Oxnard’s consultant for finance districts

The city of Oxnard has hired a consulting company to help develop Finance districts in the city of Oxnard. The following information is taken from the NBS website.

Inadequate revenue streams and competing demands for them make it hard for cities, counties, schools, and special districts to provide all the services and infrastructure their citizens desire. You need these services within a specified deadline and budget. That’s where Special Financing Districts (SFD) come in.

The City of Oxnard has close to 100 Special Financing Districts (SFDs) across the city, serving a variety of neighborhood needs. Over time, the management of these districts have become difficult, resulting in problems for the City.

The City needed a complete overhaul of its numerous landscape and other assessment districts. This included not only a complete restructuring of these districts, but also a conversation with property owners and the community overall, as well as a complete internal overhaul of the City’s practices, staffing, accounting and systems.

We have performed extensive community outreach, analyzed all of the many assessment districts citywide, and interviewed staff and other stakeholders to develop solid solutions for City leaders and staff.

From this foundation, we provided new engineers reports and numerous recommendations for improvements in the staffing and overall management of these districts.

[MORE INFO]


More from NBS

Special Financing Districts (SFD) Primer – 2014 Update

Learn more about your options through the Special Financing Districts Primer now available in PDF format.

Download the document


ALSO SEE: California Property Tax Postponement Information

Property Tax Postponement

This information is being posted for sharing information that may be useful to residents.

Property Tax Postponement

The State Controller’s Property Tax Postponement Program returned in 2016 after being suspended by the Legislature in 2009. The program allows homeowners who are seniors, are blind, or have a disability to defer current-year property taxes on their principal residence if they meet certain criteria including 40 percent equity in the home and an annual household income of $35,500 or less.

Applications for 2017-18 are now available.  The State Controller’s team will begin processing completed applications October 1, 2017 in the order they are received.  Please call (800) 952-5661 or email postponement@sco.ca.gov to join our mailing list.

Filing period extended for homeowners affected by fires in Butte, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Nevada, Orange, Solano, Sonoma, and Yuba counties.  For information, please refer to the flyer in English  or en español .

For a quick reference, download a flyer in English a flyer in Spanish , a flyer in Chinese , or a flyer in Tagalog .

Flyers are also available three to a page, double-sided in English , Spanish , Chinese , and Tagalog  to save paper when printing large quantities.

For more detailed information, please refer to the Fact Sheet or Frequently Asked Questions, call toll-free (800) 952-5661, or email postponement@sco.ca.gov.

For County Treasurer-Tax Collectors and Assessors

Notice of Change in Property Status 

Channel Islands Beach Community Services District

Thank You CIBCSD

UPDATED July 14th 2017

The Channel Islands Beach Community Services District
allowed HBCA and the Developer to present to the board on Tuesday, June 27th

TOPIC: Channel Islands Harbor Developments
This is the letter sent following the presentations [Click Here for PDFCIBCSD_Letter-to-CCC_July_14_2017]
From: Channel Islands Beach Community Services District; Dated: July 14 2017; To: The Coastal Commission, City of Oxnard (Mayor and City Council); Ventura County Board of Supervisors.

This is the video of the meeting – thanks to KADYTV!

  • Proposed Massive 400 apartments at Fisherman’s Wharf
  • 55 feet high, Two city blocks long
  • Surrounded by a wall 18.5 feet high
  • 1,000 more cars at Victoria and
    Channel Islands Blvd.

More about HBCA

HBCA_logo_500 This group needs your support for keeping the harbor VISITOR SERVING and PUBLIC LAND FOR PUBLIC USE!
CLICK FOR MORE INFO

100% of funds donated to HBCA are used to pay consultant and an attorney fees.
ALL other costs for mailing, printing, administration, posters, presentations, etc are donated by volunteers.


The Harbor & Beach Community Alliance (HBCA) is not a 501(c)3 nor any type of corporation. It is a loosely organized grassroots community group and can endorse any candidate and take positions on issues. However, HBCA does not and has not fundraised for any candidate or political party or contributed any monies to a political candidate.

HBCA only fundraises to oppose the Fisherman’s Wharf Apartment Project per the Public Works Plan Amendment 7, a public interest issue.

Western Alliance for Nature is a different and separate organization and separate from any of HBCA’s activities other than it has allowed HBCA for this public interest issue to fundraise through their 501(c)3 corporation. The Western Alliance for Nature does not endorse candidates and has taken no position on this or any other election issues.


California Coastal Commission Information

There are some very interesting articles by Steve Blank that cover the California Coastal Commission from the inside out:
https://steveblank.com/category/california-coastal-commission/


Also see: The Strategic Plan Update:
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/strategicplan/spindex.html


LCP Update Guide

Section 1. Public Access

http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/lcp/LUPUpdate/LCPGuidePartI_1_PublicAccess%20_July2013.pdf

below is a quote from the document link above:

One of the fundamental goals of the Coastal Act is to provide maximum public access to the coast. This includes protecting existing and providing new public access. The authority for this mandate partially derives from the California Constitution, which declares that “access to the navigable waters of this State shall be always attainable for the people thereof.” (Article 10, Section 4 of the California Constitution.) The Coastal Act also recognizes that the provision of public access needs to take into account public safety concerns and the protection of private property and natural resources from overuse.

LCPs are essential to reaching the goal of maximum public access. Coastal Act §30500 requires that each LCP contain a specific Coastal Access Component to “assure that maximum public access to the coastal and public recreation areas is provided.” In general, LCPs should provide policies and standards to assure that existing public access is protected, and that maximum public access to and along the shoreline is both planned for and provided with new development when warranted. Pursuant to Coastal Act §30531, LCPs should, to the maximum extent practicable, incorporate a public access inventory, including a map showing the specific locations of existing and proposed public access to the coast.

In light of continuing population growth that may increase demand to use California’s beaches and shoreline recreational resources, updated LCP Access Components need to reflect new information and changed conditions. Access components should also reflect new laws related to both the California Coastal Trail (CCT) and complete streets as described below.

Page 7 of the above document:

Preventing Loss of Public Access

LCP updates should evaluate whether incremental actions since LCP certification may reduce public access and, as discussed in the following
sections, include measures to prevent any reduction in public access. In most cases these actions (even those not involving physical structures) will require issuance of coastal development permits because they constitute “development” as defined in Coastal Act §30106 (“…change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto;…”.) (See Part II of this Guide for some additional information about how this can be addressed in permit requirements.)

Encroachments on Public Access

Most structural development on beaches, even structures such as decks, boardwalks or parking lots, limits the use of the beach. Your LCP should
include policies that regulate structural development on public beaches and access sites to development and potentially provide for limited structures that are coastal dependent, or otherwise important or essential for public recreation or public safety, and which are sited and designed to minimize encroachment. You should consider whether similar policies limiting encroachments are appropriate on upper sandy beach areas that are privately-owned, especially where there may be potential prescriptive rights. This is particularly important where the ambulatory boundary between public and private land is not clearly specified and thus where private development may chill rightful public access along the shoreline.<


If you are not familiar with the Coastal Act go to California Coastal Commission website and read it:

More information:

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html#meetingRules

California Coastal Commission Laws, Regulations, and Legislative Information

The California Coastal Commission Permit Appeal Process: Frequently Asked Questions:https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/cdp/appeals-faq.pdf

California Coastal Act

Memo Regarding New Laws for 2014: 2013 Chaptered Legislation

Repair, Maintenance and Utility Hook-up Exclusions from Permit Requirements

Temporary Events Guidelines

Workshop on Conflict of Interest, Bias, and Related Issues

Workshop and Public Hearing on the Legal Requirements Governing Ex Parte Communications and Disclosure Requirements

Permanent Responsibilities of the California Coastal Commission

Public Records Act Guidelines.

SEPTEMBER 13 2016 – TAKE ACTION: (no longer applicable)

Public Input For Recruitment
The link below will take you to a form that you can submit for public comment:

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/events/ed-search/
The following questions are asked in the public comment survey:

  • Please identify the five professional characteristics you deem to be the most important in the next Executive Director.
  • Please identify the five personal characteristics you deem to be the most important in the next Executive Director.
  • Please identify the five priorities/projects you would like to see the next Executive Director address in their first year of service.
  • Are there any particular stakeholders or individuals you would suggest we contact in regard to this position either as potential candidates or referral sources and/or to gain particular insight regarding the agency and position?
  • Do you have any questions or concerns?

Oxnard Nov. 2016 ballot measure descriptions and arguments

Great resource on Citizens Journal!

http://citizensjournal.us/oxnard-nov-2016-ballot-measure-descriptionsarguments/

Oxnard Nov. 2016 ballot measure descriptions/arguments

Included are pro, anti arguments and “objective” analysis

By George Miller

Print this and linked analyses out- forward to Oxnard friends, relatives, associates

 

OxnardBiggerLogo

Three Oxnard-specific ballot measures will be voted on in November. They are all controversial and all have pro’s and con’s. We will attempt to provide accurate information to help voters decide. This attempts to provide for each measure an as objective as possible analysis, a pro-measure and an anti-measure argument. These will appear on the ballot, but we’ve given you a head start, to think about them and do your due diligence.  These could still change. There will likely also be more opinion pieces with various viewpoints later. 

 

Measure K- SOAR 2030

CITY OF OXNARD IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE K

Yes on K Argument

Against Measure K

 

Measure L- SOAR to 2050

CITY OF OXNARD IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE L

For Measure L

No on L Argument

 

Measure M- Repeal wastewater rate increase

Wastewater Impartial Analysis – FINAL

For Measue M

Argument Against Measure M

 


Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

—– END COPIED RESOURCE FROM Citizensjournal.us


California Coastal Commission: Other Laws and Regulations

Other Laws and Regulations:

The California Coastal Act is
the law; to fully understand how the law is interpreted, please refer to the
Administrative Regulations. Citations for these regulations and other
pertinent materials and legislation are provided below.

Any law library should have
the U.S. Code, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, the California Code (Statutes)
and the California Code of Regulations available for viewing.

Documents available either
through links or in hard copy in law libraries:

To find the California
Coastal Commission Administrative Regulation
s,
go to the

California Code of Regulations
.
Click on  Title 14, Natural Resources, then select Division 5.5, California Coastal Commission
You must click down in the tree to go to the section
you want.
Additionally, There is a search capability, but you must scroll up to
the top of the page to get to it.

(The above link is provided by Office of Administrative Law on Westlaw’s web site.)


Coastal Zone Management Act


Title 16, U.S. Code (U.S.C.)
Sections 1451 et seq.
You may also search for this

in the U.S. Code
.

Coastal Zone Management Act
Regulations
Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.)
Parts 923 and 930
You may search for this citation in
 the U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations
.

State Coastal Conservancy Law

Public Resources Code
Division 21
Sections 31000 et seq.


Go to the California Code
to search for
this.

McAteer-Petris Act (establishes
and governs operations of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission)
Title 7.2, Government Code
Sections 66600 et seq.

You may also search for this


in the California Code
.

California Coastal Commission’s Conflict of Interest Code


Reports from
our Legislative Analyst:

Please note: for legislative reports more recent than the ones linked below,
go to our previous and
current meeting agendas.

2008:

March 2008


April 2008


May 2008


June 2008


July 2008


August 2008

2007:
February 2007


March 2007

April 2007

May
2007


July 2007


August 2007


September 2007


October 2007


November 2007

2006:
January 2006


February 2006
May
2006

June
2006

July
2006

August 2006


October 2006

2005:
March
2005

April
2005

June
2005

July
2005


August 2005


September 2005


October 2005

2004:

February 2004


March 2004

May
2004


June 2004

July
2004


August 2004


October 2004

2003:
March 2003
,
April 2003
,

May 2003
,

June 2003
,

August 2003
,

September 2003
,

October 2003
,

November 2003

2002:

March 2002,

April 2002
,
May
2002
,
June
2002
,

July 2002
,

September 2002

2001:
February
2001
,
March 2001,
April 2001 ,

June 2001
,
July 2001,
August 2001,
September 2001,
October 2001,
November 2001,

You may also wish to look at

archived legislative pages for
information older than the above.

Additional Links
To Legislative Information:

Official California Legislative Information

Current Assembly Committee Hearings 


Current Senate Committee Hearings

California Voter Foundation

Internet Guide to the Legislature


Find Your Legislator
(by Zip Code)

Millennials as Target Market for High End Apartments

The only thing worse than a horrible traffic nightmare would be another blighted development

The presentation I attended regarding the development of the “Paseos” indicated this would be high end apartments with a target market of “Millennials”.

http://www.businessinsider.com/millennial-median-wage-map-2015-12:
millennial-median-income-state-map

Get out your calculators!

Let us assume a slightly better off than average millennial – how about an annual salary of $35,000 ?
I broke out the earnings using a Paycheck Calculator and Kiplinger’s Cost of Living Reality Check.

Millenial_Paycheck

26634.40 Annual take home calculating 30% ($7990.32) annually for Housing results in $665.86 per month.

$665.86 per month for rent does NOT sound like High End Rentals

Also see: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=Oxnard-CA/Hourly_Rate

The authors of the Pew Research Center analysis of census data cite the Great Recession and falling or stagnant wages as causes for the change in living arrangements. They also point to the issue of marriage (or the lack thereof): the typical age today for a first marriage, according to the Census Bureau, is 27.1 years for women and 29.2 years for men, compared with 1956’s record low of 20.1 years for women and 22.5 years for men.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/04/millennials-get-real-moving-back-rents/85342438/

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2016/03/03/131627/when-i-was-your-age/

Please take action and make contact with your local leaders and the media – click here for contact info!

See 14 Cal. Code Regs § 13052( d). 13053 Where Preliminary Approvals Are and Are Not Required

14 CCR § 13053
§ 13053. Where Preliminary Approvals Are Not Required.
(a) The executive director may waive the requirement for preliminary approval by other federal, state or local governmental agencies for good cause, including but not limited to:
(1) The project is for a public purpose;
(2) The impact upon coastal zone resources could be a major factor in the decision of that state or local agency to approve, disapprove, or modify the development;
(3) Further action would be required by other state or local agencies if the coastal commission requires any substantial changes in the location or design of the development;
(4) The state or local agency has specifically requested the coastal commission to consider the application before it makes a decision or, in a manner consistent with the applicable law, refuses to consider the development for approval until the coastal commission acts, or
(5) A draft Environmental Impact Report upon the development has been completed by another state or local governmental agency and the time for any comments thereon has passed, and it, along with any comments received, has been submitted to the commission at the time of the application.
(b) Where a joint development permit application and public hearing procedure system has been adopted by the commission and another agency pursuant to Public Resources Code section 30337, the requirements of Section 13052 shall be modified accordingly by the commission at the time of its approval of the joint application and hearing system.
(c) The executive director may waive the requirements of section 13052 for developments governed by Public Resources Code, section 30606.
(d) The executive director of the commission may waive the requirement for preliminary approval based on the criteria of section 13053(a) for those developments involving uses of more than local importance as defined in section 13513.
(e) The executive director shall waive the requirement for preliminary approval when required pursuant to Government Code section 65941(c).
Note: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 30620, Public Resources Code; and Section 65941, Government Code.
HISTORY
1. Amendment filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
2. Amendment of subsections (a)(5) and (d) filed 8-14-81; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 81, No. 33).
3. Amendment of subsections (a)(3) and (d) filed 8-2-89; operative 9-1-89 (Register 89, No. 32).
4. Amendment of subsections (b)-(d), new subsection (e) and amendment of Note filed 9-20-99; operative 10-20-99 (Register 99, No. 39).
This database is current through 8/19/16 Register 2016, No. 34
14 CCR § 13053, 14 CA ADC § 13053

 

 

Barclays Official California Code of Regulations Currentness
Title 14. Natural Resources
Division 5.5 California Coastal Commission [FNA1]
Chapter 5. Coastal Development Permits Issued by Coastal Commissions
Subchapter 1. Regular Permits
Article 1. When Local Applications Must be Made First

https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IC245C780D48711DEBC02831C6D6C108E?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

14 CCR § 13052
§ 13052. When Required.
When development for which a permit is required pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 30600 or 30601 also requires a permit from one or more cities or counties or other state or local governmental agencies, a permit application shall not be accepted for filing by the Executive Director unless all such governmental agencies have granted at a minimum their preliminary approvals for said development, except as provided in section 13053. An applicant shall have been deemed to have complied with the requirements of this Section when the proposed development has received approvals of any or all of the following aspects of the proposal, as applicable:
(a) Tentative map approval;
(b) Planned residential development approval;
(c) Special or conditional use permit approval;
(d) Zoning change approval;
(e) All required variances, except minor variances for which a permit requirement could be established only upon a review of the detailed working drawings;
(f) Approval of a general site plan including such matters as delineation of roads and public easement(s) for shoreline access;
(g) A final Environmental Impact Report or a negative declaration, as required, including (1) the explicit consideration of any proposed grading; and (2) explicit consideration of alternatives to the proposed development; and (3) all comments and supporting documentation submitted to the lead agency;
(h) Approval of dredging and filling of any water areas;
(i) Approval of general uses and intensity of use proposed for each part of the area covered by the application as permitted by the applicable local general plan, zoning requirements, height, setback or other land use ordinances;
(j) In geographic areas specified by the Executive Director of the Commission, evidence of a commitment by local government or other appropriate entity to serve the proposed development at the time of completion of the development, with any necessary municipal or utility services designated by the Executive Director of the Commission;
(k) A local government coastal development permit issued pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 7 of these regulations.
Note: Authority cited: Section 30333, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 30620, Public Resources Code; and Section 65941, Government Code.
HISTORY
1. Amendment of subsection (g) and refiling of subsection (j) filed 6-10-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 24).
2. Amendment filed 10-20-77 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 77, No. 43).
3. Amendment filed 1-19-78; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 78, No. 3).
4. Amendment of subsection (j) filed 8-14-81; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 81, No. 33).
5. Amendment of first paragraph and Note filed 9-20-99; operative 10-20-99 (Register 99, No. 39).
This database is current through 8/19/16 Register 2016, No. 34
14 CCR § 13052, 14 CA ADC § 13052

DRAFT Consideration of Environmental Factors 5/27/2016 Fisherman’s Wharf

The following information is contained in the draft document available on the county website.

DRAFT Consideration of Environmental Factors 5/27/2016
Fisherman’s Wharf
In the event the document can not be obtained on the county site is is available on this site here: compressedCEF_for_posting_Rev-5-31-2016

The following can be found on page 2:

The proposed Fisherman’s Wharf retail, commercial and apartment complex is fully consistent with the City’s General Plan and consistent with the City’s LCP insofar as retail and commercial space is included within the City’s HIC zone, but inconsistent with the current LCP’s rental housing component, since the HIC zone allows for hotels and motels, but not for longer term housing, and with the existing height requirement although, as with the PWP, the existing heights exceed the height allowance in the LCP. The topic of conformance of the proposed project with the City’s LCP is covered in more detail starting on page 23. The discussion of project conformance with the City LCP includes discussion of the City’s current General Plan, as amended by the Oxnard City Council in 2014, and commonly referenced as the City’s “2030 General Plan”. The 2030 General Plan anticipates a new overlay entitled Urban Village that specifically allows housing in the proposed Fisherman’s Wharf project area. The County will be asking the City to amend its LCP to conform to the adopted 2030 General Plan as required by State Law.


The above information would indicate responses need to be sent to the City of Oxnard officials asking they NOT approve this requested amendment.

The concept of Urban Village: In urban planning and design, an urban village is an urban development typically characterized by medium-density housing, mixed use zoning, good public transit and an emphasis on pedestrianization and public space.

Urban villages are seen to provide an alternative to recent patterns of urban development in many cities, especially decentralization and urban sprawl. They are generally purported to:

  • Reduce car reliance and promote cycling, walking and transit use
  • Provide a high level of self-containment (people working, recreating and living in the same area)
  • Help facilitate strong community institutions and interaction

This development plan does NOT meet the definition of an Urban Village in any way shape or form.

  • High end rental apartments to millennials will not reduce car reliance and promote cycling, walking and transit use.
  • The developer plans on high end apartments and there simply are NOT jobs in a walkable distance to support high end rents. (people working, recreating and living in the same area)
  • There is nothing in the plan to facilitate strong community institutions and interaction

For more information on the OXNARD 2030 plan – the information is available below on the City website:

PLEASE EMAIL VENTURA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND ASK THEY SAY NO TO THE PROPOSAL!

PLEASE EMAIL OXNARD AND ASK THEY SAY NO TO THE AMENDMENT!

More ways to contact officials and local media: CLICK HERE

Millennials as target Market.

The presentation I attended indicated this would be high end apartments with a target market of “Millennials”.

http://www.businessinsider.com/millennial-median-wage-map-2015-12:
millennial-median-income-state-map

Get out your calculators!

Let us assume a slightly better off than average millennial – how about an annual salary of $35,000 ?
I broke out the earnings using a Paycheck Calculator and Kiplinger’s Cost of Living Reality Check.

Millenial_Paycheck

26634.40 Annual take home calculating 30% ($7990.32) annually for Housing results in $665.86 per month.

$665.86 per month for rent does NOT sound like High End Rentals

Also see: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=Oxnard-CA/Hourly_Rate

The authors of the Pew Research Center analysis of census data cite the Great Recession and falling or stagnant wages as causes for the change in living arrangements. They also point to the issue of marriage (or the lack thereof): the typical age today for a first marriage, according to the Census Bureau, is 27.1 years for women and 29.2 years for men, compared with 1956’s record low of 20.1 years for women and 22.5 years for men.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/04/millennials-get-real-moving-back-rents/85342438/

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2016/03/03/131627/when-i-was-your-age/