Home › News › Local News
City Council votes to put initiative on Nov. 4 ballot
Decision on traffic measure surprises its proponents
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsIt's in like Flynn.
The Oxnard City Council voted Tuesday to place the Oxnard Traffic Initiative on the ballot, leaving proponents nearly speechless.
Councilman Tim Flynn, one of the measure's chief advocates, had predicted his colleagues would do whatever they legally could to obstruct the measure's path to the Nov. 4 ballot. About 30 supporters were in the council chamber, ready for a turn at the podium.
Then Flynn's four colleagues said one after the other that they would vote to put the initiative on the Nov. 4 ballot without waiting for an impact report.
None of them expressed support for the initiative itself but said it was important to allow the voters to decide the issue.
If approved at the polls, the measure could significantly slow down development in a city where housing and other developments worth many millions of dollars are in the pipeline awaiting approval.
"I'm very appreciative," Flynn told the men he had sued only last week to force them to consider the initiative during the July 1 meeting.
Flynn had said then that if the council did not consider the initiative right away it might not get on the ballot by the Aug. 8 deadline because of the council's option to request an impact report that could take up to 30 days.
The council directed the staff Tuesday to prepare an impact report as soon as possible and to have it done by outside professionals.
But the initiative will soon be making its way to the county clerk's office to be placed on the ballot.
"Given the comments and statements that have been made, I think it's important to put it on the ballot," said Mayor Tom Holden.
"Five thousand people have said traffic is a problem (that needs a solution)," Holden said. "Now we can have a discussion as to whether the initiative does that."
Ed Ellis, an initiative supporter who frequently attends council meetings and skewers elected officials with a sharply turned phrase, was at a loss for words.
"I think you stole my thunder. Thank you," he said, addressing the council members. Then he sat down.
However, opponents of the initiative had plenty to say.
"They're hot, and they're irate," said Leo Valenzuela, referring to the 1,100 members of Laborer's International Union of North America-AFL-CIO Local Union No. 585.
"We will defeat this initiative," said Valenzuela, who is the local's secretary treasurer.
Tom Albin, president of Oxnard Firefighters Local 1684, also spoke against the initiative.
"The traffic initiative will do nothing for our response problem," he said. "The traffic initiative will not add firefighters or stations. In fact, the potential loss of revenue from the general fund may cause a decline in our budget."
An impact report on the initiative done last September estimated that it could result in a loss to the city of $359 million in one-time fees, and $14.5 million a year in ongoing taxes and fees.
In a recent interview, Flynn criticized the report, saying that it did not calculate what it would cost the city to provide ongoing services to the residents of 13,000 proposed housing units as well as to the occupants of millions of square feet of proposed business and commercial space.
Municipal finance experts generally agree that housing does not cover the costs that it generates unless conditions are imposed to collect sufficiently high development impact fees.
Oxnard lowered some of its impact fees more than a decade ago as an incentive to development and has not raised them since, critics of city government have said.
The initiative would provide that commercial or industrial developments of more than 10,000 square feet or housing developments of more than five homes could not be approved by the city unless all intersections within a five-mile radius of the proposed project have had a peak level of service of C or better for the preceding year. Traffic engineers rate intersections from A to F, with A having the best traffic flow and F the worst.
Any project not meeting the C level would have to be approved by a majority of the city's voters, and the developer would have to pay for the election.
Posted by chair on July 9, 2008 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oxnard has met the states' housing goals by some 240 percent. Why is it allowing more homes? And then our fair city permits these homes, along with new retail to support them, with little to no concern for infrastructure improvements. Apparently they want all residents to pay for delayed emergency and expensive catch-up rather than those who caused the need. Of course, the developers are long gone by then. The traffic initiative is merely a tool to force our city to consider one of our infrastructure needs in advance of the need itself. If not one single additional home gets built in Oxnard, what's the problem? Isn't that a good thing for a city located in a desert already experiencing water problems? Sunny Southern is more than "built-out!"
Posted by Rob_Dawg on July 9, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am outraged at the position the Oxnard Firefighters Local 1684 has taken. Set aside the patently absurd notion that fixing traffic congestion and not adding to their work load will not improve response times. No, the issue is far more basic. The Oxnard Fire Department has within its powers, indeed it is their responsibility to sign off on every significant development within their service area. The document is called a "Will Serve Letter" and if there are concerns about service or response times the department can merely withhold that approval. The same goes for the water/sewer/police services. For union president Tom Albin to willfully ignore the departments' obligation to current residents is the real tragedy here.
Councilmember Flynn is too generous with his thanks. the rest of the council chose the path of most resistance. By voting for a ballot they bought development interests another 4 months of free reign and avoided voting to adopt the measure en toto. And look, the divisiveness has already started. we've got a civil servant and union president already subsuming himself to special interests in direct conflict with his sworn duty to protect and serve the public. This will get ugly as the bulk of the council arrays any number of legal and illegal forces to defeat an unstoppable measure.
I do have to laugh at Mayor Holden's comment; "Five thousand people have said traffic is a problem (that needs a solution)," If Tom Holden had actually been listening this last decade he'd know five hundred THOUSAND people in Ventura County think Oxnard traffic is a problem. He personally knows dozens of people from long time old Oxnard families who have moved out over the years. Can he name one, just one who did not include traffic/overdevelopment/special interests among their reasons? The 2020 General Plan adopted a year late in 1991 originally included a traffic monitoring requirement that included "level of service" minimum standards as part of the approval process. To my knowledge no major project has ever been held to that requirement in those few cases where it was considered at all.
In the coming months as the opposing campaigns engage I expect lots of such skeletons to start rattling their closets. Personally I look forward to having the OEDC declared a city function subject to elections rules and open meetings requirements. That alone would justify all the hard work Councilmember Flynn has done fighting a good fight.
Posted by rjeremy on July 9, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you Mr. Flynn. It sounds like other members of the council are finally on board now that it is out of there control. What an interesting concept, “Let the voters decide”.
It sounds like special interest groups are all ready getting ready to lobby the public to defeat this initiative likely with scare tactics. It’s interesting that the fire fighters have a special interest in this since most of them live in Ventura or Camarillo. Why should they care about the traffic in Oxnard. I wonder if they are more concerned with job security rather than the hard working residents of this great city. I think we all are a bit smarter than that!
Keep up the good work Mr. Flynn.
Posted by loquinus on July 9, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Where do I sign up to help get this voted in, in November?
Posted by garion246 on July 9, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Based on what little is written, this sounds like a good initiative. Let's hope it gets written well.
Posted by vtadad on July 9, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you Mr. Flynn and Oxnard City Council. We look forward to the inlux of businesses and jobs over here.
Signed, The City of Ventura
Posted by SMITH on July 10, 2008 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The initiative will be defeated in Nov. just like it was in Thousand Oaks once the public gets educated. Right now it sounds too good to be true. Remember people, in reality, you can't have your cake and eat it too! Less money to fix the streets, the newer developments will not suffer; it’s the old one that will. The old benefits from the new, not any more if this passes!
Posted by Rob_Dawg on July 10, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The old benefits from the new, not any more if this passes!" - SMITH
There's another entirely different Oxnard somewhere?
Posted by vannaplanna on July 11, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
An interesting read for those in support of this initiative which uses LOS as the main planning tool to "fix" intersections.
This is a paper on The Liabilities of Automobile LOS (Level of Service) used as a transportation indicator in CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):
(Published by the City of San Francisco)
http://www.sf-now.com/sf-bike/SFDPH_L...
Summary:
Though widely used as a metric in Transportation Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), automobile LOS does not capture known adverse environmental consequences of transportation. Instead, automobile LOS measures and values the convenience of motor vehicle travel, effectively promoting motor vehicle use. Better LOS thus increases vehicle trips and driving distances and consequently increases injuries, noise, air pollution, and greenhouse gases. In addition, LOS analysis often inappropriately concludes that environmentally beneficial transportation projects such as bus-only lanes, bicycle lanes, and traffic safety improvements are adverse to the environment. LOS should be replaced in practice of EIA with measures that capture changes in vehicle use and volume. Three such transportation performance metrics are Vehicle Miles Traveled, Mode Split, and Vehicle Trips. Methods to estimate vehicle trips and vehicle miles exist but need to better distinguish projects that reduce motor vehicle use (e.g., locally-oriented retail, infill housing) and those that increase it (e.g., a regional shopping mall, low density housing). Transportation analysis in EIA can further improved by adding metrics for the quality of the pedestrian and bicycle environments.
Posted by Rob_Dawg on July 11, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Vannaplanna,
What you are promoting is the old and throughly discredited induced demand theory. Back in the early to mid 90s a small controversy erupted when a few studies seemed to indicate that new traffic capacity was quickly adsorbed and even surpassed. Their conclusions have since been discredited but the idea has much appeal among transit advocates and pro-urbanists. Thus you see it only in places like SF and Portland still being given any weight.
Oxnard's traffic woes are absolutely attributable to density, lane miles per capita, lax enforcement and poor planning including some really horrible political concessions that the OTI is intended to limit.
Posted by vannagreen on July 11, 2008 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a proponent of improving transit, more street trees, having places to walk to, more parks, and improving the ability to live and work within a reasonable distance. Quality of life to me is more than just a fast car commute.
A recent VC Star post from (July 4) begins:
"Ventura County bus ridership figures have soared to new highs as the average price for regular unleaded gas has surged to more than $4 a gallon, according to area transportation officials."
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news...
Transit ridership is clearly a growing trend and unmet need in Oxnard. (not just in SF and Portland) I would like to see this initiative bring more focus on improving transit and better planning of the type and scale of developments, rather than just a restriction to the pace of growth.
Also, the OTI website "facts" state: "Oxnard is the 12th most densely populated city in the US" I made a quick check to the US Census website shows Oxnard is the 20th largest city in CA (not US)& Oxnard's density (housing units per sq mile) is actually less dense than Ventura or Santa Barbara. Both of those cities have a greater density of homes, and both have embraced a pro-urbanist attidude. They are taking steps to improve transit, pedestrian space, and making them more attractive places to live and work. I wont discredit the pro-urbanist approach or pro-transit approach because it provides places that give options for seniors, youth, and anyone who may want to choose not to drive.
Oxnard is a great city, so I would like to the city grow better. And although I don't agree with linking development "approval" to an intersections LOS... I do agree with increasing fees for developers, and hope the Oxnard is able to use that $ wisely and with good planning that doesn't just plan for moving cars, but plans for people to enjoy the city no matter how they travel.
Posted by fibus on July 11, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good old Smith.
One can always count on him to be supremely ignorant on him when it come to education.
Only the spinning business interests are against the initiative.
And Smith believes the spinning will be honest?
The cities he names do not have the traffic problems in Oxnard.
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:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
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.
There are 12 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.