Council OKs Beach View Assessments Over Protests : Port Hueneme: The special levies of $66 to $184 a year are approved at a crowded meeting despite property owners’ pleas.

Over the objections of more than 600 beach-area homeowners, the Port Hueneme City Council has imposed an unprecedented tax on beach properties, based on their views and access to the ocean.

The special assessments of $66 to $184 per year to pay for beach upkeep earn the seaside city of 20,000 the distinction of being the first in California to, in essence, tax properties based on how much of the ocean is visible from their balconies and windows.

The council’s 4-0 vote for the beach assessment district came late Wednesday night at a meeting that attracted the largest audience for a city public hearing in 20 years, city officials said, with many of the 225 people spilling out of council chambers into the City Hall lobby. It also followed the submission of individual written protests from more than 50% of the 1,250 beach-area homeowners.

“This was a total sham,” said Sheila Merlino, a 51-year-old caterer who lives in Surfside Village. “They listened to all these people and just did what they wanted.”

“I’m disgusted with the city the way these politicians just used us,” said Bernice Lombard, a retired real estate agent who owns a home in the Anacapa View complex.

City officials reacted with anger to residents who called the assessments a “view tax,” arguing that it is based on the property value that area homes derive from a clean beach, and not the aesthetic value of their vistas of sunsets on the Pacific.

“Even a blind man living in an oceanfront home would have to pay,” said Mayor Orvene Carpenter after the proposal’s passage.

City Manager Dick Velthoen argued that the beach assessment plan was not unique because the neighboring city of Oxnard created a similar district in the Mandalay Bay area.

But the Mandalay Bay district was formed to pay for beach improvements at the time the surrounding homes and a resort hotel complex were built, unlike in Port Hueneme, where the levy will pay for beach-maintenance services now financed out of the city’s general fund.

The Oxnard district also imposes an across-the-board $98 annual assessment on all homeowners, while Port Hueneme will have a three-tier system that charges oceanfront homeowners the highest amount and those living within two blocks of the beach with no ocean view the lowest assessments.

Velthoen said his staff “did not think it was fair” to impose equivalent assessments on pricier oceanfront homes and lower-cost condominiums removed from the beach. That alternative was considered, along with a plan to assess all homes citywide $21 for beach upkeep, a proposal that beach-area property owners contended would be fairer because Hueneme Beach Park is more a regional than a neighborhood park.

Opponents of the beach assessments contend that the council rejected their challenge because a majority of the property owners live outside Port Hueneme, and would pose no threat to the incumbent council members at election time. Only 25% of the units are owner-occupied, with the remainder rented out or used as weekend getaways by people living in Los Angeles and elsewhere in the state.

“This proposed district has been gerrymandered so that the only people hurt are those of us who don’t vote in the city and are politically unimportant,” said Bob Moesch, president of the Anacapa View Homes Homeowners Assn.

Several opponents said the assessment plan violates the intent of Proposition 13’s limits on property tax increases. Its graduated scale is based on the financial value that properties derive from their proximity to the beach, rather than any tangible benefit, they argued.

“This assessment is predicated on property values, and that amounts to a property tax surcharge,” said Leah Bahr, secretary for the Anacapa View Condominium Homeowners Assn. “A tax by any other name, like a rose, still bears a thorn.”

About five residents living outside the beach district supported the assessment proposal. One supporter noted that it would cost him more than $1,400 annually in parking charges if he wanted to use the beach daily, while beach residents pay nothing.

“I use the beach to walk my dog,” said Wayne Jones, another supporter who lives away from the beach. “When my dog does things, I expect the city people to clean it up.”

More than 25 speakers attacked the proposal during nearly two hours of public input. In spite of the extensive testimony, the council members voted for the measure without any comment or discussion.

Several protesters said the council’s silence showed that members had intended from the outset of the meeting to support the plan recommended by their longtime city manager.

Carpenter said council members did not discuss the proposal’s merits because of the late hour. The vote was taken more than four hours after the 7:30 p.m. meeting began.

“With all the literature, reports and studies we’ve seen, I didn’t feel we needed any more discussion,” Carpenter said. “I’ve never cast a vote, one way or the other, without the best intent for the city.”

The city was presented with the proposal on the same night that it was to vote on the 1991-92 budget, an action that was delayed until after council approval of the district. The anticipated revenue from the beach assessments was included in the $12.8-million budget, which put the council in the position of having to cut $150,000 elsewhere if it rejected the beach proposal.

The assessment will be reflected in property bills due in December.

Velthoen stressed that rejection of the assessment plan would force him to lay off at least several part-time city employees and cut additional services. He noted that Port Hueneme collects the second lowest taxes per capita, after Fillmore, of any city in Ventura County, and has been operating with the same staffing levels since 1985.