Agenda packet — Oxnard City Council, May 19, 2026 (part 3 of 6)

The proposed 56 residential units are clustered in four separate dwelling units sharing a common driveway along a private street. The private street connects to Dunes Street at the north end of the site and to Canal Street at the south site. The open space and parking areas proposed are designed for different uses. Lots A and B (approximately 29 acres) are dedicated protected open space containing a proposed walking trail with controlled access from the parking lot at Beachcomber Street and Dunes Street. Lot E is dedicated as a small community park for residents of the Avalon development, with benches, play area, and garden area.

For the purposes of this Staff Report, the foregoing project description shall be referred to as the “Project.” Filed by property owner Oxnard Dunes LLC, Mike Marlow, 1015 S. Harbor Boulevard, Oxnard, CA 93035 (the “Applicant”).

Please see the reduced Project Plans (Attachment B) for more details. 3) Existing & Surrounding Land Uses: The project site is located on the west side of the City generally surrounded by open space and agriculture within the Coastal Zone between Fifth Street, Wooley Road, Harbor Boulevard, and the Edison Canal. The Oxnard Airport is located east of the site on Fifth Street and the project area is outside of all identified airport restricted protection and safety zones. The project area contains three vacant undeveloped lots identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 196-0-010-275, -225, and -235. The site is currently made up of sand dune formations, disturbed vegetation, willows, and other vegetation.

The developed neighborhood between Wooley Road, Harbor Boulevard, and Fifth Street is known as the Oxnard Dunes Neighborhood containing single-family, duplexes, and multi-family residential development. Along Wooley Road is the recently completed Shoreline Townhomes project consisting of for-sale attached townhomes. North of Fifth Street at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Fifth Street is the North Shore at Mandalay Bay residential subdivision for 292 residential units currently under construction. West of Harbor Boulevard is the Oxnard Lot/Parcel Use Acres
3 2 cluster single family dwelling units 0.19
A Open Space (resource protected) 27.67
B Open Space (resource protected) 1.91
C Parking Area/Drainage 0.14
D Open Space/Entrance 0.13
E Community/Recreation Area 0.19
F Private Street 2.15
G Open Space/Entrance 0.10
2 336
Avalon Homes; PZ#s:16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit) and 16-300-03 (Tentative Map) Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 5, 2026

Page 3 of 13 ends

Shores community made up of single-family, multi-family, and a small strip commercial shopping center.

The following table summarizes the land uses and zoning designation of the Project site and adjacent properties, which are also illustrated on Attachment A.

Table 2: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning

LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING EXISTING LAND USE
Project Site
Residential Existing
(REX) and Resource
Protection (RP)
RP and Coastal
Multiple-Family
(R-2-C)
Vacant
North
Residential Existing
(REX), Visitor Serving
Commercial
Single-Family Beach
(R-B-1), Coastal Resource
Protection (RP), Coastal
Visitor-Serving Commercial
(CVC)
Residential Subdivision
(north of W Fifth Street)
South Residential Existing
(REX)
Coastal Multiple-Family
(R-2-C)
Residential Single-Family
and Multifamily
East
Coastal Recreation
(REC), Agriculture
(AG)
Community Reserve (CR),
Coastal Recreation (RC),
County Agriculture
Edison Canal, Agriculture
West Residential Existing
(REX)
Coastal Multiple-Family
(R-2-C) Residential Duplexes
4) Background Information: The subject property is located within the Oxnard Dunes Neighborhood. In 1964, the neighborhood was created by Tract No. 1567-1 establishing 99 lots and public streets, not including the project site. Over the past 60 years, the lots have been independently developed with mostly single and duplex dwelling units with some duplex developments that have been subdivided for condominium purposes. Additionally in 1964, the City Council passed Resolution No. 3349 approving a variance for varying front yard setbacks for the entire tract from 25 feet to not less than 15 feet.

The subject properties have remained vacant but studies for development feasibility began in the mid-1980s while the surrounding Oxnard Dunes Neighborhood was being built out with residential structures. In 2003, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application was submitted for 125 single-family residential development and was subsequently withdrawn. In 2011, a CDP application and Tentative Subdivision Map were submitted for 64 detached residential units on approximately 8 acres of the 38-acre site. Ultimately, that project did not move forward and the application was closed by the City.

In 2016, the subject application was submitted for up to 65 residential units with either 15 single-family residences on individual lots or 30 residential duplexes, and two other lots containing 35 single-family residential clustered condominium units on 8.75-acres of the 38-acre 3 337
Avalon Homes; PZ#s:16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit) and 16-300-03 (Tentative Map) Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 5, 2026

Page 4 of 13 ends

site. The remainder of the property would be preserved as open space and further restored to dune habitat. There were several iterations proposed after the initial submittal in 2016 with different residential unit counts, configuration, and building layouts. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project required environmental review and a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed in 2019. The 2019 EIR identified in the project description a version of the project that also proposed front yard setback variances. This version with variances is not being proposed.

As required by CEQA, alternatives of the project were studied to identify the environmentally superior option. During the course of the City reviewing the environmental document and receiving public comments, the proposed project shifted to pursuing an alternative from the environmental document. Alternative 5 from the 2019 environmental document analyzed a 56-unit development with only detached single-family residences for ownership on two lots and still maintaining the open space parcels to the north. This alternative was the selected version to move forward with as the proposed project. After reducing the unit count from 65 to 56 and changing the site design, the modified project plans were resubmitted to the City for review in 2021.

Since the Draft EIR was originally circulated for public review between December 2019 and February 2020, this current 2025 version of the Draft EIR is a recirculated version. The CEQA process began in 2016 and the first version was circulated in December 2019. The purpose of this recirculation is to provide an update of existing conditions and to the City and State CEQA regulations that may have changed since preparation of the 2016 Draft EIR. This also analyzes if there are new or potentially more severe impacts as a result of changes to existing conditions or new circumstances.

The proposal for 56 detached single-family units with no attached units is the project for consideration. Further background is discussed in the Environmental Determination section below.
5) Environmental Determination: Pursuant to CEQA Section 15060, the City of Oxnard as the Lead Agency, has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2016051075) in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA (Public resources Code § 21000, et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations, §15000, et seq., CEQA Guidelines), and the City’s Environmental Review Guidelines. The EIR identifies and discusses the project’s potential impacts on the environment, mitigation measures, monitoring requirements, and residual impacts for identified subject areas.

The City prepared an Initial Study and an EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP) and distributed the NOP for agency and public review for a 30-day review period between May 27, 2016 and June 27, 2016, in which the City received 20 comment letters. A public EIR scoping meeting was held on June 13, 2016, in the City of Oxnard’s Community Room at 300 West Third Street.

The Draft EIR was originally circulated for public review between December 2019 and February 4 338
Avalon Homes; PZ#s:16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit) and 16-300-03 (Tentative Map) Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 5, 2026

Page 5 of 13 ends

2020. This current version of the Draft EIR is a recirculated version of the original. The purpose of this recirculation is to provide an update of existing conditions and regulations that may have changed since preparation of the 2016 Draft EIR and analyze if there are new or potentially more severe impacts as a result of changes to existing conditions or new circumstances. This Recirculated Draft EIR also includes minor edits and updates in response to public comments received on the Draft EIR during the December 2019 circulation.

Since the circulation of this Draft EIR, the City of Oxnard CEQA Guidelines were updated in 2017 and the State CEQA Guidelines underwent an update in 2019 which added resource sections for energy and wildfire. The State CEQA Guidelines also revised transportation thresholds to be related to vehicle miles traveled in lieu of the level of service standards. This Recirculated Draft EIR includes a revised analysis consistent with the 2017 City of Oxnard CEQA Guidelines and the current State CEQA Guidelines. The City adopted new CEQA Guidelines in December 2024. However, preparation of this recirculated Draft EIR began earlier in 2024, prior to the adoption of the new CEQA Guidelines in December 2024. For this reason, the 2017 City of Oxnard CEQA Guidelines are used in this EIR, which were in effect prior to December 2024.

The Recirculated Draft EIR was circulated for 45-days beginning on August 7, 2025 and ending on September 21, 2025. The City of Oxnard received eight comment letters on the Recirculated Draft EIR. Comment letters and responses are included in the Final EIR.

Based on the analysis in the EIR, the Avalon Homes Project would result in one Class I significant and unavoidable impacts, Class II less than significant impacts with mitigation measures incorporated, and Class III less than significant impacts and do not need mitigation.

The Transportation section has identified a Class I impact because the project increases vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita over the threshold, which cannot be mitigated. However, a mitigation is proposed for the Transportation section. The EIR identified mitigation measures that are incorporated for the following sections: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation.

CEQA Section 21081 and the State CEQA Guidelines require that a public agency make specific findings before a project is approved if the project involves Class I significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. These findings are required to include consideration of benefits of the project such as economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits that may outweigh the potential significant effects on the environment. As discussed above, the project would result in transportation significant impacts which, even after application of feasible mitigation, cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level and therefore remain significant and unavoidable.

The Draft EIR analyzed the VMT for 65 residential units using the threshold of significance if the project exceeds 15% below the Ventura County Existing VMT for home-based VMT per capita. The existing county VMT plus the project VMT per capita is forecasted to exceed the CEQA threshold causing a significant impact. The Avalon Homes project regardless of 65 or 56 residential units would result in adding units in an area that already exceeds the VMT threshold; 5 339
Avalon Homes; PZ#s:16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit) and 16-300-03 (Tentative Map) Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 5, 2026

Page 6 of 13 ends

therefore will always be considered as a significant impact until other mechanisms are in place to reduce VMT for this area.

Accordingly, Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) were prepared pursuant to the CEQA and are included within the resolution of approval for Avalon Homes.

State law stipulates that approval of the findings and SOC are not required until action is taken on a project.

The following statements specify the reasons why the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable potential risk:
● The project would provide a responsible and balanced public access framework that allows for community enjoyment of the open space area, while preserving and protecting sensitive habitat areas.
● Restore, protect, and improve native dune plant communities, habitat, and vegetation. ● Ensure the open space area remains safe by establishing security and maintenance processes and protocols.
● Complete this portion of the Oxnard Dunes Neighborhood with an attractive residential neighborhood pursuant to the requirements of the City of Oxnard 2030 General Plan; and the ability for efficiently providing municipal services. ● Comply with Local Coastal Plan (LCP) policies and provide a buffer to agricultural lands to the east.
● The project would provide on-site habitat mitigation for any sensitive areas disturbed within the R-2-C area of the property.
● Ensure that proposed development and land use conserve energy and natural resources. ● Provide for compatibility with existing residential uses in the area through effective and appropriate urban and architectural design.
● The project would create recreational opportunities for citizens of Oxnard. ● The addition of residential units to the City of Oxnard will make a substantial contribution toward attainment of community housing goals.

A discussion of the public benefits associated with the project is detailed in the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Final EIR includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment H - Exhibit 2) that details the process to implement the required mitigation measures.

Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify that: (1) the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (2) The final EIR 6 340
Avalon Homes; PZ#s:16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit) and 16-300-03 (Tentative Map) Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 5, 2026

Page 7 of 13 ends

was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; (3) the final EIR reflects the lead agency‘s independent judgment and analysis; (4) adopt the Findings; (5) adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; (6) adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations; and (7) certify the EIR. 6) Analysis:
a) General Discussion: The proposed project requires a CDP because the project meets the definition of appealable development (Cal. Pub. Res. Code, Section 30603(2)), which includes a subdivision within 100 feet of a wetland and within 300 feet of the inland extent of the sea (Edison Canal). The final action on the CDP made by the City may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission. A Tentative Map is required for the subdivision. CDPs are reviewed by the Planning Commission (Section 17-58) and are the final decision maker for the CDP. The Tentative Map is recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council for final action (Section 15-40).
b) General Plan and Local Coastal Program (LCP) Consistency: The project site has a 2030 General Plan and Coastal Plan land use designation of Residential Existing (REX) and Resource Protection area (RP). The proposed uses of the site are single-family residential and preserved open space on existing lots of record consistent with the density indicated by the land use designation, zoning, and the surrounding development; therefore, the project is consistent with the City's 2030 General Plan (Attachment D).

In addition to meeting the 2030 General Plan policies, the proposed development is subject to the Coastal Act and Local Coastal Plan (LCP). The Coastal Act contains policies to address public access, recreation, marine environment, land resources, new development, and industrial development. The LCP is the City’s tool to ensure the new development is consistent with the Coastal Act. The Project meets the standards of the LCP and the policies of the Coastal Act (Attachment D).
c) Conformance with Zoning Development Standards: The proposed Project complies with the above Coastal Act and LCP policies and, as shown below, the Project is fully consistent with the development standards of the Coastal Multiple-Family (R-2-C) zone, which implements the above LCP policies.

Table 3: R-2-C Standards

DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD REQUIREMENT PROPOSED COMPLIES?
Max. building height
17-13(D)(1) 2 stories, 25 feet max. 24 feet YES
Minimum Lot Area
17-13(D)(2)
3,500 square feet per
dwelling unit
56 dwelling units/38.3
gross acres
(1.5 dwelling units/ acre)
YES
7 341
Avalon Homes; PZ#s:16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit) and 16-300-03 (Tentative Map) Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 5, 2026

Page 8 of 13 ends

Lot Width
17-13(D)(3) 50 feet
Lot 1 - 683 feet
Lot 2 - 350 ft
Lot 3 - 88 feet
YES
Interior Yard Space
17-13(D)(4)
25% of lot area;
minimum dimension
of 15 feet

29.58 acres resource
protected open space;
8,276 square feet
community park, and
1,000-1,135 square feet
of private yard space per
unit
Lots 1, 2, and 3 - 30%
YES
Front Yard Setback
17-13(D)(5) 20 feet 20 feet YES
Rear Yard Setback
17-13(D)(6) 25 feet 25 feet YES
Side Yard Setback
17-13(D)(7) 5 feet
5 feet
Approximately 8-10 feet
between each unit
YES
Building Lot
Coverage Not to exceed 60% 79,498 square feet 4% YES
Off Street Parking
16-622(F)
2 garage spaces per
unit
2 garage spaces per unit
121 other open parking
spaces
YES
d) Site Design: The proposed site design consists of two major components: residential development and open space. The project includes a tentative map to subdivide the 38.33-acre site into three lots dedicated to the 56-unit residential development and six other lots used as open space, parking, access, and the private street. The project is designed based on the existing zoning, neighborhood framework, and physical conditions of the subject project site.

The existing 38.33-acre project site contains elevations that range from approximately 11 to 24 feet above mean sea level. The northern portion of the project site encompasses larger sand dunes and associated back dune depressions. Moving towards the southern portion of the project site, the project area levels out and is mostly flat.

The subject project sites are zoned R-2-C and RP and the uses of the proposed project are consistent with the existing zoning. Proposed Parcels A and B (Table 1) that make up the northern portion of the project site are designated as resource protected and proposed as preserved open space. The proposal includes minor improvements for a walking loop, ADA accessible walking path, a small parking lot at the corner of Harbor Boulevard and Beachcomber Street, and security gating for controlled access. Proposed Lots 1, 2, and 3 (Table 1) that would make up the flatter southern portion of the site are currently zoned and designated for residential use. The proposed 56 single-family residences and associated 8 342
Avalon Homes; PZ#s:16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit) and 16-300-03 (Tentative Map) Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 5, 2026

Page 9 of 13 ends

streets, landscaping, and utility infrastructure would be located entirely within these southern lots.

The proposed residential development aligns with the existing street network of the Dunes Community by connecting the development’s private street to Canal Street and Dunes Street and extending the sidewalk connectivity and streetscape. The 56 detached single-family dwelling units are clustered among 2-4 units each sharing one vehicular driveway that split into the individual unit’s 2-car garage. This configuration allows for the proposed number of residential units to remain within a more compact footprint, which preserves the resource protected open space area to the north with minimal disturbance.

While the zoning and proposed uses are consistent, the entirety of the project area contains biological resources and environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). The Avalon Homes property is referenced as the “Northern Dunes Area” of the Oxnard Coastal Zone Area in the current Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) (Oxnard 1982: Map No. 3). The LUP also describes sensitive habitats as including “Dunes” and “Riparian Habitat,” which includes dense growths of willows (Oxnard 1982:pages III-8 through III-10). Five areas of dunes are described and mapped in the current LUP (Oxnard 1982:page III-8 and Map 7). A biological assessment was conducted and several sensitive biological resources have been mapped within the project site including willow thicket and mock heather scrub, and other species that have the potential to occur near, on, and in the vicinity like the globose dune beetle, southern California legless lizard, and the yellow warbler.

The Oxnard Local Coastal Program requires the protection of ESHA, such as the sand dune habitat found on the open space parcel to the north, against any significant disruption of habitat values. Section 30240b of the Coastal Act and incorporated into the LUP requires that development adjacent to ESHA is sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade ESHA and to be compatible with the continuance of the habitat areas.

Proposed project development would occur in an area of the site that does not contain this mapped dune habitat. These northern parcels are identified as areas for restoration that would offset any adverse impacts from the site design of the minor development within the open space and the residential development.

The Coastal Land Use Plan also requires a buffer of 100 feet to be provided adjacent to resource protection areas. The buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 50 feet only if it can be demonstrated the large buffer is unnecessary to protect the resources of the habitat area. Along the northern portion of the development, the proposed private street would occupy a width of 46 feet between the nearest residential lots and the boundary of the RP designated land. A narrow (2-foot wide) strip along its northern edge would have a split rail fence, and a retaining wall would be used to minimize the extent of fill necessary along the northern edge. This design is proposed to help minimize the extent of encroachment into the willow thickets that occur north of the proposed street. The residential lots on the southern side of the street would have front yard setbacks of 10 feet for houses and 20-feet for garages. Thus, the total horizontal distance from structures to the edge of the RP boundary and preserved ESHA would range from 56 to 66 feet. The biological assessment and EIR identified the proposed 9 343
Avalon Homes; PZ#s:16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit) and 16-300-03 (Tentative Map) Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 5, 2026

Page 10 of 13 ends

location as a feasible and lesser environmentally damaging alternative. The EIR provided mitigation measures for pre-construction botanical survey, biological monitoring, protection and restoration of the RP designated area, re-vegetation plan with 4:1 ratio, and consultation with regulatory agencies.

The proposed development adjacent to ESHA is sited and designed to reduce significant biological impacts by locating it close to the existing developed Dunes Neighborhood. The development is compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas as the RP area remains protected and the mitigation measures incorporated as conditions of approval will further restore the northern part of the project site.

Overall, the site design for the 56 unit residential development was heavily influenced by maintaining the natural resources to the maximum extent feasible. After analyzing several options and completing the environmental review, the southern portion of the site identified for the residential neighborhood is the most compatible design that meets the General Plan and LCP.
f) Circulation and Parking: To access the residential development, one 56-foot wide private street (Canal Street) is proposed connecting to the existing public streets at Beachcomber Street/Dunes Street and the Canal Street deadend. The street will contain a 10-foot parkway on each side, 8 feet of parking on one side, and approximately 28 feet for travel lanes and Fire Department apparatus access. The public open space walking path will be accessed by a 15-foot driveway to a parking lot at the corner of Beachcomber Street and Harbor Boulevard.

The project site for vehicles and bicycles is served by the existing network of streets that connect to the major arterials, Harbor Boulevard and Wooley Road. The circulation is consistent with the Dunes Neighborhood and provides sufficient connectivity to existing streets for future residents and the Fire Department.

To access the dedicated open space, a 15-foot wide driveway is proposed off of Beachcomber Street near the corner of Harbor Boulevard. The open space provides a parking lot with approximately 10 parking stalls, which allows opportunities for public recreation within the coastal zone. The parking lot for the open space trails is subject to dawn to dusk hours of operation consistent with City parks.

Vehicular access to each of the 56 single family dwelling units is via one 26-foot wide driveway approach per cluster of residences. The driveway aprons are consistent with the City’s design and construction standards. The project meets the minimum parking requirement of a 2-car garage for each unit and one visitor space per unit which need not be covered for the first 30 units; after the 31st unit, 0.5 visitor space per unit for a total of 155 spaces. The project provides a two-car garage for each residential dwelling unit and throughout the project area for the residential component there are a total of 61 visitor parking spaces. The visitor parking spaces can be found on the proposed private street on-street between driveways, within a visitor parking lot, and the community park area. In total, the proposed project provides 172 parking spaces meeting Section 16-622 off-street parking requirements. 10 344
Avalon Homes; PZ#s:16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit) and 16-300-03 (Tentative Map) Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 5, 2026

Page 11 of 13 ends

g) Building Design: The proposed two-story residences are designed to be approximately 8-10 feet apart and will share a driveway. Each will have their own yard space of about 1,000 square feet for the four single-family unit clusters. There is generally one architectural design and four styles that alternate between each unit in the cluster of four. The architecture is contemporary modern and the four design styles provide similar architectural elements, colors, and materials that complement and tie them together, but also establish differentiation in the subdivision that avoids monotonous repetition among the cluster of single-family dwellings.

Designs #1 and #2 are the two middle units in the cluster of four. There are two primary finish materials for these design styles. The predominant finish will be stucco and secondary horizontal plank siding. The color palette includes neutral tones of blue, sand, and gray with white, black, and teal blue accent colors on the trim and horizontal siding around the windows and frontage. The second floor patio railings will be black. The residences will be approximately 24 feet in height with a flat roof that also includes a roof deck in the total height. In Design #2, the color palette is only difference between #1. This proposed color palette is made up of grays and browns with green as the accent color on the horizontal siding.

Designs #3 and #4 are the two end units in the cluster of four. The proposed design style is a combination pitched roof and flat roof. Design #3 incorporates gray stucco and brick red horizontal siding with white accents. Design #4 utilizes the same massing and roofline and changes the color palette to brown/gray and brown horizontal siding.

The designs of the single-family homes will produce a desirable character that remains compatible with the surrounding Oxnard Dunes Neighborhood single-family residences and duplexes.
h) Inclusionary Housing: The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 2980 allows a developer to request an in-lieu fee payment be made rather than providing 10% of the total number of dwelling units at an affordable lower income cost. The in-lieu fee would be available to the City for additional affordable housing units anywhere within the city. Through a Pre-Application process, the City Council has the ability to comment on the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee option and if it is appropriate for the formal project review and final action.

After selecting the alternative version of the project for 56 units in 2019, a Pre-application requesting affordable housing in-lieu fee was submitted in 2020 for an estimated $2,016,000 payment instead of constructing six affordable units. The estimated fee was calculated at the time of the Pre-Application and is subject to change when the project receives building permits. The City Council reviewed the report at the July 20, 2021 City Council meeting and discussed several topics including the allocation of funds to other affordable housing projects, equitability of affordable housing within the Dunes Neighborhood, and the in-lieu fee conditions of approval requirement.
11 345
Avalon Homes; PZ#s:16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit) and 16-300-03 (Tentative Map) Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 5, 2026

Page 12 of 13 ends

Generally, the City Council did not object to the in-lieu fee. There were comments regarding affordability within the coastal zone and Council members expressed concern about providing opportunities equitably for low-income units throughout the city including near the coast.

However, there was acknowledgement that the in-lieu fee can be allocated towards a higher quantity of residential units rather than limited to the six units from this proposed project.

After the City Council meeting, the intent was to move forward with the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee. The City Council was precluded from taking a vote on the Pre-Application because it was a report item that was received and filed.

The recommended Resolution includes a condition of approval for allowing the payment of the affordable housing in-lieu fee with building permits in place of providing them onsite. The Affordable Housing In-Lieu fee is calculated at the time of building permit issuance based on the adopted fee schedule. Currently, the fee as of July 18, 2025 per Single Family dwelling unit is $43,808.91 and subject to change once the project is ready for building permits. 7) Development Advisory Committee (DAC): The DAC reviewed the 56-unit project on October 13, 2021, April 13, 2022, and April 26, 2023. The DAC previously reviewed the 65-unit project and provided comments on the development and subdivision. Overall, the changes based on the comments have been made and the project received conditions of approval to ensure consistency with the City’s policies and code requirements. 8) Community Workshop: The project site is located within the Dunes Neighborhood. On April 17, 2023, the project was presented to the public during a Community Workshop meeting. A notice of this meeting was posted on the Project site with a brief description and contact information. Prior to the meeting, there were 15 public comments received related to the timing of construction, construction impacts, gating the community, public access to the open space, impacts to biological resources, and traffic. During the Community Workshop, several members of the public asked questions regarding the ownership of the development, homeless population near the Edison Canal, impacts of the Oxnard Airport, and noise and vibration concerns. The applicant and staff responded to the questions and indicated that the project will be scheduled for a Planning Commission and City Council meeting where there would be additional opportunities to provide public comments.
9) Noticing and Public Comments:

The Planning Commission Hearing was advertised in the newspaper with an on-site posting, and by mail to property owners within 300 feet of the project site and residents within 100 feet of the project site consistent with public noticing requirements. Planning Staff received comments on the Draft EIR but has not received any comments or inquiry from the general public regarding the proposed project after the Community Workshop.
10) Appeal Procedure: In accordance with Section 17-58(J) of the City Code, the Planning Commission’s action may be appealed to the City Council within 10 working days after the decision is made. Appeal forms may be obtained from the City Clerk and must be submitted with the appropriate fees before the end of the appeal period. If an appeal to the City Council is not filed within 10 working days of the Planning Commission's decision, the decision of the 12 346
Avalon Homes; PZ#s:16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit) and 16-300-03 (Tentative Map) Planning Commission Hearing Date: March 5, 2026

Page 13 of 13 ends

Planning Commission shall be considered final and a Notice of Final Action shall be filed on the 11th working day with the Coastal Commission. The decision of the Planning Commission on the Tentative Map and EIR are a recommendation to the City Council.

Attachments:

A. Maps (Vicinity, Aerial, General Plan, Zoning)
B. Architectural and Landscape Plans
C. Tentative Map Plans
D. General Plan and LCP Consistency Tables
E. Final EIR
F. Resolution (PZ 16-400-02 Coastal Development Permit) G. Draft Resolution (PZ 16-300-03 Tentative Map)
H. Draft Resolution (EIR No. 2016-01)
I. Staff Presentation
13 347
20 348
21 349
SITE PLAN A2.0 PARTIAL SITE PLAN 1"=10.00' CLIENT: MIKE MARLOW A V A L O N D E V E L O P M E N T HARBOR BVLD / OXNARD SHORES CA Sheet Title: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Sheet No: FEBRUARY 21 2023 170106 C O A S T A L A R C H I T E C T S 1 5 6 7 S P I N N A K E R D R I V E , S U I T E 2 0 4 V E N T U R A C A 93030 www.CoastalArch.com TEL: 805.985.7654 ARCHITECT: JEFF ZOOK EMAIL: [email protected] PRINCIPAL PLANNER: MIKE SANCHEZ EMAIL: [email protected] PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 29'-0" 39'-3" 39'-1" 28'-9" 37'-2" 50'-2" 14'-9" 5'-7" 14'-8" 10'-2"
20'-3" 64'-11" 4'-11" 24'-0" 9'-0" 26'-0" 4'-3" 4'-0" 26'-0" 9'-0" 24'-0" 4'-10" 25'-1" 55'-4" 3'-9"
22'-3"
16'-3"
10'-0" 55'-4" 19'-10"
10'-0" SIDEWALK PUBLIC WAY 1" = 10'-0"10'5'0 20' C:\Users\mike\OneDrive\CA Projects\2017 Projects\170104 Marlow - Avalon Tract\02_Planning\Drawings\Arch\MARCH 2019 DRAWINGS\2019 AVALON Plan 1-2 Prelim Set.dwg, 2/21/2023 2:52:56 PM, AutoCAD PDF (General Documentation).pc3 22 350
CH 20'x 20' Garage Kitchen 18' x 15.7' Family 15' x 10' Dining Pwdr 11 x 11' Brm 2 Bath M.Bath 9.5' x 21.6' Bonus 13' x 11.5' Brm 3 14' x 17' M Bed 1,262.7sf 6' x 11' Deck 26' x 29' Roof Deck Plan 1 - First Floor Plan FLOOR PLAN A3.0 PLAN - 1 27'-012" Plan 1 - Second Floor Plan 13'-1112" 5'-4" 20'-8"
15'-612"
11'-5" 25'-712" 17'-8" 5'-1112"
9'-6" 10'-912" 6'-0" 10'-212" 9'-212" 13'-012"
60'-8" 22'-3" CLIENT: MIKE MARLOW A V A L O N D E V E L O P M E N T HARBOR BVLD / OXNARD SHORES CA Sheet Title: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Sheet No: FEBRUARY 21 2023 170106 C O A S T A L A R C H I T E C T S 1 5 6 7 S P I N N A K E R D R I V E , S U I T E 2 0 4 V E N T U R A C A 93030 www.CoastalArch.com TEL: 805.985.7654 ARCHITECT: JEFF ZOOK EMAIL: [email protected] PRINCIPAL PLANNER: MIKE SANCHEZ EMAIL: [email protected] 15'-412" 897.9 sf PLAN 1 - BUILDING ANALYSIS 1st Floor 2nd Floor 1,235.3 sf Total Livable Area 2,133.2 sf 225.0 sf Storage Area - Shelving Unit Type Single Family Occupancy Group R-3/U w/Attached Garage Roof Deck Area 713.2 sf 4' Above F.F. in Garage 6'-8" Garage - 2 Car 439.0 sf
1'-1112"
55'-4" 11'-10"
17'-912"
60'-8" 26'-012" 14'-2"
60'-8" Plan 1 - Roof Plan 1/4"=1'-0" Deck Area 82.5 sf 6'-112" 1'-712" 1" = 4'-0"4'2'0 8' 1'-1112" 10'-212" 16'-912" 29'-4" 2'-412" 11'-10" 26'-012" 14'-2" 11'-10" 26'-012" 14'-2" 60'-812" 5'-212" 16'-6" 34'-8" 2'-412" 20'-11" 1/4"=1'-0" 1/4"=1'-0" C:\Users\mike\OneDrive\CA Projects\2017 Projects\170104 Marlow - Avalon Tract\02_Planning\Drawings\Arch\MARCH 2019 DRAWINGS\2019 AVALON Plan 1-2 Prelim Set.dwg, 2/21/2023 2:52:57 PM, AutoCAD PDF (General Documentation).pc3 23 351
FRONT ELEVATION ELEVATIONS 1A A3.1 PLAN - 1 CLIENT: MIKE MARLOW A V A L O N D E V E L O P M E N T HARBOR BVLD / OXNARD SHORES CA Sheet Title: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Sheet No: FEBRUARY 21 2023 170106 C O A S T A L A R C H I T E C T S 1 5 6 7 S P I N N A K E R D R I V E , S U I T E 2 0 4 V E N T U R A C A 93030 www.CoastalArch.com TEL: 805.985.7654 ARCHITECT: JEFF ZOOK EMAIL: [email protected] PRINCIPAL PLANNER: MIKE SANCHEZ EMAIL: [email protected] 1 3/16" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION 2 3/16" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION 3 3/16" = 1'-0" LEFT ELEVATION 4 3/16" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATION MATERIALS/ COLORS FOR BLUE 1 7/8" THK. EXTERIOR STUCCO KEYNOTES 2 1" STUCCO REGLET 3 EXTENDED STUCCO EYEBROW 4 VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT SIDING 5 8" STUCCO WRAP EYEBROW SECTION GARAGE DOOR WITH UPPER PANEL VISUAL PANELS 67 DOUBLED GLAZED VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM 8 4" ADDRESS IN ILUMMINATED BOX 9 42" HIGH STUCCO DECK RAILING 10 42" HIGH WROUGHT IRON RAILING A STUCCO - PAINTED, SW7029 AGREEABLE GRAY B STUCCO - PAINTED, SW6235 FOGGY DAY C STUCCO - PAINTED, SW6993 BLACK OF NIGHT D STUCCO - PAINTED, SW7626 ZURICH WHITE ROOFING: VERSIWELD SINGLE PLY 80 MIL MEMBRANE ROOF, WHITE. *COMPLIES WITH ENERGY STAR REQUIEMENTS. E ROOF DECKING: TILE TECH PAVERS SYSTEM IPE DECL TILES O/ WATERPROOF ROOF SURFACE F GLAZED RAILING SYSTEM: 1/ 2" THK , CLEAR, WITH ALUMINUM, WHITE ANODIZED FINISH GH WROUGHT IRON RAILING - BLACK 9'-0" 9'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
24'-0" 3'-6"
2'-0" 1'-6" 1000 11 EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE LOCATION 12 18" HI. x 1/ 2" THK TEMP. GLASS RAILING SIDING: VERICAL / HORIZ. SIDING PRE-FINISHED CONCRETE FIBER BD. HARDIE PLANK - CEDARMILL, EVENING BLUE GLAZING SYSTEM: LOW-E DBL GLAZED, CLEAR, WITH VINYL WHITE FINISH A B C C D D F F G GH 3/16" = 1'-0" 2.66'0 5.33' 10.66' C:\Users\mike\OneDrive\CA Projects\2017 Projects\170104 Marlow - Avalon Tract\02_Planning\Drawings\Arch\MARCH 2019 DRAWINGS\2019 AVALON Plan 1-2 Prelim Set.dwg, 2/21/2023 2:52:58 PM, AutoCAD PDF (General Documentation).pc3 24 352
FRONT ELEVATION ELEVATIONS 1B A3.2PLAN - 1 CLIENT: MIKE MARLOW A V A L O N D E V E L O P M E N T HARBOR BVLD / OXNARD SHORES CA Sheet Title: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Sheet No: FEBRUARY 21 2023 170106 C O A S T A L A R C H I T E C T S 1 5 6 7 S P I N N A K E R D R I V E , S U I T E 2 0 4 V E N T U R A C A 93030 www.CoastalArch.com TEL: 805.985.7654 ARCHITECT: JEFF ZOOK EMAIL: [email protected] PRINCIPAL PLANNER: MIKE SANCHEZ EMAIL: [email protected] 1 3/16" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION 2 3/16" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION 3 3/16" = 1'-0" LEFT ELEVATION 4 3/16" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATION 9'-0"
9'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
24'-0" 3'-6"
2'-0" 1'-6" MATERIALS/ COLORS FOR GREEN 1 7/8" THK. EXTERIOR STUCCO KEYNOTES 2 1" STUCCO REGLET 3 EXTENDED STUCCO EYEBROW 4 VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT SIDING 5 8" STUCCO WRAP EYEBROW SECTION GARAGE DOOR WITH UPPER PANEL VISUAL PANELS 67 DOUBLED GLAZED VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM 8 4" ADDRESS IN ILUMMINATED BOX 9 42" HIGH STUCCO DECK RAILING 10 42" HIGH WROUGHT IRON RAILING A STUCCO - PAINTED, SW6171 CHARTROOM B STUCCO - PAINTED, SW7018 DOVETAIL C STUCCO - PAINTED, SW7743 MOUNTAIN ROAD D STUCCO - PAINTED, SW7626 ZURICH WHITE ROOFING: VERSIWELD SINGLE PLY 80 MIL MEMBRANE ROOF, WHITE. *COMPLIES WITH ENERGY STAR REQUIEMENTS. E ROOF DECKING: TILE TECH PAVERS SYSTEM IPE DECL TILES O/ WATERPROOF ROOF SURFACE F GLAZED RAILING SYSTEM: 1/ 2" THK , CLEAR, WITH ALUMINUM, WHITE ANODIZED FINISH GH WROUGHT IRON RAILING - BLACK 9'-0" 1000 11 EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE LOCATION 12 18" HI. x 1/ 2" THK TEMP. GLASS RAILING SIDING: VERICAL / HORIZ. SIDING PRE-FINISHED CONCRETE FIBER BD. HARDIE PLANK - CEDARMILL, MOUNTAIN SAGE GLAZING SYSTEM: LOW-E DBL GLAZED, CLEAR, WITH VINYL WHITE FINISH B A C C D D F F G GH 3/16" = 1'-0" 2.66'0 5.33' 10.66' C:\Users\mike\OneDrive\CA Projects\2017 Projects\170104 Marlow - Avalon Tract\02_Planning\Drawings\Arch\MARCH 2019 DRAWINGS\2019 AVALON Plan 1-2 Prelim Set.dwg, 2/21/2023 2:53:00 PM, AutoCAD PDF (General Documentation).pc3 25 353
CH Studio Dining23'X 23' Kitchen Living 10'X 14' Garage Entry 15' x 16' Mtr Brm Bath 9.5' x 11.5' Brm 2 10' x 11' Brm 3 11' x 13.6' Brm 4 10' x 12' Bonus Deck M. Bath 10' x 10' Deck 6' x 24' Roof Deck 655.5 sf Plan 2 - First Floor Plan FLOOR PLANS A4.0 PLAN - 2 3/6"=1'-0" 29'-8" 24'-0" Plan 2 - Second Floor Plan 3/6"=1'-0"14'-8" 5'-8" 14'-11" 6'-3" 21'-0" 20'-11" 10'-6" 5'-8" 17'-6"
14'-8" 6'-3" 21'-0"
1'-0"
15'-9" 5'-1" 10'-4" 10'-6" 17'-2"
9'-11" 7'-1" 13'-2" 15'-8" 12'-6" 11'-6"
60'-5" 27'-3" 24'-0"
64'-11" 27'-3" CLIENT: MIKE MARLOW A V A L O N D E V E L O P M E N T HARBOR BVLD / OXNARD SHORES CA Sheet Title: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Sheet No: FEBRUARY 21 2023 170106 C O A S T A L A R C H I T E C T S 1 5 6 7 S P I N N A K E R D R I V E , S U I T E 2 0 4 V E N T U R A C A 93030 www.CoastalArch.com TEL: 805.985.7654 ARCHITECT: JEFF ZOOK EMAIL: [email protected] PRINCIPAL PLANNER: MIKE SANCHEZ EMAIL: [email protected] 10'-4"
1'-0" 1,057.9 sf PLAN D - BUILDING ANALYSIS 1st Floor 2nd Floor 1,260.5 sf Total Area 2,318.4 sf 225.0 sf Storage Area - Shelving Unit Type Single Family Occupancy Group R-3/U w/Attached Garage Deck Area 330.6 sf 4' Above F.F. in Garage 1,338 sf 1,056 sf Plan 2 - Roof Plan 3/6"=1'-0" 655 sf 6'-0" Garage 439.2 sf Roof Deck Area 655.5 sf 3/16" = 1'-0" 2.66'0 5.33' 10.66' C:\Users\mike\OneDrive\CA Projects\2017 Projects\170104 Marlow - Avalon Tract\02_Planning\Drawings\Arch\MARCH 2019 DRAWINGS\2019 AVALON Plan 1-2 Prelim Set.dwg, 2/21/2023 2:53:01 PM, AutoCAD PDF (General Documentation).pc3 26 354
FRONT ELEVATION ELEVATIONS 2A A4.1PLAN 2 CLIENT: MIKE MARLOW A V A L O N D E V E L O P M E N T HARBOR BVLD / OXNARD SHORES CA Sheet Title: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Sheet No: FEBRUARY 21 2023 170106 C O A S T A L A R C H I T E C T S 1 5 6 7 S P I N N A K E R D R I V E , S U I T E 2 0 4 V E N T U R A C A 93030 www.CoastalArch.com TEL: 805.985.7654 ARCHITECT: JEFF ZOOK EMAIL: [email protected] PRINCIPAL PLANNER: MIKE SANCHEZ EMAIL: [email protected] 1 3/16" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION 2 3/16" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION 3 3/16" = 1'-0" LEFT ELEVATION 4 3/16" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATION 9'-0" 9'-0"
24'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
24'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
24'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
24'-0" MATERIALS/ COLORS FOR RED 1 7/8" THK. EXTERIOR STUCCO KEYNOTES 2 1" STUCCO REGLET 3 EXTENDED STUCCO EYEBROW 4 VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT SIDING 5 8" STUCCO WRAP EYEBROW SECTION GARAGE DOOR WITH UPPER PANEL VISUAL PANELS 67 DOUBLED GLAZED VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM 8 4" ADDRESS IN ILUMMINATED BOX 9 42" HIGH STUCCO DECK RAILING 10 42" HIGH WROUGHT IRON RAILING A STUCCO - PAINTED, SW0023 PEWTER TANKARD B STUCCO - PAINTED, SW6001 GREYISH C STUCCO - PAINTED, SW7636 ORIGAMI WHITE D WOOD FASCIA BD - PAINTED, SW0023 PEWTER TANKARD ROOFING: VERSIWELD SINGLE PLY 80 MIL MEMBRANE ROOF, WHITE. *COMPLIES WITH ENERGY STAR REQUIEMENTS. E ROOF DECKING: TILE TECH PAVERS SYSTEM IPE DECL TILES O/ WATERPROOF ROOF SURFACE F ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING: GAF - GLENWOOD, ABOBE CLAY GH WROUGHT IRON RAILING - BLACK 9'-0" 1000 11 EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE LOCATION 12 AC SHINGLE ROOFING SIDING: HORIZ. SIDING PRE-FINISHED CONCRETE FIBER BD. HARDIE PLANK - CEDARMILL, COUNTRYLANE RED GLAZING SYSTEM: LOW-E DBL GLAZED, CLEAR, WITH VINYL WHITE FINISH A B C I F G GH D I SIDING: VERTICAL SIDING PRE-FINISHED CONCRETE FIBER BD. HARDIE PLANK - CEDARMILL, AGED PEWTER F A 13 2X WOOD FACIA BOARD 3/16" = 1'-0" 2.66'0 5.33' 10.66' C:\Users\mike\OneDrive\CA Projects\2017 Projects\170104 Marlow - Avalon Tract\02_Planning\Drawings\Arch\MARCH 2019 DRAWINGS\2019 AVALON Plan 1-2 Prelim Set.dwg, 2/21/2023 2:53:02 PM, AutoCAD PDF (General Documentation).pc3 27 355
FRONT ELEVATION ELEVATIONS 2B A4.2PLAN 2 CLIENT: MIKE MARLOW A V A L O N D E V E L O P M E N T HARBOR BVLD / OXNARD SHORES CA Sheet Title: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Sheet No: FEBRUARY 21 2023 170106 C O A S T A L A R C H I T E C T S 1 5 6 7 S P I N N A K E R D R I V E , S U I T E 2 0 4 V E N T U R A C A 93030 www.CoastalArch.com TEL: 805.985.7654 ARCHITECT: JEFF ZOOK EMAIL: [email protected] PRINCIPAL PLANNER: MIKE SANCHEZ EMAIL: [email protected] 1 3/16" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION 2 3/16" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION 3 3/16" = 1'-0" LEFT ELEVATION 4 3/16" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATION 9'-0" 9'-0"
24'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
24'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
24'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
24'-0" MATERIALS/ COLORS FOR BROWN 1 7/8" THK. EXTERIOR STUCCO KEYNOTES 2 1" STUCCO REGLET 3 EXTENDED STUCCO EYEBROW 4 VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT SIDING 5 8" STUCCO WRAP EYEBROW SECTION GARAGE DOOR WITH UPPER PANEL VISUAL PANELS 67 DOUBLED GLAZED VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM 8 4" ADDRESS IN ILUMMINATED BOX 9 42" HIGH STUCCO DECK RAILING 10 42" HIGH WROUGHT IRON RAILING A STUCCO - PAINTED, SW6072 VERSATILE GRAY B STUCCO - PAINTED, SW7523 BURNISHED BRANDY C STUCCO - PAINTED, SW7636 ORIGAMI WHITE D WOOD FASCIA BD - PAINTED, SW7523 BURNISHED BRANDY ROOFING: VERSIWELD SINGLE PLY 80 MIL MEMBRANE ROOF, WHITE. *COMPLIES WITH ENERGY STAR REQUIEMENTS. E ROOF DECKING: TILE TECH PAVERS SYSTEM IPE DECL TILES O/ WATERPROOF ROOF SURFACE F ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING: GAF - GLENWOOD, WEATHERED WOOD GH WROUGHT IRON RAILING - BLACK 1000 11 EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE LOCATION 12 AC SHINGLE ROOFING SIDING: HORIZ. SIDING PRE-FINISHED CONCRETE FIBER BD. HARDIE PLANK - CEDARMILL, AUTUM TAN GLAZING SYSTEM: LOW-E DBL GLAZED, CLEAR, WITH VINYL WHITE FINISH A B CF G GH D I SIDING: VERTICAL SIDING PRE-FINISHED CONCRETE FIBER BD. HARDIE PLANK - CEDARMILL, SAIL CLOTH A 13 2X WOOD FACIA BOARD 3/16" = 1'-0" 2.66'0 5.33' 10.66' C:\Users\mike\OneDrive\CA Projects\2017 Projects\170104 Marlow - Avalon Tract\02_Planning\Drawings\Arch\MARCH 2019 DRAWINGS\2019 AVALON Plan 1-2 Prelim Set.dwg, 2/21/2023 2:53:03 PM, AutoCAD PDF (General Documentation).pc3 28 356
29 357
4 - CUBIC YARD

TRASH BIN
4'-0" W X 6'-0" L X 4'-10" HT
4 - CUBIC YARD

TRASH BIN
4'-0" W X 6'-0" L X 4'-10" HT

FO R MA I N TEN

AN CE CA LL

1. 8
0 0. 3 8
.1
122 www.contechES.com
TM
C l e
an w
at e rs tar
t sh e r e
®

FOR MAI NTEN

AN CE C
A LL 1. 80

0. 33
8 .1
12 2 www.contechES.com
TM
Cl e
a
n wate
r s ta
r
tsh e
r e ®
31 358
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
Δ
32 359
INTERIOR YARD SPACE: The area on the lot behind the front setback line which is open from ground to sky and used as private open space.
33 360
34 361
4 - CUBIC YARD

TRASH BIN
4'-0" W X 6'-0" L X 4'-10" HT
4 - CUBIC YARD

TRASH BIN
4'-0" W X 6'-0" L X 4'-10" HT
F OR MAINTE NANCE CAL L 1.800.338.1
22 www.contechES.com
C
TM
l ea n wa t e r st a r
t s her e
®

FOR MAINT ENA NCE CAL

1.80 .3 8.1122 www.contechES.com
C
TM
l ean wa
t e r st a
r
t s he r e
®
35 362

ATTACHMENT
3 FINAL EIR FOR AVALON HOME (EIR 2016-01)

SEE LINK BELOW
https://www.oxnard.gov/community-development/plan
ning-environmental-services/environmental-postings
43 363
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Oxnard 2030 General Plan and Local Coastal Program Consistency Analysis March 5, 2026 Planning Commission
2030 General Plan
Level I: Direct Applicability to a Proposed Policy, Project or Program Level II: Related or Indirect Applicability to the Proposed Policy, Project, or Program Level III: No or Distance Applicability to the Proposed Policy, Project, or Program.

All policies not listed as Level III are deemed consistent with the 2030 General Plan.

General Plan Chapter Abbreviations Chapter:

SC: Sustainable Community 2
CD: Community Development 3
ICS: Infrastructure and Community Services 4
ER: Environmental Resources 5
SH: Safety and Hazards 6
MC: Military Compatibility 7
HE: 2021-2029 Housing Element 8

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Policy Level Title/Text Explanation
CD-1.5 I Housing Variety
Promote the development of a
variety of housing types
throughout the City including
apartments, condominiums,
lofts, townhouses, and attached
and detached single-family
units.

The Project includes new
single-family dwelling units that will
add to the housing stock in the
immediate area, and create open space
and residential uses on an
underutilized vacant property.

CD-8.1 I Limiting Development
Continue to limit development
to these areas that can be
served by existing or planned
utilities, transportation, and
service systems.

The proposed Project will be served
by existing utilities already serving the
Dunes Neighborhood that can
adequately serve the proposed Project.

The site is accessed by existing street
networks including major streets -
Harbor Boulevard, Wooley Road, and
Fifth Street.

CD-9.1 I Neighborhood Identity The Project is within an existing neighborhood with compatible design
37 364

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Policy Level Title/Text Explanation
Recognize, preserve, and
improve the visual character of
existing neighborhoods.
and development patterns to the
surrounding area that preserve the
visual identity for the Dunes
Neighborhood.

SC-3.1 I New Residential
Development
Encourage incorporation of
passive and active energy and
resources
conservation design and
devices in new residential
development and
substantial remodels and/or
expansions.

The Project applies sustainable energy
management techniques to conserve
resources related to construction
building materials, landscaping,
addition of solar, and meeting the
current California Building Code
energy standards.

ICS-1.2 I Development Impacts to
Existing Infrastructure
Review development proposals
for their impacts on
infrastructure (e.g., sewer,
water, fire stations, libraries,
streets) and require appropriate
mitigation measures to ensure
that proposed developments do
not create substantial adverse
impacts on existing
infrastructure and that the
necessary infrastructure will be
in place to support the
development.

The proposed development and
associated improvements would tie
into existing infrastructure, which has
the capacity to provide service to the
proposed residential units. The project
includes standards and special
development project conditions by
City Department representatives.

ICS-1.4 I Infrastructure Conditions of
Approval: New development
should not be approved unless:
• The applicant demonstrates
adequate public services and
facilities are available;
• Infrastructure improvements
incorporate a range of feasible
measures that can be
The proposed development
demonstrates that adequate public
services and facilities, including but
not limited to water, sewer, electricity,
and telecommunications are available
for the new development and/or shall
be provided by the applicant; that no
new public safety and/or
environmental impacts would result
from the proposed development and/or
38 365

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Policy Level Title/Text Explanation
implemented to reduce all
public safety and/or
environmental impacts
associated with the
construction, operation, or
maintenance of any required
improvement;
• Infrastructure improvements
are consistent with City
infrastructure master plans;
and
• Required infrastructure
needed for future new
development is self-funded.
any required improvement; and that
required infrastructure improvements,
such as new sidewalks, curbs, gutters,
roadways, and sewers, are self-funded
and consistent with City infrastructure
master plans.

ICS-2.11 I Scenic Highway Preservation
Preserve and enhance the
character of scenic highways,
and publicly owned and utility
rights-of-way.

The Project is between Wooley Road
and Fifth Street, identified as scenic
roadways. The Project would preserve
the character of both scenic roadways
by clustering development within the
existing developed Dunes
Neighborhood and limiting visibility
from public streets by keeping the
structures at two stories. The Project
will maintain and preserve the open
space along Fifth Street and keep the
proposed developed area as close to
the existing community. The

38.33-acre undeveloped site will be
preserved with 29-acres of open space
and 8-acres of new, aesthetically
modern residential single-family
residences.

ICS-8.5 I Public Sidewalks and
Pedestrian Orientation
Consider and require where
appropriate and feasible the
enhancement of the pedestrian
environment as part of private
The Project includes improvements
along the frontages of the residential
development that will contribute to the
streetscape of the community. The
private sidewalks connect to public
sidewalks and parkways at each end of
39 366

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Policy Level Title/Text Explanation
development and public works
projects, especially for public
sidewalks.
the property on Dunes Street and
Canal Street.

ER-6.6 I New Development Private
Open Space
Ensure that new development
incorporates open space areas
that provide community and
neighborhood identity, provide
quality exterior private open
space for each housing unit,
and minimize conflicting land
uses and noise generators.

The Project provides newly
landscaped front and rear yards for
each unit, private community park,
and public open space with trails. The
Project provides a community space
with picnic area and outdoor kitchens,
second-floor courtyards and rooftop
deck, and a fifth-floor terrace. The
Project provides a private yard and
roof deck for every unit, designed with
open metal railing.

ER-9.2 I Enhance Neighborhood
Diversity
Enhance neighborhood
diversity and reinforce the
desirable elements of
neighborhood character and
quality through incorporation
of design guidelines, use of
landscape materials, and
encouraging new
developments to integrate
historical and culturally
significant elements into
proposed projects.

The Project will maintain existing
neighborhood characteristics and
enhance the area by including
protected open space with a walking
path to be used by the general public,
a community park, and new
streetscape landscaping within the
proposed development.

ICS-8.3 II Completing Bicycle and
Sidewalk Network
The Project will complete the portion
of Canal and Dunes Street at each end
of the Project, including the
connecting to the Class II bicycle lane
facility as identified on Wooley Road.

The Project will also construct new
driveways, sidewalks, curbs, and
gutters, that connect to the existing
street network and be built according
to City standards and accessibility
ICS-8.4 II New Development Requires
Bicycle Improvements
ICS-8.5 II Public Sidewalks and
Pedestrian Orientation
40 367

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Policy Level Title/Text Explanation
ICS-8.6 II Americans with Disability requirements.

Act (ADA) Handicap
Requirements
ICS-8.13 II Importance of Pedestrian
and Bicycle Access in Site
Planning
All others III All policies not listed above No or distant applicability to the proposed project.

LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND COASTAL ACT POLICIES
Policy No. Policy Explanation
Coastal Act
30250
New development shall be located
within, contiguous with, or in close
proximity to existing developed areas
able to accommodate it.

The project is within the dunes
area (an approved residential area
designated for in-fill
development) of the Local
Coastal Plan. The surrounding
development consists of similarly
sized single-family and duplexes
to the proposed project.

Coastal Act
30251
LCP 37
Permitted development shall be sited
and designed to protect views to and
along the ocean and scenic coastal
areas to minimize the alteration of
natural landforms, and to be visually
compatible with the character of the
surrounding areas.

All new development in the coastal
zone shall be designed to minimize
impacts on the visual resources in the
area.

The project site is not
immediately adjacent to the
ocean, but is within a designated
scenic coastal area. The project
has been thoughtfully designed
with an appropriate density for
the neighborhood and of a similar
2-story height and massing. The
Project cannot be viewed from
public beaches, does not block
views of scenic resources, and is
unlikely to be viewed from any
public right-of-way. Therefore,
41 368
the project is consistent with
these policies.

Coastal Act
30240
LCP 6d
Development in areas adjacent to
environmentally sensitive habitat
areas (ESHA) and park and recreation
areas shall be sited and designed to
prevent impacts which would
significantly degrade such areas, and
shall be compatible with the
continuance of such habitat areas.

New development adjacent to
wetlands or resource protection areas
shall be sited and designed to
mitigate any adverse impacts to the
wetlands or resource.

The Project is sited and designed
to avoid significant impacts to the
surrounding wetland habitat and
dune area. The EIR identified
mitigation measures to restore
any vegetation removed at a 3:1
ratio within the project site to the
north. The residential
development is limited to the area
of the project site closest to the
existing developed neighborhood.

The resource protection area
development is limited to a
walking path that would not
damage any ESHA.
42 369
Guzman, Christen <[email protected]>
Fwd: March 5 Oxnard Planning Commission Meeting: Public comment (Issues with Final EIR)
1 message
Pearson II, Joe <[email protected]> Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 3:07 PM To: Christen Guzman <[email protected]>
Joe Pearson II, AICP | Planning and Environmental Services Manager Community Development Department
214 S C Street | Oxnard, CA 93030
O: 805-385-8272
[email protected]
www.oxnard.org
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jamie Peltier <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 2:52 PM
Subject: Fwd: March 5 Oxnard Planning Commission Meeting: Public comment (Issues with Final EIR) To: Joe Pearson II <[email protected]>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jessica Douglas <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 2:48 PM
Subject: March 5 Oxnard Planning Commission Meeting: Public comment (Issues with Final EIR) To: Jamie Peltier <[email protected]>
Jamie Peltier and Oxnard City staff,
Planning Commission meeting on March 5, 2026,
Hello from Dunes Community resident and concerned citizen along Catamaran Street. I have reviewed the EIR/EA/Appendices links you sent regarding the Proposed Avalon Residential Development, and note a few issues that me and other Dunes community members and Oxnard residents wish to discuss/comment prior to the Oxnard Planning Commission and City meetings today, March 5 2026, and in April 2026. I hope to be at today's meeting, but regardless, please ensure these topics are brought forth to the governing body making decisions on the Avalon development proposal along Canal Street, Oxnard Ca 93035. 1) Traffic increases and transportation safety with 0 mitigation at Harbor Blvd/Beachcomber intersection. I see no improvements/turn lanes/painted road lines planned nor suggested for the additional traffic and poorly designed street intersection at Harbor Blvd/Beachcomber.

The roadway is currently eroding as it is and needs safety improvements. Left turns onto Harbor are dangerous and will be more so with added traffic. Same goes with Canal and Wooley. If 196 more people are added to our Dunes community with 0 traffic mitigation given this project completion, I consider that a significant effect that is NOT addressed in the EIR and documentation you provided based on Rincon Consultants Final EIR and ancillary documents provided to public for comment.
370
2) Vireo bellii pusillus/least Bell's vireo: BIOLOGY/BIRD species that is currently existing within the Dune neighborhood (I personally witnessed this bird species present near my home on Catamaran Street, as of this morning, 3/5/2026), was NOT considered present and listed in the EIR as "low probability" of being present on the development site. That is incorrect if I can see/hear the birds TODAY. This inaccuracy needs to be remedied in the Final EIR report prior to Planning Commission/City governing officials making responsible decisions on development here. Note: LOCAL AGENCY BIOLOGIST/bird specialist representative DID comment on this species being present in the local area prior to Final EIR, and that comment was IN WRITING and within the links you sent publicly, yet this comment to further study the bird was DISMISSED by Rincon Consultants because Rincon staff did not "view on a site visit"! Seems the Final EIR is incomplete based on requiring a PROFESSIONAL BIOLOGIST to study this important local species currently living on the parcels for proposed development.

You need a professional bird biologist report to determine mitigation measures as this species does exist on proposed site.
3) Light and Noise pollution may be significant to the North and East of current Dunes community residences given this project. At night, we as a family go outside to view the stars, moon and nightscapes. We have very little light pollution near the coast and if this project proceeds, it's sure to affect our viewing of the stars and celestial bodies. Same goes with daytime views to the north/east of our beautiful mountains that we enjoy from our 2nd story house. Majorly concerned we might lose those views with an increase in land elevation/multistory units planned. Additional noise during the day during and after construction is also a factor as I often work nights and sleep days. Please also comment on whether or not neighbors like me and my family will have access to the proposed Canal Street completed open spaces. Is this a gated or non-gated community? What access can local Dunes residents already living nearby without a community park expect? 4) Utilities, specific to cell phone connectivity and reception, is very poor quality in the Dunes neighborhood. I did not see the EIR address this issue with utility access nor improvement to communications. What if any proposed improvements does the project bring local residents and future residents? Point out how local residents benefit from this proposed development with regard to utilities improvements and mitigations.
5) Walls, access coorindors, and limits to mobility for humans and migratory animals. What elevation changes are expected with the project? It's difficult to discern from the digital copy maps access routes for current and future residents. Please clarify where the walkway, bike lane, and other access routes are planned and any other benefits or impediments to mobility and use by the current community.
6) Land use in protected dune biome spaces within the development plan and Oxnard City owned land adjacent this proposed development at Harbor/5th SE corner lot and 5th/Waterway canal. Those city owned land parcels are not included in any development plans, yet we as a community are concerned what may become of them in future. Please speak to community on what's to be done if anything with those tracts of land.

As I did read/review the entire Final EIR report, these are the issues I'm most concerned still need to be addressed prior to any decision or finalizing of the proposed Avalon residential development within the Dunes Community. Sent via email to your planning department/Jamie Peltier prior to the 3pm Planning meeting due date/time on 3/5/2026. Thank you for considering the Dunes community residents in your decision making capacity as our Oxnard city representatives.

J. Douglas, MA
Resident, Dunes Community Oxnard CA 93035
805-509-6385
[email protected]
371
Peltier, Jamie <[email protected]>
Avalon Homes Project - March 5, 2026 Meeting
felix bobritsky <[email protected]> Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 5:19 PM To: [email protected]
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Lori Burke <[email protected]>, "Perello, Bert" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Dear Oxnard Planning Commission,
I was the only Oxnardian that showed up at your "Public Hearing", other than the builder's team. I was the only one there, because unless you signed up with the city to get these notifications by mail, you would never know about all the city shenanigans.

I had to sit there over an hour and listen to the stretched truth (lies, my opinion) from the city staff. Then, I was only given 3 minutes to speak. Let's talk about the non-truth that was presented to by the staff. 1) No one from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians showed up to the Dunes to examine the land that is being developed by Avalon Homes. I don't think the Chumash people gave the go ahead with this project, otherwise the city would of presented a letter from the Chumash agreeing to proceed with the project.
2} No real environmental study was done about the Dunes. I have read the Environmental Report provided by Avalon. In that study, it doesn't mention the fact that the Blue and White Heron call the Dunes their feeding grounds. I am attaching a video of one such feeding. We also have a family of owls that call the Dunes their home. No mention of those birds and the countless other species that live here.
3) North Shore project spent decades cleaning the oil residuals dumped on that land, yet, not one day has been spent by Avalon Homes to clean up the toxic land that they plan to build on. 4) The City misled that Commission that someone will lock up the gates on a daily basis to keep the homeless and the non residents from parking and setting up camp in their new parking structure and park. No one is going to keep track of that area. Just like the city allowed the 50 Shoreline project to be completed, with short cuts, shady construction practices, that cause about 20% of the units to be destroyed by the last rain storm we had. I also believe the city is also being sued for the vibrations in their units from cars crossing the Wooley bridge road. The city just wants the fees and taxes from these projects. The city doesn't care about the residents.
5) The City misled the commission on the traffic studies, that were done around 2016 when 50 Shoreline was being considered. No new updates on the traffic nightmare that will happen when The North Shore Project and Avalon Homes will be completed. We will still have one lane on the 5th and Wooley to exit the area. When there will be a fire in the area, the traffic congestion on people fleeing will be a man made catastrophe.
6) The city didn't tell the Commission that the OPD doesn't have patrol permanently assigned to our area. Because it is the safest part of Oxnard, we just get an occasional drive by to protect 1700 homes or so. Even after The North Shore community will be build, the OPD will not increase their patrols. OPD from what I understand is short staffed.
7) Fire station. Well, we only have the one to service more than 1700 homes. The city claimed that they have the approval from the Fire Department and that they can handle the new load. I mean why not, 4/16/26, 8:53 AM City of Oxnard Mail - Avalon Homes Project - March 5, 2026 Meeting https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=7253a232a4&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1860138158132222992&simpl=msg-f:1860138158132222992 1/2 372
1700 homes now, 294 from The North Shore and 56 more units won't make any difference. I am sure that one fire company can save us when the fires will come. 8) The city misrepresented the truth about the homeless problem. The city never really wanted the Shores and Dunes community to know about your meeting. You all pretended that there are no issues.

All of you pretended that were no 2 massive homeless encampments on 5th and Harbor bridge area in the past 10 years. You are all pretending that another won't be build soon. Trust me when Avalon homes are built and they are gone, another Homeless Encampment will take place. I am sure the Commission doesn't know about that either, because the city never talk about it in its presentation.

I am sending a copy of email to responsible parties, maybe they can share with the city the Commission about how the city stretches the truth about this and other projects.

Sincerely,
Felix Bobritsky
20260121_170745.jpg
3417K
4/16/26, 8:53 AM City of Oxnard Mail - Avalon Homes Project - March 5, 2026 Meeting https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=7253a232a4&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1860138158132222992&simpl=msg-f:1860138158132222992 2/2 373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations
for
Avalon Homes Project
Pursuant to CEQA Sections 15091 and 15093
and Public Resources Code Section 21081
The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) prepared by the City of Oxnard (City) for the Avalon Homes Project (“the project” or “proposed project”) identifies significant environmental impacts that will result from implementation of the project. The City finds that the inclusion of certain mitigation measures as part of project approval will reduce all but the following significant impact to levels that are less than significant: transportation. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce this impact to a less than significant level or mitigation measures have been identified but would not reduce the impact to a level of less than significant; the impact will remain a significant and unavoidable impact of the project. The impact will be overridden due to specific considerations that are described within this document.

As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City, in adopting these CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project. The City finds that the MMRP, which is incorporated by reference, meets the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the project. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts these findings as part of the project approval. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3), the City also finds that the Final EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment as the lead agency for the project. 424
425
Table of Contents
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations i Table of Contents
1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings ................................................................................... 1

1.2 Procedural Findings.............................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Findings Required Under CEQA............................................................................................ 3

1.4 Record of Proceedings.......................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Findings................................................................................................................................. 4 2 project Description ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 project Objectives................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 project Summary .................................................................................................................. 6

2.3 Alternatives........................................................................................................................... 7 3 Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels.............................................. 8

3.1 Air Quality............................................................................................................................. 8

3.2 Biological Resources...........................................................................................................11

3.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources...............................................................................18

3.4 Geology and Soils................................................................................................................23

3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................................24

3.6 Land Use Planning ..............................................................................................................26

3.7 Noise...................................................................................................................................26 4 Significant Effects that Cannot be Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level..............................30

4.1 Transportation....................................................................................................................30 5 Feasibility of project Alternatives.................................................................................................31

5.1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative ....................................................31

5.2 Alternative 2: Alternate Location Development in RP Area Only.......................................33

5.3 Alternative 3: Alternative Design – Improved Buffer.........................................................34

5.4 Alternative 4: Reduced Project...........................................................................................36

5.5 Alternative 5: Alternative Design – All Single Family Detached Residential Condominiums..............................................................................................................................38

5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative................................................................................38 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations......................................................................................40 7 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................42

7.1 Incorporation by Reference................................................................................................42

7.2 No Recirculation of the Recirculated Draft EIR is Required................................................42

7.3 Summary.............................................................................................................................42 426
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
427
Introduction
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 1 Introduction

1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings
This statement of findings addresses the potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed Avalon Homes Project (“project” or “proposed project”) located in the City of Oxnard (City) and is made pursuant to Section 15091 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines), which provides that:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subsection (a) will be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines further stipulates that:
(a) After considering the final EIR and in conjunction with making findings under Section 15091, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the project. (b) A public agency will not decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless either:
(1) The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment, or (2) The agency has:
(A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in findings under Section 15091, and
(B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093.

As required by CEQA, the City of Oxnard, in adopting these findings, must also adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project. The MMRP, which is incorporated by reference and made a part of these findings, meets the requirements of Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the project.
428
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
2 Whenever these findings specifically refer to a mitigation measure that will avoid or mitigate a potentially significant impact, that specific mitigation measure is hereby made a specific condition of approval of the proposed project.

1.2 Procedural Findings
The City Council of the City of Oxnard finds as follows:

Based on the nature and scope of the proposed project, the City Council of Oxnard determined, based on substantial evidence, that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and prepared an EIR. The EIR was prepared, noticed, published, circulated, reviewed and completed in full compliance with the CEQA Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et. Seq.), as follows.

A public EIR scoping meeting was held on June 13, 2016, in the City‘s Community Room at 300 West Third Street in Oxnard. The intent of the scoping meeting was to provide interested individuals, groups, and public agencies a forum to provide input in an effort to assist in further refining the intended EIR scope and focus. Community members, environmental review consultants, and representatives from the City of Oxnard were present at the scoping meeting.

The Draft EIR was originally circulated for public review between December 2019 and February 2020. The current version of the Draft EIR circulated in 2025 is a recirculated version of the Draft EIR prepared in 2016 and eventually circulated in December of 2019. The purpose of the recirculation document was to provide an update of existing conditions and regulations that may have changed since preparation of the 2016 Draft EIR and analyze if there are new or potentially more severe impacts as a result of changes to existing conditions or new circumstances. The Recirculated Draft EIR also includes minor edits and updates in response to public comments received on the Draft EIR during the December 2019 circulation period.

The Recirculated Draft EIR analyzed the effects associated with the revised project, considering changes to the environmental and regulatory setting and considering comments that were received in the original Draft EIR. Subsequent to the end of the public review period for the Recirculated Draft EIR, and consistent with the requirements of Section 15088(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Oxnard, as the Lead Agency, has considered the public comments received on the Recirculated Draft EIR for the project and has prepared written responses to each of the comments received relative to environmental issues.

Pursuant to Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR consisted of the following:
(a) The Recirculated Draft EIR, including all of its appendices. (b) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Recirculated Draft EIR.
(c) Copies of all letters received by the City during the Recirculated Draft EIR public review period and responses to significant environmental points concerning the Recirculated Draft EIR raised in the review and consultation process.
(d) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
429
Introduction
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3

1.3 Findings Required Under CEQA
The City Council (the final decision-making body) of the City of Oxnard (the CEQA Lead Agency) will determine whether to certify the EIR for the proposed project. Because the Recirculated Draft EIR identified a potentially significant environmental impact, the City Council must also make certain “findings” as part of its action to certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and to approve the project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and CEQA Guidelines Section 21081, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified, which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of each finding. As listed above, the possible findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, are:
 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.  Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.  Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

1.4 Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the proposed project consists of: a) matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to, federal, State and local laws and regulations; and b) the following documents which are in the custody of the City:
 Notice of Preparation and other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project (see Appendix A of the Recirculated Draft EIR for the Notice of Preparation);  The Draft EIR dated December 2019 and supporting documentation prepared for the proposed project and Appendices A through J and all documents cited, incorporated by reference, or referred to therein;
 The Recirculated Draft EIR and supporting documentation prepared for the proposed project (Recirculated Draft EIR dated June 2025 and Appendix A through P), and all documents cited, incorporated by reference, or referred to therein;
 The written and verbal comments and documents submitted to the City by agencies, organizations, and members of the public (before, during, and after the close of the public comment periods.);
 The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
 The Final EIR for the Avalon Homes project dated December 2025 and all documents cited, incorporated by reference, or referred to therein;
 All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project, and documents cited or referred to therein;
430
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
4  The City of Oxnard General Plan;
 Minutes or verbatim transcripts of information and study sessions, workshops, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the proposed project; and  Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).

The location and custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings are:

City of Oxnard
Planning Division
214 South C Street
Oxnard, California 93030
Contact: Jamie Peltier, Planning Supervisor, (805) 385-7952

1.5 Findings
The Final EIR is incorporated into these findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the Avalon Homes Project in spite of the potential for associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.

For the purposes of these findings, the impact discussions include the relevant policies and actions, as well as the separate mitigation measures imposed to reduce the impacts where the policies did not result in a less than significant impact. In the findings that follow, impact numbers are provided.

The impact numbers correspond to sections of the Final EIR that contain an expanded discussion of impacts. Please refer to the referenced impact sections of the Final EIR for more detail. 431
Project Description
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 5 2 Project Description
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report (“EIR”) has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that will occur if a project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:

A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.

B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.

Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the Avalon Homes Project (“project” or “proposed project”). These findings are based upon evidence presented in the record of these proceedings, both written and oral, the Final EIR for the proposed project including all the appendices, the Comments and Responses to Comments on the EIR for the project, the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR for the project, staff and consultants’ reports presented through the Planning Commission and City Council hearing process, and all of their contents.

2.1 Project Objectives
The underlying purpose of the project is to complete development of the Oxnard Dunes neighborhood consistent with the intentions of the City of Oxnard 2030 General Plan. As set forth in Section 2.5 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, specific objectives include the following:
 Objective 1: Complete this portion of the Oxnard Dunes neighborhood with an attractive residential neighborhood pursuant to the requirements of the City of Oxnard 2030 General Plan; and the ability for efficiently providing municipal services.  Objective 2: Comply with Local Coastal Plan (LCP) policies and provide a buffer to agricultural lands to the east.
 Objective 3: Provide on-site habitat mitigation for any sensitive areas disturbed within the R-2-C area.
 Objective 4: Ensure that proposed development and land use conserve energy and natural resources.
 Objective 5: Provide for compatibility with existing residential uses in the area through effective and appropriate urban and architectural design.
432
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
6  Objective 6: Provide responsible and balanced public access framework that allows for community enjoyment of the open space area, while preserving and protecting sensitive habitat areas.
 Objective 7: Restore, protect, and improve native dune plant communities, habitat, and vegetation.
 Objective 8: Ensure the open space area remains safe by establishing security and maintenance processes and protocols.

2.2 Project Summary
The project is described in Section 2 of the Recirculated Draft EIR. The project involves the construction of a maximum of 65 residential dwelling units on 8.75 acres of a 38.33 acre property.

The property would be subdivided into 17 residential lots and five open space lots. Tentative Tract Map 5888 would create 15 individual lots for the 15 single family residences or 30 duplex residences and two lots for 35 single family residential clustered condominium units. Lots 1-15, for either single-family or duplex residential use, would range in size from 7,037 square feet (sf) to 8,410 sf, with residential units ranging in size from 3,000 sf to 4,500 sf. The two single family condominium lots, lot 16 (75,590 sf) and lot 17 (72,177 sf), would accommodate 35 cluster residences ranging in size from 1,500 sf to 2,800 sf. The 35 condominium units would share driveways between groups of four to six units to minimize driveway access to the collector street.

There would be five open space or common use parcels throughout the project site. Proposed Lots A and B (totaling 29.58 acres) are designated and zoned for Resource Protection (R-P) and would remain undeveloped, except for minimal improvements to allow controlled public access. Together with land already owned by the City, this component of the project would preserve the designated sensitive habitat within the “Northern Dunes Area” shown as Area 6 on Map 3 in the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP). The three remaining open space or common lots would include a drainage mitigation area, open space at the project gated entry and a private community recreation area.

The proposed project includes a restoration plan for the Northern Dunes Area, which details the access and management proposed for this area. Within the 29.58 acres of Parcels A and B, which would be preserved for open space, the project would include minor improvements to allow controlled public access. These improvements include a small parking lot, loop path that would be ADA accessible, and a longer loop trail through the open space area. The parking lot would have approximately seven spaces. Access would be limited with a security gate that would be locked at night and appropriate signage and railings would be installed to protect sensitive resources present.

The restoration plan also shows potential areas for enlargement of willow thickets, as a measure to compensate for the direct loss of similar habitat by the residential component of the proposed project. The area or detailed requirements for this aspect of the plan will be determined through a more formal determination of jurisdictional waters and/or aquatic habitat under state and federal procedures, as described in Chapter 4 of the Recirculated Draft EIR.

The proposed parking and trail improvements have been designed to take advantage of already disturbed areas and to minimize effects on native vegetation. Based on the preliminary plan, the parking area, accessible path, and trail loop would occupy up to approximately 1.5 acres. The plan would also include removal of non-native vegetation (primarily ice plant) to expand the native dune vegetation and maintain habitat value. This would offset adverse effects of the trail construction and help to mitigate other effects of the project. Review and approval of the restoration plan will 433
Project Description
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7 occur along with the project, with the requirement that the final plan be approved prior to recordation of the final map for the subdivision.

The proposed project would include one private road with gated entry off Dunes Street to the west, and a second security gate at Canal Street to the south. The project would connect to the terminus of Canal Street for egress and use by emergency vehicles only. The proposed private road would have a width of 36 feet with monolithic sidewalks and rolled curbs for aesthetic purposes. Street trees would be located within the lots and would be maintained by a future homeowners’ association. A rural transition is proposed along the northern portion of the private road at the border of Parcel A. Homes are only proposed at the south side of the road and a split rail fence would be built along the north side, adjacent to the open space.

2.3 Alternatives
Based on the project objectives and anticipated environmental consequences, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the following project alternatives were selected for analysis:
• Alternative 1: No Project - No Development
• Alternative 2: Alternate Location Development in RP Area Only • Alternative 3: Alternative Design – Improved Buffer
• Alternative 4: Reduced Project
• Alternative 5: Alternative Design – All Single Family Detached Residential Condominiums A more detailed description of these alternatives, and required findings, are set forth in Section 5, Feasibility of project Alternatives.
434
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
8 3 Effects Determined to be Mitigated to
Less than Significant Levels
The Recirculated Draft EIR identified certain potentially significant effects that could result from the project. However, the City finds, for the reasons stated in the EIR, that mitigation identified in the Recirculated Draft EIR and Initial Study would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The City finds that all the mitigation measures described below are feasible and agrees to adopt them as conditions of approval for the project.

Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the EIR and adoption of the mitigation measures set forth below will reduce these significant or potentially significant effects to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures will effectively be part of the project.

3.1 Air Quality
Threshold: Would the project violate any federal or state air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality standard violation? Threshold: Would the project result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant in excess of quantitative thresholds recommended by the VCAPCD?
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the project mitigate construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions to a less than significant level:

Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a) Dust Control Measures
The following shall be implemented during grading and construction to control dust.  The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
 Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be graded or excavated before commencement of grading or excavating activities. Application of water (preferably reclaimed, if available) should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities.
 Fugitive dust produced during grading, excavation, and construction activities shall be controlled by the following activities:
1) All trucks shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
2) All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site 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 435
Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 9 roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible.
3) Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area within three weeks, it shall be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust.
4) Signs shall be posted on-site limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. 5) During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to affect adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust from being an annoyance or hazard, either off-site or on-site. 6) Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads. 7) Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors, shall wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations.
8) Shaker plates shall be installed at all truck exits from the site.  Dust control requirements shall be shown on all grading plans.  Signs displaying the APCD Complaint Line Telephone number for public complaints shall be posted in a prominent location visible off the site: (805) 645- 1400 during business hours and (805) 654-2797 after hours..

Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) Construction Equipment Controls The following shall be implemented during construction to minimize emissions of ozone precursors.
1) All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or tracked) used during construction activities shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 Final standards. Tier 4 certification can be for the original equipment or equipment that is retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 Final standards.
2) Construction contractors shall minimize equipment idling time throughout construction. Engines shall be turned off if idling would be for more than five minutes.
3) Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers’ specifications.
4) The number of pieces of equipment operating simultaneously shall be minimized. 5) Construction contractors shall use alternatively fueled construction equipment (such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, or electric) when feasible. 6) The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical size. 436
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
10 7) Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment manufactured after 1996 (with federally mandated clean diesel engines) shall be utilized wherever feasible. 8) During the smog season (May through October), the construction period should be lengthened so as to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c) Low Volatile Paints
Wherever feasible, non-painted exterior surfaces and low volatile interior and exterior paints shall be used for architectural coatings.

Findings of Fact
Construction of the project would not generate criteria pollutant emissions that violate federal or state air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality standard violation, or exceed VCAPCD thresholds with Mitigation Measures AQ-1(a) through AQ-1(c) incorporated. Thus, impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions during construction, but Mitigation Measures AQ-1(a) through AQ-1(c) would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Threshold: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations exceeding state or federal standards or in excess of applicable health risk criteria for toxic air contaminants?
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measure imposed upon the project mitigates construction-related air pollutant impacts to sensitive receptors to a less than significant level:

Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) (see above).

Findings of Fact
With incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b), construction toxic air contaminant emissions would be minimized. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b), project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant. Thus, impacts to sensitive receptors would be potentially significant but Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Threshold: Would the project result in a cumulative air quality impact related to criteria air pollutants?
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the project mitigate cumulative air quality impacts related to criteria air pollutants:
437
Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 11 Mitigation Measures AQ-1(a) through AQ-1(c) (see above) Findings of Fact
Air pollution is largely a cumulative issue. According to VCAPCD, if a project is inconsistent with the 2022 AQMP, it would be considered to result in a cumulatively adverse air quality impact. As described above under Items 1 and 2, construction of the project would not generate criteria pollutant emissions that violate federal or state air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality standard violation, or exceed VCAPCD thresholds with Mitigation Measures AQ-1(a) through AQ-1(c) incorporated. Therefore, with Mitigation Measures AQ-1(a) through AQ-1(c), the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Threshold: Would the project result in a cumulative impact related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measure imposed upon the project mitigates construction air pollutant, including toxic air contaminant, emissions reducing cumulative risks to sensitive receptors to a less than significant level:

Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) (see above)
Findings of Fact
Air pollution is largely a cumulative issue. As addressed under Item 3., above, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b), project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ1(b), the project’s contribution to the cumulative exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would not be cumulatively considerable.

3.2 Biological Resources
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the project mitigate potential construction impacts to special-status plants and wildlife species to a less than significant level:
438
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
12 Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a) Pre-Construction Botanical Survey Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, spring and summer seasonal botanical surveys for special status plants, including but not limited to Orcutt’s pincushion, shall be conducted within the impact area by a qualified botanist satisfactory to the City. A summary of the survey findings shall be provided to the City for approval. If any special status species are observed, avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation shall be performed to reduce effects. If the species cannot be fully avoided, the Applicant shall draft a plan to offset impacts to the species as discussed in Mitigation Measure BIO-1(b). If state-listed endangered, threatened, or rare plants are detected in areas proposed for development, the Applicant shall contact the CDFW to secure incidental take authorization or develop an avoidance strategy.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1(b) Mitigation Plan
In the event that Orcutt’s pincushion or any other special status plant populations cannot be fully avoided, restoration, management, maintenance, and monitoring plans shall be developed by a qualified biologist and/or resource specialist and shall be reviewed and approved by CDFW and the City of Oxnard prior to issuance of a grading permit. The mitigation therein shall be implemented within one (1) year following completion of project construction. The Applicant shall secure a bond for an amount equal to the cost of the mitigation effort prior to issuance of the grading permit. The bond shall be released by the City upon satisfaction of the approved performance criteria after the monitoring period has expired.

The restoration, management, maintenance, and monitoring plans shall include one or more of the following methods, to be implemented either individually or in conjunction with each other:

Onsite or Offsite Restoration (Salvage and Replanting)
Restoration shall involve the collection of seed from within the development footprint or nearby areas, if necessary, and replanting the seed in a suitable area in a portion of the project site that is set aside for preservation. Collection of seed from state-listed endangered, threatened, or rare plants shall not occur without appropriate authorization from CDFW. If onsite restoration is infeasible, an offsite location as close to the impact area as possible, but within the local watershed, may be used. The Restoration Plan, prepared by a qualified plant ecologist satisfactory to the City, shall include, but not be limited to, the following to achieve a performance standard of a 2:1 replacement, or as dictated by a regulatory agency with permitting authority over the species:
• Location of the mitigation/restoration and map;
• Success criteria (e.g., acceptable survivorship, percent cover, or other appropriate metric);
• Identification of the party responsible for achieving the success criteria; • Plant species, container sizes, and seeding rates;
• Planting schedule;
• Monitoring frequency, methods, and duration;
• Means to control exotic vegetation;
• Contingency planning (i.e., if the effort fails to reach the performance criteria, what remediation steps need to be taken);
• Irrigation methods and schedule; and,
439
Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 13 • Identification of a protection instrument providing for conservation of the mitigation site in perpetuity.

The Applicant shall maintain and monitor the plants for a minimum of five years.

Offsite Preservation
Offsite preservation shall consist of locating a population of the impacted special status plant species containing at least two times the number of individuals impacted by the project and preserving the population in perpetuity via placement of a permanent conservation easement or purchase of the land and dedication to the City or an approved conservation organization acceptable to the City. The preserved population shall be located in an area of sufficient size to create a preserve core and be located, as feasible, at least 350 feet away from existing or proposed development, paved roads, v-ditches and irrigated areas. Additionally, the preserved population shall exhibit connectivity to other protected open space or hillside areas. The Preservation Plan shall at least identify the specific location of the preservation site and size; number of individuals preserved; ownership of the land; parties involved; and the preservation methodology (i.e., permanent conservation easement or dedication to an approved conservation organization, etc.).

BIO-2(a) Nesting Bird Survey
If grading or tree removal is to occur during the bird-breeding season (January 1 through September 15), at a minimum, one (1) survey shall be conducted prior to the initiation of grading or tree removal by a qualified biologist (a person with a biology degree and/or established skills in bird recognition). The survey shall occur no more than one (1) week prior to grading or tree removal. The work limits plus a 500-foot buffer, as feasible, shall be surveyed to accommodate potential active raptor nests, as well as other birds nesting nearby. A copy of the biologist contract for these services shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. A report summarizing the findings of the survey and the recommended buffers shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to vegetation removal activities.

BIO-2(b) Establishment of Appropriate Buffers During Grading and Construction
Based on the nesting bird survey, in the event that nesting birds are observed within 500 feet of the disturbance/construction area, species-specific exclusionary buffers shall be implemented as determined by the qualified biologist, and construction timing and location shall be adjusted accordingly until the nestlings have fledged and are no longer dependent upon the nest. The active nests and exclusionary buffers shall be monitored by a qualified biologist (at least initially) to determine if the active nests are being adversely affected by construction activities and to determine if a buffer would need to be increased to reduce such effects.

The biological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily stop work if one or more individuals are observed. The monitor shall then relocate these individuals to suitable 440
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
14 undisturbed habitat, outside the areas directly and indirectly affected by ground disturbance activities.

Findings of Fact
Special-status plants and wildlife species may be present on the project site and could be disturbed by project construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-3 would reduce potential project impacts to protected plant and wildlife species by providing preconstruction surveys, construction monitoring, protection measures, preservation, and compensation. Thus, impacts to special status plants and wildlife species during project construction would be potentially significant but Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-3 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the project mitigate potential construction and operational impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) to a less than significant level:

BIO-5(a) Protection and Enhancement of RP Designated Area Prior to recordation of the final map for the project, the applicant shall prepare a protection and enhancement plan for the area to be preserved within the RP land use designation (approximately 29.18 acres in Parcels A and B shown on the tentative map). The plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and/or resource specialist and shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Oxnard. The plan shall address and incorporate the following features, which may be modified through consultation with other agencies and the City prior to finalization:
 Timing and procedures for establishing a conservation easement or similar protection mechanism for the RP designated land to be preserved
 Incorporation of Ventura marsh milk vetch or any other sensitive plant species, if required as part of mitigation measure BIO-1
 Revegetation or enlargement of the willow thicket area, if required as part of mitigation measure BIO-6(b)
 Removal and control of invasive species such as ice plant  Modifications to and maintenance of perimeter fencing to prohibit or control public access
 Inclusion of limited public access, with prohibitions or controls addressing pets, no entry areas, and other aspects of potential public use
 Funding mechanism, which may include provision of performance bonds to the City to ensure installation of all improvements and completion of restoration and protection measures or alternative implementation guarantees.
441
Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 15 BIO-5(b) Management of Residential Landscaping
The applicant shall accomplish the following measures, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division:

1. Preparation, review, and implementation of landscaping plans for the project shall include provisions for the control of invasive plant species to address the potential impacts of non-native plants colonizing adjacent native habitats. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be recorded specifying that landscaping for individual housing lots shall not include any exotic invasive plant species. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be binding on each of the lots in the subdivision, shall run with the land affected by the subdivision, and shall be included or incorporated by reference in every deed transferring one or more of the lots in the subdivision.

2. The project applicant shall also provide, in connection with the sale of each housing unit, an information packet that explains the sensitivity of the natural habitats onsite and nearby and the need to minimize impacts on the identified sensitive species, designated resource protection areas, the limits on public access within or adjacent to such areas, the prohibition on landscaping that includes exotic invasive plant species, and the limits on exterior residential lighting. Interpretive signs shall also be placed in appropriate locations along the edges of resource protection areas explaining the sensitivity of certain species and natural habitats and the need to minimize impacts on these adjacent areas.

Findings of Fact
ESHA are present on the project site and could be disturbed by project construction and operational activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5(a) and BIO-5(b) would reduce potential project impacts to ESHA by providing a conservation easement on the project site and ensuring ongoing management of residential landscaping to control invasive species. Thus, impacts to sensitive natural habitats during project construction and operation would be potentially significant but Mitigation Measures BIO-5(a) and BIO-5(b) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected waters of the U.S. as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or protected waters of the state as defined by Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, and coastal wetlands) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the project mitigate potential construction phase impacts to jurisdictional resources to a less than significant level:

BIO-6(a) Consultation with Regulatory Agencies
Prior to issuance of any grading permits for the project, and prior to clearing of any vegetation from the site, the applicant shall provide the Oxnard Planning Division with proof of 442
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
16 consultation with CDFW, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Los Angeles RWQCB. This consultation might result in the applicant being required to provide these agencies with a completed delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources within the project footprint, or to apply for permits authorizing impacts to streams or wetlands. If federal or State permits are obtained, the applicant shall provide a copy of the approved permits to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall comply with all permit conditions when implementing the proposed activities, including any seasonal timing restrictions, impact avoidance measures, limitations on construction means and methods, site restoration, compensatory mitigation, and reporting requirements.

BIO-6(b) Re-vegetation Plan
If jurisdictional wetlands/habitat are not avoided, areas of permanent disturbance shall be compensated for by creation, restoration, or enhancement of similar habitat at a 4:1 ratio, or as required by the regulatory agencies having permitting jurisdiction over the resources.

Compensation for impacts to willow thickets shall consist of native and appropriate willow scrub species, unless otherwise specified by the regulatory agencies.

Re-vegetation shall occur as close to the impact area as possible and shall be within the same watershed. For this project, a likely revegetation area, should one be necessary, could be in the preservation area immediately north of the willow thicket, within the larger project boundaries.

Payment of an in-lieu fee to a conservation organization approved by the City (and acceptable to the regulatory agencies, as appropriate) to conduct the mitigation may be accepted if no other locations are feasible, as confirmed by the City. The project Applicant shall submit a revegetation plan prepared by a qualified restoration biologist for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following components:
• Location of the mitigation/restoration and map;
• Success criteria (e.g., acceptable survivorship, percent cover, or other appropriate metric);
• Identification of the party responsible for achieving the success criteria; • Plant species, container sizes, and seeding rates;
• Planting schedule;
• Monitoring frequency, methods, and duration;
• Means to control exotic vegetation;
• Contingency planning (i.e., if the effort fails to reach the performance criteria, what remediation steps need to be taken);
• Irrigation methods and schedule; and,
• Identification of a protection instrument providing for conservation of the mitigation site in perpetuity.

The revegetation shall be initiated within one (1) year of completion of project construction.

The Applicant shall maintain and monitor the restored areas for a minimum of five years.

BIO-6(c) Protection Measures During Construction
The grading and improvement plans for the project shall indicate measures to minimize 443
Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 17 encroachment into the willow thicket habitat beyond the anticipated 0.91 acre of permanent impact. These shall include the use of a retaining wall or walls, minimum improvements along the north side of the private extension of Canal Street through the project (i.e. no sidewalks on north side and minimum improvements to meet City standards for this roadway). The plans shall also indicate through drawing or notes that equipment and vehicle parking and staging areas are to be separated from the preserved areas by 100 feet or more and shall prohibit vehicle and equipment from crossing or entering the willow thicket areas from the north (except as necessary for any approved revegetation work). The stormwater management plan shall ensure that runoff from construction areas is diverted away from the willow thicket areas as much as feasible.

Findings of Fact
Wetlands/riparian habitats may be present on the project site and could be disturbed by project construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-6(a) through BIO-6(c) would reduce potential project impacts to jurisdictional features by requiring agency consultation and permit compliance, habitat restoration and/or compensation, and protection measures during construction. Thus, impacts to jurisdictional features during project construction would be potentially significant but Mitigation Measures BIO-6(a) through BIO-6(c) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Threshold: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources?
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the project mitigate potential construction and operational impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level and ensure consistency with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources:

Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-6(c) (See above).

Findings of Fact
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-6(c) would reduce potential project impacts to biological resources and ensure consistency with the applicable coastal policies and local ordinances. Thus, impacts would be potentially significant but Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-6(c) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Threshold: Would the project result in cumulative impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the project mitigate potential cumulative impacts to special-status plants and wildlife species to a less than significant level:
444
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
18 Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-3 (see above) Findings of Fact
Cumulative impacts are not identified for special status species due to the built-out nature of the project vicinity. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-3 would reduce potential project impacts to protected plant and wildlife species by providing preconstruction surveys, construction monitoring, protection measures, preservation, and compensation. Thus, cumulative impacts to special status plants and wildlife species would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-3.

Threshold: Would the project result in cumulative impacts to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Threshold: Would the project result in cumulative impacts on state or federally protected waters of the U.S. as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or protected waters of the state as defined by Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, and coastal wetlands) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the project mitigate potential cumulative impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and jurisdictional features to a less than significant level:

Mitigation Measures BIO-5(a) through BIO-6(c) (see above).

Findings of Fact
Cumulative impacts are not identified for riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and jurisdictional features due to the built-out nature of the project vicinity. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5(a) through BIO-6(c) would reduce potential project impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and jurisdictional features by providing a conservation easement on the project site, ensuring ongoing management of residential landscaping to control invasive species, requiring agency consultation and permit compliance, implementing habitat restoration and/or compensation, and requiring protection measures during construction. Thus, cumulative impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and jurisdictional features would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5(a) through BIO-6(c).

3.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5? 445
Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 19 Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the project mitigate potential impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level:

CR-1 Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist
Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, the City and/or subsequent responsible parties shall retain an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (NPS 2020b) (Qualified Archaeologist) to respond to and address inadvertent discoveries identified for the duration of construction activities. The Qualified Archaeologist shall possess experience and familiarity with historic-period and prehistoric archaeological resources in the region.

CR-2 Workers Environmental Awareness Program Training
All on-site personnel shall be briefed regarding unanticipated discoveries prior to the start of construction activities. A basic presentation shall be prepared and presented by a Qualified Archaeologist or other designated archaeologist working under the direction of the Qualified Archaeologist to inform all on-site personnel working on the project about the archaeological sensitivity of the area. The purpose of the Workers Environmental Awareness Program training is to provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during construction of the project and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. All on-site personnel shall also be instructed in the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeological resources or human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. These procedures include stopping or redirecting work and the immediate notification of the Qualified Archaeologist, and if appropriate, a Native American representative, and establishing an appropriate temporary avoidance buffer. The necessity of training attendance shall be stated on all construction plans, and the City and/or subsequent responsible parties shall maintain records demonstrating construction worker training participation.

CR-3 Archaeological Monitoring
The Qualified Archaeologist shall oversee an archaeological monitor possessing experience and familiarity with historic-period and prehistoric resources in the region. The archaeological monitor shall conduct full-time monitoring within undisturbed native soils to the project’s proposed maximum depths of disturbance. In general, archaeological monitoring shall be limited to initial ground disturbance, which is defined as construction-related earthmoving of sediments from their native place of deposition and does not include any secondary movement of sediment that might be required for the project (e.g., backfilling). The Qualified Archaeologist may adjust monitoring efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to encounter archaeological deposits. The archaeological monitor shall be responsible for maintaining daily monitoring logs.

If throughout the course of project construction activities, a discovery is made by construction personnel and a monitor is not present, the protocols and procedures outlined in the Workers 446
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
20 Environmental Awareness Program training shall be followed. Following the completion of project construction activities, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare an archaeological monitoring report with the results of the archaeological monitoring program that meets state and local requirements and submit the report to the City and the SCCIC at the California State University at Fullerton. Reports submitted to the SCCIC shall be formatted and completed in accordance with the CHRIS document submittal standards.

CR-4 Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources
In the event that previously unknown archaeological resources are inadvertently encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in a 50-foot radius of the find shall be halted and redirected, and the Qualified Archaeologist shall be contacted immediately. The Qualified Archaeologist or other designated archaeologist working under the direction of the Qualified Archaeologist, shall provide recommendations regarding the resource’s potential significance and potential treatment in coordination with the City. If the resource is determined by the Qualified Archaeologist to be indigenous in origin, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the resource. If the Qualified Archaeologist and/or Native American representative determines it to be appropriate, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and significant impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the resource, per the requirements of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant impacts to cultural resources related to the resource. Pursuant to the data recovery plan, the Qualified Archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, shall recover and document the scientifically consequential information that justifies the resource’s significance. The City shall review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate, and the resulting documentation shall be submitted to the regional repository of the CHRIS, per CCR Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).

CR-5 Procedures for Discovery of Human Remains
In the event that human remains are inadvertently encountered during ground disturbing activities, they shall be treated consistent with State and local regulations including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98, and the CCR Section 15064.5(e). In accordance with these regulations, if human remains are found, the County Coroner must be immediately notified of the discovery. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or believed to be Native American origin, the County Coroner is required to notify the Native American Heritage Commission that shall notify those persons believed to be the most likely descendent (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance. 447
Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 21 Findings of Fact
The results of the records search conducted for the project site indicate that no archaeological resources have been found within the project site. However, it is possible that unknown and unanticipated intact archaeological deposits and/or features could be present at subsurface levels. project excavations could potentially encounter unknown and unanticipated archaeological resources. Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-5 are designed to address impacts of project construction activities and the potential for discovery of archaeological resources. By implementing Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-5, the City would require the evaluation and proper steps to protect or treat significant archaeological resources if encountered during construction. Thus, impacts to archaeological resources during construction would be potentially significant but Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-5 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measure imposed upon the project mitigates potential construction-related impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level:

CR-6 Paleontological Resources
The project applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If a potential fossil is discovered during project construction, construction activity within 50 feet of the find shall cease until the discovery is examined by a Qualified Professional Paleontologist as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010). If the find is determined to be scientifically significant, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources consistent with the SVP (2010) standards, which shall include fossil salvage, laboratory preparation, curation in a paleontological repository, and a paleontological monitoring report. Additionally, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist and City shall decide if full- or part-time monitoring shall be instated for further project-related excavations. A Qualified Professional Paleontologist is defined by the SVP (2010) as an individual with:
• A graduate degree in paleontology or geology, and/or a publication record in peer reviewed journals; and demonstrated competence in field techniques, preparation, identification, curation, and reporting in the state or geologic province in which the project occurs. An advanced degree is less important than demonstrated competence and regional experience. • At least two full years professional experience as assistant to a project Paleontologist with administration and project management experience; supported by a list of projects and referral contacts.
• Proficiency in recognizing fossils in the field and determining their significance. • Expertise in local geology, stratigraphy, and biostratigraphy. • Experience collecting vertebrate fossils in the field. 448
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
22 Findings of Fact
The records search conducted for the project site indicates that no paleontological resources have been previously recorded at the project site but that geologic units are present on the project site that are considered to have high paleontological sensitivity. Therefore, the possibility exists that paleontological artifacts that were not recovered during prior construction and other human activity on the project site may be inadvertently encountered during construction. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 are designed to address any such impacts through the recovery, identification, and curation of previously unrecovered fossils. These mitigation measures would apply to grounddisturbing activities within previously undisturbed sediments that extend beyond two feet below the current grade, which represents the minimum observed depth of artificial fill on the site. Thus, impacts to paleontological resources during excavation would be potentially significant but Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Threshold: Would the project result in cumulative impacts to archaeological resources? Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the project mitigate potential cumulative impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level:

Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-5 (see above).

Findings of Fact
Impacts related to cultural resources are site specific, no cumulative effects to archaeological resources are identified. A described above, Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-5 would ensure that project-level impacts to unknown archaeological resources are adequately mitigated. After implementation of these measures, cumulative impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Threshold: Would the project result in cumulative impacts to paleontological resources? Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measure imposed upon the project mitigates potential cumulative impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level:

Mitigation Measure CR-6 (see above).

Findings of Fact
Impacts related to paleontological resources are site specific, no cumulative effects to paleontological resources are identified. A described above, Mitigation Measure CR-6 would ensure that project-level impacts to unknown paleontological resources are adequately mitigated. After implementation of this measure, cumulative impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than significant.
449
Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 23

3.4 Geology and Soils
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure?
Threshold: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse that cannot be addressed through compliance with standard Code requirements? Findings
The TCSP area and additional Annexation area is within a State designated Liquefaction Hazard Zone. In addition, near-surface alluvial soils in the project area are not considered suitable to support structures and expansive soils may be present. However, geotechnical engineering solutions are available to remediate these issues, and development of the residential and other uses envisioned in the TCSP and additional annexation area would be feasible from a geotechnical perspective. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce impacts to a Class II, significant but mitigable, level.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1 Geotechnical Recommendations
All recommendations contained within the Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation conducted by SubSurface Designs, Inc. (Appendix H of the Draft EIR) shall be followed for future development within the project site. These recommendations include the following:
• Grading for the proposed development shall include the removal and re-compaction of the upper six feet (6’) of the existing alluvium for support of the proposed foundation system. The grading shall extend outside of the footprint of the proposed structure ten feet (10’). A minimum of four feet (4’) of compacted fill shall be maintained below the bottom of all foundations. A layer of bi-directional geogrid shall be placed within the bottom of the grading limits prior to the placement of compacted fill. Portions of the bottom excavation for the recommended removals are anticipated to require stabilization prior to the placement of compacted fill. In areas where excessive pumping is encountered, the geogrid shall be covered with one foot (1’) of six inch (6”) minus rock then covered with a geofabric. The earth material outside of the grading limits for the proposed structure shall be removed and re-compacted down two feet (2’) for support in all areas to receive concrete slab, decking, or paving. • Grading shall be carried forth as described in the Grading and Earthwork section. Based on the granular nature of the upper alluvium, each layer shall be compacted to 95percent of the maximum density as determined by the latest version of ASTM D 1557. • Structures shall be supported by a mat foundation.
• Foundations shall be designed as outlined in the Foundations section Findings of Fact
Geotechnical analysis conducted for the project site indicates that the site contains soils susceptible to seismic-related ground failure and instability, including potential liquefaction and settlement. 450
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
24 These conditions could result in significant impacts if not addressed. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires implementation of all recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation, including removal and re-compaction of the upper six feet of alluvium, installation of geogrid and stabilization measures, and construction of mat foundations designed per geotechnical specifications. These measures would ensure that grading and foundation design address potential seismic-related ground failure and unstable soils, reducing these impacts to a less than significant level.

Threshold: Would the project be located on expansive soils, creating substantial risks to life or property that cannot be addressed through compliance with standard Code requirements?
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measure imposed upon the project mitigates potential impacts related to expansive soils to a less than significant level:

GEO-2 Drainage and Maintenance
Drainage and maintenance recommendations included in the Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation shall be incorporated into the design of the project. These recommendations include, but are not limited to:
• A comprehensive drainage system shall be designed and incorporated into the final plans.
• Pad areas shall be maintained and planted in a way that will allow the drainage system to function as intended.

Positive pad drainage shall be incorporated into the final plans. All drainage from the roof and pad shall be directed so that water does not pond adjacent to the foundations or flow toward them. All drainage shall be collected and directed via non-erosive devices to a location approved by the building official.

Findings of Fact
Geotechnical analysis conducted for the project site indicates that the site contains soils with the potential for expansion, which could create substantial risks to structures if not properly managed.

These conditions could result in significant impacts if drainage and maintenance are not addressed.

Mitigation Measure GEO-2 requires incorporation of comprehensive drainage systems into the final design, positive pad drainage, and measures to ensure water does not pond adjacent to foundations. Roof and pad drainage must be directed away from structures and collected via nonerosive devices to approved locations. These measures will prevent moisture accumulation that could exacerbate soil expansion and ensure long-term stability of foundations, reducing impacts related to expansive soils to a less than significant level.

3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, 451
Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 25 that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Threshold: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases or otherwise conflict with state goals for reducing GHG emissions in California? Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the project mitigate potential impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions to a less than significant level:

GHG-1(a) Increased Efficiency
The application shall include the following energy savings requirements in construction and building management contracts.

The project shall comply with the latest Title 24 standards under the California Green Building Code.

The project shall use solar or low-emission water heaters in new buildings/residences.

The project shall require that landscapers providing services use electric or battery-powered equipment, or other internal combustion equipment that is either certified by the California Air Resources Board or is three years old or less at the time of use, to the extent that such equipment is reasonably available and competitively priced in Ventura County (meaning that the equipment can be easily purchased in stores in Ventura County and the cost of the equipment is not more than 20 percent greater than the cost of standard equipment).

GHG-1(b) Renewable Energy
The proposed project shall install solar panels and/or similar equipment that generates electricity from sunlight and/or wind. The owner/tenant of the building may elect to install such equipment to service the building and/or enter into a commercially reasonable public or private utility agreement for purposes of generating energy or transmission, if requested by the City and economically feasible.

GHG-1(d) Natural Ventilation
The applicant shall include natural ventilation in building design plans whenever feasible.

Findings of Fact
The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation and could potentially conflict with state and local GHG reduction goals if not addressed. Mitigation Measures GHG-1(a) through GHG-1(d) require implementation of energy efficiency measures, installation of 452
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
26 renewable energy systems, incorporation of passive energy conservation design, and natural ventilation strategies. These measures include compliance with the latest Title 24 standards, use of solar or low-emission water heaters, installation of solar panels or similar renewable energy equipment, and design features that reduce energy demand. Collectively, these measures ensure that the project minimizes GHG emissions and aligns with applicable plans and policies for reducing emissions. With implementation of these measures, impacts related to GHG emissions and consistency with GHG reduction plans would be reduced to a less than significant level.

3.6 Land Use Planning
Threshold: Would the project conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of the City or other agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the project mitigate potential impacts related to conflicts with land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect:

Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-1(c) (see above), GEO-1 (see above), GEO-2 (see above), and NOI-1 and NOI-2 (see below).

Findings of Fact
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1(a) through AQ-1(c), GEO-1, GEO-2, NOI-1, and NOI-2 would reduce environmental impacts to help achieve consistency with adopted goals and policies.

Therefore, land use and planning impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

3.7 Noise
Threshold: Would the project generate or expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the Oxnard 2030 General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Threshold: Would the project generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Threshold: Would the project generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measure imposed upon the project mitigates impacts from noise levels during construction to a less than significant level:
453
Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 27 NOI-1 Construction Noise Control Plan
The construction contractor shall prepare and implement a Construction Noise Control Plan. The construction contractor shall submit the Construction Noise Control Plan to the City of Oxnard Public Works Department for review and approval prior to initiation of construction. The details of the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included as part of the permit application drawing set and as part of the construction drawing set. The Construction Noise Control Plan shall include the following measures:
• At least 21 days prior to the start of construction activities, all off-site businesses and residents within 500 feet of the project site shall be notified of the planned construction activities. The notification shall include a brief description of the project, the activities that would occur, the hours when construction would occur, and the overall duration of the construction period. The notification shall include the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.
• At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, the representative shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
• During the entire active construction period, equipment, tools, and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible. During the entire active construction period, stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receivers as possible, muffled, and enclosed within temporary sheds or insulation barriers, or other measures for equivalent noise reduction will be incorporated to the extent feasible. • The contractor shall be required to use impact tools that are hydraulically or electrically powered wherever feasible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
• Stockpiling of materials shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
• Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than five minutes.
• Use of stereos and other amplified noise not necessary for the completion of construction work shall be prohibited.
• During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall ensure the use of smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or 454
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
28 switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with safety requirements and laws.

Findings of Fact
Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would instate a construction noise control plan consisting of various measures to reduce noise levels generated during construction, which would reduce construction noise levels by 10 dBA or more. This would reduce noise generated during construction activities to 76 dBA Leq (8-hour) and below at the nearest sensitive receptors located to the southwest of the project site, which would be below the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA Leq (8-hour).

Therefore, temporary noise impacts resulting from construction of the project would be less than significant with mitigation.

Threshold: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measure imposed upon the project mitigates impacts from groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels during construction to a less than significant level:

NOI-2 Alternative Construction Equipment
Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the following measures shall be included as notes on all construction plans:

Construction activities that utilize large earthmoving equipment (rated at 100 hp or more) within 15 feet of offsite residential structures shall be conducted with small offroad equipment limited to 100 hp or less.

Findings of Fact
Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would require the use of alternative construction equipment which produces lower levels of vibration for earthmoving activities conducted near offsite residential structures. Alternative construction equipment would include the use of small offroad equipment limited to 100 hp or less, which generates vibration levels up to 0.003 in/sec PPV at a reference distance of 25 feet. At the nearest offsite residential structure located approximately 10 feet away, small offroad equipment would generate vibration levels up to 0.012 in/sec PPV, which would not exceed the FTA’s vibration threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would reduce construction-generated vibration levels to those below the thresholds recommended by the FTA for potential minor architectural (i.e., non-structural) damage. Vibration impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Threshold: Would the project expose non-human species to excessive noise? Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, 455
Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 29 the following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the project mitigate impacts to non-human species from noise to a less than significant level:

Mitigation Measures BIO-2(a) through BIO-5(a) (see above) .

Findings of Fact
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2(a) through BIO-5(b) would include preconstruction surveys, establishment of buffer zones, biological monitoring, and protection of native areas and sensitive species in the vicinity of the project site. Following the implementation of these mitigation measures, noise impacts to non-human species would be less than significant. 456
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
30 4 Significant Effects that Cannot be
Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level
A significant unavoidable impact is an impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level if the project is implemented, because no feasible mitigation has been identified. Except for the impact described below, all significant impacts associated with the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level with incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. The project would result in the following significant unavoidable impact:

4.1 Transportation
Threshold: Would the project conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following Mitigation Measure imposed upon the project would substantially lessen the significant transportation effect as identified in the EIR, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable:

Mitigation Measure T-2 Bicycle Improvements
The applicant shall include bicycle parking at the proposed small parking lot for the open space area in the northern area of the project site. The number of bicycle parking spaces shall be no less the number of vehicle parking spaces provided at the parking lot. The design and finish of the bicycle parking (e.g., bicycle rack, bicycle lockers, etc.) shall use natural colors, such as shades of green and tan found in the surrounding open space area to the north. The project applicant shall also include a Class III bicycle land on the proposed internal circulation road. The Class III bicycle lane shall extend the full length of the internal access road, effectively providing a bicycle-lane connections between existing Dunes Street at the north end and Canal Street at the south end.

No other feasible mitigation is available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

Findings of Fact
Mitigation Measure T-2 would encourage the use of bicycles for transportation because it would connect the project site to the larger bicycle network in Oxnard, such as existing bicycle lanes on Harbor Boulevard and W. Wooley Road. The use of bicycles for transportation could reduce VMT as less people choose to drive cars for local trips. In the case of the proposed project, the project also includes components that typically reduce VMT, such as pedestrian sidewalks and multi-use paths, and proximity to local businesses and transit, which are both within 1 mile of the project site.

However, even with these components and Mitigation Measure T-2, the VMT per capita of the project would exceed the significance threshold. Therefore, VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
457
Feasibility of project Alternatives
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 31 5 Feasibility of project Alternatives
The Recirculated Draft EIR included several project alternatives. The City hereby concludes that the Recirculated Draft EIR sets forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project so as to foster informed public participation and informed decision making. The City finds that the alternatives identified and described in the Recirculated Draft EIR were considered and further finds two of them to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21081.

In addition to the project, the following alternatives were evaluated in the Recirculated Draft EIR, and are more fully described in Section 7, Alternatives, of the Recirculated Draft EIR.

5.1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Development
Alternative
Summary of Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines stipulate that an EIR specifically include a “No Project” alternative. The purpose in including a No Project Alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, the No Project/No Development Alternative consists of the circumstances under which a proposed project does not proceed and assumes the project would not be approved and no new development would occur on the site (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B)). Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the existing physical conditions on the project site would generally remain as they are. The area proposed for development is currently designated as Residential-Existing (REX) in the Coastal Land Use Plan and General Plan and zoned for Coastal Low-Density Multi-Family use (R-2-C). To permanently implement the No Project Alternative, additional actions such as public acquisition or conservation easements would be required to protect the land from future development. Without such measures, some form of development consistent with the existing designation and zoning would be expected in the future. Existing General Plan land use designations and zoning would remain the same, and no residential neighborhood or associated infrastructure would be constructed.

Reason for Rejecting Alternative
A comparison between impacts identified for the project and Alternative 1 is detailed in Section

7.1.1 of the Recirculated Draft EIR. Under Alternative 1, the project site would remain undeveloped, and no new residential neighborhood or associated infrastructure would be constructed. As detailed in Section 2, project Description, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the site is currently designated REX in the Coastal Land Use Plan and zoned R-2-C for Coastal Low-Density Multi-Family use. While Alternative 1 assumes no development occurs, some form of development consistent with these designations would be expected in the future unless additional measures, such as public acquisition or conservation easements, were implemented. Alternative 1 would eliminate all constructionrelated impacts, including temporary air quality emissions, noise, and biological resource disturbance. All of the potential impacts associated with these issues would be mitigated to a level 458
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
32 of less than significant except for the transportation impact, but under Alternative 1 there would be no physical changes whatsoever at the project site.

Under Alternative 1, the existing conditions would remain on the project site and no new development would occur. As such, Alternative 1 would not complete development of the Oxnard Dunes neighborhood or meet the underlying purpose of the project or meet the majority of the project objectives, as described below.

Alternative 1 would partially meet the following objective:

Objective 7: Restore, protect, and improve native dune plant communities, habitat, and vegetation. • The RP-designated area would remain undisturbed under Alternative 1, but no active restoration, enhancement, or management would occur to improve habitat quality or connectivity.

Alternative 1 would not meet the following objectives:

Objective 2: Comply with Local Coastal Plan (LCP) policies and provide a buffer to agricultural lands to the east.

Objective 3: Provide on-site habitat mitigation for any sensitive areas disturbed within the R-2-C area.

Objective 4: Ensure that proposed development and land use conserve energy and natural resources.

Objective 5: Provide for compatibility with existing residential uses in the area through effective and appropriate urban and architectural design.

Objective 6: Provide responsible and balanced public access framework that allows for community enjoyment of the open space area, while preserving and protecting sensitive habitat areas.

Objective 8: Ensure the open space area remains safe by establishing security and maintenance processes and protocols.

Findings
Because Alternative 1 would not meet the project’s underlying purpose to redevelop the project site or meet the majority of the project objectives, Alternative 1 is an overall inferior alternative that is hereby rejected. Overall, the findings for the project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration.
459
Feasibility of project Alternatives
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 33

5.2 Alternative 2: Alternate Location Development in
RP Area Only
Summary of Alternative
Under Alternative 2, the project site would be developed in an alternate location within the RPdesignated area rather than the REX-designated area proposed under the project. This Alternative satisfies the provision of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) by providing a feasible development option that could meet some project objectives while reducing certain impacts. Under Alternative 2, approximately 50 residential units would be constructed on land currently designated for Resource Protection, requiring amendments to the Coastal Land Use Plan and zoning to allow residential development in this area. The RP-designated area would be reconfigured to preserve a portion of the coastal dunes adjacent to existing homes along Catamaran Street, while shifting development northward from the Oxnard Dunes neighborhood.

The development footprint under Alternative 2 would be similar in size to the proposed project (approximately 6 acres), and internal circulation roads would connect to the same roadway network as the project. Construction activities under Alternative 2, including equipment use, grading, and haul quantities, would be similar to the project, and construction emissions would exceed NOx thresholds, requiring implementation of the same mitigation measures as the project. Operational characteristics, including vehicle trips and utility demands, would also be similar, although slightly reduced due to fewer dwelling units compared to the maximum buildout of the project.

While Alternative 2 would reduce visual and noise impacts on existing residences along Catamaran Street, it would increase encroachment into higher-quality dune habitat and ESHA areas, resulting in greater biological resource impacts compared to the project. Additionally, this alternative would conflict with Coastal Land Use Plan policies intended to preserve RP-designated lands, requiring substantial amendments to land use designations and zoning.

Reason for Rejecting Alternative
A comparison between impacts identified for the project and Alternative 2 is detailed in Section 7.2 of the Recirculated Draft EIR. Under Alternative 2, development would occur within the RPdesignated area rather than the REX-designated area proposed under the project. While this alternative would reduce visual and noise impacts on existing residences along Catamaran Street, it would result in greater biological resource impacts due to encroachment into higher-quality dune habitat and ESHA areas. Similar to the project, Alternative 2 would result in significant and unavoidable transportation impacts related to VMT per capita. Construction emissions under Alternative 2 would exceed NOx thresholds, requiring implementation of the same mitigation measures as the project. Operational emissions would be slightly reduced compared to the project due to fewer dwelling units, but land use impacts would increase because this alternative would conflict with Coastal Land Use Plan policies and require substantial amendments to land use designations and zoning. Overall, Alternative 2 would have mixed effects compared to the project, reducing some impacts (e.g., aesthetics and noise) while increasing others (e.g., biological resources and land use consistency).

By providing residential development consistent with the City’s General Plan, Alternative 2 would partially meet the underlying purpose of the project to complete development of the Oxnard Dunes neighborhood. Alternative 2 would also meet some of the project objectives, as described below. 460
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
34 Alternative 2 would meet the following objectives:

Objective 4: Ensure that proposed development and land use conserve energy and natural resources.

Objective 5: Provide for compatibility with existing residential uses in the area through effective and appropriate urban and architectural design.

Objective 6: Provide responsible and balanced public access framework that allows for community enjoyment of the open space area, while preserving and protecting sensitive habitat areas.

Alternative 2 would meet the following objectives but to a lesser extent than the project:

Objective 1: Complete this portion of the Oxnard Dunes neighborhood with an attractive residential neighborhood pursuant to the requirements of the City of Oxnard 2030 General Plan; and provide the ability for efficiently providing municipal services. • Alternative 2 would provide residential development but would require substantial amendments to the Coastal Land Use Plan and zoning, reducing consistency with adopted plans.

Objective 7: Restore, protect, and improve native dune plant communities, habitat, and vegetation. • Alternative 2 would preserve some dune habitat but would also disturb higher-quality ESHA areas, resulting in greater biological impacts compared to the project.

Objective 8: Ensure the open space area remains safe by establishing security and maintenance processes and protocols.
• Alternative 2 would provide some preserved open space but would not implement the same level of security and maintenance measures as the project.

Alternative 2 would not meet the following objectives:

Objective 2: Comply with Local Coastal Plan (LCP) policies and provide a buffer to agricultural lands to the east.

Objective 3: Provide on-site habitat mitigation for any sensitive areas disturbed within the R-2-C area.

Findings
While Alternative 2 would meet some of the project objectives, it would not eliminate any of the project’s impacts that are significant and unavoidable, less than significant, or less than significant with mitigation. In fact, Alternative 2 would result in greater impacts in certain areas, including biological resources and land use consistency, when compared to the project. Thus, Alternative 2 is an inferior alternative that is hereby rejected.

5.3 Alternative 3: Alternative Design – Improved Buffer Summary of Alternative
Alternative 3 would involve a design modification to improve the buffer between development and the preserved willow thicket ESHA. Under this alternative, the alignment of the new private street extension would be shifted as far south as possible, ending in a cul-de-sac rather than connecting through to Dunes Street. A pedestrian pathway would provide access between the cul-de-sac and 461
Feasibility of project Alternatives
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 35 Dunes Street but would be closed to vehicle traffic. Condominium-style buildings would be removed, and only clustered detached single-family condominium dwellings would be constructed.

In total, Alternative 3 would include approximately 34 single-family detached condominium units, compared to 50–65 units under the project. The development footprint would be approximately 6.3 acres, and a 50-foot buffer would be maintained between the development and the willow thicket, except for minor grading and the pedestrian pathway.

The overall footprint of development and types of land uses under Alternative 3 would be similar to the project, but the number of dwelling units would be reduced, and the buffer area would be increased. Open space amenities, sustainability features, landscaping, and site access would remain consistent with the project. Construction activities under Alternative 3, such as equipment used and haul quantities, would be similar to the project, except that the building construction phase would be shorter due to fewer units and reduced square footage.

Reason for Rejecting Alternative
A comparison between impacts identified for the project and Alternative 3 is detailed in Section 7.3 of the Recirculated Draft EIR. Alternative 3 would reduce construction noise impacts in comparison to the project due to the reduced overall construction schedule and smaller development footprint but would still result in significant and unavoidable transportation impacts related to VMT per capita. The significance of impacts associated with most environmental issues would be similar to or less than those of the project because of the reduced number of dwelling units and shorter construction duration. Biological resource impacts would be reduced due to the increased buffer between development and the willow thicket ESHA, although the buffer would still not meet the 100-foot policy requirement.

With the same general characteristics as the project, Alternative 3 would generally meet the underlying purpose of the project to complete development of the Oxnard Dunes neighborhood, though to a lesser extent than the project due to the reduced development density and smaller footprint. Alternative 3 would also generally meet the majority of the project objectives, as described below.

Alternative 3 would meet the following objectives:

Objective 4: Ensure that proposed development and land use conserve energy and natural resources.

Objective 5: Provide for compatibility with existing residential uses in the area through effective and appropriate urban and architectural design.

Objective 6: Provide responsible and balanced public access framework that allows for community enjoyment of the open space area, while preserving and protecting sensitive habitat areas.

Objective 7: Restore, protect, and improve native dune plant communities, habitat, and vegetation.

Objective 8: Ensure the open space area remains safe by establishing security and maintenance processes and protocols.

Alternative 3 would meet the following objectives but to a lesser extent than the project:

Objective 1: Complete this portion of the Oxnard Dunes neighborhood with an attractive residential neighborhood pursuant to the requirements of the City of Oxnard 2030 General Plan; and provide the ability for efficiently providing municipal services. 462
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
36 Alternative 3 would provide residential development but with fewer units (34 compared to 50–65 under the project), reducing housing opportunities and municipal service efficiency.

Objective 2: Comply with Local Coastal Plan (LCP) policies and provide a buffer to agricultural lands to the east.

Alternative 3 would improve the buffer between development and ESHA compared to the project but would still not meet the 100-foot buffer policy requirement.

Objective 3: Provide on-site habitat mitigation for any sensitive areas disturbed within the R-2-C area.
• Alternative 3 would reduce disturbance but would still require mitigation for impacts to sensitive areas.

Findings
While Alternative 3 would meet many of the project objectives, it would not meet several objectives to the same extent as the project. In addition, Alternative 3 would not eliminate the project’s significant and unavoidable transportation impacts or the project’s impacts that were found to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. Given that Alternative 3 would result in overall similar significant and unavoidable impacts and mitigation measures as the project and would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the project, this alternative is hereby rejected.

5.4 Alternative 4: Reduced Project
Summary of Alternative
Alternative 4 would involve a reduced development footprint compared to the project. Under this alternative, the private street extension through the site would not connect to Dunes Street.

Instead, a cul-de-sac would extend northward from Canal Street approximately 610 feet to provide access to condominium lots and the community lot. The northern portion of the proposed development would be eliminated and incorporated into the Resource Protection (RP) preserve area, increasing the preserved area to approximately 34.3 acres.

Alternative 4 would include approximately 27 to 35 condominium dwelling units, compared to 50– 65 units under the project, and would not include single-family or duplex units. This alternative would avoid encroachment into the northern willow thicket and maintain a buffer of approximately 100 feet between development and the preserved RP area along Catamaran Street. The total development footprint would be approximately 4 acres, smaller than the project’s footprint.

Open space amenities, sustainability features, and site access would remain consistent with the project, although internal circulation would be limited to the cul-de-sac. Construction activities under Alternative 4, such as equipment use and haul quantities, would be similar to the project but reduced in duration due to fewer units and a smaller development area.

Reason for Rejecting Alternative
A comparison between impacts identified in the project and Alternative 4 is detailed in Section 7.4 of the Recirculated Draft EIR. As with the project, Alternative 4 would result in significant and unavoidable transportation impacts related to VMT per capita. The significance of impacts 463
Feasibility of project Alternatives
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 37 associated with the remaining environmental issues would generally be similar to or less than those of the project due to the reduced development footprint and fewer dwelling units. Biological resource impacts would be reduced because this alternative would avoid encroachment into the northern willow thicket and maintain a 100-foot buffer in most areas. Noise, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions would also be slightly reduced due to the smaller scale of construction and fewer operational trips. Overall, Alternative 4 would result in reduced impacts compared to the project in most resource areas.

With a similar mix of uses and general characteristics as the project, Alternative 4 would meet the underlying purpose of the project to complete development of the Oxnard Dunes neighborhood, while providing a greater buffer to sensitive habitat areas. Alternative 4 would also meet the majority of the project objectives, as described below.

Alternative 4 would meet the following objectives:

Objective 2: Comply with Local Coastal Plan (LCP) policies and provide a buffer to agricultural lands to the east.

Objective 3: Provide on-site habitat mitigation for any sensitive areas disturbed within the R-2-C area.

Objective 4: Ensure that proposed development and land use conserve energy and natural resources.

Objective 6: Provide responsible and balanced public access framework that allows for community enjoyment of the open space area, while preserving and protecting sensitive habitat areas.

Objective 7: Restore, protect, and improve native dune plant communities, habitat, and vegetation.

Objective 8: Ensure the open space area remains safe by establishing security and maintenance processes and protocols.

Alternative 4 would meet the following objectives but to a lesser extent than the project:

Alternative 4 would provide residential development but with fewer units (27-35 compared to 50– 65 under the project), reducing housing opportunities and municipal service efficiency.

Objective 5: Provide for compatibility with existing residential uses in the area through effective and appropriate urban and architectural design.

Alternative 4 would maintain compatibility but with fewer housing units (27–35 compared to 50–65 under the project), reducing housing opportunities.

Findings
While Alternative 4 would meet many of the project objectives, it would not meet several objectives to the same extent as the project. In addition, Alternative 4 would not eliminate the project’s significant and unavoidable transportation impacts or the project’s impacts that were found to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. Given that Alternative 4 would result in overall similar significant and unavoidable impacts and mitigation measures as the project and would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the project, this alternative is hereby rejected.
464
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
38 5.5 Alternative 5: Alternative Design – All Single Family Detached Residential Condominiums
Summary of Alternative
Alternative 5 would result in an identical buildout to the project, with one exception: all residential units would be developed as detached single-family residential condominiums rather than a mix of single-family, duplex, and condominium units. Under this alternative, approximately 56 detached single-family units would be constructed within the same development footprint as the project. The preserved RP area would remain at approximately 29.58 acres, and the overall site plan would include similar private streets, drainage improvements, and open space amenities.

There would be no changes to the project’s overall footprint, proposed uses, circulation improvements, open space and landscaping, or sustainability features. Construction activities under Alternative 5, including equipment use and haul quantities, would be similar to the project, and the duration of construction would remain comparable.

Reason for Rejecting Alternative
A comparison between impacts identified for the project and Alternative 5 is detailed in Section 7.5 of the Recirculated Draft EIR. As with the project, Alternative 5 would result in significant and unavoidable transportation impacts related to VMT per capita. Because Alternative 5 would involve the same development footprint and similar construction activities as the project, the significance of impacts associated with most environmental issues would be the same as those of the project.

Biological resource, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and utility impacts would remain similar. Overall, Alternative 5 would not substantially reduce or increase impacts compared to the project.

Alternative 5 would develop the same mix of uses as the project and would meet the underlying purpose of the project to complete development of the Oxnard Dunes neighborhood. As Alternative 5 would be identical to the project other than the change in residential design (all single-family detached units), Alternative 5 would also meet all of the project objectives Findings
Alternative 5 would meet all of the project objectives to the same extent as the project, the only difference being that the change in residential design. Alternative 5 would not eliminate the project’s significant and unavoidable transportation impacts or the project’s impacts that were found to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. As Alternative 5 would not substantially lessen environmental impacts in comparison to the project, this alternative is hereby rejected.

5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines state than an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “No Project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (Section 15126.6(e)(2)).

A detailed discussion of the Environmentally Superior Alternative is included in Section 7 of the Recirculated Draft EIR. Of the alternatives analyzed in the Recirculated Draft EIR, Alternative 1 (No 465
Feasibility of project Alternatives
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 39 Project/No Development) would avoid all of the project’s impacts, including the significant and unavoidable transportation impacts. Alternative 1 would also reduce most of the project’s impacts to other resources. However, Alternative 1 would not meet any of the basic project objectives, including completing development of the Oxnard Dunes neighborhood and providing on-site habitat mitigation.

In accordance with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines to identify an environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project Alternative, a comparative evaluation of the remaining alternatives indicates that Alternative 4 (Reduced Project) would be the environmentally superior alternative. Although Alternative 4 would not eliminate the project’s significant and unavoidable transportation impact, Alternative 4 would reduce the project’s less-than-significant and less-thansignificant-with-mitigation impacts to the greatest degree compared to the other alternatives due to the substantial reduction in development footprint and resulting decreased construction duration and operational intensity. Alternative 4 would also preserve the largest area of dune scrub and provide buffer distances consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan.

Although Alternative 4 would reduce many of the environmental impacts associated with the project, this alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the project, including but not limited to “Complete this portion of the Oxnard Dunes neighborhood with an attractive residential neighborhood pursuant to the requirements of the City of Oxnard 2030 General Plan”.
466
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
40 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a)).

CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (CEQA Guidelines Section 19093(B)). The proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable impact related to Transportation. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce that impact to a less than significant level. The significant unavoidable impact is identified and discussed in Section 5 of these Findings. The City finds that the significant unavoidable impact to Transportation is outweighed by the proposed project’s benefits and is acceptable in light of the benefits of the project, based on the findings below:
• The City has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the project, as described above. • All mitigation measures required in the Final EIR have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented through the MMRP, incorporated by reference herein. • In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has, in determining whether or not to approve the project, balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits of the project against these unavoidable environmental risks, and has found that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. • The proposed project would fulfill all of the project objectives, whereas some of the proposed alternatives, each of which have the same significant and unavoidable impacts, do not.

The following statements specify the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable environmental risks. The City also finds that any one of the following reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City will stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the City Findings and the benefits described below can be found in the Record of Proceedings. • The project would provide responsible and balanced public access framework that allows for community enjoyment of the open space area, while preserving and protecting sensitive habitat areas.
• Restore, protect, and improve native dune plant communities, habitat, and vegetation. • Ensure the open space area remains safe by establishing security and maintenance processes and protocols.
467
Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 41 • Complete this portion of the Oxnard Dunes neighborhood with an attractive residential neighborhood pursuant to the requirements of the City of Oxnard 2030 General Plan; and the ability for efficiently providing municipal services. • Comply with Local Coastal Plan (LCP) policies and provide a buffer to agricultural lands to the east.
• The project would provide on-site habitat mitigation for any sensitive areas disturbed within the R-2-C area.
• Ensure that proposed development and land use conserve energy and natural resources. • Provide for compatibility with existing residential uses in the area through effective and appropriate urban and architectural design.
• The project would create recreational opportunities for citizens of Oxnard. • The addition of residential units to the City of Oxnard will make a substantial contribution toward attainment of community housing goals.

After balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project alternatives, the City of Oxnard has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impact identified may be considered acceptable due to the specific considerations listed above which offset the unavoidable and adverse environmental impact that will be caused by implementation of the proposed project.

Recognizing that a significant and unavoidable impact will result from implementation of the project, the City adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations. Having adopted all feasible mitigation measures and recognizing the significant and unavoidable impact, the City hereby finds that each of the separate benefits of the project, as stated herein, is determined to be unto itself an overriding consideration, independent of other benefits, that warrants approval of the proposed project and outweighs and overrides its unavoidable significant effect, and thereby justifies the approval of the project.
468
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
42 7 Conclusion

7.1 Incorporation by Reference
These findings incorporate the text of the Final EIR for the Avalon Homes Project by reference and in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, the determination of the environmentally superior alternative, and the reasons for approving the project in spite of the potential for associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.

7.2 No Recirculation of the Recirculated Draft EIR is
Required
The changes and new information provided in the Final EIR consist of clarifications of the Recirculated Draft EIR analysis and do not include identification of new significant impacts associated with the project or mitigation measures, or new project alternatives or mitigation measures that warrant consideration.

The City of Oxnard finds that the new information added in the Final EIR merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR and is not “significant” within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

The City of Oxnard further finds that incorporating the new information does not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on the project or its effects, and that no information has been added to the Final EIR that would warrant recirculation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1.

Finally, the City of Oxnard has reviewed and considered comments made after the Final EIR was issued and finds that those comments do not present significant new information within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 or otherwise warrant recirculation of the Final EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1.

These findings are based on all the information presented in the Final EIR and the record of proceedings.

7.3 Summary
Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the City has made one or more of the following Findings with respect to each of the significant effects of the project:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. b. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other public agency. 469
Conclusion
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 43 c. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR that would otherwise avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the project.

Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the City determines that:
a. All significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.
b. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 6 above.
470
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-1
4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Avalon Homes Project identifies the mitigation measures required to reduce environmental impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for assessing and ensuring compliance with required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in Section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code:
“the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.”
Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of making findings or adopting a mitigated negative declaration.

The mitigation monitoring table below lists the identified mitigation measures for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. The first column, entitled “Mitigation Measure,” identifies mitigation measures that were identified in the Final EIR. The second column, entitled “Implementing Action,” refers to the action that must be taken to ensure the mitigation measure’s implementation. The third column, entitled “Implementation Monitoring and Reporting Responsibility,” refers to the agency responsible for oversight or ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The fourth column, entitled “Implementation Timing Requirements,” refers to how often the monitoring will occur to ensure that the mitigation action is complete. The “Compliance Verification” column is where the agency responsible for oversight verifies that the measures have been implemented. 471
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
4-2
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Aesthetics
AQ-1(a) Dust Control Measures
The following shall be implemented during grading and
construction to control dust.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth
moving, or excavation operations shall be
minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include
watering the area to be graded or excavated
before commencement of grading or excavating
activities. Application of water (preferably
reclaimed, if available) should penetrate
sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during
grading activities.
• Fugitive dust produced during grading,
excavation, and construction activities shall be
controlled by the following activities:
1) All trucks shall be required to cover their loads
as required by California Vehicle Code Section
23114.
2) All graded and excavated material, exposed soil
areas, and active portions of the construction
site, including unpaved on-site 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.
3) Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the
construction site shall be monitored at least
weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization
methods shall be periodically applied to
portions of the construction site that are
inactive for over four days. If no further grading
or excavation operations are planned for the
Perform site inspections,
once at the start of
construction and once
half-way through
construction, to verify
contractor compliance.

Retain copies of
inspection records in
project file.

The City is responsible for
verifying project dust
measures. The
construction contractor is
responsible for
implementing the project
dust measures.

Prior to construction
activities and throughout
the construction phase.
472
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-3
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
area within three weeks, it shall be seeded and
watered until grass growth is evident, or
periodically treated with environmentally safe
dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive
dust.
4) Signs shall be posted on-site limiting traffic to
15 miles per hour or less.
5) During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed
sufficient to cause fugitive dust to affect
adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth
moving, and excavation operations shall be
curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent
fugitive dust from being an annoyance or
hazard, either off-site or on-site.
6) Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at
least once per day, preferably at the end of the
day, if visible soil material is carried over to
adjacent streets and roads.
7) Personnel involved in grading operations,
including contractors and subcontractors, shall
wear respiratory protection in accordance with
California Division of Occupational Safety and
Health regulations.
8) Shaker plates shall be installed at all truck exits
from the site.
• Dust control requirements shall be shown on all
grading plans.
• Signs displaying the APCD Complaint Line
Telephone number for public complaints shall be
posted in a prominent location visible off the site:
(805) 645-1400 during business hours and (805)
654-2797 after hours.

AQ-1(b) Construction Equipment Controls
The following shall be implemented during
construction to minimize emissions of ozone
precursors.

Perform site inspections,
once at the start of
construction and once
half-way through
The City is responsible for
verifying project
measures.

Prior to construction
activities and throughout
the construction phase.
473
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
4-4
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
1) All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or
tracked) used during construction activities shall
meet the USEPA Tier 4 Final standards. Tier 4
certification can be for the original equipment or
equipment that is retrofitted to meet the Tier 4
Final standards.
2) Construction contractors shall minimize
equipment idling time throughout construction.

Engines shall be turned off if idling would be for
more than five minutes.
3) Equipment engines shall be maintained in good
condition and in proper tune as per
manufacturers’ specifications.
4) The number of pieces of equipment operating
simultaneously shall be minimized.
5) Construction contractors shall use alternatively
fueled construction equipment (such as
compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, or
electric) when feasible.
6) The engine size of construction equipment shall
be the minimum practical size.
7) Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction
equipment manufactured after 1996 (with
federally mandated clean diesel engines) shall be
utilized wherever feasible.
8) During the smog season (May through October),
the construction period should be lengthened so
as to minimize the number of vehicles and
equipment operating at the same time.
construction, to verify
contractor compliance.

Retain copies of
inspection records in
project file.

The construction
contractor is responsible
for implementing the
project dust measures.

AQ-1(c) Low Volatile Paints
Wherever feasible, non-painted exterior surfaces
and low volatile interior and exterior paints shall be
used for architectural coatings.

Perform site inspections,
once at the start of
construction and once
half-way through
construction, to verify
contractor compliance.

Retain copies of
The City is responsible for
verifying project paint
review.

Prior to construction
activities and throughout
the construction phase.
474
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-5
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
inspection records in
project file.

Biological Resources
BIO-1(a) Pre-construction Botanical Survey
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project,
spring and summer seasonal botanical surveys for
special status plants, including but not limited to
Orcutt’s pincushion, shall be conducted within the
impact area by a qualified botanist satisfactory to
the City. A summary of the survey findings shall be
provided to the City for approval. If any special
status species are observed, avoidance,
minimization, and/or mitigation shall be performed
to reduce effects. If the species cannot be fully
avoided, the Applicant shall draft a plan to offset
impacts to the species as discussed in Mitigation
Measure BIO-1(b). If state-listed endangered,
threatened, or rare plants are detected in areas
proposed for development, the Applicant shall
contact the CDFW to secure incidental take
authorization or develop an avoidance strategy.

The City shall verify and
review the completion of a
botanical survey and
survey results.

If construction is delayed
after the survey has been
conducted, an additional
survey shall be conducted
such that no more than
seven days have elapsed
between the last survey
and the commencement
of construction activities.

Review and verification
prior by City.

Review and verification
once prior to issuance of
any construction permit.

After each additional
survey (as necessary).

BIO-1(b) Mitigation Plan
In the event that Orcutt’s pincushion or any other
special status plant populations cannot be fully
avoided, restoration, management, maintenance,
and monitoring plans shall be developed by a
qualified biologist and/or resource specialist and
shall be reviewed and approved by CDFW and the
City of Oxnard prior to issuance of a grading permit.

The mitigation therein shall be implemented within
one (1) year following completion of project
construction. The Applicant shall secure a bond for
an amount equal to the cost of the mitigation effort
prior to issuance of the grading permit. The bond
shall be released by the City upon satisfaction of the
approved performance criteria after the monitoring
period has expired.

The City shall verify and
review the completion of a
botanical survey and
survey results.

Review and verification
prior by City.

Review and verification
once prior to issuance of
any construction permit.

After each additional
survey (as necessary).
475
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
4-6
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
The restoration, management, maintenance, and
monitoring plans shall include one or more of the
following methods, to be implemented either
individually or in conjunction with each other:

Onsite or Offsite Restoration (Salvage and Replanting)
Restoration shall involve the collection of seed from
within the development footprint or nearby areas, if
necessary, and replanting the seed in a suitable area in a portion of the project site that is set aside for
preservation. Collection of seed from state-listed
endangered, threatened, or rare plants shall not occur
without appropriate authorization from CDFW. If
onsite restoration is infeasible, an offsite location as close to the impact area as possible, but within the
local watershed, may be used. The Restoration Plan,
prepared by a qualified plant ecologist satisfactory to the City, shall include, but not be limited to, the
following to achieve a performance standard of a 2:1
replacement, or as dictated by a regulatory agency
with permitting authority over the species:
• Location of the mitigation/restoration and
map;
• Success criteria (e.g., acceptable
survivorship, percent cover, or other
appropriate metric);
• Identification of the party responsible for
achieving the success criteria;
• Plant species, container sizes, and seeding
rates;
• Planting schedule;
• Monitoring frequency, methods, and
duration;
• Means to control exotic vegetation;
• Contingency planning (i.e., if the effort fails
to reach the performance criteria, what
remediation steps need to be taken);
• Irrigation methods and schedule; and,
476
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-7
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
• Identification of a protection instrument
providing for conservation of the mitigation
site in perpetuity.

The Applicant shall maintain and monitor the plants for a minimum of five years.

The preserved population shall be located in an area
of sufficient size to create a preserve core and be
located, as feasible, at least 350 feet away from
existing or proposed development, paved roads, vditches and irrigated areas. Additionally, the preserved population shall exhibit connectivity to
other protected open space or hillside areas. The
Preservation Plan shall at least identify the specific
location of the preservation site and size; number of
individuals preserved; ownership of the land; parties
involved; and the preservation methodology (i.e.,
permanent conservation easement or dedication to
an approved conservation organization, etc.).

BIO-2(a) Nesting Bird Survey
If grading or tree removal is to occur during the birdbreeding season (January 1 through September 15), at a minimum, one (1) survey shall be conducted
prior to the initiation of grading or tree removal by a qualified biologist (a person with a biology degree
and/or established skills in bird recognition). The
survey shall occur no more than one (1) week prior
to grading or tree removal. The work limits plus a
500-foot buffer, as feasible, shall be surveyed to
accommodate potential active raptor nests, as well
The City shall verify that
construction is scheduled
outside of the bird
breeding season; if
construction is to occur
during the bird breeding
season, the City shall
verify and review the
completion of a nesting
Review and verification by
the City prior to issuance
of any construction
permit.

Review and verification
once prior to issuance of
any construction permit.

After each additional
survey (as necessary).
477
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
4-8
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
as other birds nesting nearby. A copy of the biologist
contract for these services shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval prior
to issuance of grading permits. A report summarizing
the findings of the survey and the recommended
buffers shall be provided to the Planning
Department prior to vegetation removal activities.
bird survey and survey
results. If nests are found,
the City shall verify
through field monitoring
the compliance with
established buffer.

If construction is delayed
after the survey has been
conducted, an additional
nesting bird survey shall
be conducted such that no
more than seven days
have elapsed between the
last survey and the
commencement of
construction activities.

BIO-2(b) Establishment of Appropriate Buffers During Grading and Construction Based on the nesting bird survey, in the event that
nesting birds are observed within 500 feet of the
disturbance/construction area, species-specific
exclusionary buffers shall be implemented as
determined by the qualified biologist, and
construction timing and location shall be adjusted
accordingly until the nestlings have fledged and are
no longer dependent upon the nest. The active nests
and exclusionary buffers shall be monitored by a
qualified biologist (at least initially) to determine if the active nests are being adversely affected by
construction activities and to determine if a buffer
would need to be increased to reduce such effects.

The project Applicant,
under the direction of the
City, would determine if a
buffer is needed.

Review and verification by
the City prior to issuance
of any construction
permit.

Once prior to submittal
of construction drawings
and once prior to
issuance of building
permits.

BIO-3 Biological Monitoring
A qualified biological monitor familiar with globose
dune beetle and southern California legless lizard
shall be present during initial ground-disturbing
activities (including, but not limited to, site
preparation, grading, excavation, and trenching)
The City shall verify that
the project Applicant has
retained a qualified
biologist and verify that
the specialist is on-site
Review and verification by
the City prior to issuance
of any construction
permit.

Once by City prior to
issuance of initial
demolition and/or
construction permits.
478
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-9
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
within suitable habitat for these species. The
biological monitor shall have the authority to
temporarily stop work if one or more individuals are
observed. The monitor shall then relocate these
individuals to suitable undisturbed habitat, outside
the areas directly and indirectly affected by ground
disturbance activities.
during ground-disturbing
activities.

29.18 acres in Parcels A and B shown on the
tentative map). The plan shall be prepared by a
qualified biologist and/or resource specialist and
shall be reviewed and approved by the City of
Oxnard. The plan shall address and incorporate the
following features, which may be modified through
consultation with other agencies and the City prior
to finalization:
• Timing and procedures for establishing a
conservation easement or similar protection
mechanism for the RP designated land to be
preserved
• Incorporation of Ventura marsh milk vetch
or any other sensitive plant species, if
required as part of mitigation measure BIO-1
• Revegetation or enlargement of the willow
thicket area, if required as part of mitigation
measure BIO-6(b)
• Removal and control of invasive species such
as ice plant
• Modifications to and maintenance of
perimeter fencing to prohibit or control
public access
• Inclusion of limited public access, with
prohibitions or controls addressing pets, no
The project Applicant,
under the direction of the
City, shall prepare a
protection and
enhancement plan for
review by the City prior to
grading activities.

Prior to the issuance of
building permits
Once by City prior to
issuance of initial
demolition and/or
construction permits.
479
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
4-10
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
entry areas, and other aspects of potential
public use
• Funding mechanism, which may include
provision of performance bonds to the City
to ensure installation of all improvements
and completion of restoration and
protection measures or alternative
implementation guarantees.

BIO-5(b) Management of Residential Landscaping
The applicant shall accomplish the following
measures, to the satisfaction of the Planning
Division:
1) Preparation, review, and implementation of
landscaping plans for the project shall include
provisions for the control of invasive plant species
to address the potential impacts of non-native
plants colonizing adjacent native habitats.

Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be
recorded specifying that landscaping for
individual housing lots shall not include any exotic
invasive plant species. The Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions shall be binding on each of the
lots in the subdivision, shall run with the land
affected by the subdivision, and shall be included
or incorporated by reference in every deed
transferring one or more of the lots in the
subdivision.
2) The project applicant shall also provide, in
connection with the sale of each housing unit, an
information packet that explains the sensitivity of
the natural habitats onsite and nearby and the
need to minimize impacts on the identified
sensitive species, designated resource protection
areas, the limits on public access within or
adjacent to such areas, the prohibition on
landscaping that includes exotic invasive plant
species, and the limits on exterior residential
The project Applicant,
under the direction of the
City, shall prepare a
landscaping plan for
review by the City prior to
grading activities.

Prior to the issuance of
building permits or
grading permits.

Once by City prior to
issuance of initial
demolition and/or
construction permits.
480
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-11
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
lighting. Interpretive signs shall also be placed in
appropriate locations along the edges of resource
protection areas explaining the sensitivity of
certain species and natural habitats and the need
to minimize impacts on these adjacent areas.

BIO-6(a) Consultation with Regulatory Agencies
Prior to issuance of any grading permits for the
project, and prior to clearing of any vegetation
from the site, the applicant shall provide the
Oxnard Planning Division with proof of consultation
with CDFW, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
the Los Angeles RWQCB. This consultation might
result in the applicant being required to provide
these agencies with a completed delineation of
jurisdictional aquatic resources within the project
footprint, or to apply for permits authorizing
impacts to streams or wetlands. If federal or State
permits are obtained, the applicant shall provide a
copy of the approved permits to the Planning
Division for review and approval prior to issuance
of grading permits. The applicant shall comply with
all permit conditions when implementing the
proposed activities, including any seasonal timing
restrictions, impact avoidance measures,
limitations on construction means and methods,
site restoration, compensatory mitigation, and
reporting requirements.

The project Applicant,
under the direction of the
City, shall consult with
regulatory agencies prior
to any grading permits are
issued or clearance of any
vegetation.

Prior to the issuance of
building permits or
grading permits.

Once by City prior to
issuance of initial
demolition and/or
construction permits.

BIO-6(b) Re-vegetation Plan
If jurisdictional wetlands/habitat are not avoided,
areas of permanent disturbance shall be
compensated for by creation, restoration, or
enhancement of similar habitat at a 4:1 ratio, or as
required by the regulatory agencies having
permitting jurisdiction over the resources.

Compensation for impacts to willow thickets shall
consist of native and appropriate willow scrub
The project Applicant,
under the direction of the
City, shall prepare a revegetation plan, if
required, within one year
of completion of
construction.

City of Oxnard and
Building Department.

Within one year of
completion of
construction of
development.
481
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
4-12
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
species, unless otherwise specified by the
regulatory agencies.

Re-vegetation shall occur as close to the impact
area as possible and shall be within the same
watershed. For this project, a likely revegetation
area, should one be necessary, could be in the
preservation area immediately north of the willow
thicket, within the larger project boundaries.

Payment of an in-lieu fee to a conservation
organization approved by the City (and acceptable
to the regulatory agencies, as appropriate) to
conduct the mitigation may be accepted if no other
locations are feasible, as confirmed by the City. The
project Applicant shall submit a re-vegetation plan
prepared by a qualified restoration biologist for
review and approval by the City prior to issuance of
a grading permit. The plan shall include, but not be
limited to, the following components:
• Location of the mitigation/restoration and
map;
• Success criteria (e.g., acceptable
survivorship, percent cover, or other
appropriate metric);
• Identification of the party responsible for
achieving the success criteria;
• Plant species, container sizes, and seeding
rates;
• Planting schedule;
• Monitoring frequency, methods, and
duration;
• Means to control exotic vegetation;
• Contingency planning (i.e., if the effort fails
to reach the performance criteria, what
remediation steps need to be taken);
• Irrigation methods and schedule; and,
482
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-13
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
• Identification of a protection instrument
providing for conservation of the mitigation
site in perpetuity.

The revegetation shall be initiated within one (1)
year of completion of project construction. The
Applicant shall maintain and monitor the restored
areas for a minimum of five years.

BIO-6(c) Protection Measures During Construction
The grading and improvement plans for the project
shall indicate measures to minimize encroachment
into the willow thicket habitat beyond the
anticipated 0.91 acre of permanent impact. These
shall include the use of a retaining wall or walls,
minimum improvements along the north side of the
private extension of Canal Street through the
project (i.e. no sidewalks on north side and
minimum improvements to meet City standards for
this roadway). The plans shall also indicate through
drawing or notes that equipment and vehicle
parking and staging areas are to be separated from
the preserved areas by 100 feet or more and shall
prohibit vehicle and equipment from crossing or
entering the willow thicket areas from the north
(except as necessary for any approved revegetation
work). The stormwater management plan shall
ensure that runoff from construction areas is
diverted away from the willow thicket areas as
much as feasible.

The project Applicant,
under the direction of the
City, shall prepare
protection measures (as
identified) before grading
or clearance activities
related to the project.

The City is responsible for
ensuring accurate
measures are
implemented during
construction activities.

The project contractor is
also responsible for
implementing all
measures.

Once by City prior to
issuance of initial
demolition and/or
construction permits.

Cultural Resources
CR-1 Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist
Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, the City and/or subsequent responsible parties shall
retain an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards
(NPS 2020b) (Qualified Archaeologist) to respond to
and address inadvertent discoveries identified for
Retention of a qualified
archaeologist prior to
grading and/or ground
disturbance activities.

The City is responsible for
verifying all construction
monitoring is accurately
performed.

Prior to the
commencement of any
ground-disturbing
activities.
483
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
4-14
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
the duration of construction activities. The
Qualified Archaeologist shall possess experience
and familiarity with historic-period and prehistoric
archaeological resources in the region.

CR-2: Workers Environmental Awareness Program Training
All on-site personnel shall be briefed regarding
unanticipated discoveries prior to the start of
construction activities. A basic presentation shall be
prepared and presented by a Qualified
Archaeologist or other designated archaeologist
working under the direction of the Qualified
Archaeologist to inform all on-site personnel
working on the project about the archaeological
sensitivity of the area. The purpose of the Workers
Environmental Awareness Program training is to
provide specific details on the kinds of
archaeological materials that may be identified
during construction of the project and explain the
importance of and legal basis for the protection of
significant archaeological resources. All on-site
personnel shall also be instructed in the proper
procedures to follow in the event that
archaeological resources or human remains are
uncovered during ground-disturbing activities.

These procedures include stopping or redirecting
work and the immediate notification of the
Qualified Archaeologist, and if appropriate, a
Native American representative, and establishing
an appropriate temporary avoidance buffer. The
necessity of training attendance shall be stated on
all construction plans, and the City and/or
subsequent responsible parties shall maintain
records demonstrating construction worker
training participation.

Retain a qualified
archaeologist to prepare
and conduct WEAP
training for all
construction personnel.

Retain copies of WEAP
training and attendance in
project file.

The City is responsible for
verifying all construction
personnel have attended
WEAP training prior to
construction. The qualified
archaeologist is
responsible for preparing
and conducting the WEAP
training.

Prior to the
commencement of any
ground-disturbing
activities.
484
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-15
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
CR-3 Archaeological Monitoring
The Qualified Archaeologist shall oversee an
archaeological monitor possessing experience and
familiarity with historic-period and prehistoric
resources in the region. The archaeological monitor
shall conduct full-time monitoring within
undisturbed native soils to the project’s proposed
maximum depths of disturbance. In general,
archaeological monitoring shall be limited to initial
ground disturbance, which is defined as
construction-related earthmoving of sediments
from their native place of deposition and does not
include any secondary movement of sediment that
might be required for the project (e.g., backfilling).

The Qualified Archaeologist may adjust monitoring
efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or
discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the
observed potential for construction activities to
encounter archaeological deposits. The
archaeological monitor shall be responsible for
maintaining daily monitoring logs.

If throughout the course of project construction
activities, a discovery is made by construction
personnel and a monitor is not present, the
protocols and procedures outlined in the Workers
Environmental Awareness Program training shall be
followed. Following the completion of project
construction activities, the Qualified Archaeologist
shall prepare an archaeological monitoring report
with the results of the archaeological monitoring
program that meets state and local requirements
and submit the report to the City and the SCCIC at
the California State University at Fullerton. Reports
submitted to the SCCIC shall be formatted and
completed in accordance with the CHRIS document
submittal standards.

Prepare a CRMP to
support the archaeological
and Native American
monitoring effort. Ensure
the CRMP includes
monitoring protocols to
be carried out during
project construction.

Ensure the CRMP outlines
the appropriate measures
to be followed in the
event of a cultural
resource discovery during
project construction.

The qualified
archaeologist is
responsible for preparing
the CRMP. The City is
responsible for reviewing
and approving the CRMP.

Native American groups
that were previously
contacted as part of AB 52
consultation for the
project are responsible for
reviewing and
commenting on the CRMP
prior to its finalization.

Prior to the start of
ground-disturbing
activities and as-needed.
485
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
4-16
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
CR-4 Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources
In the event that previously unknown
archaeological resources are inadvertently
encountered during ground-disturbing activities,
work in a 50-foot radius of the find shall be halted
and redirected, and the Qualified Archaeologist
shall be contacted immediately. The Qualified
Archaeologist or other designated archaeologist
working under the direction of the Qualified
Archaeologist, shall provide recommendations
regarding the resource’s potential significance and
potential treatment in coordination with the City. If
the resource is determined by the Qualified
Archaeologist to be indigenous in origin, then a
Native American representative shall also be
contacted to participate in the evaluation of the
resource. If the Qualified Archaeologist and/or
Native American representative determines it to be
appropriate, archaeological testing for CRHR
eligibility shall be completed. If the resource proves
to be eligible for the CRHR and significant impacts
to the resource cannot be avoided via Project
redesign, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare
a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature
and characteristics of the resource, per the
requirements of the California Code of Regulations
(CCR) Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery
plan shall identify data recovery excavation
methods, measurable objectives, and data
thresholds to reduce any significant impacts to
cultural resources related to the resource. Pursuant
to the data recovery plan, the Qualified
Archaeologist and Native American representative,
as appropriate, shall recover and document the
scientifically consequential information that
justifies the resource’s significance. The City shall
review and approve the treatment plan and
archaeological testing as appropriate, and the
resulting documentation shall be submitted to the
Retain an archaeological
monitor and Native
American monitor to
observe all grounddisturbing activities within
the project site. Ensure
the CRMP documents the
findings during the
project’s monitoring
efforts. Retain copies of
monitoring logs in the
project file.

The archaeological
monitor and Native
American monitor are
responsible for monitoring
activities during
construction. The City is
responsible for retaining
an archaeological and
Native American monitor,
reviewing monitoring logs,
and submitting monitoring
logs to the SCCIC.

During project
construction.
486
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-17
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
regional repository of the CHRIS, per CCR Section
15126.4(b)(3)(C).

Retain an archaeological
monitor and Native
American monitor to
observe all grounddisturbing activities within
the project site. Ensure
the CRMP documents the
findings during the
project’s monitoring
efforts. Retain copies of
monitoring logs in the
project file.

During project
construction.

CR-6 Paleontological Resources
The project applicant shall include a standard
inadvertent discovery clause in every construction
contract to inform contractors of this requirement.

If a potential fossil is discovered during project
construction, construction activity within 50 feet of
the find shall cease until the discovery is examined
by a Qualified Professional Paleontologist as
defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
(SVP 2010). If the find is determined to be
Retain a paleontological
monitor to observe all
ground-disturbing
activities within the
project site. Retain copies
of monitoring logs in the
project file.

The monitor is responsible
for monitoring activities
during construction. The
City is responsible for
retaining a paleontological
monitor, reviewing
monitoring logs, and
submitting monitoring
logs as deemed necessary.

During project
construction.
487
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
4-18
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
scientifically significant, the Qualified Professional
Paleontologist shall direct all mitigation measures
related to paleontological resources consistent
with the SVP (2010) standards, which shall include
fossil salvage, laboratory preparation, curation in a
paleontological repository, and a paleontological
monitoring report. Additionally, the Qualified
Professional Paleontologist and City shall decide if
full- or part-time monitoring shall be instated for
further project-related excavations. A Qualified
Professional Paleontologist is defined by the SVP
(2010) as an individual with:
• A graduate degree in paleontology or
geology, and/or a publication record in peer
reviewed journals; and demonstrated
competence in field techniques,
preparation, identification, curation, and
reporting in the state or geologic province in
which the project occurs. An advanced
degree is less important than demonstrated
competence and regional experience.
• At least two full years professional
experience as assistant to a Project
Paleontologist with administration and
project management experience; supported
by a list of projects and referral contacts.
• Proficiency in recognizing fossils in the field
and determining their significance.
• Expertise in local geology, stratigraphy, and
biostratigraphy.
• Experience collecting vertebrate fossils in
the field.
488
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-19
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Geology and Soils
GEO-1 Geotechnical Recommendations
All recommendations contained within the
Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation
conducted by SubSurface Designs, Inc. (Appendix H
of this EIR) shall be followed for future
development within the project site. These
recommendations include the following:
• Grading for the proposed development shall
include the removal and re-compaction of
the upper six feet (6’) of the existing
alluvium for support of the proposed
foundation system. The grading shall extend
outside of the footprint of the proposed
structure ten feet (10’). A minimum of four
feet (4’) of compacted fill shall be
maintained below the bottom of all
foundations. A layer of bi-directional geogrid
shall be placed within the bottom of the
grading limits prior to the placement of
compacted fill. Portions of the bottom
excavation for the recommended removals
are anticipated to require stabilization prior
to the placement of compacted fill. In areas
where excessive pumping is encountered,
the geogrid shall be covered with one foot
(1’) of six inch (6”) minus rock then covered
with a geofabric. The earth material outside
of the grading limits for the proposed
structure shall be removed and recompacted down two feet (2’) for support in all areas to receive concrete slab, decking, or
paving.
• Grading shall be carried forth as described in
the Grading and Earthwork section. Based
on the granular nature of the upper
alluvium, each layer shall be compacted to
95percent of the maximum density as
Retain a qualified
professional geologist or
professional engineer to
ensure all
recommendations are
followed prior to issuance
of grading permits.

The City is responsible for
reviewing that the
contractor implements
remedial measures and all
recommendation are
performed during
construction.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits and
throughout construction.
489
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
4-20
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
determined by the latest version of ASTM D
1557.
• Structures shall be supported by a mat
foundation.

Foundations shall be designed as outlined in the
Foundations section.

GEO-2 Drainage and Maintenance
Drainage and maintenance recommendations
included in the Preliminary Soils Engineering
Investigation shall be incorporated into the design
of the project. These recommendations include,
but are not limited to:
• A comprehensive drainage system shall be
designed and incorporated into the final
plans.
• Pad areas shall be maintained and planted in
a way that will allow the drainage system to
function as intended.

Positive pad drainage shall be incorporated into the
final plans. All drainage from the roof and pad shall
be directed so that water does not pond adjacent
to the foundations or flow toward them. All
drainage shall be collected and directed via nonerosive devices to a location approved by the building official.

Retain a qualified
professional geologist or
professional engineer to
prepare a SMP for the
project. Ensure the SMP
establishes remedial
measures and soil
management practices to
ensure worker safety and
prevent off-site migration
of contaminants. Retain a
copy of the SMP in the
project file.

The qualified professional
geologist or professional
engineer is responsible for
preparing the SMP. The
City is responsible for
reviewing and approving
the SMP and verifying that
the contractor
implements remedial
measures and soil
management practices
during construction.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits and
throughout construction.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-1(a) Increased Efficiency
The application shall include the following energy
savings requirements in construction and building
management contracts.
• The project shall comply with the latest Title
24 standards under the California Green
Building Code.

Start or grading through
end of construction.

City shall be responsible
for ensuring all efficiency
strategies have been met
for the project.

Issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
490
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-21
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
• The project shall use solar or low-emission
water heaters in new buildings/residences.
• The project shall require that landscapers
providing services use electric or batterypowered equipment, or other internal combustion equipment that is either
certified by the California Air Resources
Board or is three years old or less at the
time of use, to the extent that such
equipment is reasonably available and
competitively priced in Ventura County
(meaning that the equipment can be easily
purchased in stores in Ventura County and
the cost of the equipment is not more than
20 percent greater than the cost of standard
equipment).
•
GHG-1(b) Renewable Energy
The proposed project shall install solar panels and/or
similar equipment that generates electricity from
sunlight and/or wind. The owner/tenant of the
building may elect to install such equipment to
service the building and/or enter into a commercially
reasonable public or private utility agreement for
purposes of generating energy or transmission, if
requested by the City and economically feasible.

Start or grading through
end of construction.

City shall be responsible
for ensuring all efficiency
strategies have been met
for the project.

Issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.

GHG-1(c) Passive Energy Conservation Design
The proposed project shall include passive energy
conservation design elements, including building
material massing, orientation, landscape shading,
recycled or low-impact materials, window glazing to
increase insulation, water circulation pumps to
reduce water use, and/or similar measures shown to
be equally effective.
491
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
4-22
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
GHG-1(d) Natural Ventilation
The applicant shall include natural ventilation in
building design plans whenever feasible.

Start or grading through
end of construction.

City shall be responsible
for ensuring all efficiency
strategies have been met
for the project.

Issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.

Noise
NOI-1 Construction Noise Control Plan
The construction contractor shall prepare and
implement a Construction Noise Control Plan. The
construction contractor shall submit the
Construction Noise Control Plan to the City of
Oxnard Public Works Department for review and
approval prior to initiation of construction. The
details of the Construction Noise Control Plan shall
be included as part of the permit application drawing
set and as part of the construction drawing set. The
Construction Noise Control Plan shall include the
following measures:
• At least 21 days prior to the start of
construction activities, all off-site businesses
and residents within 500 feet of the project
site shall be notified of the planned
construction activities. The notification shall
include a brief description of the project, the
activities that would occur, the hours when
construction would occur, and the overall
duration of the construction period. The
notification shall include the telephone
numbers of the City’s and contractor’s
authorized representatives that are assigned
to respond in the event of a noise or
vibration complaint.
• At least 10 days prior to the start of
construction activities, a sign shall be posted
at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly
visible to the public, that includes permitted
construction days and hours, as well as the
The project Applicant,
under the direction of the
City, shall prepare a noise
control plan prior to
commencement of
construction related
activities.

City shall be responsible
for ensuring that the noise
control plan is accurately
described and followed.

Prior to issuance of a
grading and/or building
permit.
492
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-23
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
telephone numbers of the City’s and
contractor’s authorized representatives that
are assigned to respond in the event of a
noise or vibration complaint. If the
authorized contractor’s representative
receives a complaint, the representative
shall investigate, take appropriate corrective
action, and report the action to the City.
• During the entire active construction period,
equipment, tools, and trucks used for
project construction shall utilize the best
available noise control techniques (e.g.,
improved mufflers, use of intake silencers,
ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically
attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever
feasible. During the entire active
construction period, stationary noise
sources shall be located as far from sensitive
receivers as possible, muffled, and enclosed
within temporary sheds or insulation
barriers, or other measures for equivalent
noise reduction will be incorporated to the
extent feasible.
• The contractor shall be required to use
impact tools that are hydraulically or
electrically powered wherever feasible.

Where the use of pneumatic tools is
unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the
compressed air exhaust shall be used along
with external noise jackets on the tools.
• Stockpiling of materials shall be located as
far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive
receptors.
• Signs shall be posted at the job site
entrance(s) to reinforce the prohibition of
unnecessary engine idling. All equipment
shall be turned off if not in use for more
than five minutes.
493
City of Oxnard
Avalon Homes Project
4-24
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
• Use of stereos and other amplified noise not
necessary for the completion of construction
work shall be prohibited.

During the entire active construction period and to
the extent feasible, the use of noise producing
signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells
shall be for safety warning purposes only. The
construction manager shall ensure the use of use
smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust
the alarm level based on the background noise level
or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human
spotters in compliance with safety requirements and
laws.

NOI-2 Alternative Construction Equipment
Prior to the issuance of a grading and building
permit, the following measures shall be included as
notes on all construction plans:

Construction activities that utilize large earthmoving
equipment (rated at 100 hp or more) within 15 feet
of offsite residential structures shall be conducted
with small offroad equipment limited to 100 hp or
less.

The project Applicant,
under the direction of the
City, shall prepare a noise
control plan with notes
that state NOI-2
equipment requirements
on the plans.

City shall be responsible
for ensuring that the noise
control plan is accurately
described and followed.

Prior to issuance of a
grading and/or building
permit.

Transportation
T-2 Bicycle Improvements
The applicant shall include bicycle parking at the
proposed small parking lot for the open space area
in the northern area of the project site. The number
of bicycle parking spaces shall be no less the number
of vehicle parking spaces provided at the parking lot.

The design and finish of the bicycle parking (e.g.,
bicycle rack, bicycle lockers, etc.) shall use natural
colors, such as shades of green and tan found in the
surrounding open space area to the north. The
project applicant shall also include a Class III bicycle land on the proposed internal circulation road. The
Class III bicycle lane shall extend the full length of
The project Applicant,
under the direction of the
City, shall ensure the
inclusion of bicycle
parking for the open space
area in the northern area
of the project site prior to
completion of
construction activities.

The City is responsible for
ensuring that bicycle
parking has been
implemented.

The construction
contractor is responsible
for implementing the
bicycle parking during
construction activities.

Prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
494
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-25
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action
Implementation Monitoring
& Reporting Responsibility
Implementing Timing
Requirements
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
the internal access road, effectively providing a
bicycle-lane connections between existing Dunes
Street at the north end and Canal Street at the south
end.
495

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD
RESOLUTION NO. _______________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD

UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSIONS APPROVAL OF PLANNING
AND ZONING PERMIT NO. 16-400-02 (COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT) FOR 56 FOR-SALE, SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS,

COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC OPEN SPACE WITH LIGHT

RECREATION USE, AND ASSOCIATED PARKING ON THE EXISTING
VACANT 38.33-ACRE PROPERTY TO BE SUBDIVIDED WITHIN THE

OXNARD DUNES NEIGHBORHOOD GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF

HARBOR BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF FIFTH STREET, NORTH OF WOOLEY

ROAD, AND WEST OF THE EDISON CANAL, WITHIN THE CITY OF
OXNARD SUBJECT TO CERTAIN FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS. FILED BY OXNARD DUNES LLC, MIKE MARLOW, 1015 S. HARBOR
BOULEVARD, OXNARD, CA 93035.

WHEREAS, on May 8, 2016, property owner, Oxnard Dunes LLC, Mike Marlow, (the “Applicant”), submitted Planning and Zoning Permit Nos. 16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit) and 16-300-03 (Tentative Map) to subdivide and develop 65 residential units on three parcels within the Oxnard Dunes Neighborhood (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Oxnard (“Planning Commission”) conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider Applicant’s request to approve Planning and Zoning Permit No. 16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit), considered recommendations on 16-300-03 (Tentative Map), and considered Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2016-01 (State Clearinghouse No. 2016051075)(the “FEIR”) for 56 single-family dwelling units and associated development; and WHEREAS, if the aforementioned applications are collectively approved by the City of Oxnard, the Project would be permitted to be developed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find the Final EIR No. 2016-01 was completed in compliance with CEQA, and the FEIR was presented to the City Council as the decision-making body of the Lead Agency, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR prior to approving the project, and the FEIR reflects the lead agency‘s independent judgment and analysis; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council certify FEIR No. 2016-01 (State Clearinghouse No. 2012051080) and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The FEIR was prepared to analyze potential impacts associated with the approval and the development of Avalon Homes. The FEIR No. 2016-01 found one area of significant impacts (Transportation); and
496
Resolution No. ____________
PZ#16-400-02 -Coastal Development Permit -Avalon Homes
City Council Hearing Date: May 19, 2026

Page 2 of 40 ends

WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed by the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and the DAC has prepared conditions of approval that are incorporated within the recommended permits; and
WHEREAS, the comments of the Planning Commissioners, members of the public, and interested groups and agencies have been adequately responded to; and WHEREAS, the Coastal Development Permit is consistent with the policies and directives in the 2030 General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning Ordinance to allow development to those areas that can be served by existing or planned utilities, streets, and service systems; and
WHEREAS, the Commission considered FEIR 2016-01 prior to taking action on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Project conforms to the City of Oxnard 2030 General Plan elements and Local Coastal Program thereof, and the Oxnard City Code for the reasons set forth in the Planning Commission and City Council Staff Reports, subject to City Council approval of the Tentative Map (PZ 16-300-03) and Final EIR 2016-01 ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved Planning and Zoning Permit No. 16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit) Resolution No. 2026-03 with modifications to the affordable housing agreement conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2026, the City of Oxnard Community Development Department filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Planning and Zoning Permit No. 16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit) for the City Council to review and make a final determination the Project applications together; and WHEREAS, on May 19, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request to approve Planning and Zoning Permit No. 16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit) and carefully reviewed the Planning Commission’s amended project recommending approval of the Coastal Development Permit, subject to certain findings and conditions; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2026, 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, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public resources Code § 21000, et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations, §15000, et seq., CEQA Guidelines), and the City’s Environmental Review Guidelines, the City of Oxnard as the Lead Agency, has prepared a EIR No. 2016-01 (State 497
Resolution No. ____________
PZ#16-400-02 -Coastal Development Permit -Avalon Homes
City Council Hearing Date: May 19, 2026

Page 3 of 40 ends

Clearinghouse No. 2016051075); and
WHEREAS, the City Council found that Final EIR No. 2016-01 was completed in compliance with CEQA, and the final EIR was presented to the City Council as the decision-making body of the Lead Agency, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and the final EIR reflects the lead agency‘s independent judgment and analysis; and WHEREAS, the City Council certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 2016-01 (State Clearinghouse No. 2016051075) and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council concurrently approved the resolution approving Coastal Development Permit (Planning and Zoning Permit No. 16-400-02); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Applicant agrees with the necessity of and accepts all elements, requirements, and conditions of this Resolution as being a reasonable manner of preserving, protecting, providing for, and fostering the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry in general and the persons who work, visit or live in this development in particular; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2026, the City Council deliberated the merits of the Project and Appeal and made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Planning and Zoning Permit No. 16-400-02; 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 Planning Commission Staff Report and all attachments thereto, pursuant to Section 17-57(5), the City Council finds with respect to the Coastal Development Permit:
(1) The proposed use is conditionally permitted within the subject sub-zone and complies with all of the applicable provisions of this chapter.

The proposed project is conditionally permitted within the Coastal Multiple-Family (R-2-C) sub-zone because there is a proposed subdivision of a 498
Resolution No. ____________
PZ#16-400-02 -Coastal Development Permit -Avalon Homes
City Council Hearing Date: May 19, 2026

Page 4 of 40 ends

38.33-acre parcel for 56 for-sale, single-family residential units and open space available for public use, and the project meets the definition of appealable. This project is appealable because the subject site is within 300 feet of the Edison Canal, which is considered a waterway. Pursuant to Section 17-57(B)(5) (Coastal Permit Procedures) of the Coastal Zoning Code, the proposed project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission, and is thus subject to the Planning Commission’s approval of a Coastal Development Permit.

The project is subject to the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan identified in the Local Implementation Plan (Chapter 17) relating to habitat areas, visual resources, wetland restoration, cultural resources, and coastal access and recreation. The project consists of 56 single-family residences along a private street containing a community area, parking lots, sidewalks, pathways, and public access to the open space with public trails. The northern portion of the project site remains protected and will be restored with further vegetation consistent with the dune habitat and wetlands. The proposed project demonstrates compliance with the Local Coastal Program and General Plan land use designation of Residential Existing (REX) and Resource Protection (RP).

As conditioned, the Project is consistent with the Coastal Act policies and Local Coastal Plan policies that are applicable to the project. (2) The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the subject sub-zone.

The proposed Project and use is consistent with uses considered by the Coastal R-2-C and RP zones. The proposed 56 single-family residential units are sited to connect to existing infrastructure. The proposed private street completes the public road extensions from Dunes Street and Canal Street. The open space will be preserved and restored, maintaining the integrity of the site. The residential use is contiguous with the residences of the Oxnard Dunes Community, and the site design and architectural features of the development preserve the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed use and improvements are not expected to have adverse effects or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures or to the public health, safety, or general welfare.

As conditioned, the Project is consistent with the Coastal Act policies and Local Coastal Plan policies that are applicable to the project. The Project is not expected to negatively affect the integrity or character of the R-2-C and RP zones, adjacent zones, or immediate vicinity.
(3) The location and intensity of use of the subject site would be physically suitable and would protect and maintain adjacent coastal resources. 499
Resolution No. ____________
PZ#16-400-02 -Coastal Development Permit -Avalon Homes
City Council Hearing Date: May 19, 2026

Page 5 of 40 ends

The Project site is adjacent to the existing Oxnard Dunes Neighborhood of single-family and multi-family development, native vegetation, and the Edison canal waterway. The Local Coastal Program identified and planned for the project site as REX (residential) on the southern portion and RP (open space) on the northern portion of the site. The project proposes residential development consistent with each zone meeting building height, parking, private and public open space, setbacks, and landscaping. The residential development was reduced in size from 65 to 56 residential units to ensure the project is physically suitable adjacent to the dune habitat. The open space consists of dunes and other vegetation that would be protected in place and the intent is to encourage outdoor recreation with a public walking path and parking, which will enhance the use of this parcel near coastal resources with both active and passive recreation.

The lot is not near a beach public access way and the proposed development does not prevent beach access as the site is on the east side of Harbor Boulevard.

There’s no anticipated impact to the Edison canal waterway as the development is sited over 150 feet away from the canal. The location and proposed intensity of the Project is suitable for the site and the 56-units and associated development would not significantly impact coastal resources.
(4) The proposed use would be compatible with the land uses presently on the subject site.

The subject 38.33-acre site is currently vacant containing a variety of vegetation communities associated with coastal dune scrub. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the existing residential and resource protection zones. The RP zone is to preserve, protect, and restore environmentally sensitive habitat areas and open space. The proposed use for passive activity does not impede the protection of the habitat area. The intent of the conditional use is to encourage light outdoor recreational uses, which will enhance coastal dependent areas. This use is compatible with the existing land use. The 56 residential units within the R-2-C zone meets the intent of the sub-zone by ensuring that the development meets the development standards and maintains the northern habitat area. The project is conditioned to mitigate the displacement of native habitat and wetlands within the portion of the site zoned RP. This proposed restoration is compatible with the coastal dune habitat that presently exists onsite. (5) The proposed use would be compatible with existing and future land uses within the sub-zone and the general area in which the proposed use would be located.

The proposed 56 single-family dwelling units and proposed in the existing R-2-C zone intended for residential development. The proposed public open space with walking trail and parking is proposed within the existing RP zone intended for preservation of open space and conditional allowed passive recreational uses. The 500
Resolution No. ____________
PZ#16-400-02 -Coastal Development Permit -Avalon Homes
City Council Hearing Date: May 19, 2026

Page 6 of 40 ends

proposed uses for the subject property are compatible with the zoning and land uses. The general area consists of the Oxnard Dunes Neighborhood with single-family and multifamily residential structures and the proposed development is directly adjacent to the developed community. The site will remain compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and open space for existing, proposed, and future land uses within the subzone and general area. (6) There are adequate public services for the proposed use, including, but not limited to fire and police protection, water, sanitation and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use will not be detrimental to public health and safety.

The project is within existing planning and population projections, and within the service areas and capabilities of Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, and other public utilities and services. The project development area is generally limited to approximately 8-acres adding 56 residential units and private infrastructure that connects to the adjacent existing developed neighborhood. As such, its development would not interfere with the provision of new energy facilities and existing utility service lines exist in the project area that would serve the project site. Furthermore, the project would comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval and the energy efficiency standards in the California Green Building Code, connection to existing public utilities, and within the City boundaries that would be serviced by the City of Oxnard fire and police.

The proposed residential development and public open space will not be detrimental to public health and safety.
(7) The Proposed use will provide a type and level of public access consistent with the access policies and standards of the certified Oxnard Coastal Land Use Plan.

Implementation of the proposed Project will not affect existing vertical and lateral public access to the beach as the subject site is not located adjacent to a beach public access way. Although the project site is on the east side of Harbor Boulevard with no direct access to the coast, the Project provides coastal view opportunities with the proposed walking path within the open space area on the northern portion of the property. Therefore, present public access to the beach would remain unchanged and would be improved by this Project. (8) The proposed use will be appropriate in light of an established need, based upon the underlying goals and objectives of specific Oxnard Coastal Land Use Plan policies, applicable to the proposed location.

The R-2-C zone is to provide multiple family residential options within an existing developed neighborhood and the RP zone provides open space for 501
Resolution No. ____________
PZ#16-400-02 -Coastal Development Permit -Avalon Homes
City Council Hearing Date: May 19, 2026

Page 7 of 40 ends

various forms of passive outdoor recreation of either a public or private nature.

The residential use proposes an appropriate density based on the Coastal Land Use Plan and is designed to meet the policies, goals, and objectives. Mitigation measures from the Final Environmental Impact Report and conditions of approval ensure the Project remains consistent with the underlying standards, policies, goals, and objectives of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Therefore, the proposed uses are appropriate in light of established need, based upon the goals and objectives in the LCP.
(9) The proposed use would be consistent with all the applicable policies of the certified Oxnard Coastal Land Use Plan.

As conditioned the proposed project is consistent with all applicable policies as shown in the consistency analysis provided in the Staff report. The Project is conditioned to meet the policies addressed in the staff report.

SECTION 2. The City Council, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), determines that the Project after implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures identified in the FEIR, would result in one Class I significant and unavoidable impact and has considered the Findings of Fact, Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations identified and discussed in Final EIR 2016-01.

SECTION 3. This Resolution shall not become effective unless and until the City of Oxnard City Council adopts EIR 2016-01 and approves the associated Tentative Map (PZ No. 16-300-03). If the City Council fails to approve any of these permits, then this Resolution shall become null and void and be of no further force and effect.

SECTION 4. Based on the findings set forth herein, the City Council hereby approves Planning and Zoning Permit No. 16-400-02 (Coastal Development Permit), subject to the conditions of approval.

SECTION 5. The decision of the City Council shall be final unless an appeal of the action is filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 17-58 of the Oxnard City Code.

SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. [Conditions on next page.]
502
Resolution No. ____________
PZ#16-400-02 -Coastal Development Permit -Avalon Homes
City Council Hearing Date: May 19, 2026

Page 8 of 40 ends

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, while some are taken from environmental documents (e.g. MND).

Departments and Divisions
CA City Attorney TR Traffic Division
PD Police Department DS Building and Engineering Division ER Environmental Resources FD Fire Department
HD Housing Department CE Code Compliance Division
CA City Attorney PL Planning Division

GENERAL PROJECT CONDITIONS

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

2. This permit is granted for the plans approved and dated May 19, 2026 (“the plans”) on file with the Planning Division. The project shall conform to the plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions. A minor change may be granted for minimal changes under the procedures set in OCC Sec. 17-57. A Coastal Development Permit amendment shall be required for substantial changes or increases of the approved project. (PL)

3. This permit shall automatically become null and void 24 months from the date of its issuance, unless the 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)

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 Community Development Department Engineering Division Manager allows the Developer to provide security or an executed agreement approved by the City Attorney to ensure completion of such improvements. (DS)
503
Resolution No. ____________
PZ#16-400-02 -Coastal Development Permit -Avalon Homes
City Council Hearing Date: May 19, 2026

Page 9 of 40 ends

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)

6. 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)

7. 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)

8. 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)

9. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to hold harmless, indemnify and defend (with counsel selected by the City in its discretion) the City, its City Council, and each member thereof, and every officer, employee, representative or agent of City, from any and all liability, claims, demands, actions, damages (whether in contract or tort, including personal injury, death at any time, or property damage), costs and financial loss, including all costs and expenses and fees of litigation or arbitration, that arise directly or indirectly from the City's approval of this permit or other permits; from construction of the project or any part thereof approved herein; and from land failure, erosion, inundation, or wave attacks on the subject property or on any property near or adjacent thereto, arising out of or resulting from or caused by work performed or authorized by Developer. (PL/CA)

10. This permit is granted subject to the City’s approval of a tentative map (PZ 16-300-03) and final map and recordation of the final map. The City shall issue building permits only after such recordation, unless otherwise approved by both the Planning Division Manager and the Building and Engineering Manager. Before occupying any structures or initiating any use approved by this permit, Developer shall comply with all conditions of the tentative and final map. (PL/DS)

11. The subject Coastal Development Permit shall not become effective until 20 working days have elapsed without appeal to the Coastal Commission following the proper receipt by the Coastal Commission’s Executive Director of the notice of permit issuance pursuant to Section 13316 of the Coastal Commission Code of Regulations. Such notice to the Coastal Commission shall be given by Planning Division staff as described by Sections 17-58 H through J of the Oxnard City Code. (PL)

PLANNING DIVISION STANDARD CONDITIONS

12. Before the City issues building permits, Developer shall include a reproduction of all conditions of this permit in all sets of construction documents and specifications for the project. (PL)
504
Resolution No. ____________
PZ#16-400-02 -Coastal Development Permit -Avalon Homes
City Council Hearing Date: May 19, 2026

Page 10 of 40 ends

13. 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). Landscape plan shall show proper water meter size, backflow prevention devices, and cross‑connection control. (DS)(PL)

14. Prior to the issuance of building permits for a residential development that includes any model houses, Developer shall obtain the approval of the Planning Division or designee for a low water-using landscape plan. Developer shall install low water-using landscape design and irrigation systems for at least one of the model houses in any cluster of two or more model houses, thereby demonstrating to prospective buyers the feasibility and aesthetic qualities of low water-using landscape design and irrigation systems. Developer shall provide appropriate signs, shown on the landscape plan, explaining that the model house utilizes a low water-using landscape and listing the plant materials used. (PL)

15. Exterior lighting of the site, including parking areas, shall be between 1 and 7-foot candles and shall be in harmony with existing adjacent lighting schemes. Lighting bollards shall not be used as part of the foot candle calculation on photometric sheets.

This condition shall only apply to the parking area of the open spaces parcel.

16. 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)

17. Outdoor lighting instruments shall not be placed in close proximity to trees. In the event outdoor lighting instruments and trees are in close proximity a 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. 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. Plan sheet shall include:
a. Tree species table which shows canopy bottom, top, and broadest diameter at a 20-year maturity.
b. Areas where walkways exist opposite from parking stalls, Pole and arm instruments should be placed directly opposite from finger-planters. c. Luminaires used in the photometric calculations shall only include those instruments mounted 8-feet or more above walking/driving surface. (PL) 505
Resolution No. ____________
PZ#16-400-02 -Coastal Development Permit -Avalon Homes
City Council Hearing Date: May 19, 2026

Page 11 of 40 ends

18. 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. (PL/B)

19. 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)

20. 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 and habitat areas. (PL)

21. Developer shall provide utility meters, mailboxes and address directories, placed in decorative cabinets and clustered for efficient access for residents and service persons.

Developer shall coordinate placement and design of such items accordingly in plan check with the appropriate utility service provider and the United States Postal Service, prior to issuance of building permits. (PL)

22. Prior to the close of escrow for each dwelling unit, Developer shall provide the buyer with a written guarantee that the exterior finishes of the dwelling unit will remain in good condition for at least five (5) years from the final building permit inspection and sign off.

Developer shall provide a copy of the guarantee to Planning staff prior to final Planning Division inspection and sign off. (PL)

23. Developer shall establish a homeowners association and the association shall be responsible for the maintenance of parking, landscape, recreation and other interior areas held in common by the association and for the enforcement of Conditions Covenants & Restrictions related to property maintenance. (PL)

24. Developer shall pay Quimby Fees (fees for park acquisition) before issuance of building permits. The amount of the fee shall be calculated and verified by the Planning Division at the time of payment. (PL)

25. Developer shall recess or screen new 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) 506
Resolution No. ____________
PZ#16-400-02 -Coastal Development Permit -Avalon Homes
City Council Hearing Date: May 19, 2026

Page 12 of 40 ends

Oxnard City CouncilMay 19, 2026

Oxnard City Council
May 19, 2026