Why the dispute over Well #7

 

Crestview purchased a vacant lot at 191 Alviso in October 2015 for $505,000 to develop new Well #7. At the time, the Board anticipated it would cost $1.2 million to permit and build. That estimate has grown to about $4 million in September 2021. The Board refused to disclose the details of the purchase. No lawsuit has been filed by the HOA or residents. View the Power-Point presentation; The Facts About Well #7.

The Crestview Board of Directors again engaged in fear-mongering with its recent letter Sept. 1, 2021 letter to shareholders about Well #7;

“Your Water Is At Risk. Act Now.”

The letter attacking individual Crestview homeowners and leveraging California’s drought conditions as a distraction for years of poor planning, poor decisions, and lack of insight by the Crestview Board does not solve problems.

Why did this happen?

From its inception in 2015, the Well #7 project at 191 Alviso lacked the due diligence and research to identify problems that have already cost Crestview shareholders over a million dollars. The Ventura County Planning Commission unanimously (5-0) denied the project on its merits in 2020, yet the Crestview Board continues to spend good money after bad pursuing the issue.

The obstacles and restrictions were clear, yet the project continued:

• HOA restrictions on the property prohibit a well, the drilling of a well, and any commercial use, yet the Board didn't investigate the restrictions before purchasing the property. 
• Three seepage (sewage) pits are within the non-waivable California State 150-foot state minimum setback, and 200-foot Ventura County setback requirement for public groundwater quality protection.
• Well #4, 1500 feet away, is failing – “running out of water,” says the Board. There is no assurance Well #7 will have water. Hardly the “tried and true solution,” claimed in the Crestview Board’s letter.   
• The Ventura County Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to deny Well #7 project on the merits. The Crestview Board appealed the decision to the Board of Supervisors, blaming “influential neighbors” for their failure. The Ventura County Board of Supervisors also unanimously denied the project (5-0) after a public hearing on September 14, 2021.
• Alternative plans are conspicuously absent.  

Crestview’s Board wants shareholders to endorse and fund its pursuit of Well #7 after a pattern of historically poor decisions:  

• The Board claims Well #4 (1500 feet from proposed Well #7) is running dry by design. 
• Crestview Well #5 was shut down in 2007 as non-productive. 
• The harsh reality of Well #7 is that the Crestview Board did not conduct adequate research into whether a well was permissible before spending $505,000 to purchase the lot.
• Crestview has engaged in building Well #8, a $2.1 million project funded by Crestview to sell water to Calleguas Mutual Water District.
• A new well was recently completed at the Las Posas Country Club by its new private owner. Water tests of the Fox Canyon source aquifer reveal clean, drinkable water right from the well. The Board dismissed this alternative site, continuing to champion its commitment to drilling Well #7, and also dismissed an alternative site at Fairway Dr. and Valley Vista.

The Crestview Board authorized $36,000 in 2020 and an additional $30,000 in 2021 to Sespe Consultants for political lobbying activities for Well # 7 and to enhance the image of the Board. Shareholders need to consider the costs and consequences of poor decisions. We will be paying for them for years to come. 

Any claim that "we simply may not have water for you or to protect you in the event of a fire" is hard to reconcile with Crestview's April 20, 2017 (drought season) engineering analysis prepared for Ventura County officials stating Crestview meets all requirements of the California Waterworks Standards [...], Ventura County Waterworks Manual, and the Ventura County Fire Code. The report goes as far as to claim Crestview has the capacity to add an additional 606 equivalent connections. Additionally, the report identifies Crestview mutual-aid interconnects with Calleguas Mutual Water District (1350 GPM), Cal American Water (900 GPM), Cal American Water (450 GPM), and the City of Camarillo (943 GPM) distributed via 10" to 8" piping in the service area.

There is no rational scenario under which Crestview will run out of water for fire suppression or domestic use.

A Hydrogeologist in the Ventura County Groundwater Section provided the following written statement: When I first heard of plans to construct a water well, I brought the restrictions to Mr. Eranio's attention. I conducted research into alternate sites that were not subject to the same restrictions, to facilitate Crestview's goal of installing a well. Mr. Eranio was not interested in hearing any alternatives. As a Hydrogeologist, I'm perplexed as to why Crestview chose a site in close proximity to a well that is "going dry." The chosen location is subject to the same declining water levels as well #4 and is not likely to produce more water than #4.

A letter from Crestview Mutual Water Co. Director Steve Gill was included with your March bill with with the glaring claim that a recent shareholder email "contained so many factual errors and misrepresentations that it requires an immediate response."

Conspicuously absent was anything to support the inflammatory remark. Included was a letter from the Ventura County Fire Department supporting a proposed new Crestview well. The Fire Department supporting any working addition to fire-fighting infrastructure is hardly surprising.

Let's look at the facts presented to Ventura County Planning Director Dave Ward on March 5, 2020. In attendance was Crestview's Attorney, Greg Patterson, Crestview Director Sol Chooljian and Consulting General Manager Robert Eranio who spoke in favor of the project. Approximately 20 Crestview shareholders also attended. The speaking shareholders were unanimously opposed to the Well #7 project -- none spoke in favor of the project.

• Homeowner's Association CC&R's do not allow for any drilling or a well on the Alviso property. "Crestview has no legal right to proceed with the project," says Attorney Peter Goldenring.
• NO LAWSUIT has been filed by residents or the HOA, yet attempts by shareholders to discuss Well #7 have been moved to Executive Session, thereby ceasing further discussion.
• There are three 50-foot-deep seepage (sewage) pits within the non-waivable California State 150-foot state minimum setback, and 200-foot Ventura County setback requirement for public groundwater quality protection.
• No alternative properties were investigated or presented, and there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed new Well #7 will do any better than the reportedly failing Crestview Well #4 being replaced just 1500 feet away.
• Public records indicate the property had several transfers; an initial purchase price of $385,000 on December 31, 2014, then to the "Speedy 51 Trust dated September 23, 2015," and weeks later to Crestview Mutual Water on October 13, 2015, for $505,000.
• Crestview advised adjacent property-owners that Crestview would cover the cost of being displaced to hotels for 45 days for the 24-hour, seven-day-a-week noise and vibration from drilling. Crestview rescinded the offer.
• Crestview proposed a 900-foot sanitary seal in lieu of the typical 50-foot sanitary seal. The increased seal depth was not considered when the proposed well site was chosen and will add significantly to the cost of the well. The adjacent homeowners could be required to install additional treatment systems to their septic system at an approximate initial cost of $50,000, and $2,500/year maintenance.
• The Alviso property has a 23% grade, which would subject the adjacent Las Posas Hill Homeowners owned Blue Line creek-bed and equestrian trail subject to well overflow, drainage, and flooding. Crestview neither sought, nor would receive access approval to the privately-owned property and water feature.