Planners Cited Flooding Risks Before RV Park Won Approval : Storms: This month’s flash flood has prompted debate over whether to allow motor homes to return to the mouth of the Ventura River.

When he first heard that the surging Ventura River had swept motor homes out to sea two weeks ago, Tom Rogers’ thoughts flashed to a private meeting in 1981.

Rogers, a Yale-trained biology consultant, said he had warned Ventura developer Arnold Hubbard not to build an RV park at the river’s mouth.

“The site had been flooded many times,” said Rogers, now a Santa Barbara County supervisor. “It was clear that it was very dangerous and that flooding would occur again.”

Hubbard was not swayed. “He suggested I change my report, then he literally dismissed both me and my findings,” the consultant said.

Hubbard denies firing Rogers. But he says he relied on engineers, not botanists, to tell him if his land was fit for development.

“So if he did make recommendations,” Hubbard said, “it would have been out of place.”

About 40 RVs were damaged or destroyed at Hubbard’s Ventura Beach RV Resort in a flash flood Feb. 12, leaving dozens of families who had lived at the park without permanent homes.

The devastation--symbolized nationwide by a dramatic videotape showing a motor home being swept into the sea--raised questions about why the California Coastal Commission and the Ventura City Council had ever allowed an RV park at the mouth of a river.

It has also prompted debate about whether the park should be reopened late next month, as Hubbard plans.

City planners and some council members say they will ask lawyers at Monday’s council meeting whether they can force Hubbard to eliminate long-term stays at the park and to improve his flood-warning system and evacuation procedures.

Arguments about the RV park can be summarized by the positions of owner Hubbard and Rogers, his onetime consultant.

To Rogers, the developer’s 19-acre parcel just north of the Ventura Freeway was part of a natural river delta where flooding was unavoidable and development a perilous gamble.

“Every time I drive by I think, ‘Geez, why is that there?’ ” Rogers said. “So my first reaction when I heard of the flooding was that this didn’t have to happen.”

But to Hubbard, the riverside property he said he bought 20 years ago was an investment opportunity and heavy flooding was a once-in-a-100-year occurrence.

His RV park, Hubbard argued, would not only give thousands of people relatively cheap and easy access to the ocean, it would pour about $100,000 a year into city coffers and indirectly boost sagging downtown sales.

“My central argument was that the park was just the highest and best use of the land,” Hubbard said. “I didn’t think this was going to happen, and I didn’t want it to happen. I don’t go out and lose a million dollars on purpose.”

Only about $300,000 of the $1 million in flood damage to his park is covered by insurance, Hubbard said.

Citing engineering studies and two decades of personal observation, Hubbard insists that his property is not prone to heavy flooding and that the recent devastation was caused by the county Flood Control District’s failure to clear river channels of brush and debris.

Hubbard’s proposal to build a 144-space RV park at the riverfront was controversial from the start. As it wended its way through government agencies from 1978 through 1985, professional planners hated it, but policy-makers--the Coastal Commission and the City Council--approved it at every step.

State and city planners found the project risky, ill-suited for the natural river terrain and a visual blight.

“We thought it was a dumb idea,” said Nyna Dolby, a former Coastal Commission planner who analyzed the project in 1981. “The question was, ‘Why are we putting something that could cost lives in an area designated as a flood way?’ ”

Former Ventura City Planner Ann Chaney described the city’s decision on the Hubbard property as a “classic example of land-use planning (being) easily swayed by arguments of economic return.”

“The planning staff all agreed it was a bad idea,” said Chaney, now planning director for San Anselmo in Marin County. “But the staff is a recommender to the decision-makers.”

Hubbard, described by city and state planners as extraordinarily persistent, argued his case directly to the policy-makers and eventually won them over.

“I still think it’s a good project,” said former City Councilman John McWherter, a civil engineer who has worked with federal engineers on Ventura River flood issues. “It’s general practice that when you have a good piece of land that may flood once in 100 years, you should make good use of it.

“I respect the staff’s professional opinions, but I also respect my own,” said McWherter, who retired last fall after 18 years on the council.

Hubbard first proposed his park in 1978, when Ventura began putting together its land-use plan for the city’s coastal zone as required by the 1976 state Coastal Act.

Hubbard, whose property had been used for farming, said he discovered that the Coastal Commission generally encouraged RV parks and he proposed that use to the city “just to protect our interests.”

Response by city planners and the Flood Control District was not encouraging.

In a 1978 letter to the city, the district stated its opposition.

“The particular concern in this case is the recognition of the total involvement of the proposed site in the Ventura River flood plain,” wrote W. G. Frank, then the county’s chief flood planner. “It further appears that the easterly portion of the site falls within the river bottom.”

Frank noted that the Main Street bridge was the only route out of the park in case of flood, and it had been damaged the previous winter during heavy rain.

“Flooding of the site could occur rapidly, thereby trapping users on the flood plain with no escape,” wrote Frank. “This leads to the conclusion that the proposed use is hazardous at best.”

City planners also recommended against the park, suggesting that the property remain in agricultural use.

“It was poor planning, not only because it was in the flood plain but also from a visual standpoint,” Chaney said. “And we were trying to keep the river in its natural state.”

But the City Council disagreed and put zoning for Hubbard’s park in the proposed coastal plan it submitted to the Coastal Commission in 1981. Chaney said council members were concerned that if they didn’t allow something to be built on the site, a larger project would be approved in the future.

McWherter said he considered the project in a positive light--a revenue producer for the city and of value to travelers.

“I’ll tell you, RV parks are a great benefit to the general public,” he said. “I’ve had an awful lot of phone calls from RVers who want to know how to get this park rebuilt.”

Next, the Coastal Commission staff concluded that an RV park on Hubbard’s land violated numerous Coastal Act policies.

“But from a political standpoint, we were not allowed to say no totally, so we had to come up with something that made it look like we were giving something,” recalled planner Dolby.

The plan she proposed to the commission in December, 1981, would have allowed Hubbard to use only about seven of his 19 acres for rentals and, according to Hubbard, would have made it impossible to build the park. Perhaps 60 RV spaces would have been lost under the plan, he said.

When Dolby’s recommendations came to a vote, Ventura County Supervisor John K. Flynn, who was then a coastal commissioner, amended the motion to allow Hubbard nearly full use of the site--just as the Ventura City Council had recommended.

Flynn cited a new Ventura County Flood Control District letter that said the project was acceptable as long as no permanent structures were built in the so-called flood way portion of the property and an evacuation plan was formulated.

“The big concern at the time was public access to the beach,” Flynn recalled. “That was one of the goals of the Coastal Act. And it seemed to me that this RV park would do that. But the concept was a park where people would move in and out quickly, not a place where people stay for long periods of time.”

Flynn said he did not know Hubbard when his project was before the Coastal Commission. Hubbard later became finance committee co-chairman in Flynn’s 1988 campaign.

As the Coastal Commission firmed up its conditions for development in Ventura’s coastal plain, the environmental group Friends of the Ventura River protested Hubbard’s project, saying it would degrade the river habitat and expose park occupants to flood hazards.

“The Ventura River has an extremely high flood potential, and in fact has a long history of devastating floods,” wrote the group’s president, Charles D. Price.

The group noted that the river had experienced floods an average of every six years from 1952 through 1978. So-called 50-year floods--about the same size as this month’s flood--occurred twice in 1969 and again in 1978.

A portion of the Hubbard property is in the river bottom and even more is in the flood way, Price said, and flooding should be expected on the flood way area closest to the river. “The only uncertainty is when, how often and to what extent will flooding occur.”

But Hawks & Associates, a Ventura engineering firm hired by Hubbard, told the commission that flooding was not a serious threat to the Hubbard property.

Three dams upstream had lowered the river’s flow during flooding, wrote engineer Charles Hilsmann.

“These structures have significantly altered and channelized the river such that the river is now specifically confined, and erosion and flood hazards to the Hubbard property can be predicted and mitigated by proper engineering design,” Hilsmann wrote.

Hubbard argues that even in the worst flood years of 1969 and 1978, only small parts of his property were flooded and that waters were not nearly as deep as they were this month.

In 1985, Hubbard’s engineers told the city Planning Commission and City Council that flood hazards were overstated. A consultant who conducted an environmental study for the city also found that since potential flooding could be offset through engineering and an early warning system, the threat was insignificant.

City planners recommended denial of the project, citing a number of design and environmental considerations, including flooding.

But the Planning Commission approved the project with 69 conditions, and in March, 1985, the City Council approved it 6 to 1.

However, the council limited the project to 120 RV spaces, narrowly defeating a motion by Councilman James Monahan to allow 144 spaces, as Hubbard had requested.

Meeting minutes show that Monahan, who later worked as a subcontractor on Hubbard’s park, asked Hubbard: “With the restriction of 120 units, what would the status of the development be?”

“Mr. Hubbard stated that it is not economically feasible to develop the project and therefore it would probably not move forward,” the minutes say. “He commented that if there is a charitable organization out there interested in the property, that it might contact him.”

Monahan also opposed five other development conditions that were favored by the rest of the council.

Monahan did prevail with a motion that allowed Hubbard to reduce the size of each RV space from 35 feet to 30 after asking Hubbard if the 35-foot standard was excessive, minutes show.

Six months later, Hubbard submitted a redesigned project to the council, asking again for 144 RV spaces.

In arguing for the greater number, Hubbard told the council that a full-time park manager would make sure that no one stayed more than 30 straight days and that they did not return for at least two weeks.

On Monahan’s motion, the council voted 4 to 3 to approve a project with 144 spaces and 24 tent sites. It also approved construction of a small store, permanent living quarters for two managers, restrooms and recreational facilities.

When construction began two years later, Monahan’s company installed the park’s fire-hydrant system and flagpoles and was paid about $40,000 by Hubbard.

The veteran councilman said in a recent interview that he strongly supported the project because it was good for the city, not because he thought he might gain employment from it.

State conflict-of-interest laws forbid public officials from voting on projects from which they’ve received $250 in the preceding 12 months. Monahan said he has occasionally worked for Hubbard over the last several years, but did not know if any of those jobs were in the year before his 1985 votes.

Monahan apparently did violate state law by failing to report his income from the Hubbard job on annual financial disclosure statements. The councilman is subject to a $2,000 fine if he does not amend his statement, a spokeswoman for the state Fair Political Practices Commission said.

Monahan has said he was unaware of the reporting requirement.

The future of Hubbard’s park remains to be decided.

When the Ventura City Council meets Monday, council members and city officials have said they will ask lawyers what restrictions they can place on the park.

If city lawyers say additional conditions are possible, Community Development Director Everett Millais said he will recommend several to the City Council.

“We are focusing on all permit conditions, but the length-of-stay provision is the one most in question,” Millais said.

The city apparently tried to make sure that Hubbard’s park would be used by highly mobile visitors--who could leave quickly in case of flood--by requiring rules limiting stays to 30 consecutive days, with a minimum two-week break between visits.

But records show that some tenants have checked out on their 29th day at the park and checked back in the same day, Millais said.

Hubbard said he has an attorney’s opinion stating that if visitors leave before the 30th day, then they can come back after one day. And that has been his policy, the owner said.

As a result, the park became permanent low-cost housing starting at about $480 a month for many families. Forty of the 57 motor homes registered at the park when the flash flood struck were occupied by longtime tenants, said park co-manager Susan Bielecki. Residents said they had lived there as long at two years.

City officials noticed on the day of the flood that the tires on some motor homes were flat and the coaches were not ready to leave promptly, Millais said.

Hubbard said he has strictly enforced city rules, driving through the park regularly to make sure coaches were movable.

Millais said he also favors warning park customers of flood dangers when they check in and would like to see a revamping of the Flood Control District’s early-warning system so that those at Hubbard’s park will have more than the 30- to 45-minute notice that was received this month.

Once notice is received, Millais thinks evacuation should be mandatory. Speakers or sirens should be installed to warn campers, he said.

Hubbard has said that he did not begin warning residents until about 45 minutes after his managers received a call from flood control officials, and the warnings consisted of knocks on doors.

Millais said the city might also consider whether it can force Hubbard to accept responsibility for future flood damage to motor homes at his park. The park’s insurance did not cover damaged and destroyed coaches, and many residents said they lost everything they owned to the flood.

Hubbard said Saturday that the city has no legal right to change the conditions of his permit.

“But sure, there might be a few things we can learn from this and try to do better,” he said. “We’re certainly not averse to discussions about anything.”