Ventura City Council Meeting
April 19, 2011
Ventura City Hall - 501 Poli Street
Buzz Bonsall, owner of approximately 6,500 acres of land in the Upper Ventura Avenue/La Cañada Larga Valley area, stated that while consultants have affirmed the highest net positive fiscal impact for the City of Ventura on the incorporation of La Cañada Larga Valley and the Upper Avenue ~ besides affirming that an estate tract of large homes would attract business activity ~ in addition to the fact that the valley area is within 5 minutes of downtown ~ that despite all these findings, the property owner recommended that Council proceed with the Westside Project Area Base Plan and return to La Cañada Larga as a separate adgendized item in the future, wishing not to in any way sabotage the development effort currently under consideration.
Mayor Fulton brought the meeting to order with a call of the roll – all present. It was then asked of Council Members and spectators to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Special Presentations and Announcements – The Mayor for a Moment program. Each month the Ventura Unified School District's Character Development Program asks Fifth-graders to complete a character trait essay. This month the students at Mounds School submitted essays on honesty. Principal Todd Tyner selected an essay by Carisa Dikes. Chris and Lyn Dykes, her parents, along with Todd approached the dais and watched proudly as the young fifth-grader banged the gavel with amazing gusto. The young essayist said that trustworthiness, fairness and loyalty and not being deceitful was her description of honesty. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said in his I Have a Dream speech that being truthful was among the most important of traits in all of humanity. Thanking the audience for their attendance, the young lady accepted a key to the city along with a pin for her to wear.
April is Sexual Assault Awareness month. Lori Zinn was asked to approach the front of the dais, as the mayor noted the quality of her service and presented her with Council's Certificate of Recognition, followed by a few words from Lori. She thanked the city for supporting the group's cause working through the Coalition to End Family Violence. The organization has a website presence.
City Council Communications – Council Member Morehouse congratulated Councilman Brian Brennan for for his recent selection to the California Coastal Commission as Mr. Brennan was treated to a round of applause.
Council Member Andrews spoke wishing to adjourn in memory of Les Goldberg, saying that the counclilman himself had the honor of nominating Les as a candidate for the Jefferson award, which he won, going on to represent the region in Washington DC that particular year. Les worked tirelessly for the homeless, including opening his house and allowing many to move in temporarily. The councilman wished to remind all that on April 30 the NAMI walk sponsored by the National Alliance on Mental Illness will step off around 10:30 a.m. at the Promenade. The annual event is held to raise awareness over the special challenges that face families living with loved ones who may be suffering from mental illness.
Council Member Weir noted that the Ventura Music Festival takes place from April 28 to May 7 with the theme being classical/folk music. Tickets are available online. There will be no meeting next week so on April 30 the botanical gardens is sponsoring the Home Garden Tour happening nearly all day through the gardens of Ventura. Serra Cross Park on April 30 is designated International Work Day for all of the Rotarians worldwide. Ventura Rotary club is working at Serra Cross Park doing hand and work maintenance that is required, with invitations to all members of the public who may wish to help out in doing trimming, basic gardening and maintenance work.
Council Member Monahan wished to report on the success of Community Memorial Hospital's Gold Dust Gala, an annual event with country music performed by Little Texas Band. It was a spaghetti barbeque rather than the more traditional tri-tips, but a good time was had by all.
Council Member Brennan spoke on Ventura Charter School's Earth Day event that was along the Promenade on Saturday. There were booths galore, and it was a lesson in helping to save the earth's resources. It is always April 22 as most people know.
Deputy Mayor Tracy spoke saying that last week the city's Employer of the Year and Supervisor of the Year awards presentation, going this year to Anita Diaz from the Parks, Recreation and Community Partnerships department for being selected Employer of the Year, and Carl Valdez from Ventura's Parks Division for being selected as Supervisor of the Year. The nominations of city employees was a long one. The deputy mayor attended an event at DeAnza Middle School at a ceremony for activating a mobile activities trailer. Ventura’s Police Department, Police Activities League, Parks Divisions, and corporate sponsors put a trailer together from an existing city vehicle designed to take activities into communities to help work with citizens and children at risk.
The mayor wished to adjourn the meeting in the memory of Maxine Miller the mother of Pat Miller. Maxine passed away last week.
Council Member Monahan wished to ask about the corporate games. The mayor responded saying that things are happening. The annual Corporate Games is an activity with corporations forming teams engaging in activities. The event goes on for six weeks.
Regional boards commissions and committees – there were no reports.
CONSENT ITEMS – One item on the council’s Consent Calendar involved the license agreement with Lost Arrow Corp. (Patagonia) including one public speaker. A motion was asked for approval of the consent agenda. Council Member Brennan moved that the consent agenda be approved without further discussion. A second was obtained. The city clerk was asked to call the roll – all members voted yes.
Agenda Item No. 1 [Back] Agenda Item No. 1 – Redevelopment Area Project Area and Westside Redevelopment Advisory Committee update; Council Member Monahan indicated that property ownership of his will conflict with one of the items. Four contiguous parcels in the survey area would prohibit his voting, according to the city attorney, but the state’s Fair Practices Commission has indicated that Mr. Monahan may participate in the discussion concerning the La Cañada Larga parcel. The mayor said that with four items dealing with the topic, this would mean that Mr. Monahan can listen to Staff reports as presented on all items. Speakers were to be invited to speak on any of the items subsequent to the staff report. With 40 public speakers it was anticipated that the time consumed would amount to something like 3 ½ hours.
Jeff Lambert began – City of Ventura, showing: – Westside Community Plan and North Avenue/La Cañada Larga Presentation of Market Overview and Fiscal Impact Analysis Studies. The EIR was to be covered in special funding presentations.
The redevelopment budget was in preliminary draft form with the advisory committee (WRAC) having already acted on the plan. Two business owner slots remain vacant, with the ongoing need to move forward in fulfilling those positions. If the committee recommends going forward, then the planning commission takes over, permitting Council to hear the preliminary plans with a greater sense of the full redevelopment effort. Council was to be asked also for additional funding as this would be covered more fully in Agenda Item No. 4, while at the same time, the RDA Project status and Advisory Committee status (Item No. 1) was to be covered along with the overall presentation without a PowerPoint of its own. On that item, Council back in January gave Staff direction to move (cautiously) forward, with now an adgendized May, 11 meeting. A preliminary plan should be ready for Council’s review by July, as was stated by Mr. Lambert.
Agenda Item No. 2 [Back] – Fiscal Analyses of the Westside and north Avenue Area Community Plan; Michael Wright , a consultant, facilitated the presentation by pointing out the primary objectives of the two studies: (1) Market Overview – (1.1) Assess the market validity of the commercial and industrial portion of community plan land use mix – (1.2) Discuss about how executive housing ranks as an economic development asset to the city – (2) Fiscal Impact Analysis – (2.1) Estimate the fiscal impact to the city of 3 potential community plan boundary configurations – (2.2) Westside area only (City) north Avenue area (annexation) and Cañada Larga (annexation)
Community Plan/Fiscal Study Areas, showing: (1) The Westside area – (2) The north Avenue area including the Bonsall property located at the east and west Of Hwy. 33, north of the Brooks campus – (3) The La Cañada Larga area, located to the east of the north Avenue area along La Cañada Larga Road not shown on map, 680 acres executive housing project.
Market Study Regional Trends, showing: (1) Over the next 20 years Ventura County is expected to add roughly 68,000 new jobs (State EDD/SCAG) – (2) Sectors with biggest gains will be – (2.1) Professional and business services, 9116 jobs – (2.2) Education and health services, 9250 jobs – (2.3) Industrial oriented employment, 8770 jobs – (3) Ventura will benefit from the relocation of existing industrial properties from higher-priced to lower-priced locations within the Southern California region
Impact of County Job Growth on Plan Area, showing: (1) Plan area employment growth estimated based on regional demand projections – (2) County job growth projections translated into demand for various types of real estate – (3) Estimates of capture by the city of Ventura as well as the plan area were made by the consultant – (4) Demand for retail within plan area assumed to continue as local-serving
Comparison of Market Supportable Land Area to Plan Area Mix – a bar graph, showing: Acres of land area plotted against industrial and commercial components contrasted with land area currently set aside in the community plan land use mix, with the total market supportable land use available for the plan area having been evaluated. The plan currently sets 470 acres as space available for industrial uses. Long-term planning indicates that 370 acres of land are supportable leaving a 66-acre 20-year buildout potential. Commercial land and land use set-asides are roughly in balance as shown by the chart. The consulting firm expressed the opinion that these were acceptable in its assessment of the supportable market expectations over 20 years.
Demand Assumptions, Industrial, showing: (1) Near term demand will be satisfied by leasing up of vacated space and infilling of existing business parks [Arundell] – (2) Competition from projects currently in the development pipeline. Oxnard has 9.9 million ft.² in varying stages of approval. Not all of this will eventually get built – (3) The plan area will be attractive for investment if sufficient land areas can be aggregated to create quality development space. It was mentioned that the Brooks/PetroChem area is where industrial development is most likely to take place (bullet 1) and that the north Avenue area is also considered attractive (bullet 3).
Demand Assumptions, Office and Retail, showing: (1) Commercial office; plan area could become a destination for small office users and startups – (2) Medical offices; demand for medical and health care related office space will increase as local population ages – (3) Retail; uses most likely to be local-serving [plan area residents, employees and students] rather than as a location for destination stores such as big boxes.
Impact of Limiting Plan Area to Westside, showing: (1) near-term development opportunities will likely be limited to the commercial and residential infill [Selby and Kellogg sites] – (2) Small amount of new industrial development possible, infill of existing areas [Stanley and Olive] – (3) Some recycling of underutilized lots along Ventura Avenue is anticipated [many parcels with storage or industrial repair located along Ventura Avenue].
Job Projections by Year 2030, showing: The graph charting Job Impact on Buildout of Projected Demand – (1) Westside area ranging from low to high [524, 587] – (2) North Avenue area [1587] – (3) Total from low to high [4525, 4168] with job projections based on full buildout of projected demand. Actual job impacts will vary based on the type and scale of development that will take place over time
Executive Housing Issue, showing: (1) Up to 100 large lot executive estates have been proposed for development on the La Cañada Larga property [680 acres] – (2) Is executive housing an economic development asset, important to recruiting or retaining companies to locate in the City of Ventura?
Definition of “Executive Housing,” showing: (1) Family housing on large lots often one acre or more in size – (2) Location and environment are important factors [rural and semi-rural locations are popular – (3) Restricted access [gated areas] is often seen as an important amenity – (4) Values usually are in the upper end range for the market prices of $1 million to $3 million common
The Business Decision to Locate, showing: (1) Companies choose to locate in a particular area for a variety of reasons – (2) Cost reduction is most important for manufacturing, regional offices and distribution centers – (3) Same considerations are in place for headquarters moves, but relocations that involve both workforce and executive relocations rank competing locations based on both cost savings and quality of life considerations
Relative Importance of Economic Development Assets, showing: the table that indicated two-tier table of values – (1) First tier; Primary Business Assets; factors include adequate infrastructure, adequate labor force, business friendly environment et.al. – (2) Second tier; Quality of Life Assets; factors include available workforce and executive housing, quality school district, weather et.al.
[Comment] “Availability of Executive Housing” on the graphic was indeed shown in red, but the consultant glossed quickly over it. Council has heard conflicting expert testimony as recently as just last month in Council Chambers — from “The Agency” under the auspices of the Economic Development Collaborative of Ventura County. [Ed.]
Capturing the Residential Impact of Business Location Choices is also an Economic Development Benefit, showing: (1) With limited choice buyers of executive housing are prepared to commute – (2) Economically advantageous for a community to capture both the company and the residential locations of as many employees as possible – (3) There are economic benefits to capturing new residents “in town” at all income levels
Importance of Executive Housing for Economic Development, showing: (1) Basic economic conditions (First Tier) are a city's most important economic development asset – (2) Executive housing is a factor in location decisions once first tier assets are in place – (3) When considering two cities that have these factors in place, executive housing is definitely an important asset – (4) Unless other negative factors outweigh economic development considerations, the presence of this type of housing is a benefit
Luxury Housing Units for Sale as of February 2011 Ventura and Surrounding Communities, showing: A table of homes with asking prices of $1 million or more February 2011. The four areas of Ventura, Ojai, Oxnard and Camarillo all offer prospects, with only Ojai, Oxnard and Camarillo offering desirable levels of privacy and with larger lots.
The La Cañada Larga Site, showing: (1) La Cañada Larga is a good though not perfect site – (2) The terrain, the environment and remoteness are positive factors; however the “front gate” to the area could be a negative for buyers – (3) Could this type of housing be replicated elsewhere? It already is to a certain to extent in Ojai and Camarillo – (4) To locate elsewhere in Ventura, there would need to be another site or sites capable of accommodating large lots in a private setting
[Comment] Of course there is that “front gate” issue – one that will take a ton of money to fix. Has it occurred to anyone, though – that the problem could cut both ways? Who would be first to tire of so-called “conditions” … the chauffered? Or those who would be forced to watch the chauffered – day in and day out, year in and year out – from their broken-windowed, paint-peeling apartments? [Ed.]
Definition of Fiscal Impact Analysis, showing: (1) Fiscal impact analysis estimates the impact of a real estate development or land-use change on the service costs and tax revenues of the city
Focus on the City of Ventura, showing: (1) Objective is to inform the city council’s direction as to the ultimate boundary of the West side planning effort – (2) Focus is on the City of Ventura’s General Fund – (3) Analysis does not assess costs to other public agencies
Elements of the Fiscal Impact Analysis, showing: (1) Development program assumptions – (1.1) Annexation areas; north Avenue and La Cañada Larga – (1.2) Projected real estate development by area – (2) City service costs and revenue assumptions – (3) Identification of infrastructure improvements directly impacting on city
Development Program Assumptions, showing: (1) To project fiscal impacts, a specific program of development needs to be measured – (2) Hypothetical program was developed based on the following – (2.1) Developer proposed programs {for Brooks/Petrochem} with scenarios {residential for Cañada Larga} – (2.2) Westside economic development strategy {from 2006 identifying 6 opportunity sites} – (2.3) The 2011 Community Plan Market overview {to estimate timing factor}
Development Timing, showing: (1) Development program is speculative and precise timing for phasing and product absorption is not feasible yet – (2) Fiscal impact analysis assumes three separate points in time to assess – (2.1) At the point of annexation – (2.2) By the year 2020 – (2.3) By the year 2030 – (3) All costs and revenues are in constant 2011 dollars
Williamson Act Restrictions for La Cañada Larga, showing: (1) The property is currently under a Williamson Act contract – (2) Act grants reduced property tax payments in exchange for an agricultural or open space land designation – (2) Development may not be able to commence until approximately 2020 due to the contract non-renewal process – (3) Granting of an outright contract cancellation would allow development of the site to comments prior to 2020. However, cancellations are difficult for property owners to obtain {Some time after 2020 is when the work might start}
Development Program Locations, map, showing: (1) Westside area – (1.1) Selby; Rocklite and Ventura Avenue – (1.2) Kellogg; Kellogg east of Ventura Ave. – (1.3) Commercial infill along Ventura Avenue – (2) North Avenue Area – 2.1 School district / AERA / west Avenue / Shell – (2.2) AERA East Avenue / Shell not used – (2.3) Brooks / PetroChem west upper Avenue – (2.4) Bonsall property, north of La Cañada Larga Rd. – (3) La Cañada Larga Area – (3.1) Valley floor of Cañada Larga site, 680 acres
Base Case Development Program, showing: A development program was shown in the chart indicating that the north Avenue area is an annexation area with 2200 residents, 360 employees and 1000 college students. Real property has an assessed valuation of $171.4 million. 1300 housing units in the Brooks area are anticipated as are other industrial spaces and valuations. Commercial areas and their industrial potential as a percentage of dollar valuations were also shown. The Brooks campus valuations and potential expansion was shown.
Development Program Alternatives for North Avenue, showing: Development scenarios were shown involving the Brooks-PetroChem with the amount of housing and student housing being illuminated. The Bonsall site would be to the north of that. Number two was a midpoint scenario with some housing moved to the PetroChem site decreasing some of the industrial on the La Cañada Larga site, making light industrial property more appropriate for employment. Number three was shown as a compromise between the first two.
City General Fund Revenue Sources, showing: (1) City-adopted FY 2010/2011 budget line item was used as a basis to derive revenue and cost factors – (2) Revenue projections made using case study approach for property and sales taxes, business license fees and transfer taxes. Revenue multipliers were applied for remaining sources. {There is a remaining tax sharing agreement between the city and the county which spells out a tax formula and distribution in the annexation areas. This formula was applied and was 19% of the 1% general Levy that would normally flow to the city in the annexation area.
General Fund Service Costs, showing: (1) Cost estimates based on case studies and multipliers derived from fiscal year 2010/2011 city budget. {The table was shown and any service cost line items including police/fire, public works, parks and recreation, et.al., including the cost of a new police/fire facility} – (2) Wildfire risk is a speculative cost estimate used only as a point of comparison against projected impacts. {These projections would be above and beyond the city's normal firefighting budget anticipation or anticipated costs.}
Potential Capital Improvement Cost Impacts to City of Ventura, showing: (1) No infrastructure deficiency studies have yet been conducted for the north Avenue area, except water – (2) Consultant interviewed Staffs from fire, police, Public Works, Community Planning and environment and water resources to determine what capital improvement projects might be needed – (3) focus for this study is on capital costs that are seen as a potential city responsibility. If a needed capital expense is understood to be the responsibility of the land owner or developer, it is not included – Preliminary identifications and cost estimates; subject to updates and further study
Potential Capital Improvement Cost Impacts to City of Ventura (cont’d), showing: {the table along with the notation} – A combined police and fire station facility have been identified as a needed capital improvement for the north Avenue area. The analysis assumes that this station will be new construction. However, it is possible that construction cost savings may be achieved by way of a reuse of the existing county fire facility {near the treatment plant}
{The water master plan has been identified as two water main upgrades to plants in the area. These would be paid directly from city water rate revenues. A need was identified for replacement of antiquated water mains in the north Avenue area, with no cost estimate having yet been assigned. The city's ability to supply water to north Avenue and/or La Cañada Larga requires that each developer evaluate the water facility. Water environment and improvements needed for system would be the responsibility of the new development. Water supply for emergencies requires an even flow, usually size solved by that a large tank in the area with associated costs being the responsibility of the developer.}
{Mitigation of Flooding – the Brooks/PetroChem project believes they have solved the flooding issue for their property or that flooding mitigation has been included in the development estimate. A secondary issue for the secondary flooding near the Brooks/PetroChem does exist which would require the construction of a storm dish storage program. A storm detention basin might be required. Watershed reservoirs in the area remain the responsibility of the county and decisions involving these resources remain under the purview of the county. This may not be the responsibility of the city. The major city responsibility should the north Avenue project proceed would be the police and fire substations, according to the consultant.}
Westside Area Fiscal Impact, Westside Area, showing: (A) No Annexation Year 2020 / (B) No Annexation Year 2030 – (1) Development Program – (1.1) Residential, 456 / 920 – (1.2) Commercial office, 55,000 sf / 31,500 sf – (1.3) Medical office, N/A / N/A – (1.4) Retail, 54,000 sf / 66,000 sf – (1.5) Industrial, 54,000 sf / N/A – (1.6) Brooks Campus expansion, 48,000 sf / N/A – (2) Capital Improvements, (2.1) Substations, police-fire, N/A / N/A – (3) Fiscal Impacts, cumulative – (3.1) Net Positive Fiscal impact $184,000 / 392,000
North Avenue Area Fiscal Impact, Base Case, showing: (A) With Annexation Year 2020 / (B) With Annexation Year 2030 – (1) Development Program (1.1) Residential, 1,795 / 290 – (1.2) Commercial office, 350,000 sf / 84,000 sf – (1.3) Medical office, 75,000 sf / 25,000 sf – (1.4) Retail, 75,000 sf / 45,000 sf – (1.5) Industrial, 550,000\ sf / 442,000 sf – (1.6) Brooks Campus expansion, 295,000 sf / N/A – (2) Capital Improvements, (2.1) Substations, police-fire, ($714,000) / ($721,000) – (3) Fiscal Impacts, cumulative – (3.1) Net Fiscal impact (initial – ($300,000) / year 2020 – ($400,000) / year 2030 – $300,000. {At the point of annexation the Brooks/PetroChem area would generate roughly $1 million annually to the city, with $1.3 billion in annual service costs resulting in a service initial deficit of $300,000. Another deficit of more than $400,000 would be projected in the year at 2020. At completion with service costs balancing and property taxes rising a projected surplus to the city occurs at just over $300,000. Capital debt service on a bond issue may be required in order to pay for police and fire facilities and that method could show an annual $800,000 financial surplus.}
La Cañada Larga fiscal impacts. From the point of annexation through year 2020, lower property tax assessment values near $1000 under Williamson would apply. Study guidelines assumed no residential development until after 2020, meaning that the city would be required to monitor brush removal and abatement. Estimates of fighting the wildfire on an annualized basis is near $140,000, with the estimated cost of fighting an actual wildfire in any given year amounting to $2.8 million. The city's fire chief was consulted; a 680 area would be at risk for fire. It was mentioned that this may be a cost that wouldn't happen. The risk allocation would be $2.8 million divided by 20 years. By 2030 is assumed that all 91 units of housing would be developed and occupied. $986,000 worth of revenue off-setting by costs impact results in an $822,000 surplus. With a lower assessment of total housing valuation ($2 million down from $3.5 million) then by year 2030 the revenue generation is roughly half around $450,000. If due to cancellation of Williamson the developer were to complete a third of the housing by year 2020, small surplus of $235,000 might be realized, extending up to the maximum surplus by 2030.
Potential Mitigation Measures for fiscal and Capital Deficits, showing: (1) Projected fiscal deficits could be mitigated through a variety of means available to the city – (1.1) Redevelopment financing – (1.2) Development agreements, – (1.3) Development fees – 1.4 (Community Facility District (CFD)
Recommendation, showing: It is recommended that the council receive the Market Overview and Fiscal Analysis of the Westside and north Avenue Community Plan, including Cañada Larga.
Agenda Item No. 3 [Back] on Community Plan Development – Westside Development Code Study (Ongoing); Dave Ward, the Planning Manager, initiated an overview of the Westside community plan along with Ian Holt in a presentation, “Westside Public Review Draft Community Plan and Development Code,” which uses the 2005 General Plan along with form-based coding for development of the code, and becomes a separate chapter within the GP.
Westside Community Planning Context, showing: (1) Action 3.18: Complete community or specific plans… for areas such as Westside, Midtown, Downtown, Wells Saticoy, et.al – (2) Action 3.15: Adopt new development code provisions
Major Community Comments, showing: (1) Urban parks and plazas – (2) Bike/pedestrian connectivity – (3) Crossing the Avenue – (4) Building height concern – (5) Neighborhood context sensitivity – (6) Watershed protection
Council Initiation, Draft Plan and Code, showing: (1) Major issues – (2) Response matrix – (3) Tonight's objective. Council is to determine whether Staff has been responsive enough in responding to the community. Further refinements of the code could be formulated based on these criteria. Focus by geographic area would be part of the admin report
Some Gateway elements at Stanley would distinguish it from other parts of the city. Proposed street and streetscape standards and proposed amenities such as street trees, with alleyways offering alternatives to Ventura Avenue. Revised regulations for nonconforming structures were shown.
Economic Strategies, showing: (1) Establish RDA – (2) Green technology – (3) Workforce training – (4) Promote local retail – (5) Promote green development – (6) FBC to expand mixed use. Sites were identified that are considered underutilized. Among them: “Catalyst 1,”the Selby property just south of De Anza School. Industrial was considered for this site in the 2005 General Plan, then updated in 2006 with more intense office-retail mix along Ventura Avenue with higher density housing for artists along the rear of the property. The concept is considered consistent with a town center at Stanley Avenue, and would require a new designation in order to conform to “neighborhood medium.” The intersection of Stanley and Olive, designated as “Catalyst #2,” is a traditional industrial area and is considered underutilized. The plan would concentrate “clean” industrial uses in this area, designating it as a “green technology” zone.
“Catalyst 3” exists at Kellogg at Ventura Avenue, targeted for live-work development for artists along with neighborhood services, including public plaza. “Catalyst 4” above Dakota Dr., which lies largely within County jurisdiction, calls for the reuse of the Avenue school site as a mixed-use area. The proposed redevelopment could attract funds for grants and programs that support business and technology with mixed-use provided by the form-based code. Catalyst for redevelopment properties would ensue.
Community Neighborhoods, showing: The revised regulating plan – Policy representing the larger plan apart from Ventura Avenue involves predominately residential neighborhoods and have their own characteristics. Primary among these is the Westside’s high density residential designation, which carries highest density designation in the city. The desire for a neighborhood to remain true to its roots is in conflict in some areas on the Westside with these formal plans. To reconcile the conflict, T4.11, 3-story-limit transects have been brought in. Staff analysis indicates that the lower limit is in concert with traditional T3 single-family unit transects – T3.5 and T3.6 single and multi-family units with height limits of 2 stories.
The context of the neighborhoods is repeatedly identified by the community as a priority. Historic resources surveys were done to qualify preservation areas – one meeting requirements for historic conservation and several others for historic conservation. The building mask overlay would include special restrictions for setbacks in the affected areas. The optional zoning tool such as Saticoy-Wells might be used in order to allow property owners to retain subdivision forms rather than the jarring of conformance to the newly redevelopment areas. More dense areas along marked areas like the Shoshone and Westview areas could be affected. The potential for parks and open spaces was addressed.
T4.11 development codes would mean more sensitive park areas on the Westside, leading toward greater multimodal movement through the area by bicycle as a desirable goal. The Cedar Street extension linking up with existing bikepaths would show on the new design plan as having new connections in these areas. Existing facility programs in Public Works already are dovetailing with this plan.
A map showing the historic districts on the Westside was brought up. Called “Community Edges,” the Ventura River and hillsides along with the River Trail was shown. The stark transition to remote edges including the Ventura River Trail was discussed. Low impact development was necessary considering outlets into the river. The lower Ventura River plan is to consider trash filter control permit requirements. Natural amenities would include enhanced bicycle paths and connectors to the River Trail. Developing a work plan from the Cedar Street extension along the hillside and eventually into grant Park. Deed Restricted as to previous development was also considered.
Public Programs, showing: (1) Cultural heritage – (2) Westside arts – (3) Education and training – (4) Infrastructure. Exit wastewater for public safety was promised. Completion of the Westside master plan for programs specific to the Westside including shared use agreement for facilities and the siting of schools was also mentioned.
Tailoring the Westside Development Code, showing: Modification considerations to the preliminary draft dealing with retail storefront density detailed by the maps and overlays, including a 5 foot setback along the Avenue to articulate the street frontage and pedestrian orientation. Adjustments were also made for the historic content, and the Park Heights incentives as well.
[Comment] Opportunity … but opportunity for whom? The graphic at the right was shown along with the “opportunity” narrative just given. Little else was revealed in the way of what was being shown, yet it looks suspiciously like the now-vacant site at Kellogg and the Avenue. If so, note the size of the “park” that has been planned. See how the park “heights incentive” is working for you? In other words, what they really have planned for you is a “residential” park, get it? So if your heart is set on swings and slides in the last 2-acre open space on the Westside, you might not be ready for the gentle letdown coming from Father Ventura when he says, “You’d rather spend a day at the beach anyway, wouldn’t you?” [Ed.]
Another slide showed how the code was tailored to bring it into alignment with the 2005 General Plan. Nowhere else in the city is there a higher level of development, according to Staff. Appropriate coding was needed to deal with this high density of development. Some amount of private and public open space was also considered.
City Height Regulations, showing: (1) Ventura Avenue Corridor – (1.1) C-2: max. 75 feet | six stories – (1.2) M-1: max 45 feet | three stories – (1.3) M-2: max 75 feet | six stories (2) Neighborhoods – (2.1) R-3 max: 45 feet | three stories – (2.2) R-4 max 30 feet | two and one half stories
Ventura Corridor Heights, showing: (1) Existing form based codes articulation – (2) Proposed transect based codes articulation, T4.11 and T5.5
Neighborhood Heights, showing: (1) Existing form based zone articulation – (2) Proposed transect based zone articulation, T3.5, T3.6 and T4.11
Next Steps, showing: CEQA NOP Notice of Preparation – (2) Parking Study – (3) Historic Survey, Industrial Assessment – (4) Plan Policy Refinement
Next Steps, showing: (1) Summer Code Refinement Exercise – (1.1) Corridor building height and massing – (1.2) Industrial building typology or standards – (1.3) Eclectic typologies
Recommendations Agenda Item Number Three, showing: Direct Staff to: (1) Proceed with CEQA Environmental Analysis – (2) Community Plan Policy Refinement – (3) Code Refinement Exercise
City Manager Cole interjected saying that most speakers of the evening will not talk about the T3 zones along the Avenue. Nor was Staff expecting the council to digest all of this information in one evening. Mr. Cole said that the reason for bringing this detailed documentation was do not start over after going through most of this data before. In talking with Jeff Lambert the city manager said we need to set a special meeting of the council along with the DRC to review in five or six weeks from now. The agenda requires Council to initiate the Westside development code to understand the level of progress that has been made. The planning commission, the DRC and the HBC should be heard before going down the EIR trail with Council being fully informed of the process. In five or six weeks if the council would want to schedule a meeting for more thorough and focused review on the Westside, this could be accomplished, but it would not mean that approval is to become the main event for this evening.
City Attorney Calonne on suggested that if Council’s discussion was about to begin that the Mr. Monahan should be excused. The mayor indicated that the staff report was not quite completed. Jeff Lambert said that a plan was shown on how the overall plan was evolving. The review of the plan had taken as simple a path as possible for understanding by the public. A robust public review was suggested as having been taken forward in front of the public through earlier workshops. The EIR would be further refined in the next month or so according to Mr. Lambert. Staff wondered if it was necessary to proceed with the EIR presentation at this juncture.
Final Slide – Recommendations, Agenda Item Number 4, showing: Direct Staff to (1) Execute contract with Impact Science, Inc. to prepare Westside EIR – (2) Appropriate funds from city’s 2010 2011 Contingency Fund to the Community Development Dep’t. Westside Project Fund. It was said that this would obviate the necessity for a redistribution of Westside pool funds.
Agenda Item No. 4 [Back] – The mayor said the only agenda item left was to initiate EIR. With Council Member Monahan having departed, Council questions of Staff would be allowed to proceed.
Council Member Morehouse spoke asking that spectators try to appreciate the compilation of data. It was noted that the planning code before Council covered only the lower Avenue with N/A meaning not applicable to that which is being focused upon in this particular scope for this draft of the planning code. Another point made was involving the tax shift. No direct contact occurred between city planning and county planning staffers. The Councilman said that in terms of projections, how comfortable are we with a 20-year over the horizon projection considering the movement in technology. The councilman referred to changing family structures and the movement toward residential development in the future. Staff said that job projections were taken into account as was population based on State and SCAG projections over 20 years. Noting that it is difficult to see into the future, assuming a general direction for the economy, would mean that changing the family form was addressed to some extent in the study noting that the growth in household will have a impact on young adult head of households prior to marriage as well us senior head of households over and above the 50s style family unit.
Staff said that planning for more moderate and family dwelling units of 1500 to 2000 units meant projections could cause changes in the plan. A general direction in terms of realistic projections was necessary. Mr. Morehouse continued asking about job creation and formation. His expressed sympathy for cutting government seemed inconsistent with most of the job creation in the plan which dealt mostly with government job projections. This opened questioning as to what types of housing is required for a business or professional service worker such as a consultant, with the reply that people by housing according to their financial situation. The type of housing people choose is likely to be informed by lifestyle and age classifications more so than the type of work they do. The Councilman indicated that executive housing might be something of a touchy subject, with the reply that on the executive housing issue, terminology could be confusing the issue. Not everyone in executive housing is an executive according to the consultant. It was referred to as anyone who is capable of buying a luxury housing product.
Deputy Mayor Tracy asked whether the fiscal analysis considerations for city departments and their costs specifically included police and fire with added personnel, and was told that the analysis for the Westside came from the city departments themselves as to staffing requirements. The speaker said that the multiplier approach would average costing from city budgets to anticipate the additional levels. It goes on a per capita per employee, or a per service area basis to determine what the demand might be. On the Westside there was not the anticipation of additional capital facilities above what was there already. The multiple or marginal cost of adding residents would be determined by what their demands on city services would be, not requiring a new facility. Mr. Tracy wished to know that if we added 5000 people to the community, what would be the average of the additional staff. The speaker said he would need to know the density of the development, but according to Mr. Tracy, calling for a higher density would be in conflict with the community desires. It was necessary to try and make this code work better with that conflict.
Staff said that the neighborhood high was problematic. A 25-year projection within the plan as opposed to 25 year buildout capacity meant that the buildout envelopes would require continuing certification of housing elements. Mr. Tracy asked pointedly, “What if the community says that's excessively dense?” – Staff said that they tried to still make those numbers. Jeff said that they tried to match the coding to the general plan.
The city attorney weighed in saying that according to state law, if density (for affordable housing) is reduced in one area, it would need to be increased somewhere else (one or more areas).
Council Member Weir asked about the parking study and when it would be completed. Staff said that it would be ready by the spring. The Councilwoman said that if the planning commission and Council and the DRC would meet in a study session that it would be completed in a month. Staff declined agreement with that statement.
Council Member Morehouse for the partial benefit of the deputy mayor widened the earlier discussion concerning ex-post facto changes to plans involving density. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment discussions with the state, with VCTA and SCAG are part of a train that has already begun to leave the station, according to the councilman. SB 375 which is tied to the regional transportation plan which eventually ties funding through VCTC, the Ventura County Transportation Commission, urging caution over trying to “tweak” the General Plan considering the fact that doing so affects these other measures being considered.
Council Member Andrews wanted to speak on the three time points – the point of annexation, the out-year 2020 and finally 2030 – the point of annexation might be at any time in that timeframe. The progression to 2020 and 2030 means either 9 or 19 years away from today, but not that far off from the point of annexation. What would be the cost differential in 2020 when point of origin is not known, nor are costs in the future. The consultant said present costs are used.
The mayor thought that further refinement of the project description for the EIR meant that approving recommendations on Items 3 and 4 this evening along with different funding source for the EIR as the city manager requested a more detailed workshop for the actual action, and whether or not this was what the council was being asked to support. Staff replied in the affirmative.
Public Communications – Amy Carter spoke requesting extension of the plan for meaningful community input. The Kellogg property might be a site for development that the speaker thought should be turned into a community park. “When is enough development enough,” the speaker asked? The quality-of-life considerations should be maintained and retained. Being that this is a drought prone area where are the requirements for future water needs. Perhaps rather than building more, as in housing for executives, perhaps it would make sense to adequately fund transportation and make commuting more accessible. The speaker also expressed support for keeping our libraries open and ready to serve the community.
Bruce Shoppe representing Ventura’s Audubon Chapter spoke of the north Avenue area and La Cañada Larga and that proposals for developments of these types would have serious environmental consequences. The speaker said that consideration over major changes to the Ventura River, it’s bed, banks or channel, would cause irreversible harm. Several endangered species of birds and fish wildlife were cited. In light of the unfavorable financial assessments associated with expansion into these sensitive ecological areas, the Ventura River Parkway plan would appear far more attractive. The speaker also spoke favorably of the city boundary Westside plans being proposed.
Suze Montgomerie spoke saying that she is concerned – based in the Westside and wishing to continue celebrating its rich heritage and diversity. A creative solution for not taking any pool money was mentioned with thanks to Jeff Lambert for facilitating the decision. The Kellogg property changing from M1 to Urban General could increase the value of the property and make it more difficult to convert into park space, according to the speaker. Market analysis shows that the senior population will grow by 35,000 as opposed to 1200 for the younger demographic over the next 20 years. The Westside being walkable and accessible to transportation might be amenable to senior housing as baby boomers go into retirement at a rate of 6,000 per day.
Diane Underhill spoke along with a PowerPoint presentation. The Coalition to Protect La Cañada Larga Valley, showing: Includes Sierra Club, SOAR, Wishtoyo, Santa Barbara Channel Keepers, Ojai Valley Green Coalition, Ventura Audubon Society, Surfrider, VCCool and Ventura Citizens for Hillside Preservation
Financial Study Valuable, showing: The study tells us – (1) Westside without annexation will generate revenue – (2) Proposed north Avenue and La Cañada Larga annexation is a financial loser for years
Executive Housing, showing: The study shows – (1) Executive housing is NOT a high priority for businesses locating in an area – (2) Executive housing will NOT attract significant jobs or businesses to the city
Surpluses Without Annexation, showing: The study says – (1) Without annexing any land the Westside community generates almost $400,000 worth of surplus by 2030 – (2) This also honors the infill development policy in the 2005 General Plan
Deficits Higher than at First Glance, showing: A careful reading of the study shows – (1) Westside surpluses were included in calculations making annexation area deficits appeared less dire – (2) Capital improvement costs are discussed, but NOT deducted, making annexation deficits appear to be surpluses
When All Costs are Considered, showing: When these costs – (1) city services – (2) Capital improvements and – (3) La Cañada Larga fire risks are deducted from the annexation area revenues, the city funding deficits are apparent
Capital Improvements Costly, showing: (1) Assessment districts to help pay capital improvement costs are only possible, without a public vote, on new development projects – (2) An assessment district vote in established north Avenue areas is unlikely to pass. To bring older north Avenue area infrastructure up to city standards would prove particularly costly
Developers Don't Pay Fair Share, showing: Developers fair share of the capital improvement costs required for annexation projects would be only the percentage of the improvements that their developments use, leaving city taxpayers to foot the remainder of the bill
Largest Deficit Caused by North Avenue, showing: (1) The study shows with all costs deducted the biggest deficit is generated by annexing the north Avenue area – (2) Even placing 1105 homes rather than 300 in the floodplain, this proposal still creates a half-million dollar deficit by the year 2030 – (3) The study used 1105 floodplain residential units at former refinery site, even though Council rejected this in 2010
Ventura River Flooding Risks, showing: The Ventura River drains the entire Ojai Valley watershed. It floods in high-volume multi-day rainstorms. Major events happened in 1938, 1969, 1978, 1992, 1995 and 2005. The question is not if the Ventura River floodplain will flood, but when will it flood next?
La Cañada Larga and North Avenue, showing: La Cañada Larga Valley cannot be annexed without the north Avenue area – If 91 $3.5 million homes actually sell in the Valley, a surplus of $310,000 by 2030 might materialize – However, the study indicates a $1 million to $2 million price is more realistic. The $2 million price turns the $310,000 surplus into a $90,000 deficit
Questionable Assumptions, showing: Will 1105 residential units obtain needed approvals to build in the Ventura River floodplain act a former oil refinery site with unknown industrial pollution? The EPA challenged Newhall Ranch homes in a floodplain – Will a viable market for 91 $3.5 million homes exist?
More Questionable Assumptions, showing: Will all of these projects be built given the 2138 residential projects already entitled in the city, but awaiting a better market to build? If areas are annexed and development is not built, the city is stuck with a huge funding deficit that could reduce other city services
Annexation Creates Deficits, showing: Even if these risky developments can be built, they will create city funding deficits every year for years. Why should city taxpayers subsidize developers projects?
Job Projections Questionable, showing: The study estimates 25% employment growth in Ventura County over the next 20 years, yet past 20 years had net loss of jobs. Are the job projections reliable?
Jobs Only Come if Businesses Do, showing: The study shows the top reason for business location is cost reduction and – Oxnard and nearby areas have a glut of vacant or available industrial commercial space with lower lease costs – Financial study also notes: Significant lag time before development proposed by North Avenue Plan becomes feasible. Rents and property prices must rise for project economics to pencil out
Obstacles Overlooked, showing: County fire regulations would now allow only 20 homes in La Cañada Larga given the extreme fire hazard – County fire regulations would require a second road, but this study did not include infrastructure and/or maintenance costs for a second road
Additional Costs Overlooked, showing: (1) Water main upgrades in north Avenue – (2) Maintenance for flood control measures – (3) Infrastructure repair when damaged by flooding – (4) Additional fire truck with related costs for north Avenue – (5) Annexation costs and area study costs
Annexation Not a Good Deal, showing: The bottom line is as the study shows – The existing Westside community, without annexation, generate positive revenue – Proposed north Avenue and Cañada Larga annexation is a financial loser for decades
No Annexation is Better Deal, showing: Let's focus limited resources on improving areas and neighborhoods already within city boundaries – This is a better deal for city taxpayers – This is a better deal for fragile environmental ecosystems
Thanks to Council, showing: A thank you is due to our City Council for requesting these financial market studies before making this critical city-expansion decision. Thank you.
The speaker wished to see those who are in support of the presentation stand quietly.
Larry Older representing SOAR pointed to his 20 years of experience in the fire district and his perspective on the cost issues. The speaker claimed to have read the study several times noting that details are difficult to ferret out. Some of the the issues were somewhat understated and the revenues might be overstated. Current year dollars projected forward with salaries, vacation, 401(k) and retirement match for a three-man crew, same as city has currently and with the same contracts, is a little over $2 million per year, not $1.2 million. This comes from the current budget. This takes away from the $700,000 of profit. Different emergencies require different types of equipment. Structure fires and rescues require a truck with another crew and another $2 million plus the cost of the truck with $400,000 over 20 years.. These are significant costs that have not been accounted for, according to the speaker. One road in and one road out 1000 feet from each other would also be required. This is an unknown if city requirements and access into and out of the area based on anything similar to present county fire requirements, for example. The city may require different routing, none of which has not been worked out, nor has this been addressed in the financial study. It was the speaker’s recommendation not to annex the La Cañada Larga Valley.
Tom Francis spoke saying that the job projections made him wonder what the study used as criteria for an accountable job. How many of these jobs are long term and how many are short-term construction – and how many would be available in the region regardless of whether or not the annexation occurs? Why not let the county create regional jobs rather than the city to foot the bill, was another question. The housing balance within the City of Ventura should be considered, according to the speaker. How many workers would be driving from their homes and more affordable areas like Oxnard, causing major traffic impacts and increasing deficit spending by the required annexation. It was his wish to concentrate on the city taxpayers improvements that are required currently.
Karen Krauss, a Staff Attorney with the Environmental Defense Center, stated that the EDC believes that the plan is inconsistent with Ventura’s General Plan and counter to current best planning practices, including the fact that it would unnecessarily compete with completion of the Westside plan. Expanding the Westside plan within incorporated city limits would mean paying for itself and generating revenue for the city while the proposed expansion would generate nothing but deficits through 2020. The La Cañada Larga properties are under Williamson Act jurisdiction meaning that until 2020 those properties could probably not be developed. Two key considerations – (1) Whether LAFCo would approve under Williamson or Sphere Amendment allowing for imminent development and provision for services, neither of which could be considered while the properties are under contract – (2) Even assuming that LAFCo would provide approval, the question was asked, “How is it in the city’s best interest to put time and money into annexing these properties while they are under contract, cannot be developed, and will only be generating costs for the city?”
Stephen Brian, a homeowner on the Westside, was critical of presenters that provide graphs and slides that are unreadable even for someone with 20-20 vision. He opposed La Cañada Larga as contributing to urban sprawl. Infill and development of existing areas such as the Westside should be considered first rather than going into undeveloped areas. The speaker also mentioned the special status of birds, plants and animals. Not heard from anyone was the fact that La Cañada Larga contains one Chumash archaeological site, which was test excavated in the 1960s with reports being published in the 1963 Annual Report of the University of California Archaeological Survey. This would contribute to the understanding a regional prehistory qualifying as being listed in the National Register of Historic Sites.
Christopher Young said that as an Ojai resident with a 28-year long Ventura business licence, 20 years may seem like “long-range” planning, but perhaps not. It was his contention that we need to look much farther ahead than 20 years. Job growth over 20 years with its recurring emphasis seemed to suggest that Ventura would be the beneficiary of jobs as Los Angeles deteriorates. The speaker’s logic went forward to ask what happens when Ventura deteriorates. His thinking was that development into La Cañada Larga was not sustainable for the future. On the executive housing front, the speaker suggested encouraging those so-called “executives” to understand our concerns for the future, and to come in and join us.
Claudia Armen wished to echo an earlier comment about seniors indicating, that the seniors will be our future. She hoped to see catalyst sites among the possibilities for accommodating seniors. Noting that the estimates for job growth on the Westside based on Ventura County employment growth over 20 years is projected as being 25% while a net loss over the past 20 years (leaving out the impacts of the current recession) from 1990 to 2006, job growth in the area amounted to only 8%. What is the rationale for expecting 25% growth increases, was her question. EDD and SCAG estimates have traditionally been overly optimistic, she said. The landowner is of the opinion that he can cancel his Williamson contract. LAFCo has said that it would take a board of supervisors surety vote before it would be possible to build mansions where beautiful valleys now exist. The Kellogg property is now M-1 Industrial, but knowing that residential is the most profitable, it was wondered whether this zoning change would be make it more difficult for park purposes or would we rather be zoning in the way that the residents would prefer. An excellent Park may add 15% to the value of available and adjacent dwellings, according to the speaker.
Steve Perlman represented himself and New Urban Ventures, owner and developer of DeAnza Courts, which has been functioning for two years. A track map that shows an intersection at DeAnza and Ventura Avenue already exists on paper, according to the speaker, and may represent the street extension that planners are proposing. He said we are Westside and we have a track map. Westside has the catalyst site and we need the De Anza Street extension. It was the speaker’s desire to have Council bring up an action item on the speaker’s development plan.
Jackie Pearce said that the Avenue has been her home for 30 years. As a teacher for first 5 on the Avenue, it was her feeling that the area is in need of parks. Noting that the area has a lower income population many other voices need to be heard. It was her feeling that there is injustice going on in the Avenue area. It only makes sense to have an accessible destination park in the Westside area, according to the speaker.
Donna Hebert spoke saying that as a Westside member she supports the intelligent comments of others, specifically saying that the fiscal analyst included some over-statements by thinking that $3.5 million homes in the area wouldn’t be unrealistic while at the same time recognizing that there is a so-called “gateway” issue to be dealt with. With her area of residence including the coffeeshop at Stanley Avenue not being of the type that would fall within the scope businesses improvements that are being planned, this was disappointing to her.
Francine Smith stated that living in an unincorporated area now has been met with a reversal in earlier overall expectations. She now believes that a Vons in the area would be a terrible idea. Her feeling was that most people living in the area would not want annexation. How would water from the all high area work out, she asked? Fire protection comes from the city further down the Avenue, noting that homeowners insurance was rejected because of only one entrance to the neighborhood. La Cañada Larga will be a a major issue for insurance coverages. The commuting that takes place through the Santa Rosa Valley with their executive homes is an unfortunate model that should be considered. Those are million-dollar homes. From her yard she can see the old refinery, wishing to see that rather than small little homes. The entire highway would be restructured. Some weeds don't even grow because of the contaminated soil, according to the speaker. Homes will be built on the same oil soaked land. She was disappointed that city council sold a parking lot. (The parking lot behind Bank of America was a reference.)
Kendra Gonzalez said that as a board member of VC Cool, Ventura Climate Care Options, operated locally, wished to address the physical impacts of development in La Cañada Larga as it relates to to climate change. Executive urban sprawl is the opposite of the requirement for mitigating climate change, basically from the spewage generated by automobiles traveling to and fro. Large dwellings are taxing on development and energy sources creating large carbon footprints for very few people, according to the speaker. A handful of executives and their families being assisted by government in their ways of environmental irresponsibility is being fiscally irresponsible with taxpayer money. It was her feeling that our children will be paying these costs.
Kathy Bremmer said that she would urge Council to forge ahead with the recommendations without annexations. The cost of annexing county lands is not always calculable and yet they are real. Regardless of development or not, considerations involving the potential for fire, police safety, secondary roads, water main replacements along with the revenue estimates in the plan are in fact estimates and therefore only as reliable the statistical chances for evading a perfect storm of market and economic factors. The likelihood of public investment due to budget constraints may not be realistic either. It was noted that the Ventura River Parkway plan of 2007 was not considered. The floodplain problem persists. The lower number of homes in the Valley area suggested by fire restrictions may not have been balanced against the lower market prices. Economic benefits as analyzed may not be well understood. Also the flooding basin as impacting La Cañada Larga Creek would remain and require county responsibility, yielding further unknowns. Concentration on revitalization of the existing Westside community is preferable, according to the speaker.
Stephen DeVaughn stated that he didn't think that walking down the Avenue many residents are aware of the plans and the designs being impressed upon them. The council could keep the staff engaged with hard-working advocate groups, and reach out to the people affected by allowing small groups to discuss – setting a higher goal by measuring your financial success by not financial analysts but by those numbers on the Avenue who wish for all of this to happen.
Beatrice has worked with city and staff. Green space is necessary with the Avenue having built out, but with the Kellogg property being one of the last remaining. One issue consistent with all meetings that have been attended is to have a community park built in the area. Rather than a plaza the Kellogg property should become a park, according to the speaker. Another issue is the slide area, noting that the hillside area is starting to slide causing concern for those living in the area.
Miguel Rodriguez stated that also on behalf of Ruben Juarez and Elviro Marquez, who had to leave early because of family homework. and also on behalf of the Westside community, he wished to present to the city council 250 postcards collected from people living and/or working on the Westside and who show strong support for a park on Kellogg Street. The speaker noted that there is a lot of support for finding alternative ways of funding the Environmental Impact Report so that money is not taken from the Westside Pool fund, hoping also to have Council heed the recommendation of Mr. Lambert in this regard. On behalf of those who filled out 250 cards and also for those present, the speaker asked that EIR rezoning be consistent with that necessary for creating park space rather than a commercial development area. The speaker then handed in the 250 cards that had been collected, asking further that the city refrain from annexing with executive housing since he cannot afford that type of housing himself.
Hans Cole, Manager within the Environmental Department at Patagonia, spoke as a resident and a representative of Patagonia, also in support of Ventura Citizens for Hillside Preservation and against development of La Cañada Larga Valley. Annexation of open space goes against their values as a company and their business interests. The company values environmental sustainability along with retention of environmental minded customers, but the idea of executive housing puts at risk the things that make the Ventura area so desirable. The question of quality of life is raised because of large homes in gated communities versus open space and open hillsides. He claimed that after having looked between Thousand Oaks and Ventura it was their choice to move where there are green hillsides rather than gated communities. It was his claim that other people would consider moving here for reasons besides executive housing.
Deputy Mayor Tracy asked the speaker how many top management people work at Patagonia with the speaker saying that there were 75 to 100 managers and above. As for how many live in Ventura – it was not possible for the speaker to answer directly but it was determined that Mr. Tracy would be interested in an e-mail.
Virgil Nelson has lived and worked on the Avenue since 1972 on East Vince. The Westside community plan and the concern for public safety was the issue noting that 75 members living at the end of Vince, Lewis and other streets where in 2005 the city felt in necessary to advise evacuation by many residents as the hillside has begun to move in significant amounts during heavy rains. Having returned to the US, neighbors began gathering to petition the city on a way forward, with Brad Starr of Public Works being helpful, according to the speaker, who stated further that as private property owners they have limited ability to demand action. Residents are in the process of trying to determine the cost to outsource expert analysis for the solution to this looming risk. It was the speaker’s hope that in the near future the La Cañada Larga issue could be discussed at greater length, possibly in light of sometimes hidden but important environmental issues.
Rachel Morris – saying that speaking for VC-Cool, the Ventura Bicycle Union and herself as a resident, she had three points to make – the city manager gave a lift to her spirits by his comments and his understanding of the fact that the mass of information will require time for assimilation. It was her hope that more advanced notice to the public could be arranged. The speaker was also heartened over the idea that the Westside pool money might be saved. Not as “pool” person, according to the speaker, but a neighbor has been anticipating approval since she was a child and yet now her children might be the first beneficiaries. It's been a generational issue. The changes that occurred based on the Bicycle Master Plan was heartening to the speaker. Much of what's in the bike plan comes to the point that some of what has not been considered early enough means that backpedaling into a fix has been made necessary. Code according to the speaker on public frontages, with the concentration being mostly on motor vehicles and very little on bicycles. A deeper level on the bicycle plan is necessary, according to the speaker.
Buzz Bonsall stated recognition of the fact that consultants have assigned the highest fiscal impact for the City of Ventura on the incorporation of La Cañada Larga Valley and the upper Avenue ~ besides affirming that an estate tract of large homes would attract business activity ~ in addition to the fact that the Valley area is within 5 minutes of downtown ~ and even though urban sprawl has been discounted ~ along with it being limited in scope with under 100 units on 200 acres of valley floor area ~ plus a permanently deeded 2,500 acre open space provision – that despite all these findings, the property owner recommended that Council proceed with the Westside Project Area Base Plan and return to La Cañada Larga as a separate adgendized item in the future, wishing not to in any way sabotage the development effort currently under consideration.
Dickie Batita wished to express his gratitude for efforts that were made to preserve the Westside Pool fund, and to support the staff in its recommendation to revitalize the Westside, but without tapping into the Westside Pool fund. The speaker said that our children deserve this pool. Our children are humble, the speaker said, as the mayor and council members can plainly see for themselves here tonight. By depleting the pool fund the children won't have a pool. Claiming to have been involved in the outreach program and the postcards that were turned in this evening, the speaker was able to say first hand that all respondents want a new park and they want it to be built on the vacant lot on Kellogg and Ventura Avenue.
Vince Daly, Managing Member of PetroChem L.L.C. said that to be part of the Westside plan would be a positive in his view. The PetroChem plant occupies 100 acres just north of Brooks Institute is the area he was wishing to speak about. In 2005-2006 the Brooks management did a charrette to uphold their master plan which the speaker was part of. They were told to hold up with a plan until the Westside Community Plan was finished. They were engaged because of the inclusion of their property but later was put on hold by the city. In 2010 a call came from the city inviting Brooks/PetroChem into the Westside Community Plan development process. In a community outreach to the property owner north of Brooks, who has since put the property up for sale, there was very little interest in moving forward with the study. It has since become a “what you do with an M-zone in the county,” type parcel. Meeting with Brooks resulted in a very good dialogue. University District designation is possible along with land where PetroChem owns both banks on the river. The speaker claimed to be interested in staying with the plan but was looking for direction.
Sophia Volcava, who works for the Ventura Unified School District, said she supports the opportunity to see development of a city park at Kellogg St. With parks that are on the edges but not central to the area, the open central location would better serve Westside residents. It was her desire to mention that the residents on the Westside are predominantly Spanish-speaking. More time to communicate the plan to Spanish speakers was important.
Steven Steed, representing the Ventura Hillsides Conservancy, a land trust with 900 members working with businesses and community groups including the City of Ventura, began by saying that the Ventura River Parkway Project envisions a watershed-based approach to planning. The rural areas and diverse cultural lands surrounding Ventura and Ojai valleys and property owners also on the Westside – all are included in this plan. Also a property owner in the area, specifically in the upper Avenue and La Cañada Larga proper, the speaker said that by charter and in practice, the land trust positions on acquisitions but works with landowners public and private to promote conservation values when it comes to land use. Engaging with property owners in the watershed makes for good planning development in the environmental areas, according to the speaker, with the added note that the conservancy is available to work with individuals, business, land owners and environmentalists to work on any land use issues they may have – not necessarily on the issues at hand. This is where the conservancy stands on some of these points with planned outreach to affected and interested parties.
Adrienne Castaneda wanted a park and a pool for the Westside. Parks would be better for their children’s safety than playing in the streets.
Carol Lindberg wished to thank the council for the studies that have helped the public gain the insight necessary to absorb and process the volume of information that has been presented. We all want Ventura to be the best city that it can be which might mean cleaning up the petrochemical site, but with development costs mounting in down economic times could have significant impact on the resources available to future generations with mounting debt and other quality of life issues. Let’s concentrate on the Westside, said the speaker.
Joy Cobiache said that the Wright Library was closed, the city police do not respond to burglar alarms at all hours, city budget is tight and services to the citizens have been cut into. She thought it ludicrous that the city would consider expanding the city boundaries. The city is not providing for current residents and yet to consider an area that requires new infrastructure and services would be an excessive burden.
With no speakers the mayor said that an answer session usually follows public speaking when it can be determined that there are questions and not comments. The mayor said one actual question on a pink card brought up the water issue. For the Westside the mayor said the water distribution issue was addressed in the Westside EIR plan, but that watershed and water quality would be addressed on the environmental impact report. Another speaker said what is 19% of 1%. Property tax from Prop13 is 1% of the assessed value means that in this part of town 19% of that money, in agreement with the county, comes to the city. To use a $300,000 example, out of a $3,000 tax bill the city collects 19% or $570.00. In a $2 million example, a generation of $20,000 a year in property tax is realized, of which the city would receive 19% meaning $3800 per year.
Staffs current recommendation restated would be three parts – (1) Authorize initiation of the EIR contract for the Westside area only – (2) Pay for the EIR out of the council’s contingency fund rather than the Westside Pool – (3) Schedule a joint planning workshop with the council, the planning commission and the DRC sometime in May. Mr. Lambert corrected the mayor – It's not the council’s contingency fund, its the city’s contingency fund as a correction.
Council Member Morehouse spoke to an issue raised by Francine Smith over the sale of a city parking lot. The mayor said that the Bank of America parking lot has not been sold but that the city has entered into a negotiation with the developer for condominiums in that space. The condition the city places on this property means that all that space taken would be made up for in new parking facilities. Mr. Francis asked about the job creation and whether analysis on regional transportation impacts. The mayor said that some of this couldn’t be rephrased as a straightforward way of answering a question.
Mr. Morehouse continued by responding to the issue of not raiding the pool fund, noting that the contingency fund is part of the general fund, taking the opportunity to inform all those within earshot that all monies spoken of as coming from certain “funds” actually exist nowhere except in the general fund. A city park was frequently mentioned, with the councilman typifying Park Services building a facility is separate from the continuous operation of that facility, noting further that there is always maintenance to consider. Jeff Lambert said that additional park space was heard but not ignored while being sensitive to the city's budget with maintenance. Parks we already have would be further utilized by accessing parks through enhanced use of the bike plan as a way of increasing park space.
[Comment] We had to play this back several times to make sure we heard it right. A Westside mom plans to take her three kids to the park. One kid is old enough to ride – the others must be balanced on mom’s bike. She now must watch junior, who is riding behind and wobbly at best, while trying not to lose the other two dodging bikers, pedestrians and vehicular traffic – all for a few hours in the park while facing the same ordeal on the return trip home. This is ridiculous on its face, and the fact that someone – arguably the second most powerful non-elected person at City Hall – could characterize this as a “park substitution plan” is outrageous ~ based in public employee bubble speak and should be grounds for the initiation of a public recall of this individual. This really shows where the heart of the City of Ventura lies in relation to the citizens of the Westside, many of whom are hanging on by their fingernails. Our advice – double down, Westside. If your leaders aren’t in the ring to fight for our great American middle class values, find new leaders. They just might have names like Batita and Rodriguez. [Ed.]
Staff wished to expand on Jeff’s comment saying that policy does not currently provide for parks development at this point. The park height/density incentive in the code came into the discussion, which seemed to placate the issue for Staff Member Maggie. This is supposed to “incentivize” private development of properties such as the Kellogg property and others throughout the project area. A “stricter park standard” [that Ian wrote] was designed also to allow the “relaxed” 2-acre threshold for parks on the Westside (down from 4 acres) to attract private developers “to come in and develop that space.” The alternative would be for the city to acquire the property which, according to Maggie, would have EIR impacts.
The mayor interjected saying that the Kellogg property – either in or out will not affect the project description for the EIR. Staff immediately disagreed, saying that “it will, based on the number of dwelling units assumed.” Use the EIR for the plan as it was intended, allowing that technical analysis to go through the EIR.
[Comment] So there you have it. How many dwelling units would you like to have in your park, Mr. and Mrs. Westside? You can see the artist’s rendering for the “park” in question a few paragraphs above. You’re now looking at a “residential” park – only because residential pulls in the most revenue, obviously. The Westside already has the highest density of any city neighborhood, but this project plan calls for even higher density. Can this be called fair? Would the city take the highest density area, using the last and only 2-acres or above, and place even more housing on that space if that space were on the East side? Use your own judgment. What does your judgment say about where the city intends to take the remainder of the Westside with its “town centers, catalysts, and nodes?” The technical term for these appellations is “transect,” by the way, defined formally in the 2005 General Plan. Interestingly enough, our city planners’ use of the term for this project bears no resemblance whatever to the concept of a transect as put forth in their very own document. V-N-C is working on a dossier to pull back the curtain on what is happening here. Watch this space. [Ed.]
The city attorney stepped in, warning of exercising caution over downgrading of zoning “to the point of extermination” where people have property values that could be affected. If Council is seeking a creative approach to “making a park happen,” it might look to some sort of “transfer of development rights” proposal which could be ventilated in the EIR.
City Manager Cole spoke saying that the budget transmittal for the future budget is ongoing, leading to Mr. Cole’s stated support of Staff’s recommendations. But no one, according to Mr. Cole, could have heard comments and testimony from Westside residents and remain unmoved given the backdrop of realities on the Westside. An additional park on the east side of Ventura Avenue would be greatly welcomed – especially, Mr. Cole noted, “if we move forward with additional higher density development in the neighborhood.” Noting that the city cannot build a traditional park – keeping it open and maintained beyond the capital investment phase. Operating expenses need to be addressed through the community where there are resources beyond the neighborhood through public-private partnerships, and in looking for other ways to generating additional funds. The sharing of school district funds as was done with the pool, along with the development arising out of the botanical gardens -- these being green space efforts might mean looking to the generosity of people who would step forward.
The ability to connect up with the existing park and recreational space was mentioned again, this time by the city manager. Without being able to sustain current level of services it did not appear that adding new services would be feasible.
Mr. Morehouse claimed a desire to see this move forward, appreciative of the fact, apparently, that Mr. Bonsall appeared to be somewhat placated. Feeling that Council may have arrived at an acceptable project definition as put forth earlier by the mayor, the councilman moved to accept the mayors wording and moved to accept the recommendations with a second by Council Member Weir.
The Councilwoman desired to participate and coordinate through a workshop setting in being able to speak to the regulating plan, including such issues as heights. Other issues that could be covered during the joint meeting should include the hillsides slippage issue and parking. Designation of the Avenue school property and its appropriateness in the regulating plan was to be considered further. The Councilwoman said that a “catalyst” could be something as simple as a community meeting space and not just something for producing economic growth. Funding for a park at Kellogg should be considered, and that the Westside should consider a Business Improvement District (BID). This is typically to pay for such things as cleaning, and it means being paid for by a BID and a district where the local community agrees to tax itself for these services.
The sidewalk width issue was mentioned, with the councilwoman thinking that the sidewalks on the Westside are narrow. A big campus for the Brooks people, where they would be incentivized to moving their headquarters here in a way that would not include annexation should still be the goal.
Deputy Mayor Tracy also wished to mentioned a few items that might be brought up at the workshop and that might include the parking issue. The WAV project was an example where there apparently was no planning for parking, according to the deputy mayor. Parks, bikes and safety was discussed with the community along with an interest in boutique shopping, but post office, a full-service bank were referenced issues that had been skipped, along with adding to the Arts District on the Avenue. Mr. Tracy said the live/work, new urbanization, smart growth concepts tried earlier show that expectations have not been met – they’ve failed. It could be due to cost of construction and/or the lack of practicality inherent in these ideas. Projects that came to mind – Telegraph and Main, Central and Main, the Five Points Northwest Corner, the project at Coronado and Main – all are projects that have been talked about for years but not acted upon thereby raising questions. Four or five story buildings next to historic sites didn't make much sense either.
[Comment] And not only have those “new urbanization” plans failed, under the continuing 20, 30 and even 60-year old guidelines known as “smart growth,” they will continue to fail. The deputy mayor nailed it – “It could be due to cost of construction and/or the lack of practicality in these ideas.” Just as ever-escalating home prices are the brainchild of bankers, so ever-escalating urban densities are the brainchild of developers. And it’s not either the cost of construction or the impracticality – it’s both. Want to hear horror stories about the new urbanization and smart growth? Read up on the experiences of others in Maryland and Oregon just as a start. Once you get developers started, it’s very difficult to get them stopped. Many may not be aware that we in Ventura had a developer get himself elected to City Council – see pet projects such as “fast-track” get pushed through – and then promptly “retire” from public office. And yet this person with an office directly across from City Hall has done anything but retire. We hate to think it, but the Westside could be in for a duping. Westsiders definitely need to engage more … find their leaders … and if you can’t find them, become one. This train has not yet left the station. It’s time to get on board. [Ed.]
According to Mr. Tracy, the fiscal analysis may not have been thoroughly investigated and the city's ability to provide city services including police and fire may not go far enough in the Westside Project Area plan. It didn't appear to the deputy mayor that a sufficiently thorough evaluation for the Westside had been performed. Mr. Tracy spoke to the alley issue – a big parcel of land with alleys along the rear end raised questions as to the wisdom of sealing areas off from one another. It was the councilman’s feeling that this would create safety issues resulting from dead ends in alleyways.
The deputy mayor wished to add to the motion by formally asking Staff to continue to work with Brooks in furthering their goals without annexation – this as a “friendly amendment” suggested by the mayor.
Council Member Morehouse responded by saying that since Brooks is in the county, and if the county would work cooperatively with the city, and that with city oversight and guidance – this could be added to the motion.
The mayor clarified by saying that to work outside the issue of annexation and to work with Brooks would be on the table.
Council Member Brennan said “up-zoning” the Kellogg property in some way has been discussed, but as mentioned by the city attorney, underlying land entitlements should still be respected. The ouncilman thought that one speaker’s comments were valid on the scaling back of the mixed-use corridor affecting a popular coffeeshop and storage area, and that by keeping these businesses in place opens the opportunity for improved mobility planning, noting that in 2005 former Mayor Tom Buford helped raise the bar along a path that we should maintain. The Councilman thought that setting the issue aside for 10 years on La Cañada Larga validated the public outreach process. The Councilman was also supportive of the idea that Brooks Institute should be supported.
The Lewis Street slide area was a real issue according to the councilman and Steven’a comment about the parkway plan. The parkway plan with the 606 Cal Poly Students and the TPL should be maintained and not allowed to go away. This parkway plan should be part of the city which calls for “greening up” almost every area the reality is that people have property in the area.
Council Member Andrews spoke to the issue of engagement by the public, saying that he was pleased with the staff recommendation that would preserve the Westside Pool fund. With respect to the parks issue, the councilman wished to help keep the commitment made when the city promised to maintain a defined balance between commercial, industrial, residential and recreational space, including parks.
Council Member Morehouse asked Jeff Lambert if some of this didn't represent something like a compilation of all efforts that have the accumulated over the past decade.
The mayor spoke of the genesis on the Westside, meaning that many workshops and adopted plans have transpired. The mayor said we need a plan that can be adopted and moved upon. The program to move forward with issues in a workshop setting would be very well received. Jeff said that the planning commission meeting on May 17 which wasn't fully booked could be used as a date and a tentative date and venue. Refining the code would be part of that workshop.
Mayor asked for a call the roll – all members voted yes. With no further council communications, and in the memory of Les Goldberg and Maxine Miller, there was adjournment until a week from Monday following.