Coast Panel Rejects Port District Plan for Housing

A plan to build a 300-unit apartment complex on a vacant 21-acre plot of waterfront land at the bankrupt Ventura Harbor was effectively denied Wednesday by the California Coastal Commission.

The 11-member panel rejected a proposal by the city of Ventura to rezone the land from marine commercial uses to a mixed-use designation that would have permitted the first housing complex in a publicly owned harbor area since the California Coastal Act was passed in 1972.

Ultimately, the commission approved an amended version of the proposal, which would have allowed apartments to be built only on the second and third floors of commercial businesses.

The idea was quickly dismissed by port officials as unrealistic.

“It’s totally impractical,” port General Manager Ed Wohlenberg said. “Just go ask the investment community.”

Wohlenberg had hoped that gaining permission to construct housing on the long-vacant parcel would have increased its value to prospective developers, a crucial part of a plan to keep the debt-plagued harbor economically viable and under the protection of federal bankruptcy laws.

The commission’s decision comes as port officials are set to present a federal bankruptcy judge today with their plan to pay down a $22-million debt.

With a housing complex now erased from that equation, the port’s plans, which also include restructuring the financing and loans on the Harbortown Marina Resort and increasing rents at Harbor Village, will still go before the judge, albeit with less financial punch, Wohlenberg said.

After he considers the port district’s disclosure statements that detail debts and assets, the judge can either accept the debt adjustment plan as filed, order it to be revised or rule the plan unacceptable.

If the plan is not accepted, the port district risks losing its bankruptcy protection and creditors could begin seizing its assets.

The district, which filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection Aug. 20, 1993, owes $4 million to the California Department of Boating and Waterways, and $18 million to other creditors.

Its single largest debt is to Ventura Group Ventures, which in 1991 won a $15.7-million breach-of-contract court judgment when the district pulled out of a development project.

On Wednesday, several opponents blasted the housing development plan before the California Coastal Commission. They argued that not only would an apartment complex restrict public access to coastal waters, but that it amounted to a short-sighted bankruptcy rescue plan.

“This . . . is nothing more than bankruptcy-driven,” said Andrew Soter, a resident of nearby Beachmont Street. “Who benefits? No. 1, the port district. No. 2, the creditors. Who does it hurt? The citizens of Ventura, the county of Ventura and the citizens of California. It would be a travesty.”

“This property has sat there for a long time and now it needs to be developed because the harbor needs money,” said Brian Lee Rencher of Ventura. “I don’t think that serves our community.”

Some commissioners, however, said they supported the project.

“Even given the thought that this is an expedient plan to take care of financial concerns now, I think in the long run it’s going to be a good plan,” Commissioner Penny Allen said.

Commissioner Timothy J. Staffel credited the work of planners from the Coastal Commission and city of Ventura who worked for four months to devise a plan that would have provided coastal access while allowing the housing.

To assuage the concerns that commissioners had when they first considered the proposal in March, planners had redrawn the plans to restrict housing to nine acres on the inland side of the property.

Under the proposal, the waterfront would be reserved for boat slips, marine businesses and a 50-foot-wide pedestrian path along the water. A 2.4-acre waterfront park was also required on one side of the parcel.

But the majority of the commission still didn’t like it.

Commission Vice Chairwoman Sara Wan worried that approval would open the floodgates to residential housing at harbors throughout the state.

“This is not just Ventura,” she said. “It sets a precedent for the rest of the state. We have to discuss whether this is the way we want the state to go.”

Wohlenberg, however, disputed claims that the project was proposed just to help the district out of its financial woes.

“We’d be trying to do this even if there wasn’t a bankruptcy,” he said. “Only because of the quirks of the economy was that site not developed 10 or 15 years ago.”

The land has been the site for several development proposals over the past 18 years, including a shopping center, hotel, $25-million marine education center and convention center.

But port consultants decided that permanent housing was the best use for the parcel, which they believe would give merchants the regular year-round foot traffic that they lack.

In other action Wednesday, the commission voted 8 to 4 to block Pacific Bell’s attempt to build a 35-foot cellular telephone tower at Faria Beach. Resident Bill Stratton had appealed a county-issued permit for the tower.

Commissioners did not allow the project because they have no policies governing telephone antennae, but they said the company could return for approval once a policy is developed.

“It isn’t a total disappointment because we can bring it back,” company spokesman Jeff McHaddad said. “But the question is how long will it take the Coastal Commission to come up with a policy?”