would be better served making that decision with that information in hand,” he said, “rather than in the bush.” If we are to move forward and make option one work, we will meet deadlines and deliver to the council but it will have significant ripple effect on other items in the workload – including labor union relations with management; lawsuits over the Canada Larga issue and others with the library being but one. It can be done but it will have impact on other items, which Mr. Cole reiterated.
As city manager he felt it was his duty to put on the record his concerns over the downsides, having not so much to do with library issues but with the feasibility of executing this major change.
Council Member Andrews wished to see the slide on the timetable, with the city attorney responding that we were “six months out of sync.” on this issue. “Is it true,” wondered the councilman, “that we are no longer able to make a declaration of intent, but rather a declaration of separation?” Ariel agreed, noting also that we wouldn't receive any tax monies before January 2011. Mr. Cole noted that a “crash course” would be required if following recommendation one. If in a notification of intent to separate, “Why would we be precluded from legally from participating in separation discussions,” asked Council Member Andrews. “We’ve been wading through this process for the past four years, and I'm not interested in waiting another four years,” he said.
Library Director Griffin is here, Noted the Mayor. Deputy Mayor Tracy noted that Option Two would mean that we'd lose some flexibility. Mr. Cole noted that the Ventura College Board considered an item where Ventura should be given a notice that it is no longer operating a library and that the city should give the building back. If Ventura is going to use it as a library, the College Commission would not stand in their way but if not, they need to be able to use the building.
Council Member Weir wondered about the Library Commission’s statement on its findings in April 2011 defining what other cities are doing. If the commission comes to the city in April, “Would we not want the findings first before considering the strategic plan?” she asked.
Elena responded that the findings were treated separately from the strategic plan.
The mayor wished to ask Ms. Griffin that given the education code requirements, which is a notification that we are going to take our library tax money back, does that mean that “we are out?” Would this be a fair characterization of the counties viewpoint, he wondered. Ms. Griffin said it was not about “hardball” as Council Member Andrews had put it, but that we need to move forward now that Camarillo has left. The first commission meeting will be on December 9, but to delay that while they wait for Ventura to decide whether there will be part of the system are not … Supervisor Long said [para] “… a return to source has been a myth for the last several years, and it is time to restructure the library system. but to stand and wait while Ventura tries to make up its mind is not going to happen.”
Public communications – George Medieras spoke, indicating his feeling that Ventura needed more time to fully understand the issues. “Slow down giving notice to the county,” he said. The citizens should consider what they want to have in library services. With Ventura believing that it is one of the new arts cities, it needs to realize that libraries are part of art.
Kinzua Leseur spoke noting that the way you judge a city is by its libraries, stating also that he had been in Ventura for only three months and has made great use of the public library. It was his wish to see the process slowed down so that we keep our basic values intact. “Privatization of a library system while looking after and trying to preserve our heritage and our values is a misnomer,” he said.
Margaret Morris addressed the council, saying that she probably didn't know enough about the issues to speak.
Carol Lindberg said she supports Option Two giving notice of the city’s intent to withdraw – but “do the priorities of the County match the priorities of the taxpayers?” she wondered. She also wished to be appraised of how other cities spend their money in these areas. The speaker would be in favor of hiring a consulting firm to begin immediately in studying this issue. The speaker doubted that a parcel tax can be passed in Ventura to support libraries, noting that all have failed in the past.
Marianne Coffee spoke about golfing as a sports metaphor for the library issue. Two instructors are available with one being underqualified. Turning libraries over to private profit-seeking companies would be about the same as taking lessons from an underqualified instructor, she said. Ventura does not have the money to operate even one quality library, according to her. Thousand Oaks contributes $55 per person in taxes to their library system. Ventura relies on $17 per person for library services. County run systems benefit from the economies of scale and the maximum return on shared services. Other studies indicate that privately run libraries do not produce cost-saving results. Moorpark's LSSI system does not compare favorably with other county run libraries in the area, according to her. “We want long term solutions for the East End of Ventura,” she said, adding that the Council should postpone indefinitely the discussion on withdrawal from the County system. “We need to Study alternate solutions and see what happened in Camarillo and its future,” she continued. Some citizens in Camarillo are organizing a petition drive, the speaker declared, against what they see as a very ill-conceived solution to running a city library.
Council Member Andrews wondered if this was the official position of the commission. He wondered if her position was to defer indefinitely and stay with the County. The answer was that “we had a community meeting.” And that this was not official. She didn't care to see a deadline being set.
Jim Hensley brought in a position paper and passed it out to the council members. He is the Deputy Director of the League of Latin American Citizens – noting that he had been taken to the library by his grandmother (E.P. Foster library) and grew up with books. One recommendation included the installation of coffee lounges in the library, more like Barnes and Noble. He claimed to be against turning a system over to a private entity. Council Member Monahan asked if he was a graduate of Ventura high with the speaker responding that he been “kicked out.”
Patti Thomas noted that all the documents are in order and all of the studies have been made. The speaker reiterated a point made in the prior week, where it was her contention that the city could operate its own library – not part of the County – nor would it need to opt for privately run profit-seeking corporations. The speaker claimed that Camarillo was not the service model to be looking at, but that the Moorpark model is far superior.
Rosalind Holden Thomas came to protest the scheme to privatize our city library system, She is an Emeritus Lecturer of Arts at UCSB, noting that our Bill of Rights are rights including the freedom to read. The reason for not privatizing libraries is the selection of reading materials. “How can we trust the privacy of our reading to a corporation,” she asked.
Council Member Morehouse wished to question her take on privatization and wondered whether she wished to remain with the county. The answer was yes.
Patrick Squires asked to stop any plans to move forward with privatization. He was concerned with the loss of inter-library loans by not being part of the larger system. Savings come at the expense of the library staff, he said. These people are your friends and neighbors as well as your constituents. The council has searched ways to save city working jobs and that should include library workers. He claimed that this amounts to the “Wal-Marting” of library services.
Marybeth Kaminsky Power noted that in her situation “libraries saved us.” LSSI has been spoken of unflatteringly as seeking ways to simply make money. She said she frequently uses the library in Oxnard where the staff is large and complete.
Charles Felts has been a Ventura resident since 1994, and wished to echo what the city manager said. It would be preferable to have Ventura remain within the County library system, but if that should not happen it was his belief that Ventura should operate its own library system. His claim was that since the Moorpark Library was privatized, it's no longer the vibrant place that it used to be. He said that he would hate to see Ventura library system be privatized. Thousand oaks, he noted, asks a fee to be paid for nonresident citizens he for using the library there.
David Atkins noted that he is a four-year resident of Ventura and uses the collections of music at the library. His feeling was that the system should stay within the County or be run by the city but under no circumstances should the library be privatized. Corporations require that “profit margins” he stipulated. This would mean that Ventura would be paying profit out of taxpayer money.
Jonas Rutherford is four years old and has fallen asleep, according to her mother Sarah Otterstram. Sarah noted also that some speakers of her group had been forced to leave due to the lateness of the hour. What Jonas had wanted to say, however, was “Don't sell my library.”
Jennifer Martin spoke, noting that libraries, education, firefighting and law enforcement should have the same support by the city as do casinos. What she heard considering “card clubs” meant she heard a lot about money. She stated that she is not in favor of privatizing libraries. Camarillo citizens were not in favor either, according to the speaker.
Kathy from the San Buenaventura Friends of the Library stated that they have had spirited discussions over libraries in the past year. She wished not to rush and to do right by the city of Ventura citizens. The Friends will continue to support the process, but would like to make sure that services do not be reduced further. She noted that books could be put back in the Wright library by the city. $35,000 was raised by the Friends, she said, not including endowment gifts or proceeds from the lovely bookstore.
Leslie Purcell spoke, noting that excessive fear is being “ramped up” over potential for closing the library. Her claim was that it's not actually privatization and that some of the fears are not warranted. She claimed to be a supporter of the withdrawal program, noting that the county has not done a good job of running the library. She wished to know what legal ground city has if the college asks to quitclaim the building.
The public speaking session concluded with the Mayor asking for clarification from Elena and the city manager as to what might happen next if the College Board decided to submit notice of a quitclaim on the building. Temporary non use of the building, according to Ariel, does not constitute abandoning it.
The city manager noted that sometimes temporary could mean “in the eye of that the holder.” As long as there are active explorations of options, this would constitute forbearance.
The mayor opened the discussion to the council – Council Member Andrews agreed “we need a great library system.” The problem is that we need a library that operates within the available revenues, but that it does not currently. We either ask the county to “fix that” or we open a library of our own. The councilman noted that the county has put “less and less money” into the county system, and has pitted one city against another in order to pirate these monies, as he reads it. He went on to say that we have had to sacrifice the quality of our services because they (the county) has not dealt with its obligations.
The councilman continued, saying that all of our tax money should mean an efficient library system was being run, without knowing that we have abrogated our responsibilities. Former speakers believed that we should own our city libraries but that the problem is one of ownership. The RFP process should be respected by asking for a proposal that we can live with economically. Both the city staff and the county staff seemed to be putting “a happy face” on a fairly “dicey” situation. The councilman moved that the issue of possible withdrawal be calendared until June of 2011, to be completed prior to June 1, whereupon RFPs for proposals for services including a direction of the Wright Library could be studied in close detail. Contractors shall also be required to piece together options – continue with Wright Library, or close the library. They also should be asked to give what we had at Wright and also the possibility of continuing with reduced hours. Council Member Monahan seconded.
Council Member Weir asked Elena to clarify on the strategic plan. There was the library needs assessment from 1997 which was used as the basis for the new plan which had usable information within it. She also questioned the establishment of a city library with the closing down of Wright. Her question was whether ‘C’ was an option. Elena replied in the affirmative. The councilwoman's claim was there was no bias toward LSSI. There is a funding source for libraries, according to Elena.
If the city stayed with the county, how does the county “buy in” to that plan? In a back and forth discussion with Ms. Weir, Elena replied that the county library delivery system would need to be revisited. We know that the county will not reply to the RFP, but also will not allow for a service delivery comparison. External entity analysis would be beneficial.
City Manager Cole noted that the question remaining involved the type of library the Ventura citizens desire, which is a question that still remains unanswered. Camarillo knew what it wanted in a library and decided they would pay for it. The state would pay for 62% of that library with the citizens paying for 38% of the remaining balance. They could do the same for us. Camarillo-level support would be the type of decision Venturans would need to make, according to Mr. Cole.
Deputy Mayor Tracy claimed to be sympathetic to Mr. Andrews sensitivities, but wished to submit an alternate motion – a focus-sustaining outline on the similarity of that which is before them. Option No. 2 on the timeline as suggested by Mr. Andrews was the new motion, including an RFP.
Council Member Morehouse agreed with the timeline issue, but that the strategic plan process should include a hearing to as stated by Ms. Weir. He claimed to be in support of the deputy mayor’s motion.
Council Member Andrews restated the point that part of this the strategic planning process is in knowing what the options are. An RFP plan should be considered as we are hamstringing ourselves with Option No. 2. The city attorney noted that the hostile amendment as proposed by the deputy mayor takes precedence over the measure on the floor. Substitute motions are often made, according to the mayor. A substitute motion is a form of hostile amendment, according to Ariel. Roberts Rules is consistent with this as an amendment.
Voting on the amended motion proceeded with a call of the roll – all members voted yes with the exception of Council Member Andrews.
Agenda item number 10 was to proceed following a 10 minute recess, according to the mayor.
Agenda Item No. 10 [Back] – Downtown Parking Management Program Implementation Update. The Downtown Parking Management Program Implementation Update – Tom gave an update. Implementation outreach – June – new way of funding with advertisements on trash bins – July – Meetings with merchants and website update – July through September – Advertisements at movie theaters – August/September – Letters to residents about permits with community council meetings and media – September – Coupons and information to merchants.
Implemented adjustments – Pricing simplification – Four-hour parking restrictions removal (200 block) – Green 24 minute and yellow loading zones were free – Reduction of time for the parking to be in effect.
A parking space allocations slide show of spaces that are free was shown.
Preliminary parking data – October 2010 study and system data – Data with moderate enforcement – Meeting 85% goal of midday and evenings – Highest level of parking occurring in the 200, 300 and 400 blocks – The lowest level occurs on Monday and Tuesday – Low to moderate use on other parts of side streets – Increased use of non-pay zones during midday
Holiday season – 50,000 free 1-hour coupons for businesses to hand out – “Shop downtown” campaign – advertisement (print and radio) – Weekend live entertainment – business outreach program. But a plan to add a screen to the parking meter would be a way of implementing a customized message, informing the point-of-sale customer of a free one-hour coupon to anyone patronizing a business during that visit.
Next steps – Remove paid parking in the 700 block – Relocate the VISTA bus stop – Upgrade parking lot lighting – Monthly reports to Downtown Parking Advisory Committee – Quarterly reports to council, finance, audit and budget committees – Complete the parking utilization study begun in March 2010.
Council Member Andrews wished to clarify – a goal of 85% occupancy, noting studies which show comparisons between 2009 and 2010, indicate that occupancy during peak hours were 85%. The vacancy rate was 50% which is goal of this plan. His question was “are we pursuing a problem that doesn't exist?”
Staff replied that this being an average for the entire week meant that the problem existed only Thursday through Saturday. A new problem arises from the fact that the average of the full seven days must now be included.
The council member also questioned the source of the coupon money being offered, with the answer being that the city is paying for it. The councilman also wondered whether the off-street parking was also declining. The stated answer was that during the later afternoon hours the public begins to move back to the paid parking facilities rather than the free lots.
The city manager countered some of the figures over revenue, noting that one month and three weeks into the program did not mean that full stability would be the expectation. 40% of the anticipated return would not be unusual, according to Mr. Cole.
Council Member Andrews noted that the variants were significant. Mr. Cole countered that some of the expectation could be attributed to seasonal use.
The mayor made points related to the lighting, especially in the farmers market area. In any of the off-street lots, there would be a couple of months before full compliance could be attained, he was told.
Council Member Morehouse questioned station use and measurement data, wanting to know if there was a correlation between high numbers at certain locations and certain types of business activity. Staff replied that it did not have those types of correlations.
Council Member Monahan asked about the VISTA bus stop being moved.
Public Communications – Barbara Evans, a member of the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee, has been involved in downtown community organizations. All organizations solicit comments from businesses, tourists and visitors. In every instance top items were public restrooms, law enforcement, and access to businesses. A parking plan was on all their top issues, but the parking meter component provides only a partial solution.
Bill Hicks, from Thousand Oaks, stated that he and his wife “used to” shop easily in Ventura, but things have changed due to recessionary times. His suggestion was that the city may have made a mistake by installing parking meters. The mayor asked whether he routinely would park on the street prior to the meters. The two-hour time limit was questioned as to whether that was the turning factor for him, and he declared that it was. Council Member Morehouse wondered whether it seemed more inconvenient to walk while shopping than not.
Carla Bonney stated that Tom, a City Transportation Engineer and Staff member, was organizing a shift from transportation to walking. She presented graphs showing from 2007 studies showing parking usage versus expected revenues. The source of the information, it turned out, was a blog. A back-and-forth ensued between who is a blogger and who is a commenter on a blog.
The owner of Hawaiian Shirt Shop in downtown Ventura claimed that many customers do not know how the parking meters work. He relayed anecdotally a case involving a customer. As the story continued it turned out that the customer was upset not so much over pay parking, but rather over pay parking on Sunday.
Gary Parker, owner of Flags store in downtown Ventura, claimed he is tired of losing revenue. He stated that parking meters are the cause for store owners “just hanging on by their teeth.” He claimed not to have figures on his revenues, but complained of the parking fees as being “attacks.” It was, in his view, government intervention. He claimed that $1.5 million is being spent solve a minor problem. He has asked for a suspension, but has not been honored. He implored the voters pay attention to the vote on this issue.
Greg Smith wished to mention the support for the parking coupon program. He supported removal of the meters on the 700 block. He also supported lighting improvement in the public parking lot areas. His claim was that the parking program was designed to be market driven and should be considered for the long-term success of downtown.
The next speaker stated that the downtown has been converted to an area enjoyment with new lighting and other changes. Her belief was that people are being kept away from the downtown area by the implementation of parking meters. The revenue from parking and the ticketing as a revenue issue was mentioned. “Care about the merchants,” she said. The best place to adjust from revenues should come from the top level. Union contracts should not be renewed according to her.
Lydia Goranson stated that sales tax increases have been defeated, and that “Americans are fed up with taxes.” Her claim was that “government only takes.”
Chuck Goranson spoke saying more of what was said by the previous speaker. His speech was that of a ranting nature, decrying government which interferes with his lifestyle. He claims to have financial difficulties in stretching his dollars within his level of income. Neither does he favor, apparently, paying city workers their salaries, nor should they have pensions.
Greg Kravitz noted that taxes for usages like toll bridges and toll roads are for the maintenance of the bridges or roads. His contention was that usage fees or taxes are part of an advanced society where maintenance is a way of life. He noted that Santa Barbara has a capacity parking problem, as does Santa Monica and many other tourist oriented cities.
[Comment] And speaking of tourist-oriented cities, how did Ventura happen to enter the conversation? Comparing Ventura with Santa Barbara and Santa Monica? Amazing. But Venturans seem to have a way of doing this. A decade ago when several developers woke up to the fact that Ventura is home to the longest stretch of natural coastline (undeveloped, of course) between Los Angeles and San Jose, it became fashionable to mention Ventura as the future rival of such cities as Pasadena, Burbank and Santa Monica. Excuse the bluntness, but these are world-class cities, if you don’t mind. We pointed out at the time that this kind of grandiosity was being tossed about even as the West Main Street bridge over the riverbed had lain collapsed for more than three years, unattended to for lack of funds. Some world-class city.
See, a tourist-oriented city has no qualms over charging – and overcharging – tourists. If the folks frequenting downtown Ventura were tourists, parking meters would have been installed years ago. But they clearly are not tourists. Look at the comments on this page. The following speaker says it all by classifying his customer base as the “old folks.” Of course they’re “old folks.” They’re residents. Ventura is an old town. This isn’t Disney-town – this is an oil town … a retirement town. This is a town with dirt under its fingernails. Of course this doesn’t mean that folks with dirt under their fingernails don’t travel. They do travel. They just don’t stay in 5-star hotels. Nor, when they’re traveling, do they complain about being charged a few cents for parking. They reserve directing their screams of outrage over pittances like pay parking for their city council members back home.
And guess what. They’ve come home. [Ed.]
John Haig has owned a business on Oak Street for 26 years and stated that his business revenues have started to decline since the installation of parking meters. “It's the principle of pain,” according to his customers. His request was for the city council to consider going back to the old ways. His claim was that the change in downtown shopping has been detrimental to business. His notice was that the “old folks” don't want to pay to park.
David Atkins asked the council to consider a “grace period” where parking would be free before 10 a.m. and then again later in the afternoon.
Raymond Stoyanov, owner of the CAAN thrift store on Main St. reiterated several of the points made in an earlier statement to the council, where he claimed business was up before the meters were installed. The fall-off in revenues is such after the meters that he has considered going “belly up.”
[Comment] Actually – people such as Mr. Stoyanov should consider doing the business-like thing and just sell out. We’re pretty sure there are cities out there where the citizens aren’t hassled with petty expenses and are more than willing to “blow” an extra buck on a pair of used shoelaces. Of course there may be no law enforcement protection in this new “haven of freeloaders,” and his new store will probably need security gates and round-the-clock surveillance, but we’re sure a clever businessman could handle it. Besides, a new business would open in his old prime location almost overnight … one that would represent a true upgrade to the business climate in that block of Main Street. [Ed.]
Council Member Andrews wondered whether there were other factors besides the parking meters could be responsible for a decline in the speaker’s business revenues. The reply was that people with lower incomes do not want to pay extra for parking, which prompted the councilman to reply – parking right behind his building is free. Walking is less than 1000 feet to the front of the building.
Council Member Brennan also wished to question factors other than parking meters. Mr. Stoyanov, however was steadfast in saying that it was the parking meters. The mayor also questioned the unusually large decline in business receipts quoted by the thrift store owner over just a 25-day period.
Dave Armstrong representing Downtown Ventura Partners noted that “a picture is worth 1000 words,” where on last Wednesday a photo survey was conducted. A video showing “Historic San Buenaventura” – a video – revealed that streets were very active and people were literally scurrying along the sidewalks over the 3-hour time frame that the video was shot. Council Member Monahan wondered how much revenue goes to police services based on the P-bid. Public safety was intended to receive a substantial part of that money. Dave replied that the homeless issue and vagrancy was a huge issue. Over 500 interventions occurred where people were asked to move or where the police were summoned. However, this would come close to exceeding their entire budget, according to him.
[Comment] Ah, yes, it’s always the homeless. Why can’t we find a nice stockade or something for these people? Or maybe a gulag … yes, that sounds even better. Only one problem … what do you suppose the cost of running a gulag amounts to these days after adjusting for inflation? [Ed.]
Lynn Richens spoke as a longtime resident of Ventura, where his children had left California because they cannot afford to live here. It was his belief that these measures represent a form of taxation. With taxation we continue to lose our liberties, he said. Council members seem not to have respect for our great city. He claimed to be aware of pensions and retirement plans, which “have been eating away at California.” He claimed to be ready to leave California because you can no longer afford it.”
[Comment] The speaker has it almost right. With taxation you do lose your liberties … but you also gain police protection for your business … and schools for your children … and fire protection for your home … and sewer services … and street lights … and traffic control … and trash collection … and roads … sidewalks … courts … jails … … wait a minute – all adding up to the fact that the speaker can’t afford to live here? Remember the free-market system? There are just enough people who do want to live here (taxation included) all resulting in the perfect balance we’re seeing.
But what we hear from people who would rather live in something of “a more perfect union,” is a somewhat different message. The message is that if you’re not “making it,” it must be your fault. You must not be working hard enough. You don’t have the guts and the stamina to tough out the situation … pull yourself up by the bootstraps … get that chin off your belly … stop being a crybaby and make something of yourself. Sounds good, doesn’t it? … except when it’s your chin … and your belly. [Ed.]
Diana Russet spoke as a citizen who has attended meetings and who has felt distressed over cavalier attitudes by various council members and committee chairpersons. She feels that citizens are being treated unfairly. Her claim was that of a business owner. It’s just that Ventura is not Santa Barbara, and it is not Santa Monica and Venturans are simply not interested in paying more for services such as these, according to her.
Council Communications – the Mayor asked Tom whether the city had bought the meters prior to approval. Staff said that March 17, 2007 is when the downtown plan on parking was approved. In November 2007 there was an update given. In May 2008 Council gave direction to study the code, and in January 2010 Council approved purchase of the pay stations.
The mayor asked for Asst. Police Chief Quinn Fenwick to take the lectern – citizens had a “fear” of ticketing, he said. In the first weekend 34 to 38 tickets were written. On the second weekend 10, 11, and 10 on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, respectively. On this most recent weekend the numbers were 10, 11, and 12. The speaker thought it parking tickets were in the same ballpark, or less, based on before and now.
Council Member Monahan wished to comment on a recent discussion coming from an area where there aren't similar systems, noting that the meter instructions were difficult to read. The City of Oakland has a similar system where a timestamp can be used for parking anywhere in the same time frame. It's his claim that an adaptation could be considered.
Council Member Morehouse noted that hearing from these merchants there was a correlation, but he wondered what can be done to increase public awareness and outreach. From March 2007 until now, according to Staff, efforts were made that were difficult without DVO participation. Law enforcement attended meetings and distributed flyers to businesses. Changes to the code were included in outreach packaging.
The council member continued his questioning – if in 2007 during more prosperous times, would there have been the same resistance to the installation of parking stations? Staff did not feel qualified to answer, but did not feel that timing necessarily had anything to do with the resistance to feeling such as “we don't want to pay.”
Sid spoke from the public lectern, noting also that there is a six month delay in the correlation with numbers. With 2008 being the baseline, there has been a decline if one can deal with the skew in time.
The decline was already there,” said the former Mayor regardless of the meters. Council Member Morehouse wondered if cities such as San Luis Obispo might not have comparison notes that could be used. Retail sales tax numbers that compare the state of California indicate that “everything is down” and that's the best correlation.
Council Member Andrews asked Ariel if we were precluded from taking action based on the report and whether the council has delegated some of these actions. The motion to agendize is the item instructed Staff to prepare the item with consideration for changes and polishing issues up to and including removing them. The mayor said that the council did not agendize this item, but that the staff brought the issue.
Council Member Andrews continued, noting that there is value to the parking station issue. It was his belief that there was a greater significance to those businesses working on lower margins and lower traffic levels. His mention of the idea that a one dollar parking fee is significant might seem reasonable, considering if the purchased item cost only five dollars. In a restaurant a $10 meal would represent a parking fee assessment of 10%, which would be significant also. It was because of this that a substantial number of merchants believe that this is “a bad idea – it's hurting us.” It was his belief also that “it's been a terrible miscalculation.”
[Comment] Try buying that same $5.00 item at, let’s say, Pacific View Mall, where the parking is free. It’s like the Taco Bell ad we’ve all seen on TV – “just give us $6.00 and it’s all free.” Doesn’t anybody get it? If people are shopping in Downtown Ventura, they’re probably buying items that can’t be found at Macy’s or Sears. And if they could, what would you think the price for that item might be compared to the … uh, excuse me – the thrift store price? (Of which there is no shortage downtown or anywhere else.) So they’ve paid a dollar to park, so what? They’ve probably just saved $45.00 on the item alone, giving them a nice $39.00 savings they can put in their pockets. The fitting room is open, so try this on … $5 for the item, $1 to park … $6 total as opposed to $45 with free parking? Heck, for $39 I can throw a party and enjoy every minute of being able to lord it over my wife.
And another thing – you can get a $10 meal … at Carl’s Jr. – McDonald’s – Jack-In-The-Box and parking would be free as well. Try finding a $10 meal anywhere else … Denny’s, Carrows, the mall … and yes, the parking would be free. Here’s what we think. We think that folks who would try to circumvent a $1.00 parking fee on (not a $10 meal) but a far more realistic $25 meal, are really lousy tippers to boot. [Ed.]
As far as the DVO or P-bid, Council Member Andrews stated that he has voted against “all previous incarnations”of these proposed ordinances, and is tired of “losing them.” He claimed that the city should focus on goals other than the revenue bill, feeling that a removal of parking stations where there is no “85% problem” would very quickly reduce the number of blocks or installs that are causing the problem.
Council Member WeirNoted that Council has been considering this issue for at least five years, most feedback occurs after the fact, according to her, and that she helped with the DDO-DVO by using multiple e-mails, newsletters and handouts. She claimed to be in support of the parking committee's recommendations. The committee considered the idea that the unintended consequences of a moratorium may make the merchants less happy than they are now, resulting in a moratorium that would be essentially without parking enforcement provisions. This would undoubtedly result in the crowding of before.
She continued with the idea that the majority of merchants are benefiting from the program and that they understand those benefits. Some merchants understand that the money is being used for extra enforcement and extra cleaning services. There was an outcry from the IBS at these comments, but according to the councilwoman we have increased safety, cleanliness and events. She noted further that we want parking which is convenient. Those who don't want to pay don't have to pay, she said. She claimed to be supporting parking committee, which would include removal of parking meters in the 700 block.
Council Member Brennan thought that Council Member Weir had “hit the nail on the head.” With referral again to the parking space allocation, the comparison was refreshed noting the large number of free spaces. The councilman stated that he was comfortable with the parking advisory committee recommendations. The councilman asked Staff to comment again on variable rates.
Tom stated that the program is about management as Council Member Andrews noted. Prices could be lowered where utilization is low and higher for other areas. Multiple prices could confuse people, Tom said. Users would always know that there was a differential in pricing. Costs are involved in making those educational changes.
Council Member Brennan continued noting that all street parking can be problematic for people in the core downtown area. Utilization is not resulting in changes with side street parking, over time, according to Staff. Side street parking is in fact acting as overflow to the crowded hours on Main Street.
City Manager Cole wondered whether there is an overlap. Two things are happening – every changeover as a period of adjustment, he said. It was his belief that there is a significant adjustment involved in machines which may be difficult for some to figure out. He noted that changes can be handled but that we are going through the most difficult economic time in recent memory. “Ultimately we should experiment with pricing,” according to Mr. Cole. It was his feeling that a drop in pricing would be received in much the same way as a decrease in taxes – neither is its popular when you are against taxes to begin with.
Staff agreed that an adjustment period is necessary, and that the city manager had it about right. Council Member Brennan wondered whether targeted hours should be considered when further data has been collected and analyzed. This could be a tool that doesn't have to fall on the backs of the DVO or the taxpayers, he said.
Council Member Monahan noted that during restaurant week at least two popular restaurants were closed. These businesses apparently did not care to participate. Citizens came downtown only to find them closed. It was the councilman's assumption that motions could be made and that he would do so by moving that the meters be removed immediately. A second was obtained from Council Member Andrews. The mayor asked for amendments. The mayor asked for clarification – speaking to the motion, Council Member Morehouse spoke, saying that he was not hearing from the same people that Mr. Monahan was. He noted that specialty stores are not high on his list, but that a turnoff at the holiday season would mean that because a bad economy is at the core of the problem, according to him, it would not be a good idea.
Council Member Andrews spoke to Mr. Monahan's motion, noting that it was an announcement – rather more to the staff. “The motion is within the bounds,” as stated by the Mayor and verified by Ariel.
Deputy Mayor Tracy also noted that this is early in the process, noting that he has heard from business owners who are in favor of the program in the field that there are benefits to be garnered by it.
The roll was called – all members voted no with the exception of Council Members Andrews and Monahan voting yes.
Council Member Brennan moved that the motion be accepted as proposed by Staff – Council Member Andrews wished to clarify on the recommendations. The 700 block and the 50,000 coupons with the issues before the council with sources of funding and downtown lighting.
The motion by Mr. Brennan was taken by roll call – all members voted yes with the exception Council Member Monahan.
Council Member Andrews moved in favor of a two-hour maximum, along with the removal of parking stations in less than 85% zones, along with several other moratorium ideas.
On the motion made by Mr. Andrews – all members voted no with the exception Council Member Andrews and Council Member Monahan.
The VISTA bus stop issue was questioned – staff said they desired to talk to VCTC officials further before proceeding. There were ideas on relocating stop and several other locations. The transportation commission has indicated reservations.
The mayor noted that the suspended item on the agenda should be addressed, noting that the scheduled agenda could be replaced to the first meeting in December or the CD meeting in January.
In memory of Marv Jacobs, the meeting was adjourned.