Ventura City Council Meeting
February 13, 2012
Ventura City Hall - 501 Poli Street
Fifth grade student Sienna Long from the Sunset Elementary School presented her winning essay on the subject of cooperation. Principal Kelsey Simms and teacher Jennifer Bundy were on hand to support the young fifth grader upon her having submitted the winning composition in Ventura Unified School District’s Character Development Program, culminating in City Council's own "Mayor for a Moment" approbation ceremony.
To View a listing of the agenda items for this council meeting, go to www.cityofventura.net/meeting/city-council-meeting-99.
Mayor Tracy brought the meeting to order with a call of the roll -- all present. The mayor then asked council members and attendees stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Education ~ The Key to All Cities
"An example of cooperation is when you do something that someone has asked you to do without talking back," along with agreeing and helping each other with a positive attitude. Cooperation is the act of agreeing and helping each other with a positive attitude, and his best shown by responding with a yes as you and your partner work together to get the job done instead of leaving the whole assignment up to just one of you. Cooperation will bring you more friends and make your life less stressful.
Mayor Tracy thenn presented Sienna with a plaque for her desk at school, along with a pin for her lapel and the all-important Key to the City.
Closed Session Report -- City Attorney Ariel Calonne stated that Council took no reportable action.
The Mayor indicated that he change in the agenda would include the advancement of Agenda Item No. 4, Pierpont Occupancy Tax, to a future date which was unspecified at this time. Agenda Item No. 6 was advanced until March 12.
Council Communications -- Deputy Mayor Heitmann reminded everyone that the Spanish Harlem Orchestra from New York City will perform this Saturday, February 18, at Ventura High School. Tickets are available through the Ventura Music Festival.
Council Member Monahan also gave the public a heads up on the St. Patrick's Day parade to be held on Saturday, March 17, saying that the parade will step off from Mission Park at 10 AM. As many as 40 organizations have already signed up, including the Boys and Girls Club and Ventura High School. All those interested in participating in the parade are encouraged to call 643-4275.
Mayor Tracy said that last week he was privileged to spend some time with the newly created Ventura Water division. Tours were taken of the treatment plant on Spinnaker Drive and also at the North Avenue location. The San Jon Yard facility was also included along with trips into the field. The mayor concluded by saying that our city employees are hard-working and proud to be serving their community.
Consent // Formal Items -- (1) Community Memorial Hospital Shoring License Agreement, (2) Chamber of Commerce Lease, (3) Abandoned Shopping Cart Ordinance, (5) Aldea Hermosa Project Tract No. 5433; Maintenance Assessment District No. 20 [Public Hearing Item]. With the public hearing having been opened and with no public speakers, the public hearing was closed. Council Member Weir moved acceptance of the Consent Agenda.
Deputy Mayor Heitmann commented on the public hearing item, wishing to emphasize the importance of educating the public as people buy into these project tracts, that they clearly understand the maintenance district rules and assessments that come with them.
Council Member Monahan directed a question toward the city attorney, asking whether or not the public hearing item conformed to Proposition 218, with Mr. Calonne stating that there is no violation based on the fact that the property owners are not opposed to the terms of the proposition. It was further stated that although there is only one property owner at the present time, this still constitutes consent and allows formation of the district. The councilman expressed surprise to some extent, saying that it didn't appear to be strictly "as it should be," and that this does not help provide affordability in housing considering the fact that the fees are likely to increase year over year.
Council Member Brennan responded "with all due respect to my fellow council members," that ample measures are in place to help guide our developers, including community plans, improvements and "things that we ask of development," and that "If we don't vote for this I'd sure like to know where in the budget you would like to figure this out." It was also said that "people are noticed on this and it's in their escrow papers." The councilman appeared to be suggesting that alternative methods could be brought up in Council as one or more separate policy considerations, but that this is how we have been doing things currently and in full agreement among ourselves and other agencies.
Council Member Monahan wished to respond, asking in what way the current item is similar to the last or most recent assessment district created, and were these the same rates as are being approved under this item. Mr. Brennan replied that all assessment districts are typically unique based on bio-swales, storm water drainage and other characteristics conforming to ordinances put into place.
City Attorney Calonne weighed in with an answer, saying that the dollar amounts would vary tract-to-tract based on the various improvements that have been made such as a different number of park benches and a different number of street lamps with differing amounts of park land area. The formula for calculating those amounts remains the same, according to the city attorney, providing fundamental fairness from tract-to-tract as a means of apportioning the costs from home-to-home. "It just turns out that some neighborhoods are more expensive than others," Mr. Calonne said.
Deputy Mayor Heitmann also responded, saying, "Just to be clear to Council Member Brennan, I am not opposed to these costs," saying further that while an accurate accounting is necessary, her original concern was with complete disclosure to the public with there being no melaruse involved, which is accurate according to the deputy mayor, but that this is a similar type of cost which deserves proper attention.
[Comment] What is a melaruse? According to Yahoo Answers, a melaruse is “An additional property tax that is used in your local neighborhood, unlike regular property tax which is divided more broadly. Common uses are schools and street lights. There is no way to avoid them if the house was built in an area with them set. It is set before the house is built, not after." [Ed.]
City Attorney Calonne requested that the city clerk include in the record the script for the formation of a maintenance assessment district.
With no comments the city clerk took a roll call vote on the Consent Agenda. All members voted yes with the exception of Council Member Monahan, who voted no on #5.
Agenda Item No. 7 -- Community Development Director’s Report on Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Jeff Lambert and Dave Ward took positions at the staff's table, with Mr. Ward conducting the presentation on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Cycle 5 [2014-2021]
Housing Element & RHNA, showing: (1) Housing Element [City's General Plan + Revise & update every 8 years] -- (1.1) Plan for "fair share" of regional housing need -- (1.2) Provide for existing & future housing needs at all income levels
What is the RHNA? Showing: (1) Regional target from HCD -- (2) Distributes development capacity throughout region -- (3) Quantifies city's housing need by income groups -- (4) Not a construction obligation -- (5) Zoning/vacant & underutilized land -- (6) Cycle 5 timeframe: 2014-2021 [it was said that RHNA is tied to the region which is in our case the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)]
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) showing: (1) Regional planning organization comprising -- (1.1) 6 counties -- (1.2) Ventura County Sub-Region (VCOG) [187 cities and six counties making up the SCAG region were shown graphically. The plan for RHNA is based on the entire region shown]
SCAG'S role in RHNA, showing: (1) Determine existing & projected housing -- (2) Gauge housing demand compared to socioeconomic factors [at the regional level]
RHNA Measurements, showing: (1) Existing Need Assessment: how currently meeting community's housing needs -- (2) Future Need Assessment: anticipated housing need; includes vacant unit needs
RHNA Methodology, showing: (1) Components used to determine RHNA -- (1.1) Projected household growth -- (1.2) Healthy market vacancy need -- (1.3) Replacement need -- (1.4) Excess vacancy credit [Negotiations resulted in special category of credit for 163 units in Ventura due to the severe economic downturn]
New Cycle 5 Requirements, showing: (1) Cycle 5 [2013-2021] RHNA must also incorporate -- (1.1) Land use capacity for improved mobility & job-housing balance -- (1.2) Transportation efficiency adjustments to reduce GHG & emissions
Key Date [2012] showing: (1) March 15; Last day to request revision -- (2) may 29; Last day to request appeal -- (3) July 9--13; Public hearing on appeals -- (4) October 4; Public hearing on final RHNA [Housing Element due date: October 31, 2013]
[Comment] The takeaway point here is the Community Development Department's ongoing "Underutilized Survey," clearly observable by astute and otherwise interested members of the public. What the citizens of Ventura can expect next is the condemnation of perhaps a dozen or more older motels built back in the '40s,'50s and '60s. What can this mean for us average citizens? Firstly, it can mean a substantial reduction in low-cost and temporary housing -- just at a time when the demand for low-income affordable housing is at its greatest. And secondly, it must be asked what will replace these facilities? Will it bear any similarity to that which currently serves (or has the potential to serve) the homeless and many of the least among us? ... or will the city continue with its penchant for selling out to developers seeking to maintain their spiral of ever-escalating profits? And like it or not, let's be clear. Below Market Rate (BMR) and low-income housing is a losing proposition for developers and their bankrollers all across the country. Use the search function on this website to pull up information on the emergency refinancing effort that took place before City Council over the WAV (Working Artists of Ventura) facility, especially if you like reading about awkward moments in commercial real estate developing. [Ed.]
Distribution of RHNA, showing: (1) Ventura's Allocation; 3,654 -- (1.1) Projected household growth; 3,706 -- (1.2) Healthy market vacancy rate; 105 -- (1.3) Replacement need; 6 -- (1.4) Excess vacancy credit; (163) -- [Regional Allocation: 409,060 to 438,030] -- [Ventura's Cycle 4 Allocation: 4,011]
Estimated Obligation 2014-2021, showing: (1) Cycle 5 allocation; 3,654 [proposed] -- (2) Preliminary shortfall; +/-1,200 [It was said that the proposed Cycle 5 allocation of 3,654 units was based on that portion of the Underutilized Survey which centered on a the Westside, Downtown and Midtown Corridor only.]
Preliminary Analysis Accommodating the Need, showing: (1) Infill first -- (1.1) Identify vacant & underutilized land -- (1.2) Consider land use policies & zoning
RHNA Cycle 5, Next Steps, showing: (1) Response options -- (1.1) SCAG-Staff discussion -- (1.2) Consider revision by 3/15/12 -- (1.2.1) Local planning factors -- (1.3) Return to Council prior to 3/15/12 w/local planning factors -- (1.4) Consider appeal by 5/29/12 -- (1.4.1) Redistributes to other jurisdictions [It was said that the allocation numbers are not mandates and also that developers will be involved along with low income housing advocates, some of which have prior history in partnering with the city. In addition, should there be pushback by some jurisdictions on the numbers, this would mean a redistribution in the numbers allocation to the remaining jurisdictions. ]
Council Member Morehouse said, in adding "a little color," that with staff available there are methods available through various conferences for helping other communities deal with housing issues and the needs assessment process. The housing element is one of seven mandated elements included in the 2005 General Plan. Demographers for the state determine what the California growth characteristics are expected to reveal in terms of housing need by district in terms of immigration, fertility numbers, out migration, job creation and other factors. Assignment areas for the state are carved out based on individual communities' land-use designations, and yet a review of these numbers have shown that some jurisdictions tend to be overly aggressive in planning for commercial and industrial space without a proportional increase in housing. This is what led to the Steinberg Bill (SB 375). The appeals process can become contentious, according to the councilman, when dealing with communities heavy into into gated subdivisions and very little industry.
Mayor Tracy felt the need to inquire as to whether or not executive housing could be receiving short shrift in the deal, and if it were possible for the city to plan any kind of override, thereby altering the mix of housing types in greater favor of high-end residential construction. Staff seemed rather in awe of the question, but did respond explaining exactly how this could affect the RHNA numbers based on the approach that could be taken. If, in the city's infill strategy, a new gated community were to squeeze out the limited space allocated to low or very low income housing, those units would be carried over into neighboring jurisdictions, causing, in all likelihood, some rather strained relationships. If, on the other hand, all the housing element guidelines were to be met and the city were to go further, there would be nothing to stand it its way.
City Attorney Calonne summarized by saying that the city of Irvine a few years ago tried to sue SCAG over their RHNA housing allocation, with the courts having concluded that there is no judicial appeal for a city complaining about the housing numbers that have been allocated legislatively, meaning further that SCAG has all the leverage and that only through the administrative process would our local officials gain any headway.
Council Member Brennan interjected with some case history on the subject, saying that where RHNA numbers had become problematic for some jurisdictions in the desert, for example, the "outsourcing" of some very low income number allocations were accompanied by sizable funds as a method of compensation for the receiving entity. Sounding very much like bribery, it was said -- to the councilman's great credit -- that this practice is "frowned upon." The councilman went on to mention the Home Share program and seemed to be asking whether or not alternative housing including granny flats, apartment sharing and other types of cooperative strategies are being worked into the RHNA formulations. Jeff Lambert replied by saying that these approaches could be taken as if to suggest that such is not the case currently.
[Comment] During this exchange Council Member Brennan stated the Home Share program is "something that is going on through the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness," which is factually incorrect. The fact is that the Home Share program has been restarted only recently, whereas the "Ten-Year" program in Ventura has now reached the halfway point in its tenure. (Source: Ventura County Area Agency on Aging -- Home Share) Call 805.477.7300 for one-on-one information concerning the new Home Share program. [Ed.]
Agenda Item No. 8 -- Ventura County Transportation Commission Update. Tom Merical, City Transportation Manager, and Darren Kettle representing VCTC stepped forward to begin the Regional Transit Study Update presentation.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan, showing: (1) Long range transportation planning -- (2) Extensive public outreach -- (3) Account for local records -- (4) Develop a strategic funding plan -- (5) Build ownership region-wide
Outreach Activities, showing: (1) Consultations -- (1.1) Local advisory groups [stakeholders] were formed; 2 rounds of meetings have been held -- (1.2) 1 Regional advisory [stakeholder] group was formed; 2 rounds of meetings have been held -- (2) Community presentations -- (3) Web and media -- (3.1) Project website and social media -- (3.2) Opinion editorials -- (3.3) Editorial boards -- (3.4) Business survey -- (3.5) General public survey
Audience Diversity, showing: [A variety of agencies were shown, typical of which were the Ventura County Area Agency on Aging, Ventura County Behavioral Health, Ventura County Coastal Association of Realtors and the Channel Islands Bicycle Club.]
Countywide Themes, showing: (1) Transportation connections within and outside of the county -- (2) Transit: capacity, frequency and connections -- (3) Safety: highways, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian -- (4) Local roads: complete streets, maintenance -- (5) Planning for growth -- (6) Strategic, needs-based planning and funding [It was said that 48% of the people living in Ventura remain within the city limits. This says that 52% of the population regularly leaves the city and travels to other parts of the county. According to the most recent census, Ventura County grew in population at a faster rate than did either Los Angeles or San Diego County.]
Plan Ailments, showing: (1) Local streets and roads -- (1.1) Total 30-year need = $2.2 billion -- (1.2 Current 30-year funding = $1.1 billion -- (2) Highways/freeways -- (2.1) Total 30-year need [US 101 & SR 118 = $1.2 billion -- (2.2) Current 30-year funding = $657 million -- (3) Transit -- (3.1) Total 30-year need = dependent upon service levels and organizational structure currently under study -- (3.1) Current 30-year funding = $2.25 billion -- (4) Bicycle/pedestrian -- (4.1) Total 30-year need = under development -- (4.2) Current 30-year funding = $230 million [It was said that we are about 3-1/2 billion dollars short between what is needed for local streets, highways, some transit which includes the expansion of commuter rail, bicycle and pedestrian plus regional and arterial.]
Plan Funding Options -- (1) Gas tax -- (1.1) As fuel efficiency increases, proceeds decrease -- (1.2) Increases the cost of driving and public transportation -- (2) Tolling: express lanes -- (2.1) Use of proceeds generally restricted to corridor-specific improvements -- (2.2) Requires addressing perceptions of inequities and "double taxation" -- (3) Vehicle registration fee -- (3.1) Provides a flexible funding source -- (3.2) Generates approximately $8 million per year -- (4) Countywide sales tax measure -- (4.1) Provide local, flexible source of funds dedicated to transportation improvements -- (4.1.1) Support leveraging of federal funds -- (4.2) Requires a 66.7% vote in support -- (4.3) Generates an estimated $2.1 billion over 30 years -- (4.3.1) Approaches funding requirements but does not fully fund needs
[Comment] Here is a must-read article for knee-jerk conservatives. Consider #1, Gas Tax (along with #1.1 and #1.2) and then read "Smart Taxes," by Harvard Economist, N. Gregory Mankiw. Mr. Darren Kettle states in his presentation that "As fuel efficiency increases (through taxation), proceeds decrease." But proceeds to whom? Not the taxing authorities. Their (managed) proceeds (city, state and federal) are received up front. Any monetary diminishment through increased efficiency is felt directly by OPEC suppliers, which is precisely where it should be felt. Now for the second part (#1.2) -- yes the cost of driving is higher, but cities and counties now have the revenue source to subsidize public transportation, so with proper management the cost of public transportation goes down, not up. As for the higher cost of driving in general, the average one-car, one-occupant driver sees less traffic congestion, cleaner air and better highway maintenance, thus saving untold thousands in tires and other auto repair expenses. This is just a sample of what can be gained through reading Prof. Mankiw's treatise on Smart Taxes. Conservatives seem to have signed on enthusiastically to something called "Smart Growth," so named only to create the false dichotomy between "smart" and otherwise "dumb" forms of growth management, whereas when it comes to public financing there really are no dumb taxes -- only not-so-smart people. [Ed.]
Funding Scenarios, Constrained to Combined, showing -- Graphic pie chart representations of constrained items versus the combined, molded into a final representation arrived at through algebraic addition. The constrained funding graphic presentation indicated a funding scenario that is considered likely based on current budgetary constraints equaling around $4.5 billion over 30 years. 50% of this figure was said to be available for transit. A one half cent sales tax addition to the revenue stream resulted in the combined scenario, which included all of the transportation funding as currently expected, plus a shortfall of $2.1 billion in other unfunded programs like local roads and bike lanes, yielding a third graphic which represented a transportation sector that will experience a $6.6 billion needs assessment with something close to a $1billion shortfall.
Purpose, showing: Test Voter Acceptance of a Countywide Sales Tax Measure -- (1) Compare voter attitudes with 2008 baseline research and assess the feasibility of a supplemental transportation funding measure for the November 2012 ballot -- (2) Review of the merging VCTC comprehensive transportation plan and transit study -- (3) Public opinion research targeting high-frequency voters -- (4) Compare 2011 research with 2008 baseline -- (5) Report results and recommendations [ Voter comparison surveys from 2008 and 2011 showed that a one half cent sales tax increase referendum would have passed by a 2 to one margin in 2008, while still passing by a 1.6 to 1 margin in 2011 ]
Results, showing: Confidence Fell in How Tax Money will be Spent -- "Do you have confidence in local elected leaders to spend revenues from a new countywide one half cent sales tax program efficiently?" [ Survey results showed a near reversal of fortune in the polls between voters who would approve of a sales tax increase and the "No's" in the confidence question, with the "No's" outweighing the "Yes's" by a 1.3 to 1 margin in 2008, increasing to a 2 to one margin in 2011. ]
Watch this space for more to come.