Oxnard City Council
January 17, 2023

Safe Routes to School funding to cover the remaining schools in the city.
b. Safety concerns:
i. Driving under the influence
ii. Driving too fast
iii. Drivers don’t stop at stop signs
iv. Lack of Class IV infrastructure to separate bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles
v. Uneven sidewalks due to tree roots
vi. Lack of awareness around people traveling in wheelchairs vii. Poor driving habits, such as at schools for pick up and drop off.

4. State of Safety in Oxnard
a. Overview of recent safety efforts
b. Overview of collision trends
c. Overview of collision locations
i. Skateboarders near skate park riding wrong way
ii. Bus stops at schools: staff try to coordinate traffic flow but can be challenging given high levels of activity
iii. Drivers passing bus stops with red flashers on
iv. Gary & Rose: City recently signalized the intersection, added crosswalks, and bicycle detection.
v. Rio School District: lack of sidewalks or bike lanes due to boundaries near County/unincorporated areas.

5. Mapping Activity
a. Input additional comments here: https://arcg.is/1SG99v0 or reach out to Rachel with specific locations.

6. Project Next Steps
a. Introduction to Safety Countermeasures
b. Grant funding opportunities:
i. Ventura County Transportation Commission's Incident Responders Grant Program Round 2 call for applications is available now, with applications due on September 30th. Grant guidelines and 355
Oxnard Local Road Safety Plan
Stakeholder Meeting #1
Thursday, September 23, 2021

application information are available here:
https://www.goventura.org/work-with-vctc/grant-opportunities/ ii. The City will coordinate with schools to share how schools can apply for grant funding or support the City in applying for grant funding.
iii. Request for schools to send maps of detailed school boundaries, preferably in a GIS file (e.g. shapefile) to understand where students are traveling to/from.

Mentimeter Results:
356
Oxnard Local Road Safety Plan
Stakeholder Meeting #1
Thursday, September 23, 2021

357
Oxnard Local Road Safety Plan
Stakeholder Meeting #1
Thursday, September 23, 2021

Mapping Activity Results:
358
Oxnard Local Road Safety Plan
Stakeholder Meeting #2
Notes

1. Introductions
a. Since our last meeting, what have you noticed
while traveling in Oxnard?
i. More people walking, skateboarding,
and biking, including for commuting.
ii. Less students riding the bus due to
COVID-19, and getting dropped off,
biking, or walking instead.
iii. Missing sidewalks in unincorporated
parts of El Rio.

1. Ventura County Public works
received grant funding to install
sidewalks, crosswalk
improvements, and flashing
lights for some pedestrian
crossings. Construction is
expected to begin in 2024.
iv. Curvy roads have limited visibility for
pedestrian crossings.

2. Project Recap and Status Update
a. Completed safety analysis
b. Wrapping up countermeasure selection
c. Working on draft report

3. Emphasis Areas
a. Collision Hot Spot Locations
i. Gonzales Road:

Thursday, April 7
3:00 PM – 4:00 PM
LOCATION:

Teams Video Call
ATTENDEES:

Rita Galvan, Oxnard School District
Corina Cherry, Oxnard Union High
School District
Wael Saleh, Rio School District
Lt. Cesar Romero, Oxnard College
Sergeant Rick Vazquez, Oxnard Police
Department
Sergeant Rocky Marquez, Oxnard
Police Department
Commander Marc Amon, Oxnard
Police Department
Corporal Mike Wood, Oxnard Police
Department
Austin Novstrup, Gold Coast Transit
District
Claire Grasty, VCTC Transit
Amanda Fagan, VCTC Planning
Debbie O’Leary, City of Oxnard
Tatiana Arnaout, City of Oxnard
Steve Brown, Fehr & Peers
Emily Finkel, Fehr & Peers
Rachel Om, Fehr & Peers
359
Oxnard Local Road Safety Plan
Stakeholder Meeting #2
Thursday, April 7, 2022

1. Support for more pedestrian crossing locations across Gonzales Rd to accommodate pedestrian desire lines.
a. The recommended pedestrian safety improvements
along Gonzales take pedestrian collisions and
pedestrian desire lines into consideration.

2. Identified need for pedestrian crossing infrastructure for bus stop west of Rose Ave & Gonzales Rd.
a. Bus stops are one of the pedestrian generators that
are taking into consideration for pedestrian safety
improvements.

3. Police Department supportive of retroreflective backplates a. This will be noted in the LRSP.
b. Collision Profiles
i. Identified need for sidewalks in El Rio to support safe routes to school, such as for Rio Real and Rio Plaza Elementary Schools

1. Will be addressed through Ventura County Public Works grant
ii. GCTD supportive of curb extensions that could double as bus bulb outs, such as along C Street and Bard Rd, two of GCTD’s busiest routes.

1. This will be noted in the LRSP.

4. Partnership Opportunities
a. VCTC Transit: ongoing campaign focused on increased awareness of people walking and biking (e.g. remind drivers to look both ways before turning right)
i. This is a great example to include as part of the educational efforts for the LRSP.
b. GCTD: ongoing late night safe rides pilot program
i. GCTD to share flier with Oxnard PD to distribute at sobriety checkpoints
c. Identified need for funding for school buses
i. The LRSP will identify a variety of funding sources to support safety.

School districts may be eligible to apply for the recently announced 360
Oxnard Local Road Safety Plan
Stakeholder Meeting #2
Thursday, April 7, 2022

Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project:
https://californiahvip.org/. The program has a Public School Bus Set-Aside: https://californiahvip.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/03/HVIP-School-Bus-Fact-Sheet.pdf d. Request for enforcement at school pick up/drop off (school zone speed limit) and for school buses (vehicles not stopping when bus is loading/unloading students)
i. This partnership opportunity will be documented in the LRSP. This will also be addressed in the City’s upcoming Safe Routes to School Program.
e. Oxnard PD: has OTS (bike and pedestrian focus) and OTS STEP grants for enforcement and education programs
i. This will be noted in the LRSP and is an opportunity for partnership with the City’s upcoming Safe Routes to School program.

5. Project Next Steps
a. Implementation & Evaluation
b. Draft Local Road Safety Plan
361
156 | APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B
Existing Efforts
Memorandum
and Opportunity
Areas Matrix
362
OXNARD LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 157
363
600 Wilshire Boulevard | Suite 1050 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 261-3050 | Fax (310) 394-7663 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: May 2022
To: Debbie O’Leary, City of Oxnard
From: Rachel Om, Emily Finkel, and Alex Melaragno, Fehr & Peers Subject: Oxnard Local Road Safety Plan: State of the Current City Systems and Planning Documents Review
LA-3267
Existing Safety Efforts
Over the past several years, the City of Oxnard (City) has made investments in roadway safety through project implementation, grant applications, maintenance activities, and adoption of planning documents that identify priorities and future projects. Planning documents that have specific safety-related goals, policies, projects, and recommendations were reviewed to set the foundation for the LRSP. The planning documents include:
• Oxnard General Plan Circulation
Element
• Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Master Plan (BPMP)
• Complete Streets Safety Assessment
(CSSA)
• Downtown Oxnard Vision Plan
Charrette Report
• Downtown Strategic Plan
• Oxnard Sidewalk Survey Report
• Green Alleys Plan
• Oxnard Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Plan
• Oxnard Corridor Community
Transportation Improvement Plan
(OCCTIP)
City maintenance programs that are relevant to traffic safety were also reviewed to document safety considerations in routine City functions. The programs include the Streets Division of Public 364
City of Oxnard
May 2022

Works, the Pavement Management System (PMS) Update, the City’s Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Master Plan, and the City’s 311 Reporting System.

This summary organizes Oxnard’s existing roadway safety efforts into the five categories of a Safe System, as defined by FHWA: safe roads, safe speeds, safe road users, post-crash care and safe vehicles.

Opportunity areas – specific locations where safety improvement opportunities have been identified through multiple prior planning efforts – are identified at the end of this memo. These opportunity areas will be included in the final Local Road Safety Plan.

Safe Roads
The Safe Roads Element of the Safe System Approach includes the physical design of roadways, including the separation of users in time and space, and whether designs are accommodating to human mistakes and injury tolerance levels. Roadway design projects with a focus on safety enhancements are summarized here.

Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
The City of Oxnard’s 2021 CIP, Our Assets, Our Safety, Our Future: 2021-2026 City of Oxnard Five Year Capital Improvement Program, includes the following roadway safety projects:

Completed or Under Construction (as of May 2022)
• Pedestrian Beacon Installation: Completed in April 2020, new pedestrian crossing flashing beacons and signage along with ADA improvements and crosswalks were implemented in various locations throughout the City.
• Rose Avenue & Gary Drive New Traffic Signal: Completed in May 2020, the City installed a new traffic signal and pedestrian ADA improvements and crosswalks at the intersection of Rose Avenue & Gary Drive by Oxnard College. • Signal Improvements: Funded and planned signal upgrade projects in the CIP consist of new signal heads, protected left turn phasing, bicycle detection, and LED lights at five intersections along Oxnard Boulevard and Saviers Road. Expected completion Winter 2022.
• Sidewalks: New sidewalks are under design for Rose Avenue from Auto Center Drive to Collins Street. Expected completion Fall 2022. New sidewalks are also planned for Ventura Blvd between Rose Ave and Balboa St. Expected completion is June 2023. • Active Transportation Improvements: The funded active transportation projects in the CIP include Class II and III bicycle lanes, bicycle detection, and pedestrian curb extensions throughout the city. Completed in Winter 2021, new bicycle facility locations include C 365
City of Oxnard
May 2022

Street from W. Gonzales Road to Hueneme Rd. Bicycle lanes are under design for Oxnard Boulevard from US-101 to Gonzales Road. Expected completion is December 2023. • Grade Separation: The City plans to construct grade separation bridge over UPRR tracks, two new signals, bike lanes and sidewalks at Rice Avenue & Fifth Street. Expected completion Summer 2025.

Additional Projects
• 4
th Street Mobility Improvements: widen sidewalks, upgrade streetlights, install bike facilities, and improve bus stop
• Adaptive traffic signals on Rose Avenue and Gonzales Road for 33 intersections • Etting Road bike lane and sidewalks
• Hemlock Street curb extensions and pedestrian crossing beacons • La Colonia bicycle boulevards and green alleys
• Traffic signal modernization at City’s 164 signals
Adopted Plans
The City’s Circulation Element, BPMP, OCCTIP, Downtown Vision Plan, Green Alleys Plan, TDM Plan, CSSA, and Oxnard Vision Plan feature infrastructure recommendations that prioritize safer roadway design.

Circulation Element: The Circulation Element establishes a goal for safe bicycle and pedestrian circulation throughout the city. For example, the Circulation Element recommends closing gaps in bicycle and sidewalk connectivity and improving ADA compliance at curb ramps and crosswalks.

Complete Streets Safety Assessment: The Oxnard Complete Streets Safety Assessment includes a review of existing conditions, a walk audit, and recommendations to improve safety and accessibility for people walking and biking in Oxnard. The CSSA benchmarks key strengths, enhancement areas, and opportunity areas for the City’s existing bicycle and pedestrian programs, policies, and practices. Recommendations include curb extension, high visibility crosswalks, sidewalk widening, increasing pedestrian crossing time, and conflict striping at intersections for bike lanes.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Master Plan: The BPMP provides recommendations for Class I, II, and III bicycle facilities throughout Oxnard, as well as ADA improvements, countdown timer pedestrian signal heads, and pedestrian refuge islands. The plan also defines priority bicycle and pedestrian projects for the City to implement as funding becomes available.

Oxnard Corridor Community Transportation Improvement Plan: The OCCTIP recommends infrastructure upgrades, such as shared bike lanes, sidewalks, new signals, roundabouts, and ADA improvements, at various locations throughout the city along with funding recommendations. 366
City of Oxnard
May 2022

Downtown Vision Plan and Downtown Strategic Plan: The Downtown Vision Plan and Downtown Strategic Plan are important documents in Oxnard’s Safe Roads efforts as they feature extensive community engagement and input. These plans identify and recommend opportunities for safer roadway infrastructure specifically in Downtown Oxnard, including complete streets concepts and safe bicycle connectivity in the Downtown core.

Green Alleys Plan: The Green Alleys Plan integrates Safe Roads concepts into Oxnard’s network of alleyways. This Plan incorporates a shared street approach to alleys by reimagining them as places with pedestrian, bicycle, and community-serving opportunities. Safety improvements outlined in the Green Alleys Plan include signage, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian crossing enhancements, and priority locations include La Colonia, South Winds, and Downtown.

Oxnard Vision Plan: As a part of the Southern California Association of Governments HQTA pilot, the Oxnard Vision Plan includes Safe Roads goals of promoting safety, reducing collisions, and supporting multi-modal travel in Downtown Oxnard. Specific infrastructure recommendations in the Oxnard Vision Plan include bicycle facilities, curb extensions, pedestrian scramble crosswalks and other crossing enhancements, and lighting improvements.

Accessible Sidewalk and Ramp Upgrades: The 2015 Sidewalk Survey included an inventory of existing sidewalks, curb ramps, and traffic calming devices. The Sidewalk Survey also provides recommendations for high priority areas.

Grant-Funded Projects
The City of Oxnard has received Active Transportation Program (ATP) and Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) for roadway design projects.

ATP Grant Funding: In 2021, Oxnard received funding for a Safe Routes to Schools program and mobility improvements for the 4th Street corridor through the most recent ATP Cycle 5. The Safe Routes to Schools improvements include physical curb extensions, accessible curb ramps, highvisibility crosswalks, roadside signs, traffic pavement markings and striping, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) at six elementary schools. The Safe Routes to Schools program also includes walkability assessment at 26 schools to identify infrastructure improvements. The mobility improvements for the 4th Street corridor include pedestrian crossing enhancements, bicycle facilities, street lighting, and modified traffic signals.

HSIP Grant Funding: In 2021, Oxnard received HSIP funding as part of the most recent HSIP Cycle 10 for signal improvements, streetlights, and accessible crossing facilities at ten intersections, as well as pedestrian crossing upgrades near Ramona Elementary School. 367
City of Oxnard
May 2022

Maintenance Programs
Streets Division of Public Works: The Streets Division of Public Works currently employs a reactive approach to repairs, under the philosophy that quickly addressing street maintenance issues avoids negative safety implications that may stem from disrepair. The division focuses on repairing inadequate structures back to their original, intended state. Although much of the Streets Division work is inherently related to safety, the division does not currently prioritize maintenance based on collision or other safety data, nor does it have in place a process for bundling safety improvement projects with maintenance projects for priority safety locations.

Pavement Management System (PMS): The PMS evaluates pavement conditions throughout the city and presents budget scenarios for maintaining or improving overall pavement condition.

Recommendations range from light maintenance to full reconstruction, the latter of which presents opportunities for bundling maintenance with safety improvements, such as pedestrian crossing enhancements or bicycle lanes. However, this is currently not a feature of the PMS program.
311 Reporting System: The City began accepting
non-emergency requests and reports through a 311
Reporting System in May 2016. Requests and reports
cover a wide range of topics, such as potholes,
overgrown landscape, faded street markings, and
water waste and leaks, and are routed to the relevant
department. Transportation safety-related requests
made between May 2016 and December 2020 were
reviewed to provide additional context for the
collision data. The majority of transportation safetyrelated requests are concentrated in the central part of the city between Ventura Road and Oxnard
Boulevard with the majority of requests related to
potholes, signs, and roadway markings.

Safe Speeds
The Safe Speeds element of the Safe System Approach focuses on infrastructure and policy changes that specifically target speed as a major factor in collisions and collision severity.

Speed is a major concern for active transportation safety in Oxnard, with the BPMP noting that 64% of bicycle collisions occur on the City’s high-speed, high-volume arterial roadways. The City collects speed data and performs a speed limit review every five years, as identified in the CSSA, and as of May 2022, is in the process of conducting a speed survey . 368
City of Oxnard
May 2022

Oxnard’s adopted plans contain infrastructure and program recommendations that support Safe Speeds efforts. These include speed radar trailers (BPMP), lane narrowing on Oxnard Boulevard and A Street to encourage slower speeds (Downtown Vision Plan), and a neighborhood pace car to slow down speeders on residential roadways while children walk to school (Sidewalk Survey).

Safe Road Users
The Safe Road Users element of the Safe System Approach addresses safety from a behavioral perspective by focusing on education, engagement, and enforcement.

Education
The CSSA notes several ongoing Safe Road Users educational efforts, such as traffic safety education programs led by the Oxnard Police Department and coordination between City departments and school districts to identify safety needs. The BPMP and Sidewalk Survey include Safe Road User recommendations. The BPMP recommends “Share the Road” campaigns that include the distribution of educational flyers and the creation of a multi-modal access guide. The Sidewalk Survey recommends staff and agency training on street safety topics such as pedestrian design treatments, and open street events where educational materials about Safe Road Users concepts may be distributed.

Enforcement
Enforcement measures, both traditional and innovative, to equitably serve the goal of Safe Road Users have been highlighted in Oxnard’s BPMP and Sidewalk Survey. Innovative policies include targeted enforcement in high collision areas or areas with high active transportation volumes, as well as concentrated enforcement during the start of the school year. Coordination between City staff, the public, and the Police Department are also noted as innovative enforcement opportunities to serve the Safe Road Users element. On the more traditional side, the Sidewalk Survey includes recommendations for increased driver fines, speed enforcement in school zones, and speed radar trailers, which establish a nexus between the Safe Road Users and Safe Speeds elements.

Grant-Funded Programs
The upcoming Safe Routes to Schools program, described under Safe Roads, also includes bicycle and pedestrian safety educational workshops, bicycle and pedestrian rodeos, and coordination with Oxnard Police Department to develop action plans for 26 schools, including the six schools receiving infrastructure improvements. The Oxnard Police Department also received Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grant funding for educational outreach on bicycle and pedestrian safety and enforcement, safety items for distribution, and enforcement of bicycle and pedestrian safety violations. The grant funding also allocates funds to the Police Department to target DUIs with 369
City of Oxnard
May 2022

sobriety checkpoints and educational campaigns (e.g. “Know Your Limit”), distracted driving, motorcycle safety, and traffic violations.

Post-Crash Care
While much of the Safe System Approach centers on collision prevention, Post-Crash Care is an important element in reducing fatalities or life-changing complications when collisions do occur.

Within road design, Post-Crash Care involves the balance of prioritizing access for active transportation modes while considering emergency vehicle access needs.

As a Post-Crash Care baseline, the CSSA notes that City staff review collision reports monthly, as well as whenever requests are made for infrastructure improvements. The Sidewalk Survey also recommends the City use collision data to monitor collision trends and collaborate with the Police Department, first responders, and health professionals to develop more efficient reporting and robust datasets to drive post-crash analysis. The City’s ITS Master Plan includes a goal to improve public safety and incident response times by including investments, such as emergency vehicle pre-emption, as part of signal and infrastructure upgrades.

Safe Vehicles
Some existing and emerging on-board vehicle technologies require investments in public infrastructure in order to function properly. For example, lane departure warning technology, common on newer vehicles, requires regular maintenance of roadway striping and the use of highly retroreflective materials to maximize effectiveness. The City’s pavement management system and resurfacing program would support the effectiveness of this technology. Emerging Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) technologies will likely require integration with existing infrastructure, and the City’s ITS Master Plan includes emergency vehicle pre-emption and transit signal priority investments for each phase of the plan.

In addition to technological and infrastructure investments, the City of Oxnard has made safety interventions that recognize the role particular vehicles play in safer roadways. In 2019, the City re-routed trucks away from Oxnard Boulevard in Downtown Oxnard based on concerns of narrow streets and tight turns.

Opportunity Areas
Based on the planning documents review, fifteen opportunity areas were selected to form a baseline for priority safety improvements in the city. While all safety-related planning documents were reviewed, not all plans are represented in the final list of opportunity areas. Corridors and intersections that meet at least one of the following selection criteria were selected as opportunity areas:
370
City of Oxnard
May 2022

• Mentioned in three or more plans
• Existing conditions were verified through field visits • Majority of proposed improvements are related to safety • Located outside of the Downtown Oxnard area to provide citywide geographic coverage as most other plans were focused on the central area of the City and the Oxnard Corridor The opportunity areas were identified in their respective plans through data analysis, field visits, and community engagement. Most locations contain several distinct safety recommendations, and some components of those recommendations may have confirmed funding though the CIP.

The fifteen locations are listed below and the detailed Opportunity Areas Matrix is presented in the Appendix.
• Oxnard Boulevard from Esplanade Drive to Wooley Road
• C Street from Gonzales Road to Channel Islands Boulevard • 5
th Street from C Street to Rice Avenue
• B Street from 3rd Street to Wooley Road
• A Street from Colonia Road to Wooley Road
• Wooley Road from Harbor Boulevard to Rice Avenue
• Esplanade Drive from Vineyard Avenue to Oxnard Boulevard • Mandalay Beach Road from Falkirk Avenue to Costa de Oro • Saviers Road from Thomas Avenue to Yucca Street
• Oxnard Bouelvard from Wooley Road to Pleasant Valley Road • Oxnard Boulevard & 1st Street
• Oxnard Boulevard & Colonia Road
• Pacifica High School & Gonzales Road
• Oxnard Boulevard & 5th Street/7th Street
• Wooley Road & E Street/C Street
371
Location Type
2030 General Plan
BPFMP
OCCTIP
HQTA/Oxnard Vision Plan
Downtown Strategic Plan
Downtown Vision Plan
Oxnard TDM Plan
Oxnard CSSA
Green Alleys Plan
Sidewalk Survey Report
Recommendations
Oxnard Boulevard
Esplanade Dr to Wooley Rd Corridor ŃŃŃŃŃ Ń
Ł Bicycle Enhancements
Ł Signal Upgrades
Ł Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
Ł Sidewalk Upgrades
Ł Lane Narrowing
Ł Lighting
Ł Green Alleys
C Street
Gonzales Rd to Channel Islands Blvd Corridor Ń ŃŃ Ń
Ł Bicycle Enhancements
Ł Lane Narrowing
Ł Lighting
Ł Speed Limit Modification
Ł Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
Ł Green Alleys
5th Street
C St to Rice Ave Corridor ŃŃŃ Ń
Ł Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
Ł Bicycle Enhancements
Ł Lane Narrowing
Ł Green Alleys
B Street
3rd St to Wooley Rd Corridor ŃŃ ŃŃ
Ł Bicycle Enhancements
Ł Lighting
Ł Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
Ł Sidewalk Upgrades
Ł Green Alleys
A Street
Colonia Rd to Wooley Rd Corridor ŃŃŃ Ń
Ł Bicycle Enhancements
Ł Lighting
Ł Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
Ł Sidewalk Upgrades
Ł Green Alleys
Oxnard Boulevard & 1st Intersection Ń
Ł Protected Left Turns
Ł Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
Ł Curb Extensions
Ł Lighting
Ł Upgraded Signage & Markings
Wooley Road
Harbor Blvd to Rice Ave Corridor ŃŃ Ń Ł Bicycle Enhancements Ł Green Alleys
Oxnard Boulevard & Colonia Road Intersection Ń
Ł Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
Ł Curb Extensions
Ł Pavement Marking
Ł Slip Lane Closure
Ł Upgraded Signage & Markings
Ł Right Turn Restrictions
Pacifica High School & Gonzales Road School Ń
Ł Sidewalk Upgrades
Ł Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
Ł Curb Extensions
Ł Speed Feedback Signs
Ł Signalization
Ł Lane Narrowing
Ł Bicycle Enhancements
Oxnard Boulevard & 5th, 7th St Intersection Ń
Ł Protected Left Turns
Ł Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
Ł Sidewalk Enhancements
Ł Curb Extensions
Ł Upgraded Signage & Markings
Wooley Road & E Street, C Street Intersection Ń
Ł Sidewalk Upgrades
Ł Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
Ł Curb Extensions
Ł Left Turn Restrictions
Ł Protected Left Turns
Esplanade Drive
Vineyard Ave to Oxnard Blvd Corridor Ń Ł Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Mandalay Beach Road
Falkirk Ave to Costa de Oro Corridor Ń Ł Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Saviers Road
Thomas Ave to Yucca St Corridor Ń Ł Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Ł Curb Extensions
Oxnard Boulevard
Wooley Rd to Pleasant Valley Rd Corridor Ń
Ł Bicycle Enhancements
Ł Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
Ł Sidewalk Upgrades
Ł Signalizations
Ł Road Diet
Appendix: Opportunity Areas Matrix
372
This page is intentionally left blank
373
158 | APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C
Collision
Analysis Memo &
Crossroads Data
Management Plan
374
OXNARD LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 159
375
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

600 Wilshire Boulevard | Suite 1050 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 261-3050 | Fax (310) 394-7663 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: January 6, 2022
To: Debbie O’Leary
From: Rachel Om, Emily Finkel, and Steve Brown
Subject: Collision History and Data Collection/Assessment Memorandum LA21-3267
Chapter 2 of Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) instructs safety practitioners to “consider a wide range of data sources to get an overall picture of the safety needs.” Collision data and contextual data were collected and analyzed as part of this plan, as well as anecdotal input from City staff and community stakeholders.

This memorandum summarizes the results of a comprehensive collision analysis for the City of Oxnard, which will inform project prioritization and countermeasure selection for the City. This analysis reflects injury collisions that occurred on City of Oxnard roadways (excluding gradeseparated facilities, such as US-101 and portions of SR-1) between 2016 and 2020 according to the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and the City of Oxnard Record Management System (RMS) database as of August 23, 2021.

TIMS reports injury collisions from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), and the City of Oxnard RMS includes injury and property damage only collisions that are reported to SWITRS. Both collision datasets were reviewed to create a comprehensive collision dataset for this analysis1. The final collision dataset is primarily comprised of collisions from the TIMS dataset because the collision dataset from the City’s RMS was not fully geocoded. Collisions where someone was killed or severely injured (KSI) that were in the City’s RMS, but not reported to TIMS due to data processing issues, were manually added to the TIMS dataset. To improve the collision reporting process, the City is implementing the Crossroads Software Collision Report Writer; details about this effort will be in the Crossroads data management plan. 1 Collision data were not directly downloaded from SWITRS because TIMS geocodes all the collisions with sufficient location information in SWITRS.
376
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Collision Database Limitations
In general, collision databases have been found to have certain reporting biases, including:
• Collisions involving people walking, on bicycles, or on motorcycles are less likely to be reported than collisions only involving people driving2. • Property damage only collisions are less likely to be reported3. • Younger victims are less likely to report collisions3. • Alcohol-involved collisions may be under-reported4.

Race, income, immigration status, and English proficiency may also impact reporting, but there is limited research on these factors. In Oxnard, the majority of the population is Hispanic (73%) followed by Non-Hispanic White (13%), Asian (8%), and Black (2%)5. The median household income is $78,981 whereas the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura metro area median household income is $92,2366. Approximately 34 percent of Oxnard residents are foreign-born7, and 18 percent are not U.S. citizens8.

Summary of Trends
With the above reporting biases in mind, this analysis identified several collision trends and risk factors in Oxnard, including:
• People walking and biking are more likely to be killed or severely injured in a collision. More than half of collisions involving a fatality involved someone walking or biking. • Drugs or alcohol increased the likelihood that a collision will be more severe. • Unsafe speeding accounted for nearly a quarter of all injury collisions • Bicycle and pedestrian collisions primarily occurred during the PM peak period, and late at night, when visibility is limited and people may be traveling at higher speeds. 9 2 Winters, M., Branion-Calles, M. (2017) Cycling safety: Quantifying the underreporting of cycling incidents in Vancouver, British Columbia. Journal of Transport & Health. 3 Imprialou, M-I. and Quddus, M.A. (2017). Crash data quality for road safety research: current state and future directions. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
4 Miller T.R., Gibson R., Zaloshnja E., Blincoe L.J., Kindelberger J., Strashny A., Zhang Y. Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine/Annual Scientific Conference. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine; Barrington, IL, USA: 2012. Underreporting of driver alcohol involvement in United States police and hospital records: Capture-recapture estimates.
5 U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Table B03002. 6 U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Table B19001. 7 U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). 2015 - 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B05006. 8 U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). 2015 – 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table C05001. 9 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration National Center for Statistics and Analysis (2007) Passenger Vehicle Occupant Fatalities by Day and Night – A Contrast. Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. 377
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

• Bicycle and pedestrian collisions that occurred in the middle of the night, such as between 3 AM – 6 AM, were more likely to result in a fatality or severe injury. • Pedestrians crossing outside of a marked crossing accounted for over half of the pedestrian-involved collisions that resulted in a fatality or severe injury. • Nearly 90 percent of collisions occurred within an intersection sphere of influence10, and approximately 31 percent of those collisions occurred where a primary road intersects with a minor road.
• Nearly 70 percent of collisions that occurred at a signalized intersection were at an intersection without fully protected left turn phases.

The following sections present citywide collision trends, collision hot spots, and a systemic analysis that pairs contextual factors with collision attributes.

Collision Landscape
From 2016 to 2020, there were 4,751 injury
collisions of which 259 collisions (5%) with
victims killed or severely injured (KSI, additional
details in the green box). On average, 12 people
were killed each year in Oxnard by traffic
violence. The number of injury collisions
increased from 2016 to 2017 and 2018, then
generally trended in 2020 (Figure 1). Travel
patterns in 2020 shifted due to the COVID-19
pandemic as people were working and attending
school remotely and are likely not representative
of longer-term typical conditions. Travel patterns
may continue to shift as people return to
previous travel patterns or establish new travel
patterns.
10 The intersection area of influence was defined as a 50-foot radius around minor intersections and a 250- foot radius around major intersections.

Killed or Severely Injured in a Collision
Severe injuries resulting from a traffic collision can
result in a number of catastrophic impacts,
including permanent disability, lost productivity
and wages, and ongoing healthcare costs. These
injuries can include:
- Broken or fractured bones
- Dislocated or distorted limbs
- Severe lacerations
- Severe burns
- Skull, spinal, chest or abdominal injuries
- Unconsciousness at or when taken from
the collision scene
Throughout this plan, the acronym KSI is used to
denote collisions where someone was killed or
severely injured.
378
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Figure 1 – Injury Collisions by Year by Mode (2016 – 2020) From 2016 to 2019, the number of KSI collisions trended inversely to the number of injury collisions where KSI collisions decreased in 2017 and 2018 but increased in 2019 (Figure 2).

KSI collisions followed the same pattern as total injury collisions with a decrease in 2020. Collisions involving a pedestrian are disproportionately represented in KSI collisions as these collisions make up a larger share of KSI collisions compared to total injury collisions. Similar to the five-year trend, KSI collisions accounted for 5% - 6% of total injury collisions each year.

Figure 2 – KSI Collisions by Year by Mode (2016 – 2020) 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Number of Collisions
Vehicle Bike Ped
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Number of KSI Collisions
Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian
379
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Collision Characteristics
The most common collision types in Oxnard were Broadside (37%), Rear End (29%), and Head-On (9%), Sideswipe (9%), and Vehicle/Pedestrian (9%) (
Figure 3). For KSI collisions, Broadside collisions were most common (27%), followed by Vehicle/Pedestrian (26%) and Hit Object collisions (12%). This trend further illustrates the disproportionate share of KSI collisions involving pedestrians in Oxnard. Hit Object collisions were also more likely to result in a KSI compared to other common collision types.

Figure 3 – Injury Collisions by Collision Type (2016 – 2020) 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Percent of Collisions
All Collisions KSI Collisions
380
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Collision reports note a Primary Collision Factor (PCF), which is the reporting officer’s determination of the primary cause, or violation, of the collision. In Oxnard, the most common violations were Unsafe Speed (23%), Vehicle Right of Way Violation (23%), and Traffic Signals and Signs (11%), per Figure 4. The majority of Vehicle Right of Way violations included drivers not yielding after left turn or U-turn, drivers not yielding at stop sign, and drivers not yielding to oncoming traffic when entering or crossing the road from property or alley. The majority of Traffic Signals and Signs violations included drivers not stopping at line or stop bar.

For KSI collisions, the most common violations were Unsafe Speed (15%), Pedestrian Violation (14%), Driving/Bicycling Under the Influence (13%), and Vehicle Right of Way Violation (13%). The Pedestrian Violation PCF indicates that the pedestrian violated a rule of the road, such as crossing on a red signal, as opposed to the Pedestrian Right of Way Violation PCF (4%), where the driver violates the pedestrian’s right of way.

Figure 4 – Injury Collisions by Violation (2016 – 2020) A driver under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs increases the likelihood of a collision resulting in a severe injury or a fatality (Figure 5). While nine percent of all collisions involved drugs or alcohol, 18 percent of KSI collisions involved drugs or alcohol.

Figure 5 – DUI Injury Collisions for All and KSI Collisions 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Unsafe Speed Vehicle Right
of Way
Violation
Traffic Signals
and Signs
Improper
Turning
DUI Following Too
Closely
Pedestrian
Right of Way
Violation
Percent of Collisions
All Collisions KSI Collisions
381
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Studying the timing of collisions can provide context about the surrounding traffic and lighting conditions, which informs the selection of countermeasures. The highest share of all collisions occurred between 3 PM and 7 PM, which is when many people are returning from work and school (Figure 6). The number of collisions occurring between 3 PM and 7 PM may also be affected by seasonal changes, such as Daylight Savings Time, which can influence visibility as people’s commutes shift from being before to after sunset.

The highest share of KSI collisions occurred between 7 PM and 6 AM, which may indicate there may be night-related issues, such as visibility and speeding when fewer cars are on the road.

Figure 6 – Injury Collisions by Time of Day (2016 – 2020) Roadway lighting conditions can influence the visibility of roadway users, especially pedestrians and bicyclists, and road infrastructure. While 30 percent of all collisions occurred during nighttime, nighttime collisions accounted for 48 percent of KSI collisions (Figure 7).

Figure 7 – Injury Collisions by Lighting Conditions (2016 – 2020) 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Overnight (7PM-6AM) Morning Peak (6AM10AM)Midday (10AM-3PM) Evening Peak (3PM-7PM) Percent of Collisions
All Collisions KSI Collisions
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Daylight Dusk - Dawn Dark - Street Lights Dark - No Street Lights/Not Functioning
Percent of Collisions
All Collisions KSI
382
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Collision Characteristics by Mode
People walking and biking were involved in 17 percent of total collisions but 39 percent of KSI collisions (Figure 8). People walking were particularly over-represented in KSI collisions, as they were involved in ten percent of all collisions but 28 percent of KSI collisions. Additionally, 52 percent of the City’s fatal collisions involved either a bicyclist or a pedestrian.

Figure 8 – Injury Collisions by Mode (2016 – 2020)
A large share of injuries to people walking occurred when people were crossing in the crosswalk at an intersection (38%) or crossing not in a crosswalk (33%), per Figure 9. For KSI collisions, pedestrians crossing not in a crosswalk made up the largest share (52%) of pedestrianinvolved KSI collisions. Collisions where people crossed the street outside of crosswalks and walked in the road may indicate that there are unmet pedestrian desire lines and could be evaluated to identify potential locations for new crosswalks and sidewalks.

Figure 9 – Pedestrian Action Preceding Injury Collision (2016 – 2020) 83%
7%
10%
All Collisions
61% 11%
28%
KSI Collisions
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Crossing in
Crosswalk at
Intersection
Crossing Not in
Crosswalk
In Road, Including
Shoulder
Not in Road Crossing in
Crosswalk Not at
Intersection
Percent of Pedestrian-Involved
Collisions
All Collisions KSI Collisions
Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian
383
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

In collisions involving someone biking, the majority of people biking were either proceeding straight (77%) or traveling the wrong way on the road (i.e. traveling against the flow of vehicular traffic; 10%) before the collision occurred (Figure 10). The majority of people driving were also proceeding straight (46%) followed by making either a right turn (29%) or left turn (10%). Collisions involving a turning movement may indicate a need to increase drivers’ awareness of bicyclists by increasing the visibility of bicyclists with signage and striping.

Figure 10 – Movement Preceding Collision for Bicycle-Involved Injury Collisions (2016 – 2020) Appendix A presents detailed tables that summarize the top violations, crash types, time of day, and driver movement at fault for all collisions and KSI collisions for all injury collisions and by mode. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Proceeding Straight
Making Right Turn
Making Left Turn
Traveling Wrong Way
Percent of Bicycle-Involved Collisions
Bicyclist Action Driver Action
384
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Victim Profile
The collision data indicate that vulnerable age groups (under 15 and 65+ years of age) have not experienced a significantly disproportionate share of all collisions in Oxnard. People under the age of 15 make up 22 percent of the City’s population but represent less than ten percent of all injury and KSI collisions (Figure 11). People 65 years and older make up 11 percent of the City’s population but represent 8 percent of all collisions and 12 percent of KSI collisions. People under the age of 15 or over the age of 65 are generally not part of the driving population and are walking, biking, or taking transit. Younger victims are less likely to report collisions, and collisions involving people walking or biking are less likely to be reported11,12. Therefore, safety improvements should still be considered with people in vulnerable age groups in mind.

Figure 11 – Victims by Age Compared to Census Data (2016 – 2020) 11 Imprialou, M-I. and Quddus, M.A. (2017). Crash data quality for road safety research: current state and future directions. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
12 Winters, M., Branion-Calles, M. (2017) Cycling safety: Quantifying the underreporting of cycling incidents in Vancouver, British Columbia. Journal of Transport & Health. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Under 15 15-64 65+
Percent of All Victims
All Collisions KSI Oxnard Population
385
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

In collision reports, race is reported at the party level and determined at the discretion of the reporting officer. This means that if people of multiple races are present in a vehicle, only the driver’s race will be reported. The distribution of parties by race generally reflects the racial makeup of Oxnard (Figure 12). Parties identified as Non-Hispanic White are slightly overrepresented in collisions as people identified as Non-Hispanic White account for 15 percent of parties in all collisions, 16 percent of parties in KSI collisions, and 13 percent of the population of Oxnard. Parties identified as Hispanic account for a smaller share of parties of all collisions (64%) and KSI collisions (67%) compared to the population of Oxnard (73%). Race, income, immigration status, and English proficiency may impact collision reporting, but there is limited research on these factors.

Figure 12 – Parties by Race compared to Census Data (2016 – 2020) 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Asian Black Non-Hispanic White Hispanic
Percent of All Parties/Population
All Collisions KSI Oxnard Population
386
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Collisions by Neighborhood
The City of Oxnard has 61 designated neighborhoods, and 97 percent of collisions occurred in one of these designated neighborhoods. Table 1 through Table 4 list the top five neighborhoods for all injury, KSI, bicycle-involved, and pedestrian-involved collisions. The highest share of all injury collisions (8%) and KSI collisions (7%) occurred in the Kamala Park neighborhood. The highest share of bicycle-involved (11%) and pedestrian-involved collisions (8%) also occurred in the Kamala Park neighborhood. For each collision category, the top five neighborhoods are located around Downtown Oxnard and the surrounding central area of the city. For all injury collisions, the top five neighborhoods cover ten percent of the city area but account for 25 percent of citywide collisions. In addition to Downtown Oxnard generating a lot of activity with the Oxnard Transit Center and commercial areas, the central area of Oxnard also has a denser roadway network with many alleys and minor roadways intersecting major roadways, such as Oxnard Boulevard, compared to other parts of the city. A full collision summary by neighborhood can be found in Appendix B.

Table 1 – All Injury Collisions by Neighborhood (2016 – 2020) Neighborhood Percent of City
Area
Total Injury
Collisions
Percent of Total
Collisions
Kamala Park 2% 364 8%
Five Points Northeast 2% 162 3%
La Colonia 2% 207 4%
Pacific Avenue Commercial Area 3% 268 6%
Wilson 1% 210 4%
Table 2 – KSI Collisions by Neighborhood (2016 – 2020)
Neighborhood Percent of City
Area KSI Collisions Percent of Total KSI Collisions
Kamala Park 2% 19 7%
Five Points Northeast 2% 15 6%
La Colonia 2% 12 5%
Pacific Avenue Commercial Area 3% 10 4%
Wilson 1% 10 4%
387
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Table 3 – Bike Collisions by Neighborhood (2016 – 2020) Neighborhood
Percent
of City
Area
Bike
Collisions
Percent of Bike
Collisions
KSI Bike
Collisions
Percent of KSI
Bike Collisions
Kamala Park 2% 38 11% 3 11%
Pacific Avenue Commercial Area 3% 25 7% 0 0%
Wilson 1% 22 6% 2 7%
Sea Air 1% 18 5% 3 11%
Five Points Northeast 2% 17 5% 3 11%
Table 4 – Pedestrian Collisions by Neighborhood (2016 – 2020) Neighborhood Percent of
City Area
Ped
Collisions
Percent of Ped
Collisions
KSI Ped
Collisions
Percent of KSI
Ped Collisions
Kamala Park 2% 38 8% 6 8%
Wilson 1% 31 7% 5 7%
La Colonia 2% 23 5% 6 8%
Five Points Northeast 2% 20 4% 6 8%
Hobson Park East 1% 20 4% 2 3%
Hot Spot Analysis
We used a collision mapping process to identify the top intersections and corridors that account for a disproportionate share of collisions. In safety analyses, locations with a higher number of crashes are often referred to as “hot spots”13. The term “hot spot” is used throughout this report to differentiate the conventional, more reactive approach that looks at observed crash patterns from the more proactive systemic analysis approach. The top ten intersections were identified for all injury collisions, weighted collisions, and collisions per million entering vehicles. The top ten roadway segments were identified for all injury collisions, weighted collisions, and collisions per million vehicle miles traveled. Intersections and roadway segments with less than three collisions were omitted for this analysis.
13 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (2018). Guidebook on Identification of High Pedestrian Crash Locations.
388
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Intersections
To associate collisions to intersections, a set of non-overlapping areas of influence were generated based on a 50-foot radius around minor intersections and a 250-foot radius around major intersections14. Major intersections are defined as intersections where a primary road meets a primary, secondary, or minor road and where a secondary road meets a secondary or minor road.

Total Injury Collisions
The ten intersections with the highest number of total injury collisions are at major intersections, which have relatively high traffic volumes and increased exposure (Table 5). Figure 13 illustrates the total injury collisions by intersection with the top ten intersections highlighted in blue. Appendix C summarizes the top ten intersections for six intersection classifications:
• Primary-Primary
• Primary-Secondary
• Primary-Minor
• Secondary-Secondary
• Secondary-Minor
• Minor-Minor
Table 5 – Top Ten Intersections by Total Collisions (2016 – 2020) Intersection Name Intersection Classification Total Injury Collisions
KSI
Collisions
E Gonzales Rd & N Rose Ave Primary-Secondary 55 0
Wooley Rd & Ventura Rd Secondary-Secondary 46 0
W Bard Rd & Saviers Rd Primary-Secondary 45 2
N Vineyard Ave & Oxnard Blvd Primary-Primary 43 1
E Fifth St & S Rice Ave Primary-Primary 40 1
E Fifth St & S Rose Ave Primary-Secondary 40 0
N C St & W Gonzales Rd Primary-Secondary 39 1
W Channel Islands Blvd & Saviers Rd Primary-Primary 38 0 S Victoria Ave & W Channel Islands Blvd Primary-Secondary 37 2 N Rose Ave & Camino Del Sol Secondary-Secondary 37 2
14 The radius for minor intersections was determined by the length of centerline striping at stop-signs, and the radius for major intersections was determined by the length of the striping for left-turn turn pockets. 389
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Figure 13 – Intersections by Total Injury Collisions (2016 – 2020) Note: The top ten intersections with the highest number of injury collisions are highlighted in blue. 390
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Weighted Score
Collisions were weighted by severity: collisions where the highest degree of injury was a fatality or severe injury received a weight of 27. The weight of 27 for KSI collisions was calculated by comparing the average cost of a fatality or severe injury ($2.1 million) to the average cost of other visible injury, complaint of pain, and property damage only ($78.8 thousand) for a ratio of 27:1. The collision costs are found in the Caltrans Local Road Safety Manual Benefit/Cost Ratio Calculations15.

Table 6 lists the top ten intersections by the total weighted score. Figure 14 illustrates the weighted score by intersection with the top ten intersections highlighted in blue.

Table 6 – Top Ten Intersections by Total Weighted Score (2016 – 2020) Intersection Name Intersection Classification Weighted
Score
Total Injury
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
W Pleasant Valley Rd & Saviers Rd Primary-Primary 149 19 5 S Ventura Rd & W Fifth St Primary-Primary 137 33 4
S Rose Ave & E Bard Rd Secondary-Secondary 135 31 4
E Wooley Rd & Commercial Ave Secondary-Minor 123 19 4
W Channel Islands Blvd & S C St Primary-Secondary 110 32 3 N Rice Ave & Camino Del Sol Primary-Secondary 104 26 3
W Bard Rd & Saviers Rd Primary-Secondary 97 45 2
N Oxnard Blvd & 1st St Primary-Minor 97 19 3
Cypress Rd & E Pleasant Valley Rd Primary-Minor 95 17 3 Thames River Dr & N Vineyard Ave Primary-Minor 93 15 3
15 Caltrans. (2020). Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners. https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/local-assistance/documents/hsip/2020/lrsm2020.pdf 391
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Figure 14 – Intersections by Total Weighted Score (2016 – 2020) Note: The top ten intersections with the highest weighted score are highlighted in blue. 392
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Collision Rates
In order to control the results for traffic volume (the number of collisions is naturally higher with more volume), we calculated a collision rate based upon the number of Collisions per Million Entering Vehicles (MEV) as follows:

𝐶 𝑥 1,000,000
𝑉 𝑥 365 𝑥 𝑁
Where:
• C = Number of Collisions
• V = Average Daily Intersection Entering Volume, which was calculated by adding the AADT for segments at the intersection and dividing in half to remove the exiting volumes • N = Number of Analysis Years (5 years for 2016 to 2020) The following ten intersections have the highest collision rate normalized by traffic volumes (Table 7). Figure 15 illustrates the Collisions per MEV by intersection with the top ten intersections highlighted in blue.

Table 7 – Top Ten Intersections by Collisions per Million Entering Vehicles (2016 – 2020) Intersection Name Intersection
Classification
Collisions
per MEV
Total
Injury
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
W Bard Rd & Saviers Rd Primary-Secondary 1.20 45 2
S Rose Ave & E Bard Rd Secondary-Secondary 0.87 31 4
E Gonzales Rd & N Rose Ave Primary-Secondary 0.85 55 0
Anchorage St & E Bard Rd Secondary-Minor 0.85 17 0
Lombard St/Outlet Center Dr &
E Gonzales Rd Primary-Minor 0.85 17 0
W Wooley Rd & S J St Secondary-Secondary 0.84 29 1
S Victoria Ave & W Channel Islands Blvd Primary-Secondary 0.83 37 2 W Wooley Rd & S C St Secondary-Secondary 0.76 36 1
W Gonzales Rd & N Victoria Ave Primary-Primary 0.74 35 1 Pacific Ave & Ives Ave Secondary-Minor 0.73 8 0
393
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Figure 15 – Intersections by Collisions per Million Entering Vehicles (2016 – 2020) Note: The top ten intersections with the highest crashes per MEV are highlighted in blue. 394
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Segments
To account for Oxnard’s dense roadway network in identifying roadway segment hot spots, collisions that were more than 50 feet away from an intersection were matched to the nearest roadway segment. As a result, some collisions were double assigned to an intersection and a roadway segment.

The following ten roadway segments have the highest total number of collisions (Table 8). Figure 16 illustrates the total collisions with the top ten roadway segments highlighted in blue.

Table 8 – Top Ten Roadway Segments by Total Collisions (2016 – 2020) Road Name From To Class Total Injury
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Saviers Rd W Channel Islands Blvd Alley (Near Laurel St) Primary 22 0 N Rose Ave E Gonzales Rd Lockwood St Secondary 20 0
N Vineyard Ave W Esplanade Dr Craig Dr Primary 18 0
N Victoria Ave Flax Pl W Gonzales Rd Primary 16 2
E Gonzales Rd N Rose Ave Alley (Near Sonata Dr) Primary 12 0 N Rose Ave Camino De La Luna Camino Del Sol Secondary 12 0 S Ventura Rd N Ninth St W Wooley Rd Primary 12 0
N Rose Ave E Gonzales Rd Mc Grath Dr Secondary 11 0
S Oxnard Blvd E Date St Midblock (Near Sunkist Cir) Primary 10 3 N Oxnard Blvd Citrus Grove Ln Vineyard Ave Primary 10 2 395
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Figure 16 – Roadway Segments by Total Injury Collisions (2016 – 2020) Note: The top ten roadway segments with the highest number of injury collisions are highlighted in blue. 396
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Weighted Score
Consistent with the intersection analysis, collisions were weighted by severity for the roadway segment analysis with KSI collisions receiving a weight of 27 and other injury collisions receiving a weight of one. Table 9 lists the top ten roadway segments by the total number of weighted collisions. Figure 17 illustrates the weighted score with the top ten roadway segments highlighted in blue.

Table 9 – Top Ten Roadway Segments by Weighted Score (2016 – 2020) Road Name From To Class Weighted
Score
Total
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
N Victoria Ave Gum Tree St City Boundary Primary 88 10 3 N Victoria Ave Flax Pl W Gonzales Rd Primary 68 16 2
S Oxnard Blvd E Date St Midblock
(Near Sunkist Cir) Primary 62 10 2
N Rose Ave N Rose Ave &
Camino De La Luna
Cesar Chavez Dr &
N Rose Ave Secondary 61 9 2
N Ventura Rd Wagon Wheel Rd Railroad Crossing Secondary 56 4 2 S Oxnard Blvd Rose Ave Channel Island Blvd Primary 56 4 2 Saviers Rd E Yucca St Plaza Driveway Primary 36 10 1
Saviers Rd W Bard Rd Fashion Park Pl Primary 35 9 1
S Ventura Rd W Fifth St Plaza Dwy Primary 33 7 1
W Channel Islands
Blvd S C St The Palms Apts Dwy Primary 33 7 1
397
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Figure 17 – Roadway Segments by Weighted Collisions (2016 – 2020) Note: The top ten roadway segments with the highest weighted score are highlighted in blue. 398
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Collisions per Million Vehicle Miles Traveled
The number of Collisions per Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (MVMT) was calculated to account for exposure. The Collisions per MVMT was calculated as follows:

𝐶 𝑥 1,000,000
𝑉 𝑥 𝐿 𝑥 365 𝑥 𝑁
Where:
• C = Number of Collisions
• V = Segment AADT
• L = Length of Segment in Miles
• N = Number of Analysis Years (5 years for 2016 to 2020) Table 10 lists the top ten roadway segments by the Collisions per MVMT. Figure 18 illustrates the weighted score with the top ten roadway segments highlighted in blue.

Table 10 – Top Ten Roadway Segments by Collisions per Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (2016 – 2020)
Road Name From To Class Collisions
per MVMT
Total
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Paseo Mercado Auto Center Dr Ventura Bl Minor 12 5 0
N Victoria Ave Flax Pl Gum Tree St Primary 4 8 0
Citrus Grove Ln Oxnard Bl Blackberry Cir Minor 4 4 0
N Vineyard Ave W Esplanade Dr Sb 101 On Ramp Primary 4 4 0 E Gonzales Rd N Rose Ave Alley (Near Sonata
Dr) Primary 3 12 0
Saviers Rd W Channel Islands
Blvd
Alley (Near Laurel
St) Primary 2 22 0
N Vineyard Ave W Esplanade Dr Craig Dr Primary 2 18 0
S Oxnard Blvd E Date St Midblock (Near
Sunkist Cir) Primary 2 10 2
Saviers Rd W Bard Rd Fashion Park Pl Primary 2 9 1
Saviers Rd Wolff St E Wooley Rd &
Oxnard Bl Primary 2 9 0
399
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Figure 18 – Roadway Segments by Collisions per Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (2016 – 2020) Note: The top ten roadway segments with the highest crashes per MVMT are highlighted in blue. 400
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Figure 19 illustrates the top ten intersections and roadways for each collision metric. Several intersections, such as Oxnard Boulevard & Gonzales Road and Rose Avenue & Gonzales Road, and roadways, such as Ventura Road (north of Gonzales Road) and Gonzales Road (west of Rose Avenue) are reflected in more than one collision metric.

Figure 19 – Top Ten Intersections and Roadways for Total Collisions, Weighted Collisions, and Collisions per MEV/MVMT
401
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Systemic Analysis
Systemic analysis is a proactive safety approach that evaluates an entire roadway network using a defined set of criteria. Systemic analysis looks at collision history on an aggregate basis to identify high-risk roadway characteristics in addition to looking at high collision locations.

By merging adjacent road, intersection, and land use features with collision data, relationships can be uncovered between contextual factors and the risk of frequent and severe collisions. This systemic process relied on a twofold approach to identify key safety issues and locations to prioritize hot spot analysis and development of collision types. Figure 20 illustrates the injury collisions by collision severity in Oxnard from 2016 to 2020.

Figure 20 – Injury Collisions in Oxnard (2016 - 2020)
402
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Contextual Data Overview and Methodology
To better understand systemic collision patterns in Oxnard, contextual factors were analyzed in conjunction with collision characteristics. Contextual factors include roadway characteristics, roadway facilities, land use characteristics, and driver behavior. The area of influence for each contextual factor varied based on the level of anticipated activity each contextual factor would generate (e.g. a school has a much larger area of influence than a transit stop). Major intersections are defined as intersections that include a primary or secondary road. The contextual factors and their respective areas of influence are summarized in the table below.

Roadway Characteristics Distance
Number of Lanes 50’
Posted Speed Limit 50’
Roadway Classification:
• Primary
• Secondary
• Minor
50’
Traffic Signal
• Fully Protected Left Turn Phases
50’ Minor Roadway
250’ Major Roadway
Intersection Classification
• Major Intersection: includes a Primary or
Secondary Road
• Minor Intersection: Minor-Minor
50' Minor Roadway
250' Major Roadway
Intersection Area of Influence 50’ Minor Intersection
250’ Major Intersection
Location Type
• Major Intersection
• Minor Intersection
• Midblock
50' Minor Intersection
250' Major Intersection
250’+ Midblock
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) 50’
Roadway Facilities Distance
Streetlights 75’
Railroad Crossing 150’
On-Street Bicycle Facility 100'
Truck Route 100’
Pavement Condition Index 50’
Land Use Characteristics Distance
Disadvantaged or Low-Income Community based on
SB 535 or AB 1550 designation Inside or within 100’ of boundary Schools 1,000'
Parks 1,000'
403
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Bus stop 500'
Transit Station 1320’
Commercial 1000’
Driver Behavior Distance
Hard Braking Hot Spot
• Low
• Medium
• High
100’
Harsh Acceleration Hot Spot
• Low
• Medium
• High
100’
Roadway characteristics (except for AADT), roadway facilities, and land use characteristics were provided by the City of Oxnard and the California Air Resources Board. AADT estimates for 2019 were obtained through StreetLight, a data platform that provides traffic count estimates and other mobility metrics using data from location-based services, such as mobile devices and GPS units.

AADT estimates were obtained for 2019 as traffic conditions in 2020 and 2021 were not representative of typical conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Locations with a relatively high number of hard braking or harsh acceleration instances were identified using Wejo, a data platform that provides driver behavior and speeds using data obtained from on-board vehicle sensors, including devices that are built into the vehicle that provide data to the vehicle manufacturer and devices that are installed by the vehicle owner, such as for monitoring fleet vehicles, and from insurance companies for use in monitoring driver behavior and providing insurance discounts/setting premiums. All data are anonymous and cannot be traced back to any individual roadway user. The dataset used in the hard braking and harsh acceleration analysis is based on approximately 192,000 observations citywide.
404
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Community Input Through 311 Requests
The following transportation-related 311 requests from May 2016 to July 2021 were provided by the City of Oxnard:
• Pothole
• Sidewalk Repair
• Street Markings
• Street Signs
• Streetlight Out
• Traffic
◦ General Issues
◦ Enforcement Issues
◦ Signal Issues
From May 2016 to July 2021, there were 9,325 transportation-related 311 requests. Key findings are summarized below with maps illustrating issues with noticeable trends:
• The majority of transportation-related 311 requests were for potholes, which were generally spread throughout the city. There was a concentration of requests along the north-south corridors of the City.
• Street sign, streetlight out, and general traffic issue requests were fairly evenly spread throughout the City.
405
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Figure 21 – Sidewalk Repair 311 Request Hot Spots (2016 - 2021) Figure 21 illustrates sidewalk repair requests which are generally widespread throughout the City, with a concentration of requests:
• North of 5th Street, between Highway 1 and Patterson Road. • South of 5th Street and north of Channel Islands Boulevard between Victoria Avenue and Ventura Road.
• South of 5th Street. and north of Oxnard Blvd between Rose Avenue and Highway 1. 406
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Figure 22 – Enforcement 311 Request Hot Spots (2016 - 2021) Figure 22 illustrates 311 requests for enforcement, which cover requests around:
• Illegal parking
• Unsafe passenger loading/unloading (e.g. around schools) • Speeding
• Drivers not stopping at stop signs
There were a cluster of enforcement requests in the residential area southeast of the Gonzales Road & Ventura Road intersection. Many of these requests were around RVs parked for extended periods of time with several requests around speeding. Another cluster of enforcement requests along Saviers Road, south of Channel Islands Boulevard, and near Hueneme Road were around vehicles parked along yellow and red curbs. 407
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Systemic Matrix
Collision data were paired with contextual data in a series of systemic matrices. Outputs from the collision analysis were used to populate a set of matrices that have collision data in rows and contextual data in columns for collisions across the Oxnard roadway network. The matrices help identify combinations of factors that contributed to a high number of total collisions and KSI collisions. The identified combinations inform the development of collision profiles that will be paired with applicable countermeasures to be applied at locations that match the collision profile throughout the city. Matrices were created for each mode for total injury (Table 11) and KSI collisions (Table 12). The systemic matrices by mode for all injury collisions and KSI collisions can be found in Appendix D.
408
Mode: All Collisions
Lanes:

Speed: 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 60-65 30-35 40-45 50-55 Fully Protected
Lefts All Other Signals Major Minor
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug 78 36 9 1 0 45 125 24 6 1 30 20 56 106 119 38 56 48 39 89 26 74 39 38 51 332 141 125 204 375 Unsafe Speed 144 79 27 18 2 135 372 72 6 25 147 60 248 356 281 70 132 126 172 314 68 187 76 189 200 972 408 300 645 1,087 Improper Turning 117 32 15 12 0 47 120 27 3 4 41 10 48 97 139 57 87 31 41 95 22 90 61 29 29 371 182 152 216 428 Vehicle Right of Way Violation 186 118 22 11 0 149 394 59 0 9 109 29 73 425 395 126 67 60 151 330 101 238 138 106 74 988 475 345 602 1,086 Traffic Signals and Signs 51 47 2 1 0 104 190 36 4 12 65 34 141 277 73 42 13 55 117 156 73 85 44 95 115 496 241 164 351 546 Head-On 103 25 11 3 1 55 146 27 2 3 35 12 54 166 90 56 57 40 74 83 33 76 58 54 47 379 189 144 219 423 Sideswipe 104 45 9 3 0 57 112 15 3 4 44 25 70 108 134 46 63 43 47 95 22 92 52 53 52 371 179 150 234 421 Rear End 156 90 26 16 1 185 487 96 7 39 183 78 350 440 356 72 146 181 227 399 96 227 78 247 286 1,220 497 372 834 1,364 Broadside 272 195 29 18 0 268 616 100 8 24 175 70 238 684 549 186 118 126 264 536 183 348 196 220 206 1,610 752 535 1,049 1,775 Vehicle/Pedestrian 140 47 8 1 0 58 91 10 1 3 66 5 61 124 108 74 64 35 48 105 21 77 83 42 57 387 227 164 257 431 mid-3 am 37 19 2 0 1 21 48 8 1 2 21 7 25 50 45 18 29 22 21 32 14 27 18 25 22 138 65 56 87 167 3 am - 6 am 26 9 4 5 0 18 43 16 2 2 19 6 23 53 35 14 25 14 22 33 14 27 15 19 20 129 47 42 68 150 6 am - 9 am 105 61 8 10 0 75 194 31 1 8 68 27 96 207 159 63 64 52 95 136 49 128 63 84 74 522 265 190 350 589 9 am - noon 82 52 10 2 0 61 186 34 3 9 71 25 92 201 137 44 61 46 80 151 46 100 47 79 72 487 220 164 302 535 noon- 3 pm 114 74 15 6 0 104 263 45 6 14 83 30 146 258 216 64 70 73 118 218 58 142 71 111 114 675 305 220 443 754 3 pm - 6 pm 226 85 26 12 1 164 365 77 2 21 135 41 193 356 348 121 137 109 140 328 70 231 132 145 159 1,045 482 376 671 1,155 6 pm - 9 pm 163 74 17 6 1 123 286 40 8 10 92 37 140 294 247 90 86 71 133 240 79 148 102 113 122 761 362 267 525 857 9 pm - mid 77 39 9 7 0 76 160 25 2 7 47 23 87 163 132 37 53 54 72 135 38 80 37 60 91 425 183 137 270 472 Proceeding Straight 406 228 39 22 0 326 753 146 12 49 249 103 474 738 633 215 274 239 330 607 198 455 218 339 386 2,094 930 720 1,382 2,334 Making Right Turn 55 13 5 1 0 28 59 7 2 3 44 11 42 65 68 36 17 23 39 60 9 39 38 38 40 189 101 68 142 228 Making Left Turn 129 65 29 13 1 147 347 54 3 9 91 28 74 436 256 96 54 64 144 302 84 154 114 95 77 826 395 283 494 916 Under 19 208 91 19 8 2 113 287 46 5 10 94 28 124 291 260 113 124 57 129 223 74 177 123 115 100 798 418 333 535 912 60+ 104 63 13 8 0 94 229 35 5 10 70 24 113 229 192 57 64 54 91 188 56 142 59 96 87 575 271 222 394 655 845 421 95 49 3 652 1,567 279 25 74 543 197 812 1,604 1,342 462 531 448 692 1,292 372 897 496 647 682 4,246 1,967 1,476 2,747 Share of roadway/intersections: 79% 4% 2% 2% 0% 2% 8% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 21% 79% 16% 84% Share of collisions: 18% 9% 2% 1% 0% 14% 33% 6% 1% 2% 11% 4% 34% 66% 74% 26% Collisions per mile: 2.4326 22.58 9.892 7.27878 N/A 73.76 46.98 33.85 22.06 97.04 108 105.9 TOTAL
Hard Braking
Hot Spot
Violation
Type
Time of Day
Land Use Characteristics
Driver At Fault
Movement
Victim Age
Near School Near Park
Near Bus
Stop
Disadvantaged or
Low-Income
Community
Driver Behavior
Harsh
Acceleration
Hot Spot
TOTAL 3 Lanes or Less 4 Lanes 6+ Lanes Signal Unsignalized Intersection Midblock
Roadway Type Location Type Intersection Class
PrimaryPrimaryPrimarySecondary
Primary-Minor
SecondarySecondarySecondaryMinor
Minor-Minor
Table 11 - Systemic Matrix: All Injury Collisions (2016 - 2020) 409
Mode: KSI Collisions
Lanes:

Speed: 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 60-65 30-35 40-45 50-55 Fully Protected
Lefts All Other Signals Major Minor
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug 6 2 1 0 0 4 13 4 1 0 2 1 0 10 12 4 8 1 4 9 2 6 4 1 0 31 10 13 16 34 Unsafe Speed 13 0 2 0 0 5 14 3 0 0 1 2 5 11 10 3 11 5 3 9 0 9 3 4 4 36 12 13 19 40 Improper Turning 7 1 1 1 0 2 8 4 1 0 0 0 1 6 9 1 8 1 4 5 0 6 1 0 1 21 11 10 11 25 Vehicle Right of Way Violation 0 2 0 0 0 8 18 2 0 0 2 2 2 19 13 0 0 1 6 16 2 8 1 7 1 33 17 8 18 34 Pedestrian Violation 5 6 0 0 0 10 10 0 1 1 2 1 2 11 14 4 5 3 3 8 3 1 0 1 3 34 18 15 20 36 Head-On 6 2 1 0 0 6 8 2 0 0 1 0 1 8 9 2 6 0 5 5 1 7 2 1 1 22 8 10 13 26 Vehicle/Pedestrian 18 9 2 0 0 12 15 0 1 1 8 2 7 16 23 13 9 2 2 5 0 8 1 6 7 67 28 23 40 68 Rear End 1 0 1 1 0 7 10 3 1 0 2 1 5 10 7 1 4 5 4 8 2 3 1 3 4 26 13 8 18 27 Broadside 6 2 0 1 0 11 37 5 0 1 5 3 5 34 26 3 3 6 8 33 6 11 4 12 2 65 34 18 35 71 Hit Object 9 3 1 1 0 3 10 3 1 0 0 0 1 8 11 1 10 6 2 22 1 14 14 1 1 25 11 16 10 31 mid-3 am 2 0 0 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 4 1 2 7 9 0 3 3 1 8 1 5 0 3 2 16 9 10 9 21 3 am - 6 am 2 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 3 0 4 1 3 1 1 3 0 1 1 11 3 1 5 13 6 am - 9 am 3 3 1 0 0 3 7 1 0 0 2 1 3 7 5 3 3 3 4 4 0 4 3 3 1 21 12 3 16 21 9 am - noon 4 2 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 1 4 0 3 5 6 2 3 1 0 7 1 5 2 2 1 19 11 8 13 19 noon- 3 pm 4 2 0 0 0 3 7 4 2 0 2 1 3 6 6 1 9 2 5 5 0 3 2 4 2 22 7 12 11 25 3 pm - 6 pm 16 3 0 0 0 9 23 3 0 0 2 0 1 17 23 7 8 2 4 17 2 15 8 2 0 52 27 21 24 56 6 pm - 9 pm 8 6 1 0 0 10 17 4 2 1 2 3 4 20 19 5 6 4 4 22 3 10 5 7 4 52 22 18 35 54 9 pm - mid 7 3 1 0 0 6 20 6 0 0 4 1 6 14 17 4 7 5 5 16 2 8 4 4 8 43 14 14 20 48 Proceeding Straight 20 4 2 1 0 8 37 9 1 0 8 4 10 31 24 11 18 10 8 27 4 16 11 10 9 83 41 35 43 94 Making Right Turn 1 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 5 0 0 1 1 2 1 4 0 1 1 9 3 2 7 9 Making Left Turn 2 1 0 0 0 9 15 0 0 0 2 1 0 20 8 2 0 0 4 18 2 3 3 3 1 29 15 7 16 30 Under 19 19 5 1 1 0 10 33 9 2 1 8 3 8 22 34 7 21 5 6 27 5 21 8 11 6 83 35 34 49 92 60+ 7 8 1 0 0 2 9 1 1 0 2 1 3 8 14 6 1 3 1 10 1 10 6 4 2 31 20 10 20 32 46 20 5 3 0 39 93 18 5 2 20 8 22 84 88 22 43 21 26 81 11 53 24 27 19 237 106 88 133 Share of roadway/intersections: 79% 4% 2% 2% 0% 2% 8% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 21% 79% 16% 84% Share of collisions: 18% 8% 2% 1% 0% 15% 36% 7% 2% 1% 8% 3% 21% 79% 80% 20% Collisions per mile: 0.1324 1.073 0.521 0.44564 N/A 4.412 2.788 2.184 4.411 2.623 3.978 4.299 Time of Day
Driver At Fault
Movement
Victim Age
TOTAL
Violation
Type
Disadvantaged
or Low-Income
Community
Near School Near Park
Near Bus
Stop
Hard Braking
Hot Spot
Harsh
Acceleration
Hot Spot
TOTAL 3 Lanes or Less 4 Lanes 6+ Lanes Signal Unsignalized Intersection Midblock
Roadway Type Location Type Intersection Class Driver Behavior Land Use Characteristics PrimaryPrimaryPrimarySecondary
Primary-Minor
SecondarySecondarySecondaryMinor
Minor-Minor
Table 12 - Systemic Matrix: KSI Collisions (2016 - 2020) 410
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Key Findings
Key findings for contextual factors, all injury collisions, KSI collisions, and by mode are summarized below:

Contextual Factors
• Larger roadways typically have more activity and higher speed limits. In Oxnard, roadways with 4 lanes account for 12 percent of centerline miles but 53 percent of injury collisions occurred on these roadways. The majority of these collisions (33%) occurred on roadways with 4 lanes and 40 – 45 mph posted speed limit, which is also reflected for all collisions across the city.
• Injury collisions were concentrated in the central area of Oxnard, which has key primary roadways, such as Oxnard Boulevard and Saviers Road, and a relatively dense roadway network compared to other areas of the city. Primary roadways, which make up seven percent of centerline miles, accounted for 56 percent of collisions and the majority of intersection collisions occurred where primary roadways intersect with minor roadways and alleys, which were aggregated into the minor roadway category for this analysis. • Signals with fully protected left turn phases reduce the amount of decision-making and potential conflict points at an intersection. The reduction in potential conflict points is reflected in the share of injury collisions that occur at signals with fully protected left turn phases (34%), which account for 22 percent of all signals, compared to the share of injury collisions that occur at signals without fully protected left turn phases (66%), which account for 78 percent of all signals in Oxnard.

All Collisions
• The highest share of injury collisions occurred on roadways with four lanes and 40 – 45 mph posted speed limit (33%). The next highest share of collisions occurred on roadways with three lanes or less and 15 – 25 posted speed limit (18%). • Many injury collisions occurred at major intersections, particularly Primary-Minor intersections.
• Signalized intersections with fully protected left-turn phases had fewer injury collisions when compared to signalized intersections without fully protected left-turn phases. The difference is especially pronounced for broadside collisions where 26 percent of broadside collisions occurred at signalized intersection with fully protected left-turn phase. • Hard braking and harsh acceleration hot spots are most associated with injury collisions involving an unsafe speed violation or a rear end or broadside crash type. • A quarter of all injury collisions occurred in the afternoon peak, from 3 PM to 6 PM, particularly at signals without fully protected left-turn phases and at major intersections.

The highest share of hard braking and harsh acceleration instances also occurred during this time period, which is when people are traveling from school or work. 411
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

• Many injury collisions occurred in a disadvantaged or low-income community and near bus stops.

KSI Collisions
Many of the trends observed for all injury collision were also observed for KSI collisions. There were several additional findings specific to KSI collisions:
• Although the highest share (36%) of KSI collisions occurred on roadways with four lanes and 40 – 45 mph posted speed limits, roadways with three lanes or less and 15 – 25 posted speed limit had a proportionally higher number of KSI collisions compared to the share of total collisions.
• The efficacy of signalized intersections with fully protected left-turn phases is even more pronounced for KSI collisions. There were nearly seven times more collisions at signalized intersections without fully protected left turn phases compared to signalized intersections with fully protected left turn phases.

Vehicle Collisions
Since vehicle collisions make up a large share of all collisions, the trends observed for all collisions and KSI collisions were also observed for all and KSI vehicle collisions.

Bicycle Collisions
• For broadside collisions that occurred at a signalized intersection, there were twice as many collisions that occurred at signalized intersections without protected left turn phases as there were at signalized intersections with fully protected left turn phases. • Most injury collisions that occurred near schools occurred around school start and end times when students are traveling to and from school.
• The majority of injury collisions involving vulnerable populations (under 19 or 60+ years of age) occurred on roadways with three lanes and 15 – 25 mph posted speed limit or four lanes and 40 – 45 posted speed limit.
• The majority of drivers were either proceeding straight or making a right-turn before the collision occurred.

Pedestrian Collisions
• While 18 percent of total injury collisions occurred on roadways with three lanes or less with 15 – 25 mph posted speed limit, 35 percent of pedestrian collisions occurred on roadways with three lanes or less with 15 – 25 mph posted speed limit. • Many injury collisions occurred at primary-minor intersections (27%) and minor-minor intersections (25%).
412
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

• Many injury collisions involved a pedestrian right-of-way violation at signalized intersections without protected left-turn phases.
• Most pedestrian collisions occurred in the afternoon peak period and early evening between 3 PM and 9 PM (45%).
• Most pedestrian collisions involved pedestrians either crossing in the crosswalk at intersections without protected left-turn phases or crossing not in a crosswalk at unsignalized intersections or midblock.
413
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Appendix A: Top Collision Issues by Mode
The following tables summarize the top violation, type of collision, time of day, and driver movement at fault for all injury collisions and KSI collisions by mode. “Disproportionately KSI” indicates the top trend within that category that results in a severe injury or fatality most frequently.

For comparison purposes, 5 percent of all injury collisions within the City resulted in a fatality or severe injury.

Top Issues for All Modes
Category
Top Issue:

All Injury
Collisions
Percent of
All Injury
Collisions
Top Issue:

KSI
Collisions
Percent
of KSI
Collisions
Disproportionately
KSI
Percent of
Category
that is KSI
Violation Unsafe Speed 23% Unsafe
Speed 15% Pedestrian Violation 24%
Type Broadside 37% Broadside 27% Vehicle/Ped 16%
Time of
Day 3-6 pm 24% 3 – 6 pm 22% Midnight – 3 am 13%
Driver
Movement
at Fault
Proceeding
Straight 67% Proceeding Straight 71% N/A N/A
Note: Under 19 years of age are also disproportionately KSI.

Top Issues for Vehicle-Only Collisions
Category
Top Issue:

All Injury
Collisions
Percent of
All Injury
Collisions
Top Issue:

KSI
Collisions
Percent
of KSI
Collisions
Disproportionately
KSI
Percent of
Category
that is KSI
Violation Unsafe Speed 26% DUI 21% DUI 9%
Type Broadside 39% Broadside 37% Hit Object 15%
Time of Day 3 – 6 pm 25% 3 – 6 pm; 6 -
9 pm 22% Midnight – 3 am 11%
Driver
Movement at
Fault
Proceeding
Straight 69%
Proceeding
Straight 69% N/A N/A
Note: Under 19 years of age are also disproportionately KSI. 414
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Top Issues for Bicycle-Involved Collisions
Category
Top Issue:

All Injury
Collisions
Percent of
All Injury
Collisions
Top Issue:

KSI
Collisions
Percent
of KSI
Collisions
Disproportionately
KSI
Percent of
Category
that is KSI
Violation Wrong Side of
Road 37% Wrong Side of Road 21% Improper Passing 20%
Type Broadside 59% Broadside 39% Rear End 24%
Time of Day 3 – 6 pm 26% 3 - 6 pm 36% 3 am – 6 am 29%
Driver
Movement at
Fault
Proceeding
Straight 48%
Proceeding
Straight 75% Proceeding Straight 16%
Note: Under 19 years of age and 60+ years of age are also disproportionately KSI.

Top Issues for Pedestrian-Involved Collisions
Category
Top Issue:

All Injury
Collisions
Percent of
All Injury
Collisions
Top Issue:

KSI
Collisions
Percent
of KSI
Collisions
Disproportionately
KSI
Percent of
Category
that is KSI
Violation Ped ROW
Violation 35% Ped Violation 49% Pedestrian Violation 25% Type
Crossing in
Crosswalk at
Intersection
38%
Crossing
Not in
Crosswalk
52% Crossing Not in
Crosswalk 26%
Time of Day 6 – 9 pm 24% 9 pm -
midnight 25% 3 am – 6 am 38%
Driver
Movement at
Fault
Proceeding
Straight 49%
Proceeding
Straight 76% Proceeding Straight 15%
Note: Under 19 years of age and 60+ years of age are also disproportionately KSI. 415
Appendix B: Injury Collisions in Oxnard by Neighborhood Neighborhood
Total
Collisions
Percent of
Total
Collisions
Bike
Collisions
Percent of
Bike
Collisions
Ped
Collisions
Percent of
Ped
Collisions
Vehicle
Collisions
Percent of
Vehicle
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Percent of
Total KSI
Collisions
KSI Bike
Collisions
Percent of KSI
Bike Collisions
KSI Ped
Collisions
Percent of KSI
Ped Collisions
KSI
Vehicle
Percent of
KSI
Vehicle
Collisions
Weighted
Collisions
Area
(Sq Mi)
Share of
City Area
Auto Center 62 1% 2 1% 2 0% 58 1% 4 2% 0 0% 1 1% 3 2% 166 0.35 1% Bartolo Square
North
22 0% 1 0% 2 0% 19 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 48 0.21 1%
Bartolo Square
South
90 2% 6 2% 9 2% 75 2% 7 3% 0 0% 3 4% 4 3% 272 0.19 1%
Blackstock North 36 1% 4 1% 9 2% 23 1% 3 1% 0 0% 2 3% 1 1% 114 0.23 1% Blackstock South 31 1% 5 1% 3 1% 23 1% 2 1% 1 4% 0 0% 1 1% 83 0.28 1% Bryce Canyon
North
98 2% 5 1% 14 3% 79 2% 7 3% 1 4% 4 5% 2 1% 280 0.27 1%
Bryce Canyon
South
97 2% 12 4% 19 4% 66 2% 4 2% 1 4% 2 3% 1 1% 201 0.17 1% Cabrillo 51 1% 3 1% 4 1% 44 1% 5 2% 0 0% 3 4% 2 1% 181 0.57 2% Cal-Gisler 138 3% 4 1% 17 4% 117 3% 7 3% 0 0% 3 4% 4 3% 320 0.45 2% Carriage Square 113 2% 13 4% 15 3% 85 2% 8 3% 2 7% 5 7% 1 1% 321 0.46 2% Channel Islands 79 2% 7 2% 4 1% 68 2% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 131 0.76 3% College Estates 83 2% 8 2% 5 1% 70 2% 6 2% 0 0% 0 0% 6 4% 239 0.31 1% College Park 29 1% 1 0% 4 1% 24 1% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 81 0.42 1% Cypress 24 1% 2 1% 5 1% 17 0% 3 1% 0 0% 1 1% 2 1% 102 0.32 1% Diamond Bar 3 0% 0 0% 1 0% 2 0% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 55 0.11 0% East Village 58 1% 1 0% 8 2% 49 1% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 84 0.63 2% El Rio 61 1% 0 0% 5 1% 56 1% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 87 0.91 3% El Rio West 52 1% 1 0% 8 2% 43 1% 4 2% 0 0% 3 4% 1 1% 156 0.16 1% Five Points
Northeast
162 3% 17 5% 20 4% 125 3% 15 6% 3 11% 6 8% 6 4% 552 0.46 2% Fremont North 39 1% 3 1% 5 1% 31 1% 2 1% 1 4% 0 0% 1 1% 91 0.30 1% Fremont South 30 1% 1 0% 7 2% 22 1% 1 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 56 0.27 1% Golf Course 29 1% 2 1% 2 0% 26 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 29 0.41 1% Hobson Park
East
174 4% 15 4% 20 4% 139 4% 7 3% 1 4% 2 3% 4 3% 356 0.34 1% Hobson Park
West
29 1% 3 1% 8 2% 18 0% 2 1% 0 0% 1 1% 1 1% 81 0.18 1%
Hollywood By
The Sea
41 1% 3 1% 2 0% 36 1% 3 1% 0 0% 0 0% 3 2% 119 0.68 2%
Kamala Park 364 8% 38 11% 38 8% 289 7% 19 7% 3 11% 6 8% 10 6% 858 0.64 2% La Colonia 207 4% 12 4% 23 5% 172 4% 12 5% 1 4% 6 8% 5 3% 519 0.51 2% Lemonwood
Eastmont
36 1% 1 0% 4 1% 31 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 36 0.41 1%
Oxnard Local Road Safety Plan
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

416
Appendix B:

Injury Collisions in Oxnard by Neighborhood (2016-2020) Neighborhood
Total
Collisions
Percent of
Total
Collisions
Bike
Collisions
Percent of
Bike
Collisions
Ped
Collisions
Percent of
Ped
Collisions
Vehicle
Collisions
Percent of
Vehicle
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Percent of
Total KSI
Collisions
KSI Bike
Collisions
Percent of KSI
Bike Collisions
KSI Ped
Collisions
Percent of KSI
Ped Collisions
KSI
Vehicle
Percent of
KSI
Vehicle
Collisions
Weighted
Collisions
Area
(Sq Mi)
Share of
City Area
Mar Vista 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0.12 0% Marina West 51 1% 2 1% 1 0% 48 1% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 77 0.50 2% Nyeland Acres 6 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6 0.24 1% Orchard 126 3% 8 2% 9 2% 109 3% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 178 0.30 1% Ormond Beach
Commercial Area
16 0% 1 0% 2 0% 13 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 42 2.78 9%
Oxnard Dunes 11 0% 0 0% 0 0% 11 0% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 63 0.32 1% Oxnard Pacific 3 0% 0 0% 1 0% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0.10 0% Oxnard Shores 62 1% 2 1% 1 0% 59 1% 8 3% 1 4% 0 0% 7 4% 270 0.56 2% Pacific Avenue
Commercial Area
268 6% 25 7% 10 2% 233 6% 10 4% 0 0% 4 5% 6 4% 528 0.99 3% Pleasant Valley
Estates
54 1% 3 1% 8 2% 43 1% 8 3% 1 4% 2 3% 5 3% 262 0.31 1%
Pleasant Valley
Village
67 1% 9 3% 4 1% 54 1% 6 2% 0 0% 0 0% 6 4% 223 0.22 1%
Redwood 25 1% 0 0% 2 0% 23 1% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 77 0.23 1% Rice Avenue
Commercial Area
227 5% 7 2% 7 2% 213 5% 9 3% 0 0% 1 1% 8 5% 461 2.78 9% Rio Lindo 185 4% 17 5% 15 3% 154 4% 3 1% 0 0% 1 1% 2 1% 263 0.61 2% Riverpark 110 2% 7 2% 10 2% 93 2% 5 2% 0 0% 0 0% 5 3% 240 0.95 3% Rose Park 14 0% 2 1% 5 1% 7 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 14 0.21 1% Sea Air 178 4% 18 5% 10 2% 150 4% 6 2% 3 11% 1 1% 2 1% 334 0.38 1% Sea View Estates 94 2% 3 1% 3 1% 88 2% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 146 0.39 1% Sierra Linda 46 1% 2 1% 5 1% 39 1% 3 1% 2 7% 0 0% 1 1% 124 0.33 1% Silver Strand 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0.21 1% South Bank 85 2% 5 1% 5 1% 75 2% 5 2% 0 0% 2 3% 3 2% 215 0.51 2% Southwinds 106 2% 7 2% 15 3% 84 2% 7 3% 1 4% 2 3% 4 3% 288 0.25 1% Teal Club 36 1% 0 0% 2 0% 34 1% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 88 0.28 1% Terrace Estates 41 1% 3 1% 2 0% 36 1% 3 1% 1 4% 1 1% 1 1% 119 0.22 1% Tierra Vista 15 0% 1 0% 3 1% 11 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 41 0.24 1% Via Marina 39 1% 3 1% 3 1% 33 1% 2 1% 1 4% 0 0% 1 1% 91 0.47 2% Victoria Estates 82 2% 3 1% 4 1% 75 2% 8 3% 1 4% 0 0% 7 4% 290 0.66 2% Villa Capri 5 0% 0 0% 2 0% 3 0% 1 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 31 0.04 0% Wagon Wheel 35 1% 0 0% 2 0% 33 1% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 87 0.12 0% West Village 119 3% 10 3% 10 2% 99 2% 3 1% 0 0% 0 0% 3 2% 197 0.79 3% Wilson 210 4% 22 6% 31 7% 159 4% 10 4% 2 7% 5 7% 4 3% 470 0.43 1% Oxnard Local Road Safety Plan
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

417
Appendix B:

Injury Collisions in Oxnard by Neighborhood (2016-2020) Neighborhood
Total
Collisions
Percent of
Total
Collisions
Bike
Collisions
Percent of
Bike
Collisions
Ped
Collisions
Percent of
Ped
Collisions
Vehicle
Collisions
Percent of
Vehicle
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
Percent of
Total KSI
Collisions
KSI Bike
Collisions
Percent of KSI
Bike Collisions
KSI Ped
Collisions
Percent of KSI
Ped Collisions
KSI
Vehicle
Percent of
KSI
Vehicle
Collisions
Weighted
Collisions
Area
(Sq Mi)
Share of
City Area
Windsor North
River Ridge
72 2% 6 2% 6 1% 60 2% 7 3% 0 0% 0 0% 7 4% 254 0.53 2%
Outside Of A
Neighborhood
121 3% 6 2% 11 2% 104 3% 10 4% 1 4% 4 5% 5 3% 381 1.86 6% Total 4751 100% 342 100% 452 100% 3962 100% 259 100% 28 100% 73 100% 159 100% 11485 29.97 100% Oxnard Local Road Safety Plan
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

418
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

600 Wilshire Boulevard | Suite 1050 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 261-3050 | Fax (310) 394-7663 www.fehrandpeers.com Appendix C: Top Ten Intersections for Total Injury Collisions by Intersection Classification Top Ten Intersections by Total Injury Collisions: Primary-Primary Intersections Intersection Name
Injury Collisions KSI Weighted Total
Score
Crashes per
MEV Total Bike Ped Total Bike Ped
E Gonzales Rd & N Oxnard Blvd 49 6 4 2 1 0 101 0.48
N Vineyard Ave & Oxnard Blvd 43 3 3 1 0 1 69 0.61
E Fifth St & S Rice Ave 40 0 1 1 0 0 66 0.57
W Channel Islands Blvd & Saviers Rd 38 2 5 0 0 0 38 0.46 W Gonzales Rd & N Victoria Ave 35 0 1 1 0 0 61 0.74
S Ventura Rd & W Fifth St 33 2 6 4 2 1 137 0.32
E Fifth St & S Oxnard Blvd 30 1 5 1 0 0 56 0.34
S Ventura Rd & W Channel Islands Blvd 25 1 3 1 0 0 51 0.40 W Gonzales Rd & N Ventura Rd 24 1 4 0 0 0 24 0.46
W Fifth St & S Victoria Ave 24 2 1 1 0 0 50 0.34
419
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Top Ten Intersections by Total Injury Collisions: Primary-Secondary Intersections Intersection Name
Injury Collisions KSI
Weighted Total Score Crashes per MEV
Total Bike Ped Total Bike Ped
E Gonzales Rd & N Rose Ave 55 4 8 0 0 0 55 0.85
W Bard Rd & Saviers Rd 45 4 7 2 0 1 97 1.20
E Fifth St & S Rose Ave 40 2 1 0 0 0 40 0.51
N C St & W Gonzales Rd 39 3 4 1 0 0 65 0.63
S Victoria Ave & W Channel Islands Blvd 37 3 0 2 0 0 89 0.83 E Wooley Rd & Saviers Rd & Oxnard Bl 33 1 2 0 0 0 33 0.44 W Channel Islands Blvd & S C St 32 1 4 3 0 0 110 0.51
S Rose Ave & E Channel Islands Blvd 30 6 3 0 0 0 30 0.41 S J St & W Channel Islands Blvd 26 2 0 0 0 0 26 0.46
N Rice Ave & Camino Del Sol 26 0 0 3 0 0 104 0.38
420
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Top Ten Intersections by Total Injury Collisions: Primary-Minor Intersections Intersection Name
Injury Collisions KSI Weighted Total
Score
Crashes per
MEV Total Bike Ped Total Bike Ped
Laurel St & Saviers Rd 31 4 7 1 0 1 57 0.69
N Vineyard Ave & W Esplanade Dr 30 1 1 1 0 0 56 0.66
S Oxnard Blvd & E Seventh St 29 3 3 1 0 0 55 0.43
S Oxnard Blvd & E Date St 28 2 2 2 0 0 80 0.71
Bryce Canyon Ave & Saviers Rd 27 4 5 2 0 2 79 0.56
W Seventh St & S Ventura Rd 27 1 1 0 0 0 27 0.32
Gisler Ave & E Channel Islands Blvd 26 1 2 1 0 1 52 0.45 Statham Blvd & E Channel Islands Blvd 24 1 0 2 0 0 76 0.45 E Yucca St & Saviers Rd 22 3 6 2 0 1 74 0.46
S Oxnard Blvd & Statham Blvd 21 1 0 0 0 0 21 0.59
421
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Top Ten Intersections by Total Injury Collisions: Secondary-Secondary Intersections Intersection Name
Injury Collisions KSI Weighted Total
Score
Crashes per
MEV Total Bike Ped Total Bike Ped
Wooley Rd & Ventura Rd 46 5 2 0 0 0 46 0.56
N Rose Ave & Camino Del Sol 37 2 0 2 0 0 89 0.49
W Wooley Rd & S C St 36 2 3 1 1 0 62 0.76
S Rose Ave & E Bard Rd 31 1 1 4 1 0 135 0.87
W Wooley Rd & S J St 29 2 3 1 1 0 55 0.84
S H St & Hobson Way 26 0 1 1 0 0 52 0.61
S Rose Ave & E Third St 21 5 1 1 1 0 47 0.26
E Wooley Rd & Pacific Ave 13 2 1 0 0 0 13 0.36
S Patterson Rd & W Wooley Rd 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 0.34
E Wooley Rd & S Rose Ave 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 0.21
422
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Top Ten Intersections by Total Injury Collisions: Secondary-Minor Intersections Intersection Name
Injury Collisions KSI
Weighted Total Score Crashes per MEV
Total Bike Ped Total Bike Ped
Lockwood St & N Rose Ave 24 1 2 0 0 0 24 0.45
E Wooley Rd & Commercial Ave 19 0 2 4 0 2 123 0.50
Rose Ave & E 1st St 18 0 1 0 0 0 18 0.23
Anchorage St & E Bard Rd 17 1 2 0 0 0 17 0.85
W Wooley Rd & Novato Dr 16 0 0 1 0 0 42 0.47
Cesar Chavez Dr & N Rose Ave 15 2 0 1 0 0 41 0.25
N Rose Ave & Santa Lucia Ave 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 0.17
N C St & Roderick Ave 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0.42
Eastman Ave & S Rose Ave 12 2 1 0 0 0 12 0.18
N Rose Ave & San Gorgonio Ave 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0.15
423
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Top Ten Intersections by Total Injury Collisions: Minor-Minor Intersections Intersection Name
Injury Collisions KSI
Weighted Total Score Crashes per MEV
Total Bike Ped Total Bike Ped
Ventura Blvd & Balboa St 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 0.45
N A St & Magnolia Ave 6 0 2 1 0 1 32 0.60
Samuel Ave & E Yucca St 6 3 0 0 0 0 6 0.55
Ventura Blvd & Cortez St 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0.35
E First St & N Roosevelt Ave 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.61
Ninth St & S H St 5 0 1 1 0 0 31 0.55
E Iris St & San Marino St 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.50
Ninth St & Ventura Service Rd 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.42
S F St & W Sixth St 4 2 1 0 0 0 4 0.73
Town Center Dr & Portico Way 4 0 1 0 0 0 4 0.31
424
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

Appendix D: Systemic Matrices
425
Mode: Vehicle Collisions
Lanes:

Speed: 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 60-65 30-35 40-45 50-55 Fully Protected
Lefts All Other Signals Major Minor
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug 75 36 9 1 0 44 125 23 6 1 29 20 55 104 118 37 55 47 39 88 25 73 38 38 51 326 139 123 202 369 Unsafe Speed 123 76 25 17 2 132 364 71 5 25 144 58 244 348 273 57 121 123 170 305 68 181 63 185 197 932 389 285 627 1,043 Improper Turning 100 29 13 11 0 45 109 26 3 4 36 10 45 85 121 50 85 29 37 81 22 78 53 28 26 332 162 137 190 386 Vehicle Right of Way Violation 160 112 21 11 0 137 379 59 0 6 104 27 64 401 377 113 61 55 142 309 99 226 123 101 69 923 430 311 562 1,016 Traffic Signals and Signs 39 41 2 1 0 95 181 34 4 12 50 34 127 258 65 33 10 53 110 141 68 76 32 89 103 453 216 141 317 493 Head-On 95 21 11 3 1 52 133 26 2 3 32 11 48 155 82 53 52 37 68 78 31 67 54 50 43 348 171 129 199 390 Sideswipe 77 37 7 2 0 50 99 14 3 3 41 25 65 93 111 34 56 39 42 83 19 73 40 50 49 314 145 122 200 359 Rear End 150 90 25 16 1 182 478 94 6 38 181 75 344 434 350 67 141 177 224 393 94 224 73 242 279 1,196 488 365 819 1,336 Broadside 221 174 27 17 0 238 537 99 8 20 147 65 207 616 484 156 90 116 237 467 166 310 162 201 181 1,414 653 464 915 1,553 Hit Object 40 10 10 5 1 18 75 17 3 1 30 3 24 48 67 19 55 0 2 0 0 2 1 15 16 171 79 72 92 213 mid-3 am 28 17 2 0 1 16 43 8 1 2 17 7 22 39 41 15 25 21 17 24 13 23 15 22 18 116 54 49 73 142 3 am - 6 am 23 9 2 5 0 15 40 16 1 2 16 5 21 47 30 14 23 14 19 27 14 23 15 19 18 117 42 38 57 135 6 am - 9 am 64 48 6 10 0 63 169 28 1 8 57 26 86 176 132 38 48 45 83 118 43 103 38 77 65 433 204 139 287 480 9 am - noon 63 43 10 2 0 49 156 33 3 7 59 24 76 174 114 34 51 39 65 128 41 85 35 68 61 410 177 132 247 449 noon- 3 pm 88 61 14 6 0 92 236 45 5 12 69 28 130 229 188 53 57 66 102 191 54 124 58 102 98 590 256 182 385 657 3 pm - 6 pm 160 64 25 12 1 146 319 71 2 20 114 39 169 303 304 86 111 95 120 290 62 194 93 131 139 874 391 305 565 973 6 pm - 9 pm 113 58 13 5 1 95 237 36 7 7 73 33 115 249 192 62 60 59 116 193 63 118 68 96 103 600 276 209 414 678 9 pm - mid 62 33 7 5 0 64 136 25 2 6 31 20 73 139 109 27 43 45 68 105 34 67 27 48 74 347 146 113 227 391 Proceeding Straight 347 209 35 21 0 310 723 144 12 46 240 99 457 707 590 179 253 228 322 582 188 419 178 325 369 1,962 858 654 1,297 2,186 Making Right Turn 37 9 4 1 0 16 41 5 0 2 26 9 25 38 50 25 13 14 21 39 6 29 26 24 23 120 63 44 88 151 Making Left Turn 112 58 26 13 1 130 326 52 3 9 79 28 70 383 248 84 52 62 132 270 79 143 99 90 70 756 347 255 449 837 Under 19 124 67 17 6 2 96 230 41 4 10 68 25 104 238 193 73 82 49 102 174 64 135 77 99 90 605 286 233 404 690 60+ 74 42 11 8 0 77 202 33 4 7 56 22 95 195 156 36 55 46 76 165 48 110 36 81 73 466 207 174 323 537 613 340 82 46 3 548 1,354 264 22 65 440 183 700 1,373 1,128 338 423 390 600 1,089 326 749 358 571 582 3,538 1,574 1,187 2,278 Share of roadway/intersections: 79% 4% 2% 2% 0% 2% 8% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 21% 79% 16% 84% Share of collisions: 15% 9% 2% 1% 0% 14% 34% 7% 1% 2% 11% 5% 34% 66% 77% 23% Collisions per mile: 1.7647 18.24 8.538 6.83314 N/A 61.99 40.6 32.03 19.41 85.24 87.52 98.33 Intersection Class
PrimaryPrimaryPrimarySecondary
Primary-Minor
SecondarySecondarySecondaryMinor
Minor-Minor
TOTAL 3 Lanes or Less 4 Lanes 6+ Lanes Signal Unsignalized Intersection Midblock
Roadway Type Location Type Driver Behavior Land Use Characteristics Violation
Type
Disadvantaged
or Low-Income
Community
Near School Near Park
Near Bus
Stop
Hard Braking
Hot Spot
Harsh
Acceleration
Hot Spot
Time of Day
Driver At Fault
Movement
Victim Age
TOTAL
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

426
Mode: Vehicle KSI Collisions
Lanes:

Speed: 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 60-65 30-35 40-45 50-55 Fully Protected
Lefts All Other Signals Major Minor
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug 5 2 1 0 0 4 13 4 1 0 2 1 0 10 12 3 8 1 4 9 2 6 3 1 0 30 10 13 15 33 Unsafe Speed 8 0 1 0 0 4 13 3 0 0 1 2 5 9 10 0 8 5 3 8 0 8 0 4 4 28 11 11 18 32 Improper Turning 4 1 0 1 0 1 7 4 1 0 0 0 1 5 4 1 8 1 4 3 0 2 1 0 1 15 9 8 9 19 Vehicle Right of Way Violation 0 1 0 0 0 7 18 2 0 0 1 2 1 19 11 0 0 0 6 16 2 6 1 6 1 30 15 6 16 31 Traffic Signals and Signs 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 2 0 1 3 1 3 12 2 0 2 3 3 8 2 1 0 7 3 17 9 6 12 19 Head-On 5 2 1 0 0 5 6 2 0 0 1 0 1 6 8 2 5 0 4 5 0 6 2 1 1 18 7 7 11 22 Sideswipe 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 2 2 0 1 1 2 4 4 0 4 2 2 3 0 3 0 2 3 13 3 5 9 14 Rear End 1 0 0 1 0 5 10 2 0 0 2 1 5 7 6 1 3 5 3 7 1 2 1 3 2 21 12 6 15 22 Broadside 3 1 0 1 0 9 31 5 0 1 4 3 3 31 20 1 3 5 7 30 4 7 2 11 2 53 27 14 29 58 Hit Object 9 3 1 1 0 3 10 3 1 0 0 0 1 8 11 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 25 11 16 10 31 mid-3 am 1 0 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 7 0 3 2 1 6 1 2 0 2 0 11 7 9 6 15 3 am - 6 am 1 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 3 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 6 2 1 1 8 6 am - 9 am 0 1 0 0 0 2 7 1 0 0 1 1 3 6 2 0 2 3 4 2 0 2 0 3 1 13 8 0 11 13 9 am - noon 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 2 0 1 5 3 0 1 0 0 7 0 2 0 1 1 10 7 4 7 10 noon- 3 pm 2 0 0 0 0 1 5 4 2 0 1 0 1 4 3 0 7 0 3 4 0 1 0 2 1 12 4 9 4 15 3 pm - 6 pm 6 1 0 0 0 6 17 2 0 0 2 0 1 11 14 2 6 2 4 11 1 7 3 1 0 31 15 10 15 34 6 pm - 9 pm 5 1 1 0 0 5 13 4 1 0 1 3 2 15 10 3 4 2 4 14 1 6 3 6 2 32 10 11 20 34 9 pm - mid 5 3 1 0 0 1 10 6 0 0 1 1 4 8 10 1 5 4 4 7 1 6 1 3 5 24 9 9 15 28 Proceeding Straight 12 2 0 1 0 7 33 9 1 0 4 3 6 27 18 5 16 7 8 24 2 10 5 7 5 62 33 30 34 72 Making Right Turn 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 6 3 2 5 6 Making Left Turn 1 1 0 0 0 8 14 0 0 0 1 1 0 17 8 1 0 0 4 15 2 3 2 3 0 25 11 5 13 26 Under 19 6 2 1 1 0 6 21 8 1 1 3 3 6 16 18 0 13 4 4 18 3 11 0 10 5 46 15 18 30 53 60+ 3 0 0 0 0 1 7 1 0 0 2 0 2 4 5 2 1 2 0 6 1 2 2 3 0 13 10 2 8 14 21 7 2 3 0 22 67 17 3 1 10 6 13 59 50 6 31 14 21 52 6 28 7 20 10 140 63 54 79 Share of roadway/intersections: 79% 4% 2% 2% 0% 2% 8% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 21% 79% 16% 84% Share of collisions: 13% 4% 1% 2% 0% 14% 42% 11% 2% 1% 6% 4% 18% 82% 89% 11% Collisions per mile: 0.0605 0.375 0.208 0.44564 N/A 2.489 2.009 2.063 2.647 1.311 1.989 3.224 Intersection Class
PrimaryPrimaryPrimarySecondary
Primary-Minor
SecondarySecondarySecondaryMinor
Minor-Minor
TOTAL 3 Lanes or Less 4 Lanes 6+ Lanes Signal Unsignalized Intersection Midblock
Roadway Type Location Type Driver Behavior Land Use Characteristics Violation
Type
Disadvantaged
or Low-Income
Community
Near School Near Park
Near Bus
Stop
Hard Braking
Hot Spot
Harsh
Acceleration
Hot Spot
Time of Day
Driver At Fault
Movement
Victim Age
TOTAL
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

427
Mode: Bicycle Collisions
Lanes:

Speed: 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 60-65 30-35 40-45 50-55 Fully Protected
Lefts All Other Signals Major Minor
Wrong Side of Road 21 14 2 0 0 15 53 5 0 3 13 2 23 34 41 11 19 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 17 117 55 41 80 128 Unsafe Speed 6 0 0 1 0 3 5 1 0 0 1 2 4 4 3 5 3 3 1 7 0 0 5 4 3 18 8 5 8 19 Improper Turning 9 3 1 1 0 0 8 1 0 0 5 0 2 8 15 2 1 1 2 11 0 10 3 1 3 26 13 8 20 28 Vehicle Right of Way Violation 20 6 1 0 0 11 11 0 0 3 5 2 7 22 16 8 6 4 7 20 2 10 10 5 5 56 34 28 36 59 Traffic Signals and Signs 7 6 0 0 0 8 7 2 0 0 14 0 12 18 7 5 2 0 7 14 5 9 7 5 11 36 20 20 28 44 Head-On 4 3 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 3 1 5 7 8 1 2 2 4 4 2 8 1 3 3 21 13 12 15 23 Sideswipe 16 3 2 1 0 6 6 0 0 1 2 0 3 10 13 6 5 2 4 7 2 11 6 2 1 33 18 17 22 37 Rear End 3 0 1 0 0 3 7 2 1 1 2 1 4 5 5 2 5 2 2 5 2 3 2 3 6 17 7 4 12 21 Broadside 43 20 2 1 0 26 73 1 0 4 28 5 31 63 59 25 25 9 25 64 16 36 29 18 25 180 88 62 123 203 Vehicle/Pedestrian 8 6 0 0 0 3 8 7 0 0 13 0 13 15 12 2 3 6 9 13 2 8 4 8 12 41 25 16 23 45 mid-3 am 3 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 0 1 1 2 3 6 5 3 4 8 3 am - 6 am 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 0 2 6 2 2 6 7 6 am - 9 am 8 6 0 0 0 3 14 0 0 0 3 1 3 13 10 6 3 2 4 6 5 9 6 2 3 30 15 12 18 35 9 am - noon 5 4 0 0 0 10 21 1 0 1 9 1 10 20 16 1 5 4 10 19 2 10 3 7 7 47 28 14 29 52 noon- 3 pm 15 7 0 0 0 4 13 0 0 2 7 1 7 13 15 4 10 2 8 14 3 7 5 4 5 41 24 20 30 49 3 pm - 6 pm 24 10 1 0 0 7 30 5 0 1 10 0 14 30 23 11 10 3 13 23 6 19 14 8 12 83 40 33 54 88 6 pm - 9 pm 17 4 2 1 0 10 24 4 0 1 10 2 15 16 24 11 9 6 8 19 7 15 11 6 11 65 31 22 45 75 9 pm - mid 2 1 1 1 0 5 7 0 0 1 3 2 5 6 7 2 3 2 1 11 2 2 2 6 6 22 10 8 15 23 Proceeding Straight 13 3 0 1 0 6 5 2 0 2 4 2 9 8 9 7 5 5 3 7 3 8 7 7 8 37 16 13 22 38 Making Right Turn 4 1 1 0 0 3 7 1 1 0 7 1 5 10 9 1 1 2 6 11 3 2 1 3 6 22 8 6 16 26 Making Left Turn 1 2 1 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 3 0 2 11 1 0 2 0 3 7 1 1 2 0 1 15 8 5 10 16 Under 19 20 11 0 1 0 8 26 4 0 0 10 1 8 27 28 9 9 1 13 23 5 18 13 6 4 70 49 39 47 81 60+ 10 6 0 0 0 6 10 1 1 2 6 0 7 13 10 8 4 0 8 8 5 9 8 2 5 38 21 16 23 42 76 33 5 2 0 42 112 10 1 6 48 7 58 106 101 37 40 21 48 99 25 67 43 36 50 304 159 115 204 Share of roadway/intersections: 79% 4% 2% 2% 0% 2% 8% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 21% 79% 16% 84% Share of collisions: 22% 10% 1% 1% 0% 12% 33% 3% 0% 2% 14% 2% 35% 65% 73% 27% Collisions per mile: 0.2188 1.77 0.521 0.29709 N/A 4.751 3.358 1.213 0.882 7.868 9.547 3.761 Intersection Class
PrimaryPrimaryPrimarySecondary
Primary-Minor
SecondarySecondarySecondaryMinor
Minor-Minor
TOTAL 3 Lanes or Less 4 Lanes 6+ Lanes Signal Unsignalized Intersection Midblock
Roadway Type Location Type Driver Behavior Land Use Characteristics Violation
Type
Disadvantaged
or Low-Income
Community
Near School Near Park
Near Bus
Stop
Hard Braking
Hot Spot
Harsh
Acceleration
Hot Spot
Time of Day
Driver At Fault
Movement
Victim Age
TOTAL
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

428
Mode: Bicycle KSI Collisions
Lanes:

Speed: 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 60-65 30-35 40-45 50-55 Fully Protected
Lefts All Other Signals Major Minor
Wrong Side of Road 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 3 4 6 Unsafe Speed 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 Improper Turning 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 4 1 1 2 4 Vehicle Right of Way Violation 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 2 2 2 3 Traffic Signals and Signs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Head-On 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 2 2 3 Sideswipe 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 3 Rear End 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 5 1 2 3 5 Broadside 2 1 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 6 1 0 1 0 3 2 4 1 1 0 10 5 3 5 11 Vehicle/Pedestrian 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 5 2 0 2 5 mid-3 am 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 3 am - 6 am 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 6 am - 9 am 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 9 am - noon 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 5 1 1 3 5 noon- 3 pm 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 2 3 3 pm - 6 pm 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 1 1 0 0 3 1 4 1 1 0 9 5 4 3 10 6 pm - 9 pm 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 3 0 2 3 9 pm - mid 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 2 Proceeding Straight 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 5 3 0 3 6 Making Right Turn 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 Making Left Turn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Under 19 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 5 1 1 0 1 2 2 3 1 1 0 10 4 4 1 10 60+ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 4 2 1 3 4 7 2 1 0 0 5 7 1 1 0 4 0 5 7 12 3 1 4 2 5 4 9 3 4 3 27 10 8 13 Share of roadway/intersections: 79% 4% 2% 2% 0% 2% 8% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 21% 79% 16% 84% Share of collisions: 25% 7% 4% 0% 0% 18% 25% 4% 4% 0% 14% 0% 42% 58% 80% 20% Collisions per mile: 0.0202 0.107 0.104 0 N/A 0.566 0.21 0.121 0.882 0 0.796 0 Intersection Class
PrimaryPrimaryPrimarySecondary
Primary-Minor
SecondarySecondarySecondaryMinor
Minor-Minor
TOTAL 3 Lanes or Less 4 Lanes 6+ Lanes Signal Unsignalized Intersection Midblock
Roadway Type Location Type Driver Behavior Land Use Characteristics Violation
Type
Disadvantaged
or Low-Income
Community
Near School Near Park
Near Bus
Stop
Hard Braking
Hot Spot
Harsh
Acceleration
Hot Spot
Time of Day
Driver At Fault
Movement
Victim Age
TOTAL
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

429
Mode: Pedestrian Collisions
Lanes:

Speed: 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 60-65 30-35 40-45 50-55 Fully Protected
Lefts All Other Signals Major Minor
Pedestrian Right of Way Violation 40 22 4 0 0 28 36 2 0 2 21 1 15 69 39 27 7 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 18 139 97 65 104 157 Pedestrian Violation 46 16 0 1 0 21 37 1 1 1 17 3 21 33 41 18 31 0 1 2 0 6 8 0 18 134 72 57 90 144 Other Improper Driving 11 1 0 0 0 4 5 1 0 0 9 3 10 3 8 6 7 1 2 3 0 2 5 8 10 29 11 5 21 34 Unsafe Speed 15 3 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 5 8 8 1 2 1 0 2 5 0 0 22 11 10 10 25 Unsafe Starting or Backing 13 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 5 8 2 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 18 9 11 9 19 Head-On 4 1 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 2 3 1 3 1 0 1 3 1 1 11 5 4 5 11 Sideswipe 11 5 0 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 1 0 2 5 10 6 2 2 1 5 1 8 6 1 2 24 16 11 12 25 Rear End 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 3 0 2 1 1 0 1 3 2 1 7 2 4 3 8 Broadside 8 1 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 6 5 3 1 2 6 1 2 5 1 0 16 12 9 12 20 Vehicle/Pedestrian 128 40 8 1 0 56 82 2 1 3 53 5 48 108 94 71 59 29 38 92 19 67 78 34 45 341 199 146 230 380 mid-3 am 6 1 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 3 0 1 8 2 2 4 0 2 5 1 3 2 1 1 16 6 4 10 17 3 am - 6 am 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 2 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 6 3 2 5 8 6 am - 9 am 33 7 2 0 0 9 11 3 0 0 8 0 7 18 17 19 13 5 8 12 1 16 19 5 6 59 46 39 45 74 9 am - noon 14 5 0 0 0 4 10 0 0 1 3 0 6 8 9 9 5 3 7 4 3 6 9 4 4 32 17 19 27 37 noon- 3 pm 11 6 1 0 0 9 14 0 0 0 7 1 9 17 13 7 3 5 9 13 1 11 8 5 11 45 25 19 28 49 3 pm - 6 pm 42 11 0 0 0 11 16 1 0 0 12 2 10 24 21 24 16 11 7 16 2 18 25 6 8 88 52 38 53 95 6 pm - 9 pm 33 12 2 0 0 18 25 0 1 2 9 2 10 29 31 17 17 6 9 28 9 15 23 11 8 96 55 36 66 104 9 pm - mid 13 5 1 1 0 7 17 0 0 0 13 1 9 18 16 8 7 7 3 19 2 11 8 6 11 56 27 16 28 58 Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection 41 17 2 0 0 35 40 2 0 2 30 2 25 82 32 29 3 17 21 49 14 34 35 19 25 153 97 66 115 171 Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection 3 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 4 1 5 4 3 0 3 2 3 4 0 3 0 4 2 12 9 6 12 15 Crossing Not in Crosswalk 71 18 2 1 0 14 27 1 1 1 9 2 9 14 50 32 43 6 10 25 3 27 34 8 9 138 76 61 79 148 In Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not In Road 13 4 1 0 0 5 10 1 0 0 5 2 7 7 10 10 7 4 9 5 1 6 10 5 6 35 18 14 23 41 Proceeding Straight 46 16 4 0 0 10 25 0 0 1 5 2 8 23 34 29 68 6 5 18 7 28 33 7 9 95 56 53 63 110 Making Right Turn 14 3 0 0 0 9 11 1 0 1 11 1 12 17 9 10 3 7 12 10 0 8 11 11 11 47 30 18 38 51 Making Left Turn 16 5 2 0 0 14 15 2 0 0 10 0 2 43 7 12 0 2 9 26 4 10 13 5 6 55 41 23 36 64 Under 19 64 13 2 1 0 10 31 1 1 0 16 2 12 27 39 31 33 7 15 26 5 24 33 10 6 124 83 62 84 142 60+ 20 15 2 0 0 12 16 1 0 1 9 2 11 23 26 13 5 8 8 16 3 23 15 13 9 72 45 32 49 78 156 48 8 1 0 65 101 5 1 3 56 7 54 128 115 87 68 37 47 105 21 82 95 40 50 407 237 176 267 347.4 18.6 9.6 6.7 0.0 8.8 33.4 8.2 1.1 0.8 5.0 1.9 36 135 643 3340 Share of roadway/intersections: 79% 4% 2% 2% 0% 2% 8% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 21% 79% 16% 84% Share of collisions: 35% 11% 2% 0% 0% 14% 22% 1% 0% 1% 12% 2% 30% 70% 57% 43% Collisions per mile: 0.4491 2.574 0.833 0.14855 N/A 7.353 3.028 0.607 0.882 3.934 11.14 3.761 Intersection Class
PrimaryPrimaryPrimarySecondary
Primary-Minor
SecondarySecondarySecondaryMinor
Minor-Minor
TOTAL 3 Lanes or Less 4 Lanes 6+ Lanes Signal Unsignalized Intersection Midblock
Roadway Type Location Type Driver Behavior Land Use Characteristics Violation
Type
Disadvantaged
or Low-Income
Community
Near School Near Park
Near Bus
Stop
Hard Braking
Hot Spot
Harsh
Acceleration
Hot Spot
Time of Day
Driver At Fault
Movement
Victim Age
TOTAL
Pedestrian Action
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

430
Mode: Pedestrian KSI Collisions
Lanes:

Speed: 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 60-65 30-35 40-45 50-55 Fully Protected
Lefts All Other Signals Major Minor
Pedestrian Right of Way Violation 4 2 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 0 1 4 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 14 8 5 9 14 Pedestrian Violation 5 6 0 0 0 10 10 0 1 1 2 1 2 11 14 4 5 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 34 18 15 20 36 Other Improper Driving 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 3 1 0 3 3 Unsafe Speed 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 1 6 Improper Turning 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 Head-On 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 2 Sideswipe 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 4 4 1 2 5 Overturned 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Broadside 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 Vehicle/Pedestrian 16 9 2 0 0 12 15 0 1 1 5 2 4 16 22 12 9 3 2 22 1 13 13 3 6 62 26 23 38 63 mid-3 am 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 3 1 1 3 4 3 am - 6 am 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 3 6 am - 9 am 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 7 4 3 5 7 9 am - noon 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 3 3 3 4 noon- 3 pm 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 8 3 3 5 8 3 pm - 6 pm 6 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 4 1 0 0 3 0 4 4 0 0 12 7 7 6 12 6 pm - 9 pm 3 5 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 4 8 2 2 1 0 7 1 4 2 1 1 17 9 7 13 17 9 pm - mid 2 0 0 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 3 0 2 4 7 3 2 1 1 8 0 2 3 1 3 17 5 3 4 18 Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection 4 1 0 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 4 0 2 10 5 3 0 2 1 11 0 3 3 1 3 20 11 8 14 20 Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crossing Not in Crosswalk 12 7 0 0 0 5 8 0 1 1 2 2 2 4 17 6 9 1 2 9 1 9 6 2 3 36 16 14 18 38 In Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not In Road 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 2 1 4 5 Proceeding Straight 6 2 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 5 5 11 1 0 3 0 5 5 1 2 16 5 5 6 16 Making Right Turn 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Making Left Turn 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 4 4 2 3 4 Under 19 11 3 0 0 0 3 8 0 1 0 4 0 1 5 11 6 7 1 2 7 0 7 7 0 1 28 16 13 18 30 60+ 3 6 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 7 3 0 1 0 4 0 6 3 1 1 14 8 7 9 14 18 11 2 0 0 13 19 0 1 1 6 2 4 19 26 13 11 3 4 24 1 16 14 3 6 71 33 27 41 347.4 18.6 9.6 6.7 0.0 8.8 33.4 8.2 1.1 0.8 5.0 1.9 36 135 643 3340 Share of roadway/intersections: 79% 4% 2% 2% 0% 2% 8% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 21% 79% 16% 84% Share of collisions: 25% 15% 3% 0% 0% 18% 26% 0% 1% 1% 8% 3% 17% 83% 67% 33% Collisions per mile: 0.0518 0.59 0.208 0 N/A 1.471 0.57 0 0.882 1.311 1.193 1.075 Intersection Class
PrimaryPrimaryPrimarySecondary
Primary-Minor
SecondarySecondarySecondaryMinor
Minor-Minor
TOTAL 3 Lanes or Less 4 Lanes 6+ Lanes Signal Unsignalized Intersection Midblock
Roadway Type Location Type Driver Behavior Land Use Characteristics Violation
Type
Disadvantaged
or Low-Income
Community
Near School Near Park
Near Bus
Stop
Hard Braking
Hot Spot
Harsh
Acceleration
Hot Spot
Time of Day
Driver At Fault
Movement
Victim Age
TOTAL
Pedestrian Action
Debbie O’Leary
January 6, 2022

431
600 Wilshire Boulevard | Suite 1050 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 261-3050 | Fax (310) 394-7663 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: February 17, 2022
To: Debbie O’Leary
From: Rachel Om, Emily Finkel, Steve Brown, and Marshall Ballard Subject: City of Oxnard Crossroads and Collision Data Management Plan LA21-3267
Reliable collision data are essential for local agency safety practitioners to identify locations with an existing roadway safety problem, locations that are susceptible to future roadway crashes, and potentially effective countermeasures.
1 The purpose of the City of Oxnard Crossroads and Collision Data Management Plan, developed through the Oxnard Local Road Safety Plan, is to support ongoing City processes to ensure collision data are accurate and shared across departments for ongoing safety analysis that informs roadway safety improvements throughout the city.

The Fehr & Peers team facilitated discussions with the City of Oxnard Police traffic sergeant, Public Works staff, Information Technology staff, and Crossroads representatives to understand the City’s current collision data workflow, challenges with maintaining and sharing collision data, and next steps for the City’s collision data workflow. Conversations occurred May 2021, June 2021, and October 2021. The findings and recommendations of this plan reflect the status of managing Oxnard collision data as of October 2021.

Existing Collision Data Workflow
The Oxnard Police Department (OPD) maintains the City’s collision data in a record management system (RMS), which is a comprehensive database that also include other records related to police operations, such as citations and arrests. OPD also maintains the City’s collision data in Crossroads Software, which provides reporting and analytics for traffic collisions and citations. The intent of using Crossroads was to facilitate data sharing with the Public Works Department for roadway safety analysis and project development. However, discrepancies between the RMS and Crossroads database led to concerns about data quality. Therefore, this section documents the existing collision 1 Caltrans. (2020). Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners. https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/local-assistance/documents/hsip/2020/lrsm2020.pdf 432
Debbie O’Leary
February 17, 2022

data workflow to identify pain points and opportunities for improved coordination. This is intended to ensure the identified pain points are addressed in the next steps for the City’s collision data workflow.

Recording Collision Data
Officers can record collision data either at a crash site or at the police station. At a crash site, an officer can input collision data in their vehicle’s mobile data terminal (MDT). However, most officers take notes at a crash site then input the collision report into the RMS upon returning to the station.

After an officer submits a collision report, investigating officers will review the report and either follow up with the officer to correct errors or fill in missing information and finalize the data in the RMS.

Sharing Collision Data
Given the personal identifiable information in the collision data and other records, access to the RMS is limited to OPD staff. When the Oxnard Public Works Department needs collision data, Public Works staff submit a request to OPD to receive collision reports for specific locations and time periods.

Crossroads Software
Prior to Fall 2020, OPD would send PDF copies of collision reports to LexisNexis, a third-party vendor, to manually enter collision data into OPD’s Crossroads database. OPD found this workflow resulted in data entry errors and duplicate entries and decided to manage their Crossroads database internally in Fall 2020. When OPD started to directly manage their Crossroads database, the collision records in Crossroads and the RMS were not consistent because OPD staff were learning how to run the built-in verification processes in Crossroads, such as street name, primary collision factor, and vehicle code verification. OPD staff have been coordinating with Crossroads staff to learn how to manage their Crossroads database and as of October 2021, OPD has verified that collision data for 2019 and 2020 are consistent and verified between their Crossroads database and RMS. As a next step, OPD is working to import the last ten years of collision data from their RMS to Crossroads to provide the Public Works department access to historical collision data to support traffic safety analysis.

Submitting Collision Data to SWITRS
OPD sends collision reports to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). OPD has coordinated with the City’s IT department to program an automated daily script that queries the RMS for new collision reports and saves the PDF reports in a folder. The City’s Records Management department then prints and mails the collision records to SWITRS on a regular basis.
433
Debbie O’Leary
February 17, 2022

Through the LRSP, Fehr & Peers compared collision data from 2016 to 2020 in the RMS to collision data for the same period downloaded from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), which is a data platform by the UC Berkeley Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) with geocoded injury collisions from SWITRS. Fehr & Peers identified injury collisions in the RMS that were not in the TIMS database. OPD reviewed the discrepancies and found that the additional collision records in RMS had not been sent to SWITRS because those collision records did not follow the naming convention that would enable those records to be queried by the daily automated script.

New Collision Data Workflow
Ventura County received grant funding to manage a multi-jurisdictional contract with Crossroads that provides participating jurisdictions in Ventura County access to the Crossroads Software collision report writer and analytics platform. The contract includes ongoing maintenance and support from Crossroads for at least five years and on-site training at Ventura County offices. By participating in this contract, OPD would be able to directly input collision data into Crossroads rather than importing from RMS. Oxnard Public Works staff would also be able to directly access collision data rather than submitting requests for each collision query. OPD requested local funding to participate in the County’s contract and is working on establishing the necessary infrastructure and processes for a new collision data workflow.

Recording Collision Data
Officers can continue to record collision data either at a crash site or at the police station. The Crossroads collision report writer has an interface that mirrors a hard copy report and can be used on a desktop computer, MDT, or mobile device (iPhone, Android, and tablet). The collision report writer design and multi-device compatibility provide an improved and more reliable experience for officers recording collision data at a crash site.

The collision report writer also includes built-in validation that must be run before a report can be submitted. Validation includes ensuring the report is completed and flagging conflicting information. The collision report writer also includes a review process for investigating officers to review, comment, request changes, and approve reports within the application.

Sharing Collision Data
Collision data in Crossroads can be exported into the RMS so that OPD can have their operations data in one location for internal record keeping. This is an automated process that is set up according to an agency’s preferences.

To share collision data with Public Works, OPD is working with Crossroads staff to set up a mirror database that will query the OPD Crossroads database daily so that Oxnard Public Works staff will have access to the most recent collision data. The firewall protections for the OPD network prevent 434
Debbie O’Leary
February 17, 2022

external departments to have direct access to any OPD data. Therefore, the mirror database queries the OPD collision database and extracts collision data without the personal identifiable information.

This allows Public Works staff to access collision data from a Public Works network version of Crossroads on their computers.

Submitting Collision Data to SWITRS
In addition to accepting physical collision reports, CHP also accepts electronic collision reports from local agencies. Under the Ventura County Crossroads contract, OPD can transition their submission process from mailing physical collision reports to setting up an automated electronic submission to CHP in Crossroads.

Recommendations
The following near-term and long-term recommendations consider the learning curve with setting up a new collision workflow. The near-term recommendations are applicable for the next one to two years of setting up and establishing a workflow, and the long-term recommendations are applicable to the remaining time of the Ventura County contract and beyond the contract timeframe.

Near-Term Recommendations
• Designate a collision data champion in OPD who will coordinate with Crossroads, Oxnard IT, Oxnard Public Works, and CHP to document workflows and set up a mirror database. • OPD, IT, and Public Works staff attend on-site trainings offered by Crossroads staff at Ventura County offices.
• OPD uses the Crossroads collision report writer to send collision data to SWITRS. However, if OPD continues to send collision data from RMS via the automated script, implement a verification process to ensure consistency in the report naming convention. • OPD and IT establish a verification process to confirm that all collision data in Crossroads are accurately exported to the RMS. The verification process could include reviewing a summary of one week of Crossroads and RMS data, such as the number of collisions, number of collisions involving someone killed or severely injured, and number of collisions by crash type. The purpose of this verification process is to ensure the data pipeline is functional.

Long-Term Recommendations
• Identify a funding source to continue using the Crossroads collision report writer after the Ventura County contract expires.
• Continue the verification process to ensure that all collision data in Crossroads is accurately exported to the RMS, Public Works, and CHP.
• Evaluate the costs associated with maintaining the new workflow. • Coordinate a working group with the County and other users of the County’s Crossroads contract to establish a path to sustained funding and use of the process and software. 435
3101
East Vineyard Avenue
East Gonzales Road
South C Street
Wagon Wheel Road
West Channel Islands Boulevard
Auto Center Drive
North Oxnard Boulevard
East Wooley Road West Wooley Road
WestVineyardAvenue North C Street
South
Victoria
Avenue
West 5th Street
Telephone Road
South Oxnard Boulevard
West Gonzales Road
East Channel Islands Boulevard
South Patterson Road
Town Center Drive
North Rose Avenue
Roosevelt Boulevard
Forest Park Bl
East Hueneme Road
Ventura Boulevard
Central Avenue
North Del Norte Boulevard
South Victoria Avenue
Golf Course Drive
West Pleasant Valley Road
North Vineyard Avenue
Riverpark Bl
North Ventura Road
J
oh
nson
Drive
Colonia Road
East Port Hueneme Road
South Harbor Boulevard
East 3rd Street
Leland Street
East 5th Street
Emerson Avenue
Eastman Avenue
Auto Center Drive
Surfside Drive
North Patterson Road
So
u
t
h
R
o
s
e
Av
e
n
u
e
East Pleasant Valley Road
Teal Club Road
West Gonzales Road
Santa Clara Avenue
North Ventura Road
Camino del Sol
North Victoria Avenue
Saviers Road
Olivas Park Drive
·232
·34
·1
Number of Red Light Violation Injury Collisions
High
Low
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\3200s\3267_Oxnard LRSP\Graphics\GIS\MXD\3267_OxnardLRSP_V2.aprx Oxnard Local Road Safety Plan
Red Light Violation Injury Collisions (2016 - 2020)
This map includes the following violations:
21453(a) - Driver not stopping at line on red signal
21453(c) - Driver not stopping at red arrow signal
436
Intersection Number of Injury Collisions
CHANNEL ISLANDS BL & VICTORIA AV 16
WOOLEY RD & C ST 13
GONZALES RD & C ST 11
5TH ST & ROSE AV 10
GONZALES RD & ROSE AV 10
VINEYARD AV & FOREST PARK BL 10
WOOLEY RD & VENTURA RD 10
ESPLANADE DR & VINEYARD AV 8
STATHAM BL & OXNARD BL 8
VINEYARD AV & OXNARD BL 8
HEMLOCK ST & VENTURA RD 7
ROSE AV & 3RD ST 7
ROSE AV & CHANNEL ISLANDS BL 7
WOOLEY RD & J ST 7
5TH ST & OXNARD BL 7
5TH ST & RICE AV 6
7TH ST & OXNARD BL 5
OXNARD BL & 1ST ST 5
SAVIERS RD & ELM ST 5
VENTURA RD & 7TH ST 5
5TH ST & SOUTHHAMPTON PL 5
5TH ST & A ST 4
9TH ST & VENTURA RD 4
C ST & CHANNEL ISLANDS BL 4
C ST & PLEASANT VALLEY RD 4
OXNARD BL & CITRUS GROVE LN 4
SAVIERS RD & YUCCA ST 4
Oxnard Local Road Safety Plan
Red Light Violation* Injury Collisions (2016 - 2020)
*The following red light violations are included:
21453(a) - Driver not stopping at line on red signal
21453(c) - Driver not stopping at red arrow signal
437
160 | APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D
Annual Traffic
Safety Report
Template
438
OXNARD LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 161
439
2 0 2 3 5 1
Engineering Engagement Education Enforcement Infrastructure Program Type Date Description
Engineering Apr-20
Engineering May-20
Education 2020
Education 2020
Enforcement 2020
Enforcement 2020
Enforcement 2020
Type Source Amount Timeline Description
Infrastructure HSIP Dec-22
Infrastructure CIP Dec-22
Infrastructure Jun-23
Infrastructure Dec-23
Infrastructure Aug-25
Program ATP $2m May-22
Oxnard Police Department continued their "Know Your Limit" campaign at restaurants and bars Location
Citywide
Rose Ave & Gary Dr
Citywide
Citywide
Citywide
Citywide
Schools
Grade separation bridge over UPRR tracks, two new signals, bike lanes, and sidewalks at Rice Ave & 5th St Safe Routes to School: infrastructure projects at 6 schools and non-infrastructure analysis and programming at 26 schools
Future Projects: Funding Secured for Future Countermeasures Oxnard Police Department enforced speed limits around school zones New sidewalks for Ventura Bl between Rose Ave and Balboa St Bicycle lanes for Oxnard Bl from US-101 to Gonzales Rd
City of Oxnard
Annual Traffic Safety Report
Report Year: 2020
Number of Completed Safety Projects
Safety Projects Summary
Number of Funded Safety Projects
Collision Data: 2016 - 2020
Signal hardware upgrades, protected left turn phasing, accessible ped signals, and intersection lighting at 7 signals New signal heads, protected left turn phasing, bicycle detection, accessible pedestrian signals and LED lights at five intersections along Oxnard Bl and Saviers Rd
Completed Projects: Number of Countermeasures Implemented Pedestrian crossing flashing beacons, signage, ADA improvements, and crosswalks New traffic signal and pedestrian ADA improvements and crosswalks Oxnard Police Department conducted bicycle and pedestrian education citywide Oxnard Police Department conducted sobriety checkpoints Oxnard Police Department continued their "Choose Your Ride" campaign at restaurants and bars City of Oxnard Annual Traffic Safety Report Page 1 of 4 Note: This Annual Traffic Safety Report is an
example of how the Annual Report can be filled out.
440
Count % of Total Count % of KSI Count % of Age KSI Collisions259 Vehicle 3978 All Injury Collisions 4751 - 259 - 2201 - Non-KSI Collisio4492 Bike 335 Bicycle Collisions 335 7% 21 8% 120 5% Ped 438
Pedestrian Collisions 438 9% 59 23% 225 10%
Violations Count % of Total Count % of KSI Time of Day Count % of Total Count % of KSI DUI 375 8% 34 13% Night 1410 30% 126 49%
Unsafe Speed 1087 23% 40 15% Day 3074 65% 120 46%
Crash Types Count % of Total Count % of KSI
Broadside 1775 37% 71 27%
Hit Object 218 5% 31 12%
Race Count Percent Count Percent
Asian 440 4% 13,643 7%
Black 331 3% 4,345 2%
Hispanic 6,824 62% 156,000 75%
White 1,886 17% 28,278 14%
Other/
Unknown 1,518 14% 5,456 3%
Total 10,999ollision Part 207,722 nard Population
Collision Summary
Citywide
Citywide Collision Trends by Mode and Age
Key Collison Factors
Total KSI
Total KSI
Collision Parties Oxnard Population
Total KSI
Collision Parties by Race Compared to Census Data
Collision Type
Total KSI Age: Under 19 or 65+
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Asian Black Hispanic White Other/
Unknown
Collision Parties by Race Compared to Census Data
Collision Parties Oxnard Population
5%
95%
Total Collisions
KSI Collisions
Non-KSI
Collisions
84%
7%
9%
Collisions by Mode
Vehicle
Bike
Ped
City of Oxnard Annual Traffic Safety Report Page 2 of 4 Note: This Annual Traffic Safety Report is an
example of how the Annual Report can be filled out.
441
1 Ventura Rd from 5th St to Wooley Rd 2 Gonzales Rd from Victoria Ave to Rose Ave Count % of Total Count % of KSI Count % of Total Count % of KSI All Injury Collisions 132 - 6 - All Injury Collisions 344 - 15 - Bicycle Collisions 12 9% 2 33% Bicycle Collisions 30 9% 3 20% Pedestrian Collisions 11 8% 2 33% Pedestrian Collisions 31 9% 2 13% Unsafe Speed Viol. 37 28% 0 0% Rear End Collisions 141 41% 2 13% Vehicle ROW Viol. 22 17% 1 17% Broadside Collisions 101 29% 6 40% Broadside Collisions 46 35% 0 0% Hit Object Collisions 17 5% 2 13% Rear End Collisions 48 36% 0 0% Night Collisions 105 31% 8 53% Night Collisions 42 32% 3 50%
3 Wooley Rd from Donlon Ave to Pacific Ave 4 Saviers Rd from Laurel St to Pleasant Valley Rd Count % of Total Count % of KSI Count % of Total Count % of KSI All Injury Collisions 49 - 7 - All Injury Collisions 257 - 15 - Bicycle Collisions 5 10% 2 29% Bicycle Collisions 25 10% 1 7% Pedestrian Collisions 4 8% 3 43% Pedestrian Collisions 38 15% 6 40% Vehicle ROW Viol. 16 33% 1 14% Rear End Collisions 79 31% 4 27% Unsafe Speed Viol. 7 14% 1 14% Broadside Collisions 92 36% 4 27% Broadside Collisions 24 49% 2 29%
Night Collisions 14 29% 3 43%
5 Bard Road from Saviers Road to Pleasant Valley Road
Count % of Total Count % of KSI
All Injury Collisions 130 - 11 -
Bicycle Collisions 8 6% 2 18%
Pedestrian Collisions 11 8% 1 9%
Vehicle ROW Viol. 54 42% 4 36%
Broadside Collisions 71 55% 7 64%
Night Collisions 27 21% 3 27%
Total
Key Collision
Factors
Key
Collision
Factors
Collision
Type
Collision
Type
Collision
Type
Key Collision
Factors
Key
Collision
Factors
Collision
Type
Collision
Type
Total KSI
Key Collision
Factors
Emphasis Areas
KSI
Total KSI Total KSI
Total KSI
City of Oxnard Annual Traffic Safety Report Page 3 of 4 Note: This Annual Traffic Safety Report is an
example of how the Annual Report can be filled out.
442
Project 1 New Signal at Rose Ave & Gary Dr Program 1
Study Area Rose Ave & Gary Dr (250') Study Area
Before After Change % Change Before After Change % Change Year 2019 2020 Year
Total Collisions 0 1 1 Total Collisions 0
KSI Collisions 0 0 0 KSI Collisions 0
85th Percentile Speed 0 85th Percentile Speed 0
Project 2 Program 2
Study Area Study Area
Before After Change % Change Before After Change % Change Year Year
Total Collisions 0 Total Collisions 0
KSI Collisions 0 KSI Collisions 0
85th Percentile Speed 0 85th Percentile Speed 0
Street From To Before After Change
Bard Rd Saviers Rd Pleasant Valley Rd 35 30 -5
Number of Segments with Posted Speed Reduction
1 Before/After Studies
Speeds and Speed Limit Compliance
City of Oxnard Annual Traffic Safety Report Page 4 of 4 Note: The Speeds and Speed Limit Compliance section is filled in as an example for this Annual Traffic Safety Report Template
Note: This Annual Traffic Safety Report is an
example of how the Annual Report can be filled out.
443

LOCAL ROAD

SAFETY PLAN
444
445

CALTRANS REQUIRED LOCAL

ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
City Council
January 17, 2023
Tatiana Arnaout, PE
City Engineer
Rachel Om, AICP
Fehr & Peers
446

RECOMMENDATION
2 That the City Council:

1. Receive a presentation and comment on the Local Roadway Safety Plan and

2. Adopt the Caltrans Required Local Roadway Safety Plan as final. 447
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
3 Local Roadway Safety Plan Background
Caltrans has a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that identifies ways to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. It addresses the 4Es of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services.

While the SHSP is a statewide approach, in 2022 Caltrans required local agencies to develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) to identify roadway safety enhancements on a local level, which ultimately contributes to the success of the statewide SHSP. 448
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
4 What is a Local Road Safety Plan?

1. Data-driven framework to identify and prioritize roadway safety enhancements

1. Incorporates a proactive approach to address safety

1. Requirement for Caltrans’ Highway Safety Improvement Program, which provides grant funding
449
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
• First comprehensive safety plan
• Builds on existing and upcoming
roadway safety projects, specific plans,
and programs, including:
• 5-Year CIP
• City Specific Plans
• Education and Enforcement
• Incorporates Safe System Approach
5 450
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
What is the Safe System
Approach?
6 451
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
7 The Local Road Safety Plan Process
Look for collision
patterns:
where,
how,
and when
Identify types
of locations with
most collisions
and
severe collisions
Identify safety
enhancements
proven to be
effective
for the types of
crashes at priority
locations
Safety
Partners
Safety
Analysis
Emphasis
Areas
Safety
Strategies
Provide input on
safety items
and act as
safety champions
1 2 3 4
452
CHAPTER 2 - VISION & GOALS
8 Vision Statement for the LRSP
“Oxnard will have an equitable, sustainable, and multimodal transportation system where people of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds can travel safely throughout the city.”
453
CHAPTER 3 - SAFETY PARTNERS
9 ● Oxnard Public Works
● Oxnard Police Department
● Oxnard Fire Department
● Oxnard College
● Oxnard School District
● Oxnard Union High School District
● Rio School District
● Gold Coast Transit District
● Ventura County
Transportation Commission
454
CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING EFFORTS
10 455
CHAPTER 5 - SAFETY ANALYSIS
11 456
CHAPTER 5 - SAFETY ANALYSIS
12 457
CHAPTER 5 - SAFETY ANALYSIS
Recurring Locations
• Signalized intersections
• Downtown Oxnard
• Residential and minor
roads for collisions
involving pedestrians
and cyclists
13 458
All Injury Collisions
Top Violations
• Unsafe Speed
• Vehicle Right of Way
• Traffic Signals and Signs
CHAPTER 5 - SAFETY ANALYSIS
14 Top Crash Types
• Broadside
• Rear End
• Vehicle/Pedestrian
459
Killed or Severely Injured (KSI) Collisions
Top Violations
• Unsafe Speed
• DUI
• Pedestrian Violation
CHAPTER 5 - SAFETY ANALYSIS
15 Top Crash Types
• Broadside
• Vehicle/Pedestrian
• Hit Object
460
CHAPTER 6 - COUNTERMEASURES TOOL-BOX
16 Programmatic
Countermeasures:
● Safe Road Users:

Education**
Awareness**
● Safe Routes to School*
● Safe Vehicles
● Post-crash care
*City’s Safe Routes to School Plan underway
**Oxnard Police Department offers education events throughout the year 461
CHAPTER 6 - COUNTERMEASURES TOOL-BOX
17 Engineering
Countermeasures:
● Control
● Geometric
● Lighting
● Operation*
● Pedestrian & Bicycle*
● Signal Modifications*
● ITS*
*City has started implementation
462
CHAPTER 7 - EMPHASIS AREAS & STRATEGIES
18 *City recently submitted grant applications for the 2022 Highway Safety Improvement Program
*
*
463
CHAPTER 7 - EMPHASIS AREAS & STRATEGIES
19 464
20 CHAPTER 7 - EMPHASIS AREAS & STRATEGIES
465
CHAPTER 7 - EMPHASIS AREAS & STRATEGIES
Gonzales Road Recommendations
• Enhance pedestrian visibility
High-visibility crosswalks with advance stop bar*
and Leading Pedestrian Intervals*
• Reduce conflict points
Fully protect left turns at signals*
• Improve signal visibility
Retroreflective backplates*
Gonzales Road Recent & Upcoming Projects
• Add buffer area to existing bike lane
• Optimize signal timing
• Pavement resurfacing
• Video detection at signalized intersections
21 *City has started implementation
466
CHAPTER 7 - EMPHASIS AREAS & STRATEGIES
Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions
2-3 Lanes, 25 mph or less
Trends
• Accounts for nearly one third of
bicyclist or pedestrian
involved collisions
• Half involved someone
under 19 or over 60 years old
• Most nighttime collisions
at intersections
• Wide residential roads
22 467
CHAPTER 7 - EMPHASIS AREAS & STRATEGIES
Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions
2-3 Lanes, 25 mph or less
Recommendations
● Increase visibility
● Raised Pedestrian Crossing
● Traffic Calming
● Bike Boulevards
● Neighborhood traffic circles
● Speed humps
● Access control
● Flashing Beacons*
● Curb Extensions*
23 *City has started implementation
468
CHAPTER 8 - EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
How can Oxnard implement and maintain a culture of
transportation safety?

1. Incorporate safety strategies into existing City programs:
• Roadway Design and Operational Standards
• Street and Traffic Signal Maintenance
• Capital Improvement Program

2. Partnerships:
• City departments
• Local transit agencies
• Community groups
• Schools
24 469
CHAPTER 8 - EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
How can Oxnard implement and maintain a culture of
transportation safety?

3. Enhance staff and fiscal resources to sustain efforts:
• Internal Safety Champion
• Enhanced coordination with City Departments
• Research and prepare for grant opportunities
• Evaluate progress over time
25 470

NEXT STEPS
Currently, Public Works has started work on easier-to-implement countermeasures:
• Retroreflective traffic signal backplates
• Fully protected left-turns at signalized intersections • Leading pedestrian interval time
• High visibility crosswalks with advance stop bar
• Curb extensions
26 471

NEXT STEPS
After adoption, Public Works will:
• Continue to roll-out easier-to-implement improvements • Identify potential locations for appropriate safety countermeasures • Recommend to the City Council “ready-to-go” projects for the 2024 HSIP grant cycle
• Review complex and high-cost projects for outer-year HISP grant cycles, other transportation grant opportunities, and for inclusion in future CIP documents.
27 472

QUESTIONS
13 28
473

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. K.2
DATE: January 17, 2023
TO: City Council
FROM: Steve Naveau, Human Resources Director, (805) 385-7947, [email protected] Alexander Hamilton, Fire Chief, (805) 385-7700, [email protected] SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Increase to the Fire Department's Total Allocated Positions. (15 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council Approve and Adopt a Resolution to Amend Resolution No. 15,593 Authorizing Full-Time Equivalent Positions Pursuant to Chapter 4 of the City Personnel Rules and Regulations.

Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/fTVcvbq0DPw

BACKGROUND
The Fire Department is planning on a firefighter recruit academy to begin February 20, 2023. The department has evaluated our current and anticipated needs for staffing. Based on this analysis, the department believes there are benefits in hiring additional employees above the current five vacancies. The Fire Department is requesting the addition of 20 Limited Term (LTE) positions. The department is requesting 14 of those positions be funded through FY23-24. The additional six LTE’s will be funded through Feb 2026, contingent upon the notification of the award of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Staffing for Adequate Emergency Response (SAFER) grant. Council previously approved applying for and accepting the SAFER grant on February 15, 2022.

DISCUSSION
The temporary increase in LTE’s will allow the department to avoid an academy in the 23-24 fiscal year. This represents a significant cost savings for the city. The projected cost of an academy in 2023-24 would have been $1.3 million. This future savings is offset by the $670,000 increased costs to hold a larger academy this year. Additional benefits of the increase in LTE’s is that it will reduce the operational impact on our staff, as the department invests an incredible amount of time and energy to train our new firefighters. The process from the beginning of recruit academy to the end of their probationary period is almost 17 months. The increase in LTE’s is also expected to reduce the Fire Department's overtime costs as extra employees will be able to cover vacancies in daily staffing from annual/sick/injury leave and training.

Currently, the department has 5 vacancies (1 captain, 2 engineers and 2 firefighters). The department is anticipating up to six separations of service through retirement and resignation in the next 12 months. The award of the SAFER grant necessitates the need to add six LTE’s to establish a second paramedic squad.

Currently, FEMA is anticipating SAFER grant award notifications to be released sometime in January.

Departments not receiving a SAFER award received declination notices the week of December 5, 2022. 474
Therefore, the department feels strongly that we will receive a SAFER award in early January 2023. The current vacancies, anticipated retirements/resignations, and the expected SAFER grant award create a combined need for 17 new firefighters.

The department is planning on starting the academy with 25 recruits - contingent upon notification of the award of a SAFER grant. We historically have a 25% attrition rate in the academy, so we anticipate graduating 20 recruits. Upon completion of the 18 week recruit academy, the department would move to fill all vacant positions and establish a second paramedic squad. The estimated 3 additional firefighters can be utilized to cover absences to reduce overtime department costs and be available to fill any additional unforeseen retirements/resignations through June 2024.

At the conclusion of the SAFER grant period of performance, council will have the option of maintaining the additional positions and converting the six LTE positions into Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) positions. However, there is no obligation under the grant to maintain those positions after the period of performance.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This agenda item supports Public Safety strategy. The purpose of the Public Safety strategy is to restore and modernize the delivery of public safety services to provide for the safety of our neighborhoods and health of our community.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Approximate Breakdown of Costs
Expanded
Academy
Budget
Adopted
Budget
Proposed
Change
Materials and Supplies 800,00
0 530,00
0 270,00
0 Recruit Personnel 660,00
0 440,00
0 220,00
0 Cadre Personnel 550,00
0 370,00
0 180,00
0 Grant Eligible Recruit Costs (160,000
)
(160,000
)
Total Estimated Academy Cost $1,850,00
0 $1,180,00
0 $670,000
If the additional LTE personnel are approved by the Council, the Fire Department plan to return to Council in February and request the additional costs be funded by ARPA.

COMMITTEE OUTCOME
This item did not originate in Committee.

Prepared by: Steve Naveau, Human Resources Director, Alexander Hamilton, Fire Chief

ATTACHMENTS

1. Fire Department Position Control Resolution

2. Position Allocation PPT
475

CITY COUNCIL OF THECITYOFOXNARD
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 15,593 AUTHORIZING FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 4 OF THE CITY PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS WHEREAS.Chapter 4, Section 4.7 oftheCity of Oxnard Personnel Rules and Regulations providesthat the City Manager from time to time may revise the number of positions in each classification as necessary to perform the work of the classification, provided that the total expense to be incurred forsuch work shall be limited to the amount appropriated by the City Council forthe classification: and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the revisions and finds that they are desirable and in the interest of maintaining an efficient municipal organization.

NOW, THEREFORE. the City Council of the City of Oxnard resolves to amend Resolution No. 15,593 with the following changes to the adopted FY 22/23 position allocations as specified, subject to approval of a budget appropriation for the revised allocation:

Department Title
Adopted
22/23
Proposed
Change
New
Allocation
Fire
Firefighter Limited Term
( Feb. 2023 - Feb. 2026 ) 0 6 6
Firefighter Limited Term
( Feb. 2023 - 06/30/2024 ) 0 14 14
GRAND TOTAL 0 20 20
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of January 2023, by the following vote:

YES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

John C. Zaragoza, Mayor
ATTEST:

Rose Chaparro, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Stephen M. Fischer, City Attorney
476

FIRE DEPARTMENT
Increasing Total Allocated Positions
Alexander Hamilton, Fire Chief
477
That the City Council Approve and Adopt a Resolution to Amend Resolution No. 15,593 Authorizing Full-Time Equivalent Positions Pursuant to Chapter 4 of the City Personnel Rules and Regulations.

RECOMMENDATION
2 478
FY 22/23 Academy Staffing Needs
• Currently there are five vacancies
• Anticipating an additional six separations through resignation or retirement
• Further anticipating a SAFER grant to add six positions for a period of three years. Positions will be used to enhance paramedic services to city residents
• Therefore the department is requesting 20 Limited Term positions

BACKGROUND
3 479
FY 22/23 Academy Staffing Needs
• Adding 20 LTE positions will allow the department to forgo an academy in FY23/24
• A larger academy will reduce the operational of training new firefighters
• Additional LTE’s is expected to reduce overtime costs as the extra personnel will cover vacancies in daily staffing

BACKGROUND
4 480

FISCAL IMPACT

DISCUSSION
5 Approximate Breakdown of Costs
Expanded
Academy Budget Adopted Budget Proposed Change
Materials and Supplies 800,000 530,000 270,000
Recruit Personnel 660,000 440,000 220,000
Cadre Personnel 550,000 370,000 180,000
Grant Eligible Recruit Costs (160,000) (160,000)
Total Estimated Academy Cost $1,850,000 $1,180,000 $670,000 If the additional LTE personnel are approved by the Council, the Fire Department plan to return to Council in February and request the additional costs be funded by ARPA.
481
QUESTIONS?
482

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. K.3
DATE: January 17, 2023
TO: City Council
FROM: Emilio Ramirez, Housing Director, (805) 385-8094, [email protected] SUBJECT: Downtown Oxnard Improvement Association Annual Update. (10 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council receive and file the 2021-22 Fiscal Year Annual Update and presentation on the Downtown Oxnard Improvement Association.
(This item did not originate in Committee.)
Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/Hs00IKxBxT0

BACKGROUND
In May 2001, the City Council of the City of Oxnard established the downtown property-based business improvement district named the Oxnard Downtown Management District. Owners of real property within the district boundaries are assessed based on the size of their parcel, building square footage, and sidewalk frontage. The district encompasses forty city blocks in size and has been renewed four times. It is currently authorized until July 2024.

In 2019, the organization that administers the funds collected from these assessments began the transition to become a 501(c)(3) Public Benefit Nonprofit Corporation, governed by elected volunteer Officers and Board of Directors incorporated as the Downtown Oxnard Improvement Association.

On June 1, 2021, the City of Oxnard entered into a Management and Disbursement Agreement ("Agreement") with the Downtown Oxnard Improvement Association, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation. The City of Oxnard serves as the pass-through agency to collect the assessments, holds a seat on the Board of Directors, and works closely with this organization to enhance and revitalize our downtown.

The five-year Management District Plan was adopted concurrently with the renewal of the business improvement district and allocated the budget among four program areas. While day-to-day operations are handled by the Executive Director and the Administrative Assistant, the volunteer Board of Directors provides guidance and oversight.

Fiscal year 2021-22 was the second year that operated under a larger board comprised of a variety of stakeholders including property owners, developers, non-profits, and interested community members. This larger board facilitated the four-committee structure to achieve more tangible objectives.

Board of Directors:

1. Chairman, Steve Huber, Retired Commander of Naval Base Ventura County

2. Vice Chair and Civil Sidewalks Committee Chair, Osbaldo Lopez, Casa Lopez 483

3. Secretary, Emilio Ramirez, Housing Director

4. Treasurer, Kimberly Recharte, Gold Coast Insurance

5. District Identity & Placemaking Committee Chair, Gary Blum, Oxnard Downtowners

6. Land Use Committee Chair, Matt Mansi, Aldersgate Investments

7. Clayton Coates, Ventura County Rescue Mission

8. Lorenzo Castillo, Exit Castillo Realty

9. Luis Hernandez, Many Mansions

10. Tiffany Lopez, Lopez Family Trust

11. Victor Melchor, Woodstock Farina Pizza

12. Alfredo Plascencia, Lazer Media
Over $540,000 was collected through property-based assessments and these assessments were used to fund “special benefits”, defined in the California State Constitution as “benefits over and above the general benefits conferred on real property located in the district boundaries or to the public at large.” The Downtown Oxnard Improvement Association delivered services across four major program areas.

Fiscal Year 2021-22 provided the Downtown Oxnard Improvement Association and its four committees with the opportunity to respond to recovery from the historic pandemic. As businesses reopened, foot traffic increased and special events returned bringing thousands of visitors to our downtown. The District Identity and Placemaking Committee played an important role in promoting new and existing businesses and special events through its social media channels while also producing its own events such as the Summer Car Show. The Civil Sidewalks Committee worked closely with contracted agencies and City staff to maintain our public spaces to a high standard of cleanliness. The administrative team increased its outreach efforts increasing the number of site visits and providing more opportunities for merchants and property owners to network and provide feedback. And finally, the Land Use Committee began planning for a developer’s forum to promote the updated form-based code for the downtown and highlighting recently approved projects.The following is a summary of the budget that was allocated to each program area along with the committee chairs, a brief description of the areas of focus, and a list of the major accomplishments over the last year.

Civil Sidewalks (Committee Chair: Osbaldo Lopez) Budget: $311,000 The purpose of the Civil Sidewalks Committee is to assure that the property within the district boundaries is “Clean and Safe”. The budget allocation of fifty-eight percent reflects that maintaining an environment that fosters business and community activation in the downtown is a priority. The Civil Sidewalks Committee oversees the contract with District Maintenance Services to provide daily cleaning of public spaces. Their services include sidewalk sweeping, steam cleaning, maintaining sidewalk planters, graffiti abatement and visitor assistance.

In collaboration with the Oxnard Police Department, the committee also oversees the contract with Professional Security Consultants, the security guard service that patrols the area within the district boundaries daily. Their services include truck and bike patrols, reporting suspicious activity, assisting with traffic control, visitor assistance, managing vagrancy issues, and reporting street light outages.

City Sidewalks Accomplishments include:

1. Coordinated volunteer cleanup events in four “hot spots” including the Social Security building, Carnegie Art Museum, Meta Street, and the former Plaza Laundromat

2. Created and posted signs with “Park Rules” at Plaza Park to aid enforcement of the Quality-of-Life Ordinance, which 484
outlawed camping and public storage of personal property at specified parks

3. Met with staff from Environmental Resources, City Corps, Parks, Streets, and Homeless Services in an effort to improve coordination of services

4. Launched an outreach and prevention program to combat illegal dumping and littering in trash enclosure areas

5. Met with Police Task Force and the Homeless Coordinator in response to an increase in vagrancy issues following the expiration of the 3-year program of enhanced police patrols

6. Reported illegal camping in public parking lots leading to the towing of cars with expired plates

7. District Maintenance Services Clean Team:
a) Four-person crew deployed daily for cleaning from 7 am – 3:30 pm b) 4,579 forty-five-gallon bags of litter picked up (approximately 88,374 pounds) c) 133 full City blocks of sidewalk pressure washed
d) 1,434 graffiti incidents abated
e) 3,413 illegal stickers & posters removed
f) 291 outreach contacts with homeless
g) 97 abandoned shopping carts retrieved
h) 218 incidents of bio-waste cleaned up
i) 579 reports to Oxnard 311 for illegal dumping, graffiti, and damaged public property j) Ninety visitor directions and recommendations provided

8. Professional Security Consultants District Safety:
a) Daily patrols by truck and bike 7 am to 11 pm Sunday through Thursday and 7 am – 2 am Friday and Saturday b) 1,174 calls for service responded to
c) 1,192 liquor offenses reported
d) 1,567 loitering incidents
e) 248 graffiti incidents reported for abatement
District Identity and Placemaking (Committee Chair: Gary Blum) Budget: $68,300 The purpose of this committee is to enhance downtown Oxnard’s brand, improve public perception, and to position the downtown area within the district boundaries as a regional business and cultural attraction. The committee accomplishes this by marketing and promoting positive activities and events in downtown.

District Identity and Placemaking accomplishments include:

1. Extended agreement with the Downtowners for Social Media management 485

2. 6,676 Instagram followers, a fifty-two percent increase

3. 113,135 Instagram accounts reached

4. 7,514 Facebook page likes, a twelve percent increase in page likes

5. 192,054 Facebook accounts reached, an increase of 116%

6. Created over 220 social media posts and stories

7. 23,936 website visits and 42,352 page views

8. Sponsored downtown arts organizations including Teatro de las Americas, Open Door Studios, and OPAC with financial support for cultural events

9. Hosted art exhibitions by Elibet Valencia, Oxnard College, and the 34th Parallel Collective attracting over 250 guests

10. Collaborated with Oxnard College on installation of street pole banners honoring graduates, bringing increased visitors to downtown

11. Provided logistics planning and permit assistance to event organizers for Fiestas Patrias and the Halloween Haunt in the Park helping to produce well-organized, incident-free events attracting over 5,000 attendees

12. Commissioned new utility box art wrap at Oxnard Transit Center featuring photos taken by foster youth

13. The committee held a 4-hour strategic planning session with OPAC and Visit Oxnard

14. Produced successful Summer Car Show attracting over 300 paid car entries, 5,000 attendees, and grossed over $8,300 to benefit downtown beautification

15. Transformed the vacant lot behind Centennial Plaza, known as “the petting zoo”, into a pop-up vendor marketplace as part of the car show

16. Invested $35,000 in holiday street décor on lamp posts along the core retail areas including Centennial Plaza, Plaza Park, A Street, Fifth and 7th Streets

17. Began first phase of revitalizing 162 sidewalk planters and have completed thirty-three percent Administration (Board Chair: Steve Huber) Budget: $157,607 Oversees staff and administration, corporate finances, contracts, insurance, budget preparation, fund development, board agendas, advocacy, outreach, bylaws and policies, government and community relations, and Board elections.

Administration accomplishments include:

1. Adopted an organizational manual to guide day-to-day policies

2. Hired and trained administrative support staff

3. Utilized charitable status to establish a new Veterans Memorial Fund with an initial contribution of $5,000

4. Expanded board from eleven to fourteen members

5. Conducted twenty-four outreach campaigns, met with over 200 merchants in-store to provide information about the downtown area, offer business support, and receive feedback 486

6. Assisted eleven district property owners with permit issues and management concerns

7. Continued partnership with Oxnard Union High School District, providing mentorship to two groups of interns from the Media Arts Academy

8. Engaged Cal Lutheran University Business School for a market research project to support fund development efforts Land Use (Committee Chair: Matt Mansi) No Budget Allocation The purpose of the Land Use Committee is to research and advocate on issues including parking, transportation, mobility, planning, zoning, regional public transportation, review of new developments, outdoor dining, merchant mix, and business recruitment.

Although the Land Use Committee has no budget allocation, it plays an integral part in the mission of the Downtown Oxnard Improvement Association given the need to increase housing density within the boundaries of the district and its immediate trade area, thereby providing a customer base for downtown businesses. Every economic study emphasizes the need for more market-rate housing in order to drive demand for retail and facilitate business attraction.

Land Use accomplishments include:

1. Held two meetings with City to plan and collaborate on 2023 Downtown Development Forum

2. The Board of Directors voted to oversee all “temporary-use”’ permitted events

3. Compiled data research on the of the Oxnard Transit Center

4. Updated online business attraction package

5. New business openings include: Pipiripau, Downtown Café, Julian’s Aguachiles, Lashez N Lookz, Assecuse Salon, Downtown Beauty Lounge, The Beauty Center
The Downtown Oxnard Improvement Association anticipates an increase in revenues as new projects are completed and development agreements are approved stemming from the City’s negotiations through the Surplus Land Act process. This will allow the Downtown Oxnard Improvement Association to allocate funds to the Land Use Committee and increase funding for marketing, special events, and other downtown amenities.

While much remains to be done to revitalize downtown, Downtown Oxnard Improvement Association’s incorporation as a nonprofit, the larger board with increased stakeholder representation, the four-committee structure, and its continued partnership with the City of Oxnard will assist in moving things forward to achieve the vision of a thriving and vibrant downtown.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This agenda item supports Economic Development strategy. The purpose of Economic Development strategy is to focus on the retention and expansion of Oxnard businesses by increasing the skills and employability of our local workforce, invite new business investments, and target site-based redevelopment opportunities.

This agenda item supports the Quality of Life strategy. The purpose of the Quality of Life strategy is to restore and increase quality services and programs that enrich Oxnard's diverse community, promotes safe neighborhoods, encourages community engagement, and supports our residents in their efforts to improve their quality of life.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with this report.

COMMITTEE OUTCOME
487
This item did not originate in Committee.

Prepared by: Emilio Ramirez, Housing Director

ATTACHMENTS

1. 2022 DOIA Annual Report Draft 12.21.22

2. DOIA Annual Report Presentation
488
1 | Page
2022 FISCAL YEAR ANNUAL REPORT

INTRODUCTION
The Oxnard Downtown Management District (ODMD) is a property-based business improvement district, established in 2001, encompassing 40 city blocks. Owners of real property within the ODMD are assessed based on their total parcel size, building square footage, and sidewalk frontage. Government use and non-profit owned-and-occupied properties are exempted from the building portion of the assessment.

The total assessment collected is approximately $502,000 annually. The aggregated revenues are used to fund “special benefits,” defined in the California State Constitution as “benefits over and above the general benefits conferred on real property located in the District or to the public at large.” The model is similar to mall management company funded with common area maintenance fees.

The Downtown Oxnard Improvement Association (DOIA), a 501c3 nonprofit organization, administers the ODMD assessment to deliver services across four major program areas:
1) Civil Sidewalks
2) District Identity & Placemaking
3) Administration
4) Land Use
Budget and resources are allocated according to the 5-year Management District Plan adopted with the District Renewal to support these functional areas. Management of day-to-day operations is executed by professional staff under the governance of the agency’s volunteer Board of Directors, organized into oversight committees to assure efficient delivery of the programs. 2022 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
● Steve Huber, Chairman
● Ozzie Lopez, Vice Chair
● Clayton Coates, Treasurer
● Vyto Adomatis, Secretary
● Gary Blum
● Lorenzo Castillo
● Luis Hernandez
● Tiffiany Lopez
● Matt Mansi
● Victor Melchor
● Alfredo Plascencia
● Kimberly Recharte
● Doug Spondello

CIVIL SIDEWALKS
Committee Chair: Ozzie Lopez
Meetings held the 1st Wednesday of month.

Civil Sidewalks’ mission is to assure that Downtown is “Clean & Safe.” The 58% direct budget allocation (not including admin staff time) reflects the importance in maintaining an environment that supports business and community activity. To accomplish its mission, the Civil Sidewalks Committee oversees a contract with District Maintenance Services (DMS), which deploys provides daily cleaning of the public space. Additionally, in partnership with the Oxnard Police Department, the Committee shares oversight of Professional Security Consultants (PSC), the contract security guard service patrolling the District. 489
2 | Page
DMS services include sidewalk sweeping, steam cleaning, sidewalk planter maintenance, graffiti abatement, visitor assistance. PSC services include daily truck and bike patrols, observe and report suspicious activity, traffic control assistance, visitor assistance, homeless issues management, street light outage reports.

CIVIL SIDEWALKS HIGHLIGHTS
● DMS Clean Team:
o DMS deploys a 4-person crew for daily on-the-ground cleaning from 7 am – 3:30 pm o 4,579 45-gal. bags of litter picked up (approx. 88,374 lbs.) o 133 full City blocks of sidewalk pressure washed
o 1,434 graffiti incidents abated
o 3,413 illegal stickers & posters removed
o 291 outreach contacts with homeless
o 97 abandoned shopping carts retrieved
o 218 incidents of bio-waste cleaned up
o 579 reports to Oxnard 311 for illegal dumping, graffiti, and damaged public property o 90 visitor directions/recommendations provided
● PSC District Safety:
o PSC patrols by truck and bike 7 am to 11 pm Sun – Thurs, and 7 am – 2 am Fri & Sat o 1,174 calls for service responded to
o 1,192 liquor offenses reported
o 1,567 loitering incidents
o 248 graffiti incidents reported for abatement
Staff and Committee:
● Coordinated four volunteer cleanup events in high-maintenance “hot spots” at the Social Security building, Carnegie, Meta Street, and the former Plaza Laundromat ● Created and posted “Parks Rules” signs at Plaza Park to aid enforcement of 2019 Quality of Life Ordinance, which outlawed camping and public storage of personal property ● Engaged meeting participation from City Environmental Resources, City Corps, Parks, Streets, and Homeless Services with the goal of improving coordination of services ● Launched a prevention and outreach program to combat the incidence of illegal dumping and trash enclosure messes (currently in negotiations to procure a routine cleaning service) ● Held meetings with Police Command and the Homeless response team in response to an increase in transient issues after the expiration of the 3-year program of enhanced OPD patrols ● Reported illegal camping in public parking lots leading to the towing of cars with expired plates

DISTRICT IDENTITY & PLACEMAKING (DIPM)
Committee Chair: Gary Blum
Meetings held the 4th Thursday of month
The main goal is to promote a positive image of the District that engages the community and visitors.

Committee projects include: district branding, public relations, newsletters, special events production and sponsorship, website development, Social Media management, pole banners, sidewalk planters, holiday decorations, walking maps, brochures, pedestrian signage, management of news racks, etc.

DISTRICT IDENTITY & PLACEMAKING HIGHLIGHTS
● Extended agreement with the Downtowners for Social Media management ● 6,676 Instagram Followers, an increase of 2,286 (+52%) ● 113,135 Instagram Accounts Reached (+228%)
490
3 | Page
● 7,514 Facebook Page Likes, an increase of 820 (+12%)
● 192,054 FB Accounts Reached (+116%)
● Created over 220 Social Media Posts and Stories
● 23,936 Website Visits and 42,352 Page Views
● Sponsored Downtown arts organizations – Teatro de las Americas, Open Door Studios, and OPAC with financial support for cultural events
● Hosted Art Exhibitions by Elibet Valencia, Oxnard College, and the 34th Parallel Collective attracting over 250 guests
● Collaborated with Oxnard College on installation of street pole banners honoring graduates, bringing increased visitors to the District
● Provided logistics planning and permit assistance to event organizers for Fiestas Patrias and the Halloween Haunt in the Park helping to produce well-organized, incident-free events attracting over 5,000 attendees
● Commissioned a new utility box art wrap at Transit Center featuring photos taken by foster youth ● The committee held a 4-hour strategic planning session with OPAC and Visit Oxnard ● Produced a successful Summer Car Show attracting over 300 paid car entries, 5,000 attendees, grossing over $8,300 to benefit Downtown beautification ● Transformed the vacant lot known as “the petting zoo” into a pop-up vendor marketplace as part of the Car Show
● Invested $35,000 in District Holiday street décor on lamp posts along the core retail areas including Centennial Plaza, Plaza Park, A Street, Fifth and 7th Streets ● Began first phase of revitalizing 162 sidewalk planters; 33% to completion

ADMINISTRATION
Board Chair: Steve Huber
Executive Committee Meetings held 1st Thursday of month Board of Directors Meetings held the 2nd Thursday of month Oversees staff and district administration, corporate finances, contracts, insurance, budget preparation, fund development, Board agendas, advocacy, outreach, bylaws and policies, government and community relations, and Board elections.

ADMINISTRATION HIGHLIGHTS:
 Adopted an Organizational Manual to guide day-to-day policies  Hired and trained administrative support staff
 Leveraged charitable status to establish a new Veterans Memorial Fund with an initial contribution of $5,000
 Expanded Board from 11 to 14 members
 Conducted 24 outreach campaigns, met with over 200 merchants in-store to provide district info, offer business support, and receive feedback
 Assisted 11 district property owners with permit issues and management concerns  Continued partnership with Oxnard High Union School District, providing mentorship to two groups of interns from the Media Arts Academy
 Engaged Cal Lutheran University Business School for a market research project to support fund development efforts

LAND USE
Committee Chair: Matt Mansi
Meetings held on as-needed basis
491
4 | Page
Studies and advocates on issues including parking, transportation, mobility, planning, zoning, link to Metro Rail Station, review of new developments, outdoor dining, merchant mix and business recruitment.

Although the Land Use Committee has no budget allocation, it plays an integral part in the DOIA mission given the fundamental need to increase housing density within the District and its immediate trade area.

Every economic study conducted on the area has called out for more market-rate housing in order to drive demand for retail, which in turn facilitates business attraction.

LAND USE HIGHLIGHTS
 Held 2 meetings with City to plan and collaborate on 2023 Downtown Development Forum  DOIA Board voted to oversee all “temporary-use”’-permitted events within the District  Compiled data research on the Oxnard Transit Center use  Updated online Business Attraction package with
 New business openings include: Pipiripau, Downtown Café, Julian’s Aguachilles, Lashez N Lookz, Assecuse Salon, Downtown Beauty Lounge, The Beauty Center In summary, 2022 was a year of accelerated economic recovery from the historic pandemic. Foot traffic was boosted with the reopening of business as well as the return of special events. The DOIA did its part in promoting the District through its media channels and events production.

The DOIA anticipates additional gains in 2023 with some of the currently permitted development projects to begin construction (the Navigation Center and Many Mansions’ Central Terrace Apartments have already commenced). Additionally, the Surplus Property process, which the City initiated in 2022 is expected to conclude in the first quarter of 2023, which will contribute to more new development projects.

The DOIA will be a full partner with the City in advocating for qualify projects, new business attraction, and public space improvements.
492

DOWNTOWN OXNARD IMPROVEMENT

ASSOCIATION ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2021-22
Emilio Ramirez, Director
Housing Department
City Council
January 17, 2023
493

BACKGROUND
2 1. City Council established Oxnard
Downtown Management District, a 40-
block property based business
improvement district

2. District is Authorized until July 2024

3. Five year Management District Plan
adopted with budget allocations

4. 2019 - ODMD became a public benefit
nonprofit known as Downtown Oxnard
Improvement Association

5. June 2021, City signs Management
and Disbursement Agreement with
DOIA
494
ROLES
3 1. Executive Director, Abel Magaña,  oversees day-to-day operations

2. City serves as the pass-through agency which levies the assessments for the District, holds seat on the board,
and works closely with organization

3. Board of Directors provides guidance and oversight and staffs committees
495

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Board of Directors is comprised of a variety of
stakeholders including property owners, merchants, nonprofits, and interested community members. 4 • Chairman, Steve Huber
• Secretary, Emilio Ramirez
• Vice Chair and Civil Sidewalks
Chair, Osbaldo Lopez
• Treasurer, Kimberly Recharte
• District Identity & Placemaking
Chair, Gary Blum
• Land Use Chair, Matt Mansi
• Clayton Coates
• Luis Hernandez
• Victor Melchor
• Lorenzo Castillo
• Tiffany Lopez
• Alfredo Plascencia
496

DOWNTOWN OXNARD MANAGEMENT & DISBURSMENT

AGREEMENT

1. On June 1, 2021 City of Oxnard entered into Agreement with Downtown Oxnard Improvement Association

2. The purpose of the agreement is to establish the
contractual relationship between the City and the DOIA, and each of the parties’ responsibilities

3. Section 4.7.1 requires DOIA to prepare Annual Report, Annual Work Plan and Budget
5 497

BUDGET AND PROGRAM AREAS
Over $540,000 collected through property-based
assessments –  used to fund “special  benefits”  in the District. Special benefits defined by California State
Constitution as “benefits  over and above the general
benefits conferred on real property located in the District or to the public at large.”
Program Areas

1. Organization Administration

2. District Identity and Placemaking

3. Civil Sidewalks

4. Land Use
6 498

CIVIL SIDEWALKS
7 Accomplishments:

1. Coordinated volunteer cleanup events in four hot spots

2. Created and posted signs with “Park Rules” at Plaza Park

3. Met with Environmental Resources, City Corps, Parks, Streets, and Homeless Services to improve coordination of services

4. Launched an outreach and prevention program to combat illegal dumping and littering in trash enclosure areas

5. Currently in negotiations to procure a routine cleaning service

6. Met with Police Task Force and the Homeless Coordinator in response to an  increase in vagrancy issues

7. Reported illegal camping in public parking lots
499

CIVIL SIDEWALKS
8 Committee Chair – Osbaldo Lopez
Budget Allocation – $311,000
Purpose –  to assure that the District is “clean  and safe”.

Oversee contracts with District Maintenance Services and Professional Security Consultants
500
District Management Services Clean Team

1. 4-person crew deployed daily from 7am – 3:30pm

2. 4,579 45-gallon bags of litter picked up

3. 133 full City blocks of sidewalk pressure washed

4. 1,434 graffiti incidents abated

5. 3,413 illegal stickers & posters removed

6. 291 outreach contacts with homeless

7. 97 abandoned shopping carts retrieved

8. 218 incidents of bio-waste cleaned up

9. 90 visitor directions and recommendations provided
9 CIVIL SIDEWALKS DISTRICT MANAGEMENT SERVICES

CLEAN TEAM
501
Professional Security Consultants

1. Daily patrols by truck and bike

2. 7am to 11pm Sunday – Thursday and 7am – 2am Friday
& Saturday

3. 1,174 calls for service responded to

4. 1,192 liquor offenses reported

5. 1,567 loitering incidents

6. 248 graffiti incidents reported for abatement
10 CIVIL SIDEWALKS PROFESSIONAL SECURITY

CONSULTANTS
502

DISTRICT IDENTITY AND PLACEMAKING
11 Committee Chair  – Gary Blum
Budget Allocation of $68,300
Purpose: To enhance downtown Oxnard’s  brand, improve
public perception, position the District as a regional business and cultural attraction.
503

DISTRICT IDENTITY AND PLACEMAKING
12 Accomplishments:

1. Extended social media agreement with the Downtowners

2. 6,676 Instagram followers, a 52%  increase

3. 7,514 Facebook page likes, a12% increase

4. Created over 220 social media posts and stories

5. Financially sponsored Downtown arts and culture events

6. Hosted art exhibitions by Elibet Valencia, Oxnard College, and the 34th Parallel Collective

7. Collaborated with Oxnard College installing street pole banners

8. Commissioned new utility box art wrap at Oxnard Transit Center featuring photos taken by foster youth
504

ADMINISTRATION
13 Board Chair  –  Steve Huber
Budget Allocation of $157,607
Purpose: Oversees staff and District administration,
corporate finances, contracts, insurance, budget
preparation, fund development, Board agendas and
elections, advocacy, outreach, bylaws and policies, and government and community relations.
505

ADMINISTRATION
14 Accomplishments:

1. Adopted an Organizational Manual

2. Hired and trained administrative support staff

3. Establish a Veterans Memorial Fund of $5,000

4. Expanded Board from 11 to 14 members

5. Conducted 24 outreach campaigns, met with over 200
merchants in-store to provide district information, offer business support, and receive feedback

6. Assisted 11 district property owners with permit issues

7. Partnered with Oxnard Union High School District

8. Engaged Cal Lutheran University Business School for a market research project to support fund   development
efforts
506

LAND USE
15 Committee Chair  –  Matt Mansi
Budget Allocation of $0
Purpose: To research and advocate on issues including
parking, transportation,  mobility, planning, zoning, regional public transportation, review of new developments, outdoor dining, merchant mix, and business recruitment.
507

LAND USE
16 Accomplishments:

1. Held 2 meetings with City to plan and collaborate on 2023 Downtown Development Forum

2. DOIA Board voted to oversee all “temporary-use”’-
permitted events within the District

3. Compiled data research on Oxnard Transit Center use

4. Updated online Business Attraction package

5. New business openings include: Pipiripau; Downtown
Café;  Julian’s  Aguachiles; Lashez N   Lookz; Assecuse Salon; Downtown Beauty Lounge; The Beauty Center
508

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council receive and file the 2021-22 Fiscal Year Annual Update and presentation on the Downtown
Oxnard Improvement Association.
17 509

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. K.4
DATE: January 17, 2023
TO: City Council
FROM: Ashley Golden, Assistant City Manager, (805) 385-7478, [email protected] SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Permit No. 22-600-02 (Pre-Application); Pre-Application Review of the Rio Del Valle Campus Expansion Master Plan, Located at 3100 North Rose Avenue (APN: 144-0-110-445; -220; -055; & -590). Project Name: Rio Del Valle Campus Expansion Master Plan. (45 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council review and provide preliminary comments on a pre-application for a master plan to expand the Rio Del Valle school campus, including the required annexation, general plan amendment, pre-zoning, greenbelt amendment, expanded school uses, and bus storage and maintenance facility.

Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/OehiE2- Fybs

BACKGROUND
Executive Summary
The Rio School District (RSD) proposes to expand the size of the Rio Del Valle Campus from 20.2 acres to 41.3 acres by utilizing land that is currently active farm land. As proposed, the expanded campus would include a new Transportation and Bus Maintenance and Parking facility and new educational facilities. The RSD documents indicate that the buildout of the RDV Campus Master Plan could occur over approximately 5 years, however, the primary focus is on the development of the new Transportation and Bus Maintenance and Parking facility, which is the primary component of Phase 1 of the Project. Although the existing school and active agricultural land are currently in the County, as part of this proposal, RSD would be required to have these properties annexed into the City of Oxnard and would require multiple entitlements and environmental review for the proposal. Despite staff raising multiple concerns (letters attached) with the proposal since 2020 the RSD acquired the subject expansion areas and has completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This report outlines several topic areas for Council to consider when making their individual comments concerning the proposal.

Pre-Application Process
The pre-application process allows City Council members an opportunity to make individual comments concerning a future development project. Comments provided by the City Council on a pre-application do not constitute a decision or endorsement of the proposal. In accordance with State Law, no formal direction or decision making will take place until such time as a formal application has been filed and has undergone appropriate environmental review and evaluation for consistency with adopted City plans and policies and public notice has been provided. The Council’s preliminary comments may help inform the applicant’s decision to proceed through the entitlement process.

Project Background
City staff learned of the Rio School District’s (RSD) proposed expansion in late 2020, and at the time voiced multiple concerns regarding the proposal, and recommended against continued land acquisition until the district had coordinated with both the City of Oxnard and other jurisdictions and agencies. However, the RSD continued to proceed forward. On March 17, 2021, the RSD made a presentation to Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) regarding a 510
potential Maintenance Operations and Transportation facility, and Annexation or extension of City of Oxnard services to property adjacent to the Rio Del Valle (RDV) Middle School. City staff provided a comment letter, again raising multiple concerns, including the need for the project to be contiguous with City limits, availability of water, extension of City services and potential for growth-inducing impacts, and the property location within Save Our Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR). The complete comment letter has been provided in Attachment 3, of this report. As a follow-up to the meeting, LAFCo staff provided the school district with an analysis of the two available options that would allow for the project to proceed (Attachment 4). The two options outlined the process for moving forward under the County of Ventura’s jurisdiction with an Out of Agency Service Agreement from the City of Oxnard vs Annexation to the City of Oxnard. Based on follow up discussions with the County of Ventura, LAFCo, and the City of Oxnard, the RSD is moving forward with the second option, as the first option may not have allowed for the Transportation facility.

Subsequent to the LAFCo meeting on March 17, 2021, the RSD made a request to the County of Ventura Planning Commission for a General Plan Conformity Determination pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151.2 and Government Code Section 65402, related to the acquisition of the northern expansion area. Public Resources Code Section 21151.2 and Government Code Section 65402 requires that no property acquisition occur until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition, disposition, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency having jurisdiction, as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof.

As the property is located within the County, the County Planning Commission reviewed the request at their April 15, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. City staff again provided comments (Attachment 5) noting concerns with the proposed acquisition, as it related to inconsistency with Oxnard’s policies and regulations. The County Planning Commission adopted a resolution finding the proposed project inconsistent with the Ventura County General Plan and non-coastal zoning ordinance. However, the RSD proceeded with the acquisition of the northern property in late 2021.

This year, the RSD began the environmental process for the project after declaring itself the Lead Agency, with the release of a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Rio del Valle Middle School Campus Expansion Master Plan project. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period ran from June 7, 2022 to July 6, 2022.

City Staff, again submitted a comment letter, during the comment period, noting concerns with the completeness of the project description, lack of support in the analysis provided, and availability of utilities (water and wastewater).

Following the close of the public comment period on the NOP, the RSD then released the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on October 7, 2022, for the required 45-day public review period. City Staff, again submitted a comment letter (Attachment 6), during the comment period, noting many of the same concerns previously expressed to the RSD, including compliance with City policies and regulation and availability of utilities (water and wastewater).

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:

Project Description
RSD indicates that the proposed project includes the expansion of the RDV campus located at 3100 Rose Avenue in unincorporated County of Ventura. The existing campus consists of the 20.2-acre main campus. The RSD is proposing to incorporate 10 acres of active agricultural lands (a portion of APN 144-0-110-225) to the north of the main campus buildings and add approximately 11.1-acres to the south (a portion of APN 144-0-110-590). The northern expansion area would be used for the RSD Agricultural Learning Program, with an outdoor lecture area and a small, paved pathway. The District proposes to develop the southern portion with new educational facilities and a Transportation and Bus Maintenance and Parking facility, resulting in an approximately 41.3-acre campus (Project Site).

The Master Plan includes phased improvements to the RDV campus, northern expansion area, and development of approximately 11.1-acres to the south of the existing campus. Although RSD documents indicate that the buildout of the RDV Campus Master Plan could occur over approximately 5 years, the primary focus is on the development of the new Transportation and Bus Maintenance and Parking facility, which is the primary component of Phase 1 of the Project. This new facility is required due to the RSD’s previous surplus and sale of its previous maintenance and parking facility on Vineyard Avenue. As a result of the RSD sale of the prior location, the district does not currently have an approved bus parking location.

In addition to the Transportation facility, the proposed project includes options for: new classrooms, library and media center, multi–purposed building, student bus turnout, recreational facilities including a 320-meter track, flag football field, four basketball courts, baseball field, softball field, physical education (P.E.) and lunch play field, four sand volleyball courts, two soccer fields, jogging path, an athletic restroom/storage building, and up to ten tennis courts and/or 511
pickleball courts.

The Draft EIR mentions the expansion of joint uses, including use of the site by the John F. Flynn Community Clinic and Sheriff’s Department. The Draft EIR does not fully discuss or analyze the expansion of these uses, and therefore it is unclear if these are existing uses proposed to be expanded, new uses, or relocated uses. The project proposes a significant increase in the amount of parking, which may be needed to accommodate these uses.

Below is a comparison of the existing 20.2 acre campus and the proposed 41.3 acres campus RDV configuration.

Existing Configuration Proposed Configuration
Student Capacity 1,116 1,366
District Staffing 70 95
Total Classrooms 39 49
Permanent Square Footage 81,024 115,482
Portable Square Footage 7,071 11,535
Total Building Square Footage 88,095 127,017
Parking Spaces 90 (84 standard and 6 accessible) 379 (339 standard, 16 accessible, and 24 bus)

EXISTING LAND USES & ENTITLEMENTS
The 41.3-acre project site is currently comprised of three areas: The existing campus consists of the 20.2-acre main campus (APN 144-0-110-445), 10 acres of active agricultural lands (a portion of APN 144-0-110-225) to the north of the main campus buildings, approximately 11.1-acres of active agricultural lands to the south (a portion of APN 144-0-110- 590). An existing potentially historic occupied residence is located on the southerly portion of the project site. Infrastructure and utilities are currently provided to the existing campus, however, none are provided on the northern and southern expansion areas (see Attachment 1).

The 41.3-acre area is currently located within the County of Ventura. The following table summarizes the land uses and zoning designation of the site and adjacent properties:

Location General Plan Zoning Land Use
Project Site (County) Existing Campus
School (City)
Very Low Density
Residential (County)
Northern Expansion
N/A (City)
Agricultural (County)
Southern Expansion
N/A(City)
Agricultural (County)
Existing Campus
RE-20,000
(Rural Exclusive, County)
(County)
Northern Expansion
AE-40
(Agricultural Exclusive,
County)
(County)
Southern Expansion
AE-40
(Agricultural Exclusive,
County)
(County)
Existing Campus
RDV Middle School
Northern Expansion
Active Agricultural Farm
Southern Expansion
Active Agricultural Farm
512
North (County) Agricultural AE-40
(Agricultural Exclusive,
County)
Active Agricultural Farm
South
(City)
Commercial Regional Rose Santa Clara Specific
Plan
Car Dealerships
East (County) Agricultural AE-40
(Agricultural Exclusive,
County)
Active Agricultural Farm
West
(County)
Low Density Residential RE-10,000
(Rural Exclusive, County)
Single Family Residential

PRE-APPLICATION PROPOSAL
As noted above, the Project includes the expansion of the existing RDV campus and the construction of a Transportation and Bus Maintenance and Parking facility. While the construction of new educational school facilities, generally fall under the jurisdiction of the State, this project will require a series of approvals from the City, as well as other adjacent agencies. City of Oxnard entitlements required for the proposed development to proceed include, at a minimum:
• General Plan Amendment (to change the City Urban Restriction Boundary, SOAR land designation, Sphere of Influence, land use designation)
• Pre-zoning the property
• Tentative Tract Map and/or Lot Line Adjustment
• Oxnard-Camarillo Greenbelt Modification
• Special Use Permit (SUP) for the School pursuant to the C-R zone requirements*. • Special Use Permit or Development Design Review Permit for the proposed District Transportation and Bus Parking facilities (The final permit type will be determined by the requested pre-zoning Zoning Designation). *based on discussions with the RSD team they assert a SUP is not required for the development.

Environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act will also be required. In addition to the City of Oxnard, approvals are needed from other local agencies, including, the County of Ventura, City of Camarillo, Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), and the Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD). Upon annexation, the RSD has stated that they, to the extent applicable, may elect to exercise its authority to overrule local zoning regulations and the need for any subsequent entitlements and use permits, subject to Government Code Section 53094.

ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
The City Staff has reviewed the pre-application request, as well as environmental documents released by the RSD. A summary of issues for consideration with this pre-application follows:

Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources/Greenbelt Amendment • The Northern and Southern expansion areas are covered by the voter approved City of Oxnard Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources ordinance (Attachment 7). The ordinance established and adopted an urban growth boundary line identified as the Oxnard City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB). As it relates to this project, under the current ordinance, the City Council may amend the CURB to include land contemplated for construction of public potable water facilities, public schools, public parks or other government facilities, or to include any development project that has obtained as of the effective date of the initiative a vested right pursuant 513
to state or local law, but only to the minimum amount of land reasonably necessary to accommodate said uses.

Projects or components of a project that do not meet this provision shall be subject to a vote of the people. • The Northern and Southern expansion areas are within the Oxnard/Camarillo Greenbelt. Approval by both the City of Camarillo and County of Ventura will be required to amend the agreement (Attachment 8). 2030 General Plan Consistency
• The RSD is proposing to designate the Project site land use as School. However, the School designation does not allow for bus storage and maintenance facilities. The Oxnard City Code only allows Bus Storage and Maintenance in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing Zone) and M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing Zone). These designations generally correlate with the Light and Heavy Industrial land use designations in the 2030 General Plan. The 2030 General Plan also includes the Public/Semi-Public designation which allows for Private, quasi-public, and public buildings and facilities owned by the City, County, State, Federal agencies, or other organizations that serve the general public such as a civic center, flood control channels, rail lines, community college, museum, performing arts center, community center, city yard, library, fire station, public school and /or district support facility, private and parochial school, cemetery, or Hospital. As a RSD support facility, the bus storage and maintenance facility could potentially be found in compliance with the Public/Semi-Public land use designation.

Environmental Considerations
• An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be required for processing of this development project. While the RSD has prepared an EIR, City Staff has numerous concerns regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Some of the primary concerns include insufficient analysis of utility and traffic impacts, inconsistency with proposed land uses, insufficient mitigation of Agricultural and Cultural Resources impacts, and incomplete project description.

Unless these issues and the other issues raised in the City’s Draft EIR comment letter are addressed, City Staff does not recommend relying on the RSD Draft EIR.

Fiscal Impact
• Due to the potential impact of the extension of City services onsite and offsite, as a result of the annexation request, Staff requests the RSD prepare a fiscal analysis to analyze the potential "growth inducing impacts" resulting from the extension of City services beyond the current boundary.

Water Resources
• Since the project proposes to be annexed into the City of Oxnard, the existing campus and the proposed expansion (including the proposed agricultural field) shall use City water. The District shall account for all available water allocations ready to be transferred to the City to cover the existing and proposed school expansion areas consistent with the City Oxnard Municipal Code Article VI. Any transfers that need to occur for other projects shall occur outside the Campus Expansion Master Plan. • Per the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City plans a 45% reduction in groundwater pumping by 2040, meaning the City will need to secure other water resources in the future. New projects not accounted for in the UWMP will cause an increase in the water projection requirements. Even if this project can allocate more groundwater rights to the City, adding more unaccounted projects will require the City to expend more resources in the future.

Public Infrastructure
514
• The project will be required to upgrade all sewer, water, and storm drain systems to ensure that all infrastructure has been designed to meet City capacity standards in compliance with all City Codes. Downstream sewer upgrades may be required.
• Development of this area is not in the City sewer demand projections. New projects outside the planned service area must be analyzed to ensure capacity for treatment and operational requirements of the Oxnard Wastewater Treatment Plant (OWTP). The EIR shall analyze how the school expansion will impact the City’s collection system, specifically, how it will remove existing sewer capacity downstream. Thereby taking available sewer discharge capacity from future development areas already within the City limits. • The project will be required to transfer all on-site water allocation credits and comply with the City’s water neutrality policy. The project will be required to evaluate total water supply and projected need and ensure sufficient water is available to meet projected demand.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This agenda item supports the Infrastructure and Natural Resources strategy. The purpose of the Infrastructure and Natural Resources strategy is to preserve and improve our roads, utilities, parks, trees, water supply and natural resources through effective planning, prioritization, and an equitable and efficient use of available funding.

This agenda item supports the Quality of Life strategy. The purpose of the Quality of Life strategy is to restore and increase quality services and programs that enrich Oxnard's diverse community, promote safe neighborhoods, encourage community engagement, and support our residents in their efforts to improve their quality of life.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
No fiscal impacts are associated with review of this Pre-Application.

COMMITTEE OUTCOME
This item did not originate in Committee. This item is a pre-application pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 10,851.

The purpose of the pre-application review process is to identify land use, design, environmental, infrastructure, public service and policy issues that may be of significant concern to the City Council. The purpose of this policy is to afford an early opportunity to inform the City Council and allow individual Council comments early in the planning process.

Prepared by: Joe Pearson II, AICP, Planning & Environmental Services Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Location and Aerial Map

2. Conceptural Master Site Plan

3. Rio Del Valle LAFCo Letter (3-16-21)

4. LAFCo letter to RSD (3-31-21)

5. Rio Del Valle VC PC Letter (4-14-21)

6. City of Oxnard Comments on RDV Draft EIR (11-21-22)

7. Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources Ordinance

8. Oxnard_Camarillo Greenbelt Agreement

9. RSD Expansion CC Presentation

10. 6207 2022-12 General Plan and Zoning Designation Letter to City_FINAL

11. 2023-01-17 RDV CC Applicant Presentation_FINAL
515
―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│
│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│
―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│
―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―
―
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│
―│ ―│
―│ ―│ ―│
―│ │ ―│ 
―│ ―│ ―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│ ―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│
―│
―│
―│
―│
―│ ―│
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¼
¼
¼
¼¼
¼¼
¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
¼¼¼¼¼¼¼
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
. .
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
. . .
. .
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.. . .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. . . . .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
. . .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
. . . .
. . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.. .
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. . .
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
. .
. .
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
. .
.
.
. .
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
. . .
.
.
.
. .
. .
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
. . ..
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
. . .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. . .
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
. .
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.. . .
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. . .
.
.
. . . . .
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
. . . .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. . .
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
..
. ..
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
. .
..
. .
. .
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. . .
.
. .
..
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
. . .
.
. .
.
. . . .
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. . . .
.
.
.
.
. .
. . .
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. . .
.
.
. .
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
. . .
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. . .
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
. ..
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. . . .
. .
. .
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.. .
. . .
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
..
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
. . .
.
.
. . .
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. . . .
.
.
.
.. . . .
.
. .
.
. .
.
. . .
..
.. .
. .
.
. .
. . . . .
.
.
.
. . . . . .
.
.
. .
..
.
..
○
○
○
&PO
&PO
100
50 100
100

ALVARADO ST

CELSIUS AVE

N ROSE AVE

APPLE LN

E COLLINS ST

ORANGE DR

LATIGO AVE

NYLAND AVE

LOCKWOOD ST

PSO ORTEGA
N
ROSE
AVE

FLATHEAD RIVER ST
¬«
34 LAFAYETTE DR

COLLINS ST

FRIEDRICH RD
R

CALIENTE WAY

VENTURA BLVD
TS B S

MAGNOLIA AVE
IUM PL

TS RAVELE N

SAINT MARYS DR

BERNOULLI C

SAN GORGONIO ST IR

N VENTURA RD

WALNUT DR

RD ADARTNE
E 1ST ST

SANTA CLARA AVE

AUTO CENTER DR

SOLAR DR
S A ST

WANKEL WAY

TS ONOM

LAS AVE
W 2ND ST

CAM DEL SOL

RIO SCHOOL LN

LOMBARD ST

DEODAR AVE

ALMOND DR
W 4TH ST
¬«
232 DETROIT DR

BALBOA ST
TS A N
¬«
34 RD ANAIDNI

SASIRB AIV
E 2ND ST

E STROUBE ST

EVA TLEVESOOR N
¤
01 CENTRAL AVE

BERT AVE

PALM DR

TS RONAMLA
TS D S

TOWN CENTER DR

SIMON WAY
E 3RD ST

TS ALAHOK
N
OXNARD
BL

N OXNARD SERVICE BLVD

WOOD DR

MOND AVE

E VENTURA BLVD

MORADO PL

CORSICANA DR

COLONIA AVE

E GONZALES RD

TS REVIR SREVNAD
¬«1

EVA WONS

OWENS RIVER DR

RD AIVILO

ROSALINDA DR
£¤
101
TS C N

EASTMAN AVE

CESAR CHAVEZ DR

CARRIAGE SQ

FOREST PARK BLVD

NINA DR

DVLB ETRON LED

RIVERPARK BLVD

MAULHARDT AVE

MOSS LANDING BLVD

ORANGE DR

E COLONIA RD

EVA SEVARG

W ESPLANADE
DR
W 3RD ST

RD CITENIK

WAGON WHEEL RD

TS ASERET

VANDERBILT DR

COOPER RD

CLYDE RIVER PL

EL RIO RD

ODERICK AVE

THAMES RIVER DR

CORTEZ ST

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR DR

EVA ECIR N

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
Santa
Clara Cem
EL RIO
Nyland
99 00 01 02 03 04

KT LT -
Oxnard
Base Map: Oxnard, CA Quadrangle 7.5 Minutes Series, U. S. Geological Survey 2018

APPROXIMATE SCALE
(feet)
0 1,000 2,000
SITE
LOCATION North Campus Expansion Area
Existing Rio Del Valle Campus
South Campus Expansion Area
Rio Del Valle Middle School
l
DATE
05/31/22

DRAWN BY
STEELE
FIGURE NO.
―
2-1

S GI S D
Project Location and Vicinity Map
Rio Del Valle Environmental Impact Report
5383 Hollister Ave. Suite 130
Santa Barbara, CA 93111
516
North Campus Agricultural
Learning Program Area
Commercial
Residential
North Rose Avenue
Collins Street
Walnut Drive
North Rose Avenue
Orange Drive
Auto Center Drive
Corsicana Drive
Alvarado Street
Stroube Street
Via Estrada Street
Collins Street
Existing
Rio Del Valle
Campus
South Campus Expansion Area
Agricultural
Rio Del Valle Middle School
05/31/2022 BURSON/
STEELE
10911 2-2
Current and Surrounding Land Uses,
Ventura County, California
Rio Del Valle Environmental Impact Report
DATE DRAWN BY MAP NO. FIGURE
Legend
©
Data Sources: ESRI, Ventura County, Tetra Tech
Background: ESRI World Imagery Service
0 200 400 800
Feet
Project Boundary
Existing Mature Oak Trees
5383 Hollister Ave. Suite 130
Santa Barbara, CA 93111
517
Rio Del Valle Middle School
2-3
Conceptual Master Plan
10/03/22

DATE DRAWN BY FIGURE
5383 Hollister Ave., Suite 130
Santa Barbara, CA 93111
Rio Del Valle Environmental Impact Report

TC NO MAP NO
41561 STEELE
Source: Sheet 1 - Rio Del Valle Middle School School Expansion Conceptual Master Plan. Jensen Design & Survey, Inc. 10/3/22 518

PLANNING DIVISION
214 SOUTH C STREET
OXNARD, CALIFORNIA 93030
March 16, 2021
Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission
℅ Kai Luoma, Executive Officer
801 South Victoria Avenue, Suite 301
Ventura, CA 93003
RE: Presentation from Rio School District - Development of Transportation Facility / School Expansion at Rio Del Valle Middle School (Agenda Item 12) Honorable LAFCo Commissioners:

On March 17, 2021, the Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) will receive a presentation from the Rio School District (RSD) regarding a potential Maintenance, Operations and Transportation (MOT) facility, and Annexation or extension of City of Oxnard services to property adjacent to the Rio Del Valle Middle School (3100 North Rose Avenue).

While the RSD has been considering the proposal for multiple years, they have not submitted any permit applications to the City of Oxnard to begin a public review of their proposal or associated environmental review. As such, the RSD’s proposal has not yet been reviewed by the City of Oxnard City Council or other advisory bodies.

However, upon learning about the proposal, City of Oxnard staff conducted a preliminary review of the RSD’s proposal, and staff identified a number of large issues that must be addressed and permit entitlements that must be secured before City staff could recommend that the project should be Annexed into the City. The RSD has been provided a detailed list of concerns, but these are the top concerns the City staff have identified about the proposal:

1. The project area should be contiguous with the existing City limits to potentially facilitate Annexation.

2. Determine available water quality and quantity that could be brought into the City and provide associated documentation. The lands in question are currently not connected to the State Water Project.

3. Extension of City services onsite and offsite would have to be evaluated. A fiscal analysis would be needed. Additionally, "growth inducing impacts" would need to be analyzed as part of environmental review.

4. The property has a SOAR designation. The City believes a vote of the people will be needed to modify the SOAR boundaries.
519
LAFCo Meeting Date: March 17, 2021
City of Oxnard Comment Letter: Presentation from Rio School District (Agenda Item 12)

City of Oxnard staff will participate in LAFCO’s March 17 meeting.

Sincerely,
Scott Kolwitz
Planning & Environmental Services Manager
cc: Joel Kirschenstein, Rio School District Representative (via email) Ashley Golden, Assistant City Manager (via email)
Vyto Adomaitis, Community Development Director (via email) Ken Rozell, Chief Assistant City Attorney (via email)
520

VENTURA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
801 S. VICTORIA AVENUE, SUITE 301 ⚫ VENTURA, CA 93003
TEL (805) 654-2576 ⚫ FAX (805) 477-7101
WWW.VENTURA.LAFCO.CA.GOV
March 31, 2021
John Puglisi, Ph.D. SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Superintendent
Rio School District
Subject: Proposed transportation facility and expansion of Rio Del Valle Middle School Dear Superintendent Puglisi:

It was a pleasure meeting you and your team at the virtual LAFCo meeting of March 17th. The information that you provided to the Commission and the discussion that followed was very helpful to the Commissioners and staff in understanding the school district’s development plans. As you know, at the close of the item, the Commission directed LAFCo staff to provide the school district with an analysis of the two available options that would allow for the City of Oxnard to provide one or more services to the proposed developments. These options are discussed below and have been reviewed by LAFCo Legal Counsel.

Purpose of LAFCo
LAFCos were created in each of the state’s 58 counties by the State Legislature for the purposes of discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open-space and prime agricultural lands, encouraging the efficient provision of government services, and encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies (Govt. Code § 56301). To this end, LAFCos, which function as state agencies, were given exclusive jurisdiction to determine the jurisdictional boundary and service area of all cities and special districts in the state. The Ventura LAFCo exercises its jurisdiction over the 10 cities and 50 special districts located in Ventura County.

Project Description
The Rio School District provides kindergarten through 8th grade education to the unincorporated communities of El Rio and Nyeland Acres and portions of the City of Oxnard.

The school district plans to develop a bus transportation facility on three acres of unincorporated agricultural land adjacent to the Rio Del Valle Middle School, beginning later this year. The transportation facility includes parking for 24 buses and 26 standard vehicles. It includes approximately 10,000 square feet of offices, a warehouse, and bathrooms. A bus wash would be included, and limited bus repairs will occur at the site. The plan also includes development of additional classroom facilities on the current middle school campus. The 521
John Puglisi
March 31, 2021

school district has future plans (beyond five years) to expand the middle school to include an additional seven acres of agricultural land.

As explained in the materials submitted by the school district, water service may be provided to the developments via either a new service1 or an extended service2from the City of Oxnard.

Sewer service would be provided via a new or extended service from the City. Pursuant to Govt. Code Section 56133, a city may provide new or extended services outside its jurisdictional boundary only if it first receives written approval from LAFCo (Ventura LAFCo refers to these agreements as out of agency service agreements, or OASAs). Therefore, as proposed, it appears that LAFCo approval of an OASA for water and/or sewer service between the City and the school district would be required. Though not currently proposed, a second option for the proposed developments to receive City services would be through annexation to the City, which would also require LAFCo approval. Both of these options are discussed below.

The discussion below is not intended to constitute a comprehensive analysis of all the laws, policies, and factors that LAFCo would consider when evaluating a request for an OASA or annexation. Instead, it generally outlines the regulatory framework and local requirements that LAFCo would consider for a project of this nature. Many of the constraints described below are established and controlled by agencies other than LAFCo; however, they affect LAFCo’s ability to approve an OASA or annexation.

Out of Agency Service Agreement (OASA) from the City of Oxnard This scenario assumes that both the proposed transportation facility and middle school expansion would be developed in unincorporated county area. Division 5 of the Ventura LAFCo Commissioner’s Handbook (Handbook) contains the Commission’s policies for OASAs (the Handbook is a compendium of the Commission’s adopted policies and is available on the Ventura LAFCo website by clicking here). These policies generally provide that OASAs are to be approved after project entitlements have been approved and no more than one year before the issuance of building permits for the development that is to be served. Because the school expansion would occur several years following development of the transportation facility, for LAFCo purposes they would be considered two separate development projects subject to two separate OASAs. In order for LAFCo to consider and/or approve such an agreement(s), the following would need to occur:

1 Commissioner’s Handbook Section 5.1.1.3.a. - “New service: New service consists of service that a governmental entity is not currently providing or is not currently authorized to provide. For example, the installation of a new water meter or sewer connection constitutes a new service, but replacement of an existing connection that does not exceed the service capacity of the existing connection does not constitute a new service.” 2 Commissioner’s Handbook Section 5.1.1.3.b. – “Extended service: Extended service is an increase in the level of service of an existing service, not the geographic expansion of services or the physical extension of a pipeline or similar link. A service is an extended service if it is provided at a level above and beyond the baseline of service a governmental entity is otherwise authorized to provide. For example, the increase in the diameter of an existing water pipe constitutes an extended service.”
522
John Puglisi
March 31, 2021

1.a. Land use approvals required: Section 5.1.3.2 of the Handbook provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o application for out of agency service involving the provision of service to a proposed…development project should be accepted before the associated…land use entitlement is approved by the agency with jurisdiction over the project.” Based on the information provided, it appears to be the school district’s position that pursuant to Government Code Section 53094(b), it can render the otherwise applicable zoning ordinance inapplicable to the proposed transportation facility. However, it is the opinion of LAFCo Legal Counsel that Section 53094(b) does not provide the school district with such authority3(if the school district believes it derives this authority from other than 53094(b), please provide said authority for further consideration). Therefore, it appears that the County of Ventura would be the agency with land use authority over the transportation facility and the State Architect would appear to have authority over the approval of the school’s expansion. Approval from these entities would be necessary before an application for an OASA is submitted to LAFCo for either the transportation facility or school expansion.

1.b. Agreement to provide service(s): Part of the approval process for the transportation facility and school expansion would include an agreement or contract with the City of Oxnard to provide new or extended water and/or sewer service. It is this agreement/contract that would be subject to LAFCo approval. Providing said service is a discretionary decision on the part of City and would be subject to whatever requirements are imposed by the City, such as those indicated in the City’s March 16, 2021 letter to the Commission.

1.c. Guidelines for Orderly Development: The Guidelines have been adopted by the County of Ventura, all cities in the county, and LAFCo. The Guidelines contain policies that generally provide that urban development should occur only in cities or within unincorporated existing communities as defined by the County General Plan. The proposed development projects are located in neither. The transportation facility and school expansion would likely be considered urban development under the Guidelines. Consistency with the Guidelines will be a factor in the consideration of the County, the City, and LAFCo.

1.d. Camarillo-Oxnard Greenbelt Agreement: The site for the proposed transportation facility and school expansion are within the Camarillo-Oxnard Greenbelt. Pursuant to the greenbelt agreement, the cities of Camarillo and Oxnard and the County of Ventura

3 Section 53904(b) states that the authority of a school district to render an otherwise applicable zoning ordinance inapplicable cannot be exercised “when the proposed use of the property by the school district is for nonclassroom facilities, including, but not limit to, warehouses, administrative buildings, and automotive storage and repair buildings.” The proposed transportation facility consists of nonclassroom facilities and uses, including a warehouse, office, bus wash, and other related buildings. Therefore, it appears that the school district does not have authority to render inapplicable a local zoning ordinance for development of the transportation facility. 523
John Puglisi
March 31, 2021

“agree to a policy of non-annexation, non-development and retention of open space uses for the territory” included in the greenbelt. LAFCo has endorsed the greenbelt agreement and consistency with it would be a factor in LAFCo’s review of the OASA application (Handbook section 5.1.5.d). The transportation facility and school facility are not considered open space uses and, therefore, would be inconsistent with the greenbelt agreement. Therefore, in order for the developments to proceed, the greenbelt agreement would need to be amended by all parties (the County and the cities of Camarillo and Oxnard).

1.e. City of Oxnard Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB): The site for the proposed transportation facility and school expansion is located outside the Oxnard CURB, as established by the City’s Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) ordinance.

City policies generally limit services and urbanized uses of land to within the CURB.

Regarding the proposed developments, according to the City’s March 16 letter, “[t]he City believes a vote of the people will be needed to modify the SOAR boundaries.”

1.f. City of Oxnard Sphere of Influence: The sites for the proposed transportation facility and school expansion are located outside the City’s sphere of influence. Pursuant to Govt.

Code section 56133(c), LAFCo “may authorize a city or district to provide new or extended services outside its jurisdictional boundary and sphere of influence to respond to an existing or impending threat to the health or safety of the public or the residents of the affected territory…” Absent such a threat in the affected territory4, LAFCo has no authority to approve the service and the city would have no authority to provide the service. Therefore, in order for LAFCo to approve an OASA for a new or extended service from the City that accommodates development of either the transportation facility or school expansion, LAFCo must first approve an amendment to the City sphere of influence to include the site. The following LAFCo policies, among others, would apply to the proposed sphere of influence amendment:
➢ Handbook Section 4.2.1 provides in relevant part, “sphere of influence boundaries should coincide with, or cover lesser area than, voter approved growth boundaries.” To satisfy this policy, the City’s CURB would need to be amended to include the site before the sphere is amended (see number 1.e. above).
➢ Handbook Section 4.3.2.1 lists several criteria that must be met in order to amend a sphere of influence that would likely lead to the conversion of prime agricultural land to other uses, including, but not limited to:

4 At the March 17 LAFCo meeting, it was suggested that overcrowding in the school district represents a threat to public health or safety in the affected territory under 56133(c). Regarding OASAs, Govt. Code Section 56015 defines “affected territory” as “any territory to which services are proposed to be provided pursuant to sections 56133…” In this case, the affected territory is agricultural land and, therefore, cannot be experiencing a public health or safety threat of overcrowding.
524
John Puglisi
March 31, 2021

a. “The territory is likely to be developed within 5 years and has been designated for non-agricultural or open space use by the applicable general and specific plans.” Though the transportation facility is planned for development within five years, the site of both the transportation facility and school expansion is designated by both the County and City general plans as agricultural. For this criterion to be met, it appears the land use designation in the applicable general plan would need to be amended.
d. “The territory is not within an area subject to a Greenbelt Agreement adopted by a city and the County of Ventura.” This policy continues that LAFCo will not approve the sphere of influence amendment unless all parties to the agreements amend the agreement to exclude the affected territory (see number 1.d. about the Camarillo-Oxnard Greenbelt Agreement).
e. “The use or proposed use of the territory involved is consistent with local plans and policies.” As noted, the proposed uses would not be consistent with County, City, and LAFCo plans and policies.
➢ Handbook Section 4.3.3 lists a number of additional factors that apply to sphere of influence amendments specifically for schools. We encourage the school district to review these policies before an application to amend the City sphere of influence is submitted.

1.g. Annexation to the Calleguas Municipal Water District (Calleguas) and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan): Calleguas is a wholesale water supplier to the City of Oxnard and is a member agency of Metropolitan. According to Calleguas’ staff, it is the policy of both Calleguas and Metropolitan that water may be supplied to only territory located within their respective boundaries. They will not enter into OASAs. The site of both the transportation facility and school expansion are outside the jurisdictional boundaries of these agencies. Therefore, in order for the City to provide water service to the proposed developments via an OASA, the sites must be annexed to both Calleguas and Metropolitan.

Please also see Handbook Section 5.1.10 which lists criteria to be considered for the approval of an OASA for a school (these would not apply to an OASA for the transportation facility).

Annexation to the City of Oxnard
The second scenario that the Commission asked staff to analyze is annexation to the City of Oxnard. Annexation would allow for the City to provide a full range of urban services to the facilities. The location of the developments, as proposed, are not contiguous with the City boundaries and, therefore, could not be annexed alone. However, annexation may be possible if the proposed developments are relocated or additional territory is included in an annexation proposal to provide contiguity.
525
John Puglisi
March 31, 2021

This scenario assumes that both the proposed transportation facility and middle school expansion would be developed within the City. However, because the school expansion would occur several years following development of the transportation facility, for LAFCo purposes they would be considered separate development projects subject to two separate annexations.

2.a. Land use approvals required: Division 3 of the Handbook contains the Commission’s policies that apply to changes of organization, including annexations. Handbook section

3.1.6 provides that unless exceptional circumstances exist, “no application for a change of organization [including annexation]…will be accepted until all discretionary approvals for any pending application for land use entitlements…pertaining to the subject territory are granted.” Under this scenario, the City of Oxnard would be the agency with land use authority over the transportation facility and the State Architect would appear to have authority over the approval of the school’s expansion. Approval from these entities would be necessary before an application for an annexation is submitted to LAFCo for either the transportation facility or school expansion. In addition to approval of the necessary entitlements, the City would be required to prezone the site consistent with the proposed uses (Govt. Code § 56375(a)(7)) and amend its general plan designation accordingly.

2.b. Camarillo-Oxnard Greenbelt Agreement: As noted under number 1.d. above, pursuant to the greenbelt agreement, the Cities of Camarillo and Oxnard and the County of Ventura “agree to a policy of non-annexation, non-development and retention of open space uses for the territory” included in the greenbelt. LAFCo has endorsed the greenbelt agreement and Handbook section 3.2.4.4 provides that, unless exceptional circumstances exist, LAFCo will not approve a proposal from a city that is in conflict with any greenbelt agreement. Therefore, in order for the annexations to proceed, the greenbelt agreement would need to be amended by all parties (the County and the cities of Camarillo and Oxnard).

2.c. City of Oxnard Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB): Handbook section 3.2.4.2 provides that, unless exceptional circumstances exist, “[f]or cities that have enacted ordinances that require voter approval for the extension of services or for changing general plan designations, LAFCo will not approve a proposal unless it is consistent with such ordinances and voter approval has first been granted.” As discussed under number 1.e. above, the City believes a vote of the people will be necessary pursuant to the City’s SOAR ordinance.

2.d. City of Oxnard Sphere of Influence: As noted, the site for the proposed transportation facility and school expansion are located outside the City’s sphere of influence. LAFCo law requires that annexations be consistent with applicable spheres of influence (Govt. Code § 56375.5). Therefore, the City sphere of influence would need to be amended as part of the annexation, as discussed under number 1.f. above.
526
John Puglisi
March 31, 2021

2.e. Annexation to Calleguas and Metropolitan: Annexation to the City would also require annexation to Calleguas and Metropolitan, as discussed above under number 1.g.

2.f. Property Tax Sharing Agreement: Pursuant to section 99.b. of the Revenue and Taxation Code, LAFCo cannot accept for filing a city annexation proposal unless a property tax sharing agreement has been executed between the county and the subject city. The master tax sharing agreement between the County and the City of Oxnard was terminated in 2018. Therefore, either a new master tax sharing agreement or an agreement for the proposed annexations would need to be in place in order for LAFCo to accept an application for filing.

Conclusion
In order for the City of Oxnard to provide new or extended services to the proposed transportation facility and school expansion, LAFCo approval of either an OASA or annexation would be required. As explained above, both options would require a variety of actions from the County, the City of Oxnard, and the City of Camarillo before LAFCo can consider and/or approve either an OASA or annexation.

Again, thank you for participating in the March 17th LAFCo meeting. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Kai Luoma
Executive Officer
Ventura LAFCo
c: Ventura LAFCo Commissioners
Scott Kowlitz, City of Oxnard, Planning and Environmental Services Dave Ward, County of Ventura, Resource Management Agency Dan Drugan, Calleguas Municipal Water District
527

PLANNING DIVISION
214 SOUTH C STREET
OXNARD, CALIFORNIA 93030
April 14, 2021
County of Ventura Planning Commission
℅ Owen Deutsch, Project Planner
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
RE: Rio School District - General Plan and Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis (Agenda Item 6)
Honorable Planning Commissioners:

The City of Oxnard has been made aware that the County of Ventura Planning Commission is being asked to review the Rio School District's proposed Rio Del Valle 10-acre property acquisition and to determine if it is consistent with the County's General Plan and Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151.2 and Government Code Section 65402.

The City of Oxnard staff is not providing any comments relative to the proposal’s consistency or inconsistency with the County of Ventura’s policies and regulations; however, the City of Oxnard staff has found the Rio School District’s proposal to be inconsistent with Oxnard's policies and regulations as specified in the attached letter previously shared with the Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission at their meeting of March 17, 2021.

Sincerely,
Scott Kolwitz
Planning & Environmental Services Manager
Attachment: City of Oxnard Letter to LAFCo dated March 16, 2021 cc: Joel Kirschenstein, Rio School District Representative (via email) Ashley Golden, Assistant City Manager (via email)
Vyto Adomaitis, Community Development Director (via email) Ken Rozell, Chief Assistant City Attorney (via email)
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
Rio Del Valle Campus Expansion Master Plan
Pre-Application 22-600-02
3100 North Rose Avenue
Joe Pearson II, AICP, Planning & Environmental Services Manager Community Development Department
City Council
January 17, 2023
555
Pre-Application
● This is not a formal application.
● The pre-application process allows City Council members an opportunity to make individual comments concerning the future Rio Del Valle Campus Expansion Master Plan.
● No formal direction or decision making will take place until such time as a formal application has been filed.
2 556
Project Description
● The proposed project includes the expansion of the RDV campus. ○ Existing campus - 20.2-acre main campus
○ Northern Expansion Area - 10 acres of active agricultural lands ○ Southern Expansion Area - 11.1 acres of active agricultural lands. ● Phase 1 - New bus storage and maintenance facility, Replacement and relocation of some of the existing recreational facilities and parking at existing campus, Utility improvements (18 months)
● Phase 2 - Improvements to the remaining eastern portion of the southern campus expansion area and the northern campus expansion area, including utility improvements.
3 557
Project Description 4
Existing
Configuration Proposed Configuration
Student Capacity 1,116 1,366
District Staffing 70 95
Total Classrooms 39 49
Permanent Square Footage 81,024 115,482
Portable Square Footage 7,071 11,535
Total Building Square
Footage 88,095 127,017
Parking Spaces
90 (84 standard and 6
accessible)
379 (339 standard, 16 accessible, and 24
bus)
558
Project Location
5 Subject Site: 3100 North Rose Avenue
Located within the County of Ventura
559
Aerial-View
Project Location
6 560
General Plan Map 7
561
Site Plan
8 Rose Ave
562
Background 9
• Late 2020 - City Staff learned of proposal.
• March 17, 2021 - RSD presented proposal to LAFCo.
• April 15, 2021 - RSD requested a General Plan Conformity Determination from Ventura County Planning Commission for purchase of northern expansion area.
• Late 2021 - RSD acquired northern expansion area.
• June 7, 2022 - RSD released Notice of Preparation for the Complete RDV Expansion Project.
• October 7, 2022 - RSD released Draft EIR for the Complete RDV Expansion Project.
• October 24, 2022 - RSD requested a General Plan Conformity Determination from Ventura County Planning Commission for purchase of southern expansion area.
563
Issues for Consideration 10
Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources/Greenbelt Amendment ● The Northern and Southern expansion area are covered by the voter approved City of Oxnard Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources ordinance and Oxnard/Camarillo Greenbelt. 2030 General Plan Consistency
● The RSD is proposing to designate the Project site land use as School. However, the School designation would not allow for bus storage and maintenance facilities. Currently, the Oxnard City Code, only allows Bus Storage and Maintenance in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing Zone) and M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing Zone).

Environmental Considerations
● An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be required for processing of this development project. While the RSD has prepared an EIR, City Staff has numerous concerns regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
564
Issues for Consideration 11
Fiscal Impact
● Evaluation of the impact of the extension of City services onsite and offsite, due to the annexation request, through a fiscal analysis.

Water Resources
● Since the project proposes to be annexed into the City of Oxnard, the existing campus and the proposed expansion (including the proposed agricultural field) shall use City water. ● Per the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City plans a 45% reduction in groundwater pumping by 2040, meaning the City will need to secure other water resources in the future.
565
Issues for Consideration 12
Public Infrastructure
● The project will be required to upgrade all sewer, water, and storm drain systems to ensure that all infrastructure has been designed to meet City capacity standards in compliance with all City Codes.
● Development of this area is not in the City sewer demand projections. New projects outside the planned service area must be analyzed to ensure capacity for treatment and operational requirements of the Oxnard Wastewater Treatment Plant (OWTP). ● The project will be required to transfer all on-site water allocation credits and comply with the City’s water neutrality policy.
566
Required City Approvals 13
● General Plan Amendment (to change the City Urban Restriction Boundary, SOAR land designation, Sphere of Influence, land use designation)
● Pre-zoning the property
● Oxnard-Camarillo Greenbelt Modification
● Tentative Tract Map and / or Lot Line Adjustment
● Special Use Permit for the School pursuant to the C-R zone requirements. Special Use Permit or Development Design Review Permit for the proposed District Transportation and Bus Parking facilities. 567
14 568
Delivering Excellence through Experience
1672 Donlon Street
Ventura, CA 93003
Phone: (805) 654-6977
www.jdscivil.com
K:\RIO16207\Planning\Exhibits & Documents\6207 2022-12 General Plan and Zoning Designation Letter to City_FINAL.docx

ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
005864.0007339
527928.2
RIO01.6207
December 15, 2022
Mr. Joe Pearson II, AICP
City of Oxnard
214 S. ‘C’ Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
SUBJECT: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN & ZONING DESIGNATIONS

RIO DEL VALLE CAMPUS EXPANSION MASTER PLAN
3100 Rose Avenue | APNs: 144-0-110-445, -225 (Portion), -590 (Portion) Dear Mr. Pearson,
On November 21, 2022, the City of Oxnard transmitted a letter to Rio School District titled “City of Oxnard Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report”, which contained the City of Oxnard’s (City’s) comments regarding the proposed Rio Del Valle Middle School Campus Expansion Plan (proposed project). Within this comment letter, the City raised concerns regarding Rio School District’s (District’s) proposed General Plan and Zoning designations for the proposed project. This letter is intended to 1) address these comments and 2) identify a pathway forward that is agreeable to both the City and District, and can be supported by the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and past precedent.

The City comments in question are as follows:
“Global Comment #1:

The Draft EIR incorrectly includes the proposed district transportation and bus maintenance and parking facility, as part of the school, and assumes compliance with applicable General Plan and Zoning policies and regulations. The proposed District Transportation and Bus Maintenance and Parking facility is not a Public School and cannot be considered as part of the adjacent school, and therefore is not consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designation (School) or the proposed Zoning (C-R). Per the City of Oxnard 2030 General Plan, the School designation is for ''for campuses of the elementary and secondary public school districts that serve Oxnard.". Also, the C-R zoning designation only allows for "Public schools-elementary, junior high, high school and college. " This does not allow for a District wide Transportation and Bus Maintenance and Parking facility. As a result, the conflicts, this would result in significant impacts, in multiple impact areas, including, but not limited to, Aesthetics, Agriculture, and Land Use Planning.”” (November 21, 2022 Letter, Page 1)
The District offers the following for consideration by City staff:
569

RIO DEL VALLE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN & ZONING DESIGNATIONS PAGE 2 OF 8
005864.0007339
527928.2
Should the City of Oxnard continue to consider the proposed Transportation and Operations facilities as a separate entity from the broader public school proposed at the site, the District believes that the following General Plan and Zoning designations would permit both components of the proposed project, and would allow for the proposed project as currently designed to be found consistent with applicable City land use designations and policies. We wish to note for the record that the District does not agree with the assertation that the transportation and operations facility is separate from the school site (see our response to Global Comment #2 below), but present this proposal in the spirit of attaining mutually agreed upon Zoning and General Plan designations so that processing of the project can proceed through the City of Oxnard.

Proposed General Plan Designation: Public/Semi-Public
Rationale: The Oxnard General Plan describes the Public/Semi-Public Designation as follows:
“Private, quasi-public, and public buildings and facilities owned by the City, County, State, Federal agencies, or other organizations that serve the general public such as a civic center, flood control channels, rail lines, community college, museum, performing arts center, community center, city yard, library, fire station, public school and /or district support facility, private and parochial school, cemetery, or hospital.” (Oxnard General Plan, Land Use Designation Standards, Page 3-18)
Per the General Plan, the Public/Semi-Public Designation would permit both the proposed public school use (whole of the campus other than the Transportation and Operations facilities) and the proposed district support facility use (Transportation and Operations facilities).

Proposed Zoning Designation: Community Reserve (C-R)
Rationale: Oxnard Municipal Code Section 16-257(G) establishes that “Public schoolselementary, junior high, high school, and colleges” are a permitted use in the C-R zone with the approval of an SUP. Per the City’s position to date, this would allow development of the proposed whole of the campus, with the exception of the Transportation and Operations facilities.

Further, Municipal Code Section 16-256(F) states that “Accessory buildings, including other uses customarily incidental to a permitted use” are also permitted in the C-R zone. Should the City continue to consider the proposed Transportation and Operations facilities are separate from the proposed public school, the District asserts that transportation and operations facilities and use, such as the one proposed, can be considered a “customarily incidental” use to the proposed public school. In fact, multiple precedents exist in within the City of Oxnard of transportation, operations, and maintenance facilities being co-located on public school sites within the C-R zone.

Collectively, these facilities make a compelling case that transportation, operations, and maintenance facilities have been considered “customarily incidental” to public schools multiple times in the past by City staff.

On the following pages is an outline of transportation, operations, and or maintenance facilities that are either 1) co-located with school sites within the C-R zone or 2) located within C-R zones as standalone facilities. Please note, this list is not comprehensive and there may be additional instances of co-located transportation, operations, and or maintenance facilities with public schools.
570

RIO DEL VALLE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN & ZONING DESIGNATIONS PAGE 3 OF 8
005864.0007339
527928.2
Example 1: Ocean View School District; Mar Vista Elementary and Ocean View Junior High. APNs:
232-0-010-01, -02; 2382 Etting Road & 4300 Olds Road
Zoning Designation: School (SCH)
General Plan Designation: Community Reserve (C-R)
Approx. Transportation/Operations Facility Area: 44,000 S.F.

Approx. Transportation/Operations Structure Area: 9,900 S.F.

Uses Present: Bus Storage, Vehicle Parking, Operations, Warehouses, Maintenance Aerial Imagery:
571

RIO DEL VALLE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN & ZONING DESIGNATIONS PAGE 4 OF 8
005864.0007339
527928.2
Example 2: Ventura County Community College District, Oxnard College.

APN: 224-0-012-24; 4000 S. Rose Avenue
Zoning Designation: School (SCH)
General Plan Designation: Community Reserve (C-R)
Approx. Transportation/Operations Facility Area: 82,000 S.F.

Approx. Transportation/Operations Structure Area: 20,000 S.F.

Uses Present: District Vehicle Parking, Operations, Warehouses, Maintenance Aerial Imagery:
572

RIO DEL VALLE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN & ZONING DESIGNATIONS PAGE 5 OF 8
005864.0007339
527928.2
Example 3: Oxnard Elementary School District, Lopez Academy & District Warehouse APNs: 203-0-061-49, 203-0-050-32; 516 W. Wooley Road, 647 Hill Street Zoning Designation: School (SCH)/Residential Low (RL)
General Plan Designation: Community Reserve (C-R)/ Single Family (R1) Approx. Transportation/Operations Facility Area: 100,000 S.F.

Approx. Transportation/Operations Structure Area: 17,000 S.F.

Uses Present: Bus Parking, District Vehicle Parking, Operations, Warehouses, and Maintenance.

Aerial Imagery:
573

RIO DEL VALLE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN & ZONING DESIGNATIONS PAGE 6 OF 8
005864.0007339
527928.2
Example 4: Oxnard Union High School District, Maintenance & Vehicle Parking Facility APNs: 202-0-010-74, West 2nd Street
Zoning Designation: Park (PRK)
General Plan Designation: Community Reserve (C-R)
Approx. Transportation/Operations Facility Area: 60,000 S.F.

Approx. Transportation/Operations Structure Area: 18,000 S.F.

Uses Present: District Vehicle Parking, Operations, Warehouses, and Maintenance.

Aerial Imagery:

It is our hope that the potential precedents identified above will assist City staff with their research and aid in discussions of potential general plan and zoning designations for the Rio Del Valle campus expansion. The applicant believes that these examples illustrate a strong history and record of permitting transportation, operations, and maintenance facilities in the C-R zone. “Global Comment #2:

The Draft EIR continues to indicate that it is the District’s position that pursuant to Government Code Section 53094(b), it can overrule City of Oxnard zoning authority as it 574

RIO DEL VALLE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN & ZONING DESIGNATIONS PAGE 7 OF 8
005864.0007339
527928.2
relates to the proposed district transportation and bus maintenance and parking facility.

However, Section 53094(b) does not apply to the district’s transportation and bus maintenance and parking facility. Therefore, the City of Oxnard has approval authority over the transportation facility. As, noted in Comment No. 1 above, the proposed zoning and land use designations do not permit the proposed transportation facility, and therefore the Project must be revised to request the appropriate general plan and zoning Designation.” (November 21, 2022 Letter, Page 2)
The District offers the following for consideration by City staff:

The District understands, with respect to the new property to be acquired, that the District’s proposed use is not in conformity with the existing General Plan and Zoning. Additionally, the District is not intending, at this time, to pursue an overruling of zoning, but rather is primarily focused on, and is in the process of submitting, a comprehensive development application with the City of Oxnard, in order to address the annexation of the Property into the City and the applicable General Plan and Zoning protocols, relative to the use of the property for government purposes.

While the District would disagree with assertions relative to its ability to overrule zoning pursuant to Government Code section 53094, that is not the course of the District at this time. The District does not dispute that Section 53094 does not allow the District to overrule zoning for purely nonclassroom facilities, but it does permit the District to overrule zoning for facilities used for or related to student instruction. This project, as proposed, includes not only expanded classroom facilities, but also play fields and bus parking that are directly related to student instruction at the Rio del Valle campus. The play fields are used by the students for physical education and recess purposes, and the bus parking is used for buses that transport children to and from school, so that they may attend classes at the campus. A majority of the buses that will use the transportation component of the project are used to specifically transport students at Rio del Valle Middle School to and from the school, as well as for school athletic programs, field trips, special needs programs, and the newly proposed agricultural farm program.

The District would further note that the site will be primarily for bus parking, with only basic maintenance performed onsite, with any significant maintenance occurring onsite through contracted services. The maintenance modular will house maintenance facilities for the school site as a whole, not only buses.

It is also important to note that the District shifted its efforts to this site, as opposed to the 10- acres to the north of the existing Rio del Valle Middle School Site, based on recommendations of the City and Ventura County LAFCO. This site is situated at a location largely cut off from the other agricultural uses in the area, and is surrounded by school use to the north, and auto center facilities to the south.

Should you have any questions about this letter or need any additional information on any of the examples contained within, please do not hesitate to contact me at (805) 633-2215, or via email at [email protected].
575

RIO DEL VALLE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN & ZONING DESIGNATIONS PAGE 8 OF 8
005864.0007339
527928.2
Sincerely,
JENSEN DESIGN & SURVEY, INC.

Tanner Shelton, AICP
Senior Planner
CC: Jeff Hoskinson, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud, & Romo Joel Kirschenstein, Sage Realty Group
Wael Saleh, Rio School District
576

RIO DEL VALLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
Campus Expansion Master Plan
January 17, 2022 City Council Pre Application Hearing
1 577
Presentation Outline
• Project Background & Context
• Dr. Joel Kirschenstein
• Proposed Master Plan, Entitlements
• Tanner Shelton, AICP
• District Trustees (Public Comment)
• Pres. Eleanor Torres
• Trustee Rosa Balderrama
2 578
Pressures on Existing Campus
1) Enrollment at RDV expected to increase by approximately 250 students in the coming years.
2) Increased demand for use of District facilities (sports fields, gymnasium and multi-purpose spaces) at the site by the surrounding community. 3) Plurality of bus routes in District head to and from RDV Campus, more than any other school.
4) Current circulation and parking configuration creates significant impacts to Rose Avenue during drop off and pick up time. This results in safety concerns for students, parents, and the general public. 3 579
Project Context and Background
1) Only District campus with adjacent, vacant land
available for expansion.
2) District became aware adjacent farmland was
for sale, wanted to purchase southern parcel
(11.3 ac). At the time, only northern parcel (10
ac) was for sale.
3) LAFCo, County, City indicated southern parcel
was preferred for development.
4) District reapproached owner, who agreed to sell
southern parcel as well.
5) Agricultural program in development by District
found a home on the northern parcel.
4 580
Project Location
Proposed Project Location
County of Ventura
City of Oxnard
5 581
Project Rationale & Objectives
1) Address significant community health, safety, and welfare issues including congested traffic and parking conditions;
2) Streamline RSD student transportation to improve safety and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and mitigate existing on-Site and off-Site parking impacts; 3) Accommodate existing and projected future student enrollment within the RSD; 4) Locate school facilities within close proximity to students’ residences; 5) Provide new facilities that meet the RSD’s educational program specifications; 6) Consolidated facilities that reflect the need and efficient use of limited land resources; and
7) Ensure cost-effective use of State and local public resources funding sources. 6 582
Proposed
Master Plan Northern Expansion
Existing Campus
Southern Expansion
7 583
Proposed Master Plan: North
1) Agricultural Learning Program
2) Exclusively Ag uses. Outdoor lecture
area. No buildings proposed.
3) Hands on learning opportunity for all Rio
School District students in partnership
with local agricultural leaders.
4) Voluntary 10 year land use restriction to
be placed on north parcel, during which
agriculture is the only allowed use.
8 584
Proposed Master Plan:

Central/South
1) Academic & Instructional Buildings • 14,300 S.F. classrooms • 4,000 S.F. library, • 5,400 S.F. multi-purpose building 2) Athletic Facilities & Fields • Track/Jogging Path, 2-3 soccer fields, baseball field, softball field, 6 outdoor
basketball courts, 10 tennis or handball
courts, 4 volleyball courts, flag football
field, and P.E. playfields.
9 585
Proposed Master Plan:

Central/South (Cont.)
1) Operations & Transportation • Dedicated Vehicle and Bus drop off zones • Two new general public parking lots • New bus/district vehicle parking lot • 10,200 S.F. of new operations buildings • Adaptive reuse of existing farmhouse 2) Note: Plurality of bus routes in District
(approximately 40% of all District
bus routes) serve Rio Del Valle.
10 586
Current Regulatory Setting
1) Existing campus is currently located in the
unincorporated County of Ventura, but
within the City of Oxnard’s Sphere of
Influence (SOI) and City Urban
Restriction Boundary (CURB)
2) Two expansion parcels are located
within the County of Ventura, and outside
the City of Oxnard’s SOI and CURB
Oxnard Sphere of
Influence/ CURB
City of Oxnard
City Limit
Sphere/CURB
Southern Expansion
Northern Expansion
11 587
Why Annexation to the City?
1) To obtain consistency with LAFCO, City, and County policies regarding “urbanized development” to be located within incorporated Cities. 2) To obtain water & sewer service from City. While the existing campus (located in the SOI and CURB) currently obtains water and sewer service from the City, City staff and current City policy require annexation for additional and/or new service connections.
• Note: Project will bring groundwater rights into City to offset increased water usage (net-zero).
3) To ensure one comprehensive campus within the same jurisdictional boundaries to the extent feasible, and to ensure student safety, in accordance with City, DSA and CDE guidance.
4) To ensure the continued educational success of Oxnard and El Rio students. 12 588
Summary of Permitting Pathway

AGENCY PERMIT/APPROVAL
City of Oxnard Annexation Request
General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning
Oxnard-Camarillo Greenbelt Modification
Use Permits/Plan Approvals (as necessary)
County of Ventura Oxnard-Camarillo Greenbelt Modification City of Camarillo Oxnard-Camarillo Greenbelt Modification Calleguas Municipal Water District (CWMD) Annexation Request Ventura LAFCo Annexation to City of Oxnard
Annexation to Calleguas MWD
SOI and CURB Adjustments
CA Department of Education (CDE) Construction Plans/Site Plan approval CA Division of State Architect (DSA) Construction Plans/Site Plan approval CA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Prelim Environmental Site Assessment (PEA), Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) for southern exp. 13 589
SOAR and Greenbelt Agreements
1) City of Oxnard SOAR Ordinance Section 3, Subsection 6 provides the City Council the discretion to exempt “roadways, public water facilities, public schools, public parks, or other government facilities” from a Citywide vote of the people.
• Rio School District respectfully requests that the City Council grant such an exemption, as a SOAR vote would result in additional cost burdens and delays. 2) Property is in the Camarillo-Oxnard Greenbelt Agreement, which will require a vote of City of Oxnard, City of Camarillo, and County of Ventura to modify.
14 590
Consistency with City Goals and Policies
1) Proposed project is consistent with proposed requested City General Plan designation (Public/Semi-Public) and Zoning designation (Community Reserve).
2) Precedent exists for such facilities, with approximately 3 transportation, operations and or maintenance facilities being co-located on public school sites located the C-R zone Citywide.
3) Proposed project will support planned population growth within District boundaries, provide joint community use in an economically disadvantaged area, improve public safety and mitigate existing traffic issues on Rose Ave.
15 591
Community & Agency Outreach Summary
• General Public: DEIR Workshops/Meetings
• Cities of Oxnard, Camarillo
• County of Ventura (Multiple Departments)
• El Rio/Del Norte Municipal Advisory Council
• California DSA, DTSC, CDE
• Ventura LAFCo
• Utility Purveyors
• Continued engagement with the General Public is planned 16 592
Conclusion
• The District appreciates your consideration of this school site expansion Pre Application request, and welcomes City Council feedback and questions
• District Staff & Project Team Available for Questions:
• Dr. John Puglisi, Superintendent
• Jeff Hoskinson, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud, & Romo • Dr. Joel Kirschenstein, Sage Realty Group
• Randy Westhaus, Tetra Tech
• Tanner Shelton, Jensen Design & Survey, Inc.
17 593

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. K.5
DATE: January 17, 2023
TO: City Council
FROM: Alexander Nguyen, City Manager, (805) 385-7430, [email protected] SUBJECT: Determination of Future Uses of Sports Park & College Park. (60 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the City Council, based on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and outcomes of Sports Park Idea Day, designate the future use at Sports Park to be a baseball/softball complex and designate the future use at College Park to be a soccer complex.

2. That the City Council find that its action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, section 15060(c)(2). (Community Services, Public Safety, Housing and Development Committee voted 2-1 to move this item forward for Council discussion without a recommendation.)
Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/fk11lUjEqwQ

BACKGROUND

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Using the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as the guiding information, which was also supported by the Sports Park Idea Day feedback, staff recommends that City Council align with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan’s identified recommendations and determine the future use of Sports Park to “...incorporate baseball/softball fields…to provide players with functional, consolidated playing facilities” (Attachment #1) and the future use of College Park to “...be developed to accommodate enough soccer fields for the sports community, as well as passive and economic-generating programming” (Attachment #2).

Public participation was a key component of the Master Plan development, which included 29 public meetings and events over a two year process; these outreach methods included four (4) total community workshop sessions, eight (8) workshop-in-a-box events, six (6) two-day focus groups, presentations at five (5) Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission a public participation survey with over 700 responses, and six (6) advisory committee meetings composed of community stakeholders focused on engaging the community and reviewing content.

As identified through robust community outreach in the Master Plan process, the City’s Parks and Recreation system will benefit from the addition of soccer, baseball and softball fields for its residents and community at large. This finding was further supported by the community input provided at Sports Park Idea Day held on April 30, 2022. The creation of a baseball/softball complex at Sports Park and a soccer complex at College Park, in alignment with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan recommendations, will address the growing demand that the baseball, softball and soccer communities currently face and provide much needed amenities in Oxnard. As a result of this two years long development process with 29 outreach efforts, there is not a recommendation specific to ice skating Master Plan 594

BACKGROUND
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
City Council adopted the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) on February 16, 2021. The Master Plan is to guide decision-making for the future development and management of parks, recreation facilities, beaches, and open space within the City of Oxnard. Developed over 24 months through a multi-pronged approach, the Master Plan collected feedback from a wide cross-section of the City to develop a guide grounded in the diverse interests of the local community. Members of the public had significant opportunities to participate in the process, including 29 community meetings and events held from July 2018 through October 2019:
a. Six (6) focus group sessions made up of selected individuals and experts in a particular field b. Four (4) Community Workshop sessions to gather feedback from a larger group of residents held both in South Oxnard and Central Oxnard
c. Eight (8) Workshop-in-a-Box events to gather feedback from smaller groups outside of the community workshop events
d. Statistically valid randomized survey sent to 1,800 homes (164 responses) e. Open participation survey available on the City’s website (584 total responses, inclusive of 113 responses from the first community workshops and 166 responses from the workshop-in-a-box events) f. Six (6) Advisory Committee meetings with key community stakeholders, including three (3) Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commissioners, focused on community engagement and reviewing content before it was released to a broader audience
g. Presentations to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission five (5) times between June 2018 and October 2019
Members of the public were once again given the opportunity to provide input as the completed draft Master Plan was reviewed by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission two (2) times in November and December 2020. It was then reviewed by the Community Services Commission on January 12, 2021 and finally approved and adopted by the City Council on February 16, 2021.

The Master Plan assessed all of the City’s Parks physical amenities and Recreation programs, identified service gaps and needs, and developed goals, strategies, and recommendations to address those identified gaps and needs. One of the recommendations in the Master Plan is to create a place for baseball & softball at Sports Park (Attachment #1). The Sports Park Action Plan in the Master Plan (Attachment #3) states that Sports Park will help meet baseball and softball needs in the City, as well as provide passive, flexible programming space in the expansive outfields.

To address the soccer shortage in the City, the Master Plan recommended the development of soccer fields in the undeveloped space at College Park, primarily as practice fields (Attachment #4). Developing additional practice fields at College Park would help alleviate the burden on the rest of Oxnard’s parks and also provide a space to host soccer tournaments. Currently, there are five soccer fields reserved for game use at College Park. The College Park Action Plan (Attachment #2) states that “...the City should provide the soccer community with a well-maintained, large outdoor complex to accommodate the needs of its leagues for practice.” The Master Plan document can be viewed at: https://www.oxnard.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Oxnard-Parks-RecMaster-Plan_1-27-2021_FINAL-hr-1.pdf Sports Park Idea Day
Staff received Council approval of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars to conduct community outreach regarding the determination of future uses for Sports Park (approximately 20 Acres of undeveloped land). Important to note, the available land at Sports Park does not include Sports Park South, which is approximately four (4) acres of developed neighborhood park space located directly south of Sports Park in a Special District, LMD No. 39 (Promesa & Sueno).

Sports Park Idea Day was held on April 30, 2022 from 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. at Sports Park South. Local organizations and groups with an idea for the future use of Sports Park were invited to set up an exhibitor booth at the event and share 595
their ideas with residents. After robust outreach to solicit exhibitors, ten (10) organizations and groups participated in the day by sharing the following ideas: League/Club Soccer, YMCA, Baseball, BMX, Softball, Multi-use Sports Fields, Ice Rink/Ice Sports, Roller Sports, and Passive Park Uses. Additional outreach was conducted to promote the actual Sports Park Idea Day event.

A total of 164 attendees completed an on-site survey, which asked them to rank their top three uses of the park and allowed them to provide additional responses for other uses and amenities for Sports Park. The survey was limited to the day of the event. The survey results (Attachment #5) show the ranking of the top three uses for Sports Park based on resident feedback:

1. League/Club Soccer (150)

2. Baseball (94)

3. Softball (69)
Residents also provided input on other uses for Sports Park not represented at Sports Park Idea Day (Attachment #6). The top requested amenities for Sports Park included: parking (17), restrooms (12), pool (10), and snack bar (8).

The results of this survey are consistent with the Master Plan, which identified the need for additional soccer and baseball/softball fields in the City. Many of the top requested amenities are typical amenities that are included in sports complexes, including restrooms, snack bars, and parking. Residents will have access to a pool, and many other water activities, with the development of the South Oxnard Aquatics Center estimated to be completed in 2025.

DISCUSSION
The Master Plan developed an inventory of physical recreation amenities available in the City (Attachment #10). A total of 37 ball fields and eight (8) soccer fields were identified within this inventory.

Ball Fields:

The term “ball fields” in the Master Plan includes baseball fields, softball fields, and backstops located in neighborhood parks; all these ball fields are not necessarily programmed for game or league use. • Total Ball Fields Identified Per the Master Plan: 37
• Total Ball Fields Owned by the City: 30
• Total Ball Fields Owned by Rio School District (located at Rio Vista/Rio Del Mar): 7 The City has access to use these fields through a joint-use agreement in place through 2060. • Backstops Located in Neighborhood Parks Not Programmed for Game or League Use: 10 • Fields Not Currently Programmed: 4
Field improvements and maintenance are required. There is not a timeline to complete these necessary improvements.

Total Currently Available Ball Fields for Game or League Use: 23 Soccer Fields:

The soccer fields identified in the Master Plan do not include any multi-use spaces programmed for soccer. • Total Soccer Fields Identified Per the Master Plan: 8 • Total Soccer Fields Created on Multi-Use Space Owned by the City: 6 • Total Soccer Fields on Multi-Use Space Owned by Rio School District (Rio Vista/Rio Del Mar): 4 The City has access to use these fields through a joint-use agreement in place through 2060. These fields are used for soccer when baseball and softball are out of season.

Total Currently Available Soccer Fields: 18
596
The table below provides an inventory of baseball, softball and soccer fields available for City programming. Staff created an exhibit showing the location of these fields within the City (Attachment #7). Not included in the table below or in Attachment #7 are fields owned and programmed by the school districts, single backstops located in neighborhood parks not programmed for game or league use, and fields not currently programmed as they require field improvements and maintenance.

Fields Available for City Programming
Location Baseball Softball Soccer
Beck Park 3
Carty Park 2
College Park 5
Colonia Park 3
Community Center West Park 2
Del Sol Park* 2
Durley Park 4
Eastwood Park 2
Rio Vista/Rio Del Mar** 4 3 4
River Ridge 2
Southwest Community Center
Park***
5 Total 13 10 18
*Del Sol Park has one official soccer field (stadium) and programs one additional soccer field in the multi-use area of the park.
**Rio Vista/Rio Del Mar is owned by the Rio School District; however, the City has access to use these fields through a joint-use agreement in place through 2060. The existing baseball/softball fields can be used for soccer fields when baseball/softball is out of season. ***Southwest Community Center Park is a multi-use field area programmed primarily for soccer.

Baseball/Softball Complex at Sports Park
Developing Sports Park to be primarily programmed with baseball and softball facilities, as recommended in the Master Plan, would provide functional, consolidated playing facilities. Locating baseball/softball at one location allows specialized maintenance equipment associated with this use to be consolidated. Combining the votes for softball and baseball from the Sports Park Idea Day survey results in the most votes at 163 votes. This is consistent with the Master Plan to create a baseball and softball complex at Sports Park.

With the L-shape of Sports Park, baseball/softball field shapes might not be the most effective fields to layout, but it is anticipated that the twenty (20) acres of land can accommodate up to five (5) baseball/softball fields and support facilities. The support facilities associated with the use could include parking, snack bar, restrooms, walking paths, sidewalks, and open space for passive, flexible programming when games are not being played. Many of these support facilities were among the top requested by residents in the Sports Park Idea Day survey results. Staff created a rough draft exhibit showing a potential layout for baseball/softball fields at Sports Park (Attachment #8). This layout, as well as others, would be explored in more detail should Council provide such direction.

Soccer Complex at College Park
597
One of the recommendations in the Master Plan is to address the high demand for, and shortage of, soccer fields. The Plan recommended six (6) strategies to address the soccer field shortage, one of which is consolidating soccer at College Park (Attachment #4). “Part of College Park’s undeveloped 25 acres should be converted into an outdoor soccer complex.

The goal is to consolidate soccer practice in one location...This should alleviate the burden on the rest of Oxnard’s parks enough to support teams and even host tournaments.” The recommendation of consolidating soccer at College Park is to both provide additional practice fields to support the needs of the soccer community while also relieving some of the burden of over-demand on the rest of Oxnard’s parks that are currently being used for practice although they are not identified as such.

Taking into consideration the space being used for the South Oxnard Aquatics Center, staff created a rough draft exhibit showing a potential layout for additional soccer fields in the remaining open space at College Park (Attachment #9). The available space at College Park can accommodate up to five soccer fields, depending on the configuration.

Though the survey results for Sports Park Idea Day found great support for soccer fields at Sports Park, in alignment with the Master Plan, it is recommended that additional soccer fields be developed at College Park to address the high demand. This will provide the soccer community with much needed additional playing space.

Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission (PRCSC) On July 27, 2022, staff presented the Sports Park Community Feedback survey results to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission at their regular meeting in Council Chambers. Commissioners, exhibitors from Sports Park Idea Day, Neighborhood Council Chairs, and those who expressed interest in the event or were contacted about the event received an email invitation to the meeting along with the published staff report. A pre-recorded presentation was published on the Commission agenda seven (7) days prior to the meeting, which can be viewed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxPAiRgfOHU
At the Commission meeting, there were public comments received in support of the following uses for the future of Sports Park: Ice Skating Rink (8), BMX (1), AYSO/Soccer (1), and YMCA (1). Eight (8) public comments were received prior to the meeting in support of an Ice Skating Rink. Additional comments requested considerations for parking, restrooms, safety, maintenance, and the impact of neighborhoods in any future development. There were no comments received from the four (4) Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commissioners present at the meeting on the future uses of Sports Park. However, after this item concluded, and during Item H-2 “Ad Hoc Committees” on the agenda the PRCSC made a motion to develop a Sports Park Design Ad Hoc Committee. The City Attorney's Office later determined that this Ad Hoc Committee was not valid because the City Council had not provided any determination or direction for the property.

A recording of the meeting including public comments received can be viewed here:
https://oxnardca.civicclerk.com/Web/Player.aspx?id=4703&key=-1&mod=-1&mk=-1&nov=0 Community Outreach to West Village Neighborhood Council Meeting At the request of the Neighborhood Council chair, city staff provided a “Sports Park update” presentation to the West Village Neighborhood Council via Zoom on November 30, 2022. The presentation included information regarding the size of Sports Park, its Community Park classification, the Master Plan, Sports Park Idea Day, and staff’s recommendation that was provided to the Council committee on October 25, 2022. There were ten (10) attendees at the meeting, inclusive of three (3) City staff members and three (3) Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commissioners.

At the meeting, the West Village Neighborhood Council Chair expressed a concern that the interests of the neighborhood were not included in the Master Plan or the recommendation to Council Committee. He expressed a desire for additional outreach to be conducted in the neighborhood and for the Sports Park design to provide more passive, varied opportunities for the West Village neighborhood. Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commissioners spoke in support of the Master Plan’s efforts, but suggested the Sports Park Design be modified to allow less baseball fields and increased green/open space.
598
Community engagement for the Master Plan process was robust, as outlined earlier in this report. The 29 total community meetings and events provided an opportunity for members of the public, including the specific neighborhoods, to provide input into the development phase. Neighborhood Councils were kept informed of this process and were specifically contacted about the Master Plan public community workshops both in January and April 2019. There were nine (9) opportunities for members of the neighborhood to share their opinions at the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission, Community Services Committee, and City Council Meeting before the Master Plan was adopted.

The Sports Park Idea Day process also engaged the Neighborhood Councils. The Neighborhood Council chairs were informed of the event via email, asked to share the information, and invited to set up a booth if they wished to. The West Village Neighborhood Council was one of the ten exhibitors at the event. All exhibitors of the event have been invited to participate in the public meetings since the Sports Park Idea Day event, including the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission in July 2022, the Council Committee in October 2022, and the Council meeting in January 2023.

City staff encouraged attendees of this meeting to provide public comments and concerns at the City Council meeting and to share the information with other interested community members.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This agenda item supports the Quality of Life strategy. The purpose of the Quality of Life strategy is to restore and increase quality services and programs that enrich Oxnard's diverse community, promotes safe neighborhoods, encourages community engagement, and supports our residents in their efforts to improve their quality of life.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds in the amount of $1,500,000 were designated for the purpose of Sports Park Community Outreach, study, and design to develop Sports Park (Project M2204). There are many park Capital Improvement Projects and ARPA projects already funded and in process, so the timing of further study and design for Sports Park will need to be evaluated after the Council makes a determination of the use for Sports Park. There is no funding associated with the development of Sports Park or College Park at this time.

COMMITTEE OUTCOME
The Community Services, Public Safety, Housing & Development Committee voted to move this item forward to the City Council for discussion with no recommendation on October 25, 2022 with a 2 (Zaragoza, Madrigal) -1 (MacDonald) vote. The full discussion can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/KUwqXqa_Mpo Committee Member comments addressed the following:
• Councilmember Madrigal: concerns about availability of funding for any use; introduced the idea of developing parks with turf that can be used by both baseball and soccer. Questioned where baseball fields could be located if not at the Sports Park location and expressed the need for Council to move in a direction and see what’s best for the community as a whole.
• Mayor Zaragoza: Asked about the cost, space needed, and funding source of an ice rink; supports soccer fields at College Park to consolidate fields and compliment the Aquatics Center; would support additional community outreach if that was the direction of Council.
• Mayor Pro Tem MacDonald: discussed struggles to find a new home for an ice rink with commercial owners after Wagon Wheel development was approved; would love to see the ice skating community come back to serve this portion of Ventura County; Master Plan document states that Sports Park should have a diversity of fitness and sports activities; may also be a need for BMX in the community; there may be alternative locations for an ice rink that are worth exploring.

Public Comments received from the community included:
• Request for further outreach to be conducted in regards to community interest of the future use of Sports Park before Council decision, inclusive of back to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission • Request for an ice skating rink to be included in design options for the future Sports Park 599
• Support for baseball fields at Sports Park
• Support for soccer fields at College Park
• Request for a BMX Track to be incorporated into the design at College Park Prepared by: Samantha Shapiro, Project Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Parks and Recreation Master Plan - Create A Place for Baseball & Softball (p. 158)

2. Parks and Recreation Master Plan - Finish College Park Action Plan (p. 211)

3. Parks and Recreation Master Plan - Build Sports Park Action Plan (p. 214)

4. Parks and Recreation Master Plan - Address the Soccer Shortage (p. 156)

5. Sports Park Idea Day Survey Results (Question 1) - April 2022

6. Sports Park Idea Day Survey Results (Question 2) - April 2022

7. Map - Fields Available for Programming Under City's Control (September 2022)

8. Rough Draft - Baseball Softball Fields at Sports Park (August 2022)

9. Rough Draft - Soccer Fields at College Park (August 2022)

10. Parks and Recreation Master Plan - Inventory of Amenities (p. 35)

11. Determination of Future Uses of Sports Park & College Park - City Council Presentation 600
158 GOALS
Create A Place
for Baseball
& Softball
Baseball and softball teams in
Oxnard have suffered from the
poor condition of Durley Park.

Issues such as safety, poor
lighting, homelessness, and failing
equipment/fields have prevented
these sports from thriving. The
City of Oxnard needs to provide
baseball and softball leagues with
maintained facilities at the very
least. The consultant recommends
the City prioritize improvements
to Durley Park’s baseball field and
incorporate baseball/softball fields
into the new design for Sports Park
to provide players with functional,
consolidated playing facilities.

Develop Sports Park to be primarily programmed with baseball and softball facilities. Sports Park is located near existing baseball and softball leagues which helps consolidate resources.

BUILD A BASEBALL & SOFTBALL COMPLEX AT SPORTS PARK TO CONSOLIDATE FIELDS
Repairing the baseball facilities at Durley Park should be a priority. The fencing needs replacing, the field needs resurfacing, and the bleachers require repair. The City should also add appropriate lighting.

MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO DURLEY PARK A PRIORITY
Attachment #1
601
OXNARD PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN 211
Finish College Park
College Park is the heart of South
Oxnard. It needs to unite the soccer
community while providing nearby
residents with the amenities they
need.

The 35 undeveloped acres at
College Park is an opportunity to
provide residents in South Oxnard
with a world-class recreational
facility. The park should be
developed to accommodate
enough soccer fields for the sports
community, as well as passive and
economic-generating programming.

As South Oxnard is very diverse,
College Park should incorporate
what people in the community need
most— walking paths, bike lanes,
as well as spaces for nature, play,
and celebrations.

The local community has played
Pelota Mixteca on the vacant
area of College Park for over ten
years; it’s important that the final
design includes a space for this
sport as well, if a court is not
constructed at Campus Park. For
soccer, the City should provide the
soccer community with a wellmaintained, large outdoor complex to accommodate the needs of its
leagues for practice.

In an uncertain future, with
unfunded programming, it would
also be good to leave the option
open for an aquatic center in south
Oxnard, as deemed feasible.

RECOMMENDED PROGRAMMING
• Soccer complex
• Multi-purpose fields
• Pelota Mixteca (if a Pelota
Mixteca court is not constructed
at Campus Park)
• Seasonal city wide events
• Inclusive playgrounds
• Walking trails
• Bio-retention technology
• Swimming pool, as funding is
achieved
Attachment #2
602
214 ACTION PLAN
Build Sports Park
Sports Park should be a space
devoted to a diversity of sports
and fitness. Sports Park can serve
various popular sports in Oxnard,
including basketball, volleyball, and
tennis/pickle-ball courts. It should
include opportunities for bike and
running trails, as well as outdoor
fitness.

Sports Park will help to meet
baseball and softball needs in the
City. When baseball is not being
practiced, the expansive outfields
can be used for picnicking and
other passive, flexible programming.

Lawn spaces can also be built
with pedestrian paths that include
informational signage, educating
residents about health, nutrition and
fitness.

RECOMMENDED PROGRAMMING
• Baseball/ Softball fields
• Basketball courts
• Passive lawn areas
• Inclusive playgrounds
• Walking trails
• Bio-retention technology
Attachment #3
603
156 GOALS
Address the
Soccer Shortage
There are approximately 250
youth soccer teams and 50-60
adult teams in Oxnard, but only
eight official fields. The immense
popularity of the sport combined
with the shortage of playing fields
has created tension between the
soccer community and non-soccer
playing residents. To ensure that
soccer teams have adequate
playing and practicing space while
still allowing for multiple activities
in parks and for the fields to be
used for multiple other uses when
soccer is not being played, the
project team is proposing a variety
of strategies.

CONSOLIDATE SOCCER AT COLLEGE PARK
Part of College Park’s undeveloped 25 acres should be converted into an outdoor soccer complex. The goal is to consolidate soccer practice in one location, using fewer maintenance and staff resources. While the current fields at College Park are locked for game use only, much of the undeveloped acreage could be designed as practice fields for everyday use. This should alleviate the burden on the rest of Oxnard’s parks enough to support teams and even host tournaments. Of course, Pelota Mixteca should still be able to use this space as well.

Soccer is the most popular sport in Oxnard. It also demands the most amount of resources.

Considering various solutions for the soccer shortage will help accommodate everyone.

Attachment #4
604
Sports Park Idea Day Results Survey Result Chart Horizontal 1 Ranking Order of Top Three Selected
Uses for Spork Park
Park Uses Responses

1. League/Club Soccer 150

2. Baseball 94

3. Softball 69
Total Survey Responses: 164
*Residents were asked to select up to
three uses for Sports Park. Not all
respondents selected three choices
10 organizations/groups were present
sharing their ideas for the future use of
Sports Park. The uses presented were
included as options for the resident
survey.

Attachment #5
605
Respondents were given the opportunity to suggest any other uses or amenities that they would like considered for the future use of Sports Park. 92 residents (of the 164 total responses) provided feedback in this question. Many of these suggestions are typical park amenities such as playgrounds, parking, lighting, and restrooms.

This summary reflects other uses suggested for Sports Park. Any responses to this question that were an option to select in Question 1 of the survey have been removed from this summary (e.g. soccer fields, ice skating, multiuse fields) Was there any idea missing from today's
event that you want considered for the
future use of Sports Park?
If this amenity is
City-owned, how
many are currently
available? Location(s) of amenity on City-owned property Staff Notes Basketball courts 37.5
Beck, College, College Estates, Colonia, Community Center East, Crescent, Durley, East, Eastwood, Garden City Acres, Lathrop, Lemonwood, Neptune Square, Orchard, Pleasant Valley, Rio Lindo, Sea Air, Seaview, South West Community Park Ext, Southwinds, Thompson, Via Marina, Vineyards, West Village, Wilson, Windrow
Additional basketball courts exist at
many schools both indoors and
outdoors
Batting Cages 1 Durley For Sunset Little League Use
Cheer 0 N/A This can be programmed into a park
Community Room 4 Campus (Oxnard PAL), Colonia, Durley, South Oxnard Center The community rooms at these
locations are also Youth Centers
Dog Park 3 Campus, College, Windrow
Football 0 N/A
Fields are located at High Schools
(Pacifica, Oxnard, Rio Mesa,
Channel Islands, and Hueneme)
Handball Courts 0 N/A
Handball courts were removed from
Colonia Park years ago
Lighing & Solar Lighting 624
Beck, Cabrillo, Central, Children's, College Estates, College, Colonia, Community Center Park East, Community Center Park West, Connelly, Crescent, Del Sol, Durley, East, East Village, Eastwood, Garden City Acres, Johnson Creek, Lathrop, Lemonwood, Marina West, Orchard, Plaza, Pleasant Valley, Rio Lindo, Sea Air, Seaview, Sierra Linda, South Bank, Southwest Community Park Ext, Southwinds, Thompson, Via Marina, Village Green, Vineyards, Wilson, Windrow
Sports Lighting: Beck, College, Colonia, Community Center Park West, Del Sol, Durley
There are 553 area park lights and
71 sports lights. There is no solar
lighting.

Multi-Use Trail (walk, run, bike) 27
Beck, Cabrillo, Central, College Estates, College Park, Community Center Park East, Community Center Park West, Connelly, Del Sol, Durley, East Village, Eastwood, Garden City Acres, Kohala, Lathrop, Lemonwood, Marina West, Orchard, Oxnard Beach, Pleasant Valley, Rio Lindo, Sea Air, South Bank, Southwest Community Park Ext, Southwinds, Via Marina, Vineyards
This is a typical amenity in
community and regional parks
Parking Areas, including for RVs 14
Beck, College, Community Center Park East, Community Center Park West, Del Sol, Durley, Johnson Creek, Oxnard Beach, Plaza, Rio Lindo, Southwest Community Park, Wilson
This number includes parking lots
only. Curb parking is available at
most neighborhood parks. RV
parking is not available in any parks.

Pickleball Courts 1 Oxnard Tennis Center
1 of 3
Attachment #6
606
Respondents were given the opportunity to suggest any other uses or amenities that they would like considered for the future use of Sports Park. 92 residents (of the 164 total responses) provided feedback in this question. Many of these suggestions are typical park amenities such as playgrounds, parking, lighting, and restrooms.

This summary reflects other uses suggested for Sports Park. Any responses to this question that were an option to select in Question 1 of the survey have been removed from this summary (e.g. soccer fields, ice skating, multiuse fields) Was there any idea missing from today's
event that you want considered for the
future use of Sports Park?
If this amenity is
City-owned, how
many are currently
available? Location(s) of amenity on City-owned property Staff Notes Picnic Tables 298
Beck, Carty, College, College Estates, Colonia, Community Center East, Crescent, Del Sol, Dunkirk, Durley, East, East Village, Eastwood, Fremont, Garden City Acres, Johnson Creek, Lathrop, Lemonwood, Marina West, Orchard, Oxnard Beach, Pleasant Valley, Rio Lindo, Sea Air, Seaview, Sierra Linda, Southwinds, Thompson, Via Marina, Vineyards, Windrow, Wilson
This is a typical amenity in
neighborhood, community, and
regional parks
Playground 47
Beck, Carty, Children's, College Estates, College, Colonia, Community Center Park East, Community Center Park West, Crescent, Del Sol, Durley, East, East Village, Eastwood, Fremont Tot, Garden City Acres, Johnson Creek, Lathrop, Lemonwood, Marina West, Neptune Square, Orchard, Oxnard Beach, Pleasant Valley, Rio Lindo, Sea Air, Seaview, Sierra Linda, South Bank, Southwest Community Park Ext, Southwinds, Thompson, Via Marina, Vineyards, Wilson, Windrow
This is a typical amenity in
neighborhood and community parks
Reservation Area (including enclosed) 25
Central, College, Crescent, Del Sol, East, Oxnard Beach, Rio Lindo, Vineyards, Windrow
Reservations are accepted online
through Facilitron
Restrooms 37
Beck, Carty, College Estates (out of service), College Park, Colonia, Community Center Park East, Community Center Park West, Crescent, Del Sol, Durley (out of service), East, East Village, Eastwood, Garden City Acres, Johnson Creek, Lemonwood, Marina West, Orchard, Oxnard Beach, Pleasant Valley, Rio Lindo, Sea Air, Seaview, Sierra Linda, Southwest Community Park Ext, Southwinds, Thompson, Via Marina, Vineyards, Wilson, Windrow
This is a typical amenity in
neighborhood, community, and
regional parks
Senior Center 2 Colonia Senior Center, Wilson Senior Center Skate Park 1 College
Skate parks are planned for
Campus Park and Durley Park
Snack bar 8
Carty, College, Colonia, Community Center West, Durley, Eastwood, Johnson Creek
This is a typical amenity in
community and regional parks
Swimming Pool/Community Aquatic
Center/Splash Pad/Water Park 1 Colonia (pool)
These amenities are planned for the
South Oxnard Aquatics Center
located at College Park
Swings 29
Beck, Carty, College Estates (out of service), College, Colonia, Community Center Park East, Community Center Park West, Crescent, Del Sol, Durley (out of service), East, East Village, Eastwood, Garden City Acres, Johnson Creek, Lemonwood, Marina West, Orchard, Oxnard Beach, Pleasant Valley, Rio Lindo, Sea Air, Seaview, Sierra Linda, Southwest Community Park Ext, Southwinds, Thompson, Via Marina, Vineyards, Wilson, Windrow This is a typical amenity in
neighborhood and community parks
Tennis 11
Community Center West, Lemonwood, Marina West, Orchard, Pleasant Valley, Rio Lindo, Sea Air, Seaview, Sierra Linda, Via Marina, Wilson 2 of 3
607
Respondents were given the opportunity to suggest any other uses or amenities that they would like considered for the future use of Sports Park. 92 residents (of the 164 total responses) provided feedback in this question. Many of these suggestions are typical park amenities such as playgrounds, parking, lighting, and restrooms.

This summary reflects other uses suggested for Sports Park. Any responses to this question that were an option to select in Question 1 of the survey have been removed from this summary (e.g. soccer fields, ice skating, multiuse fields) Was there any idea missing from today's
event that you want considered for the
future use of Sports Park?
If this amenity is
City-owned, how
many are currently
available? Location(s) of amenity on City-owned property Staff Notes Track & Field 0 N/A
Tracks are located at high schools
(Pacifica, Oxnard, Rio Mesa,
Channel Islands, and Hueneme)
Walking Trail 10
Connely, Del Sol, Lathrop, Lemonwood, Marina West, Rio Lindo, Sea Air, Southbank, Southwinds, Thompson
This is a typical amenity in
community and regional parks
(same as multi-use trail/path)
3 of 3
608
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
8 6
4 7
11 10
3 1
5 2
9 This map is compiled by the City of Oxnard GIS Division, which is developed and operated solely for the convenience of the City. The City does not make any representations or warranties regarding the use, accuracy, reliability, and/or completeness of this map and no decision involving a risk of economic loss or physical injury should be made in reliance thereon. ±
Parks by Amenity
!( Soccer
!( Softball
!( Baseball
!(
Soccer,
Baseball &
Softball

FIELDS AVAILABLE FOR CITY PROGRAMMING
5,000 0 5,000 10,000
Feet
Created by:

Geographic Information Systems Division
September 2022
Data Source:

City of Oxnard GIS Division
County of Ventura GIS Program
1 2
4 5
3 6
7 8
9 10
11 Attachment #7
609
Attachment #8
610
Attachment #9
611

OXNARD PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
Recreation Comparison:

Facilities Per 10K Residents
Total Oxnard Facilities
Additional Facilities
Needed per NRPA
StandardsOxnardVenturaCamarilloThousand OaksNRPA AVERAGE* Total Oxnard Facilities
Additional Facilities
Needed per NRPA
StandardsOxnardVenturaCamarilloThousand OaksNRPA AVERAGE* 48 9
Playgrounds
**2.31 1.9 4.0 3.4 2.7 -
4 Amphitheaters
**0 .09 .15 .16 .18
8 16
Soccer Fields
**.38 .27 1.5 2.7 .76
3 4 Community
Gardens
.14 .18 0 .08 .33
37 - Ball Fields

1.78 1.5 3.0 2.6 .49
1 NA
Golf Course
.05 .18 0 0 N/A
-
27 Multi-Use
Fields
**0 1.6 .88 .08 1.3
2 5
Gymnasiums
.10 CC .15 CC .33
47 - Basketball
Courts

2.24 .82 .66 2.4 1.4
3 1
Senior Centers
.14 .09 .15 CC .18
15 - Volleyball
Courts
.72 .09 1.0 1.2 .57
4 - Youth/Teen
Centers
**.19 0 0 .08 .18
34 - Tennis
Courts

1.64 1.9 3.2 1.6 .57
1 1
Art Centers
**.05 0 0 .08 .09
3 **2
Dog Parks
.14 .18 .44 .31 .22
37 NA
% of Parks with
Restrooms
64% 67% 44% 61% NA
1 5 Swimming Pool
.05 AC AC .23 .28
AC = Pool in Aquatic Center
CC = In Community Center
** = Below NRPA Average
35 Attachment #10
612
Determination of Future Uses of
Sports Park & College Park
Samantha Shapiro, Project Manager
City Council
January 17, 2023
613
❖ Adopted by City Council on February 16, 2021
❖ Designed to guide decision-making for the future development and management of parks and recreation facilities for the City ❖ Developed over 24 months with significant opportunities for community input, including 29 community meetings and events in the development stage and four public meetings prior to adoption ❖ Assessed all of the City’s Parks physical amenities and Recreation programs, identified service gaps and needs, and developed goals, strategies, and recommendations to address the identified gaps and needs
❖ Master Plan Recommendations:
■ Sports Park: build a baseball & softball complex
■ College Park: address the soccer shortage; consolidate soccer at College Park
PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN 2
614
SPORTS PARK IDEA DAY - APRIL 30, 2022 3
❖ After robust outreach, ten (10) organizations and groups participated in the day representing nine (9) ideas for the future use of Sports Park.
❖ On-site survey was conducted and
collected 164 responses.
❖ Top three uses for Sports Park
based on the survey results:
➢ League/Club Soccer (150)
➢ Baseball (94)
➢ Softball (69)
615
FIELDS AVAILABLE FOR CITY PROGRAMMING 4
616
BASEBALL/SOFTBALL COMPLEX AT SPORTS PARK 5
❖ The Master Plan recommends
building a baseball/softball
complex at Sports Park.
❖ The Sports Park Idea Day
survey results reflected a
combined 163 votes in support
of baseball and softball.
❖ Sports Park is expected to be
able to accommodate up to five
fields of various sizes.
➢ This would allow for support
facilities including parking,
snack bar, and restrooms (top
requested amenities in the
survey.) Draft Baseball/Softball Fields at Sports Park August 2022 617
SOCCER COMPLEX AT COLLEGE PARK 6
❖ To address the high demand and shortage of soccer fields, one of the strategies identified in the Master Plan is to consolidate soccer at College Park.
❖ The remaining space
at College Park is
expected to be able
to accommodate up
to five soccer fields.

Draft Soccer Fields at College Park August 2022
618

PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

COMMISSION PRESENTATION
7 ❖ July 27, 2022 - Staff presented the feedback survey results to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission.
❖ Public comments were
received in support of
the following uses:
➢ Ice Skating Rink (8)
➢ BMX (1)
➢ AYSO/Soccer (1)
➢ YMCA (1)
❖ No comments received
from the four (4) Parks,
Recreation and
Community Services
Commissioners present.

Sports Park Idea Day (April 30, 2022)
619

COMMUNITY OUTREACH TO WEST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD

COUNCIL
8 ❖ At the request of the West Village (WV) Neighborhood Council chair, City staff provided a “Sports Park update” presentation on November 30, 2022 via Zoom. There were 10 total attendees, inclusive of three (3) City staff members and three (3) PRCSC commissioners.
❖ WV chair raised concerns that neighborhood interests were not represented in the Master Plan or the Council recommendation • 29 community meetings for Master Plan, including specific outreach to Neighborhood Councils for community workshops
• Sports Park Idea Day invitation to participate (WV Neighborhood had a booth)
• Invitation to all Sports Park Idea Day exhibitors to participate in all public meetings on this topic (PRCSC in July, Committee in October, Council in January)
❖ WV chair requested more outreach to be conducted in the WV neighborhood and for the Sports Park design to provide more passive, varied opportunities. PRCSC members present suggested the Sports Park design be modified to allow less baseball fields and increased green/open space.
620
FINANCIAL IMPACT 9
❖ American Rescue Plan Act (APRA) funds of $1,500,000.00 were designated for the purpose of Sports Park Community Outreach, study, and design to develop Sports Park (ARPA Project 22). ❖ There are many Parks Capital Improvement Projects and ARPA projects already funded and in process, so the timing of further study and design for Sports Park will need to be evaluated after the Council makes a determination of the use for Sports Park. ❖ There is no funding associated with the development of Sports Park or College Park at this time.
621
COMMITTEE OUTCOME 10
❖ Presented to the Community Services, Public Safety, Housing & Development Committee on October 25, 2022
❖ Committee members voted 2 (Zaragoza, Madrigal) - 1
(MacDonald) to send this item for consideration to the full Council with no recommendation.
❖ Public comments received from the community included:
• Request for more outreach regarding community interest • Request for an ice skating rink to be included in design for Sports Park
• Request for the item to be sent back to the PRCSC for discussion • Support for baseball fields at Sports Park
• Support for soccer fields at College Park
• Request for a BMX track to be incorporated into the design at College Park
622

1. That the City Council, based on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and outcomes of Sports Park Idea Day,
designate the future use at Sports Park to be a
baseball/softball complex and designate the future use at College Park be a soccer complex.

2. That the City Council find that its action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, section 15060(c)(2).

RECOMMENDATION 11
623

END OF PRESENTATION
624

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. K.6
DATE: January 17, 2023
TO: City Council
FROM: Betsy George, Chief Financial Officer, (805) 200-5400, [email protected] SUBJECT: Discuss General Fund Bonding/Debt Capacity and Long Range Planning Considerations. (20 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council receive and file a report from the Finance Department regarding General Fund bonding capacity and long-range planning considerations
(This item did not originate in Committee)
Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/CbkjvsLVKA4

BACKGROUND
This report is meant to provide information and enable a discussion on the City’s ability to meet its capital needs for infrastructure improvements and major projects over the next five-to-ten year planning period.

BACKGROUND
The City’s capital needs are identified through the development of the Five Year Capital Improvements Program (CIP). The CIP development process is led by Public Works and involves assessing needs and making choices in relation to the City’s ability to successfully complete a project and a reasonable forecast of future financial conditions in the City. A 5-Year Forecast developed by the Finance Department and included in each year’s Adopted Budget Book is a forecasting model that provides staff the ability to test assumptions behind the projections for CIP, future reserve balances, and future debt capacity.

The City uses debt to pay for the large infrastructure and other major projects that are identified through the CIP process or are aligned to Council priorities. Utilizing long-term debt (bonds) is a standard practice for cities across the nation and achieves the City of Oxnard’s goal of Intergenerational equity.

Intergenerational equity of public debt is a way to align the benefit our community derives from major projects and infrastructure with the costs. In order to pay for infrastructure, the City often issues bonds whose maturities are equivalent to (and in no cases longer than) the lifespan of the new asset or improvement. An example is that if the City builds a building expected to last 30 years before it needs to be rebuilt, it is appropriate to spread the cost over the next 30 years so that future taxpayers benefiting from that building contribute to it financially.

The City of Oxnard does not have unlimited ability to afford annual debt service payments for needed capital improvements, new infrastructure, and other major projects. Several factors contribute to the affordability of the bond payments resulting from new debt: competing priorities, inflation, rising salary/benefit costs, debt to total expenditures percentage, availability of collateral (City assets lenders accept as security for extending loans), and general condition of the City’s budget. The combination of these affordability factors are frequently referred to as debt capacity. 625
Oxnard's debt management policy (Resolution 15,105, Section II) includes a 10% limit for principal and interest payments as a portion of total expenditures during any single year (debt to total expenditures percentage). The limit is a policy decision and can also be used for comparison against other cities. Most cities surveyed for this report had limits between 5% and 10%. There were a few cities with limits as high as 15% - a very high and not recommended limit. As the portion of the City’s resources that are committed to fixed on-going debt payments increases, the City’s flexibility to allocate General Fund revenues to ongoing operations or new initiatives is reduced.

DISCUSSION
The FY 22-23 Budget adopted by Council on June 21, 2022 assumed bond issuance and corresponding debt services for the South Oxnard Aquatic Center, New Senior Center, Street/Alleyway Improvements, ERP Phases 3 and 4, and the rebuilding of five Fire stations. The assumptions included in the General Fund Five-Year Forecast are detailed in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1
The debt issuance assumptions for these projects bring City’s annual debt service payments to $12.5 million total (including existing general fund debt) or 5.5% by FY2026-27.

TABLE 2
Revising the estimated bonds from $30 million to $50 million expected to be issued for the South Oxnard Aquatic Center (SOAC) would increase annual debt service by $1.15 million and the debt to total expenditures percentage would be

6.0%.

There are additional projects that may need to be considered for inclusion in future Five-Year Capital Improvements Programs (CIP). This includes Police HQ Retrofit/Refurbishment, South Oxnard Police Precinct, and ERP Phase

5. These projects combined have the potential to generate another $4.5 million in annual debt service to the City’s General Fund and raising the projected debt to total expenditures percentage to 7.2%.

At this time, there are not enough Net Revenues (surplus) in the City’s 5-year forecast, under current assumptions, to absorb an increase of $4.5 million in annual debt service.

TABLE 3
626
Reductions in annual debt service payments are incorporated in all long-range financial forecasts and are always included in the analysis each time the City considers issuing new debt. There will be a decrease of approximately $430,000 in annual debt services payments in FY2028-29 when the 2012 Certificate of Participation Financing (COP) which refunded the 1999 COPs are fully paid. The next scheduled reduction in debt is FY 2032-33 when the annual payment for the 2018 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds (LRB) which refunded 2003, 2006 LRBs is reduced from $1.7 million to $1.1 million. The final payment on the 2018 LRBs will be made in FY 2035-36.

In addition to budget capacity constraints limiting the amount of debt the City should take on, there are also collateral constraints. Bonds must be secured by a City asset already in existence - this is referred to as collateral. The City's collateral constraints are partially due to the age of City buildings, which are typically used as collateral. Many of the City’s buildings exceed the age threshold allowed for use as collateral. Lenders prefer collateral to be less than 50 years old by the end of the bond term. This means for a 25 year bond, a building used for collateral should be 25 years old or less. Also, because City buildings are already being used as collateral for existing bond issuances, they may not be available to be used as collateral for new bond issuances. Currently, there is only one age-eligible building in the City's asset portfolio - Fire Station 7. However, as part of the Measure O Weaning Schedule, the 2014 CMFA and 2014 LRB's are planned to paid in full. This will free up sufficient collateral for the other General Funded infrastructure and building projects.

TABLE 4

SUMMARY
Ongoing attention needs to be given to long-range forecasts, infrastructure needs, and Council priorities. Some projects may need to be pushed out in time so that the City can continue to provide on-going services while maintaining a prudent reserve.

Finance staff will include a 10-year forecast in April 2023 when the first draft of the FY 2023-24 proposed budgets are presented. A 10-year outlook, versus the historical practice of a 5-year forecast is imperative and prudent for the next 627
several years as the City prepares for Measure O ½ cent sales tax to sunset in 2029. Bond affordability information and analysis will be brought forth periodically as the Council considers projects, priorities, other fiscal matters, and City projects.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This agenda item does not relate to the five strategic priorities adopted by City Council on March 16, 2021.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to receive this report.

COMMITTEE OUTCOME
This item did not originate in Committee.

Prepared by: Betsy George, Chief Financial Officer

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 15,105_Debt Management Policy_April 2018

2. 2022-23 Adopted Budget_5-Year Forecast
628

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD
RESOLUTION NO. 15,105

A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD ADOPTING A

DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY AND TAKING RELATED ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Oxnard and its related entities (such as the Oxnard Financing Authority and the Successor Agency to the Oxnard Redevelopment Agency) (together. the "City'') have issued or may issue bonds or other financing obligations (''Local Debt") that are subject to requirements for the filing of reports to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission ("CDIAC") pursuant to California Government Code Section 8855 ("'Section 8855'':); and
WHEREAS, under Section 8855, municipal issuers of Local Debt must file a report (the ''Report of Proposed Debt Issuance'') at least 30 days before the sale of any Local Debt issue; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill No. 1029 (''SB 1029"). which became effective on January 1, 2017, amended Section 8855 to augment the information that a municipal issuer must provide to CDIAC in connection with Local Debt issuances: and
WHEREAS, Section 8855, as amended by SB 1029, requires the Report of Proposed Debt Issuance to include a certification that the municipal issuer has adopted a local debt policy and the contemplated Local Debt issuance is consistent with such local debt policy; and WHEREAS, Section 8855(i)(l) requires that the local debt policy must include the following elements:

1. The purposes for which the debt proceeds may be used;

2. The types of debt that may be issued;

3. The relationship of the debt to, and integration with. the issuer's capital improvement program or budget. if applicable;

4. Policy goals related to the issuer's planning goals and objectives; and

5. The internal control procedures that the issuer has implemented, or will implement, to ensure that the proceeds of the proposed debt issuance will be directed to the intended use; and
WHEREAS, the City expects that it will continue to issue Local Debt from time to time; WHEREAS, This City desires to adopt the Local Debt Policy. as set forth in Exhibit A (the ''Policy");
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Oxnard as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution.

2. The City Council hereby determines and finds that the Policy complies with the requirements of Section 8855(i)(1 ).

3. The Policy, as set forth in Exhibit A is hereby approved and adopted. The Policy shall be applicable to Local Debt issued by or on behalf of the City ( including its related entities 629
Resolution No. 15,105