Home › News › County News
Plan to split Oxnard is revised
New Channel Islands Beach proposal to be discussed this week
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from County NewsA revised proposal to create Ventura County's 11th city would split Oxnard in two, cutting off a swath of land that includes million-dollar homes at Mandalay Beach and Latino neighborhoods near Hueneme Road.
Under a new proposed map, the city of Channel Islands Beach would offer more direct representation to south Oxnard's Latino community, said Jonathan Ziv, a Channel Islands Beach Community Services District board member who is spearheading the proposal.
Supporters argue a new city would give residents more control over traffic, development, police and fire services without raising taxes. They say harbor services suffer from "confusing, overlapping and deleterious jurisdiction and oversight."
On Monday, Ziv said he adjusted the proposed map after speaking with local members of the League of United Latin American Citizens. "So I decided to include them," Ziv said of south Oxnard.
Oxnard City Manager Ed Sotelo delivered a harsh opinion Monday. By going after largely poor, minority neighborhoods, proponents can boast they're not discriminating, he said.
"But it paints a vicious scar right through the middle of our city, and I think it's devastating," Sotelo said.
He and others continue to question how the proposed city would finance police, fire and other essential government services. In addition, splitting Oxnard in two could wreak confusion on where to locate services such as police and fire stations, Sotelo said.
An initial proposal in June called for a new city that combines unincorporated communities, including Hollywood Beach and Channel Islands Harbor, with the western half of Oxnard, from Mandalay Beach to Ventura Road and north to River Ridge.
The revised map reaches into the city's southeast corridor, taking neighborhoods south of Wooley Road down to Hueneme Road, near Oxnard College and into proposed development areas near Ormond Beach.
121,000 for new city
The new city would have more residents, roughly 121,000, than what would be left in Oxnard, about 72,000. Ziv said Oxnard would catch up in time, based on its proposed development plans.
He said LULAC officials emphasized a need to create districts with direct representation on a new city council, as opposed to the at-large system used by Oxnard.
Denis O'Leary, LULAC's immediate past director, said Monday that Ziv raised concerns about racial balance in the initial proposal.
But the civil rights organization did not recommend that south Oxnard be included, said David Rodriguez, director of LULAC's local chapter. LULAC has not taken a position on the proposal.
Proponents will discuss the revised map at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday in a community meeting at Casa Sirena Hotel, 3605 Peninsula Road.
Incorporation of a new city is a long process. Backers must get petition signatures from at least 25 percent, or 8,750, of registered voters in the proposed city area.
The Local Agency Formation Commission then would conduct a financial analysis to determine whether the new city could sustain itself and not drain Oxnard's ability to provide services.
2010 elections
If approved by LAFCO, the plan would go to voters in Oxnard and the new city area in separate elections, possibly in 2010.
Ziv said his group would bankroll its financial analysis before soliciting signatures.
"If this new city cannot support itself, that would be the end of it," Ziv said. "I wouldn't be going forward if a number of consultants had not opined that this city is financially valid on its face."
Ziv declined to name the consultants.
Ziv said he has gotten "generally positive" feedback from most neighborhood council leaders in south Oxnard after notifying them of Wednesday's meeting. He declined to name the leaders.
Shirley Godwin, chairwoman of the Saviers Road Design Team, which advocates for south Oxnard neighborhoods, said her group has not taken a position. Ziv is speaking to the group next week.
Joe Avelar, chairman of the Lemonwood Neighborhood Council, said his group has rejected the cityhood idea.
"He's going to take the poor people and the poor homes into consideration," Avelar said of Ziv's proposal. "Before, he was going to take the pretty people and the pretty homes in the nice-looking areas. I'm not impressed with it at all."
Posted by archtmf on September 18, 2007 at 12:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh gawd. I thought this stupid hairbrained scheme had withered and died. Talk about a certain small special interest group's self centered arrogance. Geez Loooeeze.
Posted by lrgvanman on September 18, 2007 at 6:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow! This is kinda reminiscent of the surreal "cede from the county" idea that was dreamed up years ago. Where do these pipe dreams come from anyway? Is this another gift some newcomers that can't appreciate reality? This will merely wreak havoc and financial woes upon all of Oxnard and not just limited to Oxnard, but the newly created "City of Channel Islands Beach" as well. I think I get it! It appears to me to be a separation of the upper and middle class from some middle class and the lower class. It works as is...don't fix it!
Posted by AnaCapa on September 18, 2007 at 6:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Avelar has it right. The rich people want to be separated from the poor latinos, that's the main reason for this split. Also, the name Oxnard is associated with poor latinos, so they want a more upscale sounding name like Channel Islands beach.
Most of the people who support the split are from L.A. and moved here for the affordable beach property. Now they want to take over. What an insult to the city of Oxnard and it's heritage
Posted by cmnelson7890 on September 18, 2007 at 7:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What a waste of money. This died a long time ago. Someone needs to get a life and find something better to do. Leave Oxnard alone.
Posted by jjmount on September 18, 2007 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The good'ole 'nard.
Posted by guerodrex on September 18, 2007 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone suggesting that Channel Islands Beach is simply trying to split from "poor latinos" either did not read the article or is not able to read. The new city would include most of current South Oxnard which is well over 90% Hispanic.Anyone that has been down Saviers Road knows that there is nothing upscale about that part of town. This isn't a racial issue morons! That being said, the idea is ridiculous and would end up hurting everyone involved in the long run.
Posted by Adrienne on September 18, 2007 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, you all sound quite heretical. Now there’s a good idea echoing past wisdom mankind learned from what we put people like Galileo and Socrates through.
Let’s squash new ideas, let’s reject any kind of growth ideas and stand on the laurels of words like 'historical' that represent words such as old, musty, rickety and aching.
Heaven help anyone around here with fresh innovative ideas that support words like 'history' (a record of sequential, significant events) holding the promise of renewal, regeneration in the time yet to come.
Posted by mikeylikesit805 on September 18, 2007 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Two points I'd like to make:
1. Look at the map. Does anyone see anything wrong with the new city? None of it touches the 101 freeway! It's an important retail corridor that generates plenty of sales tax revenue for the city of Oxnard - money that Channel Islands Beach will miss out on if it secedes. Yes, the new city would have many of the area's high-value properties, but with all the craziness in the housing market, it would have to rely primarily on property tax revenue. To provide a full range of services, a city needs both sales tax and property tax money - and only an undivided Oxnard can provide both.
2. South Oxnard, and all areas of the city of Oxnard, needs more direct, more accountable representation. It should be attained not by creating two cities but rather electing city leaders by council district. Assuming the current city population of 193,000 and a five-member city council, four councilmembers would be chosen from districts of about 48,000 residents each (the mayor would continue to be elected at-large).
In short, Oxnard certainly has its issues - especially in the south end - but there are better ways to improve quality of life in Oxnard than splitting the city.
Posted by insideedge on September 18, 2007 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess I will be living in Channel Islands Beach CA. soon.....Who cares
Posted by BeaHappi on September 18, 2007 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gosh, it seems that it would be much easier for Dr. Ziv to move to another city...one that meets more of his requirements.
I live in the proposed new city area and no way I'd sign this petition just so the name of my city would be different.
Oi vey!
Posted by mtlmolina on September 18, 2007 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If they just want what Oxnard city residents get, why don't they just incorporate into Oxnard?
Also, why is the area bordered by Harbor Blvd, the river and Victoria left out? Was it because they would take too much of the city? Whatever the reason, it would isolate that community from the rest of what's left of Oxnard. Not a good idea.
mikeylikesit805:
Seems like there is a good reason that none of the city touches the 101 since it's name would be Channel Islands Beach. Regarding sales tax, since it would include the harbor and other beaches, there are built in destination points in addition to the normal stores and shops throughout the area to garner plenty of that income.
If the point is to make two smaller cities (both still being larger than Camarillo, Santa Paula and Fillmore), I can sort of see the reason. Otherwise why bother?
Posted by stephen_90042 on September 18, 2007 at 2:17 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by Metalhaid on September 18, 2007 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You couldn't pay me to live in EITHER city. Bleagh.
Posted by floydspinky71 on September 18, 2007 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"On Monday, Ziv said he adjusted the proposed map after speaking with local members of the League of United Latin American Citizens. "So I decided to include them," Ziv said of south Oxnard."
So he wasn't going to include them originally? No thanks, this reeks of elitism.
I've said it before. I can't think of any recent secession movements that have succeeded. Not even the San Fernando Valley and Hollywood, which probably would have been able to survive without raising taxes and whatnot. If you don't like it here, go to another city.
Posted by floydspinky71 on September 18, 2007 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Original boundaries of the proposed city:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news...
Posted by 5thGenerationOxnard on September 18, 2007 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Most of Oxnard's sales tax revenue comes from businesses along the 101 corridor (Esplanade, Shopping at the Rose, Costco, Frys, car dealers). The proposed new city would have very little sales tax revenue. Also, property tax would not automatically go to the new city. Several cities in the county do not get their property tax revenues. So, where would the money come from to build the needed infrastructure and fund services?
Posted by raulhurtadojr on September 18, 2007 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
maybe i'm looking at it wrong, but if this change actually happens, does that mean that the "new" oxnard will no longer be a "beach community"...won't that automatically drop real estate prices? everyone knows that when a city is beachside, it has more value
Posted by Tom_Johnston on September 18, 2007 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again, I'm sure glad I don't live in Oxnard.
Posted by Adrienne on September 18, 2007 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My, My…all the wolves have been devouring today!
Fortunately, your gloomy judgments of this project do not identify it.
Figuratively speaking – there are two ways to see things as the best they can be. The first is to actually build up the best that can be. The other is to tear down any proposal that may suggest evolution.
You all appear as though you haven’t even looked at the proposal; that you’re completely unacquainted with the facts.
What’s worse, each letter seems to reveal an underlying message of personal joy at annihilating a productive member of our community.
Any of you have something helpful or beneficial to say? Or, are you just a bunch of naysayers’?
Posted by lrgvanman on September 18, 2007 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
From the point of my entry this time and back, observing the other comments, it appears to look like a waste of effort for Mr. Ziv and his colleagues in this action. I really hope he and his colleagues read the paper and weigh the odds, finally to reconsider and leave it alone. But then, again, I am not of the elite class, either.
Posted by Adrienne on September 18, 2007 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You must mean the 17 people on this site (I agree with insideedge). Hummm...17/121,000 I wonder? How could this concept possibly succeed?
Posted by ReconByFire on September 18, 2007 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By including Oxnard Airport within its boundaries, would the new city have the power to close it? You know, the departing aircraft are such a noise nuisance to the people living at the beach. Just wondering....
Posted by collegestudentforlife on September 19, 2007 at 1:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, what a riddiculous idea. There are a thousand other, better ways to divide Oxnard than by slicing it in the middle and leaving stray parts on the right and left part of the same city.
Posted by weaselchico on September 19, 2007 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
wack!
Posted by socalrws on September 19, 2007 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
At this point, I don't believe City will give their permission, they have too much to loose.
I would support a complete City government makeover, fire the deadwood, diversity inclusion, term limits, accountability reporting to community, that should be some of the priorities.
Oxnard harbor is in sad shape compared to Ventura's. Seabridge looks great but look at the many repeat, many derelict shopping malls. Look at the abandoned St John Hospital on Dorris St. Many roads are in sad repair.
Now look at the new CITY HALL & related new construction in the downtown area. Hopefully, there is justification for such expensive architecture when the community itself is falling backwards.
I was looking for public information on the business taxation revenue collected for last year, The City doesn't disclose that info on their website. I wonder why?
Posted by RelaxPeople on September 19, 2007 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"My, My…all the wolves have been devouring today!
Fortunately, your gloomy judgments of this project do not identify it.
Figuratively speaking – there are two ways to see things as the best they can be. The first is to actually build up the best that can be. The other is to tear down any proposal that may suggest evolution.
You all appear as though you haven’t even looked at the proposal; that you’re completely unacquainted with the facts.
What’s worse, each letter seems to reveal an underlying message of personal joy at annihilating a productive member of our community.
Any of you have something helpful or beneficial to say? Or, are you just a bunch of naysayers’?"
...and despite your oh-so-relevant words you somehow managed to add nothing to the conversation.
-ps: how about taking a page out of the Angels playbook and going with something like The City of Channel Islands of Oxnard
Posted by socalrws on September 20, 2007 at 1:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, meeting had about 50 + people, mostly older folks. Not a big turnout, but Casa Sirena didn't post any signs that Channel Is. meeting was moved to the Lobster Trap Restaurant.
The gist of JZ's presentation was to show the plan to get on the ballot. Also, to solicit for volunteers.
Both JZ and partner Kieth took courses at LAFCO to learn how to start a new city. JZ was involved with SOAR, Agoura hills succession from Las Virgines, etc.
IMHO, he is mostly optimistic for now. JZ=Jonathan Ziv
It takes $100k to get it kicked off and the final cost will be between $250-500k. Petition signing and fund raising for initial $100k is 1st phase. They plan to sell T-shirts, etc for fund-raising.
What is needed are financials for revenue and financial neutrality. Financial neutrality analysis report goes to LAFCO for approvals. Neutrality means no added cost to Co. Ventura or City of Oxnard.
However, when I asked JZ if Financial neutrality had to be proven for the new city of CIB, he could not answer.
I researched the 2005 Fiscal year City of Oxnard income from business tax and it was approx. $4.5M
I asked JZ how he was going to get petitions signed let alone ballots if it was not disclosed how the new city will operate w/o that revenue. He did not have an answer.
Most of that revenue comes from the 101 corridor shops & malls and Costco. None of the-above mention business tax money is inside the new city boundaries.
JZ plans to hire high-priced consultants, ones that LAFCO turn to for their own needs. Reason: to use the best possible talent to get desired results.
If it goes as planned, there will be two elections. One for residents inside the new city zone to accept or reject new city proposal. If passed it goes to the City of Oxnard election for the whole city to vote on.
If you look at the motivation for Oxnard to go with the proposal, they have the $4.5M to spend on a lesser amount of land area.
If residents in the new city zone are not presented with factual financial information on how they can operate with out the business tax money, there may be no consensus for approval.
socalrws
Posted by just1sillygirl on September 21, 2007 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How do the schools figure into this? Will the district then be divided, or will a new district emerge and get separate funding for the few elementary schools, zero junior high schools, and one high school that is already in the new proposed city?
I know Camarillo Airport is run by the county. Is Oxnard a city airport?
Posted by nurdreams86 on September 21, 2007 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope it passes... I will devote time and funds.
I wasn't born in Southern CA or California for that matter, but change is good ---
I've been in Vta County for 10 years -- paid taxes, etc... Makes me a resident here, doesn't it -- or do you just like my tax money?
My vote is YES!!!
There are a lot of benefits that could be seen from this split.
Posted by moxi8787 on September 22, 2007 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Go to ballot in 2.5 years without presentation of of financial facts? Seems like the horse is now pushing the carriage.
Posted by Asterisk on October 10, 2007 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There's no way I would want to live in a place called Channel Islands Beach. Ugh. I've been living in Oxnard all my life and there's no way I would support some guy who just comes and spreads ideas about splitting the city in half. YES, it will create and elitist class with people who think they own the beaches. The only way there could be traffic control in the new city is if Channel Islands Beach becomes a private community, a private city where only those allowed to come in are those who live there. Everyone else will not be allowed to enter.
The Latino community it plans to include will be forgotten anyway, as all the money will be spent around those beach communities. I don' think the rich will care for the poor. They're only planning to use them to gain support for their unpopular idea. I dare anyone to honestly admit that they care for the well-being of the poor Latino community. They only think about themselves and if adding a poor community will help them get their wish then why not add them? After all, they're Latinos and they don't protest about anything right? Such a bad assumption in part of Dr. Ziv and his rich friends.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.