Short takes

Did you see this article on the ojaiblog? It looks like every city is having growth issues.

Evidently there are a few initiatives beig contemplated in Ojai and the city attorney is trying to block them.

A council candidate is facing a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit. I believe that a SLAPP suit was filed by Fillmore against Patti and several other citizens a few years back.

Santa Paula just completed their community workshop, Plan Santa Paula. I applaud the effort.

Moorpark, Santa Paula, Thousand Oaks, Fillmore. Cities in Ventura County are waking up to the reality of life in our times. The perpetual growth is causing citizens to try to protect their quality of life. More later...

Referendum Conundrum

For Anonymous 9:27 PM who had asked for proof of Residential Low(1-7 du/acre) density that actually equals 693 homes since the Land Use Element calls the North Fillmore Master Plan area 99 acres.

I've been working on trying to upload an entire document for you but that's been a real pain so I have to give up on that. I'm going to try to find a way to get the images on here but in the mean time you can read the text. I have included a link to the General Plan Land Use Element to look it up for yourself.

General Plan Update Land Use Element

These are excerpts from the General Plan Land Use Element, adopted May 2003, that apply to North Fillmore. These five excerpts indicate that the default Land Use for North Fillmore without the North Fillmore Specific Plan is Low Density Residential of 1-7 units per acre at a maximum of 693 units.

http://www.fillmoreca.com/docs/gpu4.pdf

1. Page LU-34: Table LU-6 that describes the proposed designations


States that North Fillmore Master Plan Area of 99 acres would transition to low-density residential.

2. Page LU-44: Definition of Low-Density Residential

Thus, 99 acres x low-density residential (1-7 du/acre) equals a maximum of 693 units.

3. Page LU-43: Land Use Category Summary
States that a Master Plan with design standards is REQUIRED. Where is it?

4. Page LU-49: Definition of Overlay Districts(NFMaster Plan is an Overlay)

States that development standards and studies are required and specific ordinances should be developed. Where are the zoning ordinance changes? “Except as specified…the underlying land use category would apply.” Thus the underlying land use category of Residential Low would apply.

5. Page LU-52: Overlay District Intentions

This is where things get confusing. The North Fillmore Overlay District is ‘intended’ for ‘potential’… and ‘would’ include no more than 894. The overlay district has never been established. And, there is no Master Plan.

Definition: ‘Would: Refers to an event that has not happened yet.


Conclusion

The conclusion is that the Master Plan was never done. Thus, the zoning and land use designation prior to the North Fillmore Specific Plan is either RL-Low-density residential 1-7 units, for a maximum development of 693 dwelling units or, simply Industrial.

Additionally, in the General Plan Update Supplement to Final Environmental Impact Report (page 3) of October 25, 2005 - Land Use Element Changes, the updated General Plan Land Use Category Summary table has no reference to any North Fillmore Master Plan at all. The only possible reference is a category of Transitional Residential: Requires Planning Commission review and the Planned Development process to allow approval. Does this document supersede the Land Use Element adopted in 2003(but not certified until 2005)?

Is it a trick?

In addition to the land use controversy, there is also the strange ambiguity of the Referendum and new resolution passed at the last council meeting.

This is what the Resolution passed at the October 24th council meeting reads. There are several “whereases” but the last one is the important one. It reads;

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the cost of calling a referendum election is unwarranted because Resolution No. 06-2957 was unnecessary to support the City Council’s findings of consistency in that the approvals of the North Fillmore Specific Plan, the amendment to the City’s Zoning Code and Tentative Tract Map No. 5422 were all consistent with the 2003 General Plan Update and therefore the repeal of Resolution No. 06-2957 has no effect on the City Council’s approvals thereof.

Has no effect on the North Fillmore Specific Plan approvals...

Now, I’m not a lawyer, but to me, this reads that when the City Council approved these resolutions and ordinances…

The land use designation change from Master Plan to Specific Plan
The North Fillmore Specific Plan
The amendments to the City’s Zoning Code
The Tentative Tract Map No. 5422(SunCal)

…that the first approval to change the land use designation didn’t mean anything and that North Fillmore Specific Plan, zoning changes and Tract Map are unaffected by the Resolution.

So, why all the “boo-hooing” that the North Fillmore Specific Plan is dead? What the heck is going on here? I am absolutely baffled by the reaction. Is this some kind of manipulation or what?

North Fillmore Neighborhood Council Debate - Q & A

North Fillmore Neighborhood Committee Election Debate


1) This is a two- part question, if you were talking with a person that was contemplating moving to Fillmore, what would you say the best thing about Fillmore is and the worst? Please answer the second part of this question as though you were talking with a business that was interested in coming to Fillmore.

The best thing about Fillmore is the small town character. We have great weather. We have a beautiful location in a river valley surrounded by mountains and orchards. We have a relatively low crime rate due to our size.

The worst thing about Fillmore is the fact that we have a highway going right through town and the traffic and poor air quality that is degrading our quality of life. We have extended development beyond our resources and now will be facing unbearable expenses for water quality.

For a business, the best thing about Fillmore is that there are some unmet needs for entrepreneurs to take advantage of. We have a need for a book store, restaurants, clothing stores – many opportunities for a small business.

For a larger business, the worst thing about Fillmore is that our workforce has the lowest level of education in the county.

2) What is the very first “thing” you plan on doing one in office?

I want to improve the communication between the city and the public. We need more town meetings, newsletters and accessibility. I want the public to feel comfortable expressing their concerns. I also want to commission a complete budget review/overview so we can get a better picture of where our money is going and what we can do to save money or direct what we have that will give us the most benefit.

3) Crime, Graffiti, and gangs, how will you eliminate or decrease these concerns?

My solution to this would be data driven. I would like to meet with the police department to determine who is committing the crimes(juveniles, gangs, adults), where the crimes are occurring(specific areas or city wide), what types of crimes are most frequent(graffiti, assault, theft), when are the most crimes occurring(which shift-day/evening/after 12pm/am, weekends or Thursdays). Then we can analyze the data and come up with a plan. For instance; say that it is determined that the highest percentage of crimes are thefts – committed by adult drug users – between the hours of 11pm and 3am on Friday night– on the east side of town. Double up the patrols to that area around those hours on Friday, investigate the source of drugs, if individuals are arrested, help find intervention or drug programs. This would be a targeted solution instead of a broad approach. One bite at a time. Just a few ideas. I’m sure the sheriff’s department has a similar plan. Maybe there are no patterns in Fillmore.

We need to promote the Crimestoppers and Neighborhood Watch programs. We have greatly reduced graffiti in our neighborhood just by maintaining the area and communicating to the community how important it is to work together to observe and report suspicious activities. We have stressed the point that we are all paying for the maintenance and cleanup of graffiti and it needs to be stopped.

4) What is your plan to mix residential and commercial growth in our city that is well thought out and intelligent in design?

My plan is to slow it down a little and to have more public involvement. Residential growth in Fillmore in the past has been at a livable pace up until the past few years. The scale of large developments of 1000, 700, homes does not fit the size of this town. They would be appropriate in Oxnard or Thousand Oaks, a City that has a lot more room and that has adequate open space and parks. We have neither. We are running out of room so we need to make sure that we have adequately reserved sites for schools, parks, open space, community facilities, and community gardens. We need to think about the future beyond 2020 – which is only 13 years away. So we build out and then what?

As far as commercial growth we need to make sure that the blighted and vacant commercial parcels in town are attractively rehabilitated.

5) What is your plan to listen to and properly represent ALL of your constituents?

I am a good listener and I listen more than I talk. I am accessible and willing to meet with all constituents. We have conducted a random survey to get input on what the public’s concerns are. This should be done on a regular basis. We are still in a democracy and the majority of voters should have a say in how their community shall be developed and run. I want to implement more outreach and communication by taking advantage of some of the opportunities that that are available. We need to improve the PEG programming (public access television), send out newsletters on a regular basis, have more open forum discussions, create a wifi enterprise.

6) What are your thoughts on the NFSP and the referendum(s)?

When I read the NFSP EIR I was quite disturbed at the significant impacts that this project would generate. The mitigations that were recommended did not appear adequate for schools, parks, air quality, traffic or noise. These concerns were expressed eloquently by many citizens. I was not happy that our development standards were degraded to tiny lots, narrow streets, three story buildings and mostly multi-family all concentrated in one area that was historically rural - not urban. The Referendum was the only option to block the plan.

The status of the Referendum is a little confused right now. Last night’s resolution passed by the city council really didn’t change the North Fillmore Specific Plan but the council and city staff are saying that it’s stopped now. So, there are arguments on both sides. My hope is that we can meet with the city and get some clarification. In the meantime, the rhetoric that they are putting out is overwrought and incorrect.

7) What specifically is YOUR vision for Fillmore in the year 2020?

My vision for Fillmore is what it says in Vision 2020(the original). If the principles and guidelines in Vision 2020 were adopted and adhered to I would be satisfied. I’ve noticed that there is a departure between Vision 2020 and the General Plan Update starting in about 2000. But I want to see Fillmore maintain the small town agricultural roots that were promised and the public was led to expect.

8) What specifically is your plan to decrease the cost to the ratepayers for the new sewer treatment plant?

I have a couple of ideas
· First – the energy costs reduction - alteranative
· Operate ourselves – OMI biggest percentage
· Chloride reduction – partner w/ Rayne, voluntary compliance more education.
· Explore adding tertiary treatment to existing plant

9) How will you increase tourism and film productions in the city of Fillmore?

The City has made a commitment in the past to support tourism and the railroad. Now, it appears that the railroad is being pushed out by residential and commercial property. They will no longer have a maintenance yard and will have to remove their spurs. I would maintain the railroad/tourism corridor per the existing downtown specific plan/business corridor plan.

The city also needs a decent monument at Central and 126 to draw traffic to the downtown merchants. The vacant and blighted commercial spaces need to be rehabilitated and beautified to be more appealing to tourists and film productions.

10) How prepared are you to deal with controversial issues in Fillmore?

I’m working pretty hard on getting myself informed on all the issues. I have read the North Fillmore Specific Plan and EIR, the Grimes Canyon Expansion Plan EIR’s, I’ve toured the sewer plant and water system

I’ve attended most of the city council meetings. I know how difficult it can be to have a position that may not be popular with developers or city staff. I think the best way to deal with it is to be as informed as possible and to communicate as much as possible.

Sewer Topic Roundup...

Each of these comments deserves an entire topic and discussion of it's own. I'll just address each of them briefly and keep the list available for future lengthy analysis and discussion.

Sewer Plant & Water Quality Standards: 10:24 AM
Just to reiterate, the LARWQCB sets the standards, not the means to achieve them. The Thousand Oaks Hill Canyon WWTP is meeting all the Water Board requirements using the Trickle Bed Filters (TBF) process.

City Council Meeting - Treatment of the public: 10:37 AM
I agree. I have respect for Mr. Villegas and the council members, but it is clear that it is a one way street. There is no respect for the rights of the public. You could visibly see how Mr. Dorsey Smith was the only speaker that Mr. Villegas considered an equal that he couldn't demean or talk down to.

Illegal Immigration: 10:50 AM
This is certainly a hot button issue. I don't know what can be done on a city level. As you can see, Escondido is asking that State and Federal laws be enforced. Whether Arnold and George have the will to comply is out of our control.

Triple Dipping Consultants: 1:19 PM
I do want to tackle the issue of consultants. Someone on another topic provided a link to the September warrants list. It is disappointing to see so much money being spent and how much of it is leaving the community. We hear a lot of rhetoric about creating jobs - but I think the City itself could provide a lot of good paying jobs to locals. With all due respect to Mr. Payne and his long years of service to the community, why did he "retire" if he knew he would be spending the next ten years "consulting" on all of the capital projects. It is a shameful conflict of interest, self-dealing, and manipulation of power and influence.

It is also against the law as of June 1st of this year. (See Cal. Gov't Code § 87406.3(a), which reads as follows:) "A local elected official, chief administrative officer of a county, city manager, or general manager or chief administrator of a special district who held a position with a local government agency as defined in Section 82041 shall not, for a period of one year after leaving that office or employment, act as agent or attorney for, or otherwise represent, for compensation, any other person, by making any formal or informal appearance before, or by making any oral or written communication to, that local government agency, or any committee, subcommittee, or present member of that local government agency, or any officer or employee of the local government agency, if the appearance or communication is made for the purpose of influencing administrative or legislative action, or influencing any action or proceeding involving the issuance, amendment, awarding, or revocation of a permit, license, grant, or contract, or the sale or purchase of goods or property."

Friends of Fillmore & New PAC: 10:00 AM 1:57 PM & 2:19 PM
Yes, evidently the Friends of Fillmore have regrouped and created a new PAC called Citizens for a Safer Fillmore. I have some documents to post from the FPPC filings as soon as I get time. They are in support of Ken and Laurie. If the FOF come out with new attacks on Patti it is still the same individuals/companies.

Referendum Decision: At 3:44 PM
The intent of the Referendum has been severely perverted by the City. And, it does NOT revert to 894 homes. There is no Master Plan. The underlying zoning is Residential Low 1-7 homes per acre. Still a maximum of 700 homes. The issue of "piece mealing" is weak. I hope to post all of the General Plan LUE pages referencing this as soon as I get them scanned in. In the meantime, if you have a copy of the "Master Plan" and all of the attendant resolutions, let's see it.

City Revenue: 10:41 PM
"Keep taxpayer expenditure to a minimum" That will certainly be my goal. There is a regular election in March, so there would not necessarily be a special election required for Fillmore. A special election might cost $12,000. If the City had any interest in saving taxpayer money, a compromise would have been reached long ago. Or, they would have accepted the Planning Commission decision to adopt the NFSP alternative of 480 homes, which was already certified in the EIR. Also, why was the 700 alternative selected and then NOT adopted with the inclusion of a school which was called for in the EIR? To blame the public for these decisions is deceitful.

Overwhelmed

Well, you are all so prolific that I can't keep up with all of your comments. There are so many other issues that I want to discuss but I also want to respond to questions and comments made. I'll do my best to get caught up this weekend.

One thing I want everyone to know is that this was not created for the election. I saw the Ojai blog a couple of years ago and contacted Tyler. I hope you've had an opportunity to check out his site. They were also conducting a free computer clinic every so often where residents could bring in their equipment and have simple repairs done and get their questions answered. I thought it would be a great idea for Fillmore to have something similar so I bought the domain back in 2005.

I still have that goal for a portal on community events and activities and also getting the computer folks together for a clinic.

Then I found the Santa Paula blog. This one is run by the City Manager and I thought it was wonderful that the public could post questions and comments and Wally and Mayor Krause would keep them informed. I would love to see that come to fruition here as well.

Anyway, I had the domain for a long time but really didn't do to much with it until recently. I'm sure things will slow down after the election but I have every intention of keeping up the blog and encouraging everyone to use it to ask questions, inform, dialog, complain and even argue if need be.

I am also encouraging others who would like to post their own topics to contact me to be set up as a team member.

Marc O and I discuss density

Marc O said...

"My opinion is that by keeping the north Fillmore land destination as residential low, Fillmore may experience a housing shortage in the next 10-15 years "

I can understand how you would think that. It's reapeated often enough. First, the 5 units per acre (Residential Low), is the same density in Rosewood, Hometown and Riverwalk. It is the average density for the entire city. It is NOT half acre lots!

Second, I doubt that we will experience a housing shortage for these reasons,

1. Our actual true growth rate is 0% and actually declined by two persons last year. I do know that the state always says "emergency" and we have to anticipate massive influx but what if they are wrong? It appears they are. If the Federal Government decides to have an open border policy, we would probably have that much growth.
2. There is a lot of housing inventory in the real estate market and rental market right now - little bit of a housing bubble.
3. The SCAG forecast is predicting a population of 16,597 for 2015. Right now we are at 15,800. Our General Plan is 37% higher than SCAG.
4. There are a lot of projects being built right now or getting permits that are way over the projected SCAG forecasts(24%) for dwelling units.

"not to mention a serious manipulation of the housing market forcing young families and first time buyers to look elsewhere. "

Umm...can you explain the part about "serious manipulation of the housing market"? Fillmore has the lowest prices already in Ventura County. And, they are going down as we speak.

"This may also encourage development outside of the curb line. "

What IS going to encourage development outside of the CURB line is the rapid buildout of Fillmore. That is the what the developer's(and their "consultants" )goal is. If we can be completely built out by 2020, then they can start to annex Bardsdale and Grand Avenue.

Another question...Sewer Plant

Continuing with Anonymous 9:38 AM's questions...

"With regards to the water reclimation plant, what can be done to reduce the costs, we got denied for the grant we applied for. The LARWQCB is forcing us to build the plant, why doesn't the city sue for the funds to build it? "

This is a great question. There are still 3 or 4 other grants that we have applied for that have not been awarded yet. If we get denied, we might wonder why. Are we not worthy?

You also have an incorrect assumption here. The LARWQCB is not necessarily forcing us to build a plant. We are being forced to comply with their water quality standards. Are there tertiary treatment options that can be integrated into the existing plant? Maybe not but I think other cities have done it.

I know that Bert has thoroughly researched this issue but I still have questions myself. Questions about retention ponds, ignored development moratoria, package plants and interim improvements that I'm researching. I can't help it, I'm a technogeek.

Here are my ideas to reduce the costs.

First, my biggest concern is the cost of energy which is one of the largest components of the operating expense. The new technology will use 5 times more energy to treat the water. This is going to be a big problem for us. I think that there are some SCE rate guarantees but they will still be 5 times more expensive right out of the gate. The price of energy is in a lull for the moment - I think people started to conserve a little when oil went up 250% in the last few years - but the trend upward will continue. (That is a whole other issue but I encourage you to inform yourself about Peak Oil -just Google it.)

I have expressed this to Bert Rapp and he agrees. He has asked the DBO contractor to investigate the feasibility of using an alternative energy source and they have responded with some solar energy proposals that will help cut the energy costs.

My other idea is to operate and maintain the plant ourselves rather than a contractor . We would have to hire and train employees(6+ good jobs). Ventura College has a Waste Water Treatment certification program that we could take advantage of.

This would also save a lot of money. I'm not sure what percentage the contractor puts in their pocket and takes out of the community but it's a lot. Consider that right now we are paying a minimum of $1,500,000 expense with $600,000 of that for operators which now consist of three employees. Do you think that those employees are making $200,000 each? No, I didn't think so either. So, hopefully they are making a decent salary but a big chunk of that money(our tax $'s) is going to OMI(Denver, CO). By the way, the new plant will cost about $5,000,000 a year to operate.

This will be more difficult to accomplish but it's worth looking at.

I also have some other ideas on water softener/chloride reduction that I'll go into when I have more time.

Keep up the issue questions. I also want to invite any of the other candidates to respond with their own comments. If you are interested just send me an email to gaylewashburn@sbcglobal.net and I will get you a password and team member logon so you can create your own posts.

Good questions...Referendum

I see that Anonymous 9:38 AM, has posted a comment with several tough and pertinent questions. I can't wait to get started on them.

Unfortunately, I'm on my way out the door so I will get back to this ASAP.

Okay I'm back...Here is the first question that anonymous had:

"With regards to the referendum, why was it so poorly written that it forces either the citizens to vote for or the city council to undo the NFSP, and instead replace it with the 894 homes in the master plan."

Well, first, the Referendum was well written and immediately certified by the County. Make no mistake, if there was any problem with the Referendum it would have been immediately disqualified. But, it wasn't.

It also does not revert to the 894 homes. This is a fallacy that has been distributed to the public. The facts are thus;

1. The zoning for the North Fillmore area is in the General Plan Update as "Residential Low". If we "undo" the NFSP it will revert to that zoning of 1-7 homes per acre. There is also the Industrial zoned component.

My question to you or the city would be...why should the voice of the citizens be ignored? Why is the 894 homes such a departure from Vision 2020?

Editorial in Ventura County Star today...

Did you see this in the paper today? It's interesting to note the real reasons that the park has been in limbo. We've been told it was because of lawsuits. What I question about that allegation, is that if lawsuits were keeping Griffin and the City from building a park, why didn't it keep Griffin and the City from moving forward with Heritage Valley Parks construction?

What do you think?

Fillmore candidate responds
By Patti WalkerOctober 22, 2006
Re: Cecelia Uber's Oct. 13 letter, "Divisiveness isn't needed":

I am not sure where she obtained her information upon which she based her allegations, but she is grossly misled. To clear up the record, I submit the following.

Delay of the C Street Park occurred when Griffin Homebuilding presented a plan to build a residential development on the C Street parkland and where the current wastewater treatment facility is located. The city has continually extended Griffin's exclusive right on the property many times and it was not until just recently that Griffin pulled the rights. It was only then that the plans for the park began moving forward.

I do not understand how Uber could come to the conclusion that I had a hand in the litigation that has plagued the city. Quite the contrary. I was the one who voiced concerns to the council and staff that there were possible violations of the California Environmental Quality Act occurring with respect to the various environmental reports. It was the council that chose to ignore my concerns.

Second, attorneys for the groups that sued the city also issued warnings. Again, those statements were overlooked.

Uber's accusation that I leaked documents from executive session is also erroneous. If memory serves me, she is referring to her continued allegation that a map was distributed during one session and I simply walked out the door with it in hand. First, it is impossible for that to have occurred as there was never a map distributed. Second, I wonder who told her a map was discussed. And, third, did she ever question Mr. Moore as to where he obtained the map? I am sure if she had, she would have learned the chain of hands the map traveled prior to it landing in his. I can assure you it was never in mine.

She is correct in stating that I was censured for writing a letter to my congressman on my personal stationery, the purpose of which was my concern for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Fillmore, as well as those who reside in the county. As a citizen, it was not only my right to communicate with my representative, but, more importantly, my duty.

And, finally, it is well within her rights to state that, in her opinion, I was disruptive and there existed divisiveness among the council. I beg to differ. It was my responsibility as a representative of the citizens of Fillmore, to be fully informed on the issues, to be fiscally responsible, and strive for fair and open governance. I believe I fulfilled my responsibilities.

— Patti Walker, Fillmore

North Fillmore Neighborhood Council Debate

The North Fillmore Neighborhood Council will be hosting a candidate debate on October 25th at 7:00 pm at the Lemon Way storefront.

In the interim, if you have candidate questions please post them here and we will answer them. I hope you have been reading the weekly Fillmore Gazette questions and answers.

So much news...so little time

Thanks to all the loyal bloggers out there sending me links and articles. Here's a Ventura County Star article from the last election with some information on the "Friends of Fillmore".

Councilwoman pays big price for beliefs
Walker may have lost election over stand on Fillmore project

By Kathleen Wilson, kwilson@VenturaCountyStar.comNovember 14, 2004

In a span of three months Patti Walker has been censured, called "subversive," and apparently beaten in her bid for re-election to the Fillmore City Council.
But she regrets nothing.

She stands behind her appeal for Rep. Elton Gallegly's help in stopping development backed by the City Council. She is comfortable with her decision not to apologize for seeking the congressman's aid, and she's still seeking the Ventura County Board of Supervisors' intervention on the same issue.

"If I felt remorse, if I had felt I had done anything untoward, I would have apologized," she said in a post-election interview last week. "I have no regrets, and I'd do it again."

Walker, 51, hardly fits the profile of a renegade.

The paralegal with strawberry blond hair and blue eyes is low-key and soft-spoken. A devout Christian, she is head of the policy-setting council at Fillmore First Methodist Church. She leads the local Soroptimists Club.

But she has been resolute in her opposition to residential development in the Santa Clara River flood plain, calling it "inherently dangerous."

She argues the construction will speed up flood water, possibly threatening farmers downstream. She also questions whether flood protection measures will work.

Backed by studies

Walker points to numerous studies to prove her point, just as city officials do to prove theirs, but once the City Council made its 4-1 decision to approve a large development near the river called Heritage Valley Parks, her colleagues say she should have accepted it.

"It was frustrating, very frustrating," Mayor Evaristo Barajas said. "She didn't want to let it go."
Walker said she votes her conscience. Quoting a statement by county Supervisor John Flynn, she said, "I won't go along to get along." "That's me in a nutshell," she said. Her position has not come without price. It has not only rankled her colleagues on the City Council but also spurred a well-financed effort to defeat her.

A political committee called Friends of Fillmore backed three of her opponents, raised $30,000 for the race and urged citizens to vote her out of office.

Roger Campbell, a former councilman who is a consultant for the group, said the committee is made up of local residents. However, thousands of dollars came from out-of-town development interests, according to campaign finance statements. A list of dozens of contributions totaling $100 or more shows only one contributor with a Fillmore address.

Campbell declined further comment, referring questions to Committee Chairman John Scoles. The Fillmore attorney was out of town and could not be reached for this article.

A few days before the Nov. 2 election, Friends of Fillmore mailed a flier to residents urging them to "Vote No on Patti Walker," citing the City Council's censure vote over her appeal to Gallegly. The flier said Walker was "trying to work against the will of the people and its city-elected officials."

In a letter to Gallegly last summer, the councilwoman said a decision by the Federal Emergency Management Agency should be overturned. FEMA had approved a map changing the location of a disputed flood line, allowing all of Heritage Valley Parks to be built beside the river.

Despite several appeals, FEMA stood by its decision. Gallegly has not intervened. Walker said she believes the flier, issued two months after the censure, might have led to her defeat.

Although she did well enough to win in absentee votes and established east-side neighborhoods, she finished last in areas of town with newly developed homes such as north Fillmore and those near the river.

Douglas Tucker, who lives in the Hometown development in north Fillmore, said the flier could well have swayed voters in those areas who might not have followed the controversy.
The two-page mailer correctly reported she had been censured for violating the city code of ethics, following the city attorney's determination that she should not have mentioned her status as a councilwoman in the letter to Gallegly. However, it did not report that she had written the letter on her personal stationery or her argument that she was merely expressing her personal opinion.

"There's lots of thoughts both ways ranging from that she went against what the City Council had voted in and went behind their backs, but at the same time she was expressing her views as a citizen," Tucker said. "It created a lot of controversy where they weren't sure which way to go."

Friends of Fillmore backed candidates Steve Conaway, Ray Dressler and John Parsons in their first bids for public office. All three support Heritage Valley Parks. Conaway and Dressler won easily. Incumbent M. Cecilia Cuevas, who also supports Heritage Valley Parks, eked into third place in the race for three seats, ahead of Parsons.

Ballots still not counted

With about 1,000 absentee ballots yet to be tallied countywide, a victory by Walker now appears statistically impossible, Assistant Registrar Gene Browning said Friday.

Walker's last-place finish in the council race comes four years after she won election to her first term in the midst of a divisive battle over growth.

She campaigned for a growth-restriction law called Measure J. Although it failed along with an alternative allowing fairly widespread development, the City Council ultimately agreed to a compromise.

Walker considers that compromise one of her finest achievements. She also is proud of making Spanish translation of council meetings available on request, bringing Spanish films to the predominantly Latino town, approving affordable housing projects, and devoting developer fees to a new public library she hopes will be built.

With her apparent defeat, the balance of power on the council won't change because she represented only one vote. She leaves with a record for being smart, hard working and a champion for the town's public library, council members said.

"Patti Walker was very instrumental in a lot of areas," Barajas said. "It's just that her ideas as far as housing in Fillmore were not in line with mine."

Development means money

Barajas and the other council members see Heritage Valley Parks as the town's economic salvation. City Manager Roy Payne has forecast that it could produce a net gain of almost $1 million a year for the town that lacks a public pool, and needs more parks and schools.
However, Walker says residential development will be no panacea, driving demands on public services.

"It impacts everything: your sewer, your water, your schools."

Critics support change

Walker's fiercest critic on the City Council said she lost because she was out of step with Fillmore residents.

"The people in Fillmore basically believe it's time for a change, and they don't necessarily want an obstructionist on the council," said Councilman Ken Smedley. "They realize the benefits smart growth and moderate development can bring to this town."

Smedley led the call for her censure. He called her actions "subversive," an adjective used to describe people seeking to destroy or undermine governments.

"If you want to be an activist, don't get elected," he said. "Don't say you represent the citizens of Fillmore and represent a small minority."

In Walker's view, his comments went beyond their political differences.
"I thought some of those comments he made were definitely personal attacks on my character," she said.

Walker isn't sure where the fast-growing town of 15,000 is headed without her on the council. She still plans to advocate her views just as she has since she moved to Fillmore a decade ago after the Northridge earthquake.

The councilwoman said she is not bitter, but does not believe the reaction to her point of view was merited.

"I wasn't raised to demean, belittle or scold another for their opinions and thoughts just because they differ."

League of Women Voters debate cancelled...

I just received this email that the event has been cancelled.


"Wanted everyone to know the forum for tonight has been cancelled. Ms. Kelley was unable to do what she needed to do and so it is off. Ken is calling 2 of the candidates and I offered to call Linda and Gayle. Please pass this on to others I may have missed
Patti"

When "Friends" attack...

Well, have you gotten to see the nasty mailer from the "Friends of Fillmore" PAC?

I've gotten phone calls, emails and blog comments from people who are outraged at this vicious attack on Patti Walker. If some were uncertain about Patti in the past, they are changing their votes in support of Patti now. I hope this means that the true nature of our city is going to prevail in this election.

What I mean by that is the fact that most of our citizens are honest, hardworking, generous, caring committed citizens who want the best for their families as well as others. The kind of people who believe in fairness and justice. I think that is what is behind the outrage - the unfairness and below the belt tactics that don't belong in this town!

So, what do you think?

I heard that Linda Roberts gave a splendid rebuke to the "friends" at last night's Chamber debate. Now that is a display of true character. I am very proud of her.

p.s. We hope to get the current PAC filings of the "Friends" to post in the near future. The filing date was October 5th but the City does not have any records for us to date.

Vision 2020...New version

Well, tomorrow is the big day. You should all be getting the newest, revised Vision 2020 booklet delivered right to your door.

The Volunteer Fair will be at the city park from 10 am to 2 pm. There are lots of opportunities for us to be of service to the community.

So, give me your opinions on Vision 2020. Did you participate in creating the first Vision 2020, or this revision? Do you think it's a good idea? Do you think it needed to be revised?

I think it was a good document. There were so many good ideas and comments that went into creating the vision. I wasn't here and didn't participate in any way but I felt good about it. In retrospect, I think it was a catalyst in my getting involved in what was going on in the city.

What is so disturbing is that when you read Vision 2020, particularly the "Managing Growth in Our Community" chapter, it sounds like a good plan. "Preserve our small town atmosphere and quality of life through slow, well-planned growth in order to protect open space, allow agriculture to thrive and strengthen our local economy, neighborhoods, schools, parks, libraries and public services."

"By carefully managing growth, we can maintain our small-town atmosphere and avoid urban ills, such as overcrowding and sprawl..." "Population about 20,000".

I think this is exactly what we all wanted to see and what we were expecting. What the heck happened? Who decided to depart from this vision? Why did the City depart from this vision?

At some point, someone decided that we were going to go in a different direction and change the character of Fillmore! All of this is documented in the General Plan Update EIR prepared in 2002.

Page 4.1.18 - "Development under the General Plan would ...alter the character of the City of Fillmore..."

Page 4.7-11 - "...this(buildout) would irreversibly alter the aesthetic character of the community..."

Did you know about this? Did you agree with this?

What disturbs me is that now we are revising Vision 2020 to go along with this General Plan Update. Can anyone tell me how this happened?

Smart Growth

Someone had previously asked a question about Smart Growth. I thought I would create a topic about it because it is interesting to me.

Smart Growth or Planned Growth are concepts that our city is obviously embracing. The idea is not new. There are a lot of positive aspects to smart growth; it is pedestrian oriented, it tries to consolidate growth into smaller, urban areas to avoid sprawl. This was the goal of the North Fillmore Specific Plan.

It is a great concept and seeks to minimize the negative impacts of growth and development. The concept acknowledges that our resources are limited and we need to take that into account.

Where the NFSP failed was saying they were embracing smart growth, while needlessly sprawling out into undeveloped, non-urban, agricultural land. The NFSP is a good plan, but is not necessary at this time.

Fillmore does have geographic boundaries that will prevent us from growing out too far. So, realizing that, we should try to preserve some open space and park land, potential school sites and community gardens. Once those houses go up that land is gone forever.

If you build it they will come. They will come from Los Angeles County and Santa Barbara County because it's less expensive here. But, our current growth rate is fairly stable and even declining.

PAC Information...

The Friends of Fillmore and Fillmore Citizens for Responsible Growth are the PAC's that were formed to elect some of our current Council members.

Those very nice, slick brochures you saw in the last election were paid for by the Friends of Fillmore and produced by Adler Public Affairs. No doubt there will be more to come.

Both of the PAC's addresses are based in Mill Valley and there are really no individuals from Fillmore contributing.

I apologize if they are difficult to read.

On this sheet, Griffin Industries is a major contributor - $6,000!



The candidates they were supporting...