The Fisherman’s Wharf Retail Center at Channel Islands Harbor remains a dilapidated slum without a resolution. (Photo by Chris Frost)
By Chris Frost
chris@tricountysentry.com
Oxnard-- The California Coastal Commission's unanimous rejection of the Ventura County Harbor Department's request for an LCP (Local Coastal Plan) amendment override of the Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) and Coastal Zoning Ordinance of the certified City of Oxnard LCP at Fisherman's Wharf continues with Harbor Director Mark Sandoval saying that evidence does not demonstrate that the Local Coastal Plan Amendment will meet the public needs of an area greater than the LCP.
The item drew tons of passionate response and emotion, as people vehemently challenged the project.
Members of the Oxnard City Council spoke against the project and accused the developer of dismissing community input and doing what it wants. Councilman Bert Perello told the commission the developer planned to sue the city if not approved. He accused the county of doing nothing and allowing the site to fall into disrepair.,
Sandoval told the commission that Channel Islands Harbor is a resource for all area residents and beyond.
"Fisherman's Wharf was developed with harbors in the 1960s and 1970s that provided a link between land and water," he said. "It was part of the allure drawing visitors to harbors from all over the state."
Approximately 18 percent of the marina's customers reside in Oxnard, and 28 percent live in Ventura County, but outside of Oxnard.
"A full 56 percent reside outside Ventura County," he said. "This is a regional asset with a regional draw. The Fisherman's Wharf retail center, which is and has been 70 percent vacant, is an integral part of that development, but it cannot be developed as a stand-alone project."
Because the amendment lacks sufficient specificity and standards, Sandoval said it's possible that future residential development could be of a size scale, so layout and design can potentially impact or limit existing and future public access.
"The application to the city and the coastal commission included detail development standards separated into four categories," he said. "They include specific standards about required public amenities, the number of units, the square feet of commercial, building height, and variations, setbacks, corridors, and open space requirements."
The reprioritization of uses is inconsistent with the LCP and Coastal Act requirements. Those prioritize fishing, recreational, coastal development, and visitor-serving uses at waterfront locations.
"Opponents have argued that this is a residential development which secondarily refurbishes a commercial center," he said. "The harbor is a regional asset, and as such, a vibrant gateway with retail and a commercial center is of the utmost importance. The county set out to redevelop Fisherman's Wharf in 2004. Through two separate RFQ's (Request for Quotations), we had negotiations with three different development teams and proposed project mixes that started at 800 apartment units and are now down to 390. It became obvious that Fisherman's Wharf, the gateway to the harbor, needs a financial anchor, and in this case, it's residential."
The city adopted its 2030 general plan in 2011 that endorsed apartments at the site. He said the county moved forward with an LCP amendment featuring project-specific development standards requiring new, expanded, and enhanced public access, along with recreational and boating amenities through mixed-use development.
The commission staff report calling into prioritization and reprioritization of uses, Sandoval said, is counter to the reason for and, more importantly, the need for apartments to revitalize the Fisherman's Wharf commercial center, a revitalization that will do nothing but enhance coastal act priorities.
Reasonable alternatives have not been examined, he said, and mitigation measures have not been included that substantially lessen any significant adverse impact. There is no feasible, environmentally damaging course of action to meet the public need.
In April 2017, at the commission staff's request, the County submitted a detailed alternatives analysis, which evaluated 11 alternatives offered to the city and the Coastal Commission. That analysis included consideration of environmental factors that analyzed environmental impacts.
"The staff report notes that these were included but have not been provided to the commission or analyzed by them," he said. "It again omitted a critical step in balancing the coastal act override process it requires."
Approval of the override will be contrary to the coastal act's priority for the coastal dependent and related development along the coast, Sandoval said, and it would maximize public recreational activities along the coast.
"We share the expanded and enhanced public access and amenities, and revitalizing visitor-serving commercial uses," Sandoval said. "Along with safe and efficient commercial fishing facilities, there are enhanced on-water recreation facilities and improved on-water public access."
The detailed development standards would be met by approving the LCP amendment.
"Unfortunately, this project cannot be developed without residential as a financial anchor," he said. "The opponents contend that the apartments will not fit in the harbor. The apartment complex will be 683 feet long and 55 feet high. Just across the channel, there is an apartment complex that is nearly 2,500 feet long and over 43 feet high. There is also on the peninsula two condominium units that are 250 feet long and 55 feet high. There is an existing hotel that is 470 feet long and over 50 feet high. Most importantly, there is a planned hotel that we all agreed to and supported. It will be 800 feet long and 55 feet high. This development will fit within the harbor."
He said the LCP amendment addresses environmental justice perfectly.
"It is environmentally unjust to keep a dilapidated and open area adjacent to the water as is, so those who are privileged enough to live by the water can keep it that way," Sandoval said. "It is environmentally just to develop a vibrant, active retail center with all the amenities addressed in our development standards for all income groups."
The Fisherman's Wharf redevelopment process began in 2004 when the lessee abandoned the site. In 2009, Oxnard and Ventura County started discussing development. In 2011, the city adopted its 2030 general plan, which included a residential and commercial mixed-use concept at Fisherman's Wharf that included an urban village.
"That set-in motion a plan to redevelop the site using a mixed-use concept," Sandoval said. "In 2012, the county issued a second RFQ including residential mixed-use as an option. The only developers who responded where developers with mixed-use. In 2015 and 2016, the county and developer went to great lengths to meet with the public and the city. Throughout this process, changes were made to the project. At that time, the city staff supported the project."
That all changed in 2016, he said, which led to a 2017 dispute resolution where the commission and staff recommended the county work through the city's LCP amendment process.
"At that hearing, Executive Director Jack Ainsworth indicted this project needed to go through the LCP amendment process," Sandoval said. "The commission chair stated that I hear the frustration of the harbor. I think if the City of Oxnard can't cooperate, the LCP amendment becomes a problem instead of the solution. I trust the executive director to let us know, and then take some type of action, such as taking jurisdiction, we have the ability to do this."
The Harbor Department submitted an LCP to the city in Jan. 2018. In Nov. 2019, the city denied it outright.
"That leaves us no alternative than to appeal to you," he said. "Now, we are here. Opponents contend that you can build apartments anywhere. This is not an apartment project. It will redevelop a decrepit regional asset into an inviting one, and a mixed-use seaside village, which requires the inclusion of apartments to make it work."
Supervisor Kelly Long advocated a thriving Channel Islands Harbor.
"I am asking the commissioners and honorable chair to assume jurisdiction and move forward on this process," she said. "I want to make sure we are building a healthy, living, and active recreational harbor. Mixed-use is extremely important because it provides economic diversity and housing opportunities. It still provides our needed recreation."
County Executive Officer Mike Powers noted that Fisherman's Wharf had been a long process with a developer that has shown tremendous commitment.
"I attended the dispute resolution in 2017 and walked away understanding the county needed to go through the city amendment process," he said. "As recommended, the county has been going through the process since early 2018, although we did not get there. Before then, we had good meetings with Executive Director Ainsworth and his team, as well as city management leadership. For a host of reasons, we did not get a resolution. We also had constructive meetings with two of our board members, Harbor Director Sandoval and me, as well as two council members, City Manager Alex Nguyen and his team. Although we did not resolve issues, we were looking at harbor issues in general; they were positive and productive discussions."
Powers said that many people perceive this as the county and city in conflict, but the two collaborate more often than they realize.
"Let's build on this collaboration," he said.
Oxnard Assistant City Manager Ashley Golden, along with Mayor Tim Flynn, Mayor Pro Tem Carmen Ramirez, and Councilman Bert Perello, spoke on behalf of the city. Golden congratulated the commission and said its staff report laid out the reasons for denying the override well.
"Your staff has been terrific partners, as we work through many coastal issues in our city," Golden said. "The city reviewed the staff analysis and agrees with the staff recommendation."
Ramirez said the city wants respect for its process.
"It's puzzling to me why that has not been the case," she said. "I am a former legal aid attorney, and I have spent decades supporting affordable housing and the rights of tenants. Our city has been doing a great job providing a great of that kind of housing. We have approved lots of housing that is affordable. However, this project by the developer and the county includes not one unit of affordable housing. You would be approving a project that would be an exclusive enclave. The developer said this will be the most expensive housing in the area, in Oxnard for sure. There is no affordable housing. That's not what environmental justice requires."
During the last RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) cycle, she said the city approved 5,244 housing units, including 902 low-income units, and other moderate-income units.
"We want to continue to have coastal access for our low-income residents who are still going to the area for recreation," she said. "They want to be by the water and boats that are available, and not be excluded by an exclusive and intimidating community that looks like a fortress."
Perello said the project is in the heart of the community he represents.
"As a councilman, it is important that I listen to the concerns of my constituents and also consider the important issues that the city as a whole face," he said. "That includes the city potentially giving up its authority. The county and developer have not listened to input from the public. This project remained with no meaningful changes since the city first learned of this project in Aug. 2016, when the county and developer tried to go around the city's jurisdiction. In the fall of 2016, the developer and country demanded on multiple occasions that the city rubber stamp this high-density, high-end project, or the county and developer would sue the city. They would sue the City of Oxnard for standing up for its authority and its legal rights. My city refused to go along with until the public had input regarding the project-specific LCP amendment. The county and public have not listened to input from the public at various meetings."
This story will conclude on Sept. 4.
"fisherman" - Google News
August 28, 2020 at 02:29AM
https://ift.tt/3guxXnG
City accuses developer and county of strong-arming Oxnard over Fisherman's Wharf - Tri County Sentry
"fisherman" - Google News
https://ift.tt/35ujXVg
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "City accuses developer and county of strong-arming Oxnard over Fisherman's Wharf - Tri County Sentry"
Post a Comment