Ventura Commenter

Ventura City Council Meeting

January 24, 2011

Ventura City Hall - 501 Poli Street

 

City Manager Rick Cole spoke to the Cañada Larga issue by saying that no one can see the future of redevelopment in California, and with increasingly negative press coverage on several fronts – including abuses – a second issue involving the press includes the fact that the state comptroller is going to audit 18 redevelopment agencies within the next year and a half. Mr. Cole said that it is anticipated that there will be widespread discovery even down to the “postage stamp” level. If there isn't a total loss of redevelopment there will be gross reductions in funding.

To View a listing of the agenda items for this council meeting, go to www.cityofventura.net/meeting/city-council-meeting-28.

Mayor Fulton opened the meeting with the call of the roll – all present. The mayor then requested that Councilman Monahan lead in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Council Member Morehouse noted that he had been active over the weekend in picking up trash on his side of Day Road. He also mentioned that on the 26th, from eight until noon, is the Volunteer Summit, which is a volunteer program open to everyone, in City Hall at the Atrium, and to be prepared for a day's worth of work.

It was also noted that David Oppenheimer passed away, leaving behind a major art legacy to himself, his family and to the city.

Council Member Andrews reminded all within range of his voice that on Saturday, January 29 in the County Medical Center auditorium, there will be a workshop called Bridges Out of Poverty. The event will be of interest to professionals, volunteers – and the just plain curious – who are working, or would like to work, in this extremely worthwhile field of endeavor. Registration will be held from 8:00 to 8:30 a.m. with the seminar taking place between 8:30 and 3:30. There is a $10 entrance fee with a luncheon included.

A second notable event is on February 3, at 8 AM at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, where there is a free breakfast program sponsored by the Turning Point Foundation. The focus of the meeting will be on mental illness. The councilman also reminded all of the upcoming birthday of poet Robert Burns.

Deputy Mayor Tracy wished to acknowledge the passing of Kent Quinn, who devoted most of his life to teaching, which included a professorship at Ventura College. It was requested that the meeting be closed in his honor.

Council Member Monahan stated that he had been also cleaning up over the weekend, removing signs posted by the public on various city structures along the Avenue.

Council Member Weir praised a volunteer project which has been completed recently, noting a new landscape section near the Promenade and emphasizing the fact that the labor was all-volunteer. A nonprofit organization called Cultivate Ventura provided funding. Another event of note was a meeting based on the environmental impact potential of small business – a small company called Textile Waste Solutions specializes in picking up discarded clothing and textiles which remain unsold in thrift shops, and manages to keep these materials out of our landfills through recycling.

The mayor wished to congratulate the Ventura Chamber of Commerce for their Seminar for Young Professionals, where there was a mixer and a party along with the session work. The mayor reinforced Council Member Morehouse’s mention of the volunteer program coming up this Wednesday in the Atrium at City Hall.

Regional Boards, Commissions and Committees – the League of California Cities meeting yielded some interesting legislation, but not necessarily of interest locally at this point. The proposal by the governor to discontinue redevelopment agency work meant that the city and the league would monitor this along with the councilman himself, as he stated it.

Council Member Andrews noted that on February 10 he would be attending the Point Mugu Joint Use Airport Authority meeting, making it clear that contingency plans for any Base closing decision would have an impact locally.

Council Member Monahan noted that along with other appointments and promotions, he had been named Chairman of the Ventura Regional Sanitation District.

CONSENT ITEMS – There were 8 items that have been agreed to and 2 that have public speakers. Consent items include the minutes, creating the new water department and the remainder of the items on the list of agenda items. Number eight was noted as an item that remained unfinished during a previous reading.

Public Communications – Items 1, 2, and 6, plus 3, 4 and 5 along with Redevelopment Agency issues were addressed by Brian Rencher. Speaking on Agenda Items 1, 3, 4 and 6, he said that Item No. 4, Retail Viability for the Triangle Site, presents a problem in that funding for the plan will not be borne by the developer, but should be in his view. The speaker then called “foul” over Item Numbers 2 and 5 – one of which was a second reading of the code changing the name to the new public utility department including a new storm drain system, and the other nothing more than a back-door method of increasing rates without calling it a tax. He seemed unable to resolve the difference between Public Works no longer being involved in wastewater processing, while the new water utility department under the direction of an administrator rather than a director will be involved in both wastewater and storm drainage processing.

Mr. Rencher went on to say that capital improvement contains about $45 million worth of additional expenditures that will be required to fulfill wastewater funding, and it was also his claim that the public will face a combination of new and unnecessary fees for funding the Capital Improvement Plan.

The city manager clarified that Prop 218 has indeed been criticized as a form of taxation, and yet it was not the city’s intent to actually circumvent the proposition.



Carla Bonney spoke on Items 2, 3 and 5, noting that on Item No. 2 and the new Public Works department, one of the jobs is to coordinate sustainability where a new position was created for an additional city worker. Mr. Cole had said that the new position was not really new, but that it was an individual who would be doing double duty on the job. She asked two questions involving I c l e I.

On Item No. 3 – Contractor Debarment – Carla continued, saying that she does not want the city to work with unqualified people, noting that city codes exist which spell out policies and procedures, thereby requiring contractors to conform. The city should also strike the prevailing wage restriction, insisting that the wastewater department should be asked to submit full disclosure of their contract work. Her view was that jobs are being lost in the city by doing business with a single business such as Loroc, which has a stranglehold on the employment market.

Council Member Morehouse asked whether using the term “sustainability” meant to her “some type of takeover” by the local government as a social program, or even more onerously – a “socialistic” program.

Council Member Monahan wished to take issue with Ms. Bonney, thinking that she had conflated the term “living wage” with the term “prevailing wage.” The councilman saw nothing wrong with an ordinance that stands at $9 per hour with insurance or $12 an hour without insurance as a business standard wage defined by the city.

The city manager stated that in the reorganized water department the policy set forth in the 2005 General Plan identifies “sustainability” as saying that we cannot use more water than we can replace. If we withdraw more water from our groundwater supply than is replaced, that is not sustainable according to Mr. Cole. His claim was that there is no “sustainability expert” in the process, but that the monitoring must be done on the basis of use.

Another question brought up by Ms. Bonney involved the computer system that is being considered, which has been reported as a $1 million expenditure, was also addressed by the city manager. Advisers to the city helped to administer this, and the alternative was to forego their professional advice. In the past major computer installations done “on the cheap” have not worked to the city's advantage, but have turned out to be something of a “penny wise and pound foolish” approach. Major computer overhauls are just that – major – with the goal being the elimination of rework and of “getting the most bang for the buck.”

The city attorney noted that the consultants are not providing the computer system, but only the support for the system, meaning that there is no conflict of interest.

A conflict on Item No. 7 with Mr. Monahan meant that 1 through 6 plus 8 could be pulled, as agreed by Council. A change from the wording “insignificant” change to “significant” change, according to Council Member Brennan, would meet with his satisfaction. With this being agreed to, Items 1 through 6 plus item 8 were moved and seconded for approval. The city clerk took roll call – all members voted yes.

On the WRAP Mr. Monahan abstained, noting that he would then be out of Council chambers. Council Member Morehouse noted that the issue is one of expanding the survey area, noting further that those who had been excluded in the downtown would be included in the near north Avenue area. The councilman moved that the staff position be approved – a second was obtained. With the roll being taken all voted yes and the recommendation passed.



Jeff Lambert, Community Development Director, stated that parties had been heard from in the past from both sides noting that there are two proposals open: (1) would mean that the city council could accept Staff recommendations, or (2) do nothing.

Recommendations – (1) Receive the owner participation development proposal presentations from the prospective developers – (2) Direct and authorize the city manager to enter into an exclusive negotiation agreement on behalf of the city – (3) Further direction to Staff regarding key considerations included in this alternative administrative report.

Council Member Morehouse stated that the extra “breathing room” that has been given this issue has been helpful from his standpoint. It was his belief that developers bring to us certain strengths, and that the one before us is comprised of a team that has been important to the city in the past. His contention was that this is a very important piece city property, but that this has been something of a “shotgun marriage” between the stakeholders involved, and there is little more that can be said about it. His claim was that what happens on that parcel will be extremely important to the city.

It was the councilman’s feeling that action is not necessary on these items as a matter of taste, and that there should be more civic engagement with proposals in front of Council involving substantial “massing” along with impact on the community. He wished to state that he would take the two parties who are not cooperating and chastise them “roundly,” stating further that he is leaning toward a motion recommending approving.

Council Member Brennan noted that he was mayor when the conceptual plan was brought up for potential development on the Bank of America site. The proposed developer was encouraged to work with the bank officials, with very little having been obtained in the way of results. As for the housing issue, it was his question as to whether we wanted ownership in our downtown or would we rather have rentals. Bank of America did not and still does not seem particularly anxious to “rush in,” according to the councilman. Other options were available as noted by the councilman, but very little happened at that time.

In the current Georgina proposals, the Watermark and apartments project gives the impression that a firm agreement has been obtained for development. The developer claims to have the wherewithal to complete the project, and is prepared to do so.

Council Member Weir thought that it was time to make a decision. It was noted that a different process has now been adopted, with a different order of public hearings etc., along with physical dimensions. Design review committees will need to weigh in as stated by Jeff, with going back into design after hearing from the public could mean that if no EIR is required, the 6 to 9 month time frame would be sufficient for the run-up to approval.

The councilwoman claimed that there is still not much agreement on what to do with the city parking lot. We need compatibility and feasibility which adds to the economy of downtown, according to her.

Deputy Mayor Tracy supported the Georgina development plan earlier, and saw no reason to change from that position. He claimed to be in favor of the density obtained from the condominium project. It was his hope that there would be encouragement for the inclusion of the B of A property, and would be likely to vote as he would have earlier.

[Comment] Of course the deputy mayor favors "the density obtained from the condominium project." Unfortunately, he's bought into an urban design concept formulated by developers back in the '70s called "smart growth" – the adopted centerpiece of the Ventura 2005 General Plan – which yields openly to the concept of environmental compression within the urban lifestyle, involving "mixed use" construction and other developer-friendly themes. Smart growth, it turns out, drives up the cost of living, thereby adding to the very problem it was designed to correct. Begin by recognizing that the Journal of the American Planning Association, in an article by Lewis, Knaap & Sohn, characterized smart growth as “A Good Idea Whose Time Has Yet to Come.” This is guesswork no longer. Cities in Maryland and Oregon have found themselves devastated by this plan. Are Southern California cities soon to follow? [Ed.]

Council Member Morehouse asked where we stand in our relations with B of A. Jeff replied that there was a reach-out to them and a reply was received that was clearly negative. The Watermark project had not been part of the earlier outreach. The councilman, in an apparent reply to Council Member Weir, reiterated his position on maintaining a slow but steady plan due to the importance of the issue. The councilman stated that while the “Ozzie and Harriet single-family structure is a thing of the past” in California, he claimed not to be ready to “surrender” to these two developers.

[Comment] A thing of the past? How quaint. With the speed at which technology now moves, one wonders whether the councilman is aware that the digital age has begun. We are approaching the end of oil and the introduction of electric cars on a massive scale. This will mean smaller cars and greater ease of movement through urban, suburban and even exurban environments, making the single family home an even more attractive and obtainable component of the so-called “American dream.” If this component goes, then what’s left? Think about it. [Ed.]

Council Member Brennan said that issues such as density was part of the recommendation involving 27 units, with him feeling that a little more than 27 units would've been a “better project.” The councilman also wished to have Staff explain the term “leveraging” and its impact, especially if the council leans in the direction of not selecting one of the two recommendations this evening.

Council Member Brennan moved that the Georgino proposal approving the Terraces residential development plan be approved with Deputy Mayor Tracy seconding. Council Member Andrews wished to speak to a motion that he felt needed clarification before voting. A $490,000 tax levy on the condominiums didn't seem to show up in the proposal as to the origin of this figure. The projected value of the project is the basic source itself, according to staff. In an analysis of economic benefits – staff said that numbers were taken at face value.

The city manager interjected, saying that Staff had taken both of the developer’s input and output figures “with a grain of salt.”

Council Member Monahan wished to inquire about the public notification that may have gone out, or may not have. Staff’s answer – the owner participation process means that the city is required by law to notify the public of any proposal by an individual property owner and all property owners within the same block. A registered mail notice is sent out, in response to Mr. Monahan's continuing questioning. It was Mr. Monahan's feeling that the city, not the developer, should be the lead agency in deciding how development should proceed.

Council Member Weir noted that all financial deals and the finalizing of the design would be coming along at a later time and would not be on the agenda for this evening.

The mayor spoke to the idea that the Watermark is a reasonable and perhaps better fit in the development scheme. It was his feeling that the Watermark team should “take a shot” at B of A, and see how far they get. Either of these projects would require a redevelopment subsidy, and it is unclear as to whether or not there will be a redevelopment source in the future.

[Comment] Well said, because a scheme is exactly what it is. We asked a “cabbie” friend of ours what he thinks of building a 5-Star hotel in the middle of downtown, and he put it plainly and simply – “It’s a horrible idea.” This is a cab driver who plies our city streets both by day and by night. His take on the situation – “Build at the beach,” not downtown. “Look at Santa Barbara,” he says, and it’s visitor-friendly beach development. Strangely enough, this is our city’s usual M.O., but apparently not when it really counts. [Ed.]

The roll was taken to accept the recommendations with changes. All but Councilman Morehouse and Mayor Fulton voted yes.



Mr. Monahan was guided by the city attorney, saying that the second bullet point on the Cañada Larga technical studies – $75,000 – the fair practices commission ruled that Mr. Monahan did not have a conflict of interest in this. There was “segmentation of the decision” meaning that one motion for $125,000 and then a second for $75,000 could proceed as formulated.

Jeff Lambert noted that during the work session of April 2010 much of the work had been completed and that the council would be able to continue on the funding level by “bringing together” the resources that were already available. The director noted that there was significant community involvement and that the council had been patient and considerate in their outreach. Without an historic survey another community plan should not be undertaken, but that a $40,000 funding has been available and can be released. Out for public comment already are some of the landscaping plans and other projects.

Work and Funding to Date – Illustration showing (1) Historic survey, $40,000 – (2) Draft code/urban, $25,000 plus Staff – (3) Preliminary market analysis, $25,000 – (4) Environmental scoping, $25,000 plus Staff – (5) Civic engagement, $10,000 plus Staff – redevelopment formation, $125,000 (budgeted and contracted).

A second slide – Recommended Funding (do a little punting) revealed (1) Environmental review: $50,000 (preliminary environmental) and $75,000 (Cañada Larga special studies) – (2) Traffic modeling: $18,000 – (3) Market analysis: $45,000 – (4) Parking study: $40,000 – (5) Urban design: $20,000 – (6) Additional historic study: $10,000.

“Looking at the physical market analysis of what we are doing,” Jeff noted that the development income would be determined before bringing back the next portion of the plan to the council. Also of concern to many is the issue of parking, with the question of how to maximize the potential without infringing on the near neighborhood. The director emphasized that good urban design should be given a high priority.

A third slide – recent factors – revealed (1) California Gov.'s State Budget proposal – (2) North Avenue residents’ potential opposition to annexation – (3) Community concerns over the inclusion of Cañada Larga and planning for development in the north Avenue area – (4) Potential County of Ventura and LAFCO concerns regarding the project.

The mayor stated that the only thing before the council this evening was whether or not to fund “these things.” Mr. Monahan stated that he felt conflicted on everything except the $75,000.

The mayor, in noting that the wording which included shrinking the city limits by not including the north canyon area, wondered how would it affect the amount of money the council would need to approve. Jeff said that removal of the top two categories might then be discounted, anticipating that the work could be pushed further into the future – approximately $150,000 removed from 275,000.

Council Member Brennan wished to revisit the Recent Factors slide and be shown exactly how the Rosendahl/Stiffenau Group Contract could be reduced to $65,000 if the far north Avenue is removed from the plan. When we come back in April and redevelopment is “still alive,” replied the director, Council could decide whether the redevelopment was to remain within the city boundaries only and not in the north canyon area.

City Manager Cole spoke to the Cañada Larga issue by saying that no one can see the future of redevelopment in California, and with increasingly negative press coverage on several fronts – including abuses – a second issue involving the press includes the fact that the state comptroller is going to audit 18 redevelopment agencies within the next year and a half. Mr. Cole said that it is anticipated that there will be widespread discovery even down to the “postage stamp” level. If there isn't a total loss of redevelopment there will be gross reductions in funding..

Council Member Brennan wished to question the “adjustments” to the recommendations, which would be an alternative if considering only the $75,000, discovering in reply that we would fund by limiting to market funding analysis only – renegotiating with developers to arrive at the still lower $65,000 figure.

Council Member Morehouse wondered whether we have the written comments. Staff said that a second “all hands” meeting was done with the county and we just didn't attend, Ariel was available, and it appeared that the county had stronger feelings on this issue then they did in the previous year. Until this last alternative the councilman had been clear, he said, but wished to ensure clarity on the funding including all of the General Fund money that would be used. Staff said this would be coming out of the general fund, which would include the savings gained from concessions on personnel pay and benefits. The councilman noted that with funding issues over pensions and library funding among other things, this could be additional stress placed on the general fund. Leveraging future dollars to build a pool of funds for the future meant not knowing, to some degree, what the future funding would entail.

On January 12 a meeting with north Avenue residents yielded a dozen or more residents who spoke in opposition to annexation of the canyon area, according to Jeff. There have been other calls and e-mails to their offices as well. Neither does it seem likely that LAFCO would consider the annexation of any land, with Jeff replying that they probably would be amenable but without “cherry picking” the good stuff.

Council Member Weir-- The redevelopment consultant has a contract with us, and her question was what will happen if redevelopment money goes away. Jeff said that a certain amount of blight analysis could be used to help inform the next round of the plan, which the city does plan to do. The Community Development Director also said if we reduce their contract $65,000, we will be able to inform the council of the exact boundaries, were they to exclude the north canyon area.

The piece we are not getting with the parts currently is the fiscal analysis money, according to Council Member Weir. By the end of this month the council will have figures to look at, she said, but at this moment the council would be forced to do without. The director replied that if we get the go-ahead to expand tonight, we will get the 25,000 now and that's basically it.

Deputy Mayor Tracy noted that there would be a tax increment in order to do things that we've planned on doing on the far Westside. What is the likelihood of anything “happening out there?” was the question. Jeff replied that the oil and gas along with the Brooks property would be included in the development but not significant in the area of creating jobs. Also if we were to reject annexation some of this job development would fail to occur because it would not qualify as “urban” from a redevelopment standpoint. The large site at Kellogg and Ventura Avenue is an example of large properties that would be open to qualify for significant redevelopment funds.

The city manager said that the city residents prefer private investment (organic funding). The advantage of going forward with the plan means a codification of three groups who have previously opposed development, thus allowing passage of codes which would be more palatable to Westside residents.

Council Member Morehouse spoke again of PetroChem and Brooks, wondering about their own plans for expansion. The question – do we have a feeling for their plans? The mayor stated that Brooks is not for sale and is profitable to the company, showing signs of relocating all of the Brooks facilities from Santa Barbara to Ventura. Apparently Brooks likes the idea that there is a “back lot.”

Council Member Morehouse noted that cities have an eminent domain policy, and that RDA without eminent domain would mean also that parcels could not be assembled. Staff replied that eminent domain had not been considered in the redevelopment process up to this point.

Public Communications – the mayor stated that there would be a limit of two minutes, as he then reiterated the rules for public comment.

Steve Bennett, County Supervisor of District No. 1, spoke, noting that there will be extensive comment disfavoring expansion into the canyon area, but the assertion that Cañada will be better protected in the city instead of the county is essentially wrong. In the county it will be protected by SOAR and will retain such protection. “By including the canyon area it will mean that you have significantly complicated the issue,” he said, not just for the valley but for the overall plan. The supervisor noted that with the Santa Paula annexation attempt, LAFCO has paid close attention to the problems, and that uncertainty has made the problem worse for all.

Council Member Morehouse asked what the development potential of the valley area would be. “The property owner has rights,” said the councilman, with the supervisor replying that there are two zoning issues involved, also noting that 100 executive mansions would not be feasible. “Executive style ranches would be doable,” interjected Councilman Brennan, with the supervisor stating his agreement.

Council Member Weir suggested that 100 homes in a 4000 acre area would allow for considerable distance between the homes and wished to have that confirmed. Mr. Bennett noted the complications once again, including residential opposition along with the fact that to take in the commercial area but not the residential would not be appropriate either. The councilwoman said there are islands of city and county areas “up there” and that when the water treatment plant goes all the way up to the Brooks property, there would be additional responsibilities to the city. The County, according to the supervisor, doesn't have a position other than to be “agnostic” on the issue of expanded city services until the proposal would land on the county's desk.

Diane Underhill spoke within a five-minute window after having Kathy Bremmer relinquish her time. A slide – Coalition to Protect Cañada Larga Valley – illustrated: (1) Sierra Club, SOAR and others among the Coalition – (2) The top 10 reasons to stop Cañada Larga – (3) The 800-acre Cañada Larga parcel includes hillsides, meadows, and wetlands; annexation is inconsistent with the city’s General Plan, and LAFCO policies.

Reason No. 2: Cañada Larga is a wildlife corridor and valuable habitat for 140 species of birds and other animals – Reason No. 3: A sign is posted at entrance of Cañada Larga Road warning the public that wildfires could endanger 100 families – Reason No. 4: areas of Cañada Larga Valley are in the 100 year floodplain – Reason No. 5: the cost of the Cañada Larga portion of the EIR is at least $75,000, along with the fact that ongoing cost of providing services could be a financial burden to the city.

Reason No. 6: The General Plan focuses on infill development within the city limits. Many vacant properties remain in the city without annexing the north valley. Reason No. 7: If the redevelopment project is not possible after state restructuring, annexation of the far north Avenue may cause still larger problems – Reason No. 8: Development and Cañada Larga will increase traffic – Reason No. 9: More traffic will worsen air quality Ventura – Reason No. 10: In the County the north valley property is under SOAR protection.

The Most Fiscally Sound Decision – Alternative to focus on the Westside plan on the lower Ventura Avenue inside city limits and exclude the north Avenue and valley areas. “It would be imprudent to annex the far north Avenue valley into the city,” said the speaker.

Carol Lindberg spoke in favor of working with the planned development for the Westside. She wished to emphasize exclusion of the far valley area, noting that the development plan for the area is not complete. She noted that the 1600-acre proposed development is far larger than projects that have been undertaken by neighboring cities. Along with the uncertainty of RDA funding, the speaker asked, “What's the rush?”

James Older said that development of the Cañada area is a bad idea not just for fire and flood but for the fact that “step out” projects such as the San Fernando Valley have contributed to urban sprawl. The speaker noted that the 2005 development plan focused on infill, and that the people have very clearly stated their preference in opposing urban sprawl. Money has been lost from the General Fund and has had to be replaced at the expense of pensions and libraries.

Jim Hines stated that projects including a community pool for the Avenue area would undoubtedly be scrapped based on the way of using “voodoo economics” rather than providing services for local residents. The speaker also noted the loss of library and fire station facilities. He recommended not funding $75,000 just to do a study.

Colby Alan spoke claiming to have attended many development meetings and has not seen a beneficial case for making the city responsible for including outlying areas before infill.

Karen Krauss with the Environmental Defense Center spoke, saying that she would speak only to the Westside development plan. “The biggest issue with the Westside is uncertainty, as was stated by your Community Development Director,” she said. With respect to the EIR costs, the council is considering only preliminary costs and with actual costs being uncertain, noting further that the valley incorporation will be inconsistent with the EIR. It was her contention that the project is “completely unrealistic.” If the Westside plan is a priority, resources should, in her view, be focused in that area.

Monte Wia Of the Chumash Foundation spoke in opposition to the annexation of the valley area, noting that “our homeland is now your homeland,” and it was his request that it's owners continue in the time-honored tradition of being good stewards toward the land.

Miguel Rodriguez representing K.O.S. noted the adversity of investing in the county area inasmuch as citizen amenities have been promised elsewhere.

Catherine Warner spoke, stating that she was dismayed that the issue was even on the table. The 2005 General Plan was mentioned, as has been done by several others, all of whom have noted the fact that infill first seems to have been demoted in priority. It was her wish to remind the council that they are representatives of the City of Ventura’s residents, and that if put to the ballot test it would undoubtedly “go down to defeat.”

Jason Weiner spoke in support of the Chumash community and their dire concerns over the ecological misgivings over the use of land as impacted by annexation of the Cañada Larga area. Of a major concern was the groundwater pollution which eventually extends into all areas of the watershed.

Christopher Young spoke as a resident of Ojai, noting Supervisor Bennett's comments as regards complication. His issues – homes for the wealthy and – urban sprawl. He explained the dichotomous situation thusly [para] “This merely creates sprawling communities from which the wealthy and the upper middle class have already been known to create in their desperate attempt to flee urban sprawl.”

Brian Rencher spoke noting that taking general fund tax dollars and giving it to developers has already cost us the Wright Library and Fire Station No. 4 – and now it is going to cost us our Westside Community Pool, he said. You are needlessly subsidizing almost $1 million in developments, he warned the council.

The next speaker went on to say that the $75,000 you are looking at is only through April and is only a preliminary cost. The recommendation is to take away from the Westside Community Pool fund, and that would mean that the taxpayer is subsidizing the cost for executive mansions, essentially. “You are engaging in real estate speculation with taxpayer funds,” she warned. Larry Williams was contacted and informed her that while the county is responsible for lands outside the city limits, access roads would be required to be built just for fire safety.

Ms. Gonzalez read aloud over a communication from VC Cool, asking that the council drop plans for servicing homes which lie or beyond our city limits. Economy, environment, and equity (the three E’s) should be honored as a way of reducing urban sprawl.

Kathy as a member of the Ojai Valley Green Coalition stated her opposition to the proposal.

Sabrina. owner of a law firm in Ventura and practicing in environmental law, urged the council to practice conservatism and not expand liberally into the outlying valley area

Bruce Shoppe, President Of the Ventura Audubon Society, voiced opposition to the plan.

A Westside resident spoke in opposition to expansion and wished to note that the pool and park plans should take precedence.

Leslie Purcell asked whether it was actually necessary to annex “all this land.” Reasons for favoring Option No. 2 sitting before the council were all mentioned along with comments from most of the other concerned citizens. It was also a claim that citizens will be priced out of the real estate that is available by extending beyond the city limits.

[Comment] It is also a known fact that urban density is responsible for driving up the cost of housing. It is precisely this – the high cost of inner city real estate ownership, rental facilities and pollution – that caused suburban sprawl in the first place, so why would this be any different? … unless the city council is relying on the super-rich to save us. [Ed.]

Laura Gullafson noted that people are not finding ownership of executive mansions as sustainable over the long haul any more than is the case for environmental stability and sustainability, based on the water needed to green that much property along with the costs associated with wildfire protection. Her mention of the floodplain problems was also brought up for the council’s consideration.

David Johnson spoke as a Midtown homeowner, and wished to discuss annexing the canyon area as a “bad idea.” Infill development should be undertaken first, he said.

Buzz Bonsall, the owner of the outlying acreage in question, spoke in support of the council's plan to support the Westside development presentation, noting that the staff report was a substantial positive contribution to the proposal. He wondered if the $65,000 figure was applicable to a smaller part of the study and not the canyon area. Council Member Andrews asked about the document the council had been handed which included a plan purporting to address the valley floor parcels. The entire acreage area would be 6500. 120 acres exist along the freeway, with 1000 acres of additional open space also being shown on the map. The plan has been to include 2000 acres south of the sanitation district which would be left to open space.

Mr. Andrews continued with questioning that he hoped would clarify, saying that there is a substantial amount of acreage devoted to corridor and open space, if the map is correct. The councilman stated that the flood risk and pollution problems exist only within the one parcel that is shown, with the owner stating his agreement.

Council Member Morehouse wished to go further with the analysis for the use of that property, wishing to know whether the owner would be willing to share costs with such analyses. Mr. Bonsall stated that he would be amenable to the idea.

John Wilner noted that he bought a home four years ago, and has been awaiting the installation of a pool in the Westside area. He noted that the Westside Cultural District has grown and expanded with benefits to the Westside community. He claimed that “those in the middle” will be left in despair. He asked that the council exclude any funding for private development outside the city limits.

Patricia Ainsworth spoke noting that vacant land is abundant in the Westside area, many being brought down where there is development, and that it is “unjust” to be subsidizing the wealthy at taxpayer expense. The speaker also noted the 2005 General Plan places its emphasis on infill first. The speaker also mentioned the fact that the Westside pool is apparently going to be the loser in this issue.

Jill Santos noted that the city has already spent several thousand dollars on study fees to this point, and she didn't see the need for spending any more. She felt that studies such as this are a “betrayal” of local residents.

Mr. Staley, Managing Director of the PetroChem venture and a spokesman for property investments held by the corporation, stated that the valley project might indeed entail more risk in the development of city lands than the council might now be anticipating. His claim was that PetroChem is not in need of redevelopment monies in order to manage their own resources. “Investment money follows the approvals,” he said, and noted that he is in support of a master plan in which the city takes the lead.

Council Member Brennan wished to note that we are two or three years away from a general plan update, and would rather take his concerns and place them elsewhere. Council Member Andrews wished to know whether they are able to protect their property from flooding while also providing protection for the other sites. The speaker said they would be providing property flooding protection on their site only.

The mayor stated that Staff may respond to a question such as Ms. Purcell's, as to whether the market analysis for the north Avenue development would take into consideration vacancies in other parts of town. Jeff Lambert replied affirmatively. Another question concerning the funding and the $120,000, that if downsized just to the Westside, sought assurances that we could anticipate reducing down to $65,000, thus saving $75,000. This was also answered affirmatively. The mayor noted Mr. Bonsall's question which would involve the use of the majority of the 800 acre “valley floor” owner property. Staff concurred that it would remain with the open corridor area now and on into the foreseeable future.

Following a break, the mayor called the meeting back to order.

Council Communications – Council Member Andrews desired asked Jeff about the Westside Community Pool project. He reiterated the knowledgeable fact that money will be borrowed from that project, but that it might not be clear as to how those funds will be replenished. Jeff said that $3.5 million plus the $2 million available would equal 5.5 million in dollar funding. This takes us half way there, he said, which is something. The strategy for filling that gap means that some type of federal authority or access to housing funds might be used but that a complete game plan is not in place and may not be in place in the near term. By transferring the pool money into the Westside Development plan and with completion by early 2012 there would be tax increment and bonds could be used to fill the gap with the pool being a top priority for funding repayment.

The councilman wished to clarify whether or not to develop in increments would be a viable method. This was replied in the affirmative.

Council Member Weir spoke in an attempt to assuage fears over the benefits to rich people. “You have to have high income people” however, she said. The councilwoman opened up a dialogue that has been used before, noting that a subsidy is involved for those who pay lower than $3500 in property taxes, which translates into the fact that those paying higher levels of taxation are subsidizing the cost of city services for those who fall under this amount. This apparently was her logic, or a portion of it anyway, for why we need “rich folks.”

[Comment] Statements like this should be grounds for a grass-roots attempt at throwing a council member out of office in the next election cycle. [Ed.]

The councilwoman also wished to know whether it was not too much of a “hangout” to wait 30 days in order to receive real data coming from reports that are still in process. She also wondered if it was necessary for satisfying the provisions of the EIR and asked Jeff to clarify on the point. He did note that the council has the option to “do nothing tonight.” This would take also postpone the next level of marketing analysis and some of the environmental studies that would concern the far north areas should they be included by the council. The parking analysis and other studies would also fall behind according to Staff.

Staff continued by stating that the complexity and lack of certainty comes into “the mix.” The councilwoman pressed for an answer as to whether more information was indeed forthcoming, also wondering whether some of the information coming in would be “iffy” and that the situation is “not looking good” for development study purposes.

The mayor wished to clarify that we may not get the studies done on the Spring surveys and that those may not even be done for another entire year. Jeff replied in the affirmative. $25,000 was only part of the scope, representing the amount that they could get, but with questions remaining on the reality of the total mix in land-use as related to land within the city.

Council Member Morehouse thought that the council was reaching “paralysis by analysis.” He wished go on the record by stating that in October 2010 the council voted a split 4 : 3 decision on this issue, which was never meant to imply unanimity. The question again from Mr. Morehouse concerned the complicating factor of the market analysis and parking from an urban design standpoint. It was the councilman's desire to emphasize that to go beyond city limits, the impact would be monetary. Jeff agreed that if the valley area is excluded there would be a savings of $150,000. The director added that any EIR would still be necessary for the Westside only, and would become due and payable in April.

Mr. Morehouse agreed that in light of uncertainties, he would be feeling as though there was a less solid foundation for the study then he had originally believed. The Watershed Protection District was one of those uncertainties that concerned the council member. He conceded that we were using general fund dollars and our city tax dollars to subsidize an owner who is currently outside the city limits. He wished to state that they would be better off giving staff adequate time to produce a full review while helping the Westside.

Council Member Morehouse motioned that the revitalization eliminate the far north side area, eliminating funding from the Westside Community Pool fund. A second was obtained. City Manager Cole asked the maker of the motion if he had planned to slow down development in the Westside for the next few months as part of the motion, awaiting the incoming data, assumedly. The question then arose, “Would we remain on schedule with the Westside project or would we be slowed down?” Staff replied that we could pause in the current development effort, calling it a $20,000-$30,000 swing.

The mayor asked for clarification on whether to move forward cautiously on the RDA or to stop until we know more. The councilman replied that it would be best to move forward.

Council Member Brennan noted that we would be back to concentrating on the infill plan, and that the developer was willing to put $1000 per door into the development plan for the far Westside.

Deputy Mayor Tracy said he thought that the north side area development made sense only if we looked at the valley acreage, based on the need for the type of residential facilities that would be necessary. Mr. Tracy went on to say that many of the comments by concerned citizens who had spoken this evening were “in some ways irrelevant.” He granted that citizens have the right “to speak their mind” but this was not greeted with support from the deputy mayor. Mr. Tracy appeared to be saying that would be a great disappointment from his standpoint if we should not be annexing the La Cañada Larga area. The deputy Mayor noted that if he does not support the motion there will be a 3 to 3 tie, pushing the discussion out farther.

[Comment] Some of us still can’t get over the thought of rich folks in the area and all the great things they can do with their money. A word of warning … it’s their money – not yours – and they’re known for hanging on to every nickel and dime that they can. As for the concerned citizens who are “in some ways irrelevant,” we’d like to burst the former police chief’s bubble and suggest that he could become just as irrelevant come the next election cycle. [Ed.]

The mayor said that $75,000 to specifically do the study and Cañada Larga is not part of this motion. Jeff said that it might be possible to agree to reductions from the developer just for the study, wondering if that would sway any of the council members’ current position. Council Member Morehouse noted that as a possible moot point if outside-the-city acreage remains of tangential interest to others in the area.

Council Member Andrews asked if someday we will want to do north-of-the-Avenue development, would it mean significant cost increases through bifurcation of the project. Jeff replied that it was his belief that the differences would not be great by revisiting the north Valley area at a later time. We have general plan land use from 2005 for the valley area, so that it is not brand-new to us today. Mr. Andrews continued asking about the market analysis problem without current data, but he wondered if it wasn't equally relevant to the north Valley area along with the Westside.

Addressing Council Member Weir's question as to the availability of certain financials, Council Member Andrews continued to express his concern over the lack of real-time data. The redevelopment process isn't out entirely, agreed Mr. Andrews, yet it’s vital to significantly enhancing the Westside. It will be required that the north valley area be developed in order to generate the revenues necessary for enhancements and the Westside proper.

Council Member Weir stated that she was going to oppose the motion for lack of additional hard data.

The mayor indicated he would support, but the “things in the air” included the questions over the north valley area – he does not wish to surrender the right of the city to determine the path of PetroChem and Brooks.

The mayor called for the roll to be taken : Brennan; yes – Weir; no – Morehouse; yes – Andrews; no – Tracy; no – Fulton yes. The the motion failed.

Council Member Weir moved that the decision be postponed until receipt of the reports which are to be forthcoming in 30 days, evaluating the market and the school analyses. The motion died for the lack of a second.

Council Member Brennan reiterated that for funding purposes it would be $75,000 taken from the Westside pool, getting them through to the April timeframe. “If we were on track to keep going,” said Director Lambert, he would then proceed by asking Council for the balance of the funds. “This is an amplification of option 2,” he noted, basically limiting the boundary to the Westside. Reduce the current RDA formation contract from $120,000-$65,000 and transfer the balance to the Westside Revitalization project.

It was not thought that the new motion was any different from the one proposed by Council Member Weir – a motion that failed. With a second being obtained on the second try, it was noted that only a person who voted no, but switching on his second go around would be acceptable on the second try.

Council Member Andrews moved that they go with the second option which according to the schedule would be C and D excluding the Cañada Larga area. Failing a second, the motion died.

To decide to spend the money to study an area that others on the council don't even wish to include or develop, doesn't make much sense, according to Council Member Morehouse. He claimed that we need to be clear about the criteria, being certain about the viability of the study. He wished to try to get the Westside project funded and under way.

City Manager Cole noted that the community was divided over the divisive issue of land use going back 6½ years to the time when he (the city manager) took office. “This is a clear test of that issue,” he said, noting that there are four members of the city council who are of the opinion that development should go forward into the north valley area, but it is also clear, he said, that there is still commitment to Westside development progress. It was his belief that there is unanimous support on the council to Westside development but divided opinion on how to proceed beyond.

“A majority the Board of Supervisors support is also required when expanding beyond the city limits,” City Attorney Ariel reminded both Staff and Council.

Council Member Brennan was led to the question of deciding what the fiscal benefit might be in annexing the PetroChem/Brooks area. Jeff noted that the scope includes the north area, prompting the mayor to suggest the inclusion a fiscal analysis of alternatives in the north valley area, and that a decision could be delayed on the north valley area until the studies are completed. The mayor so moved, with a second being obtained.

City Manager Cole desired clarification on whether a fiscal but not environmental analysis could be performed in the north valley. The mayor agreed that it could, with Council Member Brennan saying that he could not support. Council Member Morehouse joined in by saying that the PetroChem/Brooks area should not be left sitting without any gain. It was his desire to see that stakeholders in the area step up with some of the burdens of cost.

Council Member Andrews attempted to restate the issue, saying that eliminating “bullet 2” but going forward with the rest of the plan “bothers him a lot.” He agreed to go forward with the motion and see where it goes.

Council Member Weir asked whether we have just added $70,000 to the cost, with the reply being that there is only a $45,000 differential.

City Manager Cole said no study is going to give you definitive answers, still responding to councilwoman Weir's question on the cost. It was her hope that the property owner could be persuaded to maintain the open space. The mayor noted that this is not part of the motion however.

The mayor asked the city clerk to take the roll – Brennan; no – Wier; yes – Morehouse; yes – Andrews; yes – Tracy; yes – Fulton yes. The measure passed.

With Council Member Monahan able to return, the mayor began to proceed on the assumption that the north valley areas study would still be under discussion from the EIR perspective. The city attorney was of the belief that based on the prior vote, the item was now moot, with the mayor conceding to having had something of a “senior moment.”



A slide detailing strategic vision focus – (1) Accomplishments – (2) Current Action Plans – (3) Future Vision was shown.

Accomplishments – 43 projects are in design or construction – 16 projects are completed – sources of funds: – gas tax, water and sewer fees, grants, and federal stimulus

Our green community – the wastewater plant reclaimed an existing water line, a 30 inch diameter pipeline 400 feet long for reclaimed water: the wastewater plant lab renovation project was cited.

Accomplishments in the prosperity community – Olivas Adobe – seismic upgrades – downtown parking pay stations and wayfinding signage.

Street resurfacing on Poli/Buena

Our creative and vibrant community – three public art bike rack projects

Westside future projects – the range of plans was shown (roughly 20), which included the Olive Street paving project.

Future Council action – February 14, study session – work plan – future needs – and on March 21 public hearing and adoption.

Council Member Morehouse asked for status on monies spent on transportation dollars right now. A clear focus is on water and sewer systems, according to Staff. The needs in the water and sewer arena are very significant, and gas tax funds coming in from the state have been delayed. They are, however, looking forward with the resources that they have.

Council Member Morehouse cited Proposition 22 where the state swapped out part of the gas tax money, calling it a fee.

Council Member Weir mentioned “slurry seal,” asking if there were not a better way of paving the roadways. Staff said that $900,000 of slurry seal is done on an annual basis which should be 1.5 million. The issue of slurry seal is often one of expediency, trying not to shut down traffic. The city has a contractor under warranty for work that fails in certain spots and other methods are being used to improve on quality. Check out Main and Catherine, noted the councilwoman, where bad lamination is clearly in evidence.

Council Member Monahan followed up on some of the failures – noting in particular areas around the post office, with staff replying that the underlying pavement often has structural defects. The councilman was also concerned about the striping.

With no further communications, the mayor adjourned the meeting.