Recommendations for Channel Is Harbor Fisherman’s Wharf discussion at 11-10 County Supv. meeting

By CJ reader “Debby”


Existing Fisherman’s Wharf view from Channel Islands Boulevevard and Victoria, Oxnard. Photo:

…  She has big objections to the Fisherman’s Wharf downscaled redevelopment proposal on next week’s VC Supv. agenda

The following is so well stated I am simply sharing it as it was shared on Nextdoor:

Tuesday Nov 10 time certain at 10:30 a.m. item #30 on the agenda for the VC Board of Supervisors is the LONG-AWAITED proposal from Channel Islands Harbor Properties for Fisherman’s Wharf.

Editor’s note– From meeting agenda:

10:30 A.M. 30. Approval of, and Authorization for the Harbor Director to Execute, a Lease Option Agreement and a Long-Term Lease for the Construction and Operation of a Mixed-Use Apartment/Commercial Project on Parcels V, V-1, V-2, V-3, V-4 and Portions of Parcel N-2 (Fisherman’s Wharf) with Channel Islands Harbor Properties LLC; and Find That the Approval of the Agreement and Lease are Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 REQUIRES 4/5THS VOTE CEO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS PROPOSED (Harbor Department – 1 Hour)

The news is above- below is the opinion of just one group:

There are so many issues with this that I have list ONLY MY TOP ISSUES. If you have followed this or not, if you have any interest in a piece of property that used to be a hang out for county residents and their guests, tourists, military and people wanting access to the water, you owe it to yourself to read this and see what you think.

Show up on Tuesday and let your voice be heard or write [email protected] and reference the item number. Feel free to use any of these points or any off your own in what you say or write. One hour has been allocated for this topic.

Advertisement- 740 South B Street, Oxnard, (805) 486-6878

Advertisement- 740 South B Street, Oxnard, (805) 486-6878

1- The Exclusive right to Negotiate, which expired April 30th, 2015, (nearly 6 months ago) specified 300 apts. and 50,000 sq feet of commercial space. The commercial is cut to 25,000 sq ft, which is nothing and turns this destination location into nothing but a housing tract and not even with houses or condos. It downscales an upscale waterside location and does nothing at all for making the harbor a world class destination like what they are doing with the hotel in Peninsula Rd.

2- The ERN further specified that it was required at the same time to provide a plan for parcel X-3 on the west side of the harbor. This is nowhere to be found in the proposal.

3- Lease Option- it is outrageous that a long term lease approval is requested at the same time as a lease option ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE RENDERING INCLUDED WITH THESE DOCUMENTS. With a proposal that is 6 months overdue where is even a hint of what the developer plans his development to look like. Option and long term leases should not be approved at the same time.

5- The option period is as long as 5 years. The rental during that period is a pittance. That means that a property that has brought in near zero revenue for almost 15 years will still bring in nothing. A post office and market were demolished din preparation for this robbing the neighborhood of needed services. And to what end? They could still be standing and serving the neighbors.

6- Two public works plan amendments are required, not one. The 3 acres of boat launch property is presently zoned only for that and cannot be appended to the FW property without an amendment. An amendment is also needed for FW itself because it is zoned for mixed use and not residential.

This is not so easy as it sounds as the Coastal Commission does not like housing on the water when that waterside is zoned for visitor serving. It is the county’s job to get those amendments, not the developers.

7- The provisions for revenue once the apartments are built and rented gives a big break on the rental? Why? The developer is paying nothing practically during the option period and does not need this kind of rental break.

8- Why is there not a single picture of what the developer plans to do? How can any BOS in its right mind approve of the concept of a lease without seeing what they are approving?


Get Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

 *Scroll down to post a comment

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments