pierpont.com

Tuesday - Meeting and Timeshare Proposal

December 7th, 2007

Pierpont Community Council Meeting Dec 11, 2007 Minutes

Council Meeting and Timeshare/Retail Presentation regarding 1105 S. Seaward Avenue

The Pierpont Community Council Meeting was held at the Ventura Beach Marriott. The meeting venue was changed to accommodate a presentation by Rasmussen and Associates, architects for the proposed timeshare/retail development at1105 S. Seaward AV (the site of the old Thai Restaurant). More than 100 Pierpont residents attended, in addition to Councilman Brennan and Andrews.

Call to Order:
John Whitman, PCC Chairman, Called the meeting to order at 7 PM

Approval of Minutes
The November 13, 2007 PCC minutes were approved.

Treasurer’s Report
Rosemary Icardo, Treasurer, provided the following report. A Checking Account has been opened in the name of the PCC at Santa Barbara Bank and Trust. The present Balance on Hand as of 11/30/07 is $586.15.

Rosemary requested that each Pierpont Household make a donation to the PCC of $50/year to help support the operation of the PCC.

Donations can be made by writing a check to the Pierpont Community Council and sending it to:
Pierpont Community Council
c/o Coastal Postal
2419 Harbor BL, #166
Ventura, CA 93001

Beach Cleanup Sunday 9am End of Seaward
sponsored by Surf Riders and Patagonia
John Whitman indicated that there is a beach cleanup Sunday Dec 16th from 9-11am. Those interested in participating should be at the beach at the end of Seaward at 8:45am to receive trash bags and instructions.

Short Term Vacation Rental Committee
Here is what Sandy Bothman, Cochairman, would have said regarding the STVR Committee had the 1105 S. Seaward AV presentation had time allowed.

1. Joy checked with Janey Dunn at the City Treasurer’s office and to date there are 17 Short Term Vacation Rental units (16 of them in the Pierpont area) that have registered with the City. Note that over 40 properties in Ventura are advertised as Vacation rentals.

2. In a letter dated October 22, 2007 to the members of the Ventura City Council, Steve Glassman, Director of Property Management at Coldwell Banker, reported that during the Summer Rental Season his office received 2 complaints.

3. The STVR Committee plans to schedule a meeting sometime after the first of the year.

Letters sent to City Attorney
On 12-3-07 John Whitman, PCC Chairman, sent two letters to Ariel Calonne, the new Ventura City Attorney. The first letter requested a clear delineation of who owns what portions of Pierpont beach, what laws apply to the City portion and what agencies enforce those laws. The second letter deals with Vacation Rentals and renews our request for Conditional Use Permit statutes and a Mello Roos taxation area in order to collect a Tenant Occupancy Tax from the Vacation Rentals.

December 3, 2007

Mr. Ariel Calonne
Ventura City Attorney
P.O. Box 99
Ventura, CA 93002-0099

Re: Ownership of Pierpont Beach, Shore Drive

Dear Mr. Calonne,

The citizens of Pierpont are formally requesting resolution to the question of beach ownership in our community.

The issue has taken on a new level as the movement of sand from the beach is now physically damaging homes. I have included photos of the Kaye-Carr residence that incurred damage to their home a few days ago during the last windstorm.

In January of this year the PCC requested delineation of the portion of the Pierpont Beach that the City owns vs. California State at a meeting with the City and our Beach Committee. Eleven months later we have never received an answer to this question, having renewed the question several times during the year.

Our research indicates that the City of Ventura owns the first 40 feet in front of the beachfront residences in Pierpont (referred to as Shore Dr). The area in question extends from San Pedro St. through Marina Park. In addition, our research indicates that the City owns the entire beach from formally Great Neck Ct (beach access between Hanover LN and Camden LN) through Marina Park.

We ask the following:

What is the ownership status of Shore Dr? Is the ownership fee simple? Is Shore Dr listed as City maintained roadway? If it is not a maintained roadway, when did that change, and to what status did it change? How does this impact the responsibility of the owners of Shore Dr in regard to maintenance and liability? How are the intersections of Shore Dr and the lanes affected by the current ownership status in regard to maintenance and liability?

Further, how does Shore Dr ownership status affect the enforcement of laws between the City and State for jurisdiction, and where is the line dividing City and State jurisdiction? Which government entities or departments are responsible for enforcement pertaining to: dogs on beach, alcohol, beach fires and fireworks?

I am enclosing: (1) The survey of beach concerns taken by the PCC in October of this year. (2) Minutes and photos of the beach walk on July 3 of this year that was represented by Ventura City, State Parks and Recreation, California Coastal Commission, and the Pierpont Community Council. (3)Letter authored by Ms. K. Neiswender, Esq. outlining the results of a meeting with herself and Ventura City, (4) Photos taken of the damage to the Kaye-Carr residence mentioned above, (5) Pierpont Beach Jurisdiction map, Ca. Dept. of Parks and Recreation, (6) Beach Maintenance Responsibilities Map, City of Ventura

Your immediate attention is requested.

John Whitman
Pierpont Community Council, Chairperson

CC:
Ventura City Council
Rick Cole, Ventura City Manager
Rich Rojas, District Superintendent, CA State Parks

December 3, 2007

Re: Vacation Rentals

Mr. Ariel Calonne
Ventura City Attorney
P.O. Box 99
Ventura, CA 93002-0099

Dear Mr. Collone,

Over the past couple of years residents of the Pierpont community have been actively involved in attempting to resolve the interference with their residential life style by businesses being operated within their neighborhood.

This has resulted in the legalization of these “Vacation Rentals” with the R-1b zoned area by the City Council. With this event we were promised a vote for a Mello Roos taxation area that would be carved out in our behalf to be followed by Conditional Use Permit statutes.

We have been assured that these two conditions are still forthcoming. We, however wish to convey to you the results of our survey of concerns regarding this matter. The action by City Council embraced only one item on our survey, a 24 hour contact for complaints for each rental.

Enclosed is that survey. I wish to point out in behalf of the citizens of the Pierpont area that all but one of the items in the survey was overwhelmingly in favor of placing restriction on these rentals. We encourage you to use this information as a basis for your department’s drafting of the CUP’s. I am available to meet or discuss this matter at any time you request.

John Whitman
Pierpont Community Council Chairperson
Neighborhood Improvement Committee

Note: On Monday, Dec 10th Anastasi submitted their Housing Approval Process (HAP) forms to the City for review and approval of their proposed development to be located in the vacant lot at the corner of Harbor BL and Seaward AV. The PCC NIC committee will be meeting with Anastasi in January on this proposed development.

Dan Clarke, PCC Neighborhood Improvement Committee Chairman, indicated that the presentation by Rasmussen and Associates, the architect for the 1105 S. Seaward Development, was being made at the request of the PCC and was purely voluntary (not something that they had to do). He noted that prior to this presentation to the Pierpont Community, the committee met with the developer and architect on Dec 5th to hash out a number of issues related to this project.

The following issues related to this Timeshare/Retail project were addressed in Dec 5th Neighborhood Improvement Committee meeting with the developer:

1. Insufficient parking for the timeshares
The developer agreed to increase the number of parking spaces from 1 1/8 parking spaces to 2 parking spaces/time share unit.

2. Excessive traffic on Montauk LN
The developer agreed to have the entrance to the property on Seaward and have the exit on Montauk LN, plus lock the exit after 10 pm to reduce the night traffic.

3. Hotel TOT or Vacation Rental codes need to apply
The developer agreed to the property falling under the City’s Hotel TOT/Vacation Rental Codes. They also indicated that they would have 24/7 on site management of the timeshares.

4. Building design inconsistent with what Pierpont community proposed for the Anastasi development on Seaward, i.e. Cape Cod or Spanish/Mission.

The architect is proposing that each of the timeshare units have a different look which will provide a better visual since it will make the 3 story building not look so massive. He indicated that he walked the lanes and tried to come up with a design that was consistent with the Pierpont neighborhood. Plus he gave his design a bit of a nautical flavor.

5. Concern about being able to see equipment on the roof

The developer agreed to not allow any mechanical equipment such as air conditioning to be placed on the roof. The developer indicated that the vent pipes on the roof won’t be visible from Montauk residences because of where they will be located on the timeshare units.

6. Concern that at a later date the retail could be converted to a restaurant without concerns for the parking situation.

The architect indicated that the present City codes for the Pierpont Community would keep this from happening and that they really didn’t need to do anything further on that.

7. Number of persons allowed to stay in each timeshare unit

The developer indicated that they would limit the number of occupants per timeshare to five persons.

8. Concern about on street loading and unloading

The developer indicated that they would attempt to get the City to provide a loading zone in front of the property. This loading zone could be used by all the businesses on lower Seaward since they are all within a couple hundred feet.

The developer was accommodating, for the most part, and made a number of concessions which are presented in their December 11th presentation.

1105 S. Seaward AV Timeshare/Retail Presentation

The project consists of 5000 sq ft of retail on the first level divided into 5 retail units and 10 three bedroom timeshares which comprise the second and third levels. 5 timeshares face Seaward AV and 5 timeshares face Montauk AV with a courtyard separating the two structures. The timeshares are angled toward the ocean.

Below is the presentation made by Scott Boydstun of Rasmussen and Assoc. and Sandy Smith, Government Relations Director for Weston Benshoof. Scott is the architect for this development. Scott is also a Planning Commissioner for the City and is on the City’s Design Review Board. Sandy Smith is a former Ventura City Mayor.

Sandy Smith indicated that he had a good understanding of Pierpont since he has lived in Pierpont many times. He felt it was in better condition when he used to live here.

Scott indicated that he was surprised that notices were not being sent out to let the community know about scheduled Design Review Committee (DRC) meetings that affect their area. He will make a suggestion to the City to make this happen. Scott also felt that notices should be sent out when environmental documents are issued that may affect a particular community. It was noted that Design Review Committee sign is posted at the 1105 S. Seaward address.

Scott indicated that they initially looked at putting another restaurant at the location, but determined that 78 parking spaces were needed and there was room for only 40. They also considered putting 10 condos over retail but the Coastal Commission does not allow condos in that area. (Anastasi was able to get an overlay from the Coastal Commission for condos.) They finally landed on doing 10 timeshares over retail.

Scott indicated that they would try to address everyone’s issues related to the development but that the type of architecture wouldn’t be resolved at this meeting.

Scott said that he had walked the lanes to get a sense of Pierpont Community to determine what makes it unique and that there was quite a lot of variety on the lanes. He stated that he wanted to create a structure that was unique to Pierpont, with a composition of all the elements in the community.

Scott stated he wanted to design a three story development that didn’t appear massive with retail on the street, timeshares above and parking at the rear of the lot. The height of the structures will conform to code and be a maximum of 30’.

He said he attempted, as much as possible, to insulate the Montauk LN residents from the development. The rear structure will be set back 20 feet from Montauk with landscaping along the lane. There will only be an exit from the property onto Montauk LN and that exit will be locked at 10pm.

With reference to the timeshares, there will be on site 24/7 management. Additionally, the number of occupants will be limited to 5 per timeshare unit. Each timeshare unit will be assigned 2 parking spaces. Each timeshare will have a single owner. They will not be able to convert to multiple owners. This will be written into the condition of ownership. Vacation Rental Codes will be adhered to. The owners of each timeshare are restricted by code to only being able to stay in their units for 3 months at a time. They, however, can stay a number of times in a year.

(Some, but not all, photographs and renderings have not been included. Hopefully, we will be able to post the total presentation at Pierpont.com.)

Presentation verbiage:

Sense of History

“History is of the past and in the making. New development should respect and respond to the history of the community, but also be aesthetically of its own time and responding to the needs of the present and future. The Pierpont area is culturally enriched by providing a sense of community, recognizing the past, the present, and embracing plans for the future. What is built in our time becomes a story within the larger story of Pierpont community. Every story must be honest, coherent and enduring.”

I. Parking

Provide all required parking for the project on-site. No parking on Montauk LN.

Increase the parking allocated per (timeshare unit) form the code required 1 1/8 spaces per unit to 2 spaces per unit.

Limit the amount of occupants per unit to 5 persons. The on-site management company would enforce this condition.

Work with the City to provide a striped loading zone on Seaward AV.

II. Montauk LN

Step back the building 20’ off of the rear property line.

Provide a 5’ landscaped buffer from the Lane and the parking area.

Landscaping to include trees and shrub screen.

Fence the parking area and have gates that close after business hours.

Revised the proposed 2 way drive onto Montauk LN to be exit only.

Provide secure and roofed trash enclosure for trash bins.

III. Vacation Rentals

Provide an on-site management company.
Condition the project to adhere to the City’s Vacation Rental Code.
Single ownership.

IV. Visibility of Roof Equipment

Units will not be air conditioned. Passive conditioning of the units will be through building design. There will be no a/c units on the roof.

Condition the project to not allow roof mounted equipment now or in the future.

Building parapet to be raised to 12” at the roof edge.

Roof vents for plumbing, water heater and furnace vents would extend 12” above the flat roof and would be located on the inner courtyard side of the units. This will screen them from any public view.

V. Parking for possible restaurant uses

Parking in the Seaward corridor is regulated differently from the rest of the City and is more restrictive: Section 24.234.120

Restaurant parking is calculated at one space for each 45 sq ft of customer service area, plus one space for each 250 sq ft of other gross floor area. This is more restrictive than other parts of the City that allows restaurants less that 2500 sq ft to be parked at one space per 300 sq ft of gross floor area.

We are confirming with the City Attorney that there are no loop holes to this more restrictive parking code for the Seaward corridor.

No new tenant improvements would be approved by the City if sufficient parking was not provided for on-site.

VI. Project Design Concepts

The Pierpont community is a collection of special places, building types, styles, architectural details, as well as commercial, recreational and residential activity. It has not, and should not, in my opinion, be developed as a homogeneous and predictable place that diminishes it unique character.

This architectural design is all about the Pierpont Community and strives to create a building that could not go anywhere else.

The building design utilizes materials, forms, massing and architectural elements found within the Pierpont community.

The Pierpont community should value what is genuine about itself. I believe people feel connected to this place because it is not contrived. I would suggest a community’s value is enhanced when its buildings and surroundings clearly reference the “living” community around it with all the activities and needs of the people using it, over a place that relies on a thematic architecture to achieve its sense of place.

Public Comments:

Murray brought up issue of increased traffic onto Montauk LN due to timeshares/vacation rentals. The old Thai Restaurant had barriers that prevented entry and exit from Montauk LN.

There was a question as to the total number of parking spaces on site.

Total number of parking spaces on site will be 42 of which 20 are for the timeshares.

There was a question about a loading zone taking away from on street parking.

Councilman Brennan indicated that a loading zone could be used by all the businesses on the street and that it changes to regular parking at night.

There was a complaint about the condition of the existing property and a request to clean it up right away.

Scott/Sandy will check into getting it cleaned up.

There was a question as to why condos weren’t put there instead of timeshares.

The Coastal Commission does not allow condos on this property. Anastasi had to apply for an overlay to get permission to build condos at Seaward/Harbor.

An audience member voiced the concern about the turnover what vacation rentals bring and asked that there by a minimum stay requirement.

An audience member asked whether the development will be built by local contractors.

Hopefully

An audience member raised concern again about the traffic coming onto Montauk LN.

An audience member raised concern about the building being so close to the street on Seaward.

An audience member asked why there wasn’t a wall planned for the back of the property on Montauk LN.

A hedge was chosen because it is more aesthetically pleasing and because it can’t be graffiti’d.

There was concern about being able to see the pipes on the top of the structures.
Roof drains will all be internal and not be visible and will drain to Seaward.

There was a question about how the 42 parking spaces will be allocated between the timeshares and the retail.

Two parking spaces will be assigned to each timeshare unit.

Has an environmental study been done?

We are meeting all the city ordinances as part as the City’s General Plan.

Could future retail tenants make changes to the type of the retail, i.e., could a restaurant go in at a later date that might not have sufficient parking?

There is a use permit attached to the project, can’t change the use without going to the City.

Will the retail spaces be sold?

No, the property owner will keep the retail and rent them out.

An audience member made the following comment. I don’t see that there is enough parking for the retail. If a beauty salon went in it would require 10 of the 22 retail parking spaces for 10 customers.

Even though it retail portion of the project is designed to handle 5 retail units we would rather get 3-4 tenants to fill the total space. The less the tenants, the less the turnover.

Comment: Concern about increased traffic on Montauk with children playing on the lane.

Comment: Concern about not having enough parking.

Planning Commission constantly is pressured to reduce the parking requirement for developments but they are adamant about having the required parking on site.

Next Meeting

The next Pierpont Community Council meeting is scheduled for January 15, 2008 at the Ventura Police Station.

Adjournment

John Whitman thanked Scott and Sandy for their presentation and thanked everyone for attending.

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized