Ventura City Council Meeting
August 2, 2010
Ventura City Hall - 501 Poli Street
Mayor Fulton to downtown low-wage workers: Be thankful for the city's low-income housing efforts, “like Thompson & Oak” where you can walk between home and the workplace with less chance of being “hit by a car,” noting also that they themselves probably don't earn enough to own a car.
To view a list of agenda items for the August 2 meeting, go to http://www.cityofventura.net/meeting/monday-august-2-2010
Mayor Fulton opened the meeting with a call of the roll – Council Member Morehouse was not present. The mayor then asked the council and all present to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The mayor also announced an agenda change – Agenda Item No. 11. According to the city attorney, a question came up as to a possible conflict of interest between city council members and Emergency Shelter/Supportive and Transitional Housing zoning regulations.
Agenda Item No. 11 – a motion was introduced by Council Member Weir to continue the item to November 15 at the Community Development Meeting – a second was taken, followed by the vote – all council members present voted “yes” with the exception of Council Member Andrews.
Special Presentations and Announcements – the Volunteer Ventura award is the individual award for outstanding service by an individual – the Community Motivators award. The recipient for August, 2010 was Crystal Rose Ramos. Her contribution to local history and special service work at the Olivas Adobe is deemed outstanding. Crystal Rose urged all present to volunteer for service work in Ventura.
Closed Session Reports – the city attorney was recognized and there were no reportable items.
Council Member Communications – Council Member Monahan expressed his appreciation to workers at the Ortega Adobe, noting also that the locks had been changed. On August 7, the Ventura County Fair two-mile run/walk will be open for sign-up, and the council member asked for judges in the costume contest to step forward and volunteer.
Council Member Weir commented on the situation involving the compensation of officers in the City of Bell, California – to include that of the city manager along with at least two other appointed government officials – and wished to call attention to the fact that compensation figures for all Ventura City Council members are disclosed on the City Of Ventura website – a search function can be used to pull up salaries. The councilwoman stated that the council members earn $600 per month … recently reduced to $500.
Regional Boards, Commissions and Committees – the Santa Paula Branch Line Advisory committee met recently – with Mayor Fulton present – noting that the Santa Paula Branch Line at the Fillmore & Western Railway and Union Pacific incurs costs that are between $300,000 and $800,000 annually. The mayor reported progress in easing the financial difficulties that threaten the ability to keep the lines open.
First Monday Public Communications – the speaking session was opened with the mayor reminding the speakers and spectators that speaking time is limited to three minutes.
Helen Yunker spoke asking for status of plans to develop city lot seven – now in its 13th year. The buyer, Mark, purchased the property in early January and is seeking closure of the deal. Plans are still not approved and funds are diminishing. The buyer is aware that the city has the power repossess the property while the contract is unsigned. She also complained about the code enforcement problem.
The next speaker, Melody Baker, asked that the mayor instruct the city clerk not use the mute button when those on the dais offer a reply or an answer to questions from the public during public speaking communications. Her claim was that this has happened on previous occasions. She further congratulated City Manager Cole on his salary raise to $215,000 per year (later refuted), asserting that the the city manager took his raise while cutting city workers' pay by 7% (later refuted). Lastly, Ms. Baker complained over the fact that as a homeless veteran herself, she was denied access to the Homeless Veterans Stand Down held at the Ventura Armory this past weekend.
The next speaker, Steve, brought to attention the fact that there are 7000 people buried in desecrated graves within the city – this includes Holy Cross School next to the chapel, and 3000 more at St. Mary's Cemetery. The speaker read a partial list of people in these graves with continuation of the process from past weeks.
The next speaker, Terence, spoke on a “hedge dispute” with the city along with timing issues, asking for a review of the minutes of municipal code 24.410.030.8, hoping to receive clarification on a 1-week grace period . His feeling is that there are several interesting aspects of the problem contained in the packet of documentation he had supplied.
The mayor noted that Jeffrey Lambert is in charge of the departments involved, and promised to refer the issue to the city attorney. The city manager commented, promising communications with the city council in an extensive review of the documentation, with a formal review to come in September.
Patti Thomas spoke, reminding everyone of the legal status surrounding the issue of the closing of Wright Library. She stated that the library is officially titled as the Helen P. Wright Memorial Library, and that there are lease agreements which remain standing, and that the date of March 15, 2015 is the date through which the library may remain in operation according to the terms and conditions between the lessor and the lessee. Her claim is that there is an agreement in standing, and that compliance must be continued to the terms of the lease.
The next speaker, Bill Hartin, spoke on the issue surrounding a new set of railroad tracks over the 101 crossing, claiming the project represents “the most important capital improvement goal to be achieved, maybe in 20 years,” whereas the California Street crossing will have a major impact upon traffic and the economy and that priorities need to be reordered. The high cost of a bike path restoration was claimed to be a waste of taxpayer money. On another issue the speaker was adamant over the protection of dune-building vegetation.
Council Member Brennan asked a question concerning “baby dunes.” Mr Hartin clarified the point that beach erosion requires the “growing” of new dunes, which includes redirecting traffic and the planting of new vegetation in the area. The council member said that there is a website showing the complete plan proposed by the city for restoration of the area.
Mr. Gonzales spoke next, representing the local artists colony, to focus on the issue of an historical local newspaper from the 1800s that describes Ventura in the time frame early on in the affordable home building boom. Code enforcement, according to the spokesman, has not taken into account the slower pace of upgrades to older homes.
The next speaker, Dan, addressed the medical marijuana moratorium, stating that he would rather not see the moratorium extended, but would rather see the problem solved now. He claimed to prefer limited growing and taxing of medical marijuana. He cited polling data that shows favorable ratings for the passage of medical marijuana laws. He supports proposition 19.
The next speaker, Lorenzo, spoke on behalf of of the Ventura Film Society, noting that a unit in the Nonprofit Sustainability Center has been their home for the last eight months. Their first screening at the Wave has been going well. His offer was for the public to support the their efforts and that they as members of VFS enjoy bringing people together “in the dark.”
The next speaker, Jill Martinez, the Chair of the Code Enforcement Collaboration, noted that there were between 50 and 60 people at their most recent community meeting, and mentioned the next meeting on September 11, probably at the Topping Room, which will be the second community meeting. Also there is a Collaboration meeting this Thursday, August 5 at 5:30 PM with the community being invited.
The mayor mentioned that Mr. Cole's compensation remains at about $175,000 per year, roughly the same as it was six years ago. In FY 09 to 10, the city manager also agreed to a 10 percent pay cut along with all city workers. Mr. Cole noted that he still drives the Prius that was supplied to him on the date of his arrival at the position.
City Council Consent Items – Council Member Brennan suggested that Agenda Item No. 11 be brought up a second time to accommodate late speaking arrivals – also with a November 15 continuation as suggested by the mayor in order to provide additional time. Also the item dealing with emergency shelters will not be discussed at this evening's meeting.
The minutes of July 12th (continuation) were brought up in ▪ authorization for promenade repair ▪ the Olivas Park drive extension ▪ the wastewater plant electrical replacement project ▪ the lease agreement for the wastewater plant “Pasteurization” program ▪ the Lincoln Drive neighborhood resurfacing program “award of contract” ▪ an implementation meeting to fund shared expenses in the Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program ▪ allocate funds to support the Community Partnerships Grant Program ▪ approve the award of contract for the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Pavement Maintenance Street Slurry Seal Project and a public hearing consent item ▪ the Medical Marijuana Interim Zoning issue ▪ were among those mentioned by the mayor in requesting the council to consider pulling one or more of the items for discussion. Deputy Mayor Tracy asked to speak on the medical marijuana issue, noting that he voted for permanent ban in the prior discussions.
The promenade issue, Agenda Item No. 2, was brought up by Mr. Andrews. Mr. Monahan declared his support for Mr. Tracy's position on Agenda Item No. 10 before the mayor announced that with two public speakers available to comment on Item No. 8, the agenda should proceed to that item before returning to the Promenade issue.
Melody Baker spoke in opposition to Item No. 8, saying that with the Homelessness Task Force having been moved to Jeff Lambert's department, it was her feeling that there is a misrepresentation factor that exists within the draft article. She also spoke on the medical marijuana ban, noting that police are not consistent in the enforcement as she presented documentation showing that persons becoming involved with the police are often undocumented.
The next speaker, Jill Martinez, spoke in favor of the Community Partnerships Granting Program.
Council Member Brennan was recognized, moving that agenda items under consent with the addition of number two be pulled off. The motion on the floor was seconded and the roll taken, with the result that the measure passed unanimously.
The mayor desired to return to the Promenade repair issue, even after being pulled, just to allow one more public speaker, where it was mentioned by Mr. Hartin that a ramp should be built rather than the stairway that is planned.
Council Member Andrews expressed concern over security in the Promenade plan – suggesting that security cameras be included, and that his motion to pull the issue centered over the complexities of the issue. The reply he received suggested that the issue could be brought up during phase 2.
Mr. Monahan desired to speak before a vote was taken on the measure, also being concerned about stairs in the design due to the potential steep incline. Council Member Brennan offered clarification, stating that the stairway appeared to be as much a seawall as anything else and that the Coastal Commission would need to weigh in on the issue.
Council Member Weir commented on the cameras, noting that security cameras are planned for downtown also, meaning that the security coverage area can be made to effectively cover the Promenade as well.
With a motion and a second on the floor the roll was taken on the Promenade issue, with all members voting yes.
Agenda Item No. 12 was addressed by Jeff Lambert, the Community Development Director. Council Member Monahan desired to be excused from the proceedings due to the potential conflict of interest. Mr. Lambert continued with comment on the Westside plan, noting that the plan will be presented to the Westside Community Council this Wednesday
A Westside Community Plan slide presentation revealed ▪ “Where We Are:” (1) Historic Survey ▪ Draft Community Context; (2) CEQA ▪ Consultant Qualifications; (3) RDA Survey Area Approved; (4) RDA Consultant RFPs; (5) Field Office Open ▪ Bell Arts Factory; (6) First Draft Community Plan/Code due out in October 2010.
The Petrochem/Brooks Institute Visual revealed ▪ “Guiding Principles:” (1) Ventura River; (2) Brooks Campus; (3) Balance of Jobs and Housing. A map showing the Brooks/Petrochem area was shown in “context,” followed by a slide titled “Ventura River” quoting an ostensible (1) “Light Impact” of Development; (2) Water Quality/Bio Filtering/Surface Drainage Plan; (3) Habitat, River Ecology, and Open Space Considerations; (4) Publicly Owned River Connection, either maintain current levels of public access to the ecological area or increase.
The Balance of Jobs and Housing Visual revealed ▪ (1) Balance Jobs and Housing at the Westside Community Plan Scale ▪ (2) Code Standards to Accommodate High-Tech and Green Job Expansion (3) Residential Capacity Within Context of the Westside Community Plan, and to Achieve a Goal of High-Value, High Wage Jobs; (4) Land Use Mix Based on a Balance of Community Desires and Market Analysis
Mr. Lambert touched on the Brooks Institute Campus Visual showing (1) “Ensure the ability of the Brooks Institute campus to expand and establish itself as the home of a 4-year institution of higher learning or similar campus environment.”
The Recommendation Visual revealed ▪ “Receive staff presentation and provide policy direction regarding guiding principles for the Petrochem/Brooks Institute site ▪ accept the guiding principles as outlined in the administrative report.”
Three public speakers followed – the first speaker was Vince Daly, who offered a presentation as a managing member of Petrochem Venture LLC and desired to clarify the site commission findings, noting that this is one of the few parcels on the Westside containing the bike path noting also that approximately 40 acres of the site have been proposed for riverbed preservation. The USA/Brooks consensual planning framework was presented as part of the slide presentation. A case study done by CSU Channel Islands was also part of the presentation. The conclusions slide followed showing appropriate scale and job housing balance as established in the overall community plan.
The next speaker, Master Jacob Daly, ostensibly the son of Vince, noted that there were 40 acres north of the Ventura River that need to be preserved with wildlife present, including fish and other wildlife. He noted that a rock wall should be removed. The young man ran through a list of the fauna and flora seen in the area.
The next speaker, Sandy Smith of Sespe Consulting, noted that this Scagg report covers methodologies for preserving the balance between residential and commercial interests in mixed-use development areas, and lists economic and business, infill housing strategies, parking reductions, transit development and mixed-use zoning revisions in order to make sure there is a good housing balance.
The next speaker, Claudia, noted that the plan for the upper North Avenue District and that Petrochem area planners are already recommending a larger residential area than was originally agreed to. She noted that hundreds of families placed next to the Ventura River is problematic. Her questions involved safer areas for up to 1100 housing units, where people would be closer to shopping, schools and areas closer to the city core.
The mayor asked for Jeff Lambert to clarify that which is in front of the council and that which is not, noting that issues involving the river are not necessarily part of the current item, but that there were issues for the staff to consider now and for the public later.
The city manager spoke noting that high-value high wage jobs was one of the driving issues the Westside housing consideration..
In Council Communications, Council Member Weir asked about the floodplain and walkable area issues, desiring to establish that these would be part of the overall guiding principles. The floodplain issue was not on the list of items for this meeting. She asked for assurances that attention would be paid to preservation of the mature trees in the plan.
Council Member Neal Andrews stated that he would like to applaud public speaker Claudia for her remarks, stating that his concerns were also with the flood plain issue. While the flood plain will affect a wider area overall, it will definitely affect the tract under consideration, he said, adding as a reminder that as a community we have spent more than five years developing a general plan that will benefit all residents, not only those affected within the proximity of these two properties. ”I think we need to remember that,” he said.
“We as a community reached a consensus,” he said, ... with many compromises being hashed out, including one stating that this particular tract would sustain about 100 houses -- not 1100. We need to be true to our word with respect to those issues. “Broadly speaking,” Mr. Andrews added, he was concerned with the notion that the job/housing balance as brought up by the city manager can be somehow arrived at through abstract ratios when speaking of large-scale business operations and campuses.
“There are many tracts out there,” … that are currently industrialized, and will not be easily converted to private usages. “The fact is,” the councilman continued, “... that these properties are being utilized by business people who are extracting returns on their capital investment.” And [para] “... the fact is that suitable properties for campuses and large-scale operations are not spread throughout that community. Many areas may be thought of as being underutilized, but this is not generally the case.”
Mr. Andrews’ point was that if you want to have employment and other supportive community development projects such as shopping areas, schools, medical facilities and so on, there will need to be land that is indeed both vacant and suitable, not just one or the other. If you want job development over a relatively broad area, you need to look for broader tracts that are indeed vacant or capable of being converted to other uses. He went on to note that these properties seem suitable for present purposes, and yet the principle as written in the report and as being discussed does not seem to wholly address these broader issues.
The councilman felt that some of the language within these outlined principles such as, “pending the market analysis,” could mean that while figures and facts may not be available for certain critical infrastructure planning, “we’ll just go ahead and do it anyway,” in his words. “We need to help Brooks in any way we can to assist them in their corporate development,” he said,” but [para] it must be done with sensitivity and safety given the flood plain issue and others as well.
Mayor Fulton made clarification on arriving at policy decisions based on only three votes out of the five remaining council members, receiving advisement from the city attorney that they should be allowed to proceed. Secondly, the mayor desired to expand on the the preservation of mature trees, noting that the principles are extremely broad in this regard. Environmental and open space principles according to Staff, would be expected to be carried forward. The answer according to Jeff was that the four basic principles and a longer list of environmental issues which appears elsewhere would be combined into a single motion.
Deputy Mayor Tracy desired to express general pleasure with the principles as presented, and had little problem with increasing the residential phase to include a number of units that could exceed 100.
Jeffrey stated that a market study could be done with a market analyst and other persons who are qualified to do that type of work with Mr. Tracy responding that conditions may change over time and that a means should be created for dealing with such eventualities.
Council Member Brennan claimed that a wonderful opportunity lay ahead of us to polish up the area and alleviate concern in the minds of some over the unsightly landscape in the petrochemical area of the city. He noted that there is an owner willing to come forward and that the city should take advantage of that fact, also stating that numbers placed on the screen mentioned live/workspaces in addition to housing – the kind of which we saw at Channel Islands – 300 units or so along with apartment-sized buildings, which are not, as he said, “written in stone.” Mr. Brennan claimed to be generally supportive of the principle package.
Council Member Weir acknowledged the fact of this being a guiding principles document, but still questioned a few numbers without actually beginning to crunch big “scary” numbers. Her concern remained centered on habitat, open space and other similar issues. The mayor responded with sub issues such as (a) through (i) as being part of the main heading above, and therefore part of the guiding principles. It was suggested that item (e) be added to the motion.
The mayor and asked for a motion to be put before the council, and with one being seconded -- the roll was taken and passage occurred with five members voting yes.
Fiscal Impacts of Affordable Housing Policy, Agenda Item No. 13 was brought up, with Jeffrey introducing Janey Buckingham and Sid White to open with a slide presentation that talked about the cost of city affordable housing policies. Staff Member Buckingham mentioned two categories -- the PILOT and the FEE WAIVERS.
The Council Actions Visual revealed: (1) Fees Waived for Westview and Future Housing Authority Projects(1975); (2) Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Established (1979); (3)Waive Administrative Fees up to $25,000 (2005); (4) PILOT Agreement Amended to Allow Housing Authority to use Funds for new Affordable Housing Projects (2008); (5) In considering fees, Deferred Fiscal Impacts of Policies Related to Housing Authority to FAB Committee (2010); (6) FAB Committee Directed Staff to do Further Research (2010); (7) Council Considers Fiscal Impact Findings (2010).
The PILOT Cooperation Agreement Visual revealed: (1) PILOT equaling an offset to property taxes that Housing Authority is exempt from paying; (2) PILOT being based on 10 percnt of Housing Authority’s public housing units, and that PHAs are allowed to use federal funds for PILOT payments; (3) Housing Authority pays PILOT which distributes among taxing entities (incl. County, school district, city); (4) Housing Authority request for waiver of PILOT, stops making payments, establishes Housing Trust Fund; (5) Council amends Agreement, allowing Authority to stop PILOT payments & use for HTF.
The Fiscal Impacts of PILOT to the City Visual revealed: PILOTs calculated for 2005 – 2008 that the City’s share over the four-year total amounted to $163,397; PILOT monies not paid to taxing entities or directed to the Housing Trust Fund for development of new affordable housing units amounted to $980,194.
The Fiscal Impact of Residential Properties Visual revealed that the “Cost of Providing Services to Residential Properties” were: (1) Regardless of property taxes collection, there is a cost to taxing entities to serve residential properties; (2) Estimated cost for general City services amounts to $2.09/person/day; (3) Estimated annual cost for City services for a 4-person household amounts to $3000; (4) PILOT is designed to offset costs of providing services to tax exempt residential properties.
The Housing Authority – Fee Waivers Visual revealed that: (1) Council granted Housing Authority request to waive the permit fees for Westview and future contracts (1975); (2) Housing Authority requests waiver of fees for Chapel Lane Apartment project – city attorney concluded Resolution of 1975 was outdated (30 years of court decisions and changes in laws (2004); (3) Housing Authority requests City to reimburse $252,191 already paid in fees for Chapel Lane (2005); (4) Council approved waiver of certain administrative fees up to $25,000 for Chapel Lane and other Housing Authority residential housing projects.
Further on this issue, The Housing Authority – Fee Waivers Visual revealed that; (1) Housing Authority requested waiver of all development fees for Soho Apartment project (2010); (2) Based on 2005 Chapel Lane action: (a) Waiver of $25,000 in administrative fees for Soho project granted; (b) Waiver of up to $25,000 in administrative fees for Encanto del Mar project available.
The Fiscal Impacts revealed that: (1) The PILOT Waiver Visual amounted to a $40,000 + per year loss of general fund revenue; (2) Fee Waivers with a single $25,000 waiver amounted to a loss of $25,000 in revenue toward the general fund; (3) Additional Waiver – Dollar-for-Dollar loss in revenue toward the general fund.
The Recommended Action Visual revealed that: (1) Accept and a review Administrative Report; (2) Provide staff direction, if any, for further consideration.
Public Communications -- Mayor Fulton noted that with three public speakers waiting, council members were given the opportunity to ask questions. However, having no lights, the Public Communications session commenced.
The first speaker, Ed Moses, CEO of the Housing Authority, desired to clarify the rent situation paid from renter to the housing authority, indicating that increases and/or decreases are based upon a percentage of the renter’s annual income. He stated further that the housing authority anticipates decreased collections in the coming fiscal year. The housing trust fund account was implemented based upon the leveraging potential that was available through PILOT, permitting further support of the two aforementioned projects (Soho, Encanto).
Council Member Andrews wanted to clarify the point in regard to the number of families that would be housed. The answer – about 49.
Jill Martinez with Community Action spoke, expressing the fact that she was very concerned over this report when comparing low income housing while failing to compare “apples to apples” in her view. Some of the for-profit low-income apartment complexes in several downtown areas have become, in her words, “drug-infested, disease-riddled flophouses,” whereas the benefit to the community through well-run, community-based housing is substantial in terms of mitigating youth crime problems and student discipline challenges, while more easily moving forward with better educated and potentially more successful citizens of the future.
The next speaker, Deborah, in speaking for herself felt that the city has a moral imperative to provide affordable housing in order to create a vibrant community, and agreed to the great cost benefit accrued.
Council Member Brennan asked Ed to expand on the school district aspect of this issue, as touched upon by Jill, questioning any agreement worked out with the school district during PILOT projects and what were those conversations. The answer was that the school districts were given to understand the preferences involved for units under development. Jill then replied that without the program things like new after school curricula would likely not be available due to lack of funding.
Council Member Weir responded to those in favor of the benefits by saying that has council members they must pay attention to the costs, saying further that to control the costs council members need to understand what the costs are in order to arrive at the true value of subsidies. She noted again that it takes $3000 per household in order to obtain the benefits of services, and for those who are not paying for services those costs are subsidized by others. This creates a subsidy gap, in her view, which makes calculation of the costs that much more difficult, complicating the issue of subsidized housing when not everyone is paying property taxes.
Council Member Andrews felt it was important to emphasize the fact that this is not a cost benefit analysis problem, but one that impacts the lives of ordinary hard-working citizens. People living in low-costs housing units are indistinguishable from citizens living in standard housing, according to him. Then looking at the costs issue, Mr. Andrews noted that a $3000 cost of services is not paid for through property taxes only. A true cost of only $480 is a more realistic breakout of the property tax burden, which the councilman sees as an example of the slight blurring that can occur in any rigid assessment of cost vs. benefit.
Deputy Mayor Tracy praised Mr. Moses for his work with the affordable housing authority, noting that PILOT was made available in order to help leverage federal funds for housing locally. The councilman went through the logic of using these funds, but at the same time appeared to be searching for an alternative solution in providing affordable housing – seeking “appropriate locations” for low-cost housing and suggesting that alternative methods may yield even better collaborative efforts.
Council Member Monahan asked of Mr. Moses whether or not most residents in his housing were legal residents of California and of the U.S. The answer was in the affirmative.
Mayor Fulton spoke, giving his impression of the discussion from the standpoint of the low wage worker in downtown restaurants, where minimum wages are the order of the day, and when most other successful residents of the city are enjoying the fruits of prosperity. In that context, said the mayor, what we are getting is a downtown workforce that can simply walk home, as he put it, with [quote] less risk of being hit by a car [unquote].
[commentary] It seemed as though the mayor was saying that this represents a benefit of low-wage living that has not been mentioned to this point. What he didn’t say, definitively, but seemed to be alluding to was that perhaps our local dishwashers and busboys should be a bit more thankful for the “Thompson & Oak downtown project,” for example, (which he mentioned by name) as something that he and other hard-line social conservatives have carved out for them. [commentary]
The mayor moved the agenda along to the final agenda item, Request for Policy Consideration – Downtown Block Party as a community event. Council Member Brennan stated that the new environmental health groups, many listed as nonprofits, often sponsor community events – speaking countywide, not just in Ventura -- and suggested asking the city attorney for support in helping these special groups perform under relaxed rules if possible. The councilman, at the mayor’s suggestion, moved that groups in the environmental health department begin working with the city attorney to obtain city sponsorship for the event. The roll was taken with the motion passing unanimously.
The mayor announced that the council shall stand adjourned until September 20th.