Residents Fail to Approve Plan to Settle Dredging War : Ventura: Mayor will seek an extension for Keys homeowners to respond to proposed resolution of their lawsuits.

Two months after a tentative settlement of the controversial Ventura Keys dredging issue was announced, a majority of the Keys homeowners have failed to meet the deadline to reject or approve it.

Ventura Mayor Gregory L. Carson said earlier this week he will ask the council Monday to extend the deadline for approving the settlement’s framework, hammered out by Carson and two Ventura Keys negotiators.

For years, Keys property owners have fought city and county officials over who should pay for dredging the silt from their back-yard canals. They point out that runoff from the county’s Arundell Barranca and 28 city storm drains is responsible for dumping mud and other pollutants into the waterways.

City officials argue that the 300 Keys waterfront homeowners benefit the most from the dredging and should pay three-quarters of the bill. In 1991, the city levied a special tax and set the average annual assessment at $1,733 per property.

In response, nearly 200 Keys homeowners sued the city, arguing that city leaders acted illegally in their decision to assess homeowners for dredging and maintenance costs. In the first of the many cases filed, Kern County Superior Court Judge Sidney Chapin is scheduled to release a decision within three weeks, his clerk said.

In the proposed settlement, Carson and the Keys negotiators agreed to reduce the average annual assessment to $685 per property, with a guarantee that the fee will increase by no more than $64 per year.

In addition, the city would pay the $2.5-million dredging costs for 1992--which would otherwise be covered by the assessed fees on property owners.

In return, property owners would drop their lawsuits against the city. If the proposed settlement is approved by Keys residents, attorneys would be directed to draw up legally binding settlement papers and return them to property owners for signatures.

Carson said he is optimistic that the proposal will ultimately be accepted by the majority of Keys property owners.

Jim Clark, who heads the Save the Keys Committee, said 142 of the 300 homeowners had responded as of last week. Of those, 134 said they would like to continue settlement talks and eight objected to the proposal.

“I’m encouraged,” Clark said. “This thing has been going on so long.”

Carson said he wants to resolve the issue quickly and plans to ask other council members to join him Monday in setting a new deadline. The initial deadline was Nov. 1.

But some Keys homeowners and their attorneys say a settlement may not be forthcoming.

“We’re still awaiting Judge Chapin’s decision,” said Donald M. Adams Jr., an attorney representing 34 Keys property owners. “There is no settlement in this case, and all the hullabaloo about it was premature.”

Some residents are objecting to several stipulations in the settlement, said Bob Therrien, an air freight broker who has lived in the Keys for five years.

“We have huge problems with the framework,” Therrien said. “Among other things, it doesn’t address ongoing pollution issues.”

Although Therrien said he objects to the proposal, he is willing to continue negotiations with city officials.

Peter Cannon, a Keys resident who helped negotiate the settlement proposal with Carson, called the settlement “the best outcome for the largest number of people.”

Some residents believe they may fare better in court.

“If we accept that settlement offer, we give up the right to sue the city,” said Dick Massa, who has lived in the Keys for eight years. “We are better off to take our chances in court. There’s no doubt in my mind that we can win in court.”

Depending on Chapin’s decision, both city officials and Keys residents said they may appeal the ruling.