Ventura City Council Meeting
December 13, 2010
Ventura City Hall - 501 Poli Street
The long-awaited Safe Housing Collaborative report – which if approved is expected to give property owners final dispensation on the staus of "granny flats" in the city – has again been delayed. Great hope has been given also to the possibility of removing property title restrictions in the form of "clouding" as a form of punitive action against the homeowner over relatively minor code non-compliance issues. This too will have to wait, however, until February 28, 2011 at the earliest.
The mayor opened the meeting with the call of the roll – Council Member Brennan was not present – the mayor then requested that everyone stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Special Presentations and Announcements – the mayor honored members and attendees of the Westside Community Development planning meeting. Community groups such as CAUSE were present. Dave Ward and a list of his staff members were honored.
The winners of “Take a Shot,” the Ventura People's Choice Award for Digital Photographers capturing the diversity of people and cultures, were honored. Kerry Davis of the Public Arts Commission was a judge along with Council Member Weir. Denise helped hand out the certificates to Donald Anderson, Warren Bass, John Arezzo, Carlie Hemmingway, Mary Diamond, Jack Keel, Sheldon Brown, Christine Ellison, Stephen Osman, and Justin Benscoter. The winners’ entries will be exhibited in City Hall for the remainder of the week.
Closed Session Report – the city council conducted two special meetings, one involving Manning versus the City of Ventura along with a second involving union negotiations.
Council Member Monahan expressed concern over the Safe Housing Collaborative issue on the agenda this evening, being displeased over the fact that the mayor had intended to leave the meeting early. The mayor asked the opinion of the other council members.
Council Member Morehouse felt that this would crowd items down the line. The city manager felt that the item could be postponed until January, even though the same item has been postponed previously. It was hoped that completion could be obtained by the time six members were still present.
Jill Martinez stated that the Safe Housing Collaborative Committee would like to present, although it would be preliminary, and that by addressing specific requests it would facilitate the final report in February. Two council members might be available to join with the committee before final presentation. Council Member Monahan moved that the item be postponed due to the fact that only five council members will be available on a very important issue.
The Community Development Block Grants were spoken to by Council Member Andrews. He noted that the national league voted to go forward. A compromise position on the green building standards was also proposed and one which will go forward according to the councilman.
Council Member Weir noted that there is a nonprofit organization called Cultivate Ventura. It's all about landscaping and public spaces. The councilwoman invited the public to a planting project scheduled to take place tomorrow.
The Channel Islands League of California Cities has a new President – Carl Morehouse.
Canto Del Mar had its groundbreaking ceremony last week, as announced by the mayor.
Regional Boards, Commissions and Committees – Council Member Weir serves on the Community Commission of Ventura County, getting reports from county agencies this week, including a bulletin from the County Agency of Behavioral Health. The alcoholic energy drinks that are increasingly popular have now been banned, according to the councilwoman. Supervisor Long, Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors, intends to begin enforcement on the removal of these drinks from store shelves on those brands which have already been banned by the FDA.
The Ventura County Museum, as reported by Council Member Monahan, will be going online soon. Users will be able to access a database enabling a search of items that might be found in the museum. The museum has obtained a grant to perform.
The County Library Commission meeting at the Topping Room was attended by the mayor, who relayed the message that a short layoff will occur in order to lay out new procedures.
City Council Consent Items – the upcoming municipal election and the other agenda items for the evening meeting were enumerated by the Mayor. One speaker on Agenda Item No. 6 – the council was then asked if there was an item it wished to pull. Council Member Monahan desired to pull Agenda Item No. 5. Deputy Mayor Tracy asked a question on Agenda Item No. 1 without wishing to have it pulled. Ariel stated that there was an error found in the formula for computing the ceiling for the contribution limit. Mr. Monahan stated that he wanted to pull Item No. 4 and not number five.
The meeting schedule was looked at by Council Member Morehouse, noting that several meetings may have had schedule difficulties, including one coinciding with Passover.
With four speakers requesting to speak on number four and Patti Thomas speaking on number six, the Mayor turned the podium over to Patti.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Public Communications – Patti Thomas expressed her wholehearted support for the proposed Senior Recreation Center Master Lease plan, describing it as a win-win situation where at least $100,000 was going to be made available at as a means of helping to keep the senior center open. The senior center will rent the building and lease back the premises to the city. She noted that this would be a similar situation if the same plan could be applied to the Wight Library.
The mayor moved that Consent Items No. 1 through 11 minus No. 4 be approved. The roll was taken with all members voting yes
Agenda Item No. 4 – Council Communications – Council Member Monahan asked Ariel a question regarding the parking district. Staff Member Tom Merical may have had the answer, but he was not present. The question raised ended up being, in simplest form, with the city leasing these parking spaces, would notification of the parking district be made.
Council Member Weir noted that as the parking district issue moves forward, including the property owners and the hospital, a notification will happen at that time. The councilwoman was confident that everyone will be duly notified. The roll was taken to approve Item No. 4 – all members voted yes.
Agenda Item No. 12 – Deputy Mayor Tracy noted that the Appointments committee met last week, where interviews were conducted. The committee recommended the appointment of Barbara Dean, the owner of Jersey Mike's restaurant, as a service member on the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee. Cathy Asher was recommended as a service member on the Cultural Affairs Commission. Her background is in education and the arts and will be a great addition to the Cultural Affairs Commission, according to the deputy mayor. It was moved that these appointment recommendations be approved – the roll was taken. All members voted yes.
Cathy was present in Chambers and spoke from the lectern delivering her thank-you’s for the approval.
Agenda Item No. 13 – Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative report – Staff went forward with its presentation.
Prior City Council Actions – July 2008: Rental Housing Program; December, 2008: Staff Report and Public Comment; January, 2009: Approve Proactive Program; May, 2009: End Proactive Program (saf-hous-collab-rpt-1)
Actions (Cont’d.) – July 2009: Proposed Amnesty, Education, Relocation and a Home Repair Loan Program; November 2009: Authorized VSHC to Facilitate Civic Engagement; May, 2010: Approved VSHC’s Request to Extend Deadline (saf-hous-collab-rpt-2)
The Directive to the Collaborative – Facilitate Group meetings – Facilitate Workshop Meetings – Report to Planning Commission – Report to Council in July 2010 (saf-hous-collab-rpt-3)
Collaborative Achievements – Two Public Workshops – Nine group meetings – Transcribed several engagement notes – Developed Summary List of Findings (saf-hous-collab-rpt-4)
Collaborative Challenges – Brown Act Compliance – Member Participation – Biased Independent Outreach Impacts – Achieving Consensus (saf-hous-collab-rpt-5)
According to Staff, biased outreach impacts included irate citizens who thought that with water heaters becoming the issue, it was understandable because, “thankfully we live in a country where everyone can state their opinion.”
Alternatives – Form City Council Subcommittee – Leave VSHC Structure as is & Extend Amnesty March 1, 2011 – Receive VSHC Report & Refer Report to Staff / Resume Standard Enforcement a/o January 1, 2011 (saf-hous-collab-rpt-6)
Recommendation – directs staff to return to the council with recommendations no later than February 28, 2011 (saf-hous-collab-rpt-7)
Ken Luper, the Collaborative Vice Chairman was expected to speak. Jill Martinez introduced members of the collaborative who were asked to stand for recognition. The speaker noted that staff personnel are required to enter homes of the citizen. The speaker used an allegory involving dry sand versus wet sand noting that dry sand will not hold a form. Most of the information being spoken to was contained in a slide showing “Solutions for Creating Code Compliance / Safe Housing.” There is “Background / the Appointment Process / Committee Dealing with Stakeholders. Public outreach consumed much of the time, according to the speaker. Time was also required in order to develop their final recommendations. Comments were recorded by topic while noting recurring themes. Findings will be presented in February of this year. The appendices is what will make this a complete report said the speaker
Solutions for creating code compliance is their over arching theme – the categories of building trust, effective program management systems, education and training, and the reduction of fear are the guidelines. The graph showed a bottom up flow while going through “buy-in” and finally into compliance.
Another slide showed “Major Themes for Recommendation.” The Guidance / Code / Policy” bar resulted in the largest in terms of responses, with Fear / Anger / Stress / Distrust bar showing the lowest.
Sonya Cross, a member of the collaborative and speaking as a member of the Outreach committee, stated that the opportunity for input came through meetings, survey, and by planning meetings in collaboration with city staff. Stakeholders were identified including homeowners, landlords and business groups, each of which identified outreach groups at their own levels. The city newsletter was used and renters were reached using the library, community markets, hair solons and a range of locations. The members assumed different tasks, coordinating with city staff in order to collaborate with other groups. Flyers and surveys were used extensively.
Barriers to outreach included Spanish speakers, child care issues and others and yet ways were found to address these issues by providing food, child care and translation as a way to help. Community members were well in attendance, many reaching 60 to 100 people. The lessons learned about outreach will be included in the report. 500 volunteer hours have been documented on the part of this stakeholders committee.
The Safe Housing Collaborative was praised for helping to achieve selective housing solutions. The speaker thanked the council for support of their work and encouraged adoption of the recommendations.
Ken Luber went through a graph presentation – Jill – will she get the charts put together? Ken acknowledged that the slide was complex and difficult to read, but the group decided to go forward at Jill's recommendation. The speaker, as a writer technical manuals for the military, understood the difficulties and the art in compiling the voluminous amounts of data. The speaker showed a slide presenting a workflow process, typical of creating technical manuals. The speaker’s direction went toward the distress being felt by the average American in down markets. As the chart on screen began to develop, it was noted that citizens’ taxes and fees go to the government and the government then funds various types of housing elements.
Citizens need to be sure whether a permit is requested or required for certain projects. This information moves into a process workflow. If a fee is required that also moves into the process, combined with the relevant information. Complaint-based code enforcement can and does occur where one neighbor reports on their neighbors. In the final scenario, the citizen facing hard times becomes angry and, being uninformed, is caught up in cost recovery and compliancy problems. This citizen then becomes exposed to a negative type of code enforcement.
If you have a process for code enforcement, it must be fast, cheap and easy, according to the speaker. Then in process analysis the blocks of / inform / inspect and / issues / arises. Cost objects include / labor / material / contracts / travel / and other costs. There is a further challenge – the change in the overhead comprised of management and G and A.
The next issues to be dealt with involve the board and the council. Issues with the Fourth Amendment sometimes arise. The general plan was introduced into the graphic which was what Sonya had been discussing. In the maintenance area there are the / building codes / the health codes / and the safety codes – many of them seeming to the public as excessive. When fees are involved the public often becomes fearful and angry. The outputs included / permits / grants and liens.
Recommendations are to extend the time until February 28 where the final report can be issued, and that the city council should establish an ad hoc committee not for editing the report, but for guidance. They are endorsing these two recommendations.
Council Communications – Council Member Monahan noted that Camille Harris offered questions which Ariel said he would answer this evening.
Council Member Morehouse asked Jill if she had received materials that did not come from Staff and which represented a refined table of contents book. The councilman claimed that it was not his intent for the packet to include all the raw data, and Jill confirmed that it was not delivered by the collaborative. His concern was then directed towards Sonya, asking about computer users and that not everyone owns a computer. There is a segment where the computer users make for efficiencies in outreach, but that certain segments such as Spanish speaking households are not always reached in this manner.
In terms of the meetings, the councilman continued, he noted that new people along with the drop-off in attendance from prior meetings, may result in information getting lost in the shuffle. There may be those who do not remain active enough for an assessment to be made over their issues.
Council Member Weir also wondered about the extra packet. Two recommendations for this evening as opposed to the 54 recommendations in the mystery packet was a concern. The establishment of the ad hoc committee was one of the recommendations. The councilwoman hoped to discover the reason for a separate council committee. Jill replied that the special input can be used along with the questions answered.
Public Communications – Bill Hartin was called with Camille beginning.
Camille Harris spoke, wishing to have people focus on the policies and not the personalities. On this evening she mentioned Jeff Lambert. She noted that Jeff did not plan upon having to handle issues of this volume, and yet she applauded his efforts. Andrew Stauffer and Sue Taylor were also commended. In the goals committee she saw council members’ names from Boulder Documentation. Camille also singled out Ken, recognizing his work from the Missile Defense Center. Then thanking the members of the collaborative, the speaker applauded the recommendation of an ad hoc committee. Her recommendation was for the council to get involved with the committee.
Council Member Monahan asked the speaker to restate the concerns that she has been addressing. Noting issues that have been around since 2006 – Can the council create a temporary moratorium on the granny flat condemnations? … and can there be a temporary moratorium on clouding titles to homeowners who have been troubled with citations? “First do no harm,” she said upon leaving the podium.
Council Member Weir asked also where the unidentified packet of information came from. It turned out that Mr. Monahan wanted a copy because it was a public record from the previous Wednesday, and since he was receiving a copy it was his belief that all members should receive it. This document had been submitted by Mr. Luper, and that document became public information.
Mr. Luper desired to speak, noting that the document of 8 December (because of the Brown Act) they had to put a package together for the committee review. The speaker noted a degree of “overkill,” but all 550 items were listed and put into the form of a recommendation of sorts.
Mike Gonzalez appeared as a renter and a local Ventura artist, noting that housing laws are changing. The method of change is up to the council. He hoped that as a renter the council would heed objections, noting that he’d been told that trying to change the status quo would be a “rocky road.” The council should consider the needs of every citizens and that trust is involved, he said.
Tom Stanley noted that recommendation number 35 would remove the clouding of property titles. Home equity may not be accessible due to the clouding of the title, thus blocking compliance. With the financial ability of the property owner unable to comply, this amounts to an unreasonable punitive action. The council needs to see reports from Staff with their own eyes. The council should then form an ad hoc subcommittee in order to obviate the situation.
Eric Robilosky wanted the council to understand how this has affected him. The speaker had served on many city committees in the past and is not certain of the genesis of recommendations such as these; he had moved into a second unit in the rear of the property and told that it was illegal for him to reside there. Code enforcement announced brusquely that he was “illegal.” Code enforcement descended upon him creating the “monkey on his back.” He claimed that what has happened to him has generated costs equating to $1000 per month, based on the fact that he cannot live where rents are reasonable. Where the situation could have been one of helpfulness, such was not the case.
Council Member Morehouse noted that the person who sells has the onus to bring property up to code in areas such as Santa Barbara, but not Ventura currently. The councilman asked whether the speaker would encourage the passage of ordinances such as those in Santa Barbara. The speaker didn't appear to have a definitive answer.
Dan Cormode said he was following this closely. The staff report appears to be a document addressed to city management. The community, he claimed, has not seen any of the information. His claim was that the issue of safe versus non-conforming has not been delineated. If nonconforming only, this would mean that there should not be a problem with occupancy. His claim was that waivers should be available.
Tag Gilbert commented that escrow reports and inspections are often lost in storage facilities and destroyed due to fire and flood, with it being up to the owner to search for these documents. His claim was that the public desires to have conversations directly with the policy makers. His claim was further that single home owners in family code residential areas are not the only citizens involved, with business people, shelter organizations and many other forms where members of the community live together. All persons should be shared equally with Staff and some members of the council sitting around the table so that information coming forth can be digested by the public at large.
Can the council place a moratorium on un-permitted granny flats, was the question reiterated by the mayor. Staff presented a scenario where a phone call comes in saying that this problem is current; protocol for the city is to identify the problem but that if safety is not involved a person is not to be evicted at that point. It is no longer a Priority One once live safety issues have not been identified. Only one family has been evicted due to live safety issues and who could not clear the violation in the same day.
The mayor’s second question was can the city put a moratorium on clear title suspension – Ariel noted that the answer was given last week and that the answer is in the affirmative.
Clouding the title can occur when a property has been in violation for more than 30 days. The notice is recorded – the problem has been updated, but the notice must be lifted. This can sometimes be a problem. There hasn't been an issue in eight years according to the staff whether someone could not have a title cleared in escrow. The mayor asked if this is typical. Staff didn’t have an answer for that.
Tom Stanley asked could the council meet with the collaborative directly – the answer was yes. The council could create something more than an ad hoc committee, according to Ariel, which might consist of the majority of Council. Such would be inadvisable, however, again according to the city attorney.
Council Communications – Andrew was asked by Council Member Monahan whether state requirements for code construction ever been waived – staff replied that they have not.
The mayor replied to the question of whether there is a priority system within its lapse requirements – including live safety hazards for someone is using the structure for an unintended purpose. The answer was that these situations are attempted to be verified within one working day. Beyond that there could be a need for a seven day lapse in working through to abatement.
Council Member Weir asked about records – if the city grants records, do we have a good record keeping system and if you build today will that file appear. Answer – Records date back to the 1920s and many have been digitized. In the current system records are generated on paper and then transferred to digital media. Staff noted that over 1 million images are managed in the system. There could be errors, he noted. It happens that records are skipped and not in the database when a citizen brings in the document. Inspectors often look at the materials and check for compliance. A lack of screens and deadbolts – the councilwoman asked whether this would make a second unit a priority one. The answer was people are not evicted for these violations. Other issues may be found when the inspector enters the property to check on deadbolts, thus generating a new code violation issue. Staff appeared to be trying for some wiggle room, however, when it came to what happens when un-permitted structures suddenly appear on property that previously did not contain records for the structure.
The councilwoman continued, noting that the inclusion of council members as ad hoc committee members did not appear to be appropriate. Claiming that as an individual council person her direction to the staff was that with good background being given, the consensus must be achieved as the measure is brought for approval.
Council Member Morehouse decided to “piggyback” Council Member Weir's question asking how many units that were secondary – the answer being about 40,000. With billing records not always being complete the councilman appreciated the use of tax assessors offices and Sanborn maps plus other methods. He also wished to know what portion or number of cases exist for which information is lacking. Of the proactive inspections done in the 500-case sampling, Staff noted that 20% were substandard on some level and only five were found to be illegal dwelling units. It could be 1%. “What does code enforcement do,” asked the councilman. Staff noted that they are here to support the community. They are not thugs with axes to grind. They roll up to the property and knock on the door, doing an inspection by making sure the person being spoken to is of legal age and asking for authorization to do an inspection. An inspection warrant may be required or requested depending on the responses received by the homeowner.
The councilman continued as Sherry Cash was asked again about the ad hoc committee. She replied that Council Member Monahan had worked with the collaborative and so the opportunity presented itself to ask questions of the council persons, leading to the idea of an ad hoc committee. The council member’s consideration was not different from Council Member Weir's in that a conflict of interest could occur in influencing the collaborative's output. His claim was that the city is not unlike one giant homeowners association, where individual members are required to “follow the rules.”
The mayor noted that he would be turning the gavel over to Deputy Mayor Tracy but wished to note that he didn't see a real need for a city council ad hoc committee to interface with the collaborative. The mayor further didn't think that “it was a good gamble,” although it is theoretically possible but not necessary.
Council Member Andrews was recognized by the deputy mayor asking that when we annex unincorporated territory by bringing it into the city, is the county property brought in as legal but also nonconforming. Noting that even if it's not conforming it is part of the city but not illegal. He asked, “What were the county codes at the time, and do we know when they came in?” Something that has been built subsequent to incorporation may present problems determining whether the original construction was conforming. The issue from the councilman was fire documentation which may be lost and time-consuming issues plus cost factors.
The councilman continued with respect to the ongoing council ad hoc committee discussion, noting that Council Member Weir sits on the DVO as a voting member of that board. The councilman served on the Social Services Task Force years before becoming a councilperson. His point was that it is legally and ethically a different arrangement.
Council Member Weir desired to clarify – a permanent arrangement on a DVO is different from a temporary member of the committee such as collaborative. Her feeling was that this was a “different” arrangement. She added that in Ventura many contractors do not inform prospective customers of the necessity for permits. She used an experience of her own with the plumber who appeared to be trapped while trying to install a water heater at the councilwoman's home not realizing position he was in.
Council Member Monahan noted that on committees he's been on he has never voted even on the museum committee or others that may be considered permanent. The councilman asked Ms. Weir to respond.
Council Member Weir continued to defend her position on the DVO, insisting that a close relationship was necessary.
Council Member Morehouse continued with the value issue for having council members on outside committees. The city manager interjected with information noting that if the council has particular views and a collaborative has submitted information in draft form, it may be that through prior liaison with the outside organization, a subcommittee on the council could streamline the process using the direction that it collected from the lower body.
Councilman Morehouse noted that the representatives of the council do not readily reflect the views of the entire Council. The city manager again interjected, saying that if the council member has a clear idea of where they want staff to fill that would be one scenario. But if no clear path has been delineated, then the issue should be deliberated by the entire Council. The councilman then moved that he would not include the ad hoc committee, but to continue with the collaborative’s work until February, and that the staff should be the facilitator in bringing the data forward. With a second having been received, Council Member Andrews wished to speak to the motion. His concern was for a conclusion to the issue by February, and that the committee should complete their work before February 28 in order that the process be closed off at the deadline. His recommendation was that the motion be adjusted to include a composite of the staff’s recommendations and the collaborative groups alternatives.
Council Member Morehouse realized that the gatekeeper portion of the issue would reside with Staff and not the outside committee, agreeing that the issue must come to an end. The deputy mayor asked Jill whether the collaborative could meet these deadlines, noting that February 1 would work for them. The timing of admin reports, which is what this is basically, would allow the staff and the collaborative to work together on that final document. The collaborative could commit having that report done by the first week in February, according to Jill.
The city manager noted that the council wanted the final report to have already been done but that it was not. The deputy mayor asked that if we move to approve Item B, would this reflect the councilman's motion? Council Member Morehouse indicated that it would.
As regards the Brown Act, asked Council Member Monahan, “Would a council person’s presence on outside committee meetings constitute a violation? The city attorney replied that this would not be a violation.
Council Member Weir asked for verification that by the first week of February all comments by both the committee and staff will be incorporated, with the answer being in the affirmative.
In the rare instances where a lean is placed on property, that the process needs to be clear and independent before the lean is placed, Deputy Mayor Tracy said. If adequate complaint procedures are in process and there is the possibility of redress by a citizen who has been wronged by the process – can this be included in the motion? He noted that long term augmentation of the staff could be necessary in order to meet a few of these goals. Speaking as a former police chief, the deputy mayor seemed aware of the impact on the public. The deputy mayor thanked members of the collaborative plus the 2-1/2 code enforcement officers for their work.
City clerk was asked to take the roll – all members voted yes. Council Member Monahan echoed the personnel shortage in the enforcement department, noting that streets have row after row of permanent trash cans and that with trash on property the situation is “a mess.”
Public Communications – Patti Thomas wished to ask the council to reflect over the Christmas break and to look over the past year when we had a vibrant Helen Power Wright library with 12 to 15 employees working there, including her, and that with library services being reduced and the trickle-down effect being felt by all city employees. She noted that she will be working at the Prouter Branch Library in Port Hueneme.
LaDonna Martinez spoke to her questions brought before the council on December 6 regarding downtown parking meters noting, that her questions have been submitted and she desires answers. The city manager noted that most of the questions she asked are already a matter of public record. She asked a series of “essay” questions, which is something they try to be cooperative with, but with the staff time required for that – in those instances where the staff could submit information – were answers that can be found either on the web or in the library or in the archive of public records in City Hall.
Council Communications – Council Member Morehouse noted that this being the final meeting of the year, he wanted to wish everyone a happy holiday.
Council Member Weir directed a comment to Patti, noting that the Camarillo Library situation included the fact that 30 people lost their jobs, but that 28 were rehired by the private corporation.
Council Member Andrews also wished to wished every citizen a happy holiday.
The deputy mayor adjourned the meeting also with best wishes for the season.