Potential Annexation of Cañada Larga

Last week the Ventura County Star reported that there was renewed interest in the potential annexation of Cañada Larga into the City of Ventura in order to facilitate development. Cañada Larga is a tributary to the Ventura River, with its confluence downstream of Foster Park.

Although it is not clear whether or not the City will reconsider this issue, the Ventura County Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation wrote a letter to City Council, below, outlining our support for the infill strategy provided for in the 2005 General Plan.


May 10, 2010

TO: Ventura City Council

SUBJECT: Potential Annexation of Cañada Larga

The Ventura County Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation opposes the potential annexation of Cañada Larga into the City of Ventura.

We strongly advocate that the City of Ventura adheres to the guidance provided by the 2005 General Plan. The intent of that plan was to concentrate development within the city boundaries, favoring ‘infill development’ over ‘urban sprawl.’ This is in keeping with the ‘New Urbanist’ approach to city planning that has demonstrated long term economic and watershed benefits.

We are concerned about the watershed impacts from sprawling development and the potential degradation of water quality. The Local Government Commission outlines these issues in the 2008 study Water Resources and Land Use Planning: Watershed-based Strategies for Ventura County. This study focuses on land use planning in Ventura County, and provides specific policy recommendations for aligning land use planning, community design and stormwater/watershed management programs. This document provides a technical rationale for concentrating development within the city limits, as supported by the 2005 General Plan.

We urge the City of Ventura to concentrate our limited resources on infill development, and resist the urge to sprawl beyond our city limits.

Sincerely,
A. Paul Jenkin
Environmental Director, Surfrider Foundation - Ventura County Chapter


Reference: Water Resources and Land Use Planning: Watershed-based Strategies for Ventura County, Local Government Commission , http://water.lgc.org/ventura



View Ventura River in a larger map

Santa Clara River Estuary Special Studies

On November 10, 2009, the City of Ventura hosted a workshop on the Santa Clara River Estuary Special Studies.

BACKGROUND:

The city's sewage treatment plant currently discharges 6.5 MGD (million gallons per day) of tertiary treated wastewater into the Santa Clara River Estuary, and has the capacity for 14 MGD. This is one of the last remaining estuary discharges in the state. Issues associated with this discharge include impacts of nutrient-rich water in the estuary and the artificial hydrology created by this volume of water. With this discharge, the lagoon fills up and breaches on a more frequent basis than it would under natural conditions. The estuary is habitat for a variety of threatened and endangered species, and wastewater flushing into the surf zone affects ocean water quality.

These studies are a requirement of the Regional Water Quality Control Board as a condition of the city's wastewater discharge permit. The aim is to investigate opportunities for enhancement of water quality. Information is available on the city website here.

SPECIAL SUDIES:



The 'Special Studies' include 3 parts:

• Recycled Water Study
• Constructed Wetlands Study
• Estuary Monitoring and Assessment

The wetlands and reuse studies will identify opportunities for diverting water from the discharge point for reuse or creating additional wetlands to remove pollutants.





REUSE STUDY:

The current system reclaims approximately 1 MGD which is reused on the two nearby golf courses and other urban landscaping.

The reuse study looked at potential markets for reclaimed water within a 5 mile radius. Possibilities include urban and agricultural reuse, as well as groundwater recharge.




The bottom line: cost is high to construct a system that would provide for any significant reuse, with estimates from $35M to $140M as summarized in this table.








Major piping and pumping infrastructure is needed to deliver reclaimed water, and agricultural reuse would require an expensive and energy intensive Reverse Osmosis (RO) treatment plant.










WETLAND STUDY:

The city currently operates a series of ponds that help treat the effluent before it enters the estuary. Current effluent nitrate levels are over 15 mg/l. The city is planning on spending $22M at the treatment plant to remove nitrogen to the regulated limit of 10 mg/l.


The study identifies 3 potential sites for additional constructed wetlands. The aim would be to reduce nitrogen from the effluent.





DISCUSSION:

There was discussion after the presentations.

Stakeholders were given an opportunity to place 'dots' on the chart below to express their preference for future discharge scenarios. The 'Volume' axis allows a sliding scale between all 'onsite' discharge as it currently exists, or all 'offsite' through reuse. Enhanced quality infers additional treatment wetlands. It seems the majority prefers enhanced water quality and at least half the volume discharged offsite.



According the the minutes of the meeting, I commented that:

'Would like to see more of the supply side as part of the equation/studies. There should be an integrated (regional) water management plan that could address issues across the board. (Paul Jenkins, Surfrider)'

What was not recorded was my comment that climate change and sea level rise may soon make the current location of the treatment plant infeasible - planning should consider opportunities to decentralize wastewater treatment to facilitate reuse without the need for complex pipelines and pumping systems.

Supply-side analysis should be conducted to consider on-site reuse of greywater throughout the city. For a relatively small investment, a greywater retrofit program would reduce the wastewater volume at the treatment plant, reduce the city's overall water demand, and create lots of local jobs in the process.

The next stakeholder meeting will be in February 2010.

REFERENCES:

The complete presentation and meeting notes are on the city website:
http://www.cityofventura.net/rivers

Other blog posts on this issue:
http://venturaecosystem.blogspot.com/2008/09/letter-on-ventura-water-reclamation.html
http://venturaecosystem.blogspot.com/2007/12/ventura-wastewater-treatment-plant.html
http://venturaecosystem.blogspot.com/search/label/wastewater

Ventura Stormwater Hearing

Thursday May 7, 2009

Pure theater.

A crowd packed the Board of Supervisors hearing room today as the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) heard testimony and comments on a long overdue 'stormwater permit.' At stake is how runoff from our homes, businesses, streets and parking lots will be regulated over the next 5 years.

Following an opening presentation by RWQCB staff, the 'permittees' (local government) and NGO's (NRDC and Heal the Bay) presented their case for a 'deal' they had brokered amongst themselves. The agreement basically would modify the permit to require 'Low Impact Development' (LID) for new development in exchange for the elimination of 'Municipal Action Levels' (MALs). Ventura City Manager, Rick Cole, pitched a good angle on this 'cooperative agreement.'

Ventura County presented their current stormwater program, and the expected fiscal impacts of increased monitoring, with the overriding message that they are award winning leaders in watershed management. "Second to none," said Jeff Pratt, director of Public Works.

Then, in a surprise move, the NRDC petitioned the board to allow an opportunity to 'cross examine' RWQCB senior staff, Sam Unger. NRDC lawyer, David Beckman, proceeded to expose the fact that Mr Unger was unfamiliar with other permits around the country, and was biased against requiring infiltration and filtration techniques to control pollution. The remainder of NRDC testimony clearly highlighted the loopholes and weaknesses of the LID provisions in the Tentative Draft permit. Heal the Bay also had time to highlight the lack of details in the monitoring requirements and alternative regional solutions, among other issues.

Over the past 3 years, several workshops have been held in Ventura County to discuss this permit, often touted as a precedent for a 'next generation' regulations. While the municipalities and building industry have consistently cited economic reasons against more stringent requirements, my message has remained the same: new development is only one part of the problem. Existing infrastructure is a root cause of the current poor water quality. Moreover, existing development has also increased flooding, which in turn has resulted in increased flood control. And for the most part, 'flood control' has meant turning the natural waterways into concrete channels that convey even the lowest flows directly to the creeks and ocean.

My turn to speak finally came up shortly before 5pm. My testimony (paraphrased):

Good afternoon members of the board. I'm sure some of you saw the recent PBS documentary titled 'Poisoned Waters.' This TV show documented how we have completely failed to protect water quality over the past 40 years. I am afraid that this permit will not solve our problems. It is a small step in the right direction, but misses some critical pieces.
Did you all read this permit? It's huge. And it's very hard to understand. This document is unclear and needs more work, so we do not support the permit as currently written.
In "stormwater" we really are talking about two problems within the bigger picture of water management. The existing built environment and future development. The LID requirements are the bare minimum to address future development. Local government claims to be 'stewards' of our water resources, yet they continue to permit bad development. Because all CEQA documents use the RWQCB requirements, this has to become the minimum legal requirement to ensure we don't make the existing problem worse.
Did you know that 80% of the impervious area in our watershed is transportation related? There must be hundreds of acres of impervious parking lots constructed since the stormwater permit started in 1992. So while LID would be required of developers, the cities and county are not held to the same standards. They need to be required to install BMPs to treat low flows when streets or storm drains are maintained.
The city of Ventura has a proposal to begin to do this, and Surfrider is working with them. But there needs to be funding for this type of project. For instance SEP (supplemental environmental project) money should be applicable to planning this type of retrofit. Thank you.

After 11 hours of presentations and testimony, the board passed the new permit, with the 'city/NGO deal'. So we get LID requiremtne for new development, but the municipalities are off the hook forthe existing problems (for now.) This headline is unfortunate, as the 'taxpayers' are also subsidizing the bad practices that create stormwater pollution (i.e. flood control.) The irony is that while a change in actual water management would save the taxpayer, the municipalities have invested the majority of their staff time for four years working to de-fuse the permit. Imagine the projects that would be 'shovel ready' if that kind of energy would have gone into solving the problem.


http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/may/08/water-board-sets-tougher-regulations-on/

Council Approves New Beach Hotel

It was late Monday evening when the Embassy Suites Hotel came before Ventura City Council. Following a presentation by city staff,
Councilmen Brennan and Monahan both had relevant comments. Brennan
said he wanted to bring up the issue of compatible uses for the City Park in front of the hotel - would the hotel use the public park for weddings, etc? and how would dogs and frisbees potentially affect the dining facilities that front the park? Monahan asked if there were any remaining pipelines from the oil tanks, which remained unanswered. (Those of us who use the beach know that there is at least one pipe in the vicinity, although this could be the remnants of the sewage treatment plant that once discharged there)

Although Deputy Mayor Fulton had emphasized the impacts of sea level rise in his "Earth Day" speech at this location on Saturday, there was no discussion in response to Surfrider's comments on the issue, including funding current and future seawall maintenance. I told the Council that this was a missed opportunity to fund much-needed beach maintenance. The City Manager prompted the City Attorney to respond to Surfrider allegations that the environmental document was deficient, to which staff responded that the hotel will be 11.5 feet above sea level and there is no nexus under CEQA.

It was clear that the City Council is pleased with the design and
plans for this hotel. Construction is scheduled to begin within a year.

more here: http://venturaecosystem.blogspot.com/2009/03/coastal-development-at-c-st.html


Local Press: Ventura council approves hotel, market

Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise

SEA LEVEL RISE WORKSHOP - Thurs April 9, 2009

The California Coastal Commission met in Oxnard this week. Thursday morning saw a presentation and discussion of recently issued draft reports that address the impacts of climate change and sea level rise on coastal flooding, erosion, and beach recreation. The workshop included California Coastal Erosion Response to Sea Level Rise—Analysis and Mapping by Philip Williams & Associates, LTD., The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the California Coast by the Pacific Institute.

It was clear that this issue's profile is increasing, but some of the Commissioner's comments suggested a desire to maintain business-as-usual until even more studies are done.

I was among a handful of public comments urging the Commission to consider sea level rise in current and future policy. With a 2 minute time limit, I skipped my planned policy suggestions and said something like this:

The Surfrider Foundation is dedicated to protecting and preserving the world's oceans waves and beaches. The California coast has a legacy of decades of coastal development, all planned based on the assumption of a fairly static sea level. As the presentations today have illustrated, there is a rapidly increasing risk of sea level rise. But remember that this work was done with the most conservative estimates, using a 1.4m rise. Recent science suggests this may happen much faster and much higher than previously predicted. The economic impacts of catastrophic sea level rise are hard to imagine - consider the 'toxic assets' of coastal real estate, when suddenly ocean front property becomes a liability!


People everywhere, even kids, are trying to organize and figure out how to respond to this crisis. There is a 14 year old from Ventura, Alec Loorz, who started a group called 'Kids vs Global Warming.' He did a project called SLAPP, Sea Level Awareness Project, in which kids installed a series of poles along the water front. Each pole shows the water level around 17 feet above today, which is about where we'll be if Greenland melts. The poles also have symbols of things that will be impacted; the power plant, sewage treatment plant, highway, and more...

The studies presented today suggest that billions of dollars will be needed to protect or relocate infrastructure, maintain or construct seawalls, and other measures to deal with coastal erosion. The big question is who is going to pay for it?

Our city can't even afford to do the maintenance and restoration that our beaches need today. And it should not be the taxpayer's burden to protect private property in the future inundation zones.




The late author, Kurt Vonnegut, often spoke of when "the excrement hits the air-conditioner."

I am afraid that time is quickly approaching...

It is critical that the Coastal Commission consider sea level rise with every decision that is made.

Coastal Development at Surfers' Point

March 12, 2009

City of Ventura
Planning Division
501 Poli St
Ventura, CA 93001

RE: Embassy Suites Hotel/T J Mian & Associates Mitigated Negative Declaration # 2278

The Surfrider Foundation has reviewed the MND for the proposed development. The project proposes a new four-story hotel to fill the vacant 2.74-acre parcel at the corner of Figueroa and Harbor Blvd. in Ventura.

We are concerned that the MND does not adequately address impacts on coastal resources due to climate change.

Although there is considerable uncertainty regarding the impacts of Climate Change, the State of California has passed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 that recognizes the threat of climate change. On March 11, 2009, the Pacific Institute released a report commissioned by the State that addresses potential impacts to the coast of California due to sea level rise as a result of climate change. Using a very conservative 1.4m increase in sea level elevation over the coming century, the study estimates that the cost of building new or upgrading existing coastal structures is estimated to be at least $14 billion (in year 2000 dollars), with an additional $1.4 billion per year in maintenance costs. The UN has predicted even greater and faster sea level rise, so this impact could me much greater.



Permitting such a large development directly on the coast will increase the future need for taxpayer subsidies to protect this property. We suggest that, if this project is approved, a mitigation bank be established to provide funding for coastal maintenance. Tax revenues or a separate coastal mitigation fee should be established for all new commercial development within the future inundation zones of the California coast. Alternatively, the project should be bonded to provide funds for its removal, should that become necessary in the future.

While we recognize the need for re-vitalization of the local economy, we want to ensure that the true cost of coastal development is not passed on to future generations.

A public hearing on this project is scheduled for 6 PM on March 17, at the City Council Chambers at City Hall.

ventura-luxury-hotel-proposal-on-track-for-site

MND-2278 may be downloaded from the city's website here

City Council will be approving the land swap and MND on April 20


Related issue:

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/jan/25/Nb1Promenade25/

Cemetery Park plan unveiled

On the evening of Nov 19, 2008, the City of Ventura Parks Commission presented the plans for Cemetery Park. The room at the Presbyterian Church was packed with residents. As with most issues these days, the community is divided almost evenly - in this case between those with relatives buried in the cemetery, and those whose dogs now play in the park. (News stories here and here)

Most troubling was the presentation by the consultant, who in trying to please everyone seemed to please nobody except the Parks Commission.

In keeping with the memorial theme, and in an attempt to include 'stormwater,' the consultant included a garden design. This includes a riparian area, which the presenter said is intended to pay respect to the historic creeks (which have also been buried under urban concrete.) The design includes sycamore trees as a symbol of this lost riparian ecosystem. (These trees grow to over 100 feet in the riverbeds of Ventura County, and if watered as required, they would soon outgrow this small garden on the hillside of Ventura.)

In my comments I reminded the Parks Commission that the city is using drinking water to irrigate grassy lawns (and sycamore trees) while stormwater is flushed away in concrete storm drains. Our Urban Watershed Plan illustrated how Cemetery Park could fit into a stormwater strategy to capture and reuse rain water.

Unfortunately, this $4M plan for Cemetery Park does not provide any functional stormwater improvements. However, with the right designer and a regional plan, much of the improvements desired for this area could come from stormwater grants and Integrated Water Management Planning.

For more on the park plan see the City of Ventura website.

Letter on Ventura Water Reclamation Special Studies

below is the text of a letter sent today to the City of Ventura:

RE: Ventura Water Reclamation Special Estuary Studies Work Plans

Thank you for providing an opportunity to review the work plans for the Santa Clara River Estuary special studies. We recognize that the Estuary Subwatershed Study, Treatment Wetlands Feasibility Study, and Recycled Water Studies are all conditions imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for continued discharge into the estuary until the impacts and alternatives are further analyzed. However, we are concerned that these individual studies will not point to the holistic solutions that we need.

For the past several years the Surfrider Foundation has been following the City of Ventura’s water planning processes. We are aware of the regulatory pressures upon the city from all directions: water supply, wastewater discharge, and stormwater discharge. In each instance, the City has been struggling to maintain the status quo, and provide for future growth. In the mean time, our rivers are drying up and choked with algae, our beaches and estuaries are in jeopardy, and we face increasing water shortages in the future.

As you know, we have also participated in the IRWMP regional water management process and the Ventura River Watershed Council. Unfortunately, these parallel efforts have yet to realize the potential for developing integrated solutions to solve these regulatory problems while providing a secure and sustainable future for city residents.

As we enter a period of significant uncertainty with climate change, peak oil, and population growth, it is imperative that we plan ahead. Increased drought and flooding, population growth, and sea level rise will all increase the pressure on our water resources. History has shown that significant capital expenditures intended to solve a single problem often lead to increased problems down the line. An extreme example is the potential for the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant to be rendered obsolete with future sea level rise – has anyone considered what happens then?

A quick ‘back of the envelope’ calculation reveals that the current wastewater discharge of 9 MGD into the Santa Clara River estuary represents more than 50% of the total city water supply. Therefore we are ‘wasting’ more than half of our water, while the remainder of our drinking water supply is poured onto lawns and parks. Surely we can do better. (See Cycle of Insanity)

We strongly encourage that the City of Ventura commission a study using grant funds to design a multidisciplinary and interdepartmental integrated water plan. Such a planning effort should aim to develop a vision for optimizing the city’s water use from all sources (i.e. water supply, stormwater, and wastewater.) Wherever possible, water should be captured and reused on site. Specific concepts may include:

• Decentralized wastewater treatment to facilitate reclaimed water use
• Biosolid/algae - wastewater to energy
• Stormwater capture and reuse
• “Green Streets” and LID retrofit of urban infrastructure
• “Ocean Friendly Gardens” and greywater to offset residential landscape irrigation

We recognize that these concepts are all big departures from the current reality, but it is clear that a new paradigm will be necessary for future sustainability.

We also acknowledge that these are all expensive propositions. Because this is a statewide (and global) crisis, the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) has earmarked funding for IRWMP planning efforts under Proposition 50 and Proposition 1E. Other grants are available for implementation. Multi-purpose projects may take advantage of several funding sources to achieve a cost effective approach to a sustainable future.

The City of Ventura should recognize that the seemingly unrelated issues of wastewater, stormwater, flood control, endangered species, energy, transportation, recreation, and overall quality of life present an opportunity to plan ahead and take advantage of state and federal incentives to modernize the aging infrastructure and solve all of these problems through integrated systems.

Attached is a conceptual planning approach that may help create the ‘roadmap’ needed to integrate water resources in the City’s area of influence, as well as within the broader watershed context.

Remember, failure to plan is planning to fail.

Ventura Adopts "Green Streets" Policy

July 14, 2008 - Ventura City Council Meeting

Late last night Ventura City Council took a significant step in the RIGHT direction. Recognizing that stormwater is an issue for which the time has come, council approved policy for Green Street Elements and Demonstration Project.

This policy would effectively follow two of the recommendations made by the Surfrider Foundation in Solving the Urban Runoff Problem, A Vision for the Urban Watershed, Ventura, California:
3. Develop a green streets program and implement pilot projects
5. Promote and develop incentives for community-based action (i.e. Ocean Friendly Gardens)
In my public testimony, I reminded listeners that a 'green streets' strategy is the best way of dealing with the 'concrete jungle' that is impacting the health of our oceans. I also presented City Council with a hard copy of our document published earlier this year and the Ocean Friendly Gardens brochure.

With this new policy, the city will earmark 20% of the street paving fund to begin incorporating 'Green Street elements' into repaving projects on a citywide basis. The city will also design and construct a pilot project on South Catalina Street to include:

...widening the west parkway from 3-feet to 7-feet, installing permeable concrete in the parking lane on the west side, planting 36-inch box trees on both sides, constructing "bulb-outs" along the east side along with stormwater detention and percolation curb inlets.

The Staff Report also provides an excellent review of types of stormwater improvements, and a matrix of their cost and effectiveness. The report may be downloaded from the city's website here: http://www.cityofventura.net/bridge/public_meetings/councilagendas.asp




In a later agenda item, council became the first city in the state to endorse the California Ocean Protection Council's "Low Impact Development Resolution."

After our watershed tour earlier this year, and the city's proactive approach to stormwater, we are hopeful that more funding will come available to implement a watershed-based study and pilot projects based upon Surfrider recommendations.

Ocean Protection Council watershed tour

On Thursday February 28, 2008, the California Ocean Protection Council toured the Ventura River Watershed. The tour began at the Ventura County Government Center where the Watershed Protection District gave a short presentation describing the Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration project. The council members were then treated to a helicopter flight over the watershed, offering aerial views of the river and Matilija Dam. Vans transported other participants to the dam, where short presentations were given over a picnic lunch. Matilija Dam is slated for removal in 2013, and the project has been endorsed by the Ocean Protection Council and largely funded by the California Coastal Conservancy. The tour gave an opportunity for these policy makers to experience the dam and river for themselves.

The next stop was the beach at the mouth of the river, where Ventura City Councilman Brian Brennan gave an overview of the Surfers Point Managed Retreat project. The final design for this project is almost complete, and with funding construction could begin this year.

Finally, the group took a look at the Sanjon outfall at San Buenaventura State Beach. This site has been identified as an impairment to coastal water quality, a problem that we believe can be solved. Surfrider's proposal for wetlands and urban watershed restoration at this site was met with great interest, as it provides an integrated approach to stormwater management.

Tour participants were also invited to an after-hours reception at Jonathan's in downtown Ventura. We hope our guests learned the reasons we love this area, and why we are dedicated to protecting and restoring our coast and watershed.

Testimony to BOS on Stormwater Permit

September 11, 2007 Comments to Ventura County Board of Supervisors

RE: Study Session to Discuss Implications from Future Stormwater and Total Maximum Daily Load Requirements on Ventura County

My name is Paul Jenkin and I represent the Ventura County Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation. My comments today are on behalf of the approximately 1000 members in the county, and all the other thousands of residents and visitors that use our county’s beaches.

Since 1991, our members have participated in volunteer programs such as the “Blue Water Task Force,” “Stream Team,” and storm drain stenciling. This participation is largely because many people get sick every year from surfing or swimming at our county’s beaches.

Recent reports such as from the Joint Oceans Commission led to the California Ocean Plan, West Coast Governors Agreement, and other initiatives that have identified Urban Runoff as a significant threat to the health of our oceans. All of these agree that a new approach is required to solve this problem, with recommendations to implement what is now known as “Ecosystem Based Management.”

The root cause of this problem is traditional urban infrastructure. Our society has implemented a conveyance approach to flood control, resulting in impervious urban areas and hydromodification of our watersheds. It is clear that this approach is not working, with concrete leading to more concrete, and as you heard from some of the cities today, their flooding problems are getting worse. This is because stormwater has been treated as a threat, rather than the resource that it should be.

Quite frankly I am disappointed by the resistance to regulation that I am hearing today. The stormwater permit has been around for over a decade, but nothing has changed. So called “environmental groups” like Surfrider comment on individual projects one at a time, but the CEQA process does not adequately account for cumulative impacts.

Major changes are needed. But this permit may be seen as a threat to traditional flood control and the development permit process. Regional planning is desperately needed on a watershed basis, rather than the current piecemeal permitting of development.

In addition, major retrofitting is needed to the existing infrastructure in order to implement what I call “reverse hydromodification.” The solution to urban runoff lies in integrated solutions and what is known as “green infrastructure.” This approach should integrate flood control with water supply, parks, bikeways, and more. This is a necessary response to climate change as we experience longer droughts and greater flooding in the future.

As others have said today, pollution is waste, and we are wasting our stormwater, and in the process polluting our oceans.

On a positive note, the Surfrider Foundation is launching a new program called “Ocean Friendly Gardens.” This is intended to educate residents about the urban runoff problem, and demonstrate how they can re-landscape their own property to retain and infiltrate stormwater.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment today.