Officials Hail Oceanfront RV Resort as Profit Source : Port Hueneme: Revenues from the site could lead to the elimination of the controversial view tax. Critics call the plan a get-rich-quick scheme.

On 10 barren acres of city-owned beachfront, Port Hueneme officials see a gold mine that they hope to sell to recreational-vehicle tourists.

Covered with little more than thistle, weeds and dune grass, the oceanfront lot near Hueneme Pier is the proposed site of a $2.3-million “RV destination resort” that would pump an estimated $400,000 a year into the city treasury.

City officials hail the plan as public-sector entrepreneurship at its finest: an investment that would yield 47 cents profit on every $1 paid by RV travelers seeking sand, surf and ocean sunsets.

“It would be a first-class RV resort, not a campground,” Councilman Dorill B. Wright said. “And it has the potential to provide money for maintenance of the entire beach area.”

City officials say the resort, with 143 sites, each costing $25 a night, would offer more amenities than a regular RV campground, including a pool, spa, convenience store and full hookups.

But in tapping its greatest land asset, the city would dedicate nearly 20% of its 60-acre municipal beach for outsiders’ use. It is an area once set aside for a children’s park.

Beach-area residents--already enraged over the city’s assessment of a so-called view tax--contend that the RV resort is a get-rich-quick scheme by city officials willing to sacrifice the last raw piece of prized public land.

Critics point out that, in advocating the project, City Manager Richard Velthoen and Community Development Director Thomas Figg do not tout the merits of the motor home resort, but rather, its role as a source of new revenue to stave off cuts in city services.

“What the city is really after is not an RV park, but money,” said Dorothy Blake, a beach homeowner opposed to the project. “That’s been clear all along.”

Laura Snell, who has owned a nearby condominium for 17 years, considers the resort project ill-conceived. The view of Hueneme Pier and the ocean horizon from her third-floor balcony would be obstructed by the proposed resort.

“They’re taking a part of Hueneme’s best asset and setting it aside for a limited use,” said Snell, coordinator of Concerned Hueneme Citizens, formed last year to fight the view tax and RV resort. “The city’s indebtedness can go on forever, so at what point would they stop selling off the beach?”

Port Hueneme’s financial shortcomings stem largely from its being a fixed-border city with no land to annex for more property tax revenues and limited retail trade for sales tax income. Among Ventura County’s 10 cities, Port Hueneme takes in the second-lowest local tax income per capita, after Fillmore.

“Our options are much more limited than most cities,” Wright said. “We are totally bounded, so we’re forced to recycle what we have.”

But some residents contend that they have been hoodwinked by the City Council because they proposed two years ago that the city impose special assessments on beach homeowners of up to $500 a year for beach maintenance, rather than building the RV park.

Last July, the council imposed assessments of $66 to $184 a year based on beach access and view--while still pursuing the RV resort plan.

“When the city was faced with a deficit budget, and the RV resort was basically stalled by the opposition, the city had no choice but to move ahead with the assessment district,” Wright said.

Velthoen said the beach assessments, now being challenged in court by homeowners, would be dropped once the RV resort is in operation. They generate about $150,000 toward the $400,000 annual beach maintenance tab. The RV resort’s estimated profits would cover the entire cost, and would have to be used for that purpose under state directives.

City officials say the project would open up the beach to a far wider group of people, but critics argue that the area, now open to anyone, would become the exclusive domain of those who own or rent motor homes. Velthoen contends that self-interest and elitism are at the root of the opposition. He said many beach-area homeowners fear a drop in their property values because they have a condescending view of RV owners, of which there are more than 120,000 within a 100-mile radius of Port Hueneme.

“When this was first made public, the hue and cry was that the people who use these facilities are less than desirable folks, drug dealers and worse,” said Velthoen, noting that a Port Hueneme city councilman, a planning commissioner and the police chief are RV enthusiasts. “These are typically nice retired people and middle-aged couples with grown children and spendable income.”

Velthoen acknowledges that the resort would be of no direct use to local residents, other than as a place for visiting relatives and friends to park their motor homes for the night.

But residents would benefit from the income taken in, he said. In that respect, the RV resort would be similar to Channel Islands Harbor, which produces about $2 million in annual profit that the county government spends on parks and recreation.

A market study commissioned by the city last year predicted an eventual occupancy rate of 70% for the resort.

And while there are 10 RV resorts and 18 RV campgrounds within 50 miles of Port Hueneme that would compete for business, Velthoen said the nearest oceanfront RV resorts are in Pismo Beach to the north and Newport Beach to the south.

“The market support is overwhelming,” Velthoen said.

In a city-funded poll conducted last year, 65% of Port Hueneme residents surveyed opposed any new development at the beach. Asked specifically about the RV project, 18% of surveyed residents opposed it, 11% thought it was the best use for the land, and the remainder had no opinion or were not informed enough to give one.

Before it can proceed, the city must receive permission from the California Coastal Commission, which oversees development along the state’s coast. Approval could well hinge on the pending reappointment of Wright to the commission, both for his vote and influence.

And even before going to the Coastal Commission, the city must get the state Lands Commission to amend a 1972 easement agreement dedicating the parcel in perpetuity for “passive uses,” such as sunbathing, picnicking and strolling.

The Lands Commission--a three-member panel composed of the lieutenant governor, state controller and the state director of finance--was scheduled to consider the city’s proposed amendments to the agreement last spring.

But city officials pulled the application moments before a commission hearing in Sacramento when it became clear that its members would turn down the request unless an environmental impact report was done, said Dwight Sanders, the commission’s chief of environmental planning and management.

The recently completed environmental study was released last month for a 45-day public comment period. It found no significant environmental impact that could not be mitigated.

Velthoen said the City Council has already decided to sue the Lands Commission if it balks at the project, since the RV resort is essentially no different than overnight state parks established on commission-governed land along California’s entire coast.

But environmentalists plan to challenge the findings at a public hearing scheduled for Jan. 21 before the Port Hueneme Planning Commission. They remain sharply critical of the resort plan for restricting public access to the beach and jeopardizing neighboring migratory bird grounds.

“It’s certainly not going to be plush if they’re going to pave everything over and jam in all the RVs they can,” said Cynthia Leake, vice president of The Environmental Coalition of Ventura County. “This is just a development to get people to think of Port Hueneme as a tourist town.”

“The general public should not be restricted in using what little scraps of beach there are left,” Leake said. “It’s the wrong thing to do just for profit, whether for the city or for a developer.”