Home › News › County News
New housing complex plan is unveiled for Oxnard site
A mixed-use project at same site was rejected years ago
STORY TOOLS 
More from County NewsSeveral years after a retail and residential mixed-use development was rejected by neighbors and Oxnard city officials, developers of property near Ventura Road and Vineyard Avenue are unveiling a new plan for single-family homes there and town homes nearby.
More than 100 people, including neighbors of the property, got a look at the proposal by Casden Properties LLC of Beverly Hills on Wednesday night at a community open house at the River Ridge Golf Club.
The project includes proposals for two sites. A 25.4-acre site on the northwest corner of Ventura Road and Vineyard Avenue would have 201 single-family homes, with 125 of those in cluster units, some attached and some detached.
A second, 9.6-acre site between Ventura Road and River Ridge Golf Course, which was purchased after the initial mixed-use proposal was withdrawn, would have 143 town homes.
The projects will be submitted for city review separately because the 9.6-acre site is a former garbage dump that would require an extensive cleanup. "We're currently working with the county and state agencies to get that clean closure plan in place," said Demitrius Zeigler, the project manager.
A draft environmental impact report on the projects is still being developed and could be ready for public review in a month or so, Zeigler said. Casden hopes to bring the plans for both projects to the Oxnard Planning Commission by mid-June.
"We still need to refine some of the design concepts and the civil engineering," he said.
Residents of the Windsor North, Southbank and Sierra Linda neighborhoods were invited to the open house so they could ask questions and review the plans.
Many had protested against the earlier plan, saying they did not want to see commercial or multi-family development in their neighborhood.
Jean Joneson of the Windsor North neighborhood said she was disappointed with the event, saying she hoped the EIR and a traffic study would be available for review. She also wasn't happy with the developer's new proposal because it doesn't suit the existing neighborhood.
"We don't want gates. It's not compatible to what we have here," she said. "We will accept development as long as it's single-story homes. That's compatible to what we have now."
Posted by robb_murphy on March 28, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great news!! Now OUHSD can build ANOTHER high school and blow off making any improvements to Cam High!! Brilliant!!
Posted by narc121 on March 28, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
the housing market is hanging by a string, the 101 freeway had to be expanded because of traffic....SO lets build even more houses that nobody can really afford and add more traffic to an already congested freeway and city. I swear who makes these STUPID decisions.
Posted by pjlove10 on March 28, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oxnard needs to revitalize some of the dalapitating parts of town. Instead, more homes and traffic. Just what everyone needs.
Posted by busymommy on March 28, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
People cant afford to buy 4 year old homes. How do they expect them to buy brand new ones. What a terrible waste of time. What about building a wonderful park or some type of family center where we can work at parents spending time with their children instead of working non-stop to pay for these ridiculously priced homes.
Posted by richardg on March 28, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Its greed!
Posted by SummerSun on March 28, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is just insanity. I drive 7 miles to work from Oxnard Shores, it takes nearly a half an hour to go 7 miles. Gee, with all proposed housing, it ought to take 45 minutes to go 7 miles. The housing market is in a slump, so these builders just add fuel to the fire.
Posted by jeff93024 on March 28, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The various members of the Building Industry Association of America really don't really care if anyone actually buys the homes they build as long as they get to keep building them. They get paid to do the work it takes to build them, and that's all they care about.
This is all about money, not housing. None of the people involved in these schemes care one way or another if the majority of us wind up living in cardboard boxes or camper shells as long as they remain employed and well-paid. If they can't sell these homes to Americans, they'll try to sell them to wealthy foreigners.
Posted by shaver_one on March 28, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They can call the 9.6 acre development, Villa Dump.
Would you want to live there, and have to worry constantly about the methane gas that will be escaping for decades? Methane is explosive.
Would you spend $750K+ for that property?
And I agree...who's going to be able to afford these units...speculators from LA or SB?
Posted by BeaHappi on March 28, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Please Oxnard city officials...do not approve this! We can't even sell all of the houses that we currently have on the market. When will enough be enough?!!
Everyone who is opposed should go onto the City of Oxnard website and send emails to the Mayor and Councilmen. Building more homes just does not make any sense.
http://citycouncil.cityofoxnard.org/D...
Posted by VoiceofReason on March 28, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lets see, build more when you can't sell what you already have. Sounds like another of the many schemes that Oxnard has going, remember parking lots and theaters. The mood here seems to be against the project so how do we citizens get that across to the city.
Elections are coming, vote out the incumbents and get some new ideas into the city.
Posted by Relvd98 on March 28, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Serously...it's bad enough with the congested traffic we have to go through everyday to and from work. What should only take me 30 mins. to get home, nearly takes 50 mins. I can only imagine the more trouble Oxnard will face with this new housing development.
Posted by jbees805 on March 28, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't understand the logic. Just another great example of Oxnard's brilliant City Government. Sometimes I feel I could do a better job at running this city and I am not even an optometrist.
COME ON OXNARD! WAKE UP!
Posted by rebel123 on March 28, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like a fairly stupid plan to me. What's happening with the River Park development? That whole mega development is not yet done and I'm betting plenty of unsold properties there. Why build more in a slumping housing market??? Are the people who make these decisions brain dead?
Posted by fpecar4525 on March 28, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It isn't up to a city government to supply you with an affordable house. It is their job to obtain revenue from real estate taxes so whoever lives in Oxnard -- rich or maybe poor-- can drive on good streets, etc. Quit whining about something that isn't going to change anyway.
Posted by floydspinky71 on March 28, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"It isn't up to a city government to supply you with an affordable house. It is their job to obtain revenue from real estate taxes so whoever lives in Oxnard -- rich or maybe poor-- can drive on good streets, etc. Quit whining about something that isn't going to change anyway."
Therein lies the problem. There has been massive development within city limits in the last 5-10 years, and all we've had to show for it is the repaving of Gonzales Road. The city of Oxnard looks foolish for basically giving away $3 million to the Riverpark developers and getting almost nothing in return. I was at the Planning Commission meeting for the proposed Teal Club development proposal (which the Star conveniently ignored) a few weeks back, and the general mood was the same. However, the City of Oxnard has never met a developer they didn't like.
As for the 30 minutes to get across town, how slow do you people drive? The most it's ever taken me from the Esplanade to Oxnard College is 15 minutes, and that's going through Five Points. I've also gone from my house in Hueneme to Costco in about the same time.
Posted by motox210 on March 28, 2008 at 11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think they should build here at all. If everyone sends a comment to the mayor & other city officials, it can be stopped just like the project on the corner of Gonzales Rd & Oxnard Blvd.
Posted by keepin_it_real on March 29, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That's ok-If they can't sell um, they will turn them into a low income district and practicly give them away. Then those who can't afford them in the first place will stay in their own homes and others who don't work or hardly work will get into these homes with no problem.
I am not commenting about those who are deserving of that~I am refering to those who are managing to work our programs to their benefit and not get off their rear ends and work 2 jobs if they have to, that's all...
Have a good day. :)
Posted by B8R_N4MD on March 29, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you don't agree with the direction the City is going in, you have an opportunity to bring change in November, when the Mayor and several Councilmen are up for re-election. Instead of whining in the comment section of every Oxnard article, go out and support a candidate with your views that can beat the incumbents. That is what will bring the change you all so much want.
Posted by ridewp on March 29, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What developer is willing to build into a rapidly declining real estate market? That's the real story here. I need to call this guy. I've got some magical beans I wanna sell him.
Posted by catlover on March 29, 2008 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Isn't RIVERPARK having difficulty selling that they sold to the County for the mentally ill and now opening apartments for extremely low-income? So what is the point in building more homes, clustering homes at that?
Posted by keepin_it_real on March 30, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know what River Park is doing, but I went on a tour on their new apartment homes a month ago and asked if the rent to low income and they said no, there is a certain criteria prospective tenants have to meet. (Can't tell me they didn't know this then.) Two weeks later I read an artcle in this paper saying they are building 140 brand new units for extremely low income units for a 1/4 of what these units are renting for.
I think they are having trouble renting these apt homes for $1700 + and selling the condos for 5-6k. Renting to the extremely low income, guarantees they will get payment. The Heck with all those who already bought there who will probaly see their property values go down because of this.
I know a couple of people who live there and they are livid!!! They also have to pay an extra tax too. I wonder if these new units will have to do that?Probably not, because the government will take care of it for them. They will also get to enjoy the new theatre, the school, grocery store, shopping ctr and park.
Posted by LoCal on March 31, 2008 at 12:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Another car-based development. More inside-the-box thinking.
Posted by YaitsmeJennieG on March 31, 2008 at 5:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How STUPID is this??? Another new housing track that they Wont be able to sell are we going to become an asphalt jungle geeeez...sick of Oxnard being over developed.
Posted by VoiceofReason on March 31, 2008 at 6:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How does this sound?? The county gets revenue from home property taxes. The value of houses is falling rapidly. Taxpayers want to be re-assesed to current fair market values, so property tax revenues will go down for the county. Solution build more houses to increase the tax base. Get real people its all about the numbers and the planning commission can count. Quality of life is not an issue for the county, monitary gain is the driving force.
Posted by caskier on March 31, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Incredulous - nearly every poster here sounds like a socialist or worse yet a communist. One poster asks "I swear who makes these STUPID decisions?". Its called a FREE MARKET ECONOMY. What do you care if the developer can make money or not? Its none of your business! If I own a piece of land and I build a house and I can't sell it, that's my problem not yours. If you want to see a park built on this land then you better pony up the money to purchase the property from the developer. If you have issues with the zoning of this parcel, that's another issue. But as long as a developer meets the rules and guidelines the city puts forth then you have no say in what gets built. Get over it or move to China. Here in the US we have property rights.
By the way, how many posters here live in a home built by a developer? How many of you have lived in Oxnard over thirty years? How many of you serve on your local Neighborhood Council or Planning Commisssion? If you live in a tract home, moved here in the last thirty years, or are not involved in your community, perhaps you should reconsider your comments and really think about if you want your property rights taken away...
Posted by 2smokingbarrels on March 31, 2008 at 7:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Looks like the Billthebutcher won't be able to afford one of those houses. Maybe he can rent a room!
Posted by stana2z on April 2, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is Great! Ventura and Vineyard are no where near the parking lot traffic as they could be. Fix the traffic BEFORE adding more people.
(Requires free registration.)
Comments on this site are to be used for the discussion and/or debate of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Comments should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We don't allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete comments and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Comments 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.