2003 – 2009
2003
PWP Amendment 3 split the waterside and landside areas of the harbor and provided a waterside plan but no landside plan – piecemeal planning makes it difficult for other agencies serving the area as well obscuring the County’s vision for the harbor from the public and nearby community. Coastal Commission expressed concern about this.
January 15, 2004
Fisherman’s Wharf is transferred back to the County of Ventura from Channel Islands Harbor Investment Company. Maintenance is now to be provided by the Harbor Maintenance Division under the supervision of the Harbormaster and Harbor Department.
February 8, 2008
At the Coastal Commission hearing, Lyn Krieger (32:05) attested to the fact that a comprehensive landside plan was in process and in fact there was a public workshop session scheduled for the following Tuesday, February 11th. She told the Commissioners that it was critical to push forward a separate comprehensive waterside amendment (PWP3) so the aging docks and marinas could be replaced. Ms. Krieger also attested that it was natural to separate the waterside plan from the landside plan so a more “thorough and thoughtful job” could be done on a landside plan while the aging docks are replaced.
Jack Ainsworth stated (07:15) at this hearing that the County has in process the development of a comprehensive plan for the harbor but the harbor landside is in the planning phase and the County claims the waterside aging marinas and docks can not wait for the planning process for the landside to be complete.
The CIBSD also spoke at this Coastal Commission hearing declaring the need for a water purveyor to have a comprehensive master plan for the harbor in order to properly plan it services to the community.
December 1, 2008
Peter Douglas in a letter to the Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors “As you know, the current Channel Island PWP is outdated and does not include adequate specificity regarding the authorized facilities in the Harbor. …need to be revised and updated to address new environmental and socio-economic trends and emerging issues such as changing regional and public recreational needs. Amending the PWP in a piecemeal fashion is inefficient and would fail to address these important overarching policy and resource protection issues…PWPs are like master plans or master permits for public works facilities. Therefore, it is important to review these plans as one unified plan that comprehensively addresses all of the individual components of the plan”
December 9, 2009
CCC hearing Jack Ainsworth (1:27:43) Any future plans for the Northern parcel (N2 parcel included in the Fisherman’s Wharf project) will require an LCP amendment and PWP amendment. Loss of parking will be a problem and will need to be addressed. Commissioners Kruer, Wan, Sanchez, Blank, Stone and Bloom – all spoke and stated that in their judgment a lot more was going on than just a boat ramp NOID, but a case of piecemeal plan for a future development. They all expressed a need to see a vision for the entire area.