Subject: City Council Meeting - Agenda Item M2
From: Donald Nielsen <
To: [email protected]
Date Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 4:14:46 PM GMT-07:00
Date Received: Monday, May 5, 2025 4:15:33 PM GMT-07:00 Attachments: Agenda_Item_M2_Appeal.pdf
Hello,
Please find attached my public comment letter in support of staff's recommendation. I am a resident of Oxnard and Riverpark.
Donald Nielsen
2 / 4
To: Oxnard City Council
From: Donald Nielsen
Riverpark Resident
Re: Agenda Item M.2
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Director's decision to approve The Pointe Apartments project at 2801 N. Oxnard Blvd.
I am writing in support of Staff’s recommendation to 1) find the project consistent with the Final EIR and subsequent Addendums for the Riverpark Specific Plan, and 2) deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the Community Development Director’s approval of Planning and Zoning Permit No. 23-200-01.
As a resident of Oxnard and Riverpark (directly adjacent to the proposed project), I have been following this project closely and disagree with the appellant that that City staff did not follow proper environmental procedures. I am also a professional urba n planner that works with CEQA constantly, so the environmental pathway that the project was subject to was accurate.
I encourage you to reject the appeal based on the lack of merit and their incorrect application of CEQA.
Additionally, your Council is required to approve the project per the Housing Accountability Act as the project is compliant with applicable objective general plan, specific plan, and zoning standards and criteria. Additionally, your Council cannot condition the project in a manner that will render the housing development infeasible. Your Council cannot deny the project unless you identify that the project, as proposed, would constitute a specific, adverse impact 1 upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable.
On a personal note, I do think that the project falls short in the number of units given the extreme housing crisis this County and state are facing. This lack of housing is impacting not only the affordability of units (to few unit + high demand = very high prices) but also negatively affecting the local economy. Even though this is too late, I would support the following:
• Increasing the number of units (utilizing Density Bonus allowances) and an increasing the building height and stories to match or exceed the adjacent low-rise office building (7 stories), and
• Direct the TDM Fee to go toward enhancing bus stops (both Gold Coast and VCTC) and bus service in the RiverPark community.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this comment.
1 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete . Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. 3 / 4
May 6, 2025 City of Oxnard 300 West 3rd St. Oxnard, CA 93030 Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 2801 N. Oxnard Blvd By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Dear Oxnard City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation
to
abide
by
all
relevant
state
laws
when
evaluating
the
proposed
280-unit
housing
development
project
at
2801
N.
Oxnard
Blvd,
which
includes
42 affordable
units.
These
laws
include
the
Housing
Accountability
Act
(“HAA”)
and
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(“CEQA”)
guidelines.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan
compliant
housing
development
projects
unless
findings
can
be
made
regarding
specific,
objective,
written
health
and
safety
hazards.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subd.
(j).)
The
HAA
also
bars
cities
from
imposing
conditions
on
the
approval
of
such
projects
that
would
reduce
the
project’s
density
unless,
again,
such
written
findings
are
made.
(
Ibid
.)
As
a
development
with
at
least
two-thirds
of
its
area
devoted
to
residential
uses,
the
project
falls
within
the
HAA’s
ambit,
and
it
complies
with
local
zoning
code
and
the
City’s
general
plan.
The
HAA’s
protections
therefore
apply,
and
the
City
may
not
reject
the
project
except
based
on
health
and
safety
standards,
as
outlined
above.
Additionally, the project is exempt from state environmental review pursuant to sections 15162
through
15164
and
15183
of
the
CEQA
Guidelines.
And
recent
caselaw
from
the
California
Court
of
Appeal
affirms
that
local
governments
err,
and
may
be
sued,
when
they
2221 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org
improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which
it
is
entitled.
(
Hilltop
Group,
Inc.
v.
County
of
San
Diego
(2024)
99 Cal.App.5th
890,
911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage.
New
housing
such
as
this
is
a
public
benefit:
it
will
enhance
the
City’s
tax
base;
it
will
bring
new
customers
to
local
businesses;
and
it
will
reduce
displacement
of
existing
residents
by
reducing
competition
for
existing
housing.
While
no
single
housing
development
can
solve
all
these
problems,
this
project
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
CalHDF
therefore
urges
the
City
to
approve
the
project,
consistent
with
its
obligations
under
state
law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased
access
to
housing
for
Californians
at
all
income
levels,
including
low-income
households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 2 of 2