Oxnard City Council
May 6, 2025

of the scope of the RPSP EIR, there are numerous changed circumstances since the adoption of the RPSP EIR over twenty years ago, there are feasible mitigation measures that were not analyzed or did not exist 24 years ago, the Project has peculiar impacts that were not analyzed in the RPSP EIR, the Project has significant offsite and cumulative impacts that were not analyzed in the RPSP EIR, and the Project exceeds the density analyzed in the RPSP EIR. Finally, the RPSP EIR left several impacts significant and unmitigated. These impacts must be analyzed at the project-level to ensure adequate mitigation.

This letter has been prepared with the assistance of numerous highly qualified expert consultants, including:
a. Ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D, who concludes that the Project will have significant biological impacts on several special status species not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Exhibit A).
b. Environmental Chemist, Dr. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of environmental consulting firm Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE), who concludes that the Project will have significant air quality and greenhouse gas impacts not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Exhibit B).
c. Traffic Engineer Thomas Brohard, PE, who concludes that the Project will have significant traffic impacts not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Exhibit C). d. Acoustical Engineer Jack Meighan of acoustical engineering firm, Wilson Ihrig, who concludes that the Project will have noise and vibration impacts not adequately analyzed in the 2002 RPSP EIR. (Exhibit D) Clearly, the Project is outside of the scope of the quarter-century old 2002 RPSP EIR, is inconsistent with that EIR, and project-level CEQA review is required.

SAFER requests that the Planning Commission refrain from taking any action on the Project at this time and, instead, direct staff to prepare an initial study for the Project, followed by a project-specific EIR as required by CEQA.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is located at 2801 North Oxnard Blvd, in Oxnard, California. The Applicant, Shea Properties, proposes the construction of a new 4 story apartment building with 280 residential units and a 5.5 story parking structure with 490 residential parking spaces.

The Project area measures 546,524 square feet and is comprised of 341,324 square feet for the apartment building and 205,200 square feet for the parking structure. The Project sits on a 4.85-acre project site. The 280 residential unit apartment building consists of 17 studio apartments, 143 one-bedroom units, 104 two-bedroom units, and 16 three-bedroom units. The project is also conditioned to provide forty-two affordable units.
814
January 31, 2025
Comment on The Pointe Apartments Project

The City attempts to rely on the RPSP EIR that was drafted in 2001, and certified in 2002 for the River Park Specific Plan area. The RPSP EIR has been subject to 15 addenda, which have resulted in massive changes to the specific plan that was adopted a quarter-century ago. As a result, the RPSP EIR has almost no informational value at this time. The original RPSP allowed for the development of 2,805 dwelling units and 2,485,000 square feet of commercial development.

However, over the intervening twenty-four years, the RPSP has been amended 15 times. The current RPSP allows 4,068 dwelling units and 2,098,000 square feet of commercial development. This is an increase of 1,263 residential units, or an increase of 45% above the number of units reviewed in the 2002 RPSP EIR. As a result, the RPSP EIR has almost no informational value and supplemental CEQA review is necessary.

LEGAL STANDARD
A. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (CEQA section 21166).1 The City relies on CEQA Guidelines § 15162 and 15164 to claim that no CEQA review is required. The court of appeal stated, “The addendum is the other side of the coin from the supplement to an EIR. This section provides an interpretation with a label and an explanation of the kind of document that does not need additional public review.” “It must be remembered that an addendum is prepared where ‘(2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and (3) The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment.’ ( [Guideline] 15164, subd. (a).) Save Our Heritage Organization v. City of San Diego, 28 Cal. App. 5th 656, 664–65 (2018) (emphasis added).) Even a 15-foot increase in height for a residential building (increasing height from 75 feet to 90 feet) requires a supplemental EIR, not an addendum. (Ventura Foothills Neighbors v. Cty. of Ventura, 232 Cal. App. 4th 429, 434 (2014).) A prior CEQA document may only be used for a later project that is “essentially the same project” as was analyzed in the prior document. (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1320; American Canyon Community v. American Canyon, 145 Cal.App.4th 1062.) Clearly if a 15-foot increase in height to a building is not a “minor modification” subject to an addendum, then an increase of over 1200 residential units is not a “minor modification” and the use of an addendum is improper.
1 Although the Director’s report cites CEQA Guidelines section 15162, 15163 and 15164, the latter two sections are entirely irrelevant. CEQA Guidelines section 15163 applies when an agency prepared a supplement to an EIR. No supplement has been prepared to the RPSP EIR. CEQA Guidelines section 15164 is also irrelevant. That provision applies to situations where the agency has prepared an addendum for a minor modification to a project. While the City has prepared 15 addenda to the RPSP EIR, this time, it has elected NOT to prepare an addendum. 815
January 31, 2025
Comment on The Pointe Apartments Project

CEQA Guidelines section 15162 states:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

As discussed below, CEQA Guidelines section 15162 does not apply to the Project at all because it is a different “project” that is beyond the scope of the specific plan analyzed in the RPSP EIR. Since no CEQA document has been completed for the current “project,” section 15162 does not apply at all. To the extent that the RPSP EIR has any informational value, the court must apply the fair 816
January 31, 2025
Comment on The Pointe Apartments Project

argument standard to determine if subsequent CEQA review is required since the Project is beyond the scope of the RPSP EIR. (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1320; Save Our Access v. City of San Diego, 92 Cal.

App. 5th 819 (2023).)
B. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (CEQA Section 21083.3) In regard to a Project relying on its consistency with a previously adopted General Plan and a related EIR, Section 21083.3 provides that:
(b) If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report.
(PRC § 21083.3(b) [emphasis added].) Thus, additional environmental review is not limited only to significant effects but rather any “effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel….” (Id.) Likewise, the additional CEQA review must address effects “which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior [EIR].” Thus, whether or not Section 21083.3 is applicable is not limited to whether impacts specific to the Project are significant but whether there are environmental effects peculiar to the Project and its site that were not addressed as significant effects in the overall General Plan EIR. Lastly, even for the effects that were found to be significant in the prior General Plan EIR, Section 21083.3 does not apply where there is substantial new information that the impacts associated with the Project will be more significant than previously addressed in the General Plan EIR.

In addition, Section 21083.3 does not apply to an agency’s duty under CEQA to analyze potentially significant offsite impacts and cumulative impacts of a project not discussed in the prior general or community plan EIR:
(c) Nothing in this section affects any requirement to analyze potentially significant offsite impacts and cumulative impacts of the project not discussed in the prior environmental impact report with respect to the general plan. However, all public agencies with authority to mitigate the significant effects shall undertake or require the undertaking of any feasible mitigation measures specified in the prior environmental impact report relevant to a significant effect which the project will have on the environment or, if not, then the provisions of this section shall have no application 817
January 31, 2025
Comment on The Pointe Apartments Project

to that effect. The lead agency shall make a finding, at a public hearing, as to whether those mitigation measures will be undertaken. (PRC § 21083.3(c) [emphasis added]; CEB, §10.35.) Thus, although relevant mitigation measures identified in the General Plan or community plan EIR may render an off-site or cumulative impact of a project less than significant, the lead agency would still need to evaluate those impacts in a mitigated negative declaration.

These criteria for the “additional environmental review” that must be conducted pursuant to CEQA even where a project is consistent with the allowed development densities in a general plan are carried forth in CEQA Guideline § 15183, which states:

In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located,
(2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent,
(3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.
(14 Cal. Admin. Code § 15183(b) [emphasis added].) Section 15183(c) rephrases these limits to identify when an additional EIR to a General Plan or community plan EIR is not necessary, providing that:
(c) If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.
(14 Cal. Admin. Code § 15183(c).) Notably, this provision does not excuse an agency from preparing a negative declaration where such impacts are mitigated to 818
January 31, 2025
Comment on The Pointe Apartments Project

less than significance. “Under various limits on the applicability of Pub Res C §21083.3, one or more of which may apply, some aspects of a later project may be exempt from CEQA while other aspects of the project may require some level of CEQA review.” (CEB, §10.35 [emphasis added].)
Whether or not Section 21083.3 applies to a particular project’s environmental review is subject to a fair argument standard of review. (See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.

City of Turlock (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 273, 287–88, disapproved of on other grounds by Hernandez v. City of Hanford (2007) 41 Cal.4th 279 [assuming, without deciding, that the fair argument applied to reviewing applicability of section 21083.3]; See also Gentry v. City of Murrieta, 36 Cal.App.4th (1995) 1359, 1373, 1406, fn. 24 [suggesting fair argument standard applies to determination under § 21083.3 that activity is covered by prior EIR].) In Hilltop Group v. Co. of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890 (“Hilltop”), the Court held that the substantial evidence standard applies under Guidelines section 15183 when determining whether adverse significant impacts were previously analyzed in a related community plan or zoning action:
[T]he substantial evidence standard governs our review of a CEQA exemption, including that of Guidelines section 15183. Contrary to the County’s argument, the eligibility of a project for the exemption in Guidelines section 15183 does not solely depend on whether a project will have significant environmental effects. Rather, it also “requires an agency to examine whether a project’s environmental effects were analyzed as significant impacts in a prior EIR on a general plan or zoning action with which the project is consistent ....” [Citation.] To analyze such an issue, the “‘[f]air argument is not the proper standard of review. Substantial evidence is the proper standard where ... an agency determines that a project consistent with a prior program EIR presents no significant, unstudied adverse effect….’” [Citations.]
(Hilltop, 99 Cal.App.5th at 910–11 [emph. added], [citing Lucas v. Pomona [(2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 508, 538].) Hilltop leaves open the question of whether the fair argument standard applies to “peculiar” impacts. (Hilltop, 99 Cal.App.5th at 911–12.) The Hilltop court found that there was no substantial evidence of any peculiar impacts at all. (Id.) Therefore, the challenge would have failed under either the fair argument or substantial evidence standard. Any suggestion that the court applied the substantial evidence standard is dicta. Hilltop could not and did not reverse 30 years of case law based on dicta. Whether Section 21083.3 applies to a particular project’s environmental review is subject to the fair argument standard of review. (Wal-Mart Stores v. City of Turlock (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 273, 288,; see also Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1373, 1406, fn. 24.)

The plain language of Section 15183 indicates that the fair argument standard 819
January 31, 2025
Comment on The Pointe Apartments Project

applies. Section 15183 “does not affect any requirement to analyze potentially significant offsite or cumulative impacts if those impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior EIR.” (14 CCR 15183(j); PRC § 21083.3(c) [emph. added].) The use of the term “potentially significant” impact triggers application of the fair argument standard. (Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1115; No Oil v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 85 [fair argument standard applies when a project “[a]rguably will have an adverse environmental impact.”].) Neither Hilltop nor Lucas addressed that question. Here, the Project is not adequately covered by the RPSP EIR if the record contains “a fair argument regarding the existence of a reasonably foreseeable project-specific significant change in the environment that is peculiar to the [Project] or its site.” (Wal-Mart Stores, 138 Cal.App.4th 273 at 288 [citing 14 CCR § 15183(a)].) Furthermore, the fair argument standard applies to the City’s review of any issues or effects the analysis of which are excluded from Section 21083.3. Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 931; Stanislaus Audubon v. Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151 (1995); Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal. App. 4th 1597, 1602.) The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) As a matter of law, “substantial evidence includes . . . expert opinion.” (PRC § 21080(e)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5).) CEQA Guidelines demand that where experts have presented conflicting evidence on the extent of the environmental effects of a project, the agency must consider the environmental effects to be significant and prepare an EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5); PRC § 21080(e)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App. 4th at 935.) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (PRC § 21068; see also Guidelines 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 83.) “[N]either the lead agency nor a court may ‘weigh’ conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be prepared in the first instance.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 935.) Where a disagreement arises regarding the validity of a negative declaration, the courts require an EIR. As the Pocket Protectors court explained, “It is the function of an EIR, not a negative declaration, to resolve conflicting claims, based on substantial evidence, as to the environmental effects of a project.” (Id.)
820
January 31, 2025
Comment on The Pointe Apartments Project

DISCUSSION
A. Section 15162 and 15183 Do Not Apply Because the Project is Outside the Scope of the RPSP EIR.

1. Section 15162 Does not Apply.

Section 15162 applies when a project has already been subject to environmental review. It does not apply when a project is outside the scope of the prior EIR. (Save Our Access v. City of San Diego (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 819, 859- 60].) Under Section 15168, “If the subsequent project is not consistent with the program or plan, it is treated as a new project and must be fully analyzed in a project—or another tiered EIR if it may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Co. Comm. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 960; Save Our Access, 92 Cal.App.5th at 845.) In Save Our Access, the court held that supplemental CEQA review was required when a city allowed building heights to exceed 30-feet in the Coastal Zone, but the program EIR for the Local Coastal Plan assumed that buildings would not exceed 30-feet in height. (Save Our Access, 92 Cal.App.5th at 845, 859-61.) In this case, the RPSP EIR analyzed the development of 2,805 dwelling units and 2,485,000 square feet of commercial development. However, over the intervening twenty-four years, the RPSP has been amended 15 times. The current RPSP allows 4,068 dwelling units and 2,098,000 square feet of commercial development. This is an increase of 1,263 residential units, or an increase of 45% above the number of units reviewed in the 2002 RPSP EIR. As a result, the RPSP EIR has almost no informational value. Since the Project is outside the scope of the project analyzed in the RPSP, the fair argument standard applies to the question of whether a subsequent EIR is required. prior document. (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1320.)
Furthermore, under Section 15162, the project must be consistent with the project that was analyzed in a prior EIR. Section 15162 does not mention addenda at all. Therefore, the relevant question is not whether the current project is consistent with one of the 15 addenda prepared for the RPSP project, since no EIR was prepared for those project modifications. The question is whether the Project is consistent with the RPSP and its EIR certified in 2002. It clearly is not.

2. Section 15183 Does not Apply.

The first sentence of Section 15183 states,
(a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan 821
January 31, 2025
Comment on The Pointe Apartments Project

policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review.

The Project under consideration is clearly not consistent with the development density established in the RPSP plan for which an EIR was certified. That plan allowed the construction of only 2,805 dwelling units. The current project allows 4,068 dwelling units. The “density” is over 40% higher than the density analyzed in the RPSP EIR. Therefore, Section 15183 does not apply at all.

As with Section 15162, Section 15183 requires analysis of the plan for which an EIR was prepared. It nowhere mentions addenda. As such, under the plain language of the regulation, the 15 addenda are entirely irrelevant to the application of Section 15183.

B. The Project Will Have Significant Biological Impacts Not Analyzed in the RPSP EIR, Requiring Subsequent CEQA Review.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A are the comments of wildlife ecologist, Dr.

Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. Dr. Smallwood concludes that the Project will have very significant impacts on several special status species, many of which were not even mentioned in the RPSP EIR. Subsequent CEQA review is required to analyze and mitigate impacts to these species. The Project site is located near the shores of the Santa Clara River, creating a valuable riparian habitat.

Dr. Smallwood’s associate, wildlife biologist, Noriko Smallwood, M.S., conducted an in-person site inspection on January 5, 2024. Ms. Smallwood identified at least five special status species during her site visit, including red-tailed hawk (Photo 4), western gull and double-crested cormorant (Photos 5 and 6), Allen’s hummingbird and Cooper’s hawk (Photos 7 and 8). (Ex. A, p.3, 10). Dr. Smallwood predicts that 20 special status species inhabit the Project site, but were not detected in Ms. Smallwood’s site visit due to seasonal variability. (Ex. A, p. 12).

The City is relying on a biological report prepared 24-years ago in January 2001. (Ex. A, p. 13). The 2002 report detected 15 species of vertebrate wildlife, whereas 24 years later Noriko detected 39 species of vertebrate wildlife. (Ex. A., p.14). Dr. Smallwood conducted a comparison using the Sorenson Index of similarity, which shows that the 24-year old biological report has almost no relevance to the conditions existing on the site today, and is woefully outdated. (Id.). Even if the species identified by Ms. Smallwood did not exist at the site in 2001, they clearly are present today.

Dr. Smallwood concludes that the Project will adversely affect these species by direct destruction of habitat, causing bird-window collisions, traffic fatalities, and fragmentation of habitat. Dr. Smallwood proposes numerous feasible mitigation measures, such as the use of bird-safe glass, pre-construction bird surveys, 822
January 31, 2025
Comment on The Pointe Apartments Project

construction monitoring by biologists and compensatory mitigation. None of these measures were analyzed in the RPSP EIR since the species at issue were not even identified at that time, and many of the mitigation measures were unknown 24-years ago.

Under Section 15162, a subsequent EIR is required to analyze the biological impacts identified by Dr. Smallwood because:

1. “Substantial changes” have been made to the Project, including the addition of 1200 dwelling units, which will result in more traffic, more glazing and other impacts that will adversely affect wildlife. (Section 15162(a)(1).)

2. The Project will have “one or more significant effect not discussed in the previous EIR.” To wit, the RPSP EIR did not even mention the species identified by Dr. Smallwood or the Project’s impacts on these species. (Section 15162(a)(3)(A).)

3. “Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.” (Section 15162(a)(3)(D).) In particular, many of the measures proposed by Dr.

Smallwood, such as bird-safe window treatments, pre-construction monitoring, and ongoing construction monitoring did not exist in 2002 when the RPSP was certified.

Under Section 15183, further CEQA review is required to analyze the impacts identified by Dr. Smallwood because:

1. The Project will have peculiar impacts to special status species that were not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Section 15183(b)(1).)

2. The Project will have significant effects to special status species that were not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Section 15183(b)(2).)

3. The Project will have significant offsite and cumulative impacts to special status species that were not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Section 15183(b)(3).)

4. The Project will have significant effects to special status species more severe than previously known due to substantial new information. (Section 15183(b)(4).)
Therefore, a subsequent EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant impacts to special status species.
823
January 31, 2025
Comment on The Pointe Apartments Project

C. The Project Will have Significant Air Quality Impacts Not Analyzed in the RPSP EIR, Requiring Subsequent CEQA Review.

Dr. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Matthew Hagemann, PG, C. Hg. of the environmental consulting firm, Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) have submitted comments showing that the Project will have significant air quality and greenhouse has impacts not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Exhibit B (“Dr.

Rosenfeld”)).

Dr. Rosenfeld notes that Addendum No. 15, adopted in December 2021, admitted that the proposed Project would result in emissions that exceed the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (“VCAPCD”) significance criteria for daily and annual reactive organic compounds (“ROC”) and nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) emissions (see excerpt below). (Ex. B, p. 1, citing Addendum 15, p. 3.0-22, Table 9).

In particular, the Project will have ROC emissions of 329 pounds per day (“ppd”), vastly in excess of the VCAPCD threshold of 25 ppd. The Project will have NOx emissions of 198 ppd, vastly exceeding the VCAPCD threshold of 25 ppd. (Ex. B., p. 2). Therefore, the Project will have significant ROC and NOx impacts that must be analyzed and mitigated in a subsequent EIR. Dr. Rosenfeld points out the that RPSP EIR did not analyze greenhouse gas impacts at all.

Dr. Rosenfeld proposes numerous mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s significant ROC, NOx and GHG impacts. Many of these measures, such as Tier 4 construction equipment, did not even exist in 2002, when the RPSP EIR was certified (Tier 4 construction equipment became available in 2015). Other measures, such as solar photovoltaic panels and carbon offsets, were far less economically feasible in 2021 than they are today.

Under Section 15162, a subsequent EIR is required to analyze the air quality impacts identified by Dr. Rosenfeld because:

1. “Substantial changes” have been made to the Project, including the addition of 1200 dwelling units, which will result in more traffic, more population growth and other impacts that will increase air quality impacts. (Section 15162(a)(1).)

2. The Project will have “one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.” To wit, the RPSP EIR did not even mention greenhouse gases. (Section 15162(a)(3)(A).)

3. “Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.” (Section 15162(a)(3)(D).) In particular, many of the measures proposed by Dr. 824
January 31, 2025
Comment on The Pointe Apartments Project

Rosenfeld, such as Tier 4 construction equipment, did not exist in 2002 when the RPSP was certified.

Under Section 15183, further CEQA review is required to analyze the impacts identified by Dr. Rosenfeld because:

1. The Project will have peculiar impacts to air quality and greenhouse gases that were not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Section 15183(b)(1).)

2. The Project will have significant effects to air quality and greenhouse gases that were not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Section 15183(b)(2).)

3. The Project will have significant offsite and cumulative impacts to air quality and greenhouse gases that were not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Section 15183(b)(3).)

4. The Project will have significant effects to air quality and greenhouse gases more severe than previously known due to substantial new information. (Section 15183(b)(4).)
Therefore, a subsequent EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant impacts to air quality and greenhouse gases.

D. The Project Will Have Significant Traffic Impacts Not Analyzed in the RPSP EIR, Requiring Subsequent CEQA Review.

Traffic Engineer Thomas Brohard, PE, has reviewed the Project and the RPSP EIR. He concludes that the Project will have significant traffic impacts not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Exhibit C). Mr. Brohard concludes that numerous changes have been made to the Project since the adoption of the RPSP EIR in 2002.

While the Director’s Report states that mitigation measures from the RPSP EIR and its subsequent addenda have been included as conditions of approval, this is not true. Mr. Brohard states, “To the contrary, none of the conditions of approval or the mitigation measures are identified in the December 17, 2024 Directors Report for The Pointe Apartments Project.” (Ex. C., p. 2) Clearly, the City cannot rely on the RPSP EIR and its addenda if it does not even incorporate the mitigation measures required by those documents.

Mr. Brohard notes that the specific plan has been significantly modified since the adoption of the RPSP by 15 separate amendments. (Ex. C, p. 2). Mr.

Brohard notes that there have been major changes to traffic analysis since the adoption of the RPSP EIR in 2002. Most notably, CEQA now requires that traffic must be analyzed using vehicle miles traveled (VMT), whereas in the past, level of service (LOS) was used. (Ex. C. p. 3). In Oxnard, the City uses both VMT and LOS. However, the RPSP EIR did not analyze VMT, and no VMT analysis has been conducted for the Project. (Id.)
825
January 31, 2025
Comment on The Pointe Apartments Project

Mr. Brohard concludes that the Project will have significant impacts under the required VMT analysis. (Ex. C., p. 4). Mr. Brohard concludes that the traffic analysis done for the RPSP EIR, which was based on traffic studies conducted in 2000, has no informational value, even under the LOS methodology, because traffic volumes from the year 2000 “do not reflect current traffic volumes.” (Ex.

C., p. 4).

A supplemental EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s traffic impacts. Reliance on the quarter-century old traffic analysis from the RPSP EIR has no informational value. Under Section 15162, a subsequent EIR is required to analyze the traffic impacts identified by Mr. Brohard because:

1. “Substantial changes” have been made to the Project, including the addition of 1200 dwelling units, which will result in more traffic, more population growth and other impacts that will adversely affect traffic. (Section 15162(a)(1).)

2. The Project will have “one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.” To wit, the RPSP EIR did not analyze traffic levels that exist today, and did not use the required VMT analysis. (Section 15162(a)(3)(A).)
Under Section 15183, further CEQA review is required to analyze the impacts identified by Mr. Brohard because:

1. The Project will have peculiar impacts related to traffic that were not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Section 15183(b)(1).)

2. The Project will have significant effects related to traffic that were not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Section 15183(b)(2).)

3. The Project will have significant cumulative and offsite traffic impacts that were not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Section 15183(b)(3).)

4. The Project will have significant traffic impacts more severe than previously known due to substantial new information. (Section 15183(b)(4).)
Therefore, a subsequent EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant traffic impacts.

E. The Project Will Have Significant Noise and Vibration Impacts Not Analyzed in the RPSP EIR, Requiring Subsequent CEQA Review.

Jack Meighan of the acoustical engineering firm, Wilson Ihrig, has submitted comments concluding that the Project will have significant noise and vibration impacts not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Exhibit D). Mr. Meighan points out the under Section 15183, the proposed Project must be consistent with the development 826
January 31, 2025
Comment on The Pointe Apartments Project

density analyzed in the specific plan EIR. (Ex. D, p. 2). As discussed above, the proposed Project involves much higher density than analyzed in the RPSP EIR, and Section 15183 therefore does not apply at all.

Mr. Meighan concludes that the Project will have potentially significant construction noise impacts. He calculates that construction noise will range from 77 to 88 decibels (dBA) at nearby sensitive receptors. (Ex. D., p. 4). This exceeds the applicable noise threshold of 75 dBA. (Id. at p.5). Mr. Meighan also concludes that the Project may have significant operational noise impacts. Nighttime noise is calculated at 47 and 49 dBA at nearby sensitive receptors, exceeding the nighttime noise threshold of 45 dBA. (Ex. D at p. 6). Finally, the Project will have significant vibration impacts. Mr. Meighan calculates that pile driving for the Project will have vibration impacts at nearby sensitive receptors more than double the applicable significance threshold. (Ex. D. at p. 7).

Mr. Meighan points out that the RPSP EIR did not adequately address noise impacts. On page 4.9.13, the DEIR states “it is reasonable to infer that construction activities adjacent to sensitive receptors would exceed the thresholds for construction noise and result in a significant impact.” The DEIR then lists noise Mitigation Measures 1 through 7 for construction noise [page 4.9-22]. These are best practices for construction and design guidelines. None of these Mitigation Measures is guaranteed to reduce construction noise below applicable project thresholds. (Ex.

D., p. 2-3).

Section 15183 states that it only applies to impacts that were “adequately addressed in the prior EIR.” (14 CCR § 15183(j).) In the case of Communities for a Better Env’t, 103 Cal.App.4th at 122-125, the court held that when a “first tier” EIR admits a significant, unavoidable environmental impact, then the agency must prepare second tier EIRs for later projects to ensure that those unmitigated impacts are “mitigated or avoided.” (Id. [citing 14 CCR § 15152(f)].) Section 15152, uses the same “adequately addressed” term as Section 15183. The court reasoned that the unmitigated impacts were not “adequately addressed” in the first tier EIR since they were not “mitigated or avoided.” (Id.) A second tier EIR is required, even if the impact still cannot be fully mitigated and a statement of overriding considerations will be required. The court explained, “The requirement of a statement of overriding considerations is central to CEQA’s role as a public accountability statute; it requires public officials, in approving environmentally detrimental projects, to justify their decisions based on counterbalancing social, economic or other benefits, and to point to substantial evidence in support.” (Id. at 124-125.) The recent Hilltop case stated,
Although section 21083.3 is not technically a tiering provision, but rather a CEQA “exemption,” it functions as a streamlining procedure intended to “reduce[ ] the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.” (Guidelines, § 15183, subd. (a).) Thus, [t]he results of section 21083.3 827
January 31, 2025
Comment on The Pointe Apartments Project

are much like those of tiering.
(Hilltop, 99 Cal.App.5th at 912.) Hilltop makes clear that tiering caselaw, such as Communities for a Better Env’t, applies to Section 21083.3 and 15183. Thus, under Communities for a Better Env’t, supplemental CEQA review should be required for the impacts that were significant and unmitigated in the RPSP EIR.

Under Section 15162, a subsequent EIR is required to analyze the noise impacts identified by Mr. Meighan because:

1. “Substantial changes” have been made to the Project, including the addition of 1200 dwelling units, which will result in more noise. (Section 15162(a)(1).)

2. The Project will have “one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.” To wit, the RPSP EIR did not adequately analyze noise impacts. (Section 15162(a)(3)(A).)
Under Section 15183, further CEQA review is required to analyze the impacts identified by Mr. Meighan because:

1. The Project will have peculiar impacts related to noise that were not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Section 15183(b)(1).)

2. The Project will have significant effects related to noise that were not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Section 15183(b)(2).)

3. The Project will have significant cumulative and offsite noise impacts that were not analyzed in the RPSP EIR. (Section 15183(b)(3).)

4. The Project will have significant noise impacts more severe than previously known due to substantial new information. (Section 15183(b)(4).)
Therefore, a subsequent EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant noise impacts.
828
January 31, 2025
Comment on The Pointe Apartments Project

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, a supplemental EIR is required to analyze the Project’s significant biological, air quality, traffic and noise impacts. None of these impacts were adequately analyzed in the RPSP EIR that was based on studies conducted a quarter-century ago. The RPSP EIR has little or no informational value given changed circumstances that have occurred in the intervening two decades.

Sincerely,
Richard Drury
Lozeau Drury LLP
829

EXHIBIT A
830
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Jeff Pengilley, Community Development Director
214 South C Street
Oxnard, California 93030 25 January 2025
RE: The Pointe Apartments CEQA Exemption
Dear Mr. Martin,
I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources from the proposed Pointe Apartments project, which I understand would add a 546,524 square-foot building comprised of a 4-story building with 280 residential units and a 5.5-story parking structure on 4.85 acres on N Oxnard Blvd and Town Center Dr in Oxnard, California. In support of my comments, I reviewed a 17 December 2024 Staff Report to the Community Development Director. Because the City claims the project is exempt from further review pursuant to the CEQA under Public Resources Code section 21166, I also reviewed the RiverPark Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was certified by the City of Oxnard in 2002. I am concerned that the proposed exemption to further CEQA review is inappropriate for the Pointe Apartments due to important new information that could not have been known at the time of the EIR, and due to changed circumstances since 2002 (and since 2001 when the EIR’s reconnaissance surveys were conducted for plants and wildlife).

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.

SITE VISIT
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master’s Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for 3.53 hours from 07:00 to 10:32 hours on 5 January 2025. She walked the site’s perimeter where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over 831
2 the site or were seen nearby, off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either omitted or, if possible, recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level.

Conditions were sunny with 3 MPH northeast wind and temperatures of 47-65° F. The site contains mostly annual grassland and ornamental shrubs and trees with a gravel lot in the southwest corner. (Photos 1, 2, and 3).

Photos 1–3. Views of the project site, 5 January 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 832
3 Noriko saw red-tailed hawk (Photo 4), western gull and double-crested cormorant (Photos 5 and 6), Allen’s hummingbird and Cooper’s hawk (Photos 7 and 8), whitecrowned sparrow (Photos 9 and 10), western meadowlark and dark-eyed junco (Photos 11 and 12), lesser goldfinch (Photos 13 and 14), cedar waxwing and yellow-rumped warbler (Photos 15 and 16), Cassin’s kingbird and house finch (Photos 17 and 18), black phoebe and Say’s phoebe (Photos 19 and 20), European starling and Brewer’s blackbird (Photos 21 and 22), common raven and American crow (Photos 23 and 24), cliff swallow and bushtit (Photos 25 and 26), eastern fox squirrel (Photo 27), among the other species listed in Table 1. Noriko detected 30 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including five species with special status (Table 1).

Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.
833
4 Photo 4. Red-tailed hawk perched right next to the project site, 5 January 2025.

Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 5 and 6. Western gull (left), and double-crested cormorant (right) flying over the project site, 5 January 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 7 and 8. Allen’s hummingbird (left), and Cooper’s hawk (right) just off of the project site, 5 January 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 834
5 Photos 9 and 10. White-crowned sparrow on the project site, 5 January 2025.

Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 11 and 12. Western meadowlark (left), and dark-eyed junco (right) on the project site, 5 January 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 835
6 Photos 13 and 14. Lesser goldfinches on the project site, 5 January 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 15 and 16. Cedar waxing (left), and yellow-rumped warbler (right) on the project site, 5 January 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 836
7 Photos 17, 18, 19, and 20. Cassin’s kingbird (top), house finch (top right), black phoebe (bottom left), and Say’s phoebe (bottom right) on the project site, 5 January 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
837
8 Photos 21 and 22. Flock of European starlings on the project site (left), and Brewer’s blackbirds just off of the project site (right), 5 January 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 23 and 24. Common raven (left), and American crow (right) flying over the project site, 5 January 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 838
9 Photos 25 and 26. Cliff swallow nests (left), and bushtits (right) just off of the project site, 5 January 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 27. Eastern fox squirrel on the project site, 5 January 2025. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
839
10 Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 3.53 hours of survey on 5 January 2025.

Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Flew over Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Flew over; perched nearby Double-crested cormorant Nannopterum auritum WL Flew over Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Just off site
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Just off site
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Foraged
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Foraged
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya Foraged
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Common raven Corvus corax
Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Flew over; nest structures
just off site
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Just off site
Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum
Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii Just off site
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native Flock flew over House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Foraged
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria Foraged
Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis Foraged
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Foraged
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Just off site
California towhee Melozone crissalis Just off site
Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Flock foraged
Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Flock just off site Orange-crowned warbler Oreothlypis celata Just off site Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata Foraged
Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger Non-native
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Burrows
1 Listed as BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5).

The species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site comprised only a sampling of the species that were present during her survey. To demonstrate this, I fit a nonlinear regression model to Noriko’s cumulative number of vertebrate species detected with time into her survey to predict the number of species that she would have detected with a longer survey or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The model is a logistic growth model which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during 840
11 the survey. In this case, the model predicts 49 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected on the morning of the 10th, which left 19 species undetected during her survey (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
number of
vertebrate
wildlife species
detected and the
elapsed survey
time based on
Noriko’s visualscan survey on 5
January 2025.

Unknown are the identities of those 19 species Noriko likely missed, but the pattern in her data indicates a species richness on the project site that is typical of 15 other sites that she and I have surveyed in the region. Importantly, however, the species that Noriko did and did not detect on 5 January composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence.

At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s one survey.

However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
Model prediction
r2 = 0.994, loss = 13.6
95% CI of 15 visualscan surveys 2019-2024
Actual count of species
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
841
12 with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: ܴ෠ = ଵ
ଵൗ௔ା௕×(ு௢௨௥௦)೎ , where ܴ෠ represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged 0.88 to

1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.

I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 14 species over my first 3.53 hours of surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (3.53 hours to match the 3.53 hours Noriko surveyed at the project site), which composed 24.6% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 30 species Noriko detected after her 3.53 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 24.6% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect 30

0.246 ൗ = 122 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 122 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 20 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife.

Because my prediction of 122 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 20 special-status species, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. Noriko’s reconnaissance survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than her one survey to inventory use of the project site by wildlife. Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort. 842
13 Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, ܴ෠, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.

CHANGES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the biological species that use the site, their relative abundances, how they use the site, key ecological relationships, and known and ongoing threats to those species with special status. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the basis for determining whether the site holds habitat value to wildlife, as well as a baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project site’s regional setting, is one of CEQA’s essential analytical steps. Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the case of the proposed project, these required steps remain incomplete and misleading because the City’s staff report relies on the 2002 EIR’s characterization of an environmental setting that has drastically changed over the past 23 to 24 years. (1) OUTDATED CHARACTERIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The environmental setting of the project site has substantially changed, but the staff report is supported by no new surveys for wildlife. The Staff Report relies on the 24 January 2001 and 6 February 2001 reconnaissance surveys for wildlife that were completed by Impact Sciences in support of the 2002 EIR. As I reported earlier, Noriko surveyed the site on 5 January 2025. She also surveyed for 2.67 hours on 26 June 2022 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
843
14 at the site of the Fore Apartments only 215 m west of the Point Apartments project site, and which was also covered by the Impact Science’s surveys in 2001. Impact Sciences detected 15 species of vertebrate wildlife, whereas 24 years later Noriko detected 39 species of vertebrate wildlife between the Fore Apartments site and the Pointe Apartments site. Impact Sciences detected 7 species that Noriko did not, and Noriko detected 31 species that Impact Sciences did not. Applying the Sørenson Index of ௖ଶ = ݕݐ݅ݎ݈ܵ݅݉݅ܽ
௔ା௕ , where a is the number of species found by Impact Sciences, b is the number of species found by Noriko, and c is the number of species found by both Impact Sciences and Noriko, the Index of Similarity of the two wildlife communities is only

0.296. For comparison, mean Index of Similarity among 40 comparisons of surveys I completed over the same time periods at the same place, but on different days over three years 2020-2023, was 0.755 with a high value of 0.900. A value of 0.296 between Impact Science’s 2001 surveys and Noriko’s 2025 surveys reveals two different wildlife communities between these dates. In addition, Noriko detected nearly 6 more specialstatus species on the site than did Impact Sciences. Much has changed in 24 years.

The environmental setting of the 2002 EIR is not the environmental setting of today.

Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation have left the project site as one of the last patches of open space remaining to special-status species of wildlife in the region. It stands to reason that special-status species are more likely to occur on the project site than in earlier years for the simple reason that there are few other places left for them to persist. Given this substantial change in circumstances, protocol-level detection surveys for special-status species are warranted, and these surveys should inform a Supplemental EIR.
(2) DECLINE OF WILDLIFE
Another substantial change in circumstances was the recent report that North American birds have suffered a 29% decline in overall abundance over the past half century (Rosenberg et al. 2019). This stunning loss, which remained unknown at the time of the 2002 EIR, poses dire ecological and economic consequences that have yet to be fully understood, but which must be considered in any serious cumulative impact analysis.

Rosenberg et al. (2019) attributed the 29% loss of birds primarily to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation, which I will address below. The finding of Rosenberg et al. (2019) was reported at about the same time California’s Governor signed AB 454, which amended California Fish and Game Code to protect most California birds. A Supplemental EIR is needed to address the project’s direct and cumulative impacts on birds.

Mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates are also declining, as are specialstatus species of plants. Evidence of these declines is available in the literature at species-specific levels. In the face of these declines, greater effort is needed for surveys and analyses of potential impacts, as well as greater attention to mitigation. 844
15 (3) CHANGED STATUTES AND LISTINGS
The overall decline in bird abundance across North America has also included declines in special-status species. These declines prompted recent changes in statutes and more designations of special-status to biological species. As an example, after CDFW (2024) staff endorsed a petition to list the burrowing owl as threatened or endangered (Miller 2024), the California Fish and Game Commission adopted the petition on 10 October 2024.

Table 2 identifies changes to special status assigned to species since 2002. Nearly half (60) of the 135 species listed in Table 2 have undergone changes in status since 2002, including tricolored blackbird, which was designated as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act, and Crotch’s bumble bee, which was designated a Candidate for California Endangered, and Monarch. Circumstances have changed for the worse for California’s wildlife, and for wildlife at the project site specifically. These changed circumstances warrant the preparation of a Supplemental EIR.

Another change in statute was the recent amendment to the California Fish and Game Code section to enact the California Migratory Bird Protection Act. This amendment covers most of the bird species documented at or near the project site, as well as most of the birds recently reported on eBird.
(4) NEW RESEARCH AND NEW DATABASES
Another development since the biological surveys in support of the 2002 EIR has been the proliferation in use of electronic databases into which members of the public report detections of wildlife. These databases have rapidly added to the scientific body of knowledge on the distribution of wildlife species. Thousands of papers in peer-reviewed journals have been informed by these databases. No impact assessment should be made without consulting these data for occurrence records at and nearby a proposed project site. However, no such use of these databases helped to inform the 2002 EIR because they were not yet ready. And the staff report made no use of the databases.

According to eBird and iNaturalist records combined with the survey outcomes of Noriko Smallwood and those completed in support of the 2002 EIR, 135 special-status species of wildlife have been documented near enough to the project site to warranted analysis of occurrence likelihood (Table 2). Of these, 4 have been documented on or next to the site, 55 within 1.5 miles (very close), 27 within 1.5 and 4 miles (nearby), and 38 within 4 and 30 miles (in region). Of the species in Table 2, 86 64% have been documented within 4 miles of the site. According to the growing databases that have since become available following the 2002 EIR, the project area is inherently rich in wildlife and it is rich in special-status species of wildlife. These new databases need to be used to appropriately analyze the project’s potential impacts to wildlife. A Supplemental EIR is warranted.

845
16 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko Smallwood in 2025. Turquoise-highlighted status designations represent additive changes in status since the 2002 EIR.

Common name Species name Status1
2002 EIR occurrence
potential
Database records, Site visits
Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT In region Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Very close Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Nearby Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC In region Arroyo toad Anaxyrus californicus FE, SSC In region Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC Low In region Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Low In region San Diegan tiger whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Not expected Nearby San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC In region California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC In region Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC Not expected In region Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC Low In region South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC In region Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 Very close Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Very close Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Very close Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus SSC2 In region Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE Not expected Nearby Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC Very close Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Very close Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC Very close Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close 846
17 Common name Species name Status1
2002 EIR occurrence
potential
Database records, Site visits
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC On site Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC Nearby Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC Not expected In region Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus BCC Nearby Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Nearby Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Nearby Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC Nearby Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Nearby American avocet Recurvirostra americana BCC Very close Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC Very close Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Very close Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC Nearby Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC Very close Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC On site California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP Not expected Very close Black tern Chlidonias niger BCC, SSC2 Nearby Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL Nearby Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 Nearby Common loon Gavia immer SSC Very close Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos BCC, SSC1 Very close Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 Nearby Reddish egret Egretta rufescens BCC Nearby White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close California condor Gymnogyps californianus FE, CE, CFP In region Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close 847
18 Common name Species name Status1
2002 EIR occurrence
potential
Database records, Site visits
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Moderate Very close Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP, WL Nearby Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Moderate Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Low Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Moderate Just offsite Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Nearby Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Just offsite Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Low Very close Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Nearby Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Very close Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BCC, BOP Nearby Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, CCE, SSC2, BOP Low Nearby Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region Northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma BOP Nearby Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Very close Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Very close Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Very close Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Very close Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Not expected In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close 848
19 Common name Species name Status1
2002 EIR occurrence
potential
Database records, Site visits
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Not expected Very close Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Low Very close Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Not expected Very close Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Not expected Nearby Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Very close Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 Not expected In region California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC Nearby Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Very close Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL In region Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region Large-billed savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus SSC2 In region Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis BCC, SSC2 In range Southern California rufouscrowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL Very close Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Not expected Very close Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Very close Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Nearby Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 Very close Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae BCC, WL Nearby Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea BCC In region Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor BCC In region Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Not expected Very close Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In range 849
20 Common name Species name Status1
2002 EIR occurrence
potential
Database records, Site visits
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM Low In region Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M Low In region Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H Low In range Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In range California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG:M Low In region Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M In region Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L In region Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In range Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H In range Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H In range Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In range Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H Low In region Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L Nearby Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis SSC, WBWG:MH In range Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H Low In range San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii SSC Not expected In range
San Diego Bryant’s woodrat Neotoma bryanti SSC Not expected In region American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region 1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species'range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H). 850
21 Because it is grossly outdated, the 2002 EIR analyzes the occurrence likelihoods of only 30 (22%) of the 135 special-status species in Table 2. The 2002 EIR assigns low likelihoods of occurrence to three species – ferruginous hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, and loggerhead shrike – that have since been documented within 1.5 miles of the project site.

Of the 14 special-status species the 2002 EIR determines to be “not expected,” three – San Diegan tiger whiptail, Western yellow-billed cuckoo, and bank swallow – have since been documented between 1.5 and 4 miles from the project site, and another five – California least tern, least Bell’s vireo, California horned lark, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler have since been documented within 1.5 miles of the site. Noriko also saw yellow warbler next to the site of the Fore Apartments. The 2002 EIR’s characterization of the occurrence likelihoods of special-status species comports poorly with the records of occurrences that have accumulated since the 2001 surveys in support of the EIR. (5) NEW WILDLIFE DETECTION SURVEY GUIDELINES
Since the 2002 EIR, and because many species of wildlife have declined substantially in California, new protocol-level survey guidelines have been prepared. An example is the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines for burrowing owls. Another example is the newer protocol for southwestern willow flycatcher (Sogge et al. 2010). There are also survey protocols that have been formulated by experts for species that have been listed since the 2002 EIR, such as the survey guidelins for bumble bees (CDFW 2023), and CDFW (2018) has since provided survey guidelines for rare plants. Special-status species that were not detected in in the earlier surveys performed in support of the 2002 EIR are likely much more detectable now with use of the improved survey protocols. Because the detection survey protocols have been improved, circumstances have changed regarding the detection likelihoods for some of these species. A Supplemental EIR is warranted to inform decision-makers and the public of the occurrence likelihoods of special-status species for which detection survey guidelines have been developed since the 2001 reconnaissance surveys on and around the project site.
(6) BIRD-WINDOW COLLISIONS
The 2002 EIR considered potential impacts to biological resources to consist solely of loss of terrestrial habitat, where habitat is considered to consist of vegetation cover on natural substrate. However, impacts to volant organisms can also be caused by constructing edifices that protrude into the aerosphere above the project’s terrestrial footprint. The proposed project would add extensive transparent glass to the airspace above the project’s terrestrial footprint. The EIR and the Staff Report neglect a large portion of habitat that is essential to many species. To understand this part of their habitat, one must consider the very definition of habitat. Simply put, habitat is defined by a species’ use of the environment (Hall et al. 1997, Morrison et al. 1998, Smallwood 2002). Every species on Earth is morphologically adapted through thousands of generations of life and death to exist within an environmental medium. The gaseous atmosphere is an important medium of life (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017), and it is one of the most important habitat mediums of our planet. The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals 851
22 that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere. The aerosphere is habitat to birds. Indeed, an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008).

Many special-status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the project site. eBird (https://eBird.org) indicates there are 100 special-status species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere (Table 2). Of these, 82 have been recorded within 4 miles of the site. A bird reported 4 miles from the site can fly those 4 miles in about 8 minutes, putting them all at risk of collision with the extensive windows of the proposed project. The site holds ample potential for supporting special-status species of wildlife that would be made vulnerable to collision mortality should the project go forward as proposed.

Of the bird species in Table 2, many have been documented as window collision victims.

Most of the others will likely be documented as window collision victims in the near future through better reporting. For a variety of reasons summarized below, birds are vulnerable to window collisions, especially where windows are built into structures without any care to the consequences to birds. In this case, the Staff Report depicts the facades of the proposed buildings as expansively covered by glass windows and glass railings, all of which are clear and transparent. The Staff Report further depicts transparent corners, glass window-walls, windows adjacent to landscaped trees, and glass-fronted structure wrapping around interior open spaces, which are features that increase bird-window collision risk.

While surveying the nearby Fore Apartments project site, Noriko documented 39 bird flights over the site, or 14.6 overflights/hour. Assuming this rate typifies bird flight activity over the site during daylight hours (this area receives 3,101 sunlit hours per year, to which I added 1 hour per day of dusk), one can estimate 50,604 bird flights over the project site annually. Noriko documented 20 overflights by house finches, 5 by northern rough-winged swallows, 3 by cliff swallows, 2 each by American crows, western gulls and black phoebes, and 1 each by Cooper’s hawks, California towhee, darkeyed junco, Eurasian collared-dove, and hooded oriole. These birds flew in all directions, and all flew lower than the maximum building height of the proposed project.

Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds.

Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but these façades are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 852
23 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade (Photo 28). Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings.

Photo 28. A walkway connecting two buildings at
Washington State University where one of the
earliest studies of bird collision mortality found 85
bird fatalities per year prior to marking windows
(254 annual deaths adjusted for the proportion not
found). Given that the window markers have long
since disappeared, this walkway likely killed ≥14,270
birds since 1968, and continues to kill birds. Notice
that the transparent glass on both sides of the
walkway implies an unimpeded airspace that can be
navigated by birds familiar with flying between tree
branches. Also note the reflected images of trees,
which can mislead birds into seeing safe perch sites.

Further note the distances of ornamental trees,
which allow birds taking off from those trees to
reach full speed upon arrival at the windows.

Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the birdwindow collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact.

By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA birdwindow fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 853
24 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only two of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.

In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.

Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days.

Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, 854
25 and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds.

Project Impact Prediction
By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project.

The Staff Report does not reveal the spatial extent of windows on the facades of the proposed new buildings other than as depicted visually in the architect’s rendering.

After measuring the dimensions of each type of window and then counting the windows of each type, I estimate the project would include at least 5,421 m2 of glass windows and glass railing.

Applying the mean fatality rate (above) to my estimate of 5,421 m2 of glass on the façades of the project’s buildings predicts 396 bird deaths per year (95% CI: 235, 557). The vast majority of these deaths would be of birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under Californias Migratory Bird Protection Act, hence causing significant unmitigated impacts. Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation in the 2002 EIR, it is my opinion that the project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. A Supplemental EIR needs to be prepared to appropriately address this impact. (7) WILDLIFE-AUTOMOBILE COLLISIONS
The 2002 EIR did not analyze potential impacts to wildlife that would be caused by collisions with project-generated automobile traffic. Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic to get to and from the project site (Photos 29―31), including along roads far from the project footprint. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths 855
26 per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.

The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,900 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.

Photo 29. A Gambel’s quail dashes
across a road on 3 April 2021. Such road
crossings are usually successful, but too
often prove fatal to the animal. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 30. Mourning dove killed
by vehicle on a California road.

Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21
June 2020.
856
27 Photo 31. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of
Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken on
10 November 2018.

For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and
crushing under tires, road mortality can be
predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al.
(2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to
have the availability of more studies like that of
Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations.

My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data
resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per
mile along a county road in Contra Costa County.

Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife The Staff Report makes no prediction of annual VMT, and neither does the 2002 EIR.

Fortunately, however, over the course of my preparation of expert testimony on other projects, I have kept track of predicted annual VMT and the floor space of proposed residential developments including apartment complexes. At 8 other residential projects, annual VMT per square foot of residential floor space has averaged 26. This rate applied to the project’s 546,524 sf of floor space would predict 14,209,624 annual VMT.

During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 9,462 wildlife fatalities, or 2,351 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into my predicted annual VMT would predict 6,044 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year.

Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. The City does not analyze this potential impact, nor does it propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed 857
28 project. Given the predicted level of project-generated, traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts.
(8) OUTDATED CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS
Google Earth imagery reveals considerable loss of open space in the project area in the 23 years since the 2002 EIR, such as resulting from the buildout of Riverpark, the addition of a new golf course to the southwest, and residential development between the Wilson and Rio Linda communities. This buildout and the resulting loss of habitat, as well as currently planned and permitted projects in the area, should be analyzed for their cumulative contributions to habitat fragmentation in an updated cumulative impacts analysis as part of a Supplemental EIR.

Since the 2002 EIR, research has been conducted to measure the impacts of habitat loss and the cumulative effects of development on wildlife. For example, Noriko Smallwood and I measured the impacts of wildlife habitat loss caused by mitigated development projects. We revisited 80 sites of proposed projects that we had originally surveyed in support of comments on CEQA review documents (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023).

We revisited the sites to repeat the survey methods at the same time of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration in order to measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. We found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite all the mitigation measures per existing policies and regulations. We also specifically tested for the effects of projects on wildlife in neighboring habitats, and found significant decreases in species richness and overall abundance in those areas as well.

The project would insert a glass-covered building into the airspace that has been used by volant wildlife for millions of years to travel across the Oxnard Plain. The project would further fragment aerial habitat of volant wildlife, and this would contribute cumulatively to other similar impacts caused by other glass-covered buildings in the area. The project would also cause a predicted 396 (95% CI: 235, 557) bird-window collision fatalities.

Additionally, the project would generate a predicted annual VMT of 14,209,624, which would contribute 6,044 wildlife-automobile collision fatalities to the cumulative annual mortality already underway on the Oxnard Plain. A cumulative impacts analysis needs to be completed.
858
29 (9) OUTDATED MITIGATION
EIR Measure 4.4-1: Preconstruction survey
The Staff Report reuses the 2002 EIR’s avian preconstruction take-avoidance survey as the sole mitigation measure for biological resources. This measure is flawed partly because it relies on an outdated range of dates representative of the avian breeding season. Today, the CDFW recognizes the avian breeding season as 1 February to 15 September, or one and a half months longer than the avian breeding season defined in the 2002 EIR.

Another flaw in the preconstruction survey Measure 4.4-1 is its use as a proxy for detection surveys. As exemplified in the CDFW (2012) survey and mitigation guidelines for burrowing owls, preconstruction surveys are intended to follow the proper implementation of detection surveys, and are only meant to check whether birds moved back into the area after measures had been taken to avoid or minimize impacts. EIR Measure 4.4-1 gives the false impression that preconstruction survey carries the same probability of detection as a detection survey, which it most certainly does not.

Yet another flaw in the measure is that it does not prevent the permanent loss of breeding capacity on the project site. All of the avian nest sites would be lost to the project without any form of compensation.

Finally, Measure 4.4-1 does not address the loss of forage opportunities by wildlife, nor the reductions of numerical capacities of both volant and non-volant wildlife.

No Construction Monitoring
Although no such measure was required in the 2002 EIR, it is routine these days for biologists to be present during construction to monitor for potential constructionrelated impacts to wildlife. Should the project go forward, qualified biologists should be required to monitor construction impacts to wildlife. However, it should also be required that the monitor completes a report of the findings of construction monitoring.

All cases of potential construction harm to wildlife should be reported to the US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and to the City, along with what was done to prevent or minimize or rectify injuries. All injuries and fatalities should be reported to the same parties, along with the disposition of any remains. The report should be made available to the public.

Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured during construction or during the operational phase of the project as animals collide with automobiles and glass windows and glass railings.

No Mitigation for wildlife collisions with windows
859
30 A great deal of research has been conducted since the 2002 EIR on estimation of birdwindow collision mortality and how to mitigate it. All of the guidelines on how to minimize bird-window collisions have been developed since 2002.

If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced.

New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015).

Van Doren et al. (2021) found that nocturnal migrants contributed most of the collision fatalities in their study, and the largest predictors of fatalities were peak migration and lit windows. Van Doren et al. (2021) predicted that a light-out mitigation measure could reduce bird-window collision mortality by 60%.

Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities. 860
31 The City of Oxnard should also follow the examples of other cities and formulate its own mitigation guidelines for analysis of potential impacts and for mitigating those impacts.

No Mitigation for wildlife collisions with project-generated traffic Exemplified by the largest wildlife overcrossing in the world – the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing over US 101 only 26 miles to the east – mitigation for wildlifeautomobile collision mortality often comes in the form of overcrossings or undercrossing. The 2002 EIR did even address the issue of wildlife-automobile collision mortality, let alone mitigate for it. Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments.

Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).

Appropriate Landscaping to Minimize Habitat Loss
Not popular during the time of the 2002 EIR, but popular these days, is the use of native or xeric-adapted vegetation in landscaping for the dual purpose of conserving water and providing habitat values to wildlife post-construction. If the Project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as important sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threatened insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and it is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, but it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.

A Supplemental EIR is warranted to account for this changed circumstance. 861
32 Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.

Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089 Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667
Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1): e20180745 DOI 10.1590/0001-3765202020180745.

Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.

Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.

Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in birdwindow collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.

Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401
http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
862
33 Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219- 224.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, California.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.go
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species.

CDFW. 2024. Petition evaluation for Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea). Report to the Fish and Game Commission, August 2024. Sacramento, California.

Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.

J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.

Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring.

Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.

Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.

Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.

Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.

Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.

Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
863
34 Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347
Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.

Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013.

Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. “The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.

Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.

Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI

10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.

Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620.

Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.

Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.

Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321.

Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference:

Tundra to Tropics.

Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report.

Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411.

Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009. Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird-glass collisions in an urban environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134. 864
35 Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.

P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.

Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:

Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019.

Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164
Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206 Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

Miller, J. 2024. Petition Before the California Fish and Game Commission to list California populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Burrowing Owl Preservation Society, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Urban Bird Foundation, Central Valley Bird Club, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society.

Morrison, M. L., B. G. Marcot, and R. W. Mannan. 1998. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships:

Concepts and Applications. 2nd edition. University of Wisconsin Press Madison, WI.

Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.

Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.

PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652
O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149.
865
36 Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y.

Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York.

Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.

Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.

Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14.

Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent birdwindow collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog2015-0057 Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C.

Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019).

Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI

10.7717/peerj.2170
San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.

Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.

PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.

Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562
Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.
866
37 Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J.

Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.

Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037.

Smallwood, N.L. and E.M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.

Sogge, M. K., D. Ahlers, and S. J. Sferra. 2010. A natural history summary and survey protocol for the southwestern willow flycatcher: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 2A-10, 38 p.

Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19.

Sørenson, T. 1948. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content. K. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr. 5:1–34.

Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.

Van Doren, B. M., D. E. Willardb, M. Hennenb, K. G. Hortonc, E. F. Stubera, D.

Sheldond, A. H. Sivakumare, J. Wanga, A. Farnswortha, and B. M. Winger. 2021.

Drivers of fatal bird collisions in an urban center. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (24). e2101666118
Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna.

Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.
867

EXHIBIT B
868
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
January 29, 2025
Richard Drury
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the Oxnard Pointe Apartments Project (SCH No. 2000011025) Dear Mr. Drury,
We have reviewed the December 2024 Staff Report (“Staff Report”) for the Oxnard Pointe Apartments Project (“Project”) located in the City of Santa Clarita. The Project requests approval to construct a 546,524-square-foot building which would include 280 dwelling units and 490 parking spaces on a 4.85- acre site.

Our review concludes that the Staff Report does not adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts. Emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project therefore may be underestimated and insufficiently addressed. A full California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) analysis should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and GHG impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Failure to Implement All Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce Operational ROC and NOx Emissions
The Staff Report relies on the April 2002 RiverPark Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and its addendums to conclude that the Project would be exempt from additional environmental review (p. 3).

The most recent addendum, the December 2021 Addendum No. 15 (“Addendum”), claims that the proposed Project would result in emissions that exceed the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (“VCAPCD”) significance criteria for daily and annual reactive organic compounds (“ROC”) and nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) emissions (see excerpt below) (p. 3.0-22, Table 9). 869

EXHIBIT C
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877

EXHIBIT D
878
Letter EMY

ƒ—ƒ”›͵ͲǡʹͲʹͷ
‹
Šƒ”†”—”›
‘œ‡ƒ—ȁ”—”›
ͳͻ͵ͻ
ƒ””‹•‘–Ǥǡ—‹–‡ͳͷͲ
ƒŽƒ†ǡͻͶ͸ͳʹ
ǣͷͳͲǤͺ͵͸ǤͶʹͲͲ
SUBJECT: Pointe Apartments Oxnard
Comments on the Noise Analysis
‡ƒ””Ǥ”—”›ǡ
‡”›‘—””‡“—‡•–ǡ™‡Šƒ˜‡”‡˜‹‡™‡†‘‹–‡’ƒ”–‡–•’”‘Œ‡ –‹šƒ”†ǡƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒǤŠ‡’”‘’‘•‡†
’”‘Œ‡
– ‹
Ž—†‡• –Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ‘ˆ ƒ ‡™ ͶǦ•–‘”› ͷͶ͸ǡͷʹͶ •“—ƒ”‡Ǧˆ‘‘– ƒ’ƒ”–‡– „—‹Ž†‹‰

‘–ƒ‹‹‰ʹͺͲ”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ†™‡ŽŽ‹‰—‹–•ǤŠ‡”‘Œ‡
–‹••—””‘—†‡†„›—Ž–‹Ǧˆƒ‹Ž›”‡•‹†‡
‡•–‘
–Š‡‘”–Š ȋŽ‡ƒ”™ƒ–‡”ƒ–‹˜‡”’ƒ”Ȍƒ† –Š‡‡ƒ•– ȋ‡”‡ƒ†‡ƒ–‹˜‡”’ƒ”Ȍ‘ˆ –Š‡’”‘Œ‡ – •‹–‡ǤŠ‡

—””‡–Žƒ†‹•—†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡†Ǥ
‹Ž•‘
Š”‹‰‹•ƒƒ
‘—•–‹
ƒŽ
‘•—Ž–‹‰ ˆ‹”–Šƒ–Šƒ•’”ƒ
–‹
‡†‡š
Ž—•‹˜‡Ž›‹–Š‡ˆ‹‡Ž†‘ˆƒ
‘—•–‹
•
•‹
‡ͳͻ͸͸Ǥ—”‹‰‘—”ƒŽ‘•–ͷͺ›‡ƒ”•‘ˆ‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘ǡ™‡Šƒ˜‡’”‡’ƒ”‡†Š—†”‡†•‘ˆ‘‹•‡•–—†‹‡•ˆ‘” ˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ
’ƒ
–‡’‘”–•ƒ†–ƒ–‡‡–•Ǥ‡Šƒ˜‡‘‡‘ˆ–Š‡Žƒ”‰‡•––‡ Š‹
ƒŽŽƒ„‘”ƒ–‘”‹‡•‹
–Š‡ƒ
‘—•–‹
ƒŽ
‘•—Ž–‹‰‹†—•–”›Ǥ‡ƒŽ•‘—–‹Ž‹œ‡‹†—•–”›Ǧ•–ƒ†ƒ”†ƒ ‘—•–‹
ƒŽ’”‘‰”ƒ••—
Šƒ•
‘ƒ†™ƒ›‘•–”—
–‹‘‘‹•‡‘†‡ŽȋȌǡ‘—†ǡƒ†ƒ†ƒǤ
•Š‘”–ǡ™‡ƒ”‡™‡ŽŽ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†
–‘’”‡’ƒ”‡‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ‘‹•‡•–—†‹‡•ƒ†”‡˜‹‡™•–—†‹‡•’”‡’ƒ”‡†„›‘–Š‡”•Ǥ Adverse Effects of Noise1
Ž–Š‘—‰Š–Š‡Š‡ƒŽ–Š‡ˆˆ‡
–•‘ˆ‘‹•‡ƒ”‡‘––ƒ‡ƒ••‡”‹‘—•Ž›‹–Š‡‹–‡†–ƒ–‡•ƒ•–Š‡›ƒ”‡‹‘–Š‡”

‘—–”‹‡•ǡ–Š‡›ƒ”‡”‡ƒŽƒ†ǡ‹ƒ›’ƒ”–•‘ˆ–Š‡
‘—–”›ǡ’‡”˜ƒ•‹˜‡Ǥ
Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. 
ˆ ƒ ’‡”•‘ ‹• ”‡’‡ƒ–‡†Ž› ‡š’‘•‡† –‘ Ž‘—† ‘‹•‡•ǡ Š‡ ‘” •Š‡ ƒ› ‡š’‡”‹‡
‡‘‹•‡Ǧ‹†—
‡†Š‡ƒ”‹‰‹’ƒ‹”‡–‘”Ž‘••Ǥ
–Š‡‹–‡†–ƒ–‡•ǡ„‘–Š–Š‡

—’ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ

‡ƒŽ–Š ƒ† ƒˆ‡–› †‹‹•–”ƒ–‹‘ ȋ
Ȍ ƒ† –Š‡ ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
•–‹–—–‡ ˆ‘” 

—’ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ƒˆ‡–› ƒ†

‡ƒŽ–Šȋ

Ȍ’”‘‘–‡•–ƒ†ƒ”†•ƒ†”‡‰—Žƒ–‹‘•–‘’”‘–‡
––Š‡Š‡ƒ”‹‰‘ˆ’‡‘’Ž‡‡š’‘•‡†–‘Š‹‰Š
Ž‡˜‡Ž•‘ˆ‹†—•–”‹ƒŽ‘‹•‡Ǥ
Speech Interference.‘–Š‡”
‘‘’”‘„Ž‡ƒ••‘
‹ƒ–‡†™‹–Š‘‹•‡‹••’‡‡
Š‹–‡”ˆ‡”‡
‡Ǥ

ƒ††‹–‹‘–‘–Š‡‘„˜‹‘—•‹••—‡•–Šƒ–ƒ›ƒ”‹•‡ˆ”‘‹•—†‡”•–ƒ†‹‰•ǡ•’‡‡ Š‹–‡”ˆ‡”‡
‡ƒŽ•‘Ž‡ƒ†•
–‘’”‘„Ž‡•™‹–Š
‘
‡–”ƒ–‹‘ˆƒ–‹‰—‡ǡ‹””‹–ƒ–‹‘ǡ†‡
”‡ƒ•‡†™‘”‹‰
ƒ’ƒ
‹–›ǡƒ†ƒ—–‘ƒ–‹
•–”‡••
”‡ƒ
–‹‘•Ǥ ‘”
‘’Ž‡–‡•’‡‡
Š‹–‡ŽŽ‹‰‹„‹Ž‹–›ǡ–Š‡•‘—†Ž‡˜‡Ž‘ˆ–Š‡•’‡‡
Š•Š‘—Ž†„‡ͳͷ–‘ͳͺ†
1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise, eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/a68672
879

WILSON IHRIG
Pointe Apartments Oxnard
Comments on the Noise Analysis

Š‹‰Š‡”–Šƒ–Š‡„ƒ
‰”‘—†‘‹•‡Ǥ›’‹
ƒŽ‹†‘‘”•’‡‡
ŠŽ‡˜‡Ž•ƒ”‡Ͷͷ–‘ͷͲ†ƒ–ͳ‡–‡”ǡ•‘ƒ›
‘‹•‡ƒ„‘˜‡͵Ͳ†„‡‰‹•–‘‹–‡”ˆ‡”‡™‹–Š•’‡‡
Š‹–‡ŽŽ‹‰‹„‹Ž‹–›ǤŠ‡
‘‘”‡ƒ
–‹‘–‘Š‹‰Š‡”
„ƒ
‰”‘—†‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•‹•–‘”ƒ‹•‡‘‡ǯ•˜‘‹
‡Ǥ
ˆ–Š‹•‹•”‡“—‹”‡†’‡”•‹•–‡–Ž›ˆ‘”Ž‘‰’‡”‹‘†•‘ˆ–‹‡ǡ •–”‡••”‡ƒ
–‹‘•ƒ†‹””‹–ƒ–‹‘™‹ŽŽŽ‹‡Ž›”‡•—Ž–Ǥ
Sleep Disturbance. ‘‹•‡
ƒ†‹•–—”„•Ž‡‡’ „›ƒ‹‰‹–‘”‡†‹ˆˆ‹
—Ž– –‘ ˆƒŽŽƒ•Ž‡‡’ǡ „›™ƒ‹‰
•‘‡‘‡ƒˆ–‡”–Š‡›ƒ”‡ƒ•Ž‡‡’ǡ‘”„›ƒŽ–‡”‹‰–Š‡‹”•Ž‡‡’•–ƒ‰‡ǡ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ”‡†— ‹‰–Š‡ƒ‘—–‘ˆ”ƒ’‹†‡›‡
‘˜‡‡– ȋȌ •Ž‡‡’Ǥ  ‘‹•‡ ‡š’‘•—”‡ ˆ‘” ’‡‘’Ž‡ ™Š‘ ƒ”‡ •Ž‡‡’‹‰ Šƒ• ƒŽ•‘ „‡‡ Ž‹‡† –‘ ‹
”‡ƒ•‡†„Ž‘‘†’”‡••—”‡ǡ‹
”‡ƒ•‡†Š‡ƒ”–”ƒ–‡ǡ‹
”‡ƒ•‡‹„‘†›‘˜‡‡–•ǡƒ†‘–Š‡”’Š›•‹‘Ž‘‰‹
ƒŽ
‡ˆˆ‡
–•Ǥ‘–•—”’”‹•‹‰Ž›ǡ’‡‘’Ž‡™Š‘•‡•Ž‡‡’‹•†‹•–—”„‡†„›‘‹•‡‘ˆ–‡‡š’‡”‹‡ ‡•‡
‘†ƒ”›‡ˆˆ‡
–•
•—
Šƒ•‹
”‡ƒ•‡†ˆƒ–‹‰—‡ǡ†‡’”‡••‡†‘‘†ǡƒ††‡
”‡ƒ•‡†™‘”’‡”ˆ‘”ƒ
‡Ǥ
Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects. 
—ƒǯ• „‘†‹Ž› ”‡ƒ
–‹‘• –‘ ‘‹•‡ƒ”‡ ”‘‘–‡†‹ –Š‡
Dzˆ‹‰Š–‘”ˆŽ‹‰Š–dz”‡•’‘•‡–Šƒ–‡˜‘Ž˜‡†™Š‡ƒ›‘‹•‡••‹‰ƒŽ‡†‹‹‡–†ƒ‰‡”ǤŠ‡•‡‹ Ž—†‡
‹
”‡ƒ•‡†„Ž‘‘†’”‡••—”‡ǡ‡Ž‡˜ƒ–‡†Š‡ƒ”–”ƒ–‡ǡƒ†˜ƒ•‘
‘•–”‹
–‹‘Ǥ”‘Ž‘‰‡†‡š’‘•—”‡–‘ƒ
—–‡
‘‹•‡•
ƒ”‡•—Ž–‹’‡”ƒ‡–‡ˆˆ‡
–••—
Šƒ•Š›’‡”–‡•‹‘ƒ†Š‡ƒ”–†‹•‡ƒ•‡Ǥ
Impaired Cognitive Performance.–—†‹‡•Šƒ˜‡‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡†–Šƒ–‘‹•‡‡š’‘•—”‡‹’ƒ‹”•’‡‘’Ž‡ǯ• ƒ„‹Ž‹–‹‡•–‘’‡”ˆ‘”
‘’Ž‡š–ƒ••ȋ–ƒ••–Šƒ–”‡“—‹”‡ƒ––‡–‹‘–‘†‡–ƒ‹Ž‘”ƒƒŽ›–‹ ƒŽ’”‘
‡••‡•Ȍǡƒ†
‹– ƒ‡• ”‡ƒ†‹‰ǡ ’ƒ›‹‰ ƒ––‡–‹‘ǡ •‘Ž˜‹‰ ’”‘„Ž‡•ǡ ƒ† ‡‘”‹œ‹‰ ‘”‡ †‹ˆˆ‹ —Ž–Ǥ  Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ǡ
–Š‡”‡ƒ”‡•–ƒ†ƒ”†•ˆ‘”
Žƒ••”‘‘„ƒ
‰”‘—†‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•ƒ†™Š›‘ˆˆ‹
‡•ƒ†Ž‹„”ƒ”‹‡•ƒ”‡†‡•‹‰‡†
–‘’”‘˜‹†‡“—‹‡–™‘”‡˜‹”‘‡–•Ǥ‡•‘
‹‡–ƒŽ
Šƒ‰‡„”‘—‰Š–ƒ„‘—–„›–Š‡
Ǧͳͻ’ƒ†‡‹

‹•–Šƒ–ƒ›’‡‘’Ž‡‘™”‘—–‹‡Ž›™‘”ƒ†Ž‡ƒ”ˆ”‘Š‘‡ǡƒ†–Š‹•Šƒ•‰‹˜‡”‹•‡–‘‘”‡‘‹•‡

‘’Žƒ‹–•ˆ”‘Ž‘—†ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡••—
Šƒ•
‘•–”—
–‹‘™‘”Ǥ
Introduction
†‡”‡
–‹‘ͳͷͳͺ͵‘ˆ–Š‡ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ‘†‡ǡƒ’”‘Œ‡
––Šƒ–‹•
‘•‹•–‡–™‹–Š†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–†‡•‹–›
‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡†„›ƒ
‡‡”ƒŽŽƒˆ‘”™Š‹
Šƒ
Šƒ•„‡‡
‡”–‹ˆ‹‡†‹•‡š‡’–ˆ”‘”‡˜‹‡™‡š
‡’–
ˆ‘”’”‘Œ‡
–Ǧ•’‡
‹ˆ‹
‹’ƒ
–•’‡
—Ž‹ƒ”–‘–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–‘”’”‘Œ‡
–•‹–‡Ǥ
‡”ͳͷͳͺ͵ȋˆȌǡƒ‹’ƒ
–‹•‘–
‘•‹†‡”‡†’‡
—Ž‹ƒ”‹ˆ—‹ˆ‘”Ž›ƒ’’Ž‹‡††‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–•–ƒ†ƒ”†•‘”
’‘Ž‹
‹‡•Šƒ˜‡„‡‡’”‡˜‹‘—•Ž›ƒ†‘’–‡†„›–Š‡‹–›™‹–Šƒˆ‹†‹‰–Šƒ––Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–•–ƒ†ƒ”†•‘” ’‘Ž‹
‹‡•™‘—Ž†•—„•–ƒ–‹ƒŽŽ›‹–‹‰ƒ–‡–Š‡‹’ƒ
–™Š‡ƒ’’Ž‹‡†–‘ˆ—–—”‡’”‘Œ‡
–•ǡ—Ž‡•••—„•–ƒ–‹ƒŽ
‡™‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘•Š‘™•‘–Š‡”™‹•‡Ǥ
Š‹••‹–‡‹šƒ”†‹•‰‘˜‡”‡†„›–Š‡”ƒˆ–˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ’ƒ
–‡’‘”–ˆ‘”–Š‡‹˜‡”’ƒ””‘Œ‡
–ǡ
ȋ
ȌʹǤ‡
–‹‘ͶǤͻ‘ˆ–Š‹•†‘
—‡–†‡–ƒ‹Ž•–Š‡‘‹•‡ƒƒŽ›•‹•ˆ‘”–Š‹•’Žƒ‹‰ƒ”‡ƒǤ  ’ƒ‰‡ ͶǤͻǤͳ͵ǡ –Š‡ 
 •–ƒ–‡• Dz‹– ‹• ”‡ƒ•‘ƒ„Ž‡ –‘ ‹ˆ‡” –Šƒ–
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡• ƒ†Œƒ
‡– –‘
•‡•‹–‹˜‡”‡
‡’–‘”•™‘—Ž†‡š
‡‡† –Š‡ –Š”‡•Š‘Ž†• ˆ‘”
‘•–”—
–‹‘‘‹•‡ƒ† ”‡•—Ž–‹ƒ•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–
‹’ƒ
–ǤdzŠ‡
–Š‡Ž‹•–•‘‹•‡‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•ͳ–Š”‘—‰Š͹ˆ‘” ‘•–”—
–‹‘‘‹•‡ȏ’ƒ‰‡ͶǤͻǦ
ʹʹȐǤ Š‡•‡ ƒ”‡ „‡•– ’”ƒ
–‹
‡• ˆ‘”
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ƒ† †‡•‹‰ ‰—‹†‡Ž‹‡•Ǥ ‘‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡•‡ ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ‡ƒ•—”‡• ‹• ‰—ƒ”ƒ–‡‡† –‘ ”‡†—
‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ‘‹•‡ „‡Ž‘™ ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡ ’”‘Œ‡
– –Š”‡•Š‘Ž†•ǡ ƒ•
•—ƒ”‹œ‡†„‡Ž‘™ǣ
x ‡ƒ•—”‡ͶǤͻǦͳŽ‹‹–•
‘•–”—
–‹‘–‘†ƒ›–‹‡Š‘—”•ǡ™Š‹
Š†‘‡•‘–”‡†—
‡†ƒ›–‹‡‘‹•‡Ǥ
2 SCH # 2000051046
880

WILSON IHRIG
Pointe Apartments Oxnard
Comments on the Noise Analysis

x ‡ƒ•—”‡ͶǤͻǦʹ”‡“—‹”‡••–ƒ‰‹‰‡“—‹’‡––‘„‡Ž‘
ƒ–‡†ˆƒ”ˆ”‘•‡•‹–‹˜‡”‡
‡‹˜‡”•ǡ™Š‹
Š
”‡†—
‡•—‡
‡••ƒ”›‘‹•‡ǡ„—–†‘‡•‘–‡Ž‹‹ƒ–‡™‘”•–Ǧ
ƒ•‡•
‡ƒ”‹‘•Ǥ
x ‡ƒ•—”‡ ͶǤͻǦ͵ •–ƒ–‡• –Šƒ– ‡“—‹’‡– •Š‘—Ž† „‡ ˆ‹––‡† ™‹–Š ‘†‡” •‘—†Ǧ”‡†— –‹‘
‡“—‹’‡–Ǥ Š‹Ž‡ –Š‹• ‹• ƒ ‰‘‘† ‰‡‡”ƒŽ „‡•– ’”ƒ –‹
‡ǡ ‘†‡” ‘‹•‡ †ƒ–ƒ„ƒ•‡• ƒ••—‡
‡“—‹’‡–™‹–Š‘†‡”—ˆˆŽ‡”•ǡƒ‹‰–Š‹•ƒ‹•—ˆˆ‹
‹‡–‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡™‹–Š‘—–ƒ
”‡“—‹”‡†”‡’‘”––‘•Š‘™–Šƒ–•‘—”
‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•Šƒ˜‡„‡‡•—ˆˆ‹
‹‡–Ž›”‡†—
‡†Ǥ
x ‡ƒ•—”‡ͶǤͻǦͶ‹’Ž‡‡–•ƒ’”‡Ǧ
‘•–”—
–‹‘‘–‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹‘•›•–‡ǡŽ‘‰‹
ƒŽ‡“—‹’‡–•–ƒ‰‹‰ǡ
ƒ†•Š—––‹‰‘ˆˆ‘ˆ‹†Ž‹‰‡“—‹’‡–Ǥ–”ƒ–‡‰‹
•–ƒ‰‹‰ƒ†”‡‘˜‹‰—‡
‡••ƒ”›‹†Ž‹‰™‹ŽŽ
”‡†—
‡ –Š‡ Ž‡‰–Š ‘ˆ —‡
‡••ƒ”› ‘‹•‡ ‹’ƒ
–•ǡ „—– ™‹ŽŽ ‘– ‹–‹‰ƒ–‡ –Š‡ ™‘”•–Ǧ
ƒ•‡

‘•–”—
–‹‘ ‘‹•‡ •
‡ƒ”‹‘• ™Š‡ ‡
‡••ƒ”› ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡• ‘

—” ƒ†Œƒ
‡– –‘ •‡•‹–‹˜‡ —•‡•Ǥ
‘—‹–›‘–‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹‘•ƒ”‡ƒ‰‘‘†‹†‡ƒǡ„—–™‹ŽŽ‘–ƒˆˆ‡
–‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•Ǥ
x ‡ƒ•—”‡ ͶǤͻǦͷ ”‡“—‹”‡• –‡’‘”ƒ”› •‘—† „ƒ””‹‡”• ˆ‘” –Š‡ Ž ‹‘‡•– ‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†Ǥ Š‡ ™‘”•–Ǧ
ƒ•‡”‡
‡‹˜‡”•Š‡”‡ƒ”‡ƒ’ƒ”–‡–„—‹Ž†‹‰•‘–‹–Š‡Ž‹‘‡•–‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†ǡ•‘ –Š‹•‡ƒ•—”‡‹•‘–ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡Ǥ
x ‡ƒ•—”‡ͶǤͻǦ͸”‡
‘‡†•Ž‘
ƒ–‹‰‘‹•‡Ǧ‰‡‡”ƒ–‹‰‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ‘‹•‡•‘—”
‡•ƒ™ƒ›ˆ”‘
•‡•‹–‹˜‡ ƒ”‡ƒ•Ǥ Š‹• ‹• ƒ Š‹‰ŠŽ› ‡ˆˆ‡
–‹˜‡ ‘‹•‡ ”‡†—
–‹‘ •–”ƒ–‡‰›ǡ „—– –Š‡”‡ ƒ”‡ ‘
”‡“—‹”‡‡–•ǡ–Š—•–Š‹•‹•‘–ƒ‡ˆ‘”
‡ƒ„Ž‡‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡Ǥ
x ‡ƒ•—”‡ ͶǤͻǦ͹ ”‡“—‹”‡• ƒ ƒ
‘—•–‹
ƒŽ •–—†› ˆ‘” ƒ „ƒŽŽ’ƒ”ǡ ™Š‹
Š ‹• ‘– ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡ –‘ –Š‹•
’”‘Œ‡
–Ǥ
Š—•ǡ–Š‡•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹’ƒ
–‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†‹–Š‡
‹•‘–‹–‹‰ƒ–‡†„‡Ž‘™–Š”‡•Š‘Ž†•Ǥ‡„‡Ž‹‡˜‡–Šƒ–
–Š‹•’”‘Œ‡
–Šƒ• –Š‡’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ –‘ ”‡•—Ž–‹ƒ •‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹
”‡ƒ•‡‹‘‹•‡ƒ† ˜‹„”ƒ–‹‘ǡƒ† –Š—•ƒ
†‡–ƒ‹Ž‡†ƒƒŽ›•‹•‹•”‡“—‹”‡†ǡƒ•†‡–ƒ‹Ž‡†‹–Š‹•Ž‡––‡”Ǥ Baseline Noise Not Established
”‡“—‹”‡•‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ™Š‡–Š‡”ƒ’”‘Œ‡
–™‘—Ž†
ƒ—•‡ƒǮ•—„•–ƒ–‹ƒŽ–‡’‘”ƒ”›‘”’‡”ƒ‡–
‹
”‡ƒ•‡‹ƒ„‹‡–‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•Ǥǯ‹–Š‘—–‘™‹‰Š‘™Ž‘—†–Š‡‡˜‹”‘‡–‹•ǡ‹–‹•‹’‘••‹„Ž‡–‘ †‡–‡”‹‡ ‹ˆ –Š‡ ‡™ ’”‘Œ‡
– ™‹ŽŽ ‹
”‡ƒ•‡ ‘‹•‡ ‹ –Š‡ •—””‘—†‹‰
‘—‹–›Ǥ ƒ•‡Ž‹‡ ‘‹•‡
‡ƒ•—”‡‡–•ƒ”‡–Š‡’”‡ˆ‡””‡†™ƒ›–‘†‡–‡”‹‡„ƒ
‰”‘—†‘‹•‡•‘—”
‡•ǤŠ‡•‡‡ƒ•—”‡‡–•
•‡”˜‡ƒ•ƒ
”—
‹ƒŽ”‡ˆ‡”‡
‡’‘‹–ˆ‘”‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰–Š‡’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ‘‹•‡‹’ƒ
–•‘ˆ’”‘’‘•‡†’”‘Œ‡
–•‘”
ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•Ǥ‹–Š‘—–‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‹‰ –Š‡„ƒ•‡Ž‹‡‘‹•‡
‘†‹–‹‘•„‡ˆ‘”‡ƒ›‡™†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‘

—”•ǡ
†‡
‹•‹‘Ǧƒ‡”•
ƒ‘–‡ˆˆ‡
–‹˜‡Ž›†‡–‡”‹‡™Š‡–Š‡”–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–
‘’Ž‹‡•™‹–Š‘‹•‡”‡‰—Žƒ–‹‘•ǡ
‘”‹†‡–‹ˆ›ƒ›’‘–‡–‹ƒŽƒ†˜‡”•‡‡ˆˆ‡
–•‘–Š‡•—””‘—†‹‰‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒ†
‘—‹–‹‡•Ǥ
‹˜‡
–Š‡’”‘š‹‹–›–‘—Ž–‹’Ž‡‘‹•‡•‘—”
‡•‹ƒŠ‹‰ŠŽ›Ǧ†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡†ƒ”‡ƒǦŠ‡‘ŽŽ‡
–‹‘•Š‘’’‹‰ƒŽŽǡ
Š‹‰Š™ƒ› ͳͲͳǡ ƒ† Ž‘
ƒŽ •–”‡‡–• Ǧ ‘‹•‡ Ž‡˜‡Ž• •Š‘—Ž† „‡ ’Š›•‹
ƒŽŽ› ‡ƒ•—”‡† –‘ „‡ ƒ

—”ƒ–‡Ž›
†‡–‡”‹‡†Ǥ
Construction Noise Impacts are Potentially Significant
‘‡•–‹ƒ–‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘‘‹•‡ǡ–Š‡ ‡†‡”ƒŽ
‹‰Š™ƒ›†‹‹•–”ƒ–‹‘ǯ•‘ƒ†™ƒ›‘•–”—
–‹‘‘‹•‡
‘†‡Ž ȋȌ͵ ™ƒ• —•‡† ˆ‘” –Š‹•ƒƒŽ›•‹•Ǥ ›’‹
ƒŽŽ›ǡ—Ž–‹’Ž‡ ’‹‡
‡• ‘ˆ ‡“—‹’‡– ƒ”‡ —•‡†‹ ƒ

‘•–”—
–‹‘ ‘‹•‡ƒƒŽ›•‹•ǡ „ƒ•‡† ‘ƒ ”‡ƒŽ‹•–‹
‡•–‹ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆƒ
‘•–”—
–‹‘‡˜‹”‘‡–™Š‡”‡
3 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ENVIRonment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnmcover.cfm 881

WILSON IHRIG
Pointe Apartments Oxnard
Comments on the Noise Analysis

—Ž–‹’Ž‡ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•‘

—”•‹—Ž–ƒ‡‘—•Ž›Ǥ’–‘–Š”‡‡’‹‡
‡•‘ˆ‡“—‹’‡–™‡”‡‘†‡Ž‡†ƒ–‘
‡ƒ•ƒ

‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹˜‡‡•–‹ƒ–‡ǡ„ƒ•‡†‘–›’‹
ƒŽ
‘•–”—
–‹‘’”‘
‡†—”‡•ƒ†–‹‡Ž‹‡•ǤŠ‡‘‡‡š
‡’–‹‘–‘
–Š‹•™ƒ•’‹Ž‡†”‹˜‹‰ǡ™Š‹
Š‹•ƒ–›’‹
ƒŽŽ›‘”‡‹–‡•‡’”‘
‡†—”‡–Šƒ‘•–
‘•–”—
–‹‘‡–Š‘†•Ǥ
‡ˆƒ—Ž–—•ƒ‰‡ˆƒ
–‘”•ǡ‘”–Š‡’‡”
‡–ƒ‰‡‘ˆ–‹‡–Š‡‡“—‹’‡–‰‡‡”ƒŽŽ›‘’‡”ƒ–‡•ǡ™‡”‡—•‡† ˆ‘”ƒŽŽ’‹‡
‡•‘ˆƒƒŽ›œ‡†‡“—‹’‡–Ǥ‘—”
‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•–›’‹
ƒŽŽ›—•‡†‹ƒ
‘•–”—
–‹‘‘‹•‡ƒƒŽ›•‹•ƒ”‡
•Š‘™‹Error! Reference source not found.Š‡”‡•—Ž–•‘ˆ–Š‹•ƒƒŽ›•‹•ƒ”‡•Š‘™‹ƒ„Ž‡ʹƒ– „‘–Š—Ž–‹ˆƒ‹Ž› ”‡•‹†‡
‡• „‘”†‡”‹‰ –Š‡ ’”‘Œ‡
– •‹–‡ǡ Ž‡ƒ”™ƒ–‡” ƒ– ‹˜‡”’ƒ” –‘ –Š‡ ‘”–Š ƒ† ‡”‡ƒ†‡ƒ–‹˜‡”’ƒ”–‘–Š‡™‡•–Ǥ
Table 1: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Lmax Sound Level
at 50 feet (dBA)
Utilization %
Backhoe ͹͹Ǥ͸ ͶͲΨ
Compactor (ground) ͺͲǤͲ ʹͲΨ
Compressor (air) ͹ͺǤͲ ͶͲΨ
Concrete Mixer Truck ͹ͻǤͲ ͶͲΨ
Concrete Pump Truck ͺͳǤͲ ʹͲΨ
Concrete Saw ͺͻǤ͸ ʹͲΨ
Crane ͺͳǤͲ ͳ͸Ψ
Dozer ͺͳǤ͹ ͶͲΨ
Excavator ͺͲǤ͹ ͶͲΨ
Forklift ͹ͷǤͲ ͳͲΨ
Pneumatic Tools ͺͷǤͲ ͷͲΨ
Generator ͺͳǤͲ ͷͲΨ
Mounted Impact
Hammer (hoe ram) ͻͲǤͲ ʹͲΨ
Impact Pile Driver ͻͷǤͲ ʹͲΨ
Front End Loader ͹ͻǤͲ ͶͲΨ
Paver ͹͹ǤͲ ͷͲΨ
Roller ͺͲǤͲ ʹͲΨ
Tractor ͺͶǤͲ ͶͲΨ
Welder / Torch ͹͵ǤͲ ͶͲΨ
‘—”
‡ǣͳǤͳ
Table 2: Modeled Noise Levels from the Proposed Project and Nearest Sensitive Receiver Noise Source(s)
Distance Construction
to Receiver (ft)
Modeled Noise Level
(dBA)
Clearwater Serenade Clearwater Serenade
Impact Pile Driver ͳʹͷ ͳͲͷ ͺ͸ ͺͺ
Concrete Saw + Pneumatic Tools ͳʹͷ ͳͲͷ ͹͹ ͹ͻ
Excavator+ Dozer + Tractor ͻͲ ͸ͷ ͹ͺ ͺͳ
ͳʹͷƒ†ͳͲͷ”‡’”‡•‡––Š‡
Ž‘•‡•–†‹•–ƒ
‡ˆ”‘„—‹Ž†‹‰
‘•–”—
–‹‘–‘”‡
‡‹˜‡”•ǡ™Š‹Ž‡ͻͲƒ†͸ͷ”‡’”‡•‡––Š‡

Ž‘•‡•–•‹–‡‰”ƒ†‹‰ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•™‹ŽŽ
‘‡–‘”‡
‡‹˜‡”•Ǥ
882

WILSON IHRIG
Pointe Apartments Oxnard
Comments on the Noise Analysis

Š‡ ‹–› ‘ˆ šƒ”†
‡‡”ƒŽ ŽƒͶ •‡
–‹‘ ͹Ǧͳͺͺ ‡š‡’–•
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ‘‹•‡ ˆ”‘ ƒŽŽ
‹–› ‘‹•‡
’”‘˜‹•‹‘•ƒ•Ž‘‰ƒ•
‘•–”—
–‹‘ Š‘—”•ƒ”‡ ˆ”‘ ͹ƒ –‘ ͸’‘†ƒ› –Š”‘—‰Šƒ–—”†ƒ›Ǥ  –Š‡
ƒ„•‡
‡ ‘ˆ ‹–› ‘‹•‡ ”†‹ƒ
‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ‘‹•‡ †ƒ›–‹‡ Ž‹‹–•ǡ –Š‡ ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ– •Š‘—Ž† •‡–
–Š”‡•Š‘Ž†•„ƒ•‡†‘‘–Š‡”•‹‹Žƒ”†‘
—‡–•ǤŠ‡”‡
Ž‡ƒ”Ž›‹••‘‡Ž‡˜‡Ž™Š‡”‡’‡”ƒ‡–Š‡ƒ”‹‰
†ƒƒ‰‡ǡ‡š–”‡‡ƒ‘›ƒ
‡•ǡƒ†‘–Š‡”ƒ†˜‡”•‡‡ˆˆ‡
–•™‘—Ž†‘

—”ˆ”‘
‘•–”—
–‹‘‘‹•‡ǡ‡˜‡

‘•‹†‡”‹‰‹–••Š‘”–Ǧ–‡”ƒ–—”‡Ǥ ‘”‡šƒ’Ž‡ǡ–Š‡‘—–›‘ˆ‘•‰‡Ž‡• ‘†‡Šƒ•ƒ
‘•–”—
–‹‘
‘‹•‡Ž‹‹–‘ˆ͹ͷ†ͷǤ‡”–ƒ‹Ž›–Š‹•Ž‡˜‡ŽŠƒ•‘Œ—”‹•†‹ –‹‘ˆ‘”–Š‹•’”‘Œ‡
–ǡ„—–‹–†‘‡••Š‘™–Šƒ–
‘–Š‡”‰‘˜‡”‡–ƒ‰‡
‹‡•ƒ†‘–Š‡”—‹
‹’ƒŽ‹–‹‡•†‘
‘•‹†‡”†ƒ›–‹‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘‘‹•‡Ǥ
–‹•–Š‡
”‡•’‘•‹„‹Ž‹–›‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ––‘ˆ‹†ƒƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡‰—‹†‡Ž‹‡–‘—•‡ƒ††‡–‡”‹‡‹ˆ‘‹•‡
Ž‡˜‡Ž•™‹ŽŽ
”‡ƒ–‡ƒƒ†˜‡”•‡‹’ƒ
–‘–Š‡
‘—‹–›Ǥ
ˆ–Š‡ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–ˆ‹†•ǡ
Š‘‘•‡•ǡƒ†’”‘’‡”Ž›

‹–‡•ƒ‘–Š‡”–Š”‡•Š‘Ž†–Šƒ––Š‡›ˆ‡‡Ž‹•‘”‡ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ǡ‹–‹•™‹–Š‹–Š‡‹””‹‰Š––‘†‘•‘Ǥƒ›•— Š
–Š”‡•Š‘Ž†•ƒ”‡ „ƒ•‡† ‘ƒ„‹‡–‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•ǡ „ƒ•‡† ‘”‡“—‹”‡‡–• –‘ •–—†›‹ ”‡ƒ•‡•‹
‡š‹•–‹‰
‘†‹–‹‘•Ǥ ‹–Š‡”™ƒ›ǡ –Š‡
‹–›ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–—•– „‡ ”‡˜‹•‡† –‘‹
Ž—†‡ •—
Šƒ –Š”‡•Š‘Ž† –‘
‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡ǡ‹†‡–‹ˆ›ǡƒ†’‘–‡–‹ƒŽŽ›‹–‹‰ƒ–‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘‘‹•‡‹’ƒ
–•Ǥ
ŽŽ–Š”‡‡‘†‡Ž‡†•
‡ƒ”‹‘•›‹‡Ž†‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•–Šƒ–ƒ–
Š‘”‡š
‡‡†–Š‡”‡
‘‡†‡†͹ͷ†

‘•–”—
–‹‘‘‹•‡‰—‹†‡Ž‹‡ƒ–„‘–Š”‡
‡‹˜‡”•Ǥ•‹–
—””‡–Ž›•–ƒ†•ǡ–Š‹•‹•ƒ‡š
‡‡†ƒ
‡‘ˆ–Š‡
”‡
‘‡†‡†
‘•–”—
–‹‘‘‹•‡–Š”‡•Š‘Ž†™Š‹
Š™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ǡ•—
Šƒ•ƒ–‡’‘”ƒ”›
•‘—†™ƒŽŽǤ•–—†›•Š‘—Ž†„‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡†ǡ
‘•‹•–‡–™‹–Ššƒ”†
‡‡”ƒŽŽƒ‘Ž‹
›
Ǧ͸ǤͶ͸–Šƒ–
•Š‘™•Š‘™‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ”‡
‘‡†‡†„ƒ””‹‡”•”‡†—
‡‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•„‡Ž‘™•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ
‡Ž‹‹–•Ǥ
Operational Noise Impacts are Potentially Significant
’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ‘‹•‡ ˆ”‘ –Š‡ ’”‘Œ‡
– ƒ› ”‡’”‡•‡– Ž‘‰Ǧ–‡”
Šƒ‰‡• ‹ –Š‡ •—””‘—†‹‰ ‘‹•‡
‡˜‹”‘‡– ˆ‘” ‡ƒ”„› ”‡
‡’–‘”•Ǥ ›’‹
ƒŽŽ›ǡ ‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ‘‹•‡ •‘—”
‡•
ƒ ‹
Ž—†‡ ”‘‘ˆ–‘’
‡
Šƒ‹
ƒŽ—‹–•ƒ†‘‹•‡ˆ”‘‘—–†‘‘”•’ƒ
‡•ƒ†„ƒŽ
‘‹‡•ǤŠ‡
ƒ
‘™Ž‡†‰‡•‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
‘‹•‡
ƒ„‡ƒ‹••—‡ǡ”‡“—‹”‹‰ƒƒ
‘—•–‹
ƒŽ•–—†› ˆ‘”ƒ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ„ƒ•‡„ƒŽŽ•–ƒ†‹—‹‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ‡ƒ•—”‡ͶǤͻǦ͹Ǥ
’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ‘‹•‡Ž‹‹–•ƒ”‡‘–’”‡•‡–‡†‹–Š‡
ǡ„—––Š‡‹–›‘ˆšƒ”†’”‘˜‹†‡•‰—‹†ƒ
‡‹
‹–•‘‹•‡
‘†‡Ǥ
•‡
–‹‘͹Ǧͺͳͷ‘ˆ–Š‡—‹
‹’ƒŽ‘†‡ǡ†ƒ›–‹‡‘‹•‡Ž‹‹–•ƒ”‡•‡–ƒ–ͷͷ†ǡƒ† ‹‰Š––‹‡Ž‹‹–•ƒ”‡•‡–ƒ–ͷͲ†Ǥ

‘”†‡”–‘‘†‡Ž–Š‡‘‹•‡ǡ–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ƒ••—’–‹‘•™‡”‡—•‡†ǣ x ‡
Šƒ‹
ƒŽ‡“—‹’‡–ǡ•—
Šƒ•
—‹–•ǡ
ƒ‰‡‡”ƒ–‡•‘—†’‘™‡”Ž‡˜‡Ž•ƒ•Š‹‰Šƒ•ͻͳ
†͹Ǥ
x Š‡
—‹–•ƒ”‡ͳͲˆ‡‡–„‡Š‹†–Š‡‡†‰‡‘ˆ–Š‡„—‹Ž†‹‰Ǥ x Š”‡‡—‹–•™‡”‡ƒ••—‡†ǡͳͲˆ‡‡–ƒ’ƒ”–
x ͷ†‘ˆ”‡†—
–‹‘™ƒ•ƒ••—‡†ˆ”‘ƒ”‘‘ˆ–‘’’ƒ”ƒ’‡–
x
•›•–‡•ƒ›”—͵Ͳ‹—–‡•‹ƒŠ‘—”’‡”‹‘†
4 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/oxnard/latest/oxnard_ca/0-0-0-68595 5 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/los_angeles/latest/lamc/0-0-0-193925 6 https://www.oxnard.gov/wp-content/uploads/Oxnard-2030-General-Plan-Amend-12.2022-SMc.pdf 7 https://www.americanstandardair.com/content/dam/Trane/enengineer/products/rooftopunits/Voyager/Voyager%20III/RT-PRC022-E4_0513.pdf, page 23 883

WILSON IHRIG
Pointe Apartments Oxnard
Comments on the Noise Analysis

ƒ•‡†‘–Š‡ƒ„‘˜‡ƒ••—’–‹‘•ǡ–Š‡’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ‹‰Š––‹‡‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•ƒ”‡•Š‘™‹ƒ„Ž‡ ͵
Table 3: Predicted Project Operational Noise Levels
Receiver Modeled Noise
Level (dBA)
Daytime/Nighttime
Noise Criteria
Exceedance
Clearwater Ͷ͹ ͷͲȀͶͷ ‘Ȁ›‡•
Serenade Ͷͻ ͷͲȀͶͷ ‘Ȁ›‡•
Š‡ ’”‘Œ‡
– Šƒ• –Š‡ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ –‘ ”‡•—Ž– ‹ •‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ– ‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ‘‹•‡ Ž‡˜‡Ž•ǡ ™Š‹
Š •Š‘—Ž† „‡

‘•‹†‡”‡†‹ƒ‘‹•‡•–—†›ǡƒ•”‡“—‹”‡†„›Žƒ™ǤŠ‹•‘‹•‡•–—†›•Š‘—Ž††‡–‡”‹‡’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•ǡ •—
Š ƒ• •Š‹‡Ž†‹‰ ‘ˆ –Š‡
 —‹–•ǯ ‘‹•‡ ‡‹••‹‘•ǡ –‘ ”‡†—
‡
‘—‹–›
‡š’‘•—”‡–‘‡š
‡••‹˜‡‘‹•‡ǤŠ‡‘‹•‡•–—†›—•–ƒŽ•‘‡ƒ•—”‡ƒ„‹‡–‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•ƒ††‡–‡”‹‡ ‹ˆ–Š‡‹
”‡ƒ•‡‘˜‡”ƒ„‹‡–Ž‡˜‡Ž•™‘—Ž†„‡•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–Ǥ
Construction Vibration Impacts are Potentially Significant Š‡•–—†›†‘‡•‘–
‘•‹†‡”
‘•–”—
–‹‘˜‹„”ƒ–‹‘ǤŠ‡‹–›†‘‡•‘–’”‘˜‹†‡•’‡
‹ˆ‹
‰—‹†ƒ
‡ˆ‘”
‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰˜‹„”ƒ–‹‘ˆ”‘
‘•–”—
–‹‘ǤŠ‡”‡ƒ”‡•‡’ƒ”ƒ–‡
”‹–‡”‹ƒˆ‘”‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰„—‹Ž†‹‰†ƒƒ‰‡
ƒ† Š—ƒ ”‡•’‘•‡Ǥ ƒŽ–”ƒ•ͺ Šƒ• ’”‘˜‹†‡† ‰—‹†ƒ ‡ –‘ ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ‹’ƒ
–• ˆ”‘

‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•ǤŠ‡ƒŽ–”ƒ•‰—‹†‡Ž‹‡ ˆ‘”„—‹Ž†‹‰”‡•’‘•‡ƒ†˜‹„”ƒ–‹‘ƒ‘›ƒ ‡ƒŽ•‘
Šƒ˜‡•‡’ƒ”ƒ–‡
”‹–‡”‹ƒˆ‘”–”ƒ•‹‡–ƒ†
‘–‹—‘—••‘—”
‡•ǤŠ‡•‡ƒ”‡•—ƒ”‹œ‡†‹ƒ„Ž‡Ͷƒ†
ƒ„Ž‡ͷǤ ‘”–Š‡”‡
‡‹˜‡”•
Ž‘•‡•––‘–Š‹•’”‘Œ‡
–ǡƒŽ–”ƒ•‰—‹†ƒ
‡Ž‹‹–•–Š‡ƒš‹—’‡ƒ’ƒ”–‹
Ž‡
˜‹„”ƒ–‹‘ȋȌ–‘ͲǤͷ‹Ȁ•‡
ˆ‘”„—‹Ž†‹‰†ƒƒ‰‡ƒ†ͲǤͲͶ‹Ȁ•‡
ˆ‘”Š—ƒƒ‘›ƒ
‡Ǥ
Table 4: Caltrans Vibration Damage Potential Criteria
Different Building
Types
Transient
Sources
(in/sec PPV)
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
(in/sec PPV)
Historic and some
old buildings ͲǤͷ ͲǤʹͷ
Older residential
structures ͲǤͷ ͲǤ͵
New residential
structures ͳǤͲ 0.5
Table 5: Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Human Response
Transient
Sources
(in/sec PPV)
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
(in/sec PPV)
Barely
perceptible ͲǤͲͶ ͲǤͲͳ
8 Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020. Tables 19 and 20. (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020- a11y.pdf)
884

WILSON IHRIG
Pointe Apartments Oxnard
Comments on the Noise Analysis

Human Response
Transient
Sources
(in/sec PPV)
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
(in/sec PPV)
Distinctly
perceptible ͲǤʹͷ 0.04
Strongly
perceptible ͲǤͻ ͲǤͳͲ
Severe ʹǤͲ ͲǤͶ
•‹‰ –Š‡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ ‡“—ƒ–‹‘ ˆ‘—† ‹ –Š‡ ƒŽ–”ƒ• Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manualǡ–Š‡˜‹„”ƒ–‹‘ƒ––Š‡
Ž‘•‡•–•‡•‹–‹˜‡”‡
‡‹˜‡”•
ƒ„‡
ƒŽ
—Žƒ–‡†ͻǤ
PPVEquipment (Distance) = PPVRef (25/Distance)1.3 (in/sec) •‹‰ –Š‡ ”‡ˆ‡”‡
‡ ˜ƒŽ—‡• ’”‡•‡–‡† ‹ –Š‡ ƒŽ–”ƒ• †‘
—‡–ǡ ’”‘Œ‡
–‡†
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ˜‹„”ƒ–‹‘
Ž‡˜‡Ž•
ƒ„‡‘†‡Ž‡†‹ƒ„Ž‡͸Ǥ
Table 6: Construction Vibration Levels Compared to Proposed Thresholds Equipment
Reference
PPV (in/sec)
at 25 ft10
PPV (in/sec)
at 105 ft
(Serenade)
PPV (in/sec)
at 125 ft
(Clearwater)
Vibration
Threshold a
PPV (in/sec)
Potential
Impact?
Vibratory pile
driving
(typical range)
ͲǤ͸ͶͶ ͲǤͳͲ ͲǤͲͺ ͲǤͲͶ
‡•
ƒƒŽ–”ƒ•‹•–‹
–Ž›‡”
‡’–‹„Ž‡
—ƒ‡•’‘•‡‡˜‡Žˆ‘”‘–‹—‘—•Ȁ ”‡“—‡–
–‡”‹––‡–‘—”
‡•
‹–‡’”‡’ƒ”ƒ–‹‘™‘”
‘—Ž†‰‡‡”ƒ–‡•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–˜‹„”ƒ–‹‘‹’ƒ
–•ˆ‘”Š—ƒƒ‘›ƒ
‡ƒ–„—‹Ž†‹‰•
ƒ†Œƒ
‡––‘–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–•‹–‡Ǥ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘‹‰Š–‘–„‡•—ˆˆ‹
‹‡––‘”‡•‘Ž˜‡–Š‡•‡•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹’ƒ
–•Ǥ•
•—
Šǡ ƒ 
 •Š‘—Ž† „‡ ’”‘†—
‡† –‘ ‹
Ž—†‡ ƒ †‡–ƒ‹Ž‡† •–—†› ‡š’Ž‘”‹‰ ƒŽ–‡”ƒ–‹˜‡ ‡–Š‘†• ƒ† ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ǡ™Š‹
Š
‘—Ž†‹
Ž—†‡„ƒ‹‰’‹Ž‡†”‹˜‹‰ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•Ǥ
Conclusions
Š‡ƒƒŽ›•‹•‹
Ž—†‡••‡˜‡”ƒŽ‡””‘”•ǡ‹
Ž—†‹‰‹•—ˆˆ‹
‹‡–ƒ„‹‡–‘‹•‡‡ƒ•—”‡‡–•ǡ ˆƒ‹Ž‹‰–‘
ƒ††”‡•• –Š‡ ”‘Œ‡
–ǯ•
——Žƒ–‹˜‡ ‹
”‡ƒ•‡ ‹ ‘‹•‡ Ž‡˜‡Ž• ‘˜‡” –Š‡ ‡š‹•–‹‰
‘†‹–‹‘ǡ ƒ† ƒ
‹ƒ†‡“—ƒ–‡ƒ••‡••‡–‘ˆ
‘•–”‹
–‹‘‘‹•‡ƒ†˜‹„”ƒ–‹‘‡ˆˆ‡
–•Ǥ‘””‡
–‹‰–Š‡•‡™‘—Ž†’‘–‡–‹ƒŽŽ›
‹†‡–‹ˆ›•‡˜‡”ƒŽ•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹’ƒ
–•™Š‹
Š”‡“—‹”‡ƒ††‹–‹‘ƒŽ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ǡ‘”ˆ—”–Š‡”•–—†›‹ƒˆ—ŽŽ Ǥ
Ž‡ƒ•‡ˆ‡‡Žˆ”‡‡–‘
‘–ƒ
–‡™‹–Šƒ›“—‡•–‹‘•‘–Š‹•‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ
‡”›–”—Ž››‘—”•ǡ







ƒ
‡‹‰Šƒ
••‘
‹ƒ–‡
9 Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020. Table 18 and Eq. 12. 10 Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020. Table 18. 885

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD
RESOLUTION NO. ________________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD

DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF OXNARD’S APPROVAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING PERMIT NO. 23-200-01 (DEVELOPMENT
DESIGN REVIEW) TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 4-STORY, 280 UNIT (42 AFFORDABLE UNITS) APARTMENT BUILDING WITH 490

PARKING SPACES, LANDSCAPE AND INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS ON A 4.85 ACRE PROJECT SITE LOCATED AT 2801 NORTH OXNARD BLVD (APN: 132-0-110-315), SUBJECT TO CERTAIN FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS. FILED BY ANN WALSH, SHEA
PROPERTIES, 2751 PARK VIEW COURT #261, OXNARD, CA 93036.

WHEREAS, the Community Development Director of the City of Oxnard (“Director”) has considered an application for Planning and Zoning Permit No. 23-200-01, filed by Ann Walsh of Shea Properties on May 18, 2023, in accordance with Section 16-525 of the Oxnard City Code and the RiverPark Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental impact report (FEIR No. 00-03) was prepared to analyze potential impacts associated with the approval and the implementation of the RiverPark Specific Plan and the anticipated build out of the 701-acre specific plan site; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2002, the City Council certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 2000-03 (State Clearinghouse No. 2000051046) and adopted findings of fact, statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The FEIR was prepared to analyze potential impacts associated with the approval and the implementation of the Riverpark Specific Plan and the anticipated build out of the 702-acre specific plan site. The FEIR No. 00-03 found four areas of significant impacts (Earth Resources-Mineral Resources, Water Quality, Agricultural Resources, and Cultural Resources-Historical Resources); and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2022 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15164, the City Council considered Addendum No. 15 with FEIR No. 00-03 and all subsequent addendums; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2022, the City Council certified Addendum No. 15 to FEIR No. 00-03 and all subsequent Addendums and approved Planning and Zoning Permit No. 20-630-01 (Specific Amendment No. 7 to the Riverpark Specific Plan); and WHEREAS, since certification of FEIR No. 00-03 and approval of subsequent addenda, there have been no substantial changes proposed for the RiverPark project, no substantial changes have occurred under which the RiverPark project is being undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance to the RiverPark project has become available; and in that the subject project necessitates no changes or additions to FEIR No. 00-03, no additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Sections 15162 through 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
886
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

WHEREAS, on December 17, 2024, the Community Development Director of the City of Oxnard conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider an application for Planning and Zoning Permit 23-200-01 (Development Design Review Permit), filed by Ann Walsh of Shea Properties in accordance with RPSP Section 7.9.2.2; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has held a duly noticed public hearing and received and reviewed written and oral comments related to the Project; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined after due study and deliberation that the public interest and general welfare required the approval of Development Design Review Permit PZ No. 23-200-01 for development of a 280 unit 4-story apartment Project located at 2801 N. Oxnard Blvd (APN: 132-0-110-315); and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2024, the Community Development Director approved Resolution 23-200-01 to approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Appellant did not submit a comment letter for the Community Development Director’s hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Appellant first provided notice to the Director and staff after the conclusion of the hearing on December 18, 2024 in a letter dated December 18, 2024 requesting noticing for the project; and
WHEREAS, on December 27, 2024, the Appellant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Section 16-525 of the Oxnard City Code (“OCC”) of the Community Development Director's decision to approve Planning and Zoning Permit No 23-200-01; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Appellant’s Appeal of the Community Development Director’s Decision to Approve Planning and Zoning Permit No. 23-200-01 (Development Design Review Permit) in accordance with RPSP Section 7.9.2.5; and
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2025, the Planning Commission also reviewed all of the information provided in the staff report, attachments, environmental document, and considered the testimony given at the public hearing, including all written communications to the Community Development Director, as well as other pertinent information; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 2025, the Planning Commission deliberated the merits of the Project and Appeal and made a motion to Deny the Appeal and uphold the Community Director’s approval of Planning and Zoning Permit No. 23-200-01; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 2024, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 (with three Commissioners absent), to adopt Resolution No. 2025-04; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2025, the Appellant appealed the Planning Commissions upholding of the Community Development Director's approval of Planning and Zoning Permit No. 23-200-01 (Development Design Review) to the City Council; and 887
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

WHEREAS, on May 6, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Appellant’s Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Community Development Director's approval of Planning and Zoning Permit No. 23-200-01 (Development Design Review) in accordance with OCC 16-530 through 16-553 of the Oxnard City Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project conforms to the City of Oxnard 2030 General Plan elements thereof, the RiverPark Specific Plan, and the Oxnard City Code for the reasons set forth in the City Council Staff Report; and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2025, the City Council reviewed all of the information provided in the staff report and considered the testimony given at the public hearing, including all written communications to the Planning Commission and City Council, as well as other pertinent information and appeal; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2025, the City Council deliberated the merits of the Project and Appeal and made a motion to Deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s upholding of the Community Director’s approval of Planning and Zoning Permit No. 23-200-01; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Applicant agrees as a condition of this Resolution that at its own expense, to indemnify and defend (with counsel selected by the City in its discretion) the City of Oxnard and its agents, officers and employees from and against any claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this Resolution or any actions or proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made before the approval of this Resolution that were part of the approval process.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD:

SECTION 1. Based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented, including the City Council Staff Report and all attachments thereto, the City Council finds:
(1) The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan and other adopted policies of the City of Oxnard.

As described in the previous Staff Reports (Attachments 1-2 of Agenda Item M-2 of the May 6, 2025 City Council Agenda), the Applicant proposes the construction of a 280-unit apartment building with a centrally located parking structure, and related site improvements. The Project is within the RiverPark Specific Plan (RPSP) zone district which is consistent with the 2030 General Plan land use designation of Commercial Regional. As discussed in detail in the Director Hearing’s Staff Report Section 6 and 888
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

the Project Consistency Analysis of the Director Hearing (both within Attachment 1of Agenda Item M-2 of the May 6, 2025 City Council Agenda), the Project, as designed and conditioned, meets all applicable development standards. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with the 2030 General Plan and other adopted policies of the City of Oxnard and meets this Finding.
(2) The nature, condition and development of adjacent uses was considered, and such use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings or structures or to the public health, safety or general welfare.

Pursuant to the 2030 General Plan land use designation “Very High Residential/Commercial Regional,” and the RiverPark Specific Plan (RPSP) zoning district, the proposed use of the project site as a residential apartment building is an allowed use. The surrounding uses are characterized by commercial uses, which are predominantly office and retail uses, and residential uses. Construction activities, anticipated uses, and development design will be subject to standard construction requirements of the Building, Fire, and Traffic Codes. Therefore, the proposed use and improvements will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings or structures or to the public health, safety or general welfare. (3) The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate any yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and any items required as a condition of approval of this special use permit.

As proposed and conditioned, the project will meet the development standards of the RiverPark Specific Plan to ensure that development is adequately proportional to the size of the property. The project site is a vacant 4.85-acre lot. Pursuant to the RiverPark Specific Plan, the Project has been designed to be consistent with the maximum building height, front, side and rear setbacks, lot coverage, parking standards, and roof top equipment standards. The building is located along Oxnard Blvd and fronts directly onto Oxnard Blvd, with its garage entry/exit on Clyde River Place. The Project meets all RiverPark Specific Plan Building Orientation and Use Guidelines. Pursuant to the City of Oxnard Landscape Standards, the proposed development includes landscaping within the front yard. Given these circumstances, the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the setbacks, parking, landscaping, and other City standards. (4) The site for the proposed use will be served by streets and highways adequate in width and structure to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use will generate.

The project will be accessed via an access driveway on Clyde River Place. The parking structure will provide parking for 490 vehicles, while the requirement is only 348 parking spaces. The City bicycle and vehicle parking requirements are being met. The project has been conditioned to submit a draft Parking Management Plan 889
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

(PMP) that identifies how the parking shall be managed onsite, to avoid impacts to the surrounding developments. Therefore, the site will be served by streets and highways adequate in width and structure to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed commercial building is anticipated to generate. (5) The site for the proposed use will be provided with adequate sewerage, water, fire protection and storm drainage facilities.

The proposed project is considered infill development that has been found to be consistent with anticipated development for this site. Furthermore, the project site will be served by existing water and sewer lines. Therefore, the site for the proposed use will be provided with adequate sewerage, water, fire protection and storm drainage facilities.

SECTION 2. The project is within a Specific Plan area for which the City of Oxnard prepared the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), an Management Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a Statement of Overriding Consideration for the Specific Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council, in compliance with CEQA Guidelines, finds that the proposed project is not subject to additional environmental review pursuant to Sections 15162 through 15164 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the proposed project are activities covered by and within the scope of the approved by the FEIR No. 00-03 mitigation measures; FEIR No. 00-03 adequately describes the project for purposes of CEQA; and further environmental documentation is not required.

Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15162, the City Council finds that the project would not have effects that were not examined in the Specific Plan EIR because:
i. No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, that will require major revisions to the Specific Plan EIR, due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no new information of substantial importance as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3). ii. The project proponent does not refuse to implement any mitigation measures that were previously infeasible but are now feasible, or any other mitigation measures, including mitigation measures considerably different from those in the Specific Plan EIR, that would be necessary to substantially reduce significant environmental impacts.
iii. The project proponent is required to comply with the applicable mitigation measures and regulatory programs identified in the Specific Plan EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

SECTION 3. Based on the findings set forth herein and the Staff Report and all attachments thereto, the City Council hereby approves Planning and Zoning Permit No. 23-200-01 (Development Design Review Permit), subject to the attached conditions of approval. 890
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

SECTION 4. The decision of the City Council is final.

SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Note: The abbreviations below identify the City department or division responsible for determining compliance with these standard conditions. The first department or division listed has responsibility for compliance at plan check, the second during inspection and the third at final inspection, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or at a later date, as specified in the condition. If more than one department or division is listed, the first will check the plans or inspect the project before the second confirms compliance with the condition. The italicized code at the end of each condition provides internal information on the source of each condition: Some are standard permit conditions (e.g. G-1) while some are taken from environmental documents (e.g. MND-S2).

DEPARTMENTS AND DIVISIONS
CA City Attorney PL Planning Division
DS Dev Services/Eng Dev/Inspectors TR Traffic Division
PD Police Department B Building Plan Checker
SC Source Control FD Fire Department
PK Landscape Design CE Code Compliance

GENERAL PROJECT CONDITIONS

1. This permit is granted for the property described in the application on file with the Planning Division, and may not be transferred from one property to another. (PL, G-1).

2. This permit is granted for the plans approved on May 6, 2025, (“the plans”) on file with the Planning Division. The project shall conform to the plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions, or unless a minor modification to the plans is approved by the Planning and Environmental Services Manager (“Planning Manager”) or a major modification to the plans is approved by the Planning Commission. A minor modification may be granted for minimal changes or increases in the extent of use or size of structures or of the design, materials or colors of structures or masonry walls. A major modification shall be required for substantial changes or increases in such items. (PL, G-2)

3. This permit shall automatically become null and void 36 months from the date of its issuance, unless Developer has diligently developed the proposed project, as shown by the issuance of a grading, foundation, or building permit and the construction of substantial improvements. A one time extension to this permit may be granted for a maximum of 12 additional months. The request for the extension shall be applied for prior to the expiration of the permit (PL, G-3)
891
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

4. All required off-site and on-site improvements for the Project, including structures, paving, and landscaping, shall be completed prior to occupancy unless the Development Services Manager allows Developer to provide security or an executed agreement approved by the City Attorney to ensure completion of such improvements. (DS, G-4)

5. By commencing any activity related to the Project or using any structure authorized by this permit, Developer accepts all of the conditions and obligations imposed by this permit and waives any challenge to the validity of the conditions and obligations stated therein. (CA, G-5)

6. Developer agrees, as a condition of adoption of this resolution, at Developer’s own expense, to indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by the City in its discretion) and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees from and against any claim, action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the approval of the resolution or any condition attached thereto or any proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to the approval of such resolution that were part of the approval process. (CA, G-6).

7. Any covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to the Project property shall be consistent with the terms of this permit and the City Code. If there is a conflict between the CC&Rs and the City Code or this permit, the City Code or this permit shall prevail. (CA, G-7)

8. Developer shall complete the “Notice of Land Use Restrictions and Conditions” form, using the form provided by the City, for recording with the Ventura County Recorder.

Before the City issues building permits, Developer shall submit the original completed, signed and notarized document, together with the required fees to the Planning Manager. (PL, G-8)

9. Developer shall provide off-street parking for the Project, including the number of spaces, stall size, paving, striping, location, and access, as required by the RiverPark Specific Plan and as documented in the approved in the Parking Management Plan. (PL/B)

10. Before placing or constructing any signs on the project property, Developer shall obtain a sign permit from the City. Except as provided in the sign permit, Developer may not change any signs on the project property. (PL/B, G-10)

11. Developer shall obtain a building permit for any new construction or modifications to structures, including interior modifications, authorized by this permit. (B, G-11)

12. Developer shall not permit any combustible refuse or other flammable materials to be burned on the Project property, unless allowed in writing by the Fire Chief. (FD, G-12)

13. Developer shall not permit any materials classified as flammable, combustible, radioactive, carcinogenic or otherwise potentially hazardous to human health to be handled, stored or 892
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

used on the Project property, except as provided in a permit issued by the Fire Chief. (FD, G-13)

14. If Developer, owner or tenant fails to comply with any of the conditions of this permit, the Developer, owner or tenant shall be subject to a civil fine pursuant to the City Code. (CA, G-14)

15. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall correct all violations of the City Code existing on the Project property for which the Code Compliance Division has open cases, unless the permit to be issued is for the correction of any remaining open code cases (PL, G-15).

LANDSCAPE STANDARD CONDITIONS

16. Prior to issuance of building permits or the proposed use is initiated, whichever comes first, Developer shall submit two copies of landscape and irrigation plans, along with the appropriate permit application and fees, to the Development Services Division and obtain approval of such plans. (PK/DS, PK-2)

17. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Developer shall install landscape and automatic irrigation systems that have been approved by the Parks and Facilities Superintendent. (PK, PK-3)

18. Developer shall properly maintain landscape planting and all irrigation systems as required by the City Code and as specified by this permit. Failure of Developer to do so may result in the revocation of this permit and initiation of legal proceedings against Developer to ensure compliance (PK, PK-4)

19. Prior to the issuance of City issues a certificate of occupancy, Developer shall provide a watering schedule to the building owner or manager and to the Planning Division or designee. The irrigation system shall include automatic rain shut-off devices, or instructions on how to override the irrigation system during rainy periods. (PK, PK-5)

20. All trees planted or placed on the property by Developer shall be at least 24-inch-box size.

All shrubs and vines shall be at least five-gallon size, except as otherwise specified by this permit. (PK, PK-6)

21. At the time of landscape plan check submittal, the landscape planting and irrigation plans shall comply with the current title 23 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). (PK, PK-7.1)

22. Developer shall provide an automatic irrigation controller and a written seasonal watering schedule for all front yard and street side yard landscaping. The watering schedule shall include variations for seasonal changes, sun and shade exposure of plants, type of plants, duration and frequency of irrigation, and suggestions as to how to conserve water. As part 893
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

of the landscape plan check submittal process, the Parks and Facilities Superintendent shall review the sufficiency of instructions for the operation of the irrigation controller and the watering schedule cycles. (PK, PK-11)

23. Developer shall install sod or a drought tolerant species approved and identified in the City’s low water use handout in the lawn areas of all front yards and street side yards. (PK, PK-13)

24. Developer shall submit four sets of the parkway landscape and irrigation plans with the first submittal of public improvement plans. The City shall approve the parkway landscape and irrigation plans when the City approves public improvement plans. Before the City issues a building permit, the irrigation plans must be approved for proper meter size, backflow prevention device, and cross connection control by the Water Production Supervisor or designee. (DS/ PK)

25. Before the City accepts the parkways from the Developer, the landscaping thereon must complete a plant establishment period of 90 days or such other time as specified in this permit. (PK/DS)

26. Developer shall install an irrigation system that includes a water sensor shut off device as a water conservation measure. (PK, PK-22)

27. At time of submittal to the Building and Engineering Division for plan check, Developer’s Landscape Architect or Architect shall provide the City with written confirmation that they have reviewed the civil engineering construction drawings and that the NPDES requirements are not in conflict with meeting the City’s landscape requirements. (PK, PK-23)

28. Developer shall include a note on the Landscape Plans submitted to the Building and Engineering Division for a building permit that “all landscaping and irrigation comply with Ordinance No. 2822, which adopted the City of Oxnard Landscape Water Conservation Standards, and applicable water conservation requirements of the State of California”. (PK, PK-24)

29. At the time of Plan Check submittal, the landscape plans shall contain an exhibit titled “Tree Tabulation Chart”. The Tree Tabulation Chart shall contain a listing of all existing trees on site and shall refer to them by number as identified in the Arborist’s Tree Report.

The Tree Tabulation Chart shall clearly list all trees to remain, be removed or transplanted.

The Chart shall contain the Arborist’s economic appraisal value of each tree(s) removed as well as computations and calculations showing how the value of the removed tree(s) was put back into new tree sizes for the project that are in addition to meeting the City’s minimum tree size of 24” box. (PK)

PLANNING DIVISION STANDARD CONDITIONS
894
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

30. Plans submitted by Developer with building permit applications shall show on the building elevation sheets all exterior building materials and colors, including product and finish manufacturer name, color name and number, and surface finish type (such as: stucco with sand finish, plaster with smooth finish) to be used in construction. (PL/B, PL-1)

31. Any application for a Minor Modification to the project shall be accompanied by four copies of plans reflecting the requested modification, together with applicable processing fees. (PL, PL-2)

32. Before the City issues building permits, Developer shall include a reproduction of all conditions of this permit as adopted by resolution of the Planning Manager in all sets of construction documents and specifications for the project. (PL, PL-3)

33. Before the City issues building permits, Developer shall provide to the Planning Division Manager color photographic reductions (8 1/2” by 11”) of full-size colored elevations and any other colored exhibit approved by the Director. Developer may retain the full-size colored elevations after the reductions are so provided. (PL, PL-4)

34. Developer may not modify any use approved by this permit unless the Planning Division Manager determines that Developer has provided the parking required by the City Code for the modified use. (PL, PL-7)

35. During the plan check review process, the Developer shall provide a lighting plan that provides design details (light standards, bollards, wall mounted packs, etc.) and illumination site information within alleyways, pathways, streetscapes, and open spaces proposed throughout the development. An electrical engineer shall prepare the site lighting plan demonstrating that adequate lighting ranges will be provided throughout the development without creating light spillover, light pollution, or conflicts with surrounding factors such as tree locations, off-site or adjacent lighting. (PL)

36. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall demonstrate that light standards illustrated on conceptual lighting plan do not conflict with tree locations. Developer shall submit a plan showing both the lighting and landscape on the same sheet.

37. Project on-site lighting shall be of a type and in a location that does not constitute a hazard to vehicular traffic, either on private property or on adjoining streets. To prevent damage from vehicles, standards in parking areas shall be mounted on reinforced concrete pedestals or otherwise protected. Developer shall recess or conceal under-canopy lighting elements so as not to be directly visible from a public street. Developer shall submit a lighting plan showing standard heights and light materials for design review and approval of the Planning Division Manager. (PL/B, PL-8)

38. In order to minimize light and glare on the project property, all parking lot and exterior structure light fixtures shall be high cut-off type that divert lighting downward onto the property and shall not cast light on any adjacent property or roadway. (PL, PL-9) 895
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

39. Developer shall provide graphic site directories at principal access points. (PL/B, PL-10)

40. During construction, Developer shall control dust by the following activities:
a. All trucks hauling graded or excavated material offsite shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle Code section 23114, with special attention to sub sections 23114(b)(2)(F), (e)(2) and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads. b. All graded and excavated material, exposed soils areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved onsite roadways, shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally-safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. (B/DS, PL-12)

41. Developer shall provide for dust control at all times during project property preparation and construction activities. (B/DS, PL-13)

42. During construction, Developer shall water the area to be graded or excavated prior to commencement of grading or excavation operations. Such application of water shall be at least twice per day and shall penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. (B/DS, PL-11)

43. Developer agrees to participate in a water conservation program that includes refitting water fixtures existing on the project property with water conserving devices within residences or businesses in the City’s water service area, if such a program is in effect when building permits are issued for this project. Among the requirements of such a program might be refitting existing toilets, faucets, shower heads, landscaping irrigation or other fixtures and items that consume water within the structure. (PL, PL-14)

44. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay a document imaging fee for the planning files in an amount calculated by planning staff at the time of building permit review based on fees then in effect. (PL/B, PL-16).

45. Developer shall provide elevators in structures of three stories or more, except where the third story consists entirely of upper levels of residence that have entrances at the first or second story. (PL/B, PL-17)

46. Developer shall install all roof and building rain gutters and downspouts to integrate as closely as possible with building design elements, including matching adjacent building colors as closely as possible. Developer shall submit a plan and scheme for approval by the Planning Division Manager prior to issuance of building permits. (PL, PL-18)

47. Developer shall pay all applicable impact fees in accordance with The RiverPark Development Agreement prior to issuance of building permits. 896
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

48. Developer shall provide utility meters, mailboxes and address directories, placed in decorative cabinets and clustered for efficient access for residents and service persons with adequate lighting. Developer shall coordinate placement and design of such items accordingly, with the Planning Division Manager, the appropriate utility service provider and the United States Postal Service, prior to issuance of building permits. (PL, PL-19)

49. Railings and enclosures for patios and balconies shall provide at least 50 percent enclosure for screening and privacy. Developer shall include details of the railings and enclosures on the construction documents. (PL/B, PL-24)

50. Light standards illuminating interior walkways shall be no more than eight feet high. Light shall not intrude into private living or patio areas. Light standards serving recreational areas held in common shall be no more than 15 feet high. Light shall be directed away from dwelling units. (B, PL-30)

51. All drive lanes shall be provided with independently metered lighting with automatic daylight sensors for dusk to dawn lighting within drive lanes. The maintenance and replacement of independently metered lighting (wall fixtures, light bollards) shall be the responsibility of the Property Owner. (PL)

52. Developer shall recess or screen roof heating and cooling systems and other exterior mechanical equipment from adjoining property and public streets, as required by this permit. Plumbing vents, ducts and other appurtenances protruding from the roof of structures shall be placed so that they will not be visible from the front of the property or other major public vantage points. Developer shall include a note on the construction plumbing drawings of exterior elevations to indicate to contractors that roof features shall be grouped and located in the described manner. Roof vents shall be shown on construction drawings and painted to match roof material color. (PL/B, PL-41)

53. Developer shall install all roof and building drainpipes and downspouts inside building elements. These items shall not be visible on any exterior building elevations from the public roadways or from public right-of-ways. (PL)

54. For any exterior utility meter panels, Developer shall paint such panels to match the structure upon which it is located. Such panels shall be located to take advantage of screening (e.g. landscaping or other building elements) from public right-of-ways, to the maximum extent feasible. (PL, PL-43)

55. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Developer shall remove all construction materials and vehicles from the subject property. (PL/B, PL-47)

56. For any exterior utility meter panels, Developer shall paint such panels to match the structure upon which it is located. Such panels shall be located to take advantage of screening (e.g. landscaping or other building elements) from public right-of-ways, to the maximum extent feasible. (PL, PL-43)
897
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

PLANNING DIVISION SPECIAL CONDITIONS

57. Developer shall remove any and all graffiti from the project premises, including but not limited to graffiti within the building, within 24 hours of its appearance. The surface of such affected areas shall be matched to blend in with the underlying colors and/or design, and shall not look like a paint patch. (PL)

58. Before the City issues building permits, Developer shall provide a Graffiti Deterrent Plan, subject to the approval the Planning Division Manager. Such plan shall include such elements as washable paint and sealers on the building and perimeter walls. (PL)

59. A call box, which allows for remote operation of the electric gate by office staff, shall be maintained at all times at the entrance to the parking structure. Sufficient space shall be provided to allow visitors to turn around and exit without backing out onto the street, unless staff is available at all times to allow visitors entry into the parking structure. (PL)

60. Developer submitted a Parking Management Plan that has been approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The Site Property Manager shall be responsible for the ongoing implementation of the approved Parking Management Plan including, but not limited to, issuance of associated parking permits. The Parking Management Plan is subject to review and revision by the City Traffic Engineer based on field conditions and effectiveness in meeting the Plans goals. This Parking Management Plan re-evaluation work effort shall be accompanied by a filing fee determined by the Community Development Director and Public Works Director to address staff review time by Community Development and Public Works staff. (TR)

61. Long term and short term bicycle storage per the city's Bicycle Master Plan shall be provided to meet residential unit storage requirements.

62. Secure mail and parcel delivery provisions shall be included, coordinated with Oxnard Police Department.

63. The multifamily dwellings shall be constructed and designed in accordance with the minimum noise standards. An acoustical report addressing exterior noise sources shall be submitted with the dwelling construction plans for approval by the Building Official.

Design measures recommended by the analysis must be incorporated into the architectural and structural design in order to meet the 45dBA CNEL interior standard in perimeter residences and 65 dBA CNEL exterior standards for common open spaces and patios and/or balconies.

64. Standpipe systems required by the Fire Department shall be designed to be located within building areas, such as staircase or tuck under parking areas that will lend to visually screen. (PL)
898
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

65. No rooftop equipment shall be installed unless screened from all sides by a designed parapet or building element that extends above the height of the tallest part of such equipment. (PL)

66. These conditions of approval impose specific fees, dedications, reservations and/or other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, the 90-day period in which the Developer or applicant has to protest the imposed fees, dedications, reservations and/or other exactions has begun as of the date that the conditions of approval are approved.

67. Developer and subsequent property manager shall be responsible for keeping records of resident and visitor parking spaces available; resident and visitor parking permits issued; and parking spaces and garages assigned to every unit at any time. Such records shall be made available to the City in the event complaints are received regarding residents of this project creating significant parking and safety issues, such as, but not limited to, occupying required on-street parking spaces for other developments nearby, lack of resident or visitor parking for this project, and consistent illegal parking by residents and visitors of this project. (PL, TR)

68. In accordance with the RiverPark TDM Fee Program, the Developer shall mitigate air quality emissions associated with development of the subject site through a contribution to the City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. Such fee shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, as amended. Such fee shall be collected in full prior to building permit issuance. (PL/DS)

69. All construction activities shall occur only between the hours of 7:00am to 6:00 pm Monday through Saturday in accordance with Section 7-188(D) of the Oxnard City Code.

70. Developer shall not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways or the associated sidewalk during construction and maintenance activities. (PL)

71. Developer shall maintain the construction site free of litter and the accumulation of construction debris. (PL)

72. During all phases of construction beginning with grading, Applicant shall post a noise complaint sign with a contact name and phone number to be prominently placed on the construction site of a minimum size of 3 feet by 3 feet. The contact person shall be the general contractor, Project architect, or the Applicant. The sign shall note the days and times during which construction is allowed by Oxnard City Code (OCC) Chapter 7, Article XI “Sound Regulation” and specifically OCC Section 7-188(D), and the sign shall include language that directs a person who is not satisfied by whatever action is taken by the Project to contact the Code Compliance Division at (805) 385-7940. (PL)

PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATIONS
899
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

73. The following Mitigation Measures originally set forth in the Reporting/Monitoring Program, adopted for the RiverPark Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report approved in April, 2002 with the City of Oxnard, lead agency, shall be fully complied with at all times. The measures shall be included as conditions of required permit action, and compliance shall result in potential impacts reduced to a level of less than significant and there shall be no residual impacts from the proposed project. Proposed mitigation for those impacts is as follows:

Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1:

Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project site, and within 15 days prior to construction or site preparation activities that would occur during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting on the site (February through July), the applicant shall retain the services of a qualified biologist. The biologist must, at a minimum, have a degree in biology or related field, and five years field experience in identification of flora and fauna in the southern California region, and be recognized as qualified by appropriate regulatory agencies. The biologist shall conduct on-site surveys to determine if active nests of special-status and common bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game Code, are present within 100 feet of the construction zone. If active nests are found on or immediately adjacent to the site, a minimum 100-foot buffer area (300 feet for raptors) shall be temporarily fenced around the nest site. No construction activities or project-related activities shall be permitted within this nest zone until the young birds have fledged, as determined by the biologist.

REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM:

Method of Review Verification: Field Surveys
Monitoring Milestone: Prior to issuance of grading permit Responsible Agency: Planning & Environmental Services
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2:

All lighting adjacent to the Santa Clara River and berm, particularly street lamps, shall be downcast luminaries and shall be shielded and oriented in a manner that will prevent spillage or glare (greater than one-half foot candle illumination at ground level) into the remaining natural and open space areas. Final lighting orientation and design shall be approved by the City of Oxnard Community Development Department.

REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM:

Method of Review Verification: Field Surveys
Monitoring Milestone: Prior to issuance of grading permit Responsible Agency: Planning & Environmental Services
900
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

Mitigation Measure 4.4-3:

Certain ornamental plants are known to escape from planted areas and invade into native plant communities. In order to protect native plant communities established within the Specific Plan Area and located in the adjacent Santa Clara River Corridor, the plants listed in Table 4.4-4, Ornamentals to be Prohibited from the Project Site, on page 4.4-30 of the Draft EIR shall not be planted within the common landscaped areas of the proposed site plan. The landscaping plans within common areas of the project shall be reviewed by a qualified botanist who shall recommend appropriate provisions to prevent other invasive plant species from colonizing remaining natural areas. These provisions includes the following: (a) review and screening of proposed plant palette and planting plans to identify and avoid the use of invasive species; (b) weed removal during the initial planting of landscaped areas; and (c) the monitoring for and removal of weeds and other invasive plant species as part of ongoing landscape maintenance activities. The frequency and method of monitoring for invasive species shall be determined by a qualified botanist.

REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM:

Method of Review Verification: Field Surveys
Monitoring Milestone: Prior to issuance of grading permit Responsible Agency: Planning & Environmental Services
Noise
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1:

On-site construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and exclude Sundays..

REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM:

Method of Review Verification: Field inspection
Monitoring Milestone: During grading & construction
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Mitigation Measure 4.9-2:

Staging areas shall be provided on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These staging areas shall be located to maximize the distance to residential areas.

REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM:

Method of Review Verification: Field inspection
Monitoring Milestone: During grading & construction
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Mitigation Measure 4.9-3:

Construction equipment is fitted with modern sound-reduction equipment. 901
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM:

Method of Review Verification: Field inspection
Monitoring Milestone: During grading & construction
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Mitigation Measure 4.9-4:

When construction operations occur adjacent to occupied residential areas, additional noise reduction measures shall be implemented, including, but are not limited to, changing the location of stationary construction equipment, shutting of idling equipment and notifying adjacent residences in advance of construction work.

REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM:

Method of Review Verification: Field inspection
Monitoring Milestone: During grading & construction
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Standard Air Quality

74. Developer shall ensure that all construction equipment is maintained and tuned to recommended manufacture’s specifications.

75. At all times during construction activities, Developer shall minimize the area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

76. During construction, Developer shall water the area to be graded or excavated prior to commencement of grading or excavation operations. Such application of water shall be at least twice per day and shall penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities.)

77. During construction, Developer shall control dust by the following activities:
a. All trucks hauling graded or excavated material offsite shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle Code §23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2) and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads.
b. All graded and excavated material, exposed soils areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved onsite roadways, shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally-safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible.
902
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

c. During construction, Developer shall post and maintain onsite signs, in highly visible areas, restricting all vehicular traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. d. During periods of high winds (i.e. wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties), Developer shall cease all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations to prevent fugitive dust from being a nuisance or creating a hazard, either onsite or offsite.
e. Sweeping streets adjacent to the construction site to remove dust caused by the construction

78. The Permittee shall comply with the provisions of applicable VCAPCD Rules and Regulations, which include but are not limited to, Rule 50 (Opacity), Rule 51 (Nuisance), Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust), and Rule 55.1 (Removal of Visible Roadway Accumulations).

79. Signs displaying the APCD Complaint Line Telephone number for public complaints shall be posted in a prominent location visible to the public off the site: (805) 645-1400 during business hours and (805) 654-2797 after hours.

80. Prior to grading permit approval, Developer shall include on the grading plans a reproduction of all conditions of this permit pertaining to dust control requirements. (PL) Standard Cultural Resources

81. In the event that any historic or prehistoric cultural resources are discovered, work in the vicinity of the find shall be halted immediately. An archaeologist shall evaluate the discovery and determine the necessary mitigations for successful compliance with all applicable regulations. Developer or its successor in interest shall be responsible for paying all salaries, fees and the cost of any future mitigation resulting from the survey.

82. Developer shall contract with a Native American monitor to be present during all subsurface grading, trenching or construction activities on the project site. The monitor shall provide a monthly report to the Planning Division summarizing the activities during the reporting period. A copy of the contract for these services shall be submitted to the Planning Division Manager for review and approval prior to issuance of any grading permits. The monitoring report(s) shall be provided to the Planning Division prior to approval of final building permit signature. (MND, E-2)

83. Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures identified in EIR 00-03, which are hereby incorporated by reference as conditions of approval. (ALL)

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DIVISION

84. A Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan (“C&D Plan”) (ERDC-1) must be submitted to the Environmental Resources Division for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The C&D Plan shall provide that at least 65% of the waste generated on the project be diverted from the landfill. The Plan shall include the entire 903
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

project area, even if tenants are pursuing or will pursue independent programs. The Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Environmental Resources Division prior to issuance of a building permit. The Plan shall include the following information: material type to be recycled, reused, salvaged or disposed; estimated quantities to be processed; management method used; destination of material including the hauler name and facility location. Developer shall use the Plan form.

85. After completion of construction and prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued, a Construction and Demolition Waste Management Report (“C&D Report”) and provide legible copies of weight tickets, receipts, or invoices for materials sent to disposal or reuse/recycling facilities.

86. An Occupancy Plan (“Occupancy Plan”) must be submitted to the Environmental Resources Division prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Occupancy Plan must clearly state how recyclable and organic material, including food waste, will be managed on site to be in compliance with applicable state laws (AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, SB 1383) and any subsequent legislation adopted in the future, will be managed on site in perpetuity; how property management staff will participate in the program; and how residents will be educated about the program and encouraged to participate. The Occupancy Plan must include what service provider(s) will manage/transport materials to appropriate facilities.

87. Management rules shall be developed for the project. The property management must make provisions to divert a minimum of 50% while striving for 75% diversion of waste material generated at this location in perpetuity. This can be achieved by subscribing to the City’s residential curbside or mandatory commercial recycling services and through annual tenant education that may include source reduction, recycling, reuse, and organics collection requirements.

88. Any/all organic waste that is generated must be diverted from landfill disposal, as material of this type is not allowed in a trash dumpster. If landscaping is performed by an entity other than the City of Oxnard (i.e. sel-haul or third party private hauler), the landscape service providers must be informed, in writing, of this condition and the property management must complete and submit an Alternative Services Certification annually.

89. Any new or renovated waste enclosures must be sized so that they can accommodate all three waste streams and meet minimum safety and operational requirements, including vehicle path of travel, employee access, and prevention of illegal dumping and/or vandalism. Use the City’s approved Standard Plates, but modify dimensions accordingly.

90. Developer shall arrange for materials collection during construction, demolition, and occupancy with the City's Environmental Resources Division or Developer shall arrange for self-hauling. Regardless of hauling methods, all materials collected must be conveyed to the Del Norte Regional Recycling and Transfer Station. 904
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

91. Developer shall dispose of sewage and solid waste from the project by City’s wastewater and solid waste systems in a manner approved by the City Engineer.

92. Developer and operator shall provide recycling containers near the point of use in common areas for guests and residents to dispose of their recyclable waste (examples: indoors for newspapers and beverage containers; outdoors for beverage containers). Containers used exclusively for recycling shall be clearly identified as "recycling only" with clear icons or other graphics on each container appropriate to the container's content.

93. Property Owner (Management) shall provide sufficient containers available to tenants and staff to prevent the contamination of recyclables with waste or moisture.

94. The location is required to adhere to applicable solid waste management ordinances, including future ordinance creation and/or revisions.

95. All collection containers in the waste room must be accessible for use by tenants.

96. The property owner(s) shall provide a source separated three (3) stream waste system by providing separate trash chutes for: (1) refuse, (2) commingled recycling and (3) organic material, generated by the proposed development;
a. Alternatively, if the property owner(s) proposes a two (2) stream waste system (no organic material chute) then the property owner(s) shall then provide organic waste receptacles on each proposed floor for use by the residents on that floor.

The organic waste receptacles on each floor, will need to be regularly emptied by the property owner(s) staff and placed into the organic waste bin located in the trash room. The organic waste material bin(s) will then need to be brought out to the designated staging area to be serviced, by the property owner(s) staff. b. All materials shall be placed in commercial bins, and brought to the designation staging area;

97. The property owner(s) staff shall pull out refuse/recycle/organic bins to the staging area where refuse equipment may access the bins for collection, on the day(s) of service. The refuse/recycle/organic bins shall be moved back to the trash room by the property owner(s) staff immediately after being serviced by the City;

98. A designated staging area for the service of refuse/recycle/organic bins shall be located on the property, be accessible by an unobstructed path of at least 16' high and 12' wide to ensure safe access, have a height clearance of 25' (for overhead bin lifting, be improved to withstand refuse equipment weighing up to 62,000 lb and be at a location approved by the Environmental Resources Division.

99. The property owner(s) shall sign a trash enclosure maintenance agreement.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION STANDARD CONDITIONS
905
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

100. Developer shall pay plan check and processing fees in effect at the time of construction plan submittal and shall pay development fees, encroachment permit fees, and other applicable fees in effect at permit issuance. (DS-1)
101. Developer shall have the site improvement plans prepared using standard Building and Engineering Division format(s) by a civil engineer licensed in the State of California. The plans shall incorporate recommendations from soil engineering and geology reports. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, improvement plans must be approved by the City Engineer and ink-on-mylar plans filed with the Building and Engineering Division. (DS-3) 102. Developer shall submit improvement plans and drainage calculations demonstrating that storm drain runoff from the project property and all upstream areas will be safely conveyed to an approved drainage facility. The design and conveyance route shall be compatible with the City’s Master Plan of Drainage and shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of improvement plans. (DS-4)
103. Developer shall protect building pads from inundation during a 1% chance (100-year) storm. (DS-5)
104. Developer shall replace all broken, uplifted, or missing curb, gutter, or sidewalk along the street frontage(s) of the project. (DS-6)
105. Before connecting the project to existing sewer and water service laterals, Developer shall conduct an inspection (pothole or video) of the existing lateral(s) and arrange for City staff to view inspection results. Developer shall make repairs to such facilities as determined necessary by City staff. Developer shall bring all existing water services into compliance with current City standards including removal of unused water or sewer laterals by disconnection at the main. (DS-7)
106. Curb cut widths and design shall conform to City ordinances, standards, and policies in effect at the time City issues an encroachment permit. (DS-9) 107. Developer’s site improvement plans shall include an on-site sewer plan. (DS-10) 108. Developer shall provide fire hydrants such that all points of all structures are within one hundred fifty (150) feet of a fire hydrant, or as otherwise approved by the Fire Department.

Fire hydrant line improvements shall be designed in accordance with City standards and shown on the civil site improvement plans prior to issuance of a site improvement/grading permit. Developer shall provide the City with an easement over onsite waterlines using standard City format. (DS-11)
109. Developer shall install all new on-site electric, cable, telephone and similar utility service laterals underground. Services shall be installed underground to the nearest suitable riser pole as determined by the appropriate utility service provider. (DS-12) 906
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

110. Developer shall enter into an agreement, approved as to form by the City Attorney, to install and construct all public improvements and perform grading required by this permit and by the City Code. Developer shall post security satisfactory to the Finance Director, guaranteeing the installation and construction of all required improvements within the time period specified in the agreement or any approved time extension. (DS-14) 111. A California licensed civil engineer shall prepare the public/site improvement plans and documents for this project in accordance with City standards and shall submit all such plans to the City Engineer. Submittal shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, grading, street, drainage, sewer, water and other appurtenant improvement plans, construction cost estimates, soils reports, and all pertinent engineering design calculations.

City will not approve a parcel map or final map nor issue a grading, site improvement or building permit until the City Engineer has approved all improvement plans. (DS-15) 112. Prior to issuance of a site improvement permit, Developer shall provide to the Building and Engineering Division digital copies of all project maps, address map, and/or civil improvements drawings in DWG format. Prior to improvement bond release, Developer shall provide updated digital files containing all changes that occur during construction. (DS-16)
113. Developer shall provide all necessary easements for streets, highways, alleys, sidewalks, parkways, landscaping, utilities, drainage facilities, or other improvements as required by City. If such easements cannot be obtained from the property owner by negotiation, City may acquire them at the expense of Developer by exercise of the power of eminent domain.

Developer shall bear all costs of eminent domain proceedings, including appraisal, acquisition, attorney’s fees, and court costs. Before City issues a site improvement permit, Developer shall dedicate all required easements to City. (DS-19) 114. Developer shall remove graffiti from the project, including graffiti on offsite public infrastructure under construction by Developer, within 24 hours of its appearance. If Developer fails to remove graffiti in accordance with this condition, the City may at the discretion of the City Engineer issue a stop work order until such time as the graffiti is removed. (DS-20)
115. The conditions of this resolution shall prevail over all omissions, conflicting notations, specifications, dimensions, typical sections, and the like, that may or may not be shown on the improvement plans. (DS-21)
116. Developer shall pay the cost of all inspections of on-site and off-site improvements. (DS-22)
117. Developer shall be responsible for all project-related actions of Developer's employees, contractors, subcontractors, and agents until City accepts the improvements. (DS-23) 118. Prior to beginning construction, Developer shall designate in writing an authorized agent who shall have complete authority to represent and to act for Developer. The authorized 907
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

agent shall be present at the work site whenever work is in progress. Developer or the authorized agent shall make arrangements acceptable to City for any emergency work.

When City gives orders to the authorized agent to do work required for the convenience and safety of the general public because of inclement weather or any other cause, and the orders are not immediately acted upon by the authorized agent, City may do or have such work done by others at Developer's expense. (DS-24)
119. "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" latest edition (including modifications thereto by City) and applicable City Standard Plates and Design Criteria shall be the project specifications, except as noted otherwise on the approved improvement plans. City reserves the right to upgrade, add to, or revise these specifications and plans and all other City ordinances, policies, and standards. If the improvements required of this project are not completed within 12 months from the date of City’s approval of the improvement plans, Developer shall comply with and conform to any and all upgraded, additional or revised specifications, plans, ordinances, policies and standards. (DS-27) 120. Developer shall retain a California licensed Civil Engineer to ensure that the construction work conforms to the approved improvement plans and specifications and to provide certified "as-built" plans after project completion. Developer’s submittal of certified "as-built" plans is a condition of City’s final acceptance of the project and release of any associated security. (DS-29)
121. All grading shall conform to City's standard grading notes, City Code, and recommendations of Developer’s soils engineer as approved by the City Engineer. (DS-30) 122. Developer shall construct sufficient drainage facilities concurrent with rough grading operations to mitigate any potential flooding or erosion affecting adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. (DS-31)
123. Developer shall design all slopes steeper than 5 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) with a minimum 18 inch wide level area (at both top and bottom of slope) where it adjoins a wall, fence, sidewalk, trail, curb or similar improvement. (DS-32)
124. Storm drain, sewer and water facilities shall conform to applicable City Master Plans.

Developer shall prepare plans for these facilities in accordance with City’s engineering design criteria in effect at the time of improvement plan submittal. Developer shall submit plans with pertinent engineering analyses and design calculations for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a site improvement permit. (DS-34) 125. Developer shall design project grading to convey stormwater to a street, alley, or approved drain so that there are no undrained depressions. (DS-35) 126. Developer shall dispose of sewage and solid waste from the project by City’s wastewater and solid waste systems in a manner approved by the City Engineer. (DS-38) 908
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

127. Developer shall install water mains, fire hydrants and water services in conformance with City standard plates, design criteria and specifications as directed by the City Engineer. (DS-41)
128. Developer shall install City approved backflow prevention devices for water connections if so ordered by the City Engineer. (DS-45)
129. Prior to designing the water system for the project, Developer shall have a certified fire flow test performed to determine existing water pressure and flow characteristics with a minimum of two flowing hydrants. The water system for the building fire sprinkler shall be designed to allow for a 10 psi drop in the static water pressure measured during the fire flow test. After construction and before City issues a certificate of occupancy, the City Engineer may require a second test. Developer shall obtain permits from the City Engineer prior to performing tests. Developer shall have all tests certified by a mechanical, civil, or fire protection engineer and provide written results of all tests to the City Engineer. (DS-47) 130. Prior to issuance of a grading or other site improvement permit, Developer shall dedicate rights of ingress and egress as directed by the City Engineer. (DS-50) 131. Developer shall improve all streets, alleys, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters adjacent to the project in accordance with City standards, as necessary to provide safe vertical and horizontal transitions. (DS-52)
132. Developer shall install all water, gas, sewer, storm drain, electrical, cable television, and telephone lines before any paving is placed. (DS-54)
133. Developer shall submit a landscape irrigation plan prepared by a licensed professional, showing proper water meter size, backflow prevention devices, and cross-connection control. (DS-59)
134. As a part of the site improvement plans, Developer shall submit a master utility plan that shows the relative location of all public and private utilities (including gas, electric, street lights, telephone and cable television lines) in accordance with City standard plans. (DS-61)
135. Developer shall be responsible for and bear the cost of replacement of all existing survey monumentation (e.g., property corners) disturbed or destroyed during construction, and shall file appropriate records with the Ventura County Surveyor's Office. (DS-64) 136. Developer shall install bike racks in accordance with City standards at locations approved by City Traffic Engineer. (TR-73)
137. Using forms provided by the Building and Engineering Division, Developer shall submit a stormwater quality control measures maintenance and operations plan ("the Plan") for this project. If the BMPs implemented with this project include proprietary products that require regular replacement and/or cleaning, Developer shall provide proof of a contract 909
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

with an entity qualified to provide such periodic maintenance. The property owner is responsible for the long-term maintenance and operation of all BMPs included in the project design. Upon request by City, property owner shall provide written proof of ongoing BMP maintenance operations. No grading or building permit shall be issued until the City Engineer approves the Plan and Developer provides an executed copy of the City’s stormwater covenant with the Plan included as an exhibit for recordation by the City. (DS-82)
138. Developer’s stormwater quality control measures maintenance and operations plan shall include: 1) Requirement to clean on-site storm drains at least twice a year; once immediately before the first of October (the beginning of the rainy season) and once in January. The City Engineer may require additional cleaning; 2) Requirement to maintain parking lots free of litter and debris. Developer shall sweep sidewalks, drive aisles, and parking lots regularly to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. When swept or cleaned, debris must be trapped and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system.

Developer may not discharge any cleaning agent into the storm drain system; 3) Requirement to label all on-site storm drain inlets with the message "Don't Dump - Drains to Ocean" in accordance with City standards. (DS-83)
139. Developer’s engineer shall submit written confirmation that the project landscape drawings comply with the landscape requirements of the Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures for all landscape-based stormwater quality best management practices. (DS-84)
140. Prior to issuance of a grading, building or demolition permit and prior to commencement of any clearing, grading or excavation, Developer shall provide evidence of assignment of a permit identification number by the California State Water Resources Control Board indicating submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) by the Developer in accordance with the NPDES Construction General Permit. Developer shall comply with all requirements of the General Permit and the Ventura Countywide MS4 Permit, including preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Developer shall keep the SWPPP updated to reflect current site conditions and a copy of the SWPPP shall be kept onsite and available for City or designated representative to review upon request. (DS-86) 141. Developer shall install ‘Full Capture System Devices’ (“Devices”) certified by the State Water Resources Control Board Executive Director in compliance with the Statewide Trash Amendments (“Amendments”) in all catch basins accepting stormwater runoff from any portion of this project that meets the definition of ‘Priority Land Use’ as defined by the Amendments at the time of issuance of a grading/site improvement permit. The Devices shall be sized and designed in accordance with requirements of the Amendments and the Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (“TGM”). (DS-88) 142. Developer shall pay to the County of Ventura a road mitigation fee in accordance with the agreement between the City and the County of Ventura. Proof of payment shall be provided to the Building and Engineering Division prior to issuance of a building permit. (DS-105) 910
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION SPECIAL CONDITIONS
143. The drainage report prepared for the project shall include calculations with hydraulic grade line demonstrating the project generates and discharges stormwater runoff consistent with the design of the backbone drainage system for the Tract. (DS) 144. The project site’s stormwater shall be designed and constructed to maintain the drainage pattern that was established for this lot. (DS)
145. This development is located within the Riverpark Specific Plan, and the Developer shall submit a drainage report for the stormwater quality treatment facilities that are to be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the July 2000 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and associated 2002 Technical Guidance Manual (“TGM”). The site improvements shall be designed to intercept and effectively prevent pollutants from discharging to the public storm drain system or other offsite conveyance systems. The stormwater quality system design shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of an infrastructure improvement permit. (DS) 146. Developer shall implement onsite (privately maintained) stormwater quality mitigations that comply with the recommendations of the “Stormwater Quality Management Plan for Riverpark.” (DS)
147. Stormwater treatment devices shall be designed to have no standing water. (DS) 148. Developer shall design and implement a plan to promote stormwater infiltration for this project. Project shall route roof runoff and parking spaces to infiltration devices to the maximum extent feasible. Overflow from the infiltration devices shall be directed to the onsite stormwater treatment facilities prior to discharging offsite. The stormwater infiltration plan shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or site improvement permit. (DS)
149. Developer shall install ‘Full Capture System Devices’ (“Devices”) certified by the State Water Resources Control Board Executive Director in compliance with the Statewide Trash Amendments (“Amendments”) to treat all stormwater runoff from this site that meets the definition of ‘Priority Land Use’ as defined by the Amendments at the time of issuance of a grading/site improvement permit. The Devices shall be sized for the 1-year 1-hour storm event and designed in accordance with the requirements of the Amendments and the Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures. (DS) 150. The catch basin located on Clyde River Place that is in conflict with proposed driveway approach shall be relocated to outside the driveway’s footprint. (DS) 151. Developer shall prepare a sewer report demonstrating the project complies with the master-planned/backbone sewer design and confirm the project will discharge sewer rates 911
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

within the specified ranges. A copy of the master plan exhibit shall be attached to the report. (DS)
152. The onsite irrigation system shall connect to the recycled water system. The project shall be responsible for irrigating the new frontage landscaping, unless the area is proven to be within the existing special district for irrigation and maintenance. (DS) 153. Developer shall list all grading or air quality-related environmental mitigation measures on the grading plan cover sheet. Developer shall cause all project contractors to comply with these mitigations during all phases of construction. (DS) 154. All existing and proposed easements within and around the project site shall be shown on the civil improvement plans. (DS)
155. The project shall dedicate new water easement(s) so that public water mains and devices are located inside the easement per City Standards prior to issuance of a grading permit. (DS)
156. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project shall dedicate new water easement(s) so that any existing water lines that serve Parcel 1 (APN 132-0-100-105) but are located on Lot 6 (APN 132-0-110-315) are located inside the new easement per City Standards. (DS) 157. The project shall acquire or provide reciprocal access agreements in favor of Parcel 1 (APN 132-0-100-105) and Lot 6 (APN 132-0-110-315) across a shared private driveway located near Town Center Drive prior to issuance of a grading permit. The reciprocal access agreement shall account for portions of Lot B (APN 132-0-110-175), Parcel 1, Lot 3 (APN 132-0-110-535), and Lot 6. (DS)
158. Developer shall provide the City Engineer with a 100-scale base map for addressing purposes on 18-inch by 24-inch mylar per City Standards. (DS) 159. The project shall construct a path between the trash storage area and the trash collection staging area for transportation of the trash containers. The path shall be constructed of portland concrete and its travel slope shall not exceed 2%. (DS) 160. The trash staging area shall not encroach on the Fire lane clearance for the private drive unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department. The driveway shall be at least 26-feet wide unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department. (DS) 161. The project shall upgrade existing curb ramps along the project frontages to current accessibility standards. (DS)
162. Developer shall construct triple-bin trash enclosure(s) meeting the latest City requirements with a solid non-combustible roof that prevents stormwater from entering the refuse bins.

Developer shall construct all other components of the trash enclosure in accordance with the requirements on file with the Building and Engineering Division. Developer shall finish 912
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

the trash enclosure to match the major design elements of the main structure subject to approval by the Planning Division. The location and configuration of the enclosure shall be approved by the Environmental Resources Division. All site refuse bins shall be stored in an approved enclosure. No objects other than refuse bins may be stored in the enclosure without the written permission of the Environmental Resources Division. An alternative design is allowed that substantially conforms to the proposed entitlement drawings with the approval of the Environmental Resources Division. (DS)

POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
Exterior Lighting
163. A condition of approval requires compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Code & Guideline. a. Outdoor lighting shall comply with Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings.
b. Unless approved as a specific exception to this guideline, all outdoor lighting shall be flat lens, full cut-off fixtures with the light source fully shielded with the exceptions:
c. Luminaires with a maximum output of 260 lumens per fixture, regardless of number of bulbs (equal to one 20-watt incandescent light), may be left unshielded provided the fixture has an opaque top to keep light from shining directly up. d. Luminaires that have a maximum output of 1,000 lumens per fixture, regardless of number bulbs (equal to one 60 watt incandescent light) may be partially shielded provided the bulb is not visible, and the fixture has an opaque top to keep light from shining directly up.
e. Oxnard City Code 16-320: Lighting within physical limits of the area required to be lighted shall not exceed seven foot-candles, nor be less than one foot-candle at any point. A light source shall not shine upon, or illuminate directly any surface other than the area required to be lighted. No lighting shall be of a type or in a location that constitutes a hazard to vehicular traffic, either on private property or on the abutting streets. The height of light standards shall not exceed 26 feet. To prevent damage from automobiles, standards shall be mounted on reinforced concrete pedestals or otherwise protected.
f. All exterior lighting shall operate from dusk to dawn. g. All exterior lighting shall be LED or similar in nature and spectrum (3,000K to 20,000K Correlated Color Temperature).
164. Exterior Lighting of the site, including parking areas, shall be between 1 and 7-foot candles and shall be in harmony with the existing adjacent lighting schemes. Lighting bollards shall not be used as part of the foot candle calculation on photometric sheets. Pedestrian area lighting serves outdoor pedestrian uses such as courtyards and entry ways. Pedestrian area lighting should achieve a uniformity ratio of 4 to 1 average to minimum, with an average illumination of 0.60 foot-candles.
913
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

165. Lighting instruments shall be full cut-off and installed so that light does not directly illuminate property outside the project site. Instruments shall not create glare for motorists or pedestrians. Lens shall be flat and parallel to the ground/floor. Wall packs and other luminaries that throw right laterally are not allowed unless specifically approved by Planning and Police.
166. Outdoor lighting instruments shall not be placed in close proximity to trees. An integrated landscape/lighting/photometric plan shall be submitted illustrating a 20-year tree maturity.

This plan shall include all outdoor areas as well as the parking facility. This is to ensure that tree growth will not adversely impact future lighting and therefore site safety as the project matures. The integrated landscape/lighting/ photometric plan shall be submitted illustrating a 20-year tree maturity. This plan shall include all outdoor areas as well as the parking facility. This is to ensure that the growth will not adversely impact future lighting and therefore site safety as the project matures Plan sheet shall include:
a. Tree species table which shows canopy bottom, top, and broadcast diameter at a 20 year maturity. Bottom of tree canopies shall not be less than 15-above any drive area to provide clearance for Fire and Solid Waste Vehicles. b. Pole mounted luminaires shall be placed to illuminate under tree canopies at a 20-year maturity. Pole and arm instruments should be considered in areas between landscape finger-planters.
c. In areas where walkways exist opposite from parking stalls, pole and arm instruments should be placed directly opposite from finger-planters. Luminaires used in the photometric calculations shall only include those instruments mounted 8-feet or more above walking/driving surface. This plan shall be submitted to [email protected] and approved prior to the issuance of building permits.
167. Interior parking facilities and porte cocheres shall be illuminated between 5 and 15 foot candles utilizing LED or similar luminaires with a spectrum 3,000K to 20,000K Correlated Color Temperature. Any paint proposed on the ceiling, walls and support pillars of the interior parking facility shall be a white or off-white color. Luminaires shall be located, when possible, between parking stalls to illuminate the areas people enter and exit their vehicles.
168. Parking Stalls shall be enumerated. However, the stall numbers shall not correspond to the residential unit assigned the stall.
169. The mailroom shall have the following features:
a. Each door entering the mailroom shall have a camera dedicated to capturing images of the face and upper body of all persons who enter the mailroom. Such cameras shall be mounted at 7-feet above the floor in order to capture the best facial images.
b. Additional cameras shall be ceiling mounted to capture general activity in the mailroom. Each camera shall be mounted so that access to all mail/package receptacles can be monitored.
914
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

c. Each door to the mailroom shall be equipped with access control mechanisms to limit access to authorized staff, tenants, and mail/parcel delivery personnel. 170. Each ground floor door & gate serving as a semi-public access point for tenants and staff of the complex shall be equipped with “Click-to-Enter” to provide first responder access to the common interior areas.
171. Prior to issuance of building permits, a site plan identifying the placement of wayfinding signs shall be approved by Planning and Police. The submittal shall include placement of signs and a detailed description of the signs.
172. A Security Camera System shall be operated 24 hours a day to monitor the activity at the site. The system shall be designed to capture images of all persons and all vehicles that enter the site. Cameras shall also be distributed throughout the site to capture general activities. The camera system shall comply with these minimum standards:
a. The camera system shall be cloud based to facilitate off-site and mobile monitoring.
b. The permittee and their successors shall provide the Oxnard Police Department with digital camera recordings pursuant to an official investigation in a timely manner.
c. Cameras and supporting equipment shall supply digital color images under normal lighting conditions. Greyscale images are expected for infra-red lighting. d. Cameras shall be made by a reputable manufacturer and maintained to current industry standards.
e. Cameras shall have low light capability to facilitate the later identification of persons involved in criminal or problem activities.
f. The video system shall utilize a Digital Video Recorder (DVR). VHS and other formats are prohibited.
g. The video system shall allow recording, live viewing and playback of recorded video for a period of at least 30 days.
h. Recorded images shall bear a date and time stamp that cannot be altered. i. All entry doorways/gates to the premises shall be monitored by a camera or cameras that are strategically mounted for face capture of persons who enter. Such cameras shall be mounted no higher than 7 feet above the floor/ground. Face capture images shall be determined as those images where the clarity of a person's facial image is sufficient for later identification.
j. All vehicular entrances to the parking facilities shall be monitored by a camera or cameras that are placed to capture images of sufficient quality where the vehicle’s license plate, make, model, and color can be easily identified. k. Cameras in dome casings are highly encouraged as their area of focus is not easily determined by the casual observer.
l. A camera shall be dedicated to face capture image of any person accessing the call system at the exterior of the primary entrance.
915
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

m. Site management shall provide in a timely manner any digital records of security camera or access control systems requested pursuant to a police investigation or for the periodic inspection of equipment required under these conditions. n. Security cameras shall be installed to monitor activity around each side of the building’s exterior.
173. The site shall be equipped with an access control system that shall restrict human and vehicle access to the semi-public areas of the site. The areas considered “semi-public” shall include: parking areas restricted to residents, the building lobby, mailroom, shared hallways, laundry rooms, activity rooms, pool, and physical fitness facilities. 174. The access control system shall utilize instruments such as cards, fobs, QR decals, or other devices that can be individually programmed to provide access, as appropriate, for an individual user. The system shall have the capacity to add or subtract an access instrument assigned to a particular residential unit, employee, or service provider. 175. The access control system shall include a call system at the exterior of the site’s primary entrance that allows guests to contact residents or the managers to request access. The access control point at this entrance shall be enabled to open by a resident from their unit or from a remote digital device.
176. The access control system shall record each permitted access and the authorizing individual and the instrument/method used to facilitate the access. 177. “Click-to-Enter” access technology shall be installed at each pedestrian and vehicular entrance to a semi-public area to provide access to first responders. 178. A Security Plan shall be submitted to [email protected] and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. The purpose of the Security Plan is to align the applicant’s need to secure the development site for its end users with current security standards and to provide the Police Department an understanding of the layout of the site in the event of a critical incident. The Security Plan, when submitted directly to the Police Department, is considered a confidential document. The plan shall include:
a. The Security Plan Sheet will identify the location of each security camera, camera recording/support equipment, all elements of an access control system, and any safe or secure room or rooms designed to maintain valuable assets or records. b. The Security Plan shall include a chart identifying each camera by an alpha-numeric, the scope of their capture area, and placement of the camera above the floor/ground.
c. The Security Plan shall identify all doors with an alpha-numeric (e.g. D-1, D-2, etc.) that serve passage between public & semi-public, semi-public to semi public and similar access points where tenants and their guests routinely pass without needing specific permission from a resident or property manager/responsible party or resident. This would include access to the lobby, parking garage, laundry 916
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

room, mailroom, emergency exits, etc. When a camera is positioned for face pasture it shall be noted on the camera chart.
d. The Security Plan shall identify any area which is served by an intrusion/burglary alarm system.
e. The Security Plan shall identify all the components of the access control system, their location, and a chart that identifies each instrument with an alpha-numeric with the device name, make, and model. The access control system shall provide site access to tenants and persons authorized by the site management. The access control sites shall include areas deemed semi-public such as the lobby, parking garage, laundry room, mailroom, and any shared facility such as an activity room or community kitchen.
f. “Click-to-Enter” technology shall be installed to provide access for first responders to all entrances to the facility that serve as an interface between public and semi-public areas. All such access points shall be identified on the Security Plan.
g. The permittee/property manager/owner shall maintain all security features in good working condition and consistent with industry standards. 179. Site management is encouraged to have an active and cooperative relationship with their neighbors and the Oxnard Police Department. To facilitate this effort these elements shall be established by the site management:
a. Site management should establish a dedicated email address for the site (ie:
[email protected]). Once the email address has been established, site management should send an email to [email protected] identifying the site address, management company, phone number dedicated email address, and the person managing the site.
b. A sign shall be posted so it is readable from the public right of way and placed at or near the primary entrance which identifies the management company name, phone number, and the dedicated email address.
c. Site Management should participate in crime prevention programs designed for multi-unit residential housing facilities.
d. The property owner should inform the Oxnard Police Department of changes in site management and/or the dedicated email address by sending an email to [email protected]
180. Any digital records from the security camera system or access control system shall be made available to any representative of the Oxnard Police Department in a timely manner upon request related to any official police investigation. If requested, the site manager shall upload or email any digital records at the request of a representative of the Oxnard Police Department.
181. Any intrusion alarm system installed at the sire shall utilize motion and infrared technology or similar technology to differentiate between human and non-human motion. The alarm system shall be compliant with Oxnard City Code 11-95 through 11-100. 917
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

182. Landscape elements shall be arranged and maintained to provide clear lines of sight and eliminate potential places of concealment.
183. Trees shall not be located where they would conflict with lighting instruments. Appropriate proximity is based on a tree’s canopy size at twenty-year maturity. 184. Natal palm or similar hedge shrub shall be used as a “defensive barrier to protect against homeless habitation in areas prone to such activities.
185. CMU walls adjacent to or visible from a street shall be protected by landscaping elements to dissuade the application of graffiti. Creeping fig or similar climbing vines or a combination of vines and shrubs or hedging arranged to protect walls from vandals is required.
186. Trees shall be maintained so that the canopies do not interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic and safe sightlines are maintained.
187. Landscape elements shall be arranged to provide clear lines of sight and eliminate potential places of concealment and dissuade the application of graffiti. Through the life of the project the property shall be maintained to address these issues. 188. Graffiti shall be removed or painted over within 24-hours of application. Site management shall maintain a supply of paint to match the building’s exterior color scheme. 189. All vehicular entrances to the parking area shall be posted in compliance with California Vehicle Code 22658(a). Persons in lawful possession of the property may then cause the removal of a vehicle parked on the property to the nearest public garage if parked without the owner’s permission. (PD)
190. A sign shall be posted at or near the primary entrance to the site that identifies the management company name, phone number, and the email address dedicated to the site management office.
191. A sign shall be posted at each entrance to the site stating: “NO TRESPASSING OR LOITERING. VIOLATORS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL OR ARREST PURSUANT TO STATE LAW AND CITY ORDINANCE”.
192. Pool area signage & CC&Rs- Amplified music shall not be audible beyond the confines of the pool area
193. Mail and parcel delivery shall be in a room controlled by the building's access control system. This room shall be configured so that only tenants, USPS and parcel delivery services have access. Building guests shall not have access to this area. This area shall also be monitored by the site’s security camera system. This area shall have these features:
918
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

a. Prior to the issuance of building permits the developer shall contact the Oxnard Postmaster to ensure that the mail and parcel delivery system for the site will meet the requirements of the USPS.
b. A secure mailbox shall be provided for each residential unit. c. A secure system for receiving parcel deliveries shall be established and maintained (PD/USPS).

FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS
194. Developer shall construct all vehicle access driveways on the project property to be at least 26 feet wide, exclusive of shoulders. Developer shall mark curbs adjacent to designated fire lanes in parking lots to prohibit stopping and parking in the fire lanes. Developer shall mark all designated fire lanes in accordance with the California Vehicle Code. (FD/B, F-1) 195. All roof covering materials on the project property shall be of non-combustible or fire retardant materials approved by the Fire Chief and in compliance with the City Code. (FD, F-2)
196. Before the City issues building permits, Developer shall obtain the Fire Chief’s approval of a plan to ensure fire equipment access and the availability of water for fire combat operations to all areas of the project property. The Fire Chief shall determine whether or not the plan provides adequate fire protection. (FD/DS, F-3) 197. At Developer’s expense, Developer shall obtain two certified fire flow tests for the project property. The first test shall be completed before City approval of building plans and the second shall be completed after construction and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The tests must be certified by a mechanical, civil, or fire protection engineer.

Developer shall obtain permits for the tests from the Engineering Division. Developer shall send the results of the tests to the Fire Chief and the City Engineer. (FD/DS, F-4) 198. All structures on the project property shall conform to the minimum standards prescribed in Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations. (FD, F-5) 199. The project shall meet the minimum requirements of the “Fire Protection Planning Guide” published by the Fire Department. (FD, F-6)
200. At all times during construction, Developer shall maintain paved surfaces capable of handling loads of 76,000 pounds which will provide access for firefighting apparatus to all parts of the project property. (FD/DS, F-7)
201. Developer shall identify all hydrants and fire protection equipment on the project property as required by the Fire Chief. (FD, F-8)
202. Developer shall install security devices and measures, including walkway and vehicle control gates, entrance telephones, intercoms and similar features, subject to approval of 919
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

the Police Chief and the Fire Chief. Vehicle control gates shall be operable by City approved radio equipment. (FD/PD, F-9)
203. Developer shall provide central station monitoring of the fire sprinkler system and all control valves. (FD, F-10)
204. The turning radius of all project property driveways and turnaround areas used for emergency access shall be a minimum of 48 feet outside diameter for a semi-trailer. (FD, F-11)
205. Developer shall provide automatic fire sprinklers as required by the City Code and shall contact the Fire Chief to ascertain the location of all connections. (FD, F-12) 206. Developer shall install in each structure in the project an alarm system with a central station monitor that will automatically notify the Fire Department in the event of a fire in the structure. The alarm system shall include a UL or State Fire Marshal approved device, which shall not exceed design specifications, that reports the location of the fire and provides floor by floor water flow monitoring and allows the central station monitor to inform the Fire Department. (FD, F-13)
207. Developer shall comply with Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) requirements regarding the storage, handling and generation of hazardous materials or waste. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Developer shall contact the CUPA division of the Fire Department to ensure that such requirements are followed. (FD, F-16) 208. Developer shall install a carbon monoxide detector on each level of the residence in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. The detector shall be hardwired with a battery backup. (FD, F-17)

FIRE DEPARTMENT ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
209. Areas designated by the Fire Marshal as Fire Lanes shall be identified by a red curb and signage per the California Department of Motor Vehicles. 210. The location of the Fire Department Connection needs to be provided and a fire hydrant shall be provided within 50-feet of this connection.
211. Class I standpipe is required in each stairwell and within the parking area. 212. Fire sprinkler coverage is required for:
a. Covered Parking.
b. Patios, overhangs or any other projections that are 48” or more from the structure. c. Open areas beneath stairs that serve a habitable space or when that area is accessible for storage or has mechanical equipment.
d. The protection of the forced air unit when located in the attic or other areas that 920
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

are normally inaccessible.
213. Developer shall assess for the two-way emergency responder communication coverage (ERCC) for emergency responders. Such equipment shall not conflict with the architectural design of the building and shall comply with zoning and planning requirements and conditions.
214. All emergency egress/Fire Department access windows or doors that serve any room that can be utilized for sleeping, shall have access to a public right-of-way without re-entering the structure.
215. Ensure landscape trees do not block bedroom emergency window exits. 216. Before the city issues a certificate of occupancy, the developer shall install a Knox key vault at a location to be determined by the Fire Department. 217. Gurney size elevators will be required.
218. All roof covering materials on the project property shall be of non-combustible or fire retardant materials approved by the Fire Chief and in compliance with the City Code. (FD, F-2)
219. All structures on the project property shall conform to the minimum standards prescribed in Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations. (FD, F-5) 220. The project shall meet the minimum requirements of the “Fire Protection Planning Guide” published by the Fire Department. (FD, F-6)
221. Developer shall install a carbon monoxide detector on each level of the residence in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. The detector shall be hardwired with a battery backup. (FD, F-17)

HOUSING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
222. Based on the unit count proposed, 42 of the 280 units being developed must be affordable units. Five percent (5%) of the total units in the development must be offered for rent to very low-income households, as defined in the California Health and Safety Code 50105, five (5%) percent of total units in the development must be offered for rent to low-income households, as defined in the California Health and Safety Code 50079.5, and five (5%) of the total units in the development must be offered for rent to Moderate income households, as defined in California Health and Safety Code 50093. For purposes of determining tenant eligibility, Owner and Developer or Property Manager shall use the annual income limits for Moderate Income, Low Income, and Very Low-Income Households, respectively, as published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). 921
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

223. Affordable Rent (Very Low- Income Units) - For Very-Low Income Households “Affordable Rent” shall be inclusive of a reasonable utility allowance and not exceed one-twelth (1/12) times the product of thirty percent (30%) times fifty percent (50%) of area median income adjusted for family size appropriate to the Affordable Unit for households earning less than equal to fifty percent (50%) of the AMI for Ventura County Metropolitan Statistical Area as set forth in Sections 6918 and 6932 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, unless another subsidy program is used, in which case the stricter requirement shall be applied. For purposes of calculating Affordable Rent, Owner and Developer or Property Manager shall use the Area Median Income for Ventura County as published annually by the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD), as opposed to HCD’s annual published income limits, which are used to determine tenant eligibility.
224. Affordable Rent (Low Income Units) - For Low Income Households, “Affordable Rent” shall be inclusive of a reasonable utility allowance and not exceed one - twelfth (1/12) times the product of thirty percent (30%) times eighty percent (80%) of Area Median Income (AMI) adjusted for family size appropriate to the Affordable Unit for Households earning less than or Equal to eighty percent (80%) of the AMI for the Ventura County Metropolitan Statistical Area as set forth in the Sections 6918 and 6932 of the Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, unless another subsidy program is used, in which case the stricter requirement shall be applied. For purposes of calculating Affordable Rent, Owner and Developer or Property Manager shall use the Area Median Income for Ventura County as published annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), as opposed to HCD’s annual published income limits, which are used to determine tenant eligibility.
225. Affordable Rent (Moderate Income Units) - For Moderate Income Households, “Affordable Rent” shall be inclusive of a reasonable utility allowance and not exceed one - twelfth (1/12) times the product of thirty percent (30%) times one hundred and ten percent (110%) of Area Median Income (AMI) adjusted for family size appropriate to the Affordable Unit for Households earning less than or Equal to one hundred and twenty percent (120%) of the AMI for the Ventura County Metropolitan Statistical Area as set forth in the Sections 6918 and 6932 of the Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations and as defined in health and Safety Code 50053 (b)(5), unless another subsidy program is used, in which case the stricter requirement shall be applied. For purposes of calculating Affordable Rent, Owner and Developer or Property Manager shall use the Area Median Income for Ventura County as published annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), as opposed to HCD’s annual published income limits, which are used to determine tenant eligibility. 226. The affordable units must include: One (1) studio unit, seven (7) one- bedroom units, five (5) two-bedroom units, and one one (1) three bedroom unit offered for rent to very low-income households as defined in Health and Safety Code 50105. One (1) studio unit, seven (7) one-bedroom units, and six (6) two bedroom units offered for rent to low-income households as defined in health and Safety Code 50079.5. One (1) studio unit, seven (7) 922
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

one-bedroom units, and six (6) two bedroom units offered for rent to moderate income households as defined in Health and Safety Code 50093.
227. Owner and Developer must record affordability covenants approved as to form by the Housing Director prior to submitting their first building permit application. Units shall remain affordable for at least 55 years. The 55 year term shall begin following issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the development. Owner/developer must contact the Housing Department for review and approval of affordability covenants prior to recordation. 228. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall, among other things, specify the number of affordable units by number of bedrooms, level affordability, and standards for qualifying household incomes or other qualifying criteria. The City may collect an annual City monitoring fee, as approved by Council Resolution.
229. The affordable units must be designed and constructed to be architecturally consistent with and qualitatively similar to other unrestricted units in the project. 230. Prior to offering the affordable units for rent, the owner or developer must submit to the Housing Director the proposed location and rental amounts for the affordable units for review and approval and the dates which the units will be offered for rent. 231. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Developer and Owner shall obtain a clearance form from the Housing Department certifying that a required number of affordable units are being offered at affordable rents and that a management plan, prepared by the Developer or Owner, for operation and management of the Affordable Rental Units has been submitted to the Housing Department and approved by the Housing Director.

Owner or Developer shall provide a copy of the clearance form issued by the Housing Department to the project planner prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. (Signature on next page)
923
Resolution No. __________________
PZ No. 23-200-01, The Pointe Apartments Appeal to City Council May 6, 2025

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSED:

Luis A. Mc Arthur, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Lourdes A. López, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Stephen M. Fischer, City Attorney
924
PZ 23-200-01
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Uphold the Community Development Director’s Approval of a Development Design Review Permit for The Point Apartments
2801 N. Oxnard Blvd.

City Council
By: Daniel Houck, Associate Planner
Joe Pearson II, AICP, Planning and Environmental Services Manager May 6, 2025
925
Project Description
2 ● A request to construct a 546,524 square foot apartment building, 4 stories in height, with 280-units building on a 4.85-acre site. The proposed building includes:
○ 280 units (17 studio apartments, 143 one-bedroom units, 104 two-bedroom units, and 16 three-bedroom units);
■ including 42 affordable units;
○ Private open space for residents;
○ 5.5-story centrally located parking structure with 490 residential parking spaces); and
○ Hardscape and Landscape improvements.
● Filed by Ann Walsh of Shea Properties
926
Project Location
3 Subject Site: 2801 N. Oxnard Blvd. (APNs: 132-0-110-315) Located within the RiverPark area
927
General Plan & Zoning Maps
4 Commercial Regional (CR)
General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning Designation
RiverPark Specific Plan (RPSP)/Residential Very High
and Commercial Regional
928
Existing Site
5 Subject Site: 2801 N. Oxnard Blvd.

Surrounding Uses:

LOCATION ZONING 2030

GENERAL PLAN

EXISTING LAND USE
Project Site
(2801 Oxnard
Blvd)
Commercial Regional
The RiverPark Specific Plan
(Residential: Very High or
Commercial Regional)
Vacant
North Commercial Regional
The RiverPark Specific Plan:

Mixed Use, Residential High,
Commercial Office
Residential Apartments
South Commercial Regional The RiverPark Specific Plan:

Commercial Convention/Hotel
Service Commercial and Town
Center Drive
East Commercial Regional The RiverPark Specific Plan:

Commercial Regional
Commercial (The Collection) and
Oxnard Blvd.

West Commercial Regional The RiverPark Specific Plan:

Commercial Office
Commercial Office and Residential
Apartments
929
Background
6 ● The RiverPark Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council on September 10, 2002:
○ The original plan allowed for the development of 2,805 dwelling units and 2,485,000 square feet of commercial development.
○ Follows the design principles of the New Urbanism and Smart Growth movements.
● The seventh amendment to the RPSP allowed for up to 4,068 dwelling units or 2,098,000 square feet of commercial development depending on the development options chosen.
● The seventh amendment also expanded District C by 280 Residential units in exchange for a reduction of 153,647 square feet of Commercial space. ● There have been 15 addendums to the RPSP EIR, which is more that the number of prior amendments as some of the addendums were not related to changes to the RPSP, such as, early construction changes, changes to agreements, infrastructure changes, etc.

930
Background
7 ● On May 18th, 2023 this Development Design Review was submitted for the proposed 280 unit apartment building.
● On December 17, 2024, this Development Design Review was approved by the Community Development Director.
● A comment letter was not received from the Appellant for the Director’s hearing. ● On December 27, 2024, the Appellant filed a timely Appeal application with the City.
● On February 6, 2025, the Planning Commission heard the appeal and voted 4-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s approval of the project. ● On February 20, 2025, the same Appellant filed this second appeal to the City Council.
931
Background (Continued)
932
8 Background (Continued)
9 North Elevation:

East Elevation:

View looking Northwest: View looking Southwest:
933
General Plan Consistency
• Urban Village
○ RiverPark is located within the North Oxnard Transit Enhancement District (NOTED)
Urban Village as defined in the 2030 General Plan.
○ Urban Villages shall be characterized by:
• Infill and/or development of formerly agricultural land • Reinvestment in the existing community
• Mixture of land uses
• Mix of residential densities and housing types
• Providing a minimum of 15 percent affordable housing
• Location along or near corridors, downtown, and transit nodes • Transit, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation given high priority 934
Approved Development Options in RPSP
11 Residential Option Development Scenarios
Scenario Additional Residential Units
Reduction in Commercial
Development
Districts B, C & D 1,025 -562,457
Districts B & C 613 -336,377
Districts C & D 692 -379,727
Districts B & D 745 -408,810
District B 333 -182,730
District C 280 -153,647
District D 412 -226,080
Project Wide Maximum Allowed Development Under the Residential Development Options Residential Options
Selected by District Maximum Number of Residential Units Maximum square feet of retail, hotel/convention,
and office uses
B, C, D 4,068 1,535,543
B & C 3,656 1,761,623
C & D 3,735 1,718,273
B & D 3,788 1,689,190
B 3,376 1,915,270
C 3,323 1,944,353
D 3,455 1,871,920
No Residential 3,043 2,098,000
935
Specific Plan Development Consistency
12 ● The proposed development has been reviewed by the Town Master Planner/Architect (TMP), in accordance with Section 7.8.2.4 of the RPSP. ● The RPSP designates the site as Planning District C: West Corridor Commercial District with a land use of Residential - Very High and Commercial - Regional. This designation anticipated development of the subject residential use.
● RPSP Section 2.5.2.3 establishes that the maximum Residential: Very High development area within District C shall be a maximum of 280 dwelling units and no further commercial shall be allowed in the district. 936
Prior Environmental Review
• The Original RiverPark Specific Plan was analyzed through a Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 00-03).
• Potential environmental impacts associated with the buildout of the RPSP were identified throughout the EIR, along with applicable mitigation measures. • The FEIR No. 00-03 found four areas of significant impacts (Earth Resources-Mineral Resources, Water Quality, Agricultural Resources, and Cultural Resources-Historical Resources)
• There have been 15 addendums to the RiverPark EIR. The most recent, Addendum No. 15, was approved on April 5, 2022, in association with the recently approved specific plan amendment. In this process the parcel was evaluated for a 280 unit residential development.
937
14 ● The proposed use and development is consistent with the development anticipated under the RPSP, the Project necessitates neither changes nor additions to FEIR No. 00-03 including the subsequent addendums. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Sections 15162 through 15164 and 15183 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Environmental Review
938
Appellant - Initial Ground of Appeal
“SAFER objects to the City’s reliance on the almost quarter-century old River Park Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2000051046), certified in 2002 (“RPSP EIR”) for the Project. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), project-level environmental review is required for this Project because it is inconsistent with the RPSP EIR, it is outside of the scope of the RPSP EIR, there are numerous changed circumstances since the adoption of the RPSP EIR over the twenty years ago, there are feasible mitigation measures that were not analyzed in the RPSP EIR, the project has significant offside and cumulative impacts that were not analyzed in the RPSP EIR, and the Project exceeds the density analyzed in the RPSP EIR. Finally, the RPSP EIR left several impacts significant and unmitigated. These impacts must be analyzed at the project-level to ensure adequate mitigation.”
939
15 The Appeal lacks merit for the following reasons:
• Appellant never gave a specific reason why the FEIR and addendums are no longer adequate for the project. They ignored that recent Addendums have updated the environmental context and evaluated the mitigation measures. • The Appellant did not make a CEQA challenge or comment on the Project at any point until the Project was already approved by the Director. • The existing FEIR and Addendums covered the parcel for a 280 unit residential development, which is the proposed density for the Project. • There has been no new information of substantial importance, no substantial changes to the project, and no significant increase in the severity of potential impacts that would require major revisions to the past FEIR as well as none that would require a project level EIR.
• The Appellant should have challenged the Addendum and its mitigation measures if they felt it was not adequate during the public challenge period. It was certified in 2022 and now stands as a legal environmental document that adequately covers this Project as part of the EIR.

Staff Response
940
16 Appellant - Grounds of Appeal A:

A. “Section 15162 and 15183 do not apply because the project is outside the scope of the RPSP EIR.”
941
17 Staff Response
The Appeal lacks merit for the following reasons:
• §15162 allows the preparation of an Addendum if there has been no new information of substantial importance, no substantial changes to the Project, and no significant increase in the severity of potential impacts that would require major revisions to the past FEIR as well as none that would require a project level EIR. All three items are met, allowing an Addendum. • §15162(b) directly says an addendum can be prepared.
• The addendum was prepared consistent with §15164, the CEQA Guidelines section on the preparation of addendums.
• §15183 allows projects consistent with Community Plans and General Plans to not have to undergo an additional project specific Environmental Impact Report. The Project is consistent with density and the development standards within the RiverPark Specific Plan and is consistent with policies in the 2030 General Plan, it therefore is covered by the RPSP EIR under §15183.

The Appellant failed to demonstrate how it is not consistent with these plans. • The Appellant should have challenged the Addendum if they felt it was not appropriate during the challenge period in 2022. It has now been certified and stands as a legal environmental document that covers the Project as part of the EIR.
942
18 Appellant - Grounds of Appeal B-E:

B. The project will have significant biological impacts not analyzed in the RPSP EIR, requiring subsequent CEQA review.

C. The project will have significant air quality impacts not analyzed in the RPSP EIR, requiring subsequent CEQA review.

D. The project will have significant traffic impacts not analyzed in the RPSP EIR, requiring subsequent CEQA review.

E. The project will have significant noise and vibration impacts not analyzed in the RPSP EIR, requiring subsequent CEQA review.
943
19 This lacks merit for the following reasons:
• The certified and approved Addendum in 2022 evaluated these four impact areas and multiple studies were performed for them.
• The Appellant should have challenged the studies and/or the Addendum during the challenge period in 2022. It has now been certified and stands as a legal environmental document that covers the Project as part of the EIR. • The routinely mowed and maintained parcel is clearly still substantially the same from an environmental perspective as when it was evaluated under the Addendum. • No significant evidence has come forth to show the parcel is substantially different environmentally.
• The Project was submitted following the approval for residential units on this parcel and has been in process since that time.

Staff Response
944
20 Public Notice
• Notice of City Council hearing was provided:
• Newspaper,
• On-site posting; and
• Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project site. • To date, staff has received no public comments for the appeal or proposed Project.
945
21 22
Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Find the Project to be consistent with Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR No. 00-03) and subsequent addendums prepared for the RiverPark Specific Plan and therefore exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Sections 15162 through 15164 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Adopt a Resolution denying the Appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Community Development Director’s Approval of Planning and Zoning Permit No. 23-200-01 (Development Design Review Permit), subject to certain findings and conditions.

Staff Recommendation
946
22 End of Presentation
947

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. N.1
DATE: May 6, 2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Javier Chagoyen-Lazaro, Chief Financial Officer, (805) 200-5400, [email protected] SUBJECT: 2024 Single Audit Report. (40)

RECOMMENDATION
That City Council receive the 2024 Single Audit Report from the audit firm Eadie + Payne and summary presentation from the City's external financial auditors, Eadie + Payne, LLP. (The Finance and Governance Committee approved 3-0 on April 22, 2025) (Presentation will be live upon consultant's request.)

BACKGROUND
The Single Audit is a rigorous, organization-wide audit of the City’s grant funded programs that expend $750,000 or more of Federal grants or assistance. The objective of the Single Audit is to provide assurance to federal government as to the management and use of such funds by the City. The audit is performed by the City’s independent auditor, Eadie + Payne, LLP, and the report is issued annually showing the City of Oxnard’s expenditures of Federal awards. Eadie + Payne, LLP will present its audit opinion of the City of Oxnard Single Audit Report for fiscal year ending June 30, 2024.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This agenda item supports the Organizational Effectiveness strategy. The purpose of the Organizational Effectiveness strategy is to reinforce, stabilize, improve, and strengthen the organizational foundation of the City in order to build a modern, high-functioning City government that effectively and efficiently supports the operating departments in providing high-quality services and programs for our residents and businesses.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact.

COMMITTEE OUTCOME
The Finance and Governance Committee approved 3-0 on April 22, 2025 to approve the staff recommendation and to forward the item for Council approval.

Prepared by: Beth Vo, Assistant Chief Financial Officer

ATTACHMENTS

1. 2024 Single Audit Report

2. Presentation
948
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024
Single Audit
Report
949

CITY OF OXNARD

CONTENTS
JUNE 30, 2024
PAGE
Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance for Each Major Program; Report on Internal Control over Compliance in Accordance with Uniform Guidance; and Report on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards .............................. 8 Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 950
3880 Lemon St., Ste. 300
Riverside, CA 92501
P.O. Box 1529
Riverside, CA 92502-1529
951-241-7800
www.eadiepaynellp.com
- 1 -

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND

ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS The Honorable City Council
City of Oxnard
Oxnard, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (Government Auditing Standards), the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Oxnard, California (City) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2024, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated March 3, 2025. Our report includes a reference to other auditors who audited the financial statements of Oxnard Housing Authority, as described in our report on the City's basic financial statements. This report does not include the results of the other auditors' testing of internal control over financial reporting or compliance and other matters that are reported on separately by those auditors.

Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City's internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. 951
- 2 -
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified.

Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements.

However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

Purpose of This Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Riverside, California
March 3, 2025
952
3880 Lemon St., Ste. 300
Riverside, CA 92501
P.O. Box 1529
Riverside, CA 92502-1529
951-241-7800
www.eadiepaynellp.com
-3-

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE FOR
EACH MAJOR PROGRAM; REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER
COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM GUIDANCE; AND REPORT ON THE

SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS REQUIRED BY

THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE
The Honorable City Council
City of Oxnard
Oxnard, California
Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program
Opinion on Each Major Federal Program
We have audited City of Oxnard's (City) compliance with the types of compliance requirements identified as subject to audit in the OMB Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect on each of the City's major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2024. The City's major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor's results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs.

The City's basic financial statements include the operations of the Oxnard Housing Authority, which expended $38,412,230 in federal awards which is not included in the City’s schedule of expenditures of federal awards during the year ended June 30, 2024. Our audit, described below, did not include the operations of the Oxnard Housing Authority, because it engaged other auditors to perform an audit in accordance with the Uniform Guidance.

In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2024.

Basis for Opinion on Each Major Federal Program
We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS); the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (Government Auditing Standards); and the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Our responsibilities under those standards and the Uniform Guidance are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report. 953
-4-
We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion on compliance for each major federal program. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above.

Responsibilities of Management for Compliance
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to the City’s federal programs.

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on the City’s compliance based on our audit. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the Uniform Guidance will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control.

Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above is considered material, if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about the City’s compliance with the requirements of each major federal program as a whole.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the Uniform Guidance, we:
 Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Obtain an understanding of the City’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and any significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control over compliance that we identified during the audit.
954
-5-
Other Matters
The results of our auditing procedures disclosed instances of noncompliance which are required to be reported in accordance with the Uniform Guidance and which are described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs as items 2024-001 through 2024-004. Our opinion on each major federal program is not modified with respect to these matters.

Government Auditing Standards requires the auditor to perform limited procedures on the City’s response to the noncompliance findings identified in our compliance audit described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. The City response was not subjected to the other auditing procedures applied in the audit of compliance and, accordingly, we express no opinion on the response.

Report on Internal Control over Compliance
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section above and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance and therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified.

We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, as discussed below, we did identify certain deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be significant deficiencies.

A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. We consider the deficiencies in internal control over compliance described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs as items 2024-001 and 2024-002 to be significant deficiencies.

Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

Government Auditing Standards requires the auditor to perform limited procedures on the City's response to the internal control over compliance findings identified in our compliance audit described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. The City's response was not subjected to the other auditing procedures applied in the audit of compliance and, accordingly, we express no opinion on the response.

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose. 955
-6-
Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of and for the year ended June 30, 2024, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements.

We issued our report thereon dated March 3, 2025, which contained unmodified opinions on those financial statements. Our audit was performed for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the basic financial statements.

The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by the Uniform Guidance and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the schedule of expenditures of federal awards is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.

Riverside, California
March 24, 2025, except for our report on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, for which the date is March 3, 2025.
956
-7-

SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS
AND

SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
957
-8-

CITY OF OXNARD

SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024
Federal
Assistance Program Total Total Amount
Federal Grantor/Pass-through Listing Identification Program Provided to Grantor/Program Title Number Number Expenditures Subrecipients U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
CDBG - Entitlement Grants Cluster
Direct Program
Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants 14.218 B-17-MC-06-0534 (64,579) $ $ - B-19-MC-06-0534 21,209 -
B-22-MC-06-0534 1,357,099 1,357,099
B-23-MC-06-0534 3,691,253 3,142,852
COVID-19 Community Development Block Grants CARES Act 14.218 B-20-MW-06-0534                  223,088 62,957 Total CDBG - Entitlement Grants Cluster 4,562,908 5,228,070 Direct Program
Emergency Solutions Grants Program 14.231 E-22-MC-06-0534 138,477 129,875 E-23-MC-06-0534 93,201 93,201
COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants - CARES Act 14.231 E-20-MW-06-0534 424,022 425,265 647,098 656,944
Direct Program
HOME Investment Partnership Program 14.239 M22-MC060526 614,786 14,786 HOME Investment Partnership Program - Home ARP 14.239 M21-MC060526 8,392 - HOME Investment Partnership Program 14.239 M23-MC060526 2,931 - 14,786 626,109
Total U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 5,224,792 6,511,123 U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Passed through the County of Ventura
FY 2021 Homeland Security Grant Program -USAR 97.067 21-SHSP-OXF-10 41,132 - FY 2021 Homeland Security Grant Program -CERT 97.067 21-SHSP-9c 2,746 - FY 2022 Homeland Security Grant Program -CERT 97.067 22-SHSP-OXF-5b 7,000 - FY 2022 Homeland Security Grant Program - Hazmat FTIR 97.067 22-SHSP-OXF-9 100,000 - 150,878 -
Passed through the County of Ventura
EMPG22 Emergency Management Grant 97.042 EMPG22 36,393 - Passed through the California Office of Emergency Services

97.039 HMGP #4407-431-079R (45,349) -
HMGP#4353-195-49R Police Station Emergency Back Up Generator Project 97.039 HMGP #4353-195-49R 450 - FEMA - Hazard Mitigation Grant - OWTP Generator 97.039 HMGP #4353-189-036R 842,707 - 797,808 -
Passed through the County of Ventura
FEMA-Assistance to Firefighters Grant FY22 Thermal Imaging Cameras 97.044 20FG02473 44,692 FEMA-Assistance to Firefighters Grant FY22 ACCDs 97.044 EMW-2022-FG-05063 132,109 - FEMA-Assistance to Firefighters Grant FY22 - HAZMAT Training 97.044 EMW-2022-FG-03878 72,914 - 249,715 -
Passed through City of Fillmore

97.044 EMW-2021-FG-07646 60,885 -
Direct Program
FEMA-Assistance to Firefighters Grant FY19 97.044 EMW-2019-FG-09826 (7,346) - FEMA-Fire Prevention & Safety Grant FY20 (FP&S Smoke) 97.044 EMW-2020-FP-00777 152,731 - FEMA-Assistance to Firefighters Grant FY21 97.044 EMW-2021-FG-07031 29,532 - FEMA-Assistance to Firefighters Grant FY22 97.044 EMW-2022-FG-04821 211,828 - FEMA-Assistance to Firefighters Grant FY22 USAR 97.044 EMW-2022-FG-04892 73,161 - FEMA-Assistance to Firefighters Grant FY20 Medic/Wellness 97.044 EMW-2020-FG-13213 - 220,765 680,671 -
991,271 -
Direct Program
FEMA-Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response FY20 97.083 EMW-2020-FF-01126 444,203 - SAFER-Staffing for Adequate Fire & Emergency Response Grant FY2021 97.083 EMW-2021-FF-01664 742,511 - 1,186,714 -
Total U.S. Department of Homeland Security 3,163,064 -
FEMA - Hazard Mitigation Grant - Central Trunk Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction FEMA-Assistance to Firefighters Grant FY21 - Wildland Hose, PPE and Equipment See accompanying notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance for Each Major Program; Report on Internal Control over Compliance; and Report on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards required by the Uniform Guidance. 958
-9-

CITY OF OXNARD
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS (Continued)
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024
Federal
Assistance Program Total Total Amount
Federal Grantor/Pass-through Listing Identification Program Provided to Grantor/Program Title Number Number Expenditures Subrecipients U.S. Department of Justice
Direct Program
Equitable Sharing Program 16.922 CA0560400-NCIC 67,080 - Passed through the County of Ventura
Ventura County Sheriff's Office FY22 Transformation Works (JAG) 16.738 BSCC 1223-23 184,489 - Direct Program
FY18 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) 16.738 2018-DJ-BX-0852 4,985 - FY19 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) 16.738 2019-DJ-BX-0688 43,468 37,740 FY20 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) 16.738 2020-DJ-BX-0781 49,239 33,094 FY21 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) 16.738 15PBJA-21-GG-01244-JAGX 57,335 10,409 FY22 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) 16.738 15PBJA-22-GG-02263-JAGX 10,173 9,156 FY23 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) 16.738 15PBJA-23-GG-03171-JAGX 5,766 - 90,399 170,966
90,399 355,455
Passed through the County of Ventura Sheriff Department FY21 National Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) 16.833 15PBJA-21-GG-04347-SAKI 20,985 - Total U.S. Department of Justice 90,399 443,520
U.S. Department of Transportation
Highway Planning and Construction Cluster
Passed through the State of California Department
of Transportation
Northside Vta Blvd. Between Balboa & Rose Avenue 20.205 CML-5129 (078) 425,912 - Traffic Signal Various Locations 20.205 HSIPL 5129 (093) 1,196,564 - City Wide Signal Mod 20.205 HSIPL 5129 (095) (33,189) - Bicycle Facilities in Northeast Specific Plan 20.205 CML-086 354 - Channel Island Blvd over Mandalay Bay - Bridge 20.205 BHLS-5129(069) 257,004 - Channel Island Blvd over Edison Canal - Bridge 20.205 BHLS-5129(070) 2,412,987 - Traffic Operations / Maintenance 20.205 CRALNI-109 1,000 - Total Highway Planning and Construction Cluster 4,260,632 - Highway Safety Cluster
Passed through the State of California Office of
Traffic Safety
OTS Selective Traffic Enforcement Program FY23 20.600 PT23136 42,844 - OTS Selective Traffic Enforcement Program FY24 20.600 PT24139 111,425 - Total Highway Safety Cluster 154,269 -
Minimum Penalties for Repeat Offenders for Driving While Intoxicated Passed through the State of California Office of
Traffic Safety
Department of Alcohol Beverage Control ABC/OTS 20.608 22OTS110 3,815 - Department of Alcohol Beverage Control ABC/OTS 20.608 24OTS113 14,336 - OTS Selective Traffic Enforcement Program FY23 20.608 PT23136 97,710 - OTS Selective Traffic Enforcement Program FY24 20.608 PT24139 271,302 - 387,163 -
Total U.S. Department of Transportation 4,802,064 -
Corporation for National and Community Service
Direct Program
Retired and Senior Volunteer Program FY23-24 94.002 19SRPCA007 38,126 - Retired and Senior Volunteer Program FY24-25 94.002 19SRPCA007 10,842 - 48,968 -
Total Corporation for National and Community Service 48,968 - See accompanying notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance for Each Major Program; Report on Internal Control over Compliance; and Report on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards required by the Uniform Guidance.
959
-10-

CITY OF OXNARD
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS (Continued)
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024
Federal
Assistance Program Total Total Amount
Federal Grantor/Pass-through Listing Identification Program Provided to Grantor/Program Title Number Number Expenditures Subrecipients U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Aging Cluster
Passed through the County of Ventura Area Agency on Aging

93.045 3500FY23-05 151,977 -
Total U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - 151,977 U.S. Department of Treasury
Direct
COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds 21.027 N/A 10,201,436 667,338 Passed through California Water Resources Control Board

21.027 CA5610007-01 193,256 -
Coronavirus State & Local Fiscal Recovery Funds-Water Arrearage Payment Program 21.027 CA5610007-01 198,705 - 391,961 -
Total U.S. Department of the Treasury 667,338 10,593,397 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Direct Program

66.808 98T18001 156,878 -
Oxnard Water Transmission Line Project - C2226 66.202 98T67101 436,065 - 592,943 -
Total U.S. Department of Protection Agency 592,943 -
Total Direct Program 5,982,529 19,459,901
Total Pass Through - 6,847,155
TOTAL EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS $ 5,982,529 26,307,056 $ Coronavirus State &Local Fiscal Recovery-Wastewater Arrearage Payment Program Solid Waste Management Assistance Grants
Special Programs for the Aging, Senior Nutrition Services See accompanying notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance for Each Major Program; Report on Internal Control over Compliance; and Report on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards required by the Uniform Guidance. 960
-11-

CITY OF OXNARD

NOTES TO THE SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024

1. BASIS OF PRESENTATION
The accompanying schedule of expenditures of Federal awards (Schedule) includes the Federal award activity of City of Oxnard (City) under programs of the Federal government for the year ended June 30, 2024. The information in this Schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of Title 2 U.S.

Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (the Uniform Guidance). Because the Schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of the City, it is not intended to and does not present the financial position, changes in net assets, or cash flows of the City. It does not include the Federal award activity of Oxnard Housing Authority, a blended component unit of the City, which expended $38,412,230 in Federal awards.

2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the modified accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement.

3. INDIRECT COST RATE
The City has not elected to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate.

4. FEDERALLY-FUNDED LOANS
The City administers loans, primarily forgivable loans, made from funds provided by the following Federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2024:

Loans
Federal Programs Outstanding
Community Development Block Grants
(Assistance Listing #14.218) 4,911,700 $
HOME Investment Partnership Program
(Assistance Listing #14.239) 10,765,991
961
-12-

CITY OF OXNARD

SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024

SUMMARY OF AUDITOR'S RESULTS
Financial Statements
Type of report the auditor issued on whether the financial statements audited were prepared in accordance with GAAP:

Internal control over financial reporting:
• Material weaknesses identified? Yes x No
• Significant deficiencies identified? Yes x None reported Noncompliance material to financial statements noted: Yes x No Federal Awards
Internal control over major programs:

Material weaknesses identified? Yes x No
Significant deficiences identified? x Yes None reported Type of auditor's report issued on compliance
for major programs:

Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be
reported in accordance with 2 CFR 200.516(a)? x Yes No
Identification of major programs:

CFDA No. Name of Federal Program or Cluster

21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds

14.218 Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants

97.083 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Dollar threshold used to distinguish between
type A and type B programs: $750,000
Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee? x Yes No
Unmodified
Unmodified
962
-13-

CITY OF OXNARD
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued)
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024
INDEX

CURRENT YEAR

MAJOR FEDERAL AWARD PROGRAMS
Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants
Program Income 2024-001
Late Filing of Reports 2024-002
Staffing for Adequate Fire & Emergency Response
Late Filing of Reports 2024-003
Lack of Timesheet Approval 2024-004

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

PRIOR YEAR

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Information Technology General Controls 2020-001
None
963
(MW) – Material Weakness (SD) – Significant Deficiency (NC) – Noncompliance -14-

CITY OF OXNARD
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued)
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024
CURRENT YEAR FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS – MAJOR PROGRAMS 2024-001 – Program Income (SD, NC)
Federal Program Title: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlements Grants Federal Catalog Number: 14.218
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Category of Finding: Program Income
Criteria: Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart D, Section 200.307(a), requires that Program income must be expended prior to requesting additional Federal funds. Program income exceeding amounts specified in the Federal award may be added to or deducted from the total allowable costs in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award.

Condition: During our audit, it was noted that the City recorded part of the program income as deferred revenue rather than recognizing the full amount upon receiving the gross income earned and generated by CDBG loan activity
Cause: Lack of appropriate controls over program income.

Effect or Potential Effect: Failure to properly report and manage program income could result in noncompliance with federal regulations, potential repayment of misused funds, and could jeopardize future funding opportunities. Furthermore, the mismanagement of program income could lead to inaccurate financial reporting and a lack of accountability in the program's financial operations.

Questioned Cost: $152,065
Context: Program income is still in the process of being reconciled for prior and current year. It appears that the current personnel have a misunderstanding regarding the recording and use of program income.

Repeat of a Prior-Year Finding: No.

Recommendation: We recommend the City to implement a comprehensive program income tracking and reporting system that ensures compliance with federal regulations. The system should include detailed procedures for documenting income generated, ensuring the funds are allocated to the proper grant or project, and reporting the income accurately in accordance with grant terms. Regular training should also be provided to staff responsible for grant management to ensure adherence to federal guidelines and the organization’s internal controls.
964
(MW) – Material Weakness (SD) – Significant Deficiency (NC) – Noncompliance -15-
Management Response and Corrective Action Plan
City's Response: The City is aware of the OMB 2 CFR Part 200 regulations that pertain to program income and will improve its internal controls to ensure compliance with federal regulations.

Corrective Action Plan: The City will improve its internal controls by implementing a new policy and procedures that will require staff training and outline detailed procedures for complying with program income regulations. The policy will: (1) require staff to annually participate in HUD trainings related to program income, (2) require staff to immediately deposit and reconcile program income upon receipt, (3) require staff to prepare a monthly program income report and (4) require management to review the program income report to ensure program income is applied to eligible expenses prior to drawing down grant funds.

Planned Implementation Date: March 25, 2025
Responsible Person(s): Albert Ramirez, Assistant Director; Denise Ledesma, Grants Coordinator; and Adrianne Sarreal, Analyst.
965
(MW) – Material Weakness (SD) – Significant Deficiency (NC) – Noncompliance -16-

CITY OF OXNARD
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued)
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024
2024-002 – Late Filing of Reports (SD, NC)
Federal Program Title: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlements Grants Federal Catalog Number: 14.218
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Category of Finding: Reporting
Criteria: Pursuant to the OMB 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI, Compliance Supplement May 2024, Part 4 –

14.218 Community Development Block Grants/Entitlements Grants (page 4-14.218-25 & 26), the Cash on Hand Quarterly Report, must be submitted to the grantee’s HUD local field office within 30 days after the end of the reporting period.

Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (Pub. L. No. 109-282), as amended by Section 6202 of Pub. L. No. 110-252, hereafter referred as the “Transparency Act” that are codified in 2 CFR Part 170, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). The recipient must also report a subaward if a modification increases the Federal funding to an amount that equals or exceeds $30,000. All reported subawards should reflect the total amount of the subaward. For subaward information, report no later than the end of the month following the month in which the subaward was issued. (For example, if the subaward was made on November 7, 2025, the subaward must be reported by no later than December 31, 2025).

Condition: The City failed to submit all of the Fiscal Year 2024 Cash on Hand Quarterly Reports within the required 30-day period following each reporting quarter until February 2025. The City did not submit subaward information for subrecipients receiving federal funds of $30,000 or more from the City to the FSRS until February 2025. These reports were due by the end of the month following the issuance of each subaward. Additionally, staff responsible for financial reporting were not adequately trained on the specific requirements for reporting under federal grants, which contributed to the late submission of the reports.

Cause: Lack of appropriate control over reporting.

Effect or Potential Effect: Noncompliance may result in suspension, termination, or disallowance of grant funds, and delay or withhold of future grant payments.

Questioned Cost: None.

Repeat of a Prior-Year Finding: No.

Recommendation: We recommend that the City develop and implement policies and procedures for completeness and timely submission of reports. This may include:

1. Thoroughly review the reporting requirements each year for any possible updates, substitutions, or missing reports, and document the process, including the preparer and reviewer.

2. Prepare a listing of subaward agreements, including details such as the subrecipient, original and amended amounts, execution date (i.e., when it becomes legally binding), reporting date, name of the person who submitted the report, name of the person who reviewed the report, etc., for each program to identify and track the reporting of subaward information.

3. Staff responsible for financial reporting should receive specific training on federal reporting requirements to ensure accuracy and compliance.
966
(MW) – Material Weakness (SD) – Significant Deficiency (NC) – Noncompliance -17-
Management Response and Corrective Action Plan
City's Response: The City is aware of the OMB 2 CFR Part 200 regulations that pertain to Cash on Hand Report and Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) reporting.

With respect to the Cash on Hand Report, staff reviewed the published HUD guidance but needed further clarification to properly complete the report. Staff reached out to our HUD Representative and received clarification. Staff has all the information needed to properly complete the report and plan to submit the report quarterly as required.

With respect to the FFATA Reporting, staff inadvertently thought the report was due annually, rather than monthly.

Corrective Action Plan: The City will improve its internal controls by implementing a new policy and procedures that will: (1) require staff to annually participate in HUD trainings related to federal grant reporting, (2) require management and staff to meet monthly to discuss and track federal reporting requirements and review a listing of subaward agreements and (3) require staff to submit the Cash on Hand Report quarterly and the FFATA Report monthly.

Planned Implementation Date: March 25, 2025
Responsible Person(s): Albert Ramirez, Assistant Director; Denise Ledesma, Grants Coordinator; and Adrianne Sarreal, Analyst.
967
(MW) – Material Weakness (SD) – Significant Deficiency (NC) – Noncompliance -18-

CITY OF OXNARD
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued)
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024
2024-003 – Late Filing of Reports (NC)
Federal Program Title: Staffing for Adequate Fire & Emergency Response Federal Catalog Number: 97.083
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Category of Finding: Reporting
Criteria: According to Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant program, recipients are required to submit semi-annual Federal Financial Reports and Program Performance Reports within 30 days after the end of each reporting period.

Condition: The City submitted the Performance Progress Report for the period of January 2024 to June 2024 one day late, and the Federal Financial Report for the period of July 2023 to December 2023 three months late.

Cause: The primary cause of the delayed financial reporting was the unexpected turnover of key staff members responsible for financial reporting. The City did not have sufficient backup procedures in place to ensure a smooth transition or proper training for new personnel in time to meet reporting deadlines. This lack of continuity resulted in delays in financial data preparation.

Effect or Potential Effect: The delays in financial reporting may lead to non-compliance with federal reporting requirements. This could impact the City’s standing with the funding agency, potentially affecting future funding opportunities
Questioned Cost: None.

Repeat of a Prior-Year Finding: No.

Recommendation: We recommend the City to establish a contingency plan to address staff turnover, including cross-training key personnel and maintaining detailed documentation of financial reporting processes. The City should also implement a standardized handoff procedure to ensure that incoming staff are adequately trained and have access to the necessary resources to continue the reporting function without disruption.

Management Response and Corrective Action Plan
City's Response: As noted in the auditor findings, the late filings for Safer Grant Reporting in Fiscal Year 2024 were due to turnover in the department’s grant administrator position and the redistribution of work responsibilities. The slight delays in the reporting did not produce any notice of non-compliance or drawdown withholdings by the Grantor. The Department has completed the redistribution of work responsibilities and now has a dedicated grant administrator and management oversight.

Corrective Action Plan: The department will develop a contingency plan and training procedures to ensure continuity of grant procedures and a review process to ensure reporting accuracy.

Planned Implementation Date: June 30,2025
Responsible Person(s): Rose Rodarte and Francine Gutierrez 968
(MW) – Material Weakness (SD) – Significant Deficiency (NC) – Noncompliance -19-

CITY OF OXNARD
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued)
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024
2024-004 – Lack of Timesheet Approval (NC)
Federal Program Title: Staffing for Adequate Fire & Emergency Response Federal Catalog Number: 97.083
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Category of Finding: Activities Allowed/Unallowed
Criteria: According to 2 CFR 200.430, employees working on federally funded projects are required to submit timesheets that accurately reflect the time spent on the project. These timesheets must be approved by a responsible supervisor to ensure that the reported hours are accurate, reasonable, and properly allocated.

Additionally, organizations must establish and maintain effective internal controls to ensure compliance with timekeeping and payroll procedures.

Condition: During the audit, it was found that the City's time roster report approval process was not consistently followed. We selected four pay periods for testing. In two of these periods, the time roster reports were not properly reviewed and approved by a battalion chief supervisor before submission for payroll processing. These time roster reports were automatically approved by the system to meet payroll processing deadlines, bypassing the required supervisory review.

Cause: The failure to adhere to the time roster report approval process was due to a lack of oversight and insufficient enforcement of internal control procedures.

Effect or Potential Effect: The lack of proper time roster approval creates a risk of inaccuracies in the allocation of payroll costs to federal grants, which could result in non-compliance with federal regulations. Additionally, failure to follow the required process could lead to improper charging of labor costs, potentially jeopardizing the City’s eligibility for future funding and risking the disallowance of grant-related costs.

Questioned Cost: None.

Repeat of a Prior-Year Finding: No.

Recommendation: We recommend the City to strengthen its internal controls related to time roster report approval. Specifically, a formal time roster report approval process should be implemented that includes clear guidelines for timely approval by supervisors. The City should also establish a tracking system to ensure that time roster report is approved before submission for payroll processing. Regular training for staff and supervisors on the importance of accurate timekeeping and approval procedures should be conducted to reinforce compliance with federal grant requirements.

Management Response and Corrective Action Plan
City's Response: The City uses Telestaff to maintain Fire employees’ work schedules and as the system of record for payroll timekeeping. The audit identified several rosters that were not finalized (approved) by the Duty Chief before the conclusion of their shift and were auto-finalized by the system. Going forward, the City will ensure that the finalization process by the Duty Chief, which essentially serves to confirm that the time and attendance as reflected in Telestaff is what was actually worked, is adhered to. Oxnard Fire Department Policy 1005 requires that the Duty Chief review and approve the roster at the conclusion of their shift to verify the accuracy of the roster for payroll processing. 969
(MW) – Material Weakness (SD) – Significant Deficiency (NC) – Noncompliance -20-
In instances where overtime related to late relief is in unapproved status (depicted with an asterisk in the system), the Duty Chief will ensure the late relief is approved before finalizing the daily roster.

After the roster is finalized (approved) by the Duty Chief, the timekeeper reviews the roster for the appropriate general ledger account(s), paycode(s), and project coding to ensure proper accounting of payroll costs. If the Duty Chief has not finalized the roster by 0800, the timekeeper will inform the Department Assistant Chiefs to initiate completion of the task.

Corrective Action Plan: The Department will conduct a formal review of its processes and policies to identify potential weaknesses in the payroll timekeeping and approval process, and will update its policies and procedures to align with the roles and responsibilities of those involved in rostering and timekeeping.

The department has already taken corrective action to ensure that duty chiefs are finalizing the rosters before the end of their shift and making it the responsibility of the timekeeper to initiate action when finalization by the Duty Chiefs has not occurred so the timekeepers review process can be completed.

Planned Implementation Date: June 30, 2025
Responsible Person(s): Karsten Guthrie and Rose Rodarte 970
-21-

CITY OF OXNARD
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued)
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024

PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2020-001 – Information Technology (IT) General Controls (SD) Criteria: IT general controls (ITGC) are basic controls applied to IT systems. The objectives of ITGC are to ensure the integrity of data and processes that the IT systems support. ITGC have a pervasive effect on the City’s system of internal control over financial reporting.

Condition: We evaluated the design and implementation of ITGCs and noted 12 findings. We communicated such findings to the IT Department. Because those findings reveal vulnerabilities to, or otherwise increase the potential for an attack on, the information technology systems of the City, the details of the findings will not be published in this document. They will, however, be communicated to the City Council via a separate confidential written report.

Repeat of a Prior-Year Finding: 1 out of 12 were repeat findings as of FY24 Recommendation: Our recommendations will be communicated to the City Council via a separate confidential written report.

City’s Response 2024: The City’s corrective action plan will be communicated to the City Council via a separate confidential written report.

EP's Comment 2024: In progress
(MW) – Material Weakness (SD) – Significant Deficiency (NC) – Noncompliance 971
Single Audit Report for
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024
City Council
May 6, 2025
972
1 Introduction
2 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards (SEFA)
3 Major Program
4 Internal Control Findings
5 Non-Compliance Findings
AGENDA
City Council | May 6, 2025
973
Measure O Citizen Oversight Board Meeting | January 27, 2022 City Council | May 6, 2025
Introduction
•Single Audit Report
• Internal Control Report Required by Government Auditing Standards • Report on Compliance for Each Major Program
• Report on Internal Control on Internal Control over Compliance • Report on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 1 974
Measure O Citizen Oversight Board Meeting | January 27, 2022 City Council | May 6, 2025
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA)
• Total Expenditures $26.31M
• Major Programs 3
• Total Programs 19
2 975
Measure O Citizen Oversight Board Meeting | January 27, 2022 City Council | May 6, 2025
Major Programs 3
976
Measure O Citizen Oversight Board Meeting | January 27, 2022 City Council | May 6, 2025
•No internal control findings in FY2024
•Prior year findings
• Financial Statements – In Progress
• 2020-001 Information Technology (IT) General Controls Internal Control Findings 4
977
Measure O Citizen Oversight Board Meeting | January 27, 2022 City Council | May 6, 2025
Current year findings:
• Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
• Program Income 2024-001
• Late Filing of Reports 2024-002
• Staffing for Adequate Fire & Emergency Response (SAFER) • Late Filing of Reports 2024-003
• Lack of Timesheet Approval 2024-004
Non-Compliance Findings 4
978
THANK
YOU!
Brandon Ferrell
[email protected]
909.241.7814
979

FINANCE AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. N.2
DATE: May 6, 2025
TO: Finance & Governance Committee
FROM: Javier Chagoyen-Lazaro, Chief Financial Officer, (805) 200-5400, [email protected]
SUBJECT: Update on the Financial Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for Closing Past Audit Findings.(10 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council receive an update on the Financial Corrective Action Plan (FCAP) for closing past audit findings.
(The Finance and Governance Committee approved 3-0 on April 22, 2025) Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/6-oCm0l3P5A

BACKGROUND
The City’s annual audit for FY 2014-15 produced 111 single-audit findings. These findings primarily concerned the City's policies and procedures (or lack thereof) for accounting and financial management. Between fiscal year 2016 through the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018, the City’s annual audits continued to identify new findings in the double digits. For FY 2019-20, there was one additional audit finding, for Information Technology General Controls, which was communicated to City Council via a separate confidential written report due to its sensitive nature. For FY 2020-21, there was one new finding for accounting and financial management, but only two earlier audit findings remained unresolved, and there were no material weaknesses. For FY 2021-22, there were no new findings for accounting and financial management; only two prior findings remained unresolved. FY 2021-22 was the third year in a row where the City had no material weaknesses. For FY 2022-23, there were no new findings for accounting and financial management (for the second year in a row); only one prior finding remained unresolved. For FY 2023-24, the single audit identified four new compliance findings for accounting and financial management: two findings that are significant deficiencies in internal control over major federal programs and two findings related to noncompliance with grant requirements. The one prior finding remains unresolved. FY 2023-24 is the fifth year in a row where the City has no material weaknesses. Below is a table summarizing the audit finding history.
980
In order to correct the various accounting and financial management audit findings, the City was required to produce a Financial Corrective Action Plan, or FCAP. This plan, updated annually, addresses all unresolved findings, and the steps and timeline to correct them. Staff created a detailed audit scorecard, and began presenting it to the Finance & Governance Committee, and to City Council, every six months. During the last FCAP update, the Finance Department proposed that the FCAP Update change from twice a year to once a year.

DISCUSSION
As reported in our last update to the Finance and Governance Committee in December 2024 (and in January 2025 to City Council as a receive and file update), only one finding remained outstanding and the City had no new findings for two consecutive years. The City continued to make progress on the corrective actions for the remaining finding related to the Information Technology General Controls and the City Council continues to receive updates on the IT General Controls finding through separate confidential reports.

Since the last update, the City’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Single Audit identified four new grant compliance findings. Two findings are significant deficiencies in internal control over major federal programs and two findings are related to noncompliance with grant requirements. For finding rating definitions, please see the table below.

Two significant deficiencies were identified related to the Housing Department’s compliance with Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants (CDBG) requirements: (1) lack of appropriate controls over program income and (2) lack of appropriate controls over grant reporting.

Two findings of noncompliance were identified related to the Fire Department’s compliance with Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grants (SAFER) requirements: (1) delays in grant reporting and (2) instances of lack of supervisor time sheet approval.

Both the Housing Department and the Fire Department have committed to Corrective Actions Plans to remediate the findings. These Corrective Action Plans are on track to be completed by June 30, 2025.

Overall, the City has improved accounting and financial compliance, resulting in no material weaknesses for five consecutive years.
981

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This agenda item supports the Organizational Effectiveness strategy. The purpose of the Organizational Effectiveness strategy is to reinforce, stabilize, improve, and strengthen the organizational foundation of the City in order to build a modern, high-functioning City government that effectively and efficiently supports the operating departments in providing high-quality services and programs for our residents and businesses.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact.

Prepared by: Jennifer Hiraoka, Senior Manager Internal Controls

ATTACHMENTS
None
982

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. N.3
DATE: May 6, 2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Michael Wolfe, Public Works Director, (805) 385-8055, [email protected] SUBJECT: Three General Service Agreements with GreenCoast Landscapes Inc. for Landscape Maintenance Services for Citywide Street and Median Landscapes. (10 minutes)

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the following Agreements with GreenCoast Landscapes Inc. for an initial term of three years each from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2028, with an option for two consecutive one-year extensions ending June 30, 2030, for landscape maintenance services in Citywide Street and Median Landscapes:

1. Agreement 32500412 for a total amount not to exceed $3,819,000;

2. Agreement 32500413 for a total amount not to exceed $4,294,000; and

3. Agreement 32500414 for a total amount not to exceed $3,527,000. (Public Works and Transportation Committee approved 3-0 on April 8, 2025) Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/40X1FVZpjMk

BACKGROUND
Prior to the passing of Measure E, for Fiscal Year 2019-20, there was a reduction in staffing as a result of budget constraints. This included the elimination of 15 full-time Groundworker I/II positions from the Public Works Department.

After the passing of Measure E in November 2020, staff created a plan for restoring the maintenance of the citywide streets, landscapes, and parks through contract services. The intent of using contract services was to have the routine maintenance tasks conducted by a contractor. This allowed the remaining maintenance staff the flexibility to be assigned reactive and proactive tasks such as repairs that are outside of routine contract maintenance, as well as street landscape improvements, renovating landscapes, and repairing and modernizing the irrigation systems. To provide equal levels of service, the City was divided into three contract areas (regions) consisting of approximately equal amounts of street landscaping, and then bids were solicited for each contract area. In addition to providing equal levels of service, having three contract areas also provides the flexibility to solicit a new contractor for one of the Agreements, in the event of the contractor underperforming in that region, without disrupting services in the other contract areas of the City.

On June 29, 2021, the City Council approved two Agreements to Garcia’s Landscapes as the lowest responsive bidder for Regions 1 and 3 and an Agreement to Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. as the lowest responsive bidder for Region 2. The original not-to-exceed amount for all three Agreements, which provided monthly street landscape maintenance, was $6,025,000 for the three-year terms ending June 30, 2024. Each of these Agreements was amended by the City Council in 2022 to increase the levels of service to twice per month and then, in 2024, extend each term for one additional year. The three Street and Median Landscape Maintenance Agreements will expire on June 30, 2025. The not-to-exceed amount for all three Agreements during the four-year terms is $9,967,000, with an estimated final expense of $9,624,276 for the 983
service performed. This table shows the final monthly rates for services in each region:

Region Contractor / Agreement Final Monthly Cost
1 Garcia’s A-8344 $69,310*
2 Mariposa A-8345 $71,808*
3 Garcia’s A-8346 $74,935*
TOTAL MONTHLY $216,053*
* These are the adjusted rates that were changed in July 2022 for additional maintenance areas within each region and increasing the maintenance frequency from once per month to twice per month.

DISCUSSION
On December 4, 2024, the City released a Request For Bid ( RFB No. 25-61) for Landscape Maintenance Services within the City Street and Median Landscapes. Outreach efforts included direct notifications to five potential vendors, publication on www.PublicPurchase.com, and posting on the City’s Purchasing website. The City solicited a bid for each of the three regions. The three Agreements provide weekly services for arterial street landscape maintenance that include:
some turf management, shrub and ground cover pruning, hardscape maintenance, litter and debris removal, weed control, minor tree care, and “Additional Services”.

The “Additional Services” for all three agreements provide additional contract capacity and flexibility for on-call landscape maintenance and debris removal services, which are outside of the scheduled routine maintenance services.

These additional services will only be performed with an approved Task Order from staff and verification of the approved contract costs and available funds. The City currently uses multiple agreements with different vendors to complete on-call landscape services. As these Agreements expire, consolidating these services into newly awarded landscape agreements will increase efficiency, along with eliminating the time required to solicit for these on-call services. The “Additional Services” are budgeted at 50% of each fiscal year. However, there is no guarantee to the contractor that these services will be requested or performed. Payment for these services will only be paid after a Task Order is issued and the requested service has been verified by staff as completed.

On December 11, 2024, the City held a mandatory job walk with potential bidders. This allowed Staff to clarify any questions from the contractors and go over the expectations of the Scope of Services that provide weekly maintenance services throughout the street landscapes. Seven contractors attended the job walk. The deadline for submitting proposals was January 7, 2025, and the City received a total of six proposals. GreenCoast Landscapes Inc. (“GreenCoast”) provided the lowest responsible bid for each of the three contract areas. The monthly bid amounts from each contractor to provide weekly services within all three regions of the Street and Median Landscape Maintenance are as follows:

Contractor Monthly Bid Amount
GreenCoast Landscapes Inc. $121,790.00*
Natural Green Landscape $138,643.00
Mariposa Landscapes $170,984.00
Garcia’s Landscape $180,177.00
Four Seasons $208,000.00
JAS Landscape $305,000.00
*The total monthly bid amount from GreenCoast for weekly service is $94,263 less per month than the current agreements for twice-monthly service.
984
On January 16, 2025, Staff met with GreenCoast to ensure they were prepared and capable of meeting the requirements as stated in the contract documents. Staff has confirmed that GreenCoast meets all the required City contractual provisions, including possession of a City business tax certificate, insurance certificates, and corporate filing with the California Secretary of State. Additionally, GreenCoast currently has an Agreement with the City that provides landscape services for the Water, Wastewater, and Environmental Resources Divisions, as well as the Transportation Center. Since July 1, 2024, GreenCoast has performed these services in accordance with the Agreement. Based upon the available information and research performed to date, staff believes that this vendor is capable of satisfactorily meeting the needs of the City.

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.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The total cost for all three Agreements with GreenCoast Landscapes Inc. shall not exceed $11,640,000 during the maximum five-year term if extended for all years. Funding for FY 2025-26 and the subsequent fiscal years will be requested through the annual budget process. The not-to-exceed amount for year one provides capacity for “Additional Service” to perform on-call landscape tasks as well as modify the service frequencies. These services will only be authorized by staff through Task Orders for additional site visits, landscape maintenance, debris control, and weather events within the specified Scope of Services. The Agreements allow for a price increase, through a written request with documentation to support the request, not to exceed 3% over the previous year. Therefore, these annual not-to-exceed amounts are calculated at a maximum of 3% per year, if authorized by the City.

Region Account FY
2025-26
FY
2026-27
FY
2027-28
FY
2028-
29 FY
2029-
30 Total
32500412
Region 1
1013304-
53200 $ 480,000 $ 494,000 $ 509,000 $ 524,000 $ 538,000 $ 2,545,000 Additional
Services
Region 1
1013304-
53200
$ 240,000 $ 247,000 $ 255,000 $ 262,000 $ 270,000 $ 1,274,000 32500413
Region 2
1013304-
53200
$ 540,000 $ 556,000 $ 573,000 $ 590,000 $ 604,000 $ 2,863,000 Additional
Services
Region 2
1013304-
53200
$ 270,000 $ 278,000 $ 287,000 $ 295,000 $ 301,000 $ 1,431,000 32500414
Region 3
1013304-
53200
$ 444,000 $ 456,000 $ 470,000 $ 484,000 $ 496,000 $ 2,350,000 Additional
Services
Region 3
1013304-
53200
$ 222,000 $ 228,000 $ 235,000 $ 242,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,177,000 Total
$2,196,000* $2,259,000 $2,329,000 $2,397,000 $2,459,000 $ 11,640,000 *Current annual cost for all three regions for twice monthly services and no “As-Needed” services is $2,592,636. 985

COMMITTEE OUTCOME
The Public Works and Transportation Committee approved 3-0 on April 8, 2025 to approve the staff recommendation and to forward the item for Council approval.

Prepared by: Steve Howlett, Assistant Public Works Director

ATTACHMENTS

1. Agreement 32500412 GreenCoast Landscapes Inc - Streets Region 1

2. Agreement 32500413 GreenCoast Landscapes Inc - Streets Region 2

3. Agreement 32500414 GreenCoast Landscapes Inc - Streets Region 3

4. 25-61 Streets and Median Landscape Maintenance Tabulation Sheet

5. Prior Agreements - Medians Landscape Rates

6. Presentation
986
Agreement No. 32500412

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE & SERVICE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN
THE CITY OF OXNARD AND GREENCOAST LANSCAPES INC.

By This Landscape Maintenance & Service Agreement (“Agreement”), the CITY of Oxnard (“CITY”) agrees to engage the services of GreenCoast Landscapes Inc. (“SERVICE PROVIDER”), and SERVICE PROVIDER agrees to perform the services for CITY as herein described, for the compensation, during the term, and otherwise subject to the covenants and conditions herein set forth. CITY and SERVICE PROVIDER may be individually referred to as “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.”

1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES. This Agreement is for Streets and Medians landscape maintenance (Region 1).

2. PARTIES.

CITY OF Oxnard, a general law and municipal corporation of the State of California, located at 300 West Third Street, Oxnard California 93030 GreenCoast Landscapes Inc., a corporation of the State of California, located at 9294 Stockton Rd., Moorpark, CA 93021.

3. TERM OF AGREEMENT: From: July 1, 2025 To: June 30, 2028

3.1 Time is of the essence in this Agreement.

3.2 The CITY shall have the option for (2) two consecutive (1) one-year extensions, in accordance with the scope of work and general terms and conditions of the Trade Services Agreement. Any price increases or decreases shall be negotiated at time of contract extension.

3.3 Any Optional Extension (initial term, plus any option to extend) shall not exceed a total of five (5) years. The CITY in its sole discretion may exercise the optional extension upon 60 days written notice to the SERVICE PROVIDER in accordance with Section 13 of this Agreement. SERVICE PROVIDER shall issue its written consent to the CITY’s exercise of the option extension within 10 days of receipt of notice from the CITY. All Notices shall comply with Section 22 of this Agreement.

3.4 All services required of SERVICE PROVIDER under this Agreement shall be completed on or before the end of the term of the Agreement.

4. AGREEMENT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED: $3,819,000.00

5. AGREEMENT EXHIBITS: The following documents memorialized below are the only exhibits to this agreement and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth