Annexation of Cabrillo Village Is Backed : Ventura: The unanimous council vote will start proceedings to bring the 32-acre community within the city’s boundaries.

The Ventura City Council on Monday gave initial approval to annexing Cabrillo Village, a neighborhood of about 1,000 residents on Ventura’s east end.

The 32-acre community, which began in the 1930s as a farm laborers camp, is just west of Saticoy Avenue, between the Santa Clara River and the Southern Pacific railroad tracks. City leaders want to annex Cabrillo Village to reduce confusion in providing police protection for the area, an unincorporated island surrounded by the city of Ventura.

“We were already going out there on a lot of emergency calls,” Councilman Gregory L. Carson said before the meeting. “It’s something we have to do.”

The council voted unanimously to initiate annexation at the request of the Local Agency Formation Commission, a state-sponsored county panel that oversees changes in boundaries for cities. LAFCO said Cabrillo Village needs to become part of the city so that Ventura’s boundaries do not gerrymander around the area, which already receives many city services.

Hal Slade, housing administrator for Cabrillo Village, said he thinks that the annexation will make little difference to daily life in the neighborhood.

“We haven’t been pushing for it,” Slade said. “It’s more of a map maker’s game than anything.”

The city has been providing the village with water, sewer, trash services and fire protection for several years. The biggest change that will occur from the annexation is the change in law enforcement service: Instead of Ventura County sheriff’s deputies, Ventura police officers will be responsible for the area.

Residents in the small community said the impending annexation has created some tension between older and younger residents. Parents and older residents say they want to become residents of the city because they will receive more police protection.

Some youths say the increased police presence will mean confrontations with cops. Many are unhappy about an announcement by police that they will enforce a 10 p.m. curfew for juveniles--the same curfew in effect for minors throughout the city.

But some residents say they welcome the change.

“It will be helpful in regard to the gangs,” said one resident, who asked not to be identified. “The sheriff’s deputies come, but they don’t come very often.”

Deputies and Ventura police say they do not consider the area a major crime problem. Residents, however, say there has been increased gang activity in the low-income neighborhood since the late 1980s.

About 30 youths in Cabrillo Village call themselves a gang, known as the Cabrillo Campers. The gang has an ongoing rivalry with Ventura Avenue Gangsters.

Juan Martinez, who is not in the gang, said the Campers are not very violent, and most of the neighborhood’s trouble stems from other gangs.

“Mostly people come here from outside,” he said. “Sometimes they’ll come in and flash their signs.”

Ventura police said residents should see more law enforcement in the area because the department patrols a smaller area than sheriff’s deputies.

City officials do not expect Cabrillo residents to be affected in any major way because of the annexation. Residents would continue to maintain their own streets, and any new construction would be subject to city codes, said Karen Bates, associate city planner.

The 154 apartments and houses in the village are owned by the first cooperative housing association formed in Ventura County. The association is run by a seven-member board elected by residents for two-year terms. Residents pay the association $220 to $450 in monthly rent.

The annexation is expected to be approved by LAFCO later this spring and given final council approval as early as May.

* NO CHANGE

The Ventura City Council rejects proposal to stretch the city’s downtown boundaries to include the Ventura Avenue neighborhood. B2