Conditional Approval of RV Resort Urged : Port Hueneme: Coastal Commission staff supports a new site and wetlands protection. But city calls the report flawed.

The California Coastal Commission staff has recommended approval of a recreational vehicle resort in Port Hueneme if the city-owned project is moved 500 feet west and provides environmental protection for nearby wetlands.

“Our recommendation is a workable compromise which would allow the city to develop their proposed RV resort as well as provide for the protection of environmentally sensitive resources in the area,” said Christopher Price, a Coastal Commission program analyst.

But Port Hueneme City Manager Richard Velthoen said the commission’s staff recommendations, released Wednesday, are unacceptable to the city and that the report has been heavily influenced by environmentalists.

“We believe that the project site as it was approved by the City Council is not an (environmentally sensitive habitat area),” Velthoen said. “All the environmental studies we’ve accomplished dictate that. And we have no doubts that our proposal is far superior to what the staff recommends.”

The report is the most recent development in a five-year battle that has pitted city officials, environmentalists and residents against each other over a 144-space RV resort proposed for the end of Ocean View Drive at Port Hueneme Beach Park.

Residents who oppose the resort also criticized the report, saying the commission’s proposed site is not an improvement over the current location, and would affect the property values of an even larger group of residents.

“They have saved the birds and that is a wonderful victory,” said Tom Brigham, president of the Surfside III Condominium Homeowners Assn., referring to the endangered California least terns that nest near the city’s proposed site. “But they have yet to protect the taxpaying citizens of Port Hueneme.”

The report recommends that the RV resort be built between the Port Hueneme Pier and the beachfront parking lot nearest the wetlands at Ormond Beach. That site would place the resort farther from Ormond Beach, where California least terns nest.

*

The report also recommends that the city restore and add vegetation to nearby sensitive habitat areas and provide a public education program on the Ormond Beach wetlands.

At Wednesday’s City Council meeting, Councilwoman Toni Young, an opponent of the project, asked her colleagues to submit a request to the Coastal Commission seeking to have a hearing on the RV issue now set for Tuesday in Eureka be delayed until October, when the commission meets again in Long Beach.

Angry residents said council members want the hearing to be held as far away as possible from Port Hueneme to prevent opponents from speaking on the issue.

But Councilman James Daniels said the city has already waited too long and that the hearing should proceed as scheduled. With Young opposing, the council voted 2 to 1 against sending a request for a delay. Councilman Dorill Wright and Mayor Orvene Carpenter were absent.

In an interview before the meeting, Velthoen said the city plans to challenge the recommendations at the hearing in Eureka.

“We will be ready to make our case to them then,” Velthoen said. “The staff proposal is the most unreasonable recommendation possible for this project.”

Velthoen said moving the resort would require the city to start over in planning the project--a prospect Port Hueneme officials consider too expensive and time-consuming.

“We can’t just get rid of existing parking lots, block private views and decrease public access to the beach,” Velthoen said. “Their recommendations are completely inconsistent with what the City Council has planned.”

The report also recommends that the city provide space for campers to set up tents.

Councilwoman Young said adding space for tents would change the character of the project and make the city less inclined to accept the recommendations.

“The city wants a resort but what the Coastal Commission report recommends is an RV park with tent camps so no one feels left out,” Young said. “I doubt the city would agree to that.”

*

City officials have argued that a resort would attract an affluent group, including families and senior citizens, and would provide the city with $400,000 a year in revenues.

But some of the 375 homeowners with properties adjacent to the proposed RV resort site say an RV resort would decrease property values by as much as 45%.

“Any potential gain (to the city) would be negated by lower property tax,” Brigham said. “In addition, there is no proof that the project would bring the revenues that the city expects. That’s only speculation.”