Ventura Commenter

Ventura City Council Meeting

February 28, 2011

Ventura City Hall - 501 Poli Street

 

Jeff Lambert orchestrated a presentation introducing the new proposed Ventura-Oxnard-Camarillo Tourism Improvement District (V-O-C TID) in which the City of Ventura will act as the lead agency. Camarillo affiliates and other members of the county who have formed interested collaborative groups have also been meeting for approximately 2 years studying ways to stimulate tourism in Ventura County. The proposed assessment district will not compromise the transient occupancy tax receipts of the city nor will it compromise the competitiveness of hotels in the area.

The Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative delivered its Final Report to Council in a tour de force presentation – one that received enthusiastic applause from attendees and guests – while prompting stern reaction from Mayor Fulton, who regularly warns against outbursts and disruptive behavior within Council Chambers. And in a very solemn moment, Council Member Neal Andrews asked that the meeting be adjourned in the memory of "Phil the Barber" Marquez. His loss comes as a great sadness to our community. Phil had survived to the age of 96.

To View a listing of the agenda items for this council meeting, go to www.cityofventura.net/meeting/city-council-meeting-36.

Mayor Fulton called the meeting to order with a call of the roll – all present. The mayor then asked Deputy Mayor Tracy to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.

Council Communications – Council Member Morehouse attended the opening ceremonies for the Community Memorial Hospital Cancer Center. He claimed that it was “awesome inside,” noting that Rasmussen was the architectural firm.

Council Member Andrews asked that the meeting be adjourned in the memory of Phil Marquez. The mayor held up a poster showing Phil Marquez Day, held in honor of “Phil the Barber,” who became the subject of the discussion and that his loss comes as a great sadness to our community. Phil had survived to the age of 96.

Council Member Brennan thanked the Ventura film Festival for a very exciting and successful program, speaking briefly on the themed trip to Argentina. It was also noted that the Community Emergency Response Training program begins March 16 and continues for five successive Wednesdays. It prepares individuals for dealing with natural disasters and emergencies. It will be held at the police and fire headquarters. Those desiring more information may contact Anne Simmons at City Hall.

“Story poles” are being raised along the construction site near the hospital construction zone to allow the public to visualize and be able to assess the height of new buildings now under construction.

Council Member Andrews also had the pleasure of volunteering with the Kiwanis Club in its support of the Ventura Education Partnership Festival of Talent. He hoped that the fundraising was a success, with the funds going to scholarships for students along with the necessary support for classrooms and teachers.

Council Member Monahan reminded the public once again that the St. Patrick's Day Parade is a mere two weeks away. People are encouraged to walk in the parade, starting at the San Buenaventura Mission on March 12. Step-off is at 10 a.m.

The mayor noted that this weekend will be the first of two Fashion Weeks, which is a fundraiser for the Rainbow Alliance, both occurring on Friday night and Saturday night. Erica Harding put the program together. The mayor also stated that the city and Gold Coast Transit will hold a March 9 Bell Arts Factory collaborative meeting. The discussion will include issues of importance to bus riders such as the recent schedule alterations. Feedback from the public is encouraged and all interested parties are invited to attend one week from this Wednesday, March 9, at Bell Arts.

Regional Boards, Commissions and Committees – Council Member Morehouse stated that the housing element is underplayed considering the 2005 Specific Plan. Under Senate Bill 375 the process is just beginning, noting that there is a discrepancy in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) which is concerned over funding with a discrepancy existing between a U.S. population that is growing along with state demographics which are not.

The League of California Cities, of which Mr. Morehouse is Regional Chairman, is in the process of helping to keep the redevelopment agency process alive. The Goleta Chamber of Commerce was present to talk about the impact. We in Ventura have five programs that are involved in redevelopment efforts, which could affect 5000 jobs currently. We must understand the impacts in economics and in terms of jobs if redevelopment agency programs are made to disappear, he said.

Community Development Director’s Report – The mayor said that Agenda Item No. 7 would be of interest to most of those in attendance. The mayor then mentioned that the end of the staff report marks the cut off for or filling out “green” speaker forms. The “pink” forms, which are not speaker forms but are for comments and questions processed by Staff separately, are accepted at any time.

Introduction to the Proposed Tourism Improvement Issue – Jeff Lambert orchestrated the presentation. Doug made the opening comments – Lorena Parker conducted the presentation. Camarillo affiliates and other members of the county who have formed interested collaborative groups have also been meeting for approximately 2 years on ways to stimulate tourism in Ventura County.

Speaking on behalf of the Tourism Improvement District – A presentation ensued, showing: -- (1) Special Benefits Assessment District – (2) Provide Supplemental Services – (3) Provide Services for Businesses Within Discrete Boundaries – (4) Established and Operated by Assessed Businesses – (5) Currently 57 Improvement Districts in California.

Tourism Improvement Districts – showing: (1) Property and Business Improvement District Act of 1994 – (a) Allows for Formation up to Five Years – (2) Must Create a Special Benefit for Assessed Businesses.

Formation process – showing: (1) Prepare Management Plan – (2) Addition by 50% of Businesses by Dollar Amount – (3) Generating $1.2 Million Annually – (4) Resolution of Intention Resolution Requesting Consent – (5) mail notice – (6) The hearing process will come through the Ventura City Council. The remaining improvement districts will be contacted after the plans have been finalized by Ventura.

VOC Tourism Improvement District – showing: (1) Proposed Management District Plan – (a) Includes Hotels, Motels and RV Parks – (b) City Limits of Ventura, Oxnard and Camarillo.

Reasons to Create the VOCTID – showing: Need to Remain Competitive – 257 Other Destinations with Similar Districts.

Proposed Formation Timeline – showing: a schedule starting February 22, 2011, concluding on June 1, 2011 with action items to be completed by Camarillo and Oxnard.

Council Member Andrews emphasized that the presentation on this topic was carried forward with and through the finance committee. The proposed assessment district will not compromise the transient occupancy tax receipts of the city nor will it compromise the competitiveness of hotels in the area, according to the councilman.

Council Member Morehouse noted that the plan was to “get the money into the district,” and then be able to use that money for the general purpose of increasing visitor traffic. Ventura would get 20% of what is brought in (the board members) meaning that some great ideas for marketing can be developed such as full-page ads in the local and area newspapers. Mr. Morehouse wanted to clarify that tax dollars are not being involved but that it's the collaborative's business efforts only that would fund the program. He noted also that this is not an action item, but an information item only.

It was noted that the various city attorneys need to “look at the document plan” and that there are no legal changes that should be considered before going forward. The resolution of intention would start the actual process formally. This would be similar to Ventura’s Downtown Improvement District which has already been completed.

Also involved is the process for forming a team that has been cut locally by Proposition 26, according to Ariel, noting that not everything is a tax but that there are exemptions for the T-Bid, noting further that Ventura may be a test bed for the legal questions.

Even before Prop 26, T-Bids have been put in place according to Council Member Brennan. It would be Ventura only that would be forced to defend the legal issues, being the lead organization on the project. The council member was of the belief that this would stimulate competitive juices along with cooperative ventures between the parties. The discussion with the other cities concerning liability should be considered.

Council Member Monahan asked the city manager for his opinion. Mr. Cole claimed to be supportive of the staff along with the business effort, although his concerns were shared along with those of the council members. He noted that we are slightly lower than the competition from a standpoint of room rates and hotel amenities, but that local residents generally have no problem with asking visitors pay for services that they themselves are not forced to support with their own funds.

We have the lowest transient occupancy taxes compared to Camarillo and Oxnard, according to Council Member Weir, who claimed to be in complete support of this plan. It was her thought that city management cooperating from three surrounding communities was a major plus. It was also her thought that we could move forward with great confidence.

Council Member Andrews noted that as a self-imposed assessment, he wished to know whether it would make us just as competitive even by adding 10% to the transient occupancy tax, noting also that he had been assured by the finance committee that the answer to that question would be in the affirmative.

Mayor Fulton had a concern after hearing from city manager – a 10% “bump” in the increased occupancy would almost equal the raise in assessments from the program.

CONSENT ITEMS – Agenda Item No. 5 – the alcohol issue – was to be postponed and not heard this session – Agenda Item No. 1, the minutes – Agenda Items Nos. 2 and 3, a code change plus the Award of Contract in the Wells Rd. Resurfacing Project – Agenda Item No. 4, a Licensing Agreement for CMH plus Agenda Item No. 6, a Public Hearing on the Abandonment of Glen Street and Portions of Cabrillo Dr. along with continuing Agenda Item No. 5 until March 14 with request, meant that a blanket motion could be entertained.

Agenda Item No. 6 had no public speakers. Council Member Morehouse moved that the consent agenda be approved with no further discussion. With a second obtained the roll was called – all members voted yes, thereby dispensing with the consent calendar.



The Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative in a presentation conducted by Mr. Mehas began showing: – Authorization, Guidance – (1) Charter statement emanating from the Housing Element General Plan – (2) Administrative Report, November 23, 2009.

The Goal Would Be – showing: (1) To develop a program that leads to the successful prevention/abatement of unsafe conditions – (2) promotes permitted improvements – (3) establishes policies for abating or grandfathering other illegal or unpermitted conditions.

The Objectives – showing: (1) minimize and reduce fear of city enforcement efforts – (2) include parties with interests in housing in Ventura – (3) results should have a positive economic impact.

The Outcomes Include -- (1) development of a framework for (a) equity (b) civic engagement for community buy-in (c) outreach to a diverse and often voiceless community segment.

Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative Final Report Back Story– showing: – (1) January 2009, change from complaint based to proactive house to house inspection – (2) Results – (2.1) Statistics – (2.1.1) Code violations, 22.6% – (2.1.2) Undocumented second units, 16.1% – (2.1.3) Life/safety, 1.1% – (2.2) Community; substantial anxiety and concern – (2.3) Committees – (2.3.1) Preserve, ensure, protect property – (2.3.2) Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative.

Methodology – showing: (1) Public Outreach – (1.1) Three workshops – (1.2) Additional outreach – (2) Challenges and lessons – (3) Comments and recommendations, data – (3.1) 800 from workshop – (3.2) 1000 from surveys – (4) Problem definition.

Problem statement – showing: (1) The city has an ineffective code enforcement/safe housing program due to – (1.1) Lack of trust in the motive behind code enforcement – (1.2) Lack of knowledge by the key stakeholders (citizens) as to need or requirement – (1.3) Poorly implemented program management system with process that are neither fast, cheap, or easy – (1.4) Fear, anger and despair over the possibility of diminished value or loss of ones most cherished asset – (2) As a result – (2.1) There is a lack of buy-in by the majority of citizens to pull permits under current code, which creates inequities for those in compliance – (2.2) There is a potential negative economic impact for the community in general – (2.3) There are an inordinate number of code violations throughout the city.

Guiding Principle – showing: (1) “In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete” – Richard Buckminster Fuller – (2) “Greatest good for all” – VSHC, 2010

Overarching Recommendations – showing: (1) Improve program guidance and supporting elements – (2) legalize safe nonconforming properties – (3) Implement an affordable compliance policy – (4) establish a citizens review board, due process plan – (5) establish policy for undocumented second units – (6) implement an aggressive marketing plan.

Improved Program Guidance and Supporting Elements – showing: – (1) Program guidance and supporting elements for code enforcement/state housing are inadequate. Program guidance is incomplete and too complex for its intended customers; moreover, it is poorly disseminated. As a result, the majority of citizens are unaware of not being in compliance with the law – (2) program supporting elements, including accounting, informational technology, workflow process, training, customer service, and organizational structure are not sufficiently integrated with program guidance. As a result, program performance cannot be properly measured, making it difficult for both management and the general public to know if the program is achieving its intended purpose and at what cost.

Strategies for Implementation – (1) Consolidate and simplify federal codes, state codes, local codes, and policies whereby they can be understood by the ordinary citizen – (2) Provide definitions of all terms contained in the consolidated guidance – (3) Create a relevant Program Management Guide for measuring performance. The guide should contain mission, multi-year and annual goals, objectives, organizational structure, projected workload, funding, and details for reporting rate analysis; including units of measure, cost objects, transfer and overhead costs, and method for cost assignment.

Strategies for Implementation, Supporting Elements – (1) Accounting – (1.1) Collect relevant cost for measuring efficiency and effectiveness; i.e. – (1.1.1) Costs and number of per pulled a year and type – (1.1.2) Corresponding violations by year end type – (1.2) Limit overhead costs to 20 percent, as currently being done in the private sector – (2) Information Technology, IT – (2.1) Create a user-friendly IT application that clarifies requirements for pulling permits: Limit access to permit information to 2 clicks; create a single list of items by category requiring permits and their related costs; identify those common items not requiring permits.

Strategies for Implementation, Supporting Elements – (1) Workflow Processes – (1.1 Document workflow processes to such degree that the process improvement and problem resolution can be readily identified – (1.2) Ensure permit processing is Fast, Cheap, and Easy – (2) Training – (2.1) Train inspectors to inform citizens of their Fourth Amendment rights at first contact – (2.2) Provide regular Crisis Intervention Training, CIT/de-escalation skills/training for staff.

Legalize Safe Non-Conforming Properties – (1) Due to the large number of nonconforming residential and commercial properties in a town with a need for affordable housing, a plan to ensure that all structures are safe is needed. The recommendation with the steps required covers increased taxation, concerns about negative neighborhood impacts and original fee recovery, along with any incentives needed to achieve community buy-in – (2) The economic benefits to the citizens – (2.1) Resumption of permit pulling and home improvements – (2.2) recovery of lost fees, and – (2.3) higher property values and taxes – (3) the economic benefits to the citizens – (3.1) higher property values – (3.2) ability to have their titles, and – (3.3) to ensure their properties are safe.

Strategies for Implementation – (1) Make fees and costs affordable – (2) Allow private safety inspections – (3) Charge permit fees in force at time improvements were made and establish date by sworn statement – (4) Require all properties comply with State Civil Code 1941 – (5) Require agreement that any improvements in future will be permitted.

Strategies for Implementation, Cont’d – (6) Require property owner to sign waiver of liability to hold city harmless (see California Government Code Para. 821, public employee not liable; California Government Code Para. 820.2, public entity not liable; Para. 820.2, public employee immunity; 815.2, 818.2, 821.2, 821; See also Roseville vs. State of California) – (7) Allow monthly payment plan – (8) If payments not met, allow lien to be placed on property and to be paid when property changes hands – (9) Accept nonconforming setbacks and fence heights with fireproof divide if structure is on lot line or within three feet of neighboring property – (10) Provide amnesty for penalties.

Implement an Affordable Compliance Policy – (1) Lack of a practical or affordable compliance policy has resulted in many citizens being fined for “failure to comply.” In the past properties were regularly sold “as is” by realtors, and problems were passed on to the next buyer. Without a practical and affordable clean title policy, realtors strongly oppose a mandatory inspection program. This recommendation is designed to get everyone on the same page, stimulate voluntary compliance and eliminate the passing on of problems to new buyers – (2) The economic benefit to the city – (2.1) Lower-cost, and – (2.2) More free recovery – (3) The economic benefit to the citizen – (3.1) Higher property value due to a clean title.

Strategies for Implementation – (1) Modify perceived harsh enforcement guidance – (2) Limit inspections to permits requested – (3) Allow safety inspections to be performed by certified home safety inspectors and/or licensed contractors – (4) Licensed contractors should be able to certify installations with digital photography – (5) Cap fines and penalties, as recommended by Citizens Review Board – (6) Provide all remedies at first contact, including time payment plan.

Strategies for Implementation, Cont’d – (7) Provide amnesty of penalties for those on citation lists in conjunction with affordable compliance program – (7.1) Six-month time limit for amnesty for those already assessed – (7.2) 50 percent reduction of penalties – (7.3) Time payment plans – (8) Require compliance with State Civil Code 1941 – (9) Charge permanent fees in force at time of improvement – (10) Require safety inspection by private or city inspectors as desired by property owner – (11) require two signatures on neighborhood complaints to reduce frivolous use of code enforcement resources for neighborhood feuds; modify guidance accordingly.

Establish a Citizens’ Review Board (Due Process Plan) – (1) Some of the city’s current enforcement policies could result in financial takings from its community members. This is a constitutional issue that could put the city at risk for denying its citizens their due process rights. Presently, there is no objective forum to address this issue, one that would allow for grievances or citations prior to city enforcement that could lead to a financial taking – (2) A Citizens Review Board, complete with ombudsman [bilingual] will ensure that citizens have an objective hearing without incurring the unaffordable cost of going to court – (3) The economic benefit for the city is that mediations can result in lower-cost fee recovery and less legal expense. This board can also take on the task of education and outreach to the community – (4) Note: The Construction Appeals Board has not proven to be an objective forum for the average layman/citizen, rather the Construction Appeals Board is a panel more attuned to building professionals, some who could see “do-it-yourself” or “fix it yourself” citizens as competitors.

The Strategies for Implementation – (1) Establish a Citizens Review Board [CRB] to – (1.1) Monitor and assist in the implementation of the recommendations of the VSHC – (1.2) Review citations prior to the property owner being turned over to collections and make personal contact where possible – (1.3) Review proposed ordinances for a grade on community buy-in prior to council vote – (1.4) Review department needs and make recommendations on additional resources for the code enforcement department – (1.5) Review all codes not mandated by the state for simplification.

The Strategies for Implementation, Cont’d – (1.6) Ensure that constitutional rights and due process are observed in all actions involving citizens – (1.7) Make determination whether the tenant or the landlord is liable for violations – (1.8) Grow civic engagement in city policies affecting safe housing through outreach – (1.9) Board to include a bilingual ombudsman position – (1.10) A monthly stipend to recruit skilled seniors – (1.11) Oversee customer satisfaction service survey.

Establish Policy for Undocumented Second Units – (1) Some citizens are concerned that the unregulated second units could have the potential for creating negative neighborhood impacts. In some neighborhoods, it is clear that this is the case. However, in many others, neighbors appear to live harmoniously, units are well maintained, and occupancy and parking are controlled voluntarily. Many of these units have existed for decades and provided the most affordable unsubsidized housing for students, minimum wage earners, artists, seniors, the disabled, and those who cannot fulfill the requirements for a commercial apartment – (2) An ordinance requiring covered parking enacted in 1973, caused a number of these units to be converted without permits. The property owners needing more space, did not have the larger lot space and setbacks that would be required under the ordinance, nor the funds to build an additional garage. The money for the permits was not an issue as much as the requirement for an entirely new garage.

Establish Policy for Undocumented Second Units – (1) Whereas the General Plan directs us to preserve existing housing and remove government constraints, there is an urgent need for low income housing, and an incentive-based plan is need to bring property owners forward for the properties to be regulated, taxed and shown to be safe – (2) Without incentives and an affordable program, property owners will continue to remain under the radar until such time as there is a complaint lodged against them. This condition invites continued negative impacts on some neighborhoods.

Recommendations Are – (1) Require compliance with state Civil Code 1941 – (2) Charge permit an impact these in forest at time of improvement with date established by sworn statement under penalty of perjury – (3) Require safe inspection by private or city inspectors as desired by property owner – (4) Require agreement that any improvements in future will be legally permitted – (5) Require property owner to sign waiver of liability to hold city harmless – (see California Government Code Para. 821, public employee not liable; California Government Code Para. 820.2, public entity not liable; Para. 820.2, public employee immunity; 815.2, 818.2, 821.2, 821; See also Roseville vs. State of California) – (7) Allow monthly payment plan – (8) If payments not met, allow lien to be placed on property and to be paid when property changes hands (6) allow monthly payment plan – (7) If payments not met, allow lien to be placed on property and to be paid when property changes hands.

Recommendations Are, Cont’d – (8) Classify granny conversions as Priority 2 violations – (9) Allow one street parking space for second units and require other cars to be parked on property – (10) Accept non-conforming setbacks and fence heights with fireproof divide if structure is on lot line or within three feet of neighboring property – (11) Do not require owner to live on property – (12) Do not require covered parking – (13) Provide amnesty for penalties – (14) Research to see if second units can be inventoried as low income housing; modify guidance accordingly.

Implement an Aggressive Marketing Plan – (1) The key to the success of the program is community buy-in, which will stand as the litmus test for its success. This would necessitate an aggressive marketing and education program – (2) The public must be included in the whole process of safe housing, and communication is the key – (3) There is a hard cost to communicating the message, however, increased revenues from program participation and increases in permit pulling will handily offset such costs.

The Marketing Plan Should Include But Not Be Limited to – (1) Costs and projected revenues derived from program success – (2) Full Web pages devoted to communicating programs and benefits – (3) Advertising and Media Plan with bimonthly insertions and biweekly radio spots – (4) Stand-alone e-mail marketing plan, as opposed to inclusion in newsletters – (5) Public relations strategy – (6) Direct Marketing Plan with one highly visible mailing to all property owners, followed by inclusion quarterly in water bill – (7) Community Outreach Plan – (8) Partnering with relevant and philanthropic nonprofit organizations – (9) Partnering with the Citizens Review Board and volunteers – (10) benchmarking

Resolution for Nonconforming Property Amnesty Ordinance – (1) The VSHC report provides comprehensive solutions for systemic improvement of the code enforcement system. Many of the strategies for implementation will need to be prioritized. However, several immediate uses can be addressed through the below resolution which directs a legalization ordinance to be written for the present nonconforming properties, which are over the age of 30 years. This resolution addresses all five topics assigned by the council – (2) It reduces fear. Many citizens are fearful of code enforcement because they live in older properties. They suspect that their properties have fallen out of compliance to the decades, and they are afraid of retroactive citations. The resolution insurers safety. Safety will be ensured through voluntary inspections – (3) The resolution creates economic benefits. Revenue will be generated from the program and property values, and taxes will increase. And, lastly, eliminating the fear of retroactive citations through legalization will stimulate permit pulling.

Resolution (Cont’d) – (1) Legalization is a form of grandfathering with amnesty, but it is not a free pass – (2) Citizens must agree – (2.1) To be regulated – (2.2) pay permit fees that were in place at the time of the improvement, and – (2.3) remain in compliance going forward – (3) Therefore we urge the council to adopt the following resolution

A resolution of the City Council of the City of San Buenaventura to create a 2-year amnesty for nonconforming state properties to complete a legalization process without penalties

(1) Whereas, it has been shown that the city of San Buenaventura has a large number of nonconforming properties as a result of 73 percent of the building stock exceeding 30 years of age, a complaint based code enforcement program that did not uniformly address code violations over the decades, a lack of education of the public on the changing codes and ordinances, and a lack of closure to a succession of owners, and – (2) Whereas, the General Plan of the city directs that existing housing shall be preserved and government restraints shall be removed to ensure affordable housing, and

(3) Whereas, the current compliance program is lacking an affordable path to legalization that assures safety and preserves existing structures, and – (4) whereas, a legalization and amnesty program will increase the city’s stock of legal and affordable housing by creating incentives to legalize the most affordable housing in the city, and – (5) whereas, residential second units provide the most affordable private, unsubsidized market rentals, and

(6) Whereas, regulations need to be imposed to ensure there are no adverse neighborhood impacts from overcrowding or over parking, and – (7) Whereas, the city council’s primary concern is the safety of all its citizens, and – (8) Whereas, the economic conditions of the state and city have deteriorated and many citizens have fallen into reduced financial circumstances, and

(9) Whereas, the city has a need to compile complete and accurate property records, document, and regulate all existing buildings, undocumented habitable live/work spaces and/or existing second units upon which there is no official documentation in city records, and – (10) Whereas, the City Council of the City of Ventura has directed the Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative to recommend a grandfathering/amnesty program that ensures safety, reduces fear, promotes compliance and permit pulling, creates economic benefits for both citizens and the city government.

The language of the resolution presented the city Council hereby resolves and directs Staff to draft a legalization ordinance with the above conditions and incentives and to develop comprehensive marketing plan and for the city attorney to determine findings to support such a program this 28th day of February 2011

Closing comment – Our common goals are to bring greater well-being to our community as a whole and to create the greatest good for all members of our community. We collectively believe that Council’s adoption of these recommendations will be an important first step in achieving these goals.

VSHC Respectfully Requests – (1) directs Staff to amend the administrative report dated February 14, 2011 to add an Alternative 4 – (1.1) Alternative 4 must comprise the 6 VSHC recommendations and implementation strategies, as submitted through the VSHC Report – (2) Approve Alternative 4—and (3) Direct staff to draft a legalization ordinance as specifically stated in the VSHC report.

The speaker stated that we are volunteering of our own time to help implement the program through the Citizens Review Board, the collaborative and the tourism board.

The mayor went forth with his cautioning of the public against applause, using instead the international sign language symbol for applause.

The mayor wished to hear from the staff recommendations, but Mr. Morehouse seemed to be in taken in a different position. Deputy Mayor Tracy needed to make an announcement through the city attorney by recusing himself from any portion of this meeting where it affects the second units’ first two bullet points on page 2 of the administrative report, because of financial interest in a residential property that could be impacted by the resolutions of the council this evening. Ariel explained the rest of the process saying that the deputy mayor would need to leave the dais before discussion begins. The council can segment its decisions using the first of two bullet points, then reentering at the introduction of bullet point number two.

Mr. Morehouse had to do with the creation of the second point but finally agreed to go forward with the staff report as the mayor directed Andrew to begin his delivery of the administrative report.

Andrew began by speaking his praise for Michael, noting that hundreds of hours were put into that collaborative effort presented. Individual collaborative members could provide comments once they finished presentation was published, noting that an attachment B has been added which contains the collaborative groups collected comments.

The collaborative group’s recommendations are divided into four categories.with Andrew saying that the administrative staff began with section M, which contained a concise summary of the collaboratives work.

Collaboratives 56 Recommendations, showing – (1) Trust, Equity, Social Responsibility – (2) Program Management – (3) Fear, Anger and Frustration – (4) Educate Public and Train Staff.

Then in his opening critique of the collaborative’s effort, Mr. Stuffler noted that among the 1800 or so comments from the public, there was mention of flyers, editorials and CAPS-TV shows which could be considered guilty of spreading fear. Staff looked at the programs and developed a response to the collaborative’s 56 recommendations:

Staff’s Response to the Collaboratives 56 Recommendations, showing – (1) Trust, Equity, Social Responsibility – (1.1) “Harsh” Policies – (2) Program data management – (3) Fear, Anger and Frustration – (3.1) List all possible remedies – (3.2) Public Q/A Resources—(3.3) Two Signatures – (3.4) Collection Agencies, Small Claims – (3.5) “Clouding” of Title – (3.6) Permitting Agreement – (3.7) “Hold Harmless” Waiver – (3.8) Owner Occupant – (4) Educate Public and Train Staff.

Staff found itself in agreement with approximately 47 of the 56 recommendations, amounting to 80% of the total. Mr. Stuffler took exception with nine of the listed sub points, those being 1.1, and 3.1 through 3.8. In regard to the “harsh policies” subheading, the chief compliance officer stated that “there wasn’t a whole lot of definitive nature to that,” believing this to be a general characterization and also what appeared to be in his view an overly critical assessment of his policies as director of the department.

Attachment D, Staff’s Action Plan, showing – (1) Allow second dwelling unit legalization via ordinance amendment – (2) Increase access to staff and public education resources – (3) Change city code enforcement persona and inspection process – (4) Certify private inspection programs – (5) Local resale private inspection report via ordinance amendment – (6) Residential less than four unit rental education and registration process by ordinance amendment – (7) Accept enforcement of state health and safety code 17975 via resolution – (8) Neighborhood compliance volunteer program: include programs like volunteer policing – (9) Various Administrative Items.

[Item No. 5 carried with it the staff recommendation that realtors be brought into the process through the submission to the compliance department a checklist to be filled out at the time of sale of property, verifying the results of private inspections and information that can be garnered from the seller concerning either full or partial compliance with code.]

By May 9, 2011, Work Directly with Stakeholders, showing – (1) 2nd dwelling unit and undocumented unit legalization ordinance – (2 Local resale deputy inspection report ordinance – (3) Residential education and registration ordinance – (4) Resolution adopting state health and safety code 17975 enforcement.

By July 1, 2011, showing – (1) Second dwelling unit legalization applications accepted – (2) Enforcement persona and inspection changes effective – (3) Enforcementstate health and safety code 17975 – (4) Volunteer program in place – (5) Administrative items in place.

By January 1, 2011, showing – (1) Deputy inspection process effective – (2) Local resale deputy inspection report effective – (3) Residential rental education and registration program effective – (4) End 2nd second dwelling unit amnesty period.

By March 14, 2012, showing – (1) All currently undocumented dwelling unit cases resolved – (2) Review results and adjust policies and procedures accordingly.

The mayor said that council members will be allowed to ask questions of the staff and VSHC representatives, finally ending up with public communications.

Council Communications – Council Member Morehouse thanked Michael for his time and effort. The question was, could the Citizens Review Board act as a review/appeal body? Would this be through interpretation of code measures? The original speaker said he didn't have the answer but “the next smart person,” Tag Gilbert, said that a citizen review board would be comprised of along the lines of the Construction Appeals Board but by that time the review process from the CAB is nominally completed. Other cities and citizens have also representative groups who are having landlord/tenant issues. Contact with professionals in the community such as ombudsman practices, and yet a formal recommendation for what that board could or should possibly due was not finalized by the time of this presentation.

Mr. Morehouse went forward with another question asking for the amount of money it might take to get the word out. The response from Michael was that whatever provisioning was available through networking and volunteering. The public buy-in needs to be worked out through marketing and other public relations efforts. The speaker called this the new paradigm, saying that we have a wonderful new beginning. There was the public passion through all the collaborative's efforts. It's the job of the city, said the speaker, to find out what the resources are such as newspaper writers, radio announcers, create and hand out flyers – all of these can be brought within our capabilities.

Mr. Morehouse wanted to know whether the staff’s recommendations “hit the mark, with speaker Michael. The speaker appeared to be satisfied with and 80 percent average of acceptance, but also gave the impression that a complete new beginning – his new “paradigm” – had somehow not been realized. Mr. Morehouse also asked the city attorney whether the council could act on the resolution, not on the agenda, and Ariel said we could bring it back in a couple of weeks, stating also that Staff has reasons for not going forward with that resolution. Ariel said there is a broad area of immunity in this community – that there are inspectors who would not benefit from the immunities – pointing to the need for training for contractors “wanting to be agents of the city” just as one example.

Council Member Brennan noted that Camille, Jill and Tag had put in a long years worth of work, and that some of the emotional issues do surface. 80% of what's been brought forward has been accepted by the staff already, said the councilman, but that he was still needing to understand the clarifications of liability before evaluation an update on the eight or nine rejections that were mentioned.

The Citizen Review Board was an interesting concept, Staff said, and that some additional experimentation would have yielded the amount of shortfall in dealing with citizens groups. Fees and residues are still a bit of a mystery. Direct feedback – on the fear anger and frustration issue, Andrew desired to clarify – continue to let people know that they have 30 days to check in with design, with a year given out to try and get the unit legalized. Parameters are given and time is allowed for the process. Using public domain such as Google Earth to check on violations, along with aerial photography which is also used to look back at the records and see what has been done and when. Ariel said that the satellite photography means that not everything is acceptable in court, but that high-level scans do not violate private and privacy interests, but also that we have not crossed that line with normal aerial photography.

An inspection is always done, according to Staff, before invasive aerial photography is used. There will be two complaints from third parties before an inspection is triggered. Neighbors have “wars” and this is also recognized. Liens on the tax rolls are used – collection agencies are also used including the County Tax Assessor. These tactics are avoided whenever possible. Small claims courts procedures have also been avoided. The clouding of titles hasn't been done specifically but is reported on the financials. Mr. Stuffler did not believe that there was an issue with the clouding of title or maintaining databases of public records.

Speaking on the hold harmless issue – if the professional knows that there is a violation on the property but that the violation should be allowed to exist, Staff said that it would be their view that that would be negligent on the part of the city. Ariel stated that city immunity from liability during reckless issues could cause a problem for the city. Staff said that owner occupancy would not be a requirement in order to hold safety at a high-level.

Council Member Monahan showed that the code is as of 1923 and that he wished to know what the population of the city was in that year. Inspectors present on steel high-rise buildings are required to be on site full-time, and that the process would be the same but inspection services would need to be approved and certified by the city for each inspector. How is it handled with applications for inspectors over the Internet, was the question asked. The councilman thought about online permitting due to the fact that there is the availability 24 hours. seven days a week.

Staff replied that a fax service program is already in existence to allow the process to continue during off hours. Council Member Monahan wasn’t sure that anyone still uses faxes.

Council Member Weir asked Andrew about the first bullet on qualifying undocumented units. Her desire was to know what would qualify as an undocumented unit. Some units may not qualify with the county came the answer. Most bullets apply to all buildings and not second units – the code enforcement inspection process is generally for all buildings. The question about the process involving contractors – the contractors haven't in every case complied with the convoluted code process – there is a necessity for education of some of these contractors.

Contractors exams cover this issue, according to Staff. Licensed contractors are in full awareness. Council Member Weir indicated, however, that in her experience contractors do not always play by the rules whether they know about the rules or not. In terms of the volunteer program, it was her desire to know what the volunteers would do and how they would be trained. The program would be similar to the volunteers with police, according to Staff. Police staff members work extensively one-on-one on their processes. Similar plans should work going through Staff for the inspection program. A volunteer can be sent out with a camera and trained to do that work.

Tag had a question – you are right in keeping groups like the real estate groups separate, but you may have to separate the second unit program as well, and with all of these programs having been “pushed together” they may now need to be “teased out.” He thought that the council member was “on to something” by noting that there are separate real estate questions in addition to the homeownership process and personnel. Low impact to the city can be utilized by the fact that people have cell phones that take pictures and that the local community is easily available to assist in the process.

The councilwoman noted that the lending practices have been tagged up needing to help rely and piggyback on that type of documentation. If the unit is not permitted they should not be able to get a lot. Tag doesn't deal in escrows, yet if escrow receives a report it may bring up questions between buyer, seller, lender and the title insurance. Who is responsible for proving that a permit exists probably remains an open question, according to the speaker.

The mayor said that we are close to the end of Council Communications. The mayor also noted that public speakers may be continuing through individual breaks as taken by the council members. Council Member Monahan wondered how that sewer permit access to city sewer lines would be handled under Staff’s new guidelines. Andrew replied that sewer lateral inspections are now under the jurisdiction of Land Development. A new process may be necessary, with Ariel noting that we have integrated private sewer lateral inspection ordinances this year and that will be coming on a separate track.

Council Member Andrews asked for clarification on the definition of a dwelling unit. Irrespective of whether or not the facility has bathroom or kitchen, it's his understanding that those are the correct criteria. The answer was in the affirmative. A question for Tag on the move-in – move out issue – would it not be possible to have an agreement checklist process to force a move in tenant to comply? Tag replied that there are out-of-state owners who never meet or see the tenant. In that case agents might be used.

The mayor asked Andrew a question on the statistics concerning the proactive inspections process, targeting older parts of the city and continuing for five months, yielding data that said 22% had some evidence of code violation. 16% were in found as illegal second units. According to the mayor this would work out as some 50 units, which seemed an unfamiliar number. Andrew replied that out of 400 units there were 15 units not in compliance. The Mayor remarked that for city the age of Ventura, a number as low as 1 or 2% would seem “rather remarkable.” In response to another of the mayor’s questions, it was stated that there will be no proposals this evening on whether or not covered parking is to be enforced. A specific recommendation has not been brought forward this evening on covered parking was the clarification.

The mayor wished to ask the Safe Housing Collaborative representative how he would ensure that the property owner’s due process rights are respected. Which due process factors are at risk was the question. The answer was that the ability to foreclose was the most overriding fear—a lien on the property. The city will bring the property into compliance before reselling the property. The question then moved to one of redress for the homeowner, which Michael suggested might lead cases either to court or through the appeals board process. Andrew finished the question by saying that the local appeals board does not intervene on the part of either party.

As such the mayor noted that a proposed citizen review board might act as a watchdog in the process, paralleling in some cases the way a police department would operate – intervening in the process of issuing citations – which sounds as though there are conflicting roles for one entity to perform. It was the mayor's request to have clarified what was the process they were seeking.

Tag said that the generation of a citizens review board comes directly from the public outreach process conducted by the collaborative, and that the public favors a citizen’s review board becoming involved in the process. The owner may be cited, but the tenant may have caused the problem is one typical example. Citation goes after the landlord in these cases. The citizens review board could then address the problem bringing the tenant into the issue. The mayor countered by saying that many people may have thought citizens review boards would be a good thing, but there is not one unified thought as to what the review board should look like. This would then come out in the wash only later, according to the mayor.

Council Member Morehouse wanted to follow up on some of what the mayor had brought up, noting that the citizens review board may not be the end all of the answer. Could a citizen still engage within the legal framework over additional actions that may be required, and this was asked of Ariel. There may be high expectations when friends and neighbors are involved in cases where it truly might involve legal action. Ariel said we have neutral hearing officers already, meaning that the code enforcement and Staff together have the power to unilaterally impose penalties. There is a legal process including going to court, according to Ariel. You could produce another hearing body but we already have such in the code typically handled by independent hearing officers who are not beholding to the city, the city attorney volunteered further.

Council Member Morehouse reiterated saying that we could create another body, but Ariel then questioned whether you would want to mix up multiple functions. The planning commission and Council interact on a regular basis, but this could be a fact-finding differential that may be compensated by the entry of multiple players.

Tag replied noting that there would likely be engagement with both or of multiple entities even if it meant starting new community councils, which would then help to achieve these goals. The Citizen Review Board does not have to be the over arching body, but an advisory council only.

Mr. Morehouse touched on some earlier comment involving continuous inspections during complex processes such as welding and bolting, usually handled through special expertise entities such as the state agency. Going to the outside would also mean the necessity for limiting city liability, raising concerns as to how a failure in this loop would impact the city. Ariel stated that the city would not end up in the liability chain by going to contractors.

Council Member Monahan noted that at the CMH Cancer Center there was a welding inspector on hand throughout the process. Code enforcement and other cities already have second unit and safe housing ordinances on their books.

Public Communications – approximately 30 speakers have been lined up.

Natalie Brewton spoke as lifelong resident of the city and a homeowner. Her claim was that there are far-reaching ramifications of relaxing some codes, noting that owners should seek zoning modifications. Code enforcement should partner with these entities, according to her, in ways that go beyond single-family residences but allowing multiple family the same zoning as single-family is outrageous in her view. She spoke of neighbors where studio apartments have been created out of single bedrooms and garages. meaning that there is now a six-plex were a duplex should be. If there are permissions for grandfathering on other than a single-family residence, this property, without seeking rezoning or variances, would be allowed to exist. This could happen anywhere within the city. She expressed grave concerns of measures that tend to encourage rather than limit these types of outcomes.

Helen Yunker stated that as a 52 year resident who helped lead the fight that led to the creation of the Pierpont Bay Association, she noted that organizations such as these have been leaders in bringing the city to compliance and into greater alignment with the residents’ needs and desires. Concerned citizens in January 1977 forced an issue that led to 77-13, which was reinstated only at citizen request, thus illustrating what the average citizen is capable of doing, and how it is possible to rectify the “sins of the past.”

Council Member Monahan thanked the speaker for her assistance in bringing our beach communities into the fine condition we see them in today.

Rosalyn Strohbush spoke asking to make sure that the difference made by the Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative remains as the go-between between code enforcement and the city resident who has been subjected to nightmarish feelings. She claimed to be in favor of the “freedom from fear” resolution. She claimed to be 100% behind grandfathering, and that this is a voting year, which raises yet another opportunity for the public to become further involved.

Kevin Quinn spoke as a resident and not a building inspector, necessarily, claiming that the council members are intelligent on this issue and that we live in a world of prescriptive codes. He praised his wife throughout most of his speech, saying that his family has opened his home to temporary residents in the past out of compassion. He claimed to have never rented out the garage but issues edicts, such as “don't disturb the neighbors,” usually finding also that within three months the needy person is “back on his feet.”

Council Member Morehouse asked that, “as a person who has had to enforce the laws,” whether the city's laws are more onerous than the county’s. The speaker replied that when he does an inspection, he explains to a person their Fourth Amendment rights. This may be a very invasive complaint from a neighbor, he said, and you can either allow me to do an inspection or you can “tell me to get lost.” He claimed that he would not seek a report under these conditions. The speaker said that we need to inform owners of their rights, but state mandated law cannot be appealed. He agreed that there is room for improvement in the city code.

Cindy Heist spoke as a neighbor of “Rosie” (Strohbush) who just spoke. Their property is always well-maintained, according to the speaker, and that she has personally witnessed the trying times that her neighboring family has been subjected to thorough code enforcement. Giving parameters in terms of harsh measures doesn't work when people don't have the resources, the speaker said.

Laura Swenson said that she was puzzled by no Staff alternative to VSHC No. 4, creating a two-year amnesty without penalty. Her claim was that it is a sound option and should be included as part of alternative number four. Not everyone is savvy enough to view legal information on electronic media, according to the speaker, and it was her belief that there must be a way to monitor deputized inspectors. Perhaps a lower reinspection rate could be instituted. Mandatory resale is a hot issue which has been on the council's agenda before without success, and will not succeed this time either, she said. The idea of the city maintaining a public access database would put the city in the business of “rental referrals.”

The mayor spoke of a second legalization ordinance asking Staff to address the timeframe that would be required, a question asked by Laura, who was speaking to the time issue above and beyond a two-year amnesty. It was said that the collaborative would need to join the education process, but Staff believed that two years is a reasonable time.

Joe Nürnberg, speaking as a licensed electrical and general contractor, noted that a contractor is a poor choice as a third-party home inspector. In his view, often in California, you get your best friend to help you obtain a license vouching for four years of experience, taking a multiple choice exam without further education – these are the realities in California certification, he said, noting that Council Member Weir was on track with her comments on contractors.

Joe Vernig spoke for his stakeholder organization, noting that the staff presentation was an impressive effort, but there were a couple of glitches. The resale home inspection and the rental ordinances were offered as examples of a way that his stakeholder group would be willing to work with the city in some better crafting of the recommendation.

Council Member Brennan wished to ask Jill whether any inspections were required on sales, with the discovery that in the County it is not – in Port Hueneme and Oxnard there are signoff inspectors who may be present at closing. The mayor wanted to mention that George King brought this up but that one of every three sales had the requirement that the seller participate in a real estate disclosure statement. It asks whether there are structure modifications that do not comply or that lack permits. Additional forms that question the seller are now in use. A new process has gone deeper and into some very fine details.

Council Member Morehouse asked Jill about the point-of-sale disclosure – processes in Santa Barbara have been existence for 25 years where the process works. The speaker said that things that work in a slow market tend not to work in a fast market. The resale inspection program will fix problems in a limited number of properties, the speaker said. Thousand Oaks is a city among others that have abandoned the process.

Council Member Andrews wished to ask Jill, speaking on the Buyers Inspection Advisory proposal, why the seller would need to disclose along with many other statements that seem to cover the same requirements, including the Agents Inspection report. The speaker continued noting that these types of forms exist in abundance

Terry Smith stated that the city's proposed amnesty program won't work simply because of the economic situation we are faced with. Issues such as the isolation of separate meters will become financial burdens that homeowners cannot bear. It was her claim that this is not the time to crack down on these existing units. It was also her claim that she did not wish to “be recorded.” She wouldn't want her personal information disclosed to a database showing properties that she may own. She doesn't want her address available to just anybody. It was her claim that the permit system is excessive in terms of cost. Simple replacements meant standing in line even though faxing services might be available. It was her claim that it was not a mystery as to why people don't pull permits for water heaters when there is nothing but red tape.

Bob Keyanese spoke about the annexation of outlying areas when it comes to the coding process. He stated that this was “the elephant in the room tonight,” and that it was all about money, permitting and collections. It was his claim that a housing crisis that is devastating our local economy, will “wreck the community.”

Bill Roderick with the East Ventura Community Council noted that the recommendations were not well defined as impacted by the average homeowner. It was his belief that this was for the economic benefit of the city rather than the safety of its residents.

Laurie Puhl had four questions to ask including how does the new property owner actually know of some of the necessary factors. The mayor noted that answers to questions would follow the meeting. It was her suggestion that a website dedicated to this process.

Sherry Cash asked about Mr. Stuffler's comment declaring that at first contact, the citizen can count on being apprised of his or her options. One of the problems with coming together with an “appointed group” is that there's not enough of the basic information of greatest interest to the average citizen. Conflicting review board issues can mean that on a case-by-case basis, which might be needed, would be extremely time-consuming and ultimately ineffective. It was her observation that the same Mr. Stuffler sitting in the room with us this evening was one of her inspectors and hadn't been of any help or assistance to her at all.

The mayor wished to follow-up with the speaker on the citizen review board concept, noting that an appeals board, an arbitrator or a board that intervenes in an administrative process is a multitasking unit but that what she would rather see is a board that hears individual cases. The report back from the speaker was that a grievance board would be her model – an ombudsman approach.

Michael Pedzoiter noted that he owns a property that is deemed not compliant. His inspection report calls it a “barbecue House.” When the inspector actually arrived there was nothing unsafe that was found. His problem is with due process where he paid $160 in a hearing panel with Mr. Stuffler along and a panel of members who were contractors, one contractor had said that anyone who did not use permits was “our enemy.” It was his view that he was in front of a kangaroo court. He was told warrants were needed “right now.” He claimed to be for grandfathering, but it must be made legal and affordable to us.

The mayor conducted a short follow-up noting that there were two separate issues and wished to have been made clear on this – the dealing with the public’s fourth amendment rights over the forceful nature of the inspections in his case, and also the failure of being given a fair and impartial hearing. The speaker affirmed these as the facts.

Lana Leslie spoke on the collaborative model, noting that it was well intended. Her concern was the economy with homes not selling and with people not having jobs. It was also her view that there were monetary issues rather than safety being brought to the front of the debate.

The next speaker, Sharon Troll, stated that she attended the collaborative is meetings, noting that there was confusion and that there were scare tactics going on. Code enforcement has been on her street numerous times for violations where there have been people living in substandard conditions in second units. It was her contention that she did not deserve to live next to property where substandard living conditions exist. Most people do not allow strangers into their homes or on their properties even with a badge these days. Management companies cannot be called and be counted on to cooperate. She works with youth who live in substandard conditions and that there is generally a language barrier.

Council Member Andrews asked about the first meeting where there was fear mongering. The speaker listed cases of broken screens and missing windows which would cause them to lose their home. Council Member Morehouse also picked up on the information, hoping that staff members were not the source of the problem.

Tom Stanley attended two of the three public meetings but did not witness scared tactics. The collaborative committee has assessed the situation very succinctly and that he is in favor of their recommendations. He urged that the city council to move to accept the recommendations of the collaborative. It was his recommendation that it be agendized and passed within two weeks. Data systems experts and lawyers have been involved and that consultants would have charged at least $250,000 for a similar report. He replied to Mr. Brennan in his assessment of substandard saying that only life safety issues constitute substandard construction. Nuisance issues such as peeling paint could be handled by fines and a simple notice of non-conformance. We are all in favor of making homes safe but that life safety must come first.

Camille Harris said that she appreciated the fact that the council asked the public for their input. Some comments such as, “we've got too much to lose” have kept enough people away from participating in the process. People view pulling permits as a hunting license. They feel they will be punished for sins of the past. This is why the safe housing collaborative did a "universal" – a fresh start resolution for the community – which would help to get “everybody off the merry-go-round” so that they don’t have to go on living “under the radar.” Others have said they will not allow inspectors on the property as a result of fear. Fear is real. A “get well card” is necessary to assuage public fears. Community buy-in and the showing of compassion for the community will be necessary before any of your recommendations can succeed. 145 people have been turned over to the county but no review was ever performed. The citizens will have to participate before you will get community buy-in.

The next speaker, Fred Evans with RE/MAX and, along with most realtors in the room, felt that the Board of Realtors and 99% of their members do try to protect their clients. He noted the sheaf of papers produced by Mr. Andrews, agreeing that that was merely a small percentage of the paperwork that is involved in the sale of a property. It was his belief that we were getting carried away with bureaucracy. A statement – approval of these recommendations will result that about $1 million of construction permit fees was actually placed in the recommendation almost as though it were a revenue generated option. There may be shortfalls to budgets but this is not the way to save the city. Council Member Morehouse wished to ask whether the city of Ventura is any more onerous then unincorporated areas or within other cities. The speaker said that we don't need to take that step and that it's up to the neighbors to turn in their fellow citizens.

[Comment] Of course it is, that is if you’re living in the 19th Century. Maybe there’s a bogeyman behind every tree as well. This is what libertarianism will do to people. We don’t need laws. Just give us our guns and we’ll take care of it ourselves. Don’t these people get it? Laws make us talk to each other. Laws make us think before we run off with our weapons fully loaded and our brains half cocked. Maybe instead we can find a way to work out our differences. It’s a small planet and it’s getting smaller every day. We either figure this out now or it’s going to be too late. Y-T lost a home to the very process being spoken of here, and guess what? … Y-T has had his fill. Listen to the voice of experience – if you ever come across a realtor who speaks and sounds like this one, run for the hills, because if you don’t, you may be sleeping there tomorrow. [Ed.]

John Whitman observed that the report says 80% of the all houses inspected were in compliance (20% noncompliant). It also states that 412 of the houses inspected were not in compliance, so if 20% = 412, the sample was 2060. 15 of those instances involved second units that were illegal for 15 of 2060 is .007. There may be 50,000 homes within Ventura spoke .7% is 350 residences. There may be that many residences with second units. These are low numbers according to the speaker. He attempted to have a further breakdown of these numbers based on fire records, but found it would take too long to compile that information. It was his view that a great amount of effort is being spent on a very small problem.

Tracy Bridger stated that he has a personal story involving a 54-day notice of noncompliance during escrow. He attempted to comply but discovered that there would be $4000 in permit fees that would be due before compliance can be issued. He claimed to be missing a complete list. He noted that with prospective buyers waiting for his acceptance to go through, the permit process had instant financial ramifications wherein a single permit opened the floodgates on them causing tens of thousands of dollars in fees that they could not afford.

Ken Luper stated his position as a member of the collaborative, noting that many of the meetings were held on his private residence. Primarily from a project standpoint he wanted to say that the collaborative spoke to the guidelines they were fed and that the results have come out in perfection. He claimed that he had written an article in which he’d shown that the staff recommendations would not be acceptable as a solution to the problem, but that the collaborative has come up with far better identification of the issue. There needs to be a clear problem definition process put in place, and it was his belief that some of this has not been in evidence.

Council Member Andrews wished to know if there were permits for those meetings that he held at his house.

Steve Peterson, a retired city firefighter, said that there were a lot of good recommendations being proposed. He claimed to have been the purchaser of property before many of these issues have been addressed. He has second units which don't have records but they do have second utility services, noting that the city would not have put those units in without permits. The residential education process shouldn't be necessary to inspect a mom-and-pop 2-unit rental place. Any good landlord uses a good move in – move out form.

Gilbert Ramirez stated that there would be neighborhood councils and private citizens as inspectors, saying that these are bad ideas due to personal feuds between neighbors. If you could call inspectors on your neighbors it would be like legalizing “weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

[Comment] We’re already there. It’s just that some folks are trying to put that genie back in the bottle. Have you ever witnessed the frustration of someone trying to put a genie back in a bottle? [Ed.]

Mike Gonzales: Mr. Stauffer noted that there was a two complaint minimum. With this you leave the system open to two-complaint agendas. It is his situation that has forced him to move on – leaving the city of Ventura, and that this has been due mainly to code issues. He said goodbye to the council saying this is the last time.

Patti Thomas spoke wondering if we might not have answered some of our zoning questions already through regulations already in place, where she cited Zoning Regs, Para. 24.465 that shows that nonconforming situations are allowed to exist (nonconforming uses) some of these due to annexation, stating specifically that if a parcel is annexed before April 1977 that non-conformance shall continue indefinitely.

The mayor thanked all speakers, asking for the staffs indulgence in helping to address the speakers questions that had been raised – the first dealing with the 30-year sunset date for Granny flat approval. It was noted that the issue originated with the collaborative and not the staff. Michael replied, and the mayor seemed to agree, that the collaborative was not” wedded” to 30 years. Why should we not go back to complaint-based enforcement was a question, with the mayor noting that we had proactive-based enforcement for five months several years ago but upon suspension of that policy we’ve had complaint-based enforcement ever since.

On Mr. Whitman’s issue on his mathematical arrival of 2060 units involved in the sample taken several years ago during the “proactive era” to determine nonconforming property, Staff replied that statement had been poorly written and that the actual sample was only 412 units.

On whether or not certification is required in order to obtain move-in move-out forms, Mr. Stuffler replied that it is “still up for debate” whether or not to pass an ordinance to that effect. It would seem that the form in current use is distributed by the state and that staff has no clear direction to move forward on the issue.

What was the basis for the amount of fines was another of the questions. Staff said that administrative civil penalties are based on a fine schedule that is brought before Council and set at a rate which “inspires people to comply.”

Is there not a way to use a nonconforming stipulations as a method of helping to deal with nonconformance – also read aloud. Staff said that this is one of the bases for which the city uses data to determine the issue.

In answer to Patti’s question on the continuing nonconforming use of older properties, Mr. Stuffler punted nicely, reiterating an earlier theme by saying that Staff employs those and other regulations to determine the status of parcels and properties.

[Comment] This of course evades the spirit of Patti’s question entirely. How many Venturans are sitting wrapped in fear this evening, unaware of the fact that they have been automatically immunized from the vagaries of Ventura’s little shop of enforcement-based horror? How many homes in our area are 30, 40, 50 years old and even older? A simple statement from the chief code enforcement official in town appraising the population of existing legal nonconforming use just as one proactive citizen has done, may have allowed several thousand people to rest more easily this evening. Is this too much to ask? [Ed.]

City Manager Cole weighed in on the fines as might be handled through a website presence at a page called My Ventura Access. It would be the FAQ page that may be of help to many, but with a response form available also. Many people use the telephone to call the city and they even call city council members via phone. Most of these calls are referred back to the Access page.

Is there a piecemeal assessment of the value by the current owner was a question and the mayor noted that the fines are not related to the value of the property. It is often unknown who made the improvements – the subject of still another question. The mayor asked if the city lost the permits how the fine be justified. Staff replied that they don't ticket before verification and communication.

Council Member Morehouse managed to have Staff affirm the fact that there are a percentage of lost permits. There were questions regarding the definition of substandard, with Mr. Stuffler going further out on a limb admitting that an ordinance in 2006 resulted in the removal of the distinction between “dangerous” and “substandard” for the sake of efficiency. The chief compliance officer also stated that such a decision would not likely be repeated. Another question on training was noted for clarification, with Staff saying that there are differences in the backgrounds of people who may enter the property as an inspector. Problems can be rectified, said Mr. Morehouse, by our people being better trained. Staff agreed.

Mr. Morehouse picked up on a comment that said if one permit is necessary this may cause the homeowner to skip the process due to “witch hunting.” The staff member replied as though he was completely aware that this is true and that there is no remedy since safety cannot be compromised. Ariel spoke responding to Andrew of staff.

[Comment] Once again the chief enforcement officer is close, but just off the mark. No one denies the need for safety. Where safety violations occur they should be identified and corrected. Suppose we try avoiding problem language like “witch hunt” (I know – not your problem) and follow Camille’s lead, for example, by suggesting to our erstwhile compliance officer that “One code violation does not (or should not) a ‘hunting license’ make.” Will this not work? Thank you, Camille, for allowing us all to better put things into perspective. [Ed.]

The experience of Santa Barbara was brought up by Mr. Morehouse, wanting to know what the respondents had experienced in relation to what we know of outside our own environment. Andrew said that a short checklist of items would be the extent of the invasive nature that is normally the experience of surrounding communities. Andrew said that Staff agrees with the spirit of the collaborative resolution with C, F, G. and H, raising questions concerning legality and practicality. With time being the constraint in going through the collaborative report in detail, the staff went forward with its own recommendations until Staff can come back to the council on May 9, with an ordinance reflecting somewhat greater similarity to that which the collaborative is outlining.

Council Member Monahan asked Jill Martinez to reflect upon what has been heard from the public and council members with Ms. Martinez saying that there were 1600 respondents, and that the effort was to prioritize but not eliminate. It was her belief that some of the recommendations being put before Council this evening are limiting but that over time could be been reworked. It was her contention that the collaborative did not filter things. Mr. Mehas refreshed the council’s memory on the alternative No. 4, asking imploringly once again that they approve with the basics of alternative No. 4 intact. The mayor called for a 10 minute break, after which the meeting would continue.

The city manager directed toward and answered for Council Member Morehouse the question of what happens when an inspector arrives on scene, stating along the way that instances of “Easter-egging” (paraphrasing) do occur, with the question ending up with Mr. Stuffler explaining the situation.

Mr. Stuffler looked into the situation using analogous situations – defending the position that the inspection process involves the drawing in of other issues. His claim was that no one had brought such an issue to him within the course of the past year. Michael responded by saying that when an inspector enters the property, the city has liability issues. The mayor objected somewhat by saying that we are going into an area that could open a new round of debates. Tenants said that the property maintenance code is the issue that involves broken windows and faulty or foreign screens, meaning that there are two definitions the property maintenance code and the generic civil court 1941 habitability issues.

Council Communications – dealing with the second unit issue first so that Deputy Mayor Tracy may be held suspended from the discussion, Council Member Morehouse noted that both areas cover some of the same situation. The mayor replied that the council could give Staff recommendation on what we may or may not want to see. They could also be following the collaborative’s recommendations, but this would restrict Deputy Mayor Tracy.

It was agreed that the proposed amendment for the city second units should be handled, with Council Member Weir stating that eliminating the maximum lot coverage standard and eliminating garage parking would hurt neighborhoods going forward in terms of livability. Establishing a variance procedure would make more sense to her, saying that she would not support the number one or the number two changes that are being brought forth by Staff. She also wondered if there were setback issues for some of the second units and wished to have Staff confirm.

Staff agreed that setback is one of the big issues. There are zoning violations and building violations in some cases where property lines are even spanned. The establishment of variance procedures for second units came from the collaborative. The current variance procedure, according to Staff, means that there would be $2300 worth of application fees. Council Member Weir wished to clarify on the issue of garage conversions. Staff noted that the collaborative has issued a recommendation that would legalize garage conversions as second units.

The mayor noted that if a second unit does not comply you must either get a variance or you will have to make the situation legal. Council Member Monahan wished to address Council Member Weir's comment, stating that it appeared the direction she had been taking the question was one not of existing units but rather new construction. The councilman wished to know whether new construction would entail restrictions that are currently in place. Staff said that the new proposals would be less restrictive than current nonconforming structures.

Ariel stated that the water utility dislikes installing second meters and that the agency would be amenable to changing that requirement if the council should so direct.

Council Member Morehouse noted that a second unit ordinance was adopted at the requirements of state law. If the input from the collaborative plus the Fairfax experience would become part of that amendment, they wished to know how far the council would go in making amendments to second unit construction. The councilman said he would have trouble with garage conversions as second units. Council Member Andrews addressed the lack of clarity in the two bullet points, suggesting a modification in the second document that would require additional information from the owner including photos to show compliance with city code. The city inspector to the best of his or her ability will confirm that the items on the contractors inspection checklist are conforming to code. “How would this happen?” asked the councilman.

Staff replied that ‘to the best of their ability’ would mean basically visible. The councilman said he would be happy with number two, but with respect to the remaining part this would involve legalizing existing units, and this may not be desirable for the world of future units, according to Mr. Andrews. It was his belief that this goes well beyond the task that the collaborative consortium was asked to do. It was also his belief that we need to explicitly agree that setbacks will be grandfathered while a fire space still remains on the existing unit.

Council Member Weir asked about the table showing the fees that would have to be paid during the first year of amnesty – around $600. She questioned a new meter requirement asking if that would be grandfathered in without new metering. Requiring a major installation and requiring the purchase of the equipment, also meaning buying into the city water/sewer system, could be a hardship. The councilwoman brought up the issue of safety where the setbacks are concerned, with staff replying that those issues should be verified by the contractor on the checklist. It shall remain that according to the question that garage conversions shall be allowed as long as there is separate covered parking available.

Council Member Weir approved of No. 6 and No. 7 on pages 1 through 10 with the explicit statement that during amnesty there would be not the requirement for new meters but that the requirement for covered parking should be retained. The motion died for lack of a second. A back-and-forth between the city attorney and Councilwoman Weir attempted to narrow the proposal, with the mayor joining the conversation.

Councilwoman Weir volunteered to delete the stipulation involving covered parking. Ariel noted that the collaborative offered an unenforceable recommendation based on outside influences noting that street parking is not automatically eliminated. A restatement of the motion: direct Staff to bring a legalization ordinance that includes No. 6 and No. 7 on pages 1 through 10 but has no requirement for separate water meters and incorporates an overriding of the city's ordinances on second units only for the year of amnesty.

The city attorney thought that some of this language would leave a very difficult enforcement situation behind. Ariel noted that variance procedures would not be necessarily official requiring the benefit approval process.

The motion was restated and seconded, with the mayor noting that the collaborative recommendations in the area of the unenforceable issues could be extracted. The mayor then asked Staff to weigh in on the situation where 60-year-old situations would be treated differently from those that are created tomorrow. The mayor also suggested that final inspection be moved out to a year and nine months. It was asked of the maker of the motion if December 31, 2012 should be the length of the compliance timeframe.

Council Member Brennan agreed with the restated motion, with Council Member Monahan suggesting that the collaborative members be allowed to comment on the motion on the floor.

Michael Mehas said that the collaborative would work with anyone at anytime in making code recommendations that work. It seemed that all were in agreement with the mayor that those who want to complete second units and bring them up to code would have one year and nine months to do so.

Council Member Andrews noted that opening up the records for other documentation including photos was not in the motion maker’s wording and that perhaps it should be included. Council Member Weir agreed that the notation by Mr. Andrews should be included. The councilman also wished to know whether I, J, and K on page 32 should also be included. The councilwoman responded thinking that they are not live safety issues, even though the fire Lane issue might well be. One parking space for the second unit might be amended to include one parking space per bedroom was the issue raised by Mr. Andrews.

The city manager weighed in saying that the issue has been before the city for a long time, but that the expectation of neighbors is something that impacts neighborhood preservation. The city manager agreed that this would be very restrictive and that may severely reduce the number of grandfathered units. A new wording was to add in all street parking requirement that accommodate extra bedrooms rather than second units. The maker of the motion thought that impractical and would not accept.

Mr. Andrews noted that it was the requirement to add a water meter all multiunit buildings built after the date of the ordinance amendment, the water meter would cover all water usage is on the property. The landlord must be able to read the meter for his tenants, this having been done as a water conservation measure.

Ariel joined the discussion saying that the meeting was for all family units without second units. Council Member Morehouse thought that problems would be created by establishing this ministerially.

The motion was restated: the table at the top of page 6 also amending Staff returns No. 6 and No. 7 on pages 1 through 10 with the amendment regarding update the chart using other records including photos and not requiring water hookups for the second units.

The city attorney was asked to formulate language for the motion on the floor – suggesting No. 6 and No. 7 on pages 1 through 10 – the elimination of maximum lot coverage standard – the establishment of a variance procedure on second units allowing one year and nine months compliance – establishing photos for documentation – adding and including setbacks from the collaborative as long as a fire line is maintained between second unit lot lines lot lines. Mr. Monahan desired to have included the sewer line hookup. The California plumbing code covers this issue, but the city attorney was questioned as to the validity of a common sewer hookup for older units. It was determined that added to this could be a study of this sewer issue only.

The mayor asked for a called the roll, with the issue passing six – zero.

Deputy Mayor Tracy was welcomed back into Chambers. The question became whether to proceed with the final item, which involved the code enforcement not having to do with second units. Bullet point number three involving Staff education was considered the most impactful of the two recommendations.

Council Member Brennan asked whether the Construction Review Board would require new technologies and new techniques, and would this have a major impact on second unit compliance. The Construction Appeals Board as established by the city council, would, according to Staff, where there are members of the trade and engineering disciplines who deal with technical provisions. The local appeals board, however, has been broadened in its makeup having it be less technical and more ombudsman-like in nature. The councilman thought that the softer, more friendly approach to these boards would be brought into the mix.

Where the issue might range from over size hedges to full unpermitted home construction, the Code Enforcement Appeals Board might in fact be brought into the process, according to Staff. Deputy Mayor Tracy thought that on an informal basis an internal department could be formed within a department much the way law enforcement develops internal review boards.

Tag weighed in saying that the public hasn't always trusted the department direction at the city level, thinking that tenant/landlord disputes could be handled by community councils and volunteer organizations.

Council Member Monahan felt that the community council involvement in civic disputes would be a worthwhile suggestion by taking the heat off of staff members. It was thought that this could be handled locally by neighbors and council persons extending down to the neighborhood level.

Council Member Andrews thought that there are a compendium of issues and that some of this could be sent back to the collaborative directing them to narrow the scope of activity. Discussions can sometimes go anywhere but also No. 1 for scope is as wide as the councilman sees it. He's open to discussions of creating or suggesting the formation of bodies that can assist in getting the council some direction in a way that “focuses the work.”

The councilman then turned to the staff report feeling that he could support the self inspection idea. The establishment of eight different persona in this process would be laudable, but that there may not be the financial resources to implement. The councilman stated further that he has a problem with residential registration program and the making of the registration a matter of public record. We should take Code 17925 and support that along with the inclusion of volunteers. The local resale inspection report could be potentially unnecessary, believing that there is already adequate provision for realtors through an aggressive buyer/seller issue. The maintenance of such documentation would be desirable however.

Council Member Morehouse felt that we could look at the appeals board but that it could be softened with citizen participation. He also wondered if we need to create a body that could be handled by citizen groups while mitigating the adverse baggage associated with official bureaucracy. The councilman also felt that with other protections in place to mitigate city liability, he would work with the realtor community in order to fine-tune the process. It was thought that Staff basically got it right on certain bullet points including relocation.

Council Member Weir noted that 5, 6 and 7 could be compared to the Santa Maria water heater program, with the result being that positive comment had been received. The water heater, re-roof and furnace ordinances have traditionally been heavily resourced monetarily, according to the councilwoman. Staff agreed that in some cases these programs work and in others not as well. Staff thought that the Board of Realtors would help and that some of this information could simply be routed to the city. City website information being posted would be intended to act like property management signage in front of managed properties was the intent as stated by Staff. The councilwoman thought that there might be privacy issues with the website database.

Jill Martinez was asked about the collaborative's view on the discussion so far, thinking that Andrew would work with the existing data, with Tag mentioning that the increased education of enforcement officers through community involvement personnel would cut down on Staff and Council time.

The mayor said that there is the appeals roll, the roll of 80 conduit between the community and the department with the possibility of executing that roll informally, plus assisting in the mediation of landlord tenant disputes through neighborhood councils.

Deputy Mayor Tracy stated that he would not feel that the collaborative approach as a permanent entity would be necessary in assisting the code enforcement issue. Mr. Tracy thought the education points were valuable, along with changes to the city code and inspection processes which are simply standard operating procedure. It was his feeling that code enforcement is simply code enforcement. He agreed that in many cases someone is going to be unhappy whether it be the offender or the person living next door. Mr. Tracy also thought that the Coastal Real Estate Board along with the Camarillo and Oxnard models might work. He also stated that he was opposed to the rental registration program. 17975 appeared to him to be an issue that civilian boards could handle.

[Comment] If we might be so bold, what the deputy mayor is getting at is the fact that in order to solve any problem or equation, it is necessary to first find the LCD – the lowest common denominator – which the councilman extracted elegantly and eloquently by stating the issue in its most basic form, “Code enforcement is simply code enforcement.” But hold on, there's a coupling term also. Are you able to find it? (Hint: You, the voters, elected a former cop to your city council.) Well it's now ten o'clock, Mr. & Mrs. Ventura Citizen. Do you know what tricks your old water heater is up to this evening? [Ed.]

Mr. Tracy moved that staff bring back specific points three, four, five, nine and 10 including item number six with the inclusion of involving the Board of Realtors. Establishment of the bundle registration program would be a no for him. Forming an advisory committee should be at Staff's discretion. A second by Council Member Morehouse was obtained.

Council Member Weir thought that the community group along with community leadership would be more effective than something created by the staff. She added that the appointments committee could be involved in changing the makeup of the appeals board. Ariel weighed in saying that eight has requirements for specific expertise on boards. The maker agreed to the appointments committee involvement with a new second having been obtained.

Council Member Monahan asked if it was necessary to insist that contractors obtain permits. Ariel said that it would be necessary to look at state law. Without state law we could create an ordinance setting up penalty provisions for not obtaining permits, said the city attorney. Certification of private building inspectors seemed like a good idea to Mr. Monahan. The councilman was concerned over disaster inspections such as the San Francisco earthquake

Council Member Monahan questioned the receipt of notices with the staff replying that those are sent by certified mail.

Council Member Andrews asked about the local resale on the proviso board of realtors and Code 17975. The maker of the motion was encouraged to rethink removal of that bullet point. Council Member Andrews offered an amendment which would include 17975, but the motion to amend after seconding was cast Brennan – no; Weir – no; Morehouse – yes; Andrews – yes; Monahan – no; Fulton – no – the motion failed.

[Comment] What is 17975? “Any candidate who is displaced or subject to displacement from a residential rental unit as a result of an order to vacate or an order requiring the vacation of a residential unit by a local enforcement agency as a result of a violation so extensive and of such a nature that the immediate health and safety of the residents is endangered, shall be entitled to receive relocation benefits from the owner as specified in this article. The local enforcement agency shall determine the eligibility of tenants for benefits pursuant to this article.” [Ed.]

Council Member Morehouse asked whether Staff wished to revise the time frame of the agreement, extended to December 31, 2011. The maker of the motion had no objection. The city clerk noted that the motion included bullets 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 with Mr. Monahan asking when this would come back to the council. and would there then be a chance for modification. Staff said this would come back to Council on May 9 as draft ordinances for review. Ariel noted that this was a truck load of work we would have to get back to the planning commission.

The city attorney felt that Deputy Mayor Tracy should be removed from the portion of the motion that dealt with the extension to May 9. Item C on the first part of the report was questioned by Ariel as to whether this included the motion. Mr. Mehas reiterated the volunteers in code enforcement section and other issues that pertain. The mayor called the vote – all members voted yes. The ordinance was to come back to the council according to the mayor.


Travel on the first occasion rather than as a package could be supported according to the councilwoman. Council Member Morehouse felt that he could support the issue based on the level that Mr. Andrews has achieved in the organization, which deserves to be respected. The community development block grant funds which we rely upon could not be maintained without a high level of influence in the National League of Cities organization. The councilman said overages from other council persons could be reallocated as one way of covering costs.

Mr. Andrews made a further point that when he accepted the appointment he was aware of the education requirement and asked if full participation on his part at all meetings would be met. The councilman stated that he’d returned with the notification that this was indeed the case. Mr. Andrews noted his reliant position by other members in terms of naval base personnel as well as national congressional members. Mr. Andrews noted that the reduction in travel budget was a unilateral action on the part of the mayor – never voted upon by the council.

The mayor responded with reference to the unilateral position, noting that divisions could be authorized either upward or downward. It was said by the mayor that “we would be better off being cordial than crappy.”

Deputy Mayor Tracy spoke saying that each member might take the position that preauthorization for expected travel could be instituted. Mr. Monahan noted that other cities would be more than anxious to take over our position in representing the RDP.

Council Member Brennan reiterated that the package approach to not be supported over the individual method. The Congress of Cities and the Steering committee meetings together, said Mr. Andrews, would mean that there are two meetings this fiscal year and two in the next. The motion to approve was brought forward and seconded. The roll call vote – Brennan: no; Weir: no; Morehouse: yes; Andrews: abstain; Monahan: yes; Tracy: yes; Fulton: yes – the item passed.

Staff members were praised by members of the Safe Housing Collaborative Committee for their involvement with the collaborative efforts.

Council stood adjourned in the memory of Phil Marquez.