Oxnard granted extension on public hearing for Fisherman’s Wharf project

Covid-19 pandemic gives Coastal Commission reason to delay consideration of project plans at a later date.

OXNARD—A public hearing on the city of Oxnard’s request to build taller and denser buildings at Channel Islands Harbor, while also modifying other uses at the waterfront’s Fisherman’s Wharf site, was delayed by the California Coastal Commission, May 14.

Commissioners, at the recommendation of Coastal Commission staff, approved the hearing extension because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Oxnard submitted a request to amend its Land Use Plan (LUP) to allow for taller and denser buildings on the Channel Islands Harbor waterfront to the Coastal Commission on Jan. 27. Coastal Commission staff, about two weeks later, determined the request was proper and legally adequate. A public hearing on the LUP amendment was scheduled to occur on June 18.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s executive order in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, however, would make it difficult for a public hearing on the LUP amendment proposal to be heard on June 18.

The Coastal Act allows for the hearing to be extended for good cause, for up to one year. Coastal Commission staff sought an extension, “in order to allow adequate time to review and analyze the amendment and to allow greater scheduling flexibility,” according to a staff report.

“[Coastal Commission] staff recommends that the commission extend [the public hearing] deadline for a full year, as provided by the Coastal Act, to allow the subject amendment to be brought to a hearing at a later date,” the Coastal Commission staff report stated.

Newsom’s executive order, issued on March 4, declared a state of emergency in California, as a result of the threat of Covid-19. Another executive order, issued on April 16, applied the state of emergency to Coastal Commission meetings.

“Despite sustained efforts, Covid-19 continues to spread and is impacting nearly all sectors of California,” the order stated. “Illness due to Covid-19 and physical distancing requirements imposed to limit the spread of the virus impede the ability of the California Coastal Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, member of the public and others to meet certain time limits.”

Oxnard and Ventura County have been trying to redevelop Fisherman’s Wharf and Channel Islands Harbor since the mid-2000s. Much of the infrastructure at Fisherman’s Wharf and the harbor is aging and visibly dilapidated. Most recent plans call for the harbor waterfront to allow for residential uses at Fisherman’s Wharf and taller buildings along or near the waterfront. Retail uses and public walkways are also proposed.

The Log will continue to track this news item and report on when the public hearing occurs, be it on 2021 or earlier.

 

Share This:

12 thoughts on “Oxnard granted extension on public hearing for Fisherman’s Wharf project

  • June 18, 2020 at 8:38 am
    Permalink

    Approval can’t come soon enough! These homes will reduce overcrowding–now a public health risk–create jobs we desperately need right now, and generate tax revenue to help the city and county avoid bankruptcy. There’s already housing of the same height in that area. Opponents’ aesthetic concerns must be dismissed in favor of real benefits.

    Reply
    • June 20, 2020 at 10:37 pm
      Permalink

      This Project Must Be Stopped

      Reply
    • June 21, 2020 at 11:19 am
      Permalink

      Actually Max, these “homes” will not reduce overcrowding they will actually create it. Where do you live? Would you like a massive number of additional cars impacting your ability to get to work? Are you aware that Victoria is the only road into and out of Silverstrand? Have you driven into or out of Silverstrand on a busy day? Perhaps you’ve been late for work due to base traffic? No, I didn’t think so. Your response is clearly from the point of view of someone who is somehow benefitting from this totally unacceptable project. Your perspective is showing. Your disregard for this beautiful harbor as well as for how this coastal environment will be negatively impacted is actually shocking in its selfishness. Hopefully no one drinks your koolaid.

      Reply
  • June 18, 2020 at 9:39 am
    Permalink

    We are not aware that Oxnard is applying for this. Last we heard, they opposed it, but the county wanted it. What is your source? You need a more credible one.

    Reply
  • June 18, 2020 at 10:40 am
    Permalink

    Anyone who has been at CI Blvd and Victoria around lunch time can see that gridlock occurs . The loss of public land is reason enough to stop this project .

    Reply
    • June 18, 2020 at 10:41 pm
      Permalink

      I think you are running a little blind. Most of that traffic is due to the lunch hour at the Base. That gridlock can be eased by opening the other gate located at Patterson and Channel Islands Blvd. Don’t get confused by Base operations and local business and residential traffic.

      Reply
      • June 21, 2020 at 7:23 am
        Permalink

        The gate on Patterson and Channel Islands is always open during lunch too. In fact, it’s almost always open with a guard at gate.

        Reply
        • June 22, 2020 at 3:36 pm
          Permalink

          You are mistaken, the gate in Patterson has not been operational for the 2 years we’ve lived in PH. We moved here for a job on base so I’m well acquainted with the gates and their operational hours.

          Reply
  • June 18, 2020 at 4:46 pm
    Permalink

    This was debated ad naseum all last fall. Ghenis works for shady developers that have already been cast outta town by the locals. Navy wont accept the building heights for security reasons and the locals on the Huenene side won’t tolerate it.

    Reply
  • June 18, 2020 at 4:54 pm
    Permalink

    It was the County of Ventura (who owns the Harbor) that submitted the request to the Coastal Commission to override the City of Oxnard’s Local Coastal Plan. The County made this request so that the County-selected developer could redevelop Fisherman’s Wharf with a high-density residential development (with a minimal commercial component). The City has opposed the County’s request for the override.

    On May 14, 2020, the Coastal Commission extended the time to made a decision on the County’s override request for an additional one-year period

    Reply
  • June 19, 2020 at 7:03 pm
    Permalink

    Dear Editor, as stated above by another reader of The Log, it was the County of Ventura, that submitted the request to the Coastal Commission to override the City of Oxnard’s LUP regarding CI Harbor; not the City of Oxnard. Possibly you could check your source and then issue a correction regarding that. We cherish our harbor and with others wishing to submit proposals for development but unable to because of the County working for themselves and not in the best interest of the City of Oxnard, the community, and our harbor, it’s been more then disappointing.

    Reply
  • June 21, 2020 at 10:23 am
    Permalink

    As stated in the Coastal Commission’s agenda item at the May 2020 meeting: “On January 27, 2020, the Ventura County Harbor Department (Harbor Department) submitted the subject amendment request to amend the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the Implementation Plan (IP) portions of the certified City of Oxnard Local Coastal Program (LCP), pursuant to the LCP Amendment Override procedures of the Coastal Act, to increase allowable density and height throughout the Harbor, and modify allowable uses and development standards specifically within the Fisherman’s Wharf site.” You can review the full agenda report at:
    https://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/#/2020/5 and go to Item 12 on the Thursday tab.

    The effort to override the City’s Local Coastal Plan was clearly brought by the County of Ventura — not the City.

    Reply

Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *