Mark’s Ventura County Market Analysis
2nd & 3rd Quarter 2015 - (April -
September)
Special Ventura Drought vs New Home
Development Issue
This Ventura edition of my market analysis is by far
the longest and most comprehensive of the three I have written so far on
specific communities – Camarillo, Oxnard and Ventura. I could have shortened
this report with some very tight editing, but have chosen not to. Almost all of
this report came from articles in the Ventura County Star and provide information
not only on real estate but on the actions of our elected officials. The “Star”
included their statements and actions and their approach to problem solving.
I don’t have any political affiliations, but I find
it fascinating to see how these folks are representing our best interests in
this time of drought, water shortage, new home and property development and
even fears of home destruction from El Nino. Again, I apologize for the length
but there is just so much happening in Ventura.
If you wish to cut to the chase, just go to the last
page and read the summary. Also, I have inserted short article summarys in
various places… “Marks’
thoughts” ( I use this term
loosely because I do not consider myself an expert on city planning or water
resource management. I do not know any of the city officials mentioned
personally nor any of the citizen groups or property developers. As a taxpayer
though, I am more than mildly curious how and why my tax money is being spent
and these articles have plenty of clues for that.
Housing sales, new home development, and water use
have become interlocking issues in Ventura County. There is a housing shortage
in Ventura County which has become more pronounced in the last 3 years. The
demand for new homes has become so great that developers are once again free to
build whatever city planning commissions will allow, knowing that any home they
build will sell.
The severity and length of California’s drought have
prompted the State to take the extraordinary action of mandating reductions in
each city’s water useage, with very real consequences possible for those cities
( like Moorpark ) which fail to meet the state targets. Each town in Ventura County has responded in
a different manner to these requirements and a very few (like Ventura) have
finally begun the process of addressing water issues as they apply to new home
construction.
To be fair, some towns have been working for years
to improve their water resource infrastructure and
(1)
availability. Oxnard, Camarillo and Ventura have all
developed water treatment/pumping facilities to meet new demand in the last few
years. Yet not all towns have a formalized linkage between water resources and
new home development. More water is being pumped or purchased from other water
agencies and then immediately apportioned to new home developments. It’s like
maxing out a credit card and then asking to raise your minimum balance instead
of paying it off.
Regardless of how each town manages its water
supply, the net result has been to make water use more restricted, regulated
and expensive for the average citizen and home owner. City governments have,
with rare exception, passed these costs on to their constituents without any
form of public review or voting process.
“In April, a state appeals court
ruled that a tiered water rate used by the City of San Juan Capistrano to
encourage conservation – similar to the plan adapted by Ventura – was unconstitutional.
The 4th District Court of
Appeal struck down Capistrano’s fee plan, saying it violated Proposition 218,
which prohibits government agencies from charging more for a service than it
costs to provide it.” Since the State Water Resources Control Board is
enforcing the Governors’ water reduction mandate with each city in California,
perhaps they should also check that city compliance is being done in a strictly
legal manner.
I have arranged the material for this report in a
roughly chronological format beginning the 2nd quarter of this year
and progressing to early October. Issues are dynamic and have continued to
change and evolve during this time so I have tried to capture a bit of this
process. There is no way to include
everything which has happened since the governors drought reduction mandate
this last Spring but I have tried to include enough details to lend a bit of
insight and flavor to this extraordinary time in our Ventura County history.
The
April 13 Ventura County Star has reported that the
Ventura City Council will soon be considering a complete moratorium on new
residential development. The plan is to block further development until 2 Feb
2016, at which time new applications will be considered until 31 Mar 2016. Anything
submitted after that time frame or anything deemed incomplete for consideration
will have to wait until some unspecified future date. Things like affordable
housing or projects which are already years along in development will be
excluded from the moratorium. Like Camarillo, Ventura wishes to develop better
control and evaluation of new home development.
The
April 17 Ventura County Star reported that “a
Los Angeles developer spoke to a midtown Ventura group about plans to build 55
luxury homes in the hillsides, he noted the project had already undergone 18 revisions.
A group of residents argues it still has a long way to go and as designed presents
safety and health concerns, as well as aesthetic issues.
Regent Properties is proposing to build the homes on 40 acres of
a 215-acre parcel, which is part of the Mariano Rancho holdings. The
undeveloped portion would remain open space. The houses above Ventura High
School would be one- and two-story homes ranging from 3,750 to 4,500 square feet and sell for $1.1 million
to $2 million, Regent has said.
Regent Land President Daniel Gryczman
said that as the process moves forward, it will be open and transparent to the
public.
“We are looking forward to having all
issues of concern thoroughly vetted as required by the formal entitlement and
environmental review process, which will commence after project applications
are filed,” Gryczman wrote in an email to
The Star. “Most importantly, safety is never negotiable and cannot be
compromised,” he wrote.
Residents aren’t sold.
(2)
Douglas Burke, a civil engineer whose
property on Hillside Drive abuts the base of the proposed site, said he looked
at the grading plan and was “utterly shocked” by what he saw. It does nothing
to protect against the possibility of an earthquake or landslide, he said.
Burke was one of several people who
addressed the City Council on Monday night, part of a new community group
called Neighbors for the Ventura Hillside.
“Not to say the developer couldn’t find
a solution for this land, but there’s nothing that’s right on this
development,” Burke said
The
April 18 Ventura County Star reported on plans by
the owners of the Walker-Hearne Ranch – a property which starts at the base of
Foothill Road and runs north into the hillside to develop 200 acres of hillside
property into 200 to 250 executive homes. The property would have to be annexed
by the City of Ventura and would require voter approval.
Ventura
is getting ready to increase water rates probably 1 September 2015. According
to an article in the May 1st
Ventura County Star, “the topic drew more
than 80 people, who for the better part of 2 hours peppered Ventura Water
General Manager Shana Epstein with questions about rates, development, climate
change, water storage and the legalities of pricing.”
Interestingly,
$1 million dollars will be spent on conservation outreach and education. “Those
costs will be passed along to customers who use more water, officials said.”
“The lowest city rates right now are for single
family households in Tier I, meaning they use zero to 14 hundred cubic feet
(HCF), or just under 10,500 gallons of water every two months. They pay $2.40
per HCF. Under the proposed structure, Tier I will drop to zero to six HCF, or
around 4,500 gallons. Those users will not see any increase at any point during
the six states of the proposal.”
This
is a very interesting statement since Tier I users will now be limited to 4,500
gallons of water versus the 10,500 gallons they were given under the old Tier
I.
“Resident
Liz Selleck estimates her bimonthly water bill will increase $100 for her
family of 6, no matter what they do.”
“The new Tier II customers become those who use 7 to
14 HCF, paying $3.25 under Stage3 drought, the level the city is at now.
For Tier III households using 15 to 30 HCF, the rate
jumps to $5.55.”
“Several
people questioned why residential development should be allowed to continue
when the city’s water availability appears so bleak and residents are being
asked to conserve so severely. Ventura Water General Manager Shana Epstein said new construction uses
much less water than much of the existing development."
Ventura County Star May 20
(In a June
28 issue of the Star it was revealed that the Planning Commission denied
John Ashkar’s project due to a recent State Supreme Court Ruling allowing
cities to set inclusionary housing policies requiring developers to include
affordable housing in their new construction. He is currently appealing the
Planning Commission
decision.)
(3)
Planners back downtown site, but not all agree
By Arlene Martinez
Ventura planners are recommending that a proposed 255-unit
apartment project get the green light to move toward construction.
The project, to be voted on during a joint
meeting Wednesday night of the city’s Design Review Committee and Planning
Commission, would include no affordable-housing units despite a city ordinance
requiring them.
As designed, just under three-quarters of the project would have
“stacked dwellings,” even though the city’s Downtown Specific Plan says no more
than 30 percent of a residential project should feature units on top of each
other.
Developer John Ashkar’s project would consist of 127 two bedroom
units, 120 one bedroom units and eight studios on 3.5 acres at Junipero Street,
Santa Clara Street and Thompson Boulevard. The project has stalled in part over
whether it must include roughly 37 units for people with low or moderate
incomes. Existing city law mandates that 15 percent of units in rental or
market-rate projects built downtown be af fordable housing units.
City Community Development Director Jeff Lambert said the
ordinance is not legal and therefore unenforceable.
“Based on the law and circumstances, we’re confident in the
recommendation that we’re making to the Planning Commission,” he
said. However, local attorney Barbara Macri-Ortiz said the city’s
interpretation of existing case law is wrong.
Staff members just want to “blow off an ordinance,” she said,
which is beyond the authority of commissioners, who don’t get to decide
which laws to implement.
Macri-Ortiz was one of three people who signed a letter to
commissioners urging them to follow the city’s inclusionary ordinance.
The staff report says Ashkar’s project complies with state
coastal laws, which require affordable units to be included “where feasible” or
put somewhere else in the city.
Lambert said the project satisfies the requirements because the
“entire project is affordable for moderate incomes” and the state doesn’t lay
out how many units there must be or the level of affordability.
Rents are expected to range between $1,350 for a studio to
$2,236 for a two bedroom unit.
Even if that were true initially, property owners can raise the
rents anytime, while truly affordable units must adhere to
income restrictions per the deed for years, Macri-Ortiz said.
On the issue of stacked housing, Lambert had an outside planning
consultant look at Ventura’s code. Sargent Town Planning called it an outdated
requirement and was “not aware” of any West Coast form-based codes
that limit “stacked flats as a dwelling type.”
Allowing the developer to bypass the downtown plan is a
concession the city could make in exchange for affordable housing, Macri-Ortiz
said.
Wednesday’s meeting will start at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall, 501
Poli St.
Mark’s thoughts
In the May 31 Ventura County Star is a superb
article written by guest columnist David P. Grau which details that takes issue
with the new water rates that the Ventura City Council is preparing to approve
on June 8. The new water rates are
considered by the Ventura County Taxpayers Association to be unconstitutional
and in violation of the voter approved Proposition 218. I’ve included it here
to help put this important information into our new development perspective.
(4)
“On June 8, the Ventura City
Council will consider adopting water rates that, in the view of Ventura County
Taxpayers Association, may be unconstitutional and in violation of the voter approved
Proposition 218.
VCTA appreciates the seriousness
of the drought and acknowledges that residents must conserve water. However, we
disagree with the steps the City Council has taken to accomplish that goal. In
drought-ridden California, many water bills are calculated using a basic
principle: The more water a customer uses, the higher the rate for each tier.
It’s a strategy water districts employ to boost conservation and one adopted by
Ventura.
But in April, a state appeals
court ruled that a tiered water rate used by the city of San Juan Capistrano to
encourage conservation — similar to the plan proposed by Ventura — was
unconstitutional. The 4th District Court of Appeal struck down Capistrano’s fee
plan, saying it violated Proposition 218,which prohibits government agencies
from charging more for a service than it costs to provide it.
Our courts have made it clear
they interpret the Constitution to allow tiered pricing; but the voters and
taxpayers have made it clear they want it done in a particular way. And that is
why Ventura Water must show that each rate is tied to the cost of providing the
water and not merely inflated to discourage its use.
Faced with the Capistrano ruling,
many water agencies throughout the state including Ventura Water have three
options: flatten their tiers, adopt penalties not subject to constitutional
limitations, or wait to see if they get sued. Other cities and water districts
serving more than 3 million California customers faced with similar
drought-related problems have avoided conflict with the law by imposing
penalties for excess water usage that are allowed under the law.
If Ventura approves the proposed
water rates as designed, it is choosing to ignore the law and just wait and see
if it gets sued. Like Capistrano, Ventura did not calculate incremental costs
of providing water at the level of use represented by each tier, but instead
relied on “discussions with city staff” and “estimates” to “assign” different
costs to each tier.
The city suggests the tiers are
based on the purpose for which the water is used. For example, Tier 1 is an
allocation for basic indoor water usage, Tier 2 is for outdoor irrigation, and
so forth. The justification for rate differences are problematic for several
reasons.
First, the type of use (taking a
shower versus watering a lawn) has no reasonable relation to cost of service
between tiers.
Second, the allocations for
individual water accounts are oversimplified. How did Ventura Water determine
how much water is needed for indoor usage without knowing exactly how many
people reside in each and every parcel? These allocations are almost certainly
completely arbitrary, especially with respect to cost.
Third, we never saw an attempt to
explicitly tie the proposed rate increases to different sources of water, or
any other objective cost differential.
When asked, Ventura Water General
Manager Shana Epstein said “there is no practical alternative to rate-setting
other than estimates ….” Really?
As the court pointed out in
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Fresno (2005), the calculations
required by Proposition 218 may be “complex” but “such a process is now
required by the California Constitution.
“We believe the city failed to
show that each rate is tied to the cost of providing the water as required by Proposition
218 and instead simply inflated each tier to discourage use. Therefore, the
city’s water pricing violates the constitutional requirement that fees have a
reasonable relation to cost of service between tiers, and VCTA urges the
council to reject the water rate increases and move to adopt a defensible
system.
Defending a clearly
unconstitutional system in court would be a terrible waste of taxpayer money
and fails to
(5)
address the long term issue of
water conservation for the city. VCTA asks the council to delay a decision and
during that time evaluate how other water agencies address the drought while
remaining within legal constraint of the state Constitution. David P. Grau, of
Ventura, is a board member of the Ventura County Taxpayers Association.”
In a May 28 article of the Ventura
County Star
it was revealed that Ventura is being sued for over pumping the river and has
in turn counter sued several local water agencies – even though some of them
supply water to Ventura!
“The city of Ventura, sued for
allegedly over pumping the Ventura River at a cost to its wild life and water
quality, has in turn sued several water agencies and others who use the water
source. The Santa Barbara
Channel
Keeper sued Ventura and the State Water Resources Control Board in September
2014, seeking a “reasonable use analysis” of how much water is available and
needed to ensure all beneficial uses are protected.
Casitas General Manager Steve
Wickstrum said the board hadn’t discussed the suit in much detail or decided
what it would do. “It’s under review,” he said. Casitas, like others named, has
30 days to file a response. “It’s a strange cross complaint, so we’ll see where
this goes,” Wickstrum said.
The city seeks a “preliminary and
permanent injunction reducing cross-defendants’ uses of surface water and
groundwater ... affecting the
surface and/or subsurface flow of the Ventura River to a level of reasonable
and beneficial use,” the suit says in part.
Ventura is a customer of Casitas,
Wickstrum said. The city claims its use of water from the Ventura River and
Lake Casitas is “reasonable and beneficial” because it’s used for domestic
purposes, the city uses only the water
it needs for municipal purposes,
it provides safe and affordable water and it is “exercising vested water
rights,” according to the suit.
The city gets its water about
evenly from Lake Casitas, groundwater sources and the river. Because of the
drought, it has recently gotten less from the Ventura River.”
The June 6
issue of the Ventura County Star announces the opening of a new home
development on Garden Street. “The
Cannery” is 78 condominiums priced from the high $200,000s to low $500,000,
with over 20 different floor plans ranging from 548 to 1,233 square feet in
studio, loft and 1 to 3 bedroom configurations.”
The June 10 issue of the Ventura County Star noted that: “The
Ventura City Council on Monday night (June 8) approved water shortage rates
that ‘encourage conservation, penalize
higher water users and continue paying for planned water and wastewater capital
improvements.’ The council passed the rates 5-2, with Council members
Christy Weir and Jim Monahan opposed. The rates will go into effect September
1. The city received 1,103 letters from residents protesting the rates.”
“Though
the council took no action on a building moratorium — another issue speakers
brought up several times — Mayor Cheryl Heitmann asked the newly formed Water
Commission to study the issue immediately.”
June 23 Ventura County Star - “The city of Ventura’s Water Commission meets
Tuesday (June 23) for the first time, but don’t expect discussion of a
building moratorium or related policy just yet. The newly formed advisory body
won’t start looking at that issue until its July meeting. The seven-member group
will instead start with a tour of the Avenue Water Treatment Plant, which
opened in 2007 and can treat up to 10 million gallons of water per day.
(6)
The facility treats water that
comes from wells next to the Ventura River at Foster Park. The group will next
learn about the Brown Act, state laws that govern how open meetings must run,
before Voting on a tentative agenda for the next six months. That agenda includes
a discussion on “net zero” policies at the commission’s July 28 and subsequent
meetings.”
“The
policy wouldn’t be a building moratorium but how a development could have a net
zero water impact, said Ventura Water General Manager Shana Epstein. The commission will
flesh out what that would look like, she said.”
The July 19 Star reported: The University of California Hansen Trust
property sold for $13.1 million in a 6 bid competition won by Williams
Communities, LLC. Escrow closed March 2015. The property will be developed for 131 detached single family homes,
townhome style condominiums, 20 – 24 Farmworker Housing units and 6 acres of
public park and open space. The property is located at the Southeast corner
of Saticoy Avenue and Telegraph Road.
Marks’ thoughts
So Ventura has raised it’s water
rates despite the possibility of it being illegal to do so, and despite over 1,100 citizen letters protesting the action. Not only have the
rates been raised but the amount of water included in the least expensive Tier
I has been cut from 14 HCF (10,500 gallons) to 6 HCF (4,500 gallons) which in
my opinion is a rather cruel and unreasonable rate change for large families.
A new Water Commission has been
formed at the request of the mayor, presumably to study water issues and new
development approval, but I suspect also to take the heat off the mayor and the
City Council and Planning Commission.
Since the City is being sued for over pumping the Ventura River, it has
filed a cross complaint with some of it’s own water providers, presumably to
spread the blame around. It is
interesting that nobody outside of the city government voted for any of the
water rate changes or for the formation of a new level of water use
bureaucracy.
The Ventura building moratorium
advocated by the City Council back in April, has now degenerated to a Water
Commission review. The Ventura Water General Manager (and Water Commission
Member) Shana Epstein stating that the new “policy wouldn’t be a building
moratorium but how a development could have a net zero water impact.”
This will make the Water
Commission a very powerful entity, presumably deciding how to approve new home
development using “net zero water impact” and with none of its members holding
a publicly elected position.
From 28 August 2015 Ventura County Star
From staff reports
“Ventura water customers reduced their use by 39 percent last
month compared with July 2013, city officials said.
The strong showing means the city hit its target of reducing
water use by more than 20 percent this year so far compared with two years ago,
water officials said.
The city has decreased its water use every month this year
compared with 2013, ranging from 4 percent to 41 percent. The biggest drops
came in the past three months.
“During the months of May, June and July this year, Ventura
Water customers have reduced their water use significantly, establishing what
we hope is a continuing trend,” the city wrote in its monthly newsletter.
In June, customer use was 41 percent lower compared with July
2013. In May, the decrease was 28 percent from the same time period, the city
said.
“As the city and the state experience one of the
most severe droughts on record, the customers of Ventura have proved that
they have the ingenuity and commitment to meet the challenges of conserving
water,” the newsletter said.
(7)
In response to the drought, the city continues to limit outdoor
watering to twice a week between the hours of 6 p.m. and 9 a.m., bans hosing
down hard surfaces including driveways and sidewalks, and requires handheld
hoses to have a shut-off nozzle.
Residents of other cities who want to see how much their area is
conserving can visit
In an article from the August 30
Ventura County Star new concerns about hillside
development emerge.
“Residents worried about hillside - It appears they have few
options for aid
By Arlene Martinez
Eight days after tons of earth tumbled on to homes in La
Conchita and killed 10 people, residents along a different hillside, this one
in west Ventura, received a notice.
“This letter is to alert you about concerns we have with the
stability of the hillside above your neighborhood,” it began.
Mud and debris had made their way down the hill and onto
streets, the letter continued, and driven by heavy rains, there were no
signs the
Jared
McEntyre, who lives on Lewis Street, said, “That’s why we have government.
That’s why we have FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency).”
“City engineers have
inspected the hillside and have determined that mudslides will continue to
occur from this location and potentially other adjacent hillside areas,” said
the letter from the city, dated Jan. 18, 2005.
The city advised residents to monitor the hillside and take
proper precautions, including evacuation, if heavy rains developed.
More than a decade later, residents in the neighborhood of
Ventura Avenue continue their monitoring.
Their repeated requests that the property owner, city and county
do something about the hill have gone nowhere. There has been no in-depth study
to determine the actual threat and no action taken to secure their homes.
“There’s a lot of unknown here,” said Virgil Nelson, co-chairman
of the Avenue Hillside Prevention Task Force, which formed in September 2010.
Absent an engineering report, “we can’t do anything,” he said.
Resident Theresa Satterfield said the committee has made every
effort to be friendly and work cooperatively with everyone involved.
“That hasn’t gotten us too far,” she said. “And now we’ve heard
this is going to be a terrible rainy season, and we’re all a little nervous
about that.”
They have reason to worry. A geotechnical firm hired by the city
to study the area noted that a landslide could occur quickly, too fast to alert
residents.
“The city may want to tell people to temporarily move out of
their residence if intense rainfall is predicted or experienced,” the
geotechnical firm Fugro wrote in a February 2005 letter to the city.
‘CHALLENGING’ ISSUE
The Selby Corp., a property management company with an office
off Ventura Avenue, owns the hillside above East Lewis, East Vince, Carr,
Leighton and El Medio streets— the area at risk of a slide.
Selby did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this
story.
In late 2005, then-Selby attorney Lindsay Nielson met with
concerned residents and city and county officials. Nielson advised Selby at
that time to leave the hillside alone.
“The hill in its natural state provides liability protection for
Selby,” he said. “If they did anything to the hillside to try to stabilize or
act on their concerns, that (would) put them directly in the line of fire, so
to speak.”
As far as Nielson knows, the company has not touched the hill.
“I think they listened to me,” he said.
City officials acknowledge it’s complicated.
(8)
“It’s a challenging sort of issue because the people who are
concerned are in the city, the land is in the county and we don’t have any
jurisdiction on the land,” said Brad Starr, the city’s capital design and land
development manager.
“There’s no obligation on the part of Selby to do anything,” he
said.
The city monitors the hillside, snapping photos of it and
checking for any kind of movement, Starr said.
Its focus in recent months, particularly with forecasters
predicting a powerful El Niño this winter, is on having an emergency citywide
plan in the event heavy rains cause flooding, utility line breaks or movement
in the hillside, he said.
County officials have met various times with residents but say
their hands are tied, too.
“I don’t see anything the county can do on private property,”
county geologist Jim O’Tousa said.
O’Tousa hasn’t looked at the property in years; he guesses not
since 2005. “It had cracks,” he said. “It is in a mode of failure.”
But Selby hasn’t done any work that might cause a slide or any
work at all as far as he knows, O’Tousa said.
“It’s a natural condition,” he said.
NO ONE TO BLAME?
For the most part, property owners are protected from liability
if something happens stemming from undeveloped property, said Los Angeles
attorney David Casselman, who has litigated numerous landslide cases.
A public entity doesn’t have to intervene even if it’s a health
and safety issue, he said.
“Ideally the government works with property owners
cooperatively. But it may want and reasonably expect an agreement from them in
return,” Casselman said.
In other words, residents would agree not to sue in the event of
a slide or other debris flow — to not claim the public entity’s work had caused
the damage, he said.
After the 2005 deadly mudslide, some La Conchita residents sued
the county over a retaining wall it had put up after a previous landslide to
keep debris off a road.
The courts agreed with the county that the wall had not caused
the hillside to fail. But county officials learned an expensive lesson.
“The minute the government does try to stabilize the hill, then
the taxpayers take all the liability if something does happen,” Ventura County
Supervisor Steve Bennett said.
That said, the county has had numerous meetings with the
residents, Selby and the city, “and it hasn’t worked out. ... These are always
extremely difficult issues to resolve,” Bennett said.
At first it seemed Selby was willing to do something, but “that
has all fallen apart,” said Bennett, whose district includes the Ventura
neighborhood.
The county can’t force Selby to act unless it forces every
private hillside landowner in the county to do the same, he said.
It’s a situation between two private property owners: Selby and
the residents, Bennett said.
Jared McEntyre, who lives on Lewis Street, doesn’t accept that.
“That’s why we have government. That’s why we have FEMA
(Federal Emergency Management Agency),” he said, to respond to or help mitigate
natural disasters.
Residents aren’t asking the government to come and save
everyone, McEntyre said. But with Selby no longer returning calls or willing to
talk, he said, residents are stuck.
“I’m just asking that people work with us,” he said. “Let’s
actively work to find a solution.”
UNKNOWN THREAT
How or when the hill could fail is anyone’s guess. In February
and November of 2005, geotechnical firm Fugro looked at the hillside at the
request of the city.
“The depth of the largescale landslides is not known, but could
likely be several hundred feet thick,” Fugro principal engineering geologist
Craig Prentice wrote in a February 2005 letter. “Based on our observations,
there is relatively high potential for movement of the active landslide
observed near the base of the steep slope east of Vince Street.”
A more recent review, done in 2011 by Cotton, Shires and
Associates at the request of the Avenue Hillside Prevention Task Force, notes
the landslide moved in early 2005 and a year later had grown by 75 percent to
the north. It’s still moving, the firm said in a February 2015 letter to the
group.
(9)
Additionally, a natural gas main east of Carr Street “could
present a significant hazard in the event of further northerly expansion of the
active hillside,” the letter notes.
To get a better sense of the risks and what could be done to
alleviate them, the firm said it could do a preliminary study that would cost
$13,500 to $14,900.
After La Conchita’s deadly slide, a state report concluded the
best way to reduce risk would involve grading the hill and other improvements.
The nearly $57 million cost could be shared among residents, the county, state
and property owner, it noted.
Nelson said he and other residents are willing to help pay
for the study. But who would pay for any needed work is another matter.
MOVING FORWARD
On an evening in June, six task force committee members planned
their next steps.
The group included McEntyre, who with his wife bought a house on
Lewis Street in 2010.
The home’s proximity to the hillside prompted McEntyre to call
the county to ask if the house was in a landslide zone. The county told him no.
“We made sure of that before we bought it,” he said.
After he moved in, he learned the home was in the zone city
officials had targeted with the letter. McEntyre returned to the county to ask
about it. Someone at the geographic information system office confirmed the
house wasn’t in the zone, but there remained a potential for the hill to slide
onto the house.
McEntyre, although frustrated, attributes it to
miscommunication.
Now, he’s just looking forward, making contingency plans for his
growing family. That includes an evacuation in case heavy rains come.
Committee members have drafted a petition they plan to
circulate. It requests that Selby, the city, state and federal agencies get
together on a “solution to protect citizens from a PREVENTABLE life threatening landslide.” They’re
hoping it spurs more residents to get involved.
What Nelson wants to avoid is a scenario that involves being in
court over lives lost and homes destroyed.
Nelson, who calls himself an idealist, holds out hope the sides
will come together.
“This is a real opportunity to be proactive and be a community
working together to demonstrate that we can make a benefit,” he said.
Meanwhile, residents continue to monitor the hillside, watching
as the wings of the seagull shaped break in the hill spread ever wider.”
From the
August 31 Ventura County Star
“Q: I’m a Ventura Water customer, and our family has been
doing our part to conserve water. Can you explain why Ventura Water modified
the existing residential Tier 1 into two tiers and why 0 to 6 hundred cubic
feet (HCF)?”
“A: As the city and state experience one of the most severe
droughts on record, Californians have proved they have the ingenuity and
commitment to meet the challenges of conserving water. Coping with the impacts
of a water shortage requires adaptation and full participation.
When our Ventura Water Shortage Task
Force (13 local customers serving on the advisory committee) evaluated
different water shortage rate options, they heard loud and clear from customers
who “used such a small amount of water” that there was no more room to budge.
In
response, the first tier was split to ensure rates were not increased for the
lowest residential water consumers,
defined as the first six units (1 unit equals 748 gallons.) These six units protect water usage at the lowest
level to reflect minimum needs for health and sanitation. The new Tier 1 or
“lifeline usage” remains unchanged in all water shortage stages for all customers,
and will not be impacted by increased water shortage rates.
City of Ventura customers have been
doing a great job in their conservation efforts. In June and July, Ventura
saved 40 percent and 39 percent respectively, which met the cumulative goal of
20 percent.
(10)
These hot summer months are our
opportunity to have the greatest impact — and we ask community members to
continue saving water so we can finish out the year maintaining our reduction
goal of 20 percent.
Ventura Water offers many ways to help our community members
save water (and money).
Contact us at 667-6500 or online at
www.venturawater. net to schedule a free water conservation survey and learn
how to reduce water use in and around your home or business. If you’re thinking
of designing a new drought resilient landscape, apply now for our WaterWise
Incentive program while funds are still available by visiting www.cityofventura.net/waterwise/incentiveprogram
To learn about Ventura Water’s plans for
a sustainable water future, you can take an in-depth tour of our Ventura Water Pure
Potable Reuse demonstration facility on Saturdays from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.
through December. Private groups interested in weekday tours can also be
accommodated with advanced notice. RSVP to gdorrington@venturawater.net
Shana Epstein is the water general
manager for the city of Ventura.”
Marks’
thoughts
Although the water general manager explains
that Tier 1 “lifeline usage” remains unchanged and that “rates were not
increased for the lowest residential water consumers”, this statement fails to
mention that Tier 1 has been arbitrarily changed from a water quantity of 0 to
14 units - 10,500 gallons of water, to less than half that amount – now 0 to 6
units or 4,500 gallons of water.
Therefore, the water managers’
statement is neither accurate nor sympathetic to the financially challenged
folks trying to make ends meet by staying within Tier 1 water useage. This is
especially egregious when considering that the City of San Buenaventura has not
shown the need to increase rates in accordance with California Proposition 218.
Ventura County Star September 12, 2015
“Some think city’s moving too quickly”
By Joshua Molina
Special to The Star
“Ventura is moving quickly to pass an ordinance to cap the
number of new housing units in the city, but some developers and community
activists are concerned that the proposal may be moving too recklessly.
The city wants to allow only 350 units per year, or a maximum of
1,050 over the next three years, as a way to plan and control growth after
experiencing a flurry of residential development in the past few years. The
city could choose to add up to 450 units in one year, but still could not
exceed 1,050 during the three year period.
Projects that are in the city pipeline but have not received
final approval could be left out in the cold.
“It’s going to give Ventura a black eye,” developer Charlie
Watling said. “Ventura already has a reputation for not being good to
developers.”
Ventura held the second of two workshops on its residential
allocation program Thursday night at City Hall. The city held the first meeting
in June, and officials hope to take the proposal to the Planning Commission in
November and then to the City Council for final adoption in December.
The ordinance would apply to most development proposals. Some
areas would be exempt from the total units that could be approved, including
those in the Parklands, Saticoy Village, UC Hansen and downtown specific
plans.
“Downtown is a very critical area,” said Ken Lee, the consultant
hired to facilitate the public process. “We don’t want to belabor development
from occurring in the downtown.”
Developers must start building within 18 months of the
allocation or risk losing approval. The city community development director
could grant a six-month extension, but only if plans are 80 percent complete.
Any expired or unused allocation of units would be thrown back into the pool
for consideration in the following years.
(11)
The city hired Ken Lee Consulting of Orange County to facilitate
the workshops and come up with a process for public input before the council’s
eventual vote on the topic. About 50 people wrote comments about
the proposal Thursday night and then stuck the notes on poster boards.
The consultant and his team will take the comments from Thursday
night and those from the first meeting and present them to Planning Commission
and council. Lee, acting like a talk show host, roamed the audience, handing
the microphone to members of the public who had questions and comments about
the proposal.
Watling, the developer, raised the question of whether it was
fair for projects that have been in the city pipeline for years to be
included in the ordinance. Any project that has not been allocated units by the
city at the time the ordinance goes into effect, which city officials hope
happens in January, would have no approval guarantees.
If denied any allocation of units, a developer could return the
following year to make another request.
City officials Thursday night also said projects that are 100
percent affordable housing would be exempted from the allocation totals,
but that also raised concerns.
Eileen McCarthy, a retired legal aid attorney, said the city is
pushing the ordinance too quickly. She believes projects that include
market-rate housing as well as affordable or inclusionary housing units also
should be exempt.
“The need, particularly for very low- and extremely low-income
housing for people on fixed incomes, is great justified, and, I would argue,
requires the exemption,” McCarthy said.”
Marks’ thoughts
The City of San Buenaventura is one of the few cities in the
county with plans to limit or control development in any way inside their urban
boundaries. I applaud their efforts to control random development. Random
development often translates to high cost housing for well healed buyers, but
does little to address housing needs of anyone not born with a silver spoon in
their mouth.
I believe that the comments made by Eileen McCarthy concerning
an exemption for affordable or inclusionary housing units are helpful and
valid. Making affordable housing projects easier to approve would probably
encourage developers to offer more of that type of housing development in
Ventura. I believe a balanced financial cross section of residents makes a
healthier local economy. Having said that, I have to admit I can’t cite any
social research to support that statement. I’d love to hear from someone who
could.
These are the opening shots by the City of Ventura to bring some
sanity to the development of new housing projects in and around Ventura in the
midst of a water crisis. I’m including 3 more slightly condensed articles in
the “Star” which clearly illustrate the kind of inducements that developers are
offering the city. Also, these articles illustrate the responses to these
inducements from citizen action groups such as the “Ventura Citizens for Hillside
Preservation.” Almost reads like a movie script.
Sept 22 Ventura County Star
Gift of 722 acres if luxury homes OK’d
By Gretchen Wenner
A developer hoping to put 55 luxury homes in the Ventura hills
is offering a giant carrot to potentially sweeten the deal: 722 acres of open
space with public trails connecting Hall Canyon to Grant Park.
Regent Properties announced Monday it is negotiating exclusively
with the Ventura Hillsides Conservancy for possible donation of the land.
(12)
The company wants to build its La Viera project on 40 acres
above Hillcrest Drive in the Hobson Heights neighborhood. Regent had already
said the remaining 175 acres of the 215-acre parcel would be saved for open
space.
Monday’s announcement ratchets up the conservation element by
putting an additional 547 acres in play. The additional parcel stretches from
the northwest tip of the original site to the northeast tip of Grant Park.
Regent would buy the acreage and donate it to the conservancy,
said Daniel Gryczman, president of the company’s
development arm. Derek Poultney, lead staff for the Hillsides
Conservancy, said the deal, if successful, “would protect permanently a
significant portion” of the group’s focus area.
“This would be a big part of that,” Poultney said. The nonprofit
land trust doesn’t advocate for or oppose projects, he added, but is focused on
its mission to protect Ventura’s hillsides.
The La Viera project is in the early stages of city review.
Regent Properties anticipates its preliminary application will go to planning
commissioners and the City Council before the end of the year, allowing work to
start on an environmental impact report and a specific plan. Gryczman said it
would likely be at least three years before construction starts if the project
is ultimately approved. Gryczman said the expanded open-space proposal adds
tremendous value to the project.
The two parcels totaling 722 acres are owned by the same entity,
he said. He declined to name a sales price. The company does not expect to get
a tax benefit from the donation.
Should the 55-home project not be approved by the city, the land
donation would also be scrapped, he said.
“I hope it raises awareness of the project and inspires folks
who would like to support the project to come out and do that,” Gryczman said.
Ventura County Star 4 October 2015
VENTURA HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
Luxury homes project will be smart growth
Recently, Regent Properties, the developer of La Viera, 55
luxury homes proposed in the Ventura hillsides, submitted a 315-page
geotechnical report to the Ventura City Council. As president of Regent’s
development arm, I feel it is incumbent upon us to make this report available
to the public to set the record straight given all of the misinformation about
the safety of our project.
Some neighbors have said “if you build these homes, it will be
the next La Conchita” and that “this is another Camarillo Springs just waiting
to happen.”
These statements have absolutely no basis in fact. They are
simply the opinions of some who either live near the proposed project or who
don’t believe any more houses should be built on the hillside.
In acknowledging these safety concerns, we had a well-respected
geotechnical engineering firm conduct extensive testing of the property.
We then had this work reviewed by an internationally recognized
geotechnical authority who is a UCLA engineering professor and an expert on the
La Conchita event.
His findings can be summed up as follows: the project can be
developed safely and it will actually enhance the safety, stability and
drainage conditions for all the hillside residents.
Some neighbors undoubtedly will dispute these findings saying:
what would you expect from a report paid for by the developer?
To that I say, give the city a chance to complete an
environmental impact report where the geotechnical study will be reviewed by
the city’s own engineers.
There is also a real property-rights issue here. The property is
not in SOAR, it is within the city limits and has been zoned for single-family
homes for decades.
In fact, the city’s general plan calls for this property to be
developed, its Hillside Management Program (HMP) calls for this property to be
developed and the City Council’s own Economic Development Strategy calls for
this type of high-end housing to be built.
(13)
These homes will, in fact, be some of the highest- quality
residences in the area with a special focus on the world-class views to the
Pacific.
We are not here asking to rezone agricultural land to
residential and we do have a right to develop provided we do so responsibly and
within the spirit and intent of the HMP.
While some believe that no flexibility should or can be granted
from the HMP’s policies, we have asked for a few common-sense changes to
allow us to achieve that overall spirit and intent and deliver a visionary
project that we can all be proud of.
Some people would prefer that things never change, but change is
inevitable. One of the biggest changes you will see as a result of this project
is our donation of approximately 722 acres of hillside property to create
permanent public open space that can be enjoyed for generations to come and
provide connectively all the way from Hall Canyon to Grant Park and the Ventura
Botanical Gardens.
Another change will be the cutting edge water conservation
technologies in our homes including gray water systems, rainwater harvesting
and other innovative solutions that go far beyond modern requirements,
resulting in La Viera setting a new standard for water conservation in
California, so that Ventura leads by example.
Finally, instead of our housing being a burden on the city’s
finances it will be a net positive, adding significant dollars to city coffers
and the economy as a whole.
I invite you to visit www. lavieraventura.com where
we have posted the geotechnical study as well as a number of other important
informational documents.
Daniel Gryczman is president of the land development arm of
Regent Properties.
DANIEL GRYCZMAN
GUEST COLUMNIST
Ventura County Star 4 October 2015 (Opposing View)
Use reasonable care with
Ventura’s hillsides
Ventura Citizens for Hillside
Preservation oppose Regent Properties’ attempt to push a noncompliant
development proposal through the pre-screen process.
Regent’s plan for 55 hillside homes
above Ventura High School is noncompliant with the city’s Hillside Management
Program (HMP).
The HMP has policies that protect the
environment, preserve hillside aesthetics and ensure that hillside developments
are safe. The developer, however, plans to rewrite the HMP rules in the
project’s specific plan to circumvent policies unfavorable to the development.
Land gifts are good, but not when tied
to development that could put Ventura in a precarious position. For instance,
Camarillo just granted$1.7 million from its general fund to Camarillo Springs
homeowners to attempt to fix a failed hillside.
In Camarillo Springs, the homes buried
in the mudflow had retaining walls directly behind them. The toe of the natural
hill was cut away to level the development site. The combination of the cut
into the hillside, fire and rain created the 2014 Camarillo Springs landslide.
Regent’s plan moves the city water tanks
from their current location to a steeper, less-desirable site. The plan
includes cutting the hill and erecting a retaining wall directly behind the
tanks. The extensive cut and fill and use of retaining walls throughout
Regent’s project could compromise Ventura’s hillsides.
The city should enforce the HMP to
prevent liability.
The Regent pre-screen application
acknowledges the plan is noncompliant with HMP. Given this, a green light of
the pre-screen application will sanction the project’s noncompliance. Seeking
compliance later in the process will be a challenge.
This also sets the dangerous precedent
that future projects need not comply with general plan and HMP policies. It
additionally creates a hillside “ island of special treatment” where the HMP is
not enforced.
For these reasons Regent’s pre-screen
application must be rejected.
Moreover, the site has known hazards,
including general-plan-identified expansive soils. In hillside areas, expansive
soils contribute to landslides and downslope creep.
Regent’s slope-density maps show much of
the site has more than 30 percent slopes. Slope gradient is a key
(14)
factor in influencing the relative
stability of a slope — it determines the degree to which gravity acts upon a
soil mass. When you mix expansive soils with steep hillsides it compounds the
risk of slope failure.
Regent’s paid expert asserts Ventura is
not La Conchita; we assert Venturans know our local soil conditions cause
hillside stability problems. We remember the 1982 and 1998 Ondulando
landslides. We remember the 1992 North Avenue area landslide where lives were
lost when a saturated slope crashed into a home.
We know there are also hillside
stability problems in Skyline, Hobson Heights, the Kalorama red-roof condos and
the Westside.
Regent proposes grading on slopes
greater than 30 percent for homes. The HMP prohibits such grading. In fact, the
HMP specifies that the only exceptio n to the 30 percent grading rule is
limited to roads or access, and then only if approved by both the city engineer
and the city planner.
City staff repeatedly requested an HMP-
compliant proposal, but Regent has yet to comply with that request. Regent’s
response to staff’s request addresses only one component of the HMP — keeping
house pads off areas with greater than 30 percent slopes. There remain other
issues: not filling natural drainage, avoiding use of concrete ditches,
limiting retaining walls, and limiting cut and fill.
It’s our city staff’s job to ensure
developers follow city policies — short of that, it’s their job to tell
decisionmakers that a developer failed to do so and recommend pre-screen
rejection.
When this comes to the Planning
Commission on Oct. 28 at 6 p.m. at City Hall, please help deliver the message
that gifts of open space don’t excuse a developer from adhering to important
city policies. Reasonable care must be used with our hillsides.
Diane Underhill, of Ventura, is
president of Ventura Citizens for Hillside Preservation.
DIANE UNDERHILL
GUEST COLUMNIST
Marks’ thoughts
Now, just to show how unpredictable new development
is… remember the short article back on May 20 and again June 28?
“Ventura planners are
recommending that a proposed 255-unit apartment project get the green light to
move toward construction. In the May 20 issue of the Ventura County Star, a new
project, to be voted on during a joint meeting Wednesday night of the city’s
Design Review Committee and Planning Commission, would include no affordable-housing units despite a city ordinance
requiring them. Developer John Ashkar’s project would consist of 127 two
bedroom units, 120 one bedroom units and eight studios on 3.5 acres at Junipero Street, Santa Clara Street and Thompson
Boulevard.”
In a June 28 issue of the Star entitled “Courts Affordable Housing Ruling
Cheered” it was revealed that the
Planning Commission denied John Ashkar’s project due to a recent State Supreme
Court Ruling allowing cities to set inclusionary housing policies requiring
developers to include affordable housing in their new construction. He is
currently appealing the Planning Commission
decision. This was a very good
article but a little longer than I wanted to include here.
So originally in May, the Ventura
Planning Commission recommended the development be given the “green light”.
Then in June the Planning
Commission voted to deny the development due to no affordable housing.
Finally, at the end of September
the Planning commission “top planner” recommended the project move forward
again based on “four separate grounds.” It still would not include any
affordable housing.
Ventura County Star - 28 Sept 2015
Top Ventura planner says developer not required to provide
affordable units
By Joshua Molina
Special to The Star
“The city of Ventura’s top planner has recommended that a
controversial downtown rental project move forward, despite a rejection last
May by the Ventura Planning Commission.
(15)
An advance report on the 255 unit project will be presented to
the City Council on Monday night. A public hearing to consider the appeal is
scheduled for Oct. 12.
With the heft of Community Development Director
Jeff Lambert’s support for the project, the council finds itself at ground
zero of a contentious affordable housing debate.
The proposal calls for 127 two-bedroom units, 120 one bedroom
units and eight studios in three- to five-story buildings on 3½ acres at
Junipero Street, Santa Clara Street and Thompson Boulevard.
Housing activists and other critics have blasted the plan,
arguing that developer John Ashkar should be required to set aside 15 percent
of the units for affordable housing, per the city’s downtown inclusionary
housing ordinance. But Ashkar and Lambert say the inclusionary housing
requirement does not apply for a rental housing project.
In a 360-page report, Lambert recommends that the council grant
the developer’s appeal and approve the project on four separate grounds:
■ There is no contract or agreement between the city and
the developer to build affordable housing.
■ A recent court ruling involving Palmer/Sixth Street
Properties versus the city of Los Angeles found that Los Angeles could not
require the developer to create affordable units on an all-rental project. Some
of the units are smaller and affordable by design, which means they would be
affordable for people in low and moderate income categories.
■ City staff believes the project complies with all the
city’s rules and goals for downtown development. The Planning Commission did
not formally deny the project through a resolution because the vote was 2-2.
Three commissioners recused themselves from the hearing because of
conflicts, leaving Dan Long, Laura Dunbar, David Ferrin and Rondi Guthrie
to hear the case. Long and Ferrin voted to require the affordable housing
units, while Dunbar and Guthrie supported the market rate project.
■ The developer has not requested any bonus density allowances
or financial incentives that would result in a requirement to build
below-market rate units.
Monday’s meeting begins at 6 p.m. at Ventura City Hall. Read the
report at
.
City of Ventura Water Shortage
Websites:
Also visit the State of
California’s website to see how each area of the state is doing with compliance
at:
Summary
New Ventura developments under
construction or in the pipeline include:
Regent properties 55 Hillside Luxury Homes
Walker-Hearne Ranch 200-250 Executive
Homes
Downtown Apartment Complex 255 Units (no affordable
housing units to be included)
The Cannery
78 Condominiums priced $200K to 500K
Hansen Trust Development 131 Single family
homes, ? Condos, 20 – 24 farm worker units.
So what is going on really? It
seems to me that even though water resources are being fought over in our local
courts as well as in the state courts, nobody is really certain how much we can
build or develop with the water we have available. It’s a county wide question
of crucial importance that is not being answered or even really studied or
adequately addressed. Each city is just trying to look after itself.
(16)
Each community knows what it is
using to the gallon, but no one really knows how long it will last, or how much
more we can find for our future needs and demands. We know the state doesn’t
have enough water, but it
apparently is someone else’s
problem… because property development is continuing everywhere! As demand goes
up, so does the cost of our water. That means higher taxes for all of us each
time a new development is built.
No matter how much our community
leaders pledge to keep taxes low, or base development on “net zero” standards
…. There is only so much water to go around. From where I stand, having studied
most of the towns in Ventura County, none of the cities here have looked at the
big picture enough to coordinate water use between them. They probably don’t
have the authority to do that if they wanted to.
Our county receives water through
the good graces of a number of independent suppliers and water districts which
are selling us as much water as we can buy from them. Much of this water comes
from the snow melt in the Northern part of our state. Much of our water is
pumped from local aquefers which must be pumped from much deeper in the earth
than a few years ago. Our governor, using the State Water Resources Control
Board, is in effect rationing our water, but we are still building new
developments and increasing water demand with little or no thought to how much
water is really available. (see Camarillo and Oxnard reports).
Much of California’s Central
Valley – some of the most fertile growing fields in the world, lies fallow in
broad stretches running for miles. There is not enough water to irrigate all of
this wonderful cropland. Ventura County has cut back water available to its
farmers as well by 10% to 20% in the last two years. That has a major impact on
our local economy.
However, when a new property
development is approved, our city fathers brag about how it will add to our tax
base. That’s exactly right. The cities bring in more money for their own
operating budgets, while the farmers of Ventura County lose a little more of the
water resources they need for their livelihood and to supply the rest of us
with food. In Ventura, Tier 1 users are paying the same rate now for less than
half the water they received prior to October 2 at that rate. Everyone is
paying more for Tier 2 and Tier 3 water. How is this a good thing? It may not even be legal according to
Proposition 218.
Maybe in addition to global
conferences on climate change, we should be having local conferences between
all our city councils and all our water district providers to come up with a
coherent plan to ensure that the future of our very limited water resources is
balanced against present and future demand. We can’t afford any more of the “I
got mine” mentality that our cities seem to have. We must work together to fix this. Nobody else
is going to be able to bail us out if we screw up our own water use.
Our various city fire departments
and police departments work together every day to keep us safe. Why can’t our
city leaders and water districts/providers sit down and start planning where
our next drink of water is going to come from. Maybe we could have a State Senator moderate and keep everyone focused. Won't be easy, but right now all we are doing is reacting to the drought, not really planning for the real water shortage and crop loss and higher water bills that will eventually come with uncontrolled development ... regardless of the drought.
Finally, here is a letter written
to The
Ventura County Star on October 12 and submitted by their Jeanne Bricker this
year which puts all of this into a little more perspective.
Titled “Water Rates”
“Does anyone else get $200-plus water bills for one person?
I have called Ventura Water and gone to their office. Both times
I was given what I call a “canned speech about rates and tiers” and still do
not understand it.
One of their people came out to check my water line. No leaks.
Last November, they showed the highest rate of use possible on
the chart. There was no one in the house the whole month of November.
I have cut back wherever I can in water usage, let my plants die
and my grass go brown.
These charges are double what they were when it was two of us.
My income is drastically less than it was then. There seems to be no
alternative or accommodation.”
What is one to do?
Name omitted, Ventura
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just the way I see it,
Mark Thorngren
Movewest Realty, Inc /
(805) 443-3366 / BRE Lic. #01413932 Mark’s Blogs: http://realtytimes.com/REUv/markthorngren http://www.markthorngren.featuredblog.com Most of the data
used for this report is taken from the Ventura County Star and our local
Ventura County Multiple Listing Service unless otherwise noted. This report is
far from comprehensive and many important issues have been trimmed in the
interest of brevity. All opinions are those of the author alone and do not
necessarily reflect the viewpoint of Movewest Realty, Inc., the VCCAR or the
Ventura County Star.
(18)
