Mark’s
Ventura County Market Analysis
2nd
& 3rd Quarter 2015 - (April through September)
Special
Moorpark Drought vs New Home Development Issue
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 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 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.
Moorpark
appears to be one of the fastest growing cities in Ventura County with at least
four very expensive new home developments north of the 118 – The Estates Collection, The Executive
Collection, Moorpark Highlands and The Pinnacle at Moorpark. Another much
more modestly priced development is being built South of the 118 – Ivy Lanes. Home sales in these new
communities are not generally reflected in our MLS.
Moorpark
is an example of what happens when a city does not meet the states’ water
reduction goals.
The
2 July Ventura County Star showed that Moorpark
reduced it’s water use by only 11%, for a per person per day water use of 159.5
gallons by May 2015, a time of intense home building activity in Moorpark.
There is a note in the same article which states that “Moorpark is served by
Ventura County Waterworks District No.1, which also serves agricultural
customers not subject to statewide mandated water conservation standards.” In my mind it is not clear whether the 11%
takes into account the agricultural use or not. Either way, the response from
the water regulatory agencies was not good. Here in all its gruesome detail is
the entire article.
The 3 July Ventura County Star had an article
titled “Moorpark Behind on Mandated Water Cuts - Moorpark must collectively reduce residents’ water usage by 32 percent
or the water district could face surcharges in the millions of dollars from
water suppliers. Water rates also may be increased next year for all customers
by more than 6 percent, with the highest users subject to penalties.
David Sasek, director of Ventura
County’s Water and Sanitation Department, gave a presentation to the Moorpark City
Council on Wednesday on the water-use reduction plan and water rate increase,
which recently was approved by an advisory committee. The committee makes recommendations
to the Ventura County Waterworks District No.1, which serves Moorpark and surrounding
communities.
The district receives water from
the Metropolitan Water District and Calleguas Municipal Water District, as well
as using local groundwater. The Ventura County Board of Supervisors will consider
Moorpark’s proposed
reductions and rate increase at
its Aug. 11 meeting at the Ventura County Government Center, 800S. Victoria
Ave., Ventura. If approved, the water reductions will begin immediately.
The waterworks district also sent
a letter to Moorpark water customers listing regulations, which could result in
fines, and loss of service if not followed. Among other rules, customers are
prohibited from allowing sprinkler runoff and leaks, washing their vehicles
without a shut-off nozzle, operating a fountain without recycled water,
spraying down sidewalks and other property, and watering their lawn from 9 a.m.
to 4 p.m.
The State Water Resources Control
Board in May ordered Moorpark to reduce residents’ water usage by 32 percent
based on the district’s 2013 residential use in terms of gallons used per
person per day. Metropolitan and
Calleguas also announced cuts in wholesale water allocations and other
measures.
The
Waterworks district’s advisory committee in June unanimously recommended an
over-all 32 percent temporary citywide water reduction. This reduction
varies from no reduction to 28 percent reduction for the lowest volume water
users, and up to 37 percent reduction for high-volume users. Users in the highest tier could see about a
20 percent increase in their bills if they don’t reduce water use.
“We wanted to make sure that
those who are low-volume users would be either minimally or not impacted at all
by the reduction that we are proposing,” Sasek said. He added that penalties will kick in if the waterworks district doesn’t
cut total usage. If there is no change, the district could face a #3 million
surcharge.
Sasek said water users will be
notified about how much water they can use before they are subject to a
surcharge. A separate surcharge for agricultural water users is being
considered. Sasek said residents most likely can meet reduction goals by cutting
back on watering their lawns.
“A
32 percent reduction is not anything that can be achieved without some hard
choices being made with regards to water use,” he said.
The
committee also is recommending the board approve a 6 percent Tier 1 increase
for all water customers, including agricultural users, with those in higher
tiers paying 1 percent to 2.5 percent more than previous tiers. The
recommendation is based on Calleguas’ plans to increase water rates next year
by 5.4 percent.
He said the waterworks district
is setting up a new website to provide more information about water-use
reduction and how the district is doing with meeting its goals. He encouraged
residents with questions to call the district office.
Councilwoman Rose-Ann Mikos said
the letter the district sent to water customers was confusing and that the
district needs to explain practical ways that customers can reduce water
consumption.
Councilman Keith Milhouse said
there still needs to be a comprehensive, cohesive water policy at the state
level. “It’s nice that the governor is asking for reductions, but there really
hasn’t been a lot of talk about supply, capture and reuse,” Millhouse said.
The Council also on Wednesday
approved a final drought action plan for the city, which includes implementing
turf conversion projects at city parks.”
August 28 Ventura County Star
By Michele Willer-Allred
Special to The Star
A July report that shows water savings of 30 percent in
Moorpark’s water district is inflated and is mostly attributed to water
reductions made by farmers after unexpected rainfall, the district’s top
official said this week.
Moorpark was recently ordered by the State Water Resources
Control Board to reduce citywide water usage by 32 percent from 2013 levels or
face millions of dollars in financial penalties.
Waterworks District No. 1, which serves about 34,000 customers
in and around Moorpark, reports total water savings in the district each month
to the state water board.
David Sasek, director of Ventura County’s Water and Sanitation
Department, said unexpected rainfall in July enabled the district’s
agricultural customers to reduce their water usage by more than 40
percent.
He said including agricultural water consumption in the
calculation skewed the total reduction in favor of the district’s
reduction goal. Sasek said once the water district is able to take
agricultural water use out of the equation, the water savings is expected to be
around 27 percent for the district in July.
Sasek said the district is currently working through the
process established by the state water board to exclude agricultural water
consumption from the city’s overall reduction goals.
In the meantime, he said, the board continues to include
agricultural water consumption in its reports.
“While we are thrilled that our district’s agricultural users
were able to conserve a significant amount of water in July, we are still in a
drought and urge all customers in the district to save water to meet the new
state mandated emergency regulations,” Sasek said.
The state water board recently notified the district that it did
not meet its reduction goals in June and asked what conservation measures the
district has to hold customers accountable.
While the four Waterworks districts managed by the county —
Moorpark, Bell Canyon, Somis, and Lake Sherwood— have shown significant
reductions in water usage, district officials said only Bell Canyon met its
reduction target in July, cutting water consumption by 27.6 percent.
On Aug. 11, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors approved a 6
percent rate increase for Moorpark, in part to pay for higher rates being
charged by water suppliers.
The Board of Supervisors also approved a water reduction plan
that will pass on surcharges directly to high water users in the district.
The reduction varies from no reduction to 28 percent reduction
for the lowest water users, and up to 37 percent reduction for high-volume
water users and irrigation accounts.
The district will pass on surcharges directly to high water
users, who could see about a 20 percent increase in their bills if they don’t
reduce water use.
Moorpark is currently in a Level 2 water supply shortage.
The district recently sent notices to Moorpark water customers
prohibiting lawn irrigation between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., and restricting days of
lawn irrigation on certain days depending on address number.
Outdoor irrigation is prohibited during and 48 hours after
measurable rainfall.
The city has also been taking measures to reduce water
consumption, most noticeably reducing large amounts of turf at parks. A turf
removal plan at each park can be viewed at:
Moorpark water customers are encouraged to visit the district’s
new website at www. SlowYourH2O.org for
timely drought updates and information tracking the district’s water usage.
Ventura County Star 19 September 2015 -
City is due to be built out in 10-15 years
By Michele Willer-Allred
Special to The Star
The Moorpark City Council this week voted against sending a
letter to support adding two parcels to expand the city’s growth
boundaries.
After several speakers spoke mostly against changing the
boundaries, the council agreed to “maintain the status quo.”
The letter would have gone to the Save Openspace and
Agricultural Resources board as it moves forward with a ballot initiative for
the November 2016 election to extend SOAR ordinances through 2050 in
Ventura County.
Moorpark’s SOAR ordinance was approved by voters in 1999 and
remains in effect until the end of 2020. The ordinance established a city urban
restriction boundary (CURB) line around the city and requires voter approval to
develop land outside the line.
The two parcels being considered cover 185 acres adjacent to the
Buttercreek neighborhood south of Los Angeles Avenue. The area is currently
used for farmland and truck distribution of farm products.
The city staff recommended sending the letter because the city
is projected to be built out in the next 10 to 15 years, and the land
likely will be needed to address state mandates to meet a regional share of
housing needs.
Moorpark voters previously rejected building two residential
projects on the northeast end of the city near Moorpark College. Greenbelts,
topography and other farmland prevent the possibility of building in other
areas surrounding the city.
David Bobardt, the city’s community development director, said
adding the two parcels to Moorpark’s CURB in 2026 would not commit the city to
approve any development there, but could help the city meet future development
needs through at least 2030.
Residents who spoke at Wednesday’s City Council meeting said
remaining farmland and open space should be left alone and that sending the
letter would go against SOAR principles.
Councilwoman Roseann Mikos, co-author of Moorpark’s SOAR
ordinance, served on an ad hoc committee with Mayor Janice Parvin to discuss
possible changes to the city’s CURB.
Mikos said the committee wanted to look at whether there was
something to preserve as much land as possible but still accommodate future
population growth.
City Manager Steve Kueny said meeting state growth mandates is
difficult without extreme densities that the city hasn’t allowed on
existing properties.
“If you’re not going to go up or out, where are you going to go?
Unfortunately, we need to think about that, as well as maintaining our
principles about SOAR,” Mikos said.
Councilman David Pollock said he knows it’s a struggle with
higher density.
“I don’t want to have in the back of my mind that we can loosen
up on the density, because eventually we can go that way easily without a SOAR
vote,” Pollock said.
“I think we need to see what kind of predicament we’re in 20
years from now before we’re able to persuade the voters of Moorpark that, yeah,
it’s really necessary and we’ve done everything within the boundary.”
Mikos said the SOAR board asked cities if they want to talk
about what upcoming SOAR measures might look like in each city and that it was
a healthy conversation. Mikos said she planned on supporting the SOAR measure on the
upcoming ballot.
“I’m going to fight tooth and nail to make it happen,” she said.
Summary
So cities like Moorpark are already beginning to feel the
pressure to expand the City Urban Restriction Boundaries. New developments
within the CURB line do not require a public vote for approval, while
properties outside the CURB line do require voter approval as per the SOAR
ordinance approved in 1999.
There will be a ballot item in the 2016 elections to extend the
SOAR ordinance from the end date of 2020 to a future date in 2050. The SOAR
ordinance can be circumvented simply by extending a cities CURB line to include
more undeveloped property. Then that property can be developed without any
voter approval. Obviously, the pressure to expand development in our local
communities is building, while cities like Moorpark and Camarillo are fast
approaching build-out. As the article above mentions, the only choice for
development then becomes higher density housing like multi-level condominiums
and apartment complexes.
Local residents are not as a rule enthusiastic about high rise
housing, so at some point the choices narrow to picking less open space or more
high density housing. SOAR will make these choices more contentious and
probably encourage the extension of CURB lines, but neither choice addresses
where the water for continued growth will come from.
No one in the articles above
mentioned the fact that Moorpark has maintained a very aggressive new home
development and building program. That more homes can translate into more
support industry, service industries and utility use was nowhere mentioned.
Apparently no one gets it. Development
is not officially linked to water use in Moorpark by either the city leaders or
county water regulators.
So to summarize - bad stuff rolls
downhill. Metropolitan and Calleguas
announced cuts in wholesale water allocations. There are recommended water rate
increases of 6 percent for Tier 1 use, water rates rising 5.4 percent next
year, (presumably across the board). A
temporary 32 percent city-wide water reduction is recommended by the waterworks
district. Finally the Ventura
County Waterworks District No.1 is being
threatened with a $3 million surcharge by the Ventura County Water and
Sanitation Department if there is no change in water use. But according
to David Sasek, director of Ventura
County’s Water and Sanitation Department “We wanted to make sure that those who
are low-volume users would be either minimally or not impacted at all by the
reductions that we are proposing.”
“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.”
So again, we have one water
agency threatening another with a $3 million dollar surcharge and both looking
to pass on not only large water rate increases but in the case of Metropolitan
and Calleguas they are recommending a 32 percent cut back on the supply of
water as well. Call me crazy, but this sounds punitive not positive.
All of
these costs will come right back to the average citizen. How will this help the
average family already stressed by Obama Care and high mortgages. Does this
type of reaction by the folks who control our water distribution actually help
anyone? It may even be illegal according to the 4th District Court
of Appeal. Why is it that no one is questioning the ability or legal right of
these agencies to punish the people of Moorpark.
Which community will be next subjected to this sort of treatment?
So why did Moorpark not meet the
standards that the governor set, while other cities did manage to pass, cities
like Oxnard, Camarillo and Ventura, with equally aggressive new home
development? I don’t pretend to have an intimate knowledge of Moorparks’ water
use or politics but I think there are at least 2 reasons. Timing and location
for home construction in Moorpark is different than many of the developments in
other towns. Moorpark has had continual construction over the last 10 years and
much of it has been on the hillsides to the North of town.
When a new development is built
on former crop land, the total water use changes less (depending upon home
density) than if a new development is built on ranch land. Again, I’m not an
expert, but I would guess that Ranch
land uses less water for livestock than crop land does for strawberries. Much
of the new home development in Moorpark was built on former ranch land. Much of
the new home development in Camarillo, Oxnard and Ventura was built on former
crop land. The apparent change in water use would therefore be larger in
Moorpark.
Also, timing plays a part in all
of this water use measured from May of 2013 to May of 2015. During that time
period Camarillo broke ground on the Springville
Development of 1,300 homes, but relatively few homes have actually been
built. See: www.ci.camarillo.ca.us/docs/Springville%20New%20Homes%20&%20Affordable%20Units.pdf
New single family and condo
development near the CSUCI Campus – The University Glen - is only half complete
and was built before 2013. 658 Units have already been built while another 590
apartments are proposed for the Phase 2A/B Development. This second half is
planned for Board of Trustee Approval in September of 2016 and will be built on
what is currently vacant land. Roads are already laid out but no actual home
construction has yet begun. See: http://universityglencorp.csuci.edu/ugc-phase-2ab-update-march-2015.pdf .
Most of Village at the Park was
constructed prior to 2013 and the last 2 new single family home developments
have just begun sales this last year.
Oxnard is just now breaking
ground on 1,500 housing units, 50,000 sq
ft of commercial space and 7 acres of parks and open space. No actual home
construction has yet occurred, so no water use is happening. River Park has
continued to build, but at a measured pace and on former cropland and
floodplain. In Oxnard there have been numerous much smaller new home
developments built in the last 2 years, but once again on former cropland.
The Orchard Collection in East
Ventura was by comparison to Camarillo and Oxnard, a small development with
just 59 homes built in the Plantation Tract and 60 homes built in The Grove
tract – both on former cropland. However, as new hillside developments are
eventually approved and built on former ranch land above the city, we will most
certainly see increased water use in Ventura as well as the other cities. So
timing and location have not favored Moorpark the way it has other cities.
So maybe the issue isn’t so much what price range
should be built to meet current home buyer demand, but rather, should we be
building so many new homes? Do we need to put our communities at risk by
straining our resources further with more building or do we need to put our
energy and efforts into developing new sources of water, repairing
infrastructure and improving our local business/jobs climate. Can this be done
without raising taxes? Are expensive new home developments supporting local
quality of life or threatening it?
Clearly, our community leaders will need to
carefully weigh and balance the advantages of the taxable income a new home development
brings to city coffers, versus the many expensive demands it creates on the
entire community.
Just the way I see it.
Mark Thorngren
Movewest Realty, Inc /
(805) 443-3366 / BRE Lic. #01413932
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.
1 comment:
some of the content on this site really reminds me of some of the content over @ http://www.buynewhomeorangecounty.com/
Post a Comment