PRESS RELEASE ~ 7/25/11 ~

Golden State Water (GSW) is on the agenda for Wed, July 27, 3pm (1055 Ventura Ave Oak View, CA 93022) to make a presentation to Casitas regarding the feasibility analysis. The Agenda packet contains only a brief memo from Steve Wickstrum GSW did not submit anything in writing at this time:

The Golden State 7/19/11 MEMO

CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Inter-Office Memorandum
DATE: July 19, 2011
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: General Manager, Steve Wickstrum
Re: Presentation and Discussion with Golden State Water Company regarding the
Ojai FLOW Analysis and Request for Acquisition.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of Directors receive the presentation by Golden State
Water Company and may provide direction to staff. No action is to be taken at this time.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
In May 2011, the Board of Directors was approached by Ojai FLOW with the petitions of
many Ojai citizens and made a request that the District consider acquiring the Ojai franchise
of Golden State Water Company. It is the desire of the Golden State Water Company to
present to the District their perspectives and issues regarding the Ojai FLOW request. The
District and Golden State Water Company have set the time and place for the presentation as
July 27, 2011, at the regular meeting of the District Board of Directors which begins at 3:00PM.
[END MEMO]
More Information available, Ojai FLOW's web site www.OjaiFlow.com They can be contacted by e-mail: info@ojaiflow.com.

PRESS RELEASE ~ 7/11/11 ~ Ojai FLOW News Release = Golden State Water Agrees
To Return $1.2 Million it Knowingly Pilfered From Ojai Customers for Years

For years, Ojai FLOW and its supporters have complained at public meetings that Golden State Water (GSWC) pays too much for contracted

services. It appears the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has now come to the same conclusion as a settlement has been reached between GSWC and the PUC for GSWC to return $1.2 million taken from Ojai customers. GSWC have also let go two senior managers in the matter.
According to Ojai FLOW chair member Pat McPherson, "This is no surprise to Ojai FLOW and we are glad Golden State Water Company practices have been revealed and hope such investigations will continue. When, in just five weeks, over half the number of people that voted in the last Ojai City election signed a petition to get rid of Golden State Water (see 5/6/11 below), and the City of Ojai and the School District (OUSD) passed unanimous resolutions to support Ojai FLOW's takeover proposal, it's a good bet something is wrong at Golden State Water. I am sure the stock holders of American State's Water (www.aswater.com), the parent company of Golden State Water Company (www.gswater.comwww.gswater.com), will not be happy to pay back this money and may change their mind about investing in a company that has such poor ethics and strong opposition by its customers in Ojai. The settlement decision was made public on July 7, 2011 and can be [pdf] downloaded [Here and] from Ojai FLOW's web site www.OjaiFlow.com"
When asked if the recent settlement has any bearing on Ojai FLOW's move to take over GSWC, McPherson said “The settlement backs up the words on our signs that say Stop the Golden State Rip Off and gives us encouragement that our motives are right. It also makes us more committed which is why we just ordered more signs. Maybe Casitas will be able to use the $1.2 million to help buy them. We should not forget what Golden State did was seriously wrong. If an individual took $1.2 million from the wallets & purses of the Ojai rate payers, it would be front page news for weeks and the person would go to jail. No one from Golden State will go to jail but us rate payers certainly have the right to run them out of town by taking over their business sooner than later."
NOTE: Ojai FLOW is a volunteer organization dedicated to citizen ownership and control of Ojai's water. The group is focused on taking over Golden State Water that charges two to three times as much as public-owned water
companies in the same area. Ojai FLOW has presented petitions to Casitas Municipal Water District (CMWD) [See Below] asking them to take over Golden State Water Company. Their feasibility study and newsletter sign up can be found on Ojai FLOW's web site www.OjaiFlow.com. They can be contacted by e-mail: info@ojaiflow.com.

An official inquiry into the cause of the 2007 financial crisis has identified a toxic mix of widespread failures in financial regulation, risky lending and reckless Wall Street practices associated with mortgage-related securities. As the nation's economy collapsed, $4.72 trillion of our tax money was disbursed to Wall Street as bailouts. Now, four years later, Wall Street barons are sitting on piles of cash and funneling contributions to politicians who promise to unravel the protections set up to prevent future crises.

The Top 1 percent are taking in more of the nation's income than at any other time since the 1920s. In the meantime, income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, even topping levels seen preceding during the Great Depression. The Occupy movement represents the 99 percent of Americans who have been left behind and are fed up.
UP-COMING
- The next General Assembly (GA) meeting is Thursday, Oct. 27, 2011 at 7 pm, Bell Arts Factory, www.bellartsfactory.com, 432 N. Ventura Avenue, Ventura, CA 93001
- Bell Arts Occupy Ventura Exhibit, First Fridays, Nov. 4, 2011
- Move Your Money Kickoff, Friday, November 4, 3-6 pm, Ventura Government Center, Marching Tour of the Big Banks
More info, Facebook Occupy Ventura
Twitter, Twitter
Calendar, Calendar
Forum, Forum
Web, Web

- Camille Harris Precedents could be set for grandfathering on up to 75% of Ventura's properties, as was recommended by the Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative (VSHC), so your attention and participation is needed for success. For more information, click on links at end of message "If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately." - Thomas Paine On June 20, the 1987 restriction was changed to 2004.

Important Granny Flat killers remain: Unaffordable Fees, Conflicts of Interest, Unnecessarily Stringent inspections, No Time Payment Plans, Self Incrimination issue, unaffordable impact fees.
Granny Flat owners shouldn't be counting their chickens yet, there are more granny flat killers in the ordinance:
1. Unaffordable and Innappropriate Impact Fees: A reduced fee category needs to be established for upgraded existing studio structures for adaptive reuse. The current impact fees are very high because they were designed for new construction of family homes. Impacts from an existing Granny Flat are minimal.
2. How onerous will the safety check list be? The Housing and Urban Development (HUD) form is already accepted by the City, and Code Enforcement performs about 1,000 safety checks a year for the housing authority using this form. In spite of the wheel not broken, they have drafted a whole new document for the granny flat program. Why?
3. Lack of affordable inspections. Certified home safety inspectors are more affordable and specialize in safety, but have not been included as was recommended by the Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative (VSHC) and the public. These inspectors have to complete continuing education units every year. Code enforcement wants to require two separate contractors to perform one inspection. Why?
4. Conflicts of Interest: Contractors, in the proposed ordinance, are allowed to identify repairs and then quote to fix them. Why? This has the appearance of a conflict of interest. Home Safety Inspectors are not allowed to quote on identified repairs needed for compliance.
5. No time payment plans These have not been included in the ordinance as directed by the City Council. Granny, on Social Security, doesn't have the ability to get a loan to come up with the cash.
6. Self incrimination required. Why? Code enforcement wants applicants to disclose any other nonconforming setbacks on the property. There is no guarantee this information will not be used for citations in the future. Old properties have multiple setback issues that could earn them a ticket and a teardown.

Come fill a seat, fill out a comment card, or speak for 3 minutes on what you see as a hindrance or an advantage to a successful grandfathering program.

Click here to View the Staff-proposed ordinance (pdf)
See PRESS RELEASE ~ 7/11/11 (below) for Questions about the proposed ordinance.
“If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately."
Thomas Paine
- Camille Harris, Ventura
camille@camilleharris.com
www.GrandfatherVentura.com

From: harris.cam@gmail.com
Subject: Concerns re: Granny Flat Ordinance
Date: July 10, 2011 9:17:05 PM PDT
To: jlambert@ci.ventura.ca.us
Cc: JIM.MONAHAN@ATT.NET, bfulton@ci.ventura.ca.us, bbrennan@ci.ventura.ca.us, cmorehouse@ci.ventura.ca.us, christy@christyweir.com, jMonahan@ci.ventura.ca.us, mtracy@ci.ventura.ca.us, NAndrews@ci.ventura.ca.us, nealandrews@att.net
acalonne@ci.ventura.ca.us, rcole@ci.ventura.ca.us
July 11, 2011,
To: Jeffrey Lambert
Community Development Director
Re: Granny flat ordinance scheduled for July 18, 2011
Dear Mr. Lambert,
We trust that you share our desire for our City's first step in the grandfathering project to receive maximum community buy-in and be a big success for both the Community and the City. To that end, we wish to address three components of this important program that could jeopardize its success, if not sensitively addressed:
1. Fees could be unaffordable
2. Inspections could be unnecessarily onerous
3. Payment Plans could be unavailable

1. On Fees:
A. On the "blue sheets" showing impact fees by year, passed out at the June 20, 2011 City Council meeting, there was no category for improved existing structures, such as guest houses, garages and barns upgraded to habitable studios. The impact fees shown would not apply, as they were for new construction, rather than permit fees for improvements on existing structures.
B. Per a Code Enforcement Supervisor, this type of structure has not been tracked as a category, so the only example we have to serve as a precedent would be our current Council Member's [Christy Weir] existing guest house/studio conversion and legalization in 2007.

According to public records, it appears approximately $209. was charged in permit fees. However, there was no record of a charge for "impact fees." If the "blue sheet" impact fees for new construction had been charged, the impact fees in 2007 would have been about $11,702 [Did Christy get to Skate, clear of these fees or what???]. The fact that there was no charge for impact fees for our Council Member's legalization makes sense for the following reasons:
a. A granny conversion is derived from an existing structure and is merely an upgrade of that structure for adaptive re-use.
b. The granny conversions are not new construction, but rather existing, very low impact, sustainable and green answers to achieving greater density.
c. This is not much different than adding a master suite and taking in a roomer or caretaker [or for Christy a Butler or House Servant?].
d. These studio units are generally used to house just one adult, so there is no impact on schools.
e. Their legalization will save the community millions of dollars in preventing homelessness and keeping people housed in a low-impact environment.
f. The increase in property taxes will accrue to the City’s income.
2. On Inspectors:
A. Inspectors: The Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative (VSHC) requested private Home Safety Inspectors be accepted for the purpose of inspections as an alternative to contractors because, if the inspectors are members of CREIA (California Real Estate Inspectors Association), they are more qualified than contractors and are more affordable.
a. CREIA inspectors are required to take 30 CEU's [Continuing Educational Units] every year to keep up to date on codes and maintain their certification.
b. Contractors do not have that requirement.
c. Home Safety Inspectors can serve as ombudsmen for the homeowner, giving them a confidential preview of what they will need to do to meet the requirements for grandfathering.
d. Per public policy of the Trade Practices Act: California Business and Professions Code, there is less potential for a conflict of interest regarding repair work: Section 7197. (a) It is an unfair business practice for a home inspector, a company that employs the inspector, or a company that is controlled by a company that also has a financial interest in a company employing a home inspector, to do any of the following: (1) To perform or offer to perform, for an additional fee, any repairs to a structure on which the inspector, or the inspector's company, has prepared a home inspection report in the past 12 months
B. Inspection forms: Code Enforcement performs 1,000 inspections a year for the Housing Authority using the federal forms for that purpose.
a. It would be unnecessarily onerous to require anything more stringent than is already required by HUD and the Ventura Housing Authority
b. The City already accepts the HUD inspection form.
3. On Payment Plans
A. The City Council asked the staff to include time payment plans and they were not included in the last version of the ordinance.
B. Many of these properties are owned by senior citizens on fixed incomes. These owners can only afford the program if they can pay the fees off over time.
C. If the City does not have the resources to accommodate time payment plans, the newly "found money" would provide these resources.
D. A bank or collection service could handle the collections in exchange for a modest interest fee.
A great deal of work has been done by the Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative (VSHC), the Community and the Staff to create a successful grandfathering program. We trust that at the end of the road, you will look at these three areas to ensure the time has been fruitful for our Citizens and our City. Additionally, if the program is to be extended to all Ventura properties over the age of 30 years, as was recommended by the public and the VSHC, we trust you will want this first step to be a successful one that ensures maximum community buy-in.
Sincerely,
Camille Harris
Co-founder
Preserve, Ensure and Protect Property (PEPP)
Camille Harris
(805) 901-8188
www.camilleharris.com
"The way to escape from a problem is to solve it."
The People are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

From: harris.cam@gmail.com
Subject: Your Due Diligence
Date: June 18, 2011 8:04:35 AM PDT
To: JIM.MONAHAN@ATT.NET, bfulton@ci.ventura.ca.us, bbrennan@ci.ventura.ca.us, cmorehouse@ci.ventura.ca.us, christy@christyweir.com, jMonahan@ci.ventura.ca.us, mtracy@ci.ventura.ca.us, NAndrews@ci.ventura.ca.us, nealandrews@att.net
Cc: acalonne@ci.ventura.ca.us
Dear Council Members,
I know that an important priority for you, as council members, is to protect the public from any unintended consequences as a result of actions that you take. Therefore, asking probing questions is crucial to your success in that regard.
A group of citizens have gotten together and suggested questions that would be important to answer, to make sure no harm or unintended consequences occur as a result of your actions. These relate to the 2nd unit ordinance coming before you June 20th, 2011 as Agenda Item 11.
The questions more specifically address the 1987 restriction that was inserted after the VSHC was dissolved, and to which ten of the former members have lodged a protest.
I have submitted the due diligence questions as a public information request, but wanted to make sure you had them in time for the vote. They are:
1. If you narrow the number of... Continue Reading Citizen Questions

- Camille Harris Please forward this to everyone on your email list in Ventura: "If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately." - Thomas Paine In an old town, Code Enforcement's knock can come to almost any door, and your nightmare can begin.

That's why the public recommended grandfathering 75% of Ventura's properties in exchange for a safety inspection and payment of original fees.
• Sadly, the Council appears to be accepting Code Enforcement's
recommendations instead to insert a torturous 1987 restriction into a legalization program to shutter existing safe granny flats.
• This restriction will severely limit legalization to as few granny flats as possible, increase homelessness, desperation sales, foreclosures, heartaches and lawsuits.
• Up to 23 years of safe affordable housing for the low income segment of our city can be shuttered, just when we need it the most.
Ten members of the Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative (VSHC) have protested the Staff's action. Now, everyone must speak and share responsibility
VENTURA CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
Monday Night, June 20th, 2011
6 pm City Hall, 501 Poli, 2nd floor
Agenda item 11
Attend, fill a seat, fill out a comment card or speak out. Everyone gets 3 minutes and there is no legal requirement for you to give your name and address.
- Camille Harris, Ventura
camille@camilleharris.com
LINK:Documents and Updates on the Grandfather Project Here

- Camille Harris Here's my theory on why the people's collaborative got dumped on last night: The Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative, formed to represent the public, did an amazing job, but they were shanghaied in the end by the City Manager [Rick "King" Cole] partnered with redevelopment interests (in my opinion.) The staff proposal for a second unit ordinance last night revolved around the suggestion of the big dissenter on grandfathering, major West side realtor, Roger Case.

The West Side is the second area targeted for redevelopment, and grandfathering could enhance property values. That could make redevelopment more expensive. The proposal from staff with Mr. Case's suggestion, essentially violated the public's desires by inserting a purchase and proof before 1987 qualifier and other complicating issues not recommended by the public.

The VSHC speaking in consensus for the public submitted the corrections to the council that would reflect the public's input.The council members had the committee's recommendations right in front of them as they voted to approve instead, the city staff's recommendations with the 1987 restriction. It was a major betrayal of the public trust by the Council, with the exception of Jim Monahan, who voted against the staff proposal.

Here were the 8 recommendations given to the city council last night by the 10 former members of the Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative that were dismissed by the City Council:
Allow sworn statements to establish date of unit habitability/service.(families who have undocumented units and have not rented them have no way of establishing the date of conversion, since in most cases public records do not exist.)
Delete all reference to the 1987 restriction and extend the requirements listed for 2nd units prior to 1987 to be extended to February 28, 2011. This restriction could wipe out 23 years of affordable housing because after that, most of the restrictions on second units could not be met affordably)
Inspect for life safety issues only, using forms from Housing Authority or State Civil Code 1941.
Currently, the city accepts the form used by the Housing Authority, which is almost identical to State Civil Code 1941) but staff's proposal makes it more complicated and expensive.
Require drawing/sketch only of unit requested to be legalized; showing setbacks, fence heights, drain locations and structure's relationship to primary dwelling.
Most of the older homes have other nonconforming setbacks and forcing a drawing showing all structures on the property could be a form of self-incrimination.
Allow certified home safety inspectors, with errors and omissions and liability insurance, as an option to contractors for inspections.
This is more affordable than a collection of contractors, and certified home safety inspectors are more up to date on codes than contractors. They also do not have other business requiring approvals from staff, so there is no danger of a conflict of interest.
Offer time payment plans for applicant if needed with $50 minimum monthly payment, interest rates same as 30 year mortgage rates at time of billing. Note: Collection can be facilitated by a property management company. Staff says they don't have the resources for collecting.
If homeowner cannot pay, place lien on property to be paid when property changes ownership.this allows someone to go ahead and grandfather now if they do not have the money.
All decisions of the Community Development Director can be appealed to the Housing Authority or the City Council. It is now being considered that instead of no due process, as is the case now for all code violation issues, that homeowner pay thousands of dollars to appeal to the planning commission. So, the choice is No due process or appeal or pay thousands and take your chances at the Planning Commission.
The proposal approved by your City Council members, except Jim Monahan, ignored the 8 recommendations from the Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative, who represented the public.
Helen Yunker, respected philanthropist approaching 90 years of age, was treated shamefully by Mayor Bill Fulton who refused to answer her question which was, "What do you intend to do with all of the people who will be forced out of all the granny flats? Have you made accommodations for them?" He refused to answer her question, called it rhetorical and adjourned the meeting.
The staff will come back with the final ordinance in June, meanwhile wagons are circling and people are going back underground. Sad, there actually was hope for once. I apologize for my naivete, and for being grumpy with all those who said they were afraid to attend. You were right, I was wrong. Camille
Government - If you think the problems we create are bad, just wait until you see our solutions.

- Camille Harris, Ventura
camille@camilleharris.com

Dear Friends, The City Council needs your input Monday night! They are considering new code enforcement proposals from Code Enforcement management Monday night. If approved, It will have big effects on the community and your property, so take the time to read it Here

Please provide your opinion based on your perception of the public's desires. Remember that the Council does not have their own independent staff, are essentially unpaid volunteers and need your support and input. We all need to do our part to support them and stay engaged. Show up to engage or fill a seat on Monday night at City Hall, 6 pm, 2nd floor (park up the ramp behind the building and come in the parking lot door) at 501 Poli at California

Here are the highlights of what's being proposed:
1. A code enforcement volunteer program with a new city vehicle ($90,000.) for volunteers to travel the public streets and photograph code violations. The photos will then be given to code enforcement staff.
2. Increase in code enforcement staff ($90,000.) and a higher budget
3. A complex restricted program for grandfathering second units that includes
a. A de facto disqualification of families who have second units for family member and who have not rented them or used them for humanitarian purposes because
b. the code enforcement proposal requires documentation that would only be available to a landlord or official public records of an existing second unit, denying sworn statements to establish date of habitability..
c. Units from 1987 onward would be subject to more stringent new 2nd unit requirements.
d. Submission of a plot plan to reveal any nonconforming setbacks of all and any other structures on the lot
e. It removes all authority from the City Council, denying any appeal of denial of application at the discretion of one city employee. Even if the applicant has gone through the entire process, the applicant can be denied and the employees is not appealable.

If you think these requirements could either hinder the success of a 2nd unit legalization program, or the other code enforcement recommendations could adversely affect our community, your council is still deliberating. Phone number is 654-7824 (leave a message) OR EMAIL:

"Jim Monahan" Jim.Monahan@att.net, "Bill Fulton" bfulton@ci.ventura.ca.us, "Brian Brennan" bbrennan@ci.ventura.ca.us, "carl morehouse" cmorehouse@ci.ventura.ca.us, "Christy Weir" christy@christyweir.com, "Mike Tracy" mtracy@ci.ventura.ca.us, "Neal Andrews" nealandrews@att.net

It's Monday night at 6 pm, spread the word, fill a chair, show you care. We need to have faith in our elected representatives, but they need your support, and silence is consent.
Blessings, Camille

The six recommendations of the Ventura Safe Housing Collaborative, based on public particpation are:
1 A legalization plan for all Ventura properties, including commercial
Status: Michael Mehas stated he and other Ventura attorneys would work with the City Attorney to ensure legality.
2 A practical compliance plan that provides alternatives to demolition or hiring an architect to start from scratch.
Status: to be addressed
3 Improving program guidance (includes revision of definition of substandard to mean unsafe as opposed to just lacking a permit or missing a screen)
Status: Staff is working on an action plan to be addressed
4 Citizens Review Board for tenant landlord disputes, due process, citation review prior to city’s creating conditions for potential financial takings, etc.
Status: Councilmember Andrews requested that the VSHC return with a more specific mission statement and charter for the proposed Citizens’ Review Board.)
5 An aggressive outreach plan…so everyone can sign up!
Status: needs revenue projections to create benchmarking, and could probably use some volunteer help. Any marketing mavens out there?

- Camille Harris, Ventura
camille@camilleharris.com