Agenda packet — Oxnard City Council, October 20, 2026 (part 6 of 7)

1076
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 22 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT F- FEDERAL FUNDS CERTIFICATIONS
Construction”). In accordance with the statute, contractors must be required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not less than the prevailing wages specified in a wage determination made by the Secretary of Labor. In addition, contractors must be required to pay wages not less than once a week. The non-Federal entity must place a copy of the current prevailing wage determination issued by the Department of Labor in each solicitation. The decision to award a contract or subcontract must be conditioned upon the acceptance of the wage determination. The non - Federal entity must report all suspected or reported violations to the Federal awarding agency. The contracts must also include a provision for compliance with the Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act (40 U.S.C. 3145), as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 3, “Contractors and Subcontractors on Public Building or Public Work Financed in Whole or in Part by Loans or Grants from the United States”). The Act provides that each contractor or subrecipient must be prohibited from inducing, by any means, any person employed in the construction, completion, or repair of public work, to give up any part of the compensation to which he or she is otherwise entitled. The non -Federal entity must report all suspected or reported violations to the Federal awarding agency.

Pursuant to Federal Rule (D) above, when a Participating Agency expends federal funds during the term of an award for all contracts and subgrants for construction or repair, offeror will be in compliance with all applicable Davis-Bacon Act provisions.

Does offeror agree? YES Initials of Authorized Representative of offeror (E) Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701-3708). Where applicable, all contracts awarded by the non-Federal entity in excess of $100,000 that involve the employment of mechanics or laborers must include a provision for compliance with 40 U.S.C. 3702 and 3704, as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5). Under 40 U.S.C. 3702 of the Act, each contractor must be required to compute the wages of every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard work week of 40 hours. Work in excess of the standard work week is permissible provided that the worker is compensated at a rate of not less than one and a half times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in the work week. The requirements of 40 U.S.C. 3704 are applicable to construction work and provide that no laborer or mechanic must be required to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous or dangerous. These requirements do not apply to the purchases of supplies or materials or articles ordinarily available on the open market, or contracts for transportation or transmission of intelligence.

Pursuant to Federal Rule (E) above, when a Participating Agency expends federal funds, offeror certifies that offeror will be in compliance with all applicable provisions of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act during the term of an award for all contracts by Participating Agency resulting from this procurement process.

Does offeror agree? YES Initials of Authorized Representative of offeror (F) Rights to Inventions Made Under a Contract or Agreement. If the Federal award meets the definition of “funding agreement” under 37 CFR §401.2 (a) and the recipient or subrecipient wishes to enter into a contract with a small business firm or nonprofit organization regarding the substitution of parties, assignment or performance of experimental, developmental, or research work under that “funding agreement,” the recipient or subrecipient must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR Part 401, “Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business Firms Under Government Grants, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements,” and any implementing regulations issued by the awarding agency.

Pursuant to Federal Rule (F) above, when federal funds are expended by Participating Agency, the offeror certifies that during the term of an award for all contracts by Participating Agency resulting from this procurement process, the offeror agrees to comply with all applicable requirements as referenced in Federal Rule (F) above.

Does offeror agree? YES Initials of Authorized Representative of offeror (G) Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387), as amended— Contracts and subgrants of amounts in excess of $150,000 must contain a provision that requires the non - Federal award to agree to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401- 7671q) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251- 1387). Violations must be reported to the Federal awarding agency and the Regional Office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Agreement No. 32700179

Page 107 of 137 ends

1077
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 23 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT F- FEDERAL FUNDS CERTIFICATIONS
Pursuant to Federal Rule (G) above, when federal funds are expended by Participating Agency, the offeror certifies that during the term of an award for all contracts by Participating Agency member resulting from this procurement process, the offeror agrees to comply with all applicable requirements as referenced in Federal Rule (G) above.

Does offeror agree? YES Initials of Authorized Representative of offeror (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the government wide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549.

Pursuant to Federal Rule (H) above, when federal funds are expended by Participating Agency, the offeror certifies that during the term of an award for all contracts by Participating Agency resulting from this procurement process, the offeror certifies that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation by any federal department or agency.

Does offeror agree? YES Initials of Authorized Representative of offeror (I) Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment (31 U.S.C. 1352)—Contractors that apply or bid for an award exceeding $100,000 must file the required certification. Each tier certifies to the tier above that it will not and has not used Federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with obtaining any Federal contract, grant or any other award covered by 31 U.S.C. 1352. Each tier must also disclose any lobbying with non-Federal funds that takes place in connection with obtaining any Federal award. Such disclosures are forwarded from tier to tier up to the non-Federal award.

Pursuant to Federal Rule (I) above, when federal funds are expended by Participating Agency, the offeror certifies that during the term and after the awarded term of an award for all contracts by Participating Agency resulting from this procurement process, the offeror certifies that it is in compliance with all applicable provisions of the Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment (31 U.S.C. 1352). The undersigned further certifies that:
(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid for on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of a Federal contract, the making of a Federal grant, the making of a Federal loan, the entering into a cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal grant or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying”, in accordance with its instructions. (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all covered subawards exceeding $100,000 in Federal funds at all appropriate tiers and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

Does offeror agree? YES Initials of Authorized Representative of offeror

RECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTS INVOLVING FEDERAL FUNDS When federal funds are expended by Participating Agency for any contract resulting from this procurement process, offeror certifies that it will comply with the record retention requirements detailed in 2 CFR § 200.333. The offeror further certifies that offeror will retain all records as required by 2 CFR § 200.333 for a period of three years after grantees or subgrantees submit final expenditure reports or quarterly or annual financial reports, as applicable, and all other pending matters are closed.

Does offeror agree? YES Initials of Authorized Representative of offeror Agreement No. 32700179

Page 108 of 137 ends

1078
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 24 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT F- FEDERAL FUNDS CERTIFICATIONS

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT When Participating Agency expends federal funds for any contract resulting from this procurement process, offeror certifies that it will comply with the mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the state energy conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6321 et seq.; 49 C.F.R. Part 18).

Does offeror agree? YES Initials of Authorized Representative of offeror

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICA PROVISIONS To the extent purchases are made with Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, or Federal Transit Administration funds, offeror certifies that its products comply with all applicable provisions of the Buy America Act and agrees to provide such certification or applicable waiver with respect to specific products to any Participating Agency upon request.

Purchases made in accordance with the Buy America Act must still follow the applicable procurement rules calling for free and open competition.

Does offeror agree? YES Initials of Authorized Representative of offeror PROCUREMENT OF RECOVERED MATERIALS REQUIREMENTS FOR – 2 C.F.R. §200.322 Participating Agency and its contractors must comply with section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The requirements of Section 6002 include procuring only items designated in guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 CFR part 247 that contain the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable, consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level of competition, where the purchase price of the item exceeds $10,000 or the value of the quantity acquired during the preceding fiscal year exceeded $10,000; procuring solid waste management services in a manner that maximizes energy and resource recovery; and establishing an affirmative procurement program for procurement of recovered materials identified in the EPA guidelines..

Does Vendor agree? YES Initials of Authorized Representative of Vendor CERTIFICATION OF ACCESS TO RECORDS – 2 C.F.R. § 200.336 Offeror agrees that the Inspector General of the Agency or any of their duly authorized representatives shall have access to any books, documents, papers and records of offeror that are directly pertinent to offeror’s discharge of its obligations under the Contract for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions. The right also includes timely and reasonable access to offeror’s personnel for the purpose of interview and discussion relating to such documents.

Does offeror agree? YES Initials of Authorized Representative of offeror

CERTIFICATION OF AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
Offeror understands and agrees that it shall be solely responsible for compliance with the patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148 and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 111-152 (collectively the Affordable Care Act “ACA”). The Offeror shall bear sole responsibility for providing health care benefits for its employees who provide services as required by Federal law.

Does offeror agree? YES Initials of Authorized Representative of offeror

CERTIFICATION OF APPLICABILITY TO SUBCONTRACTORS
Offeror agrees that all contracts it awards pursuant to the Contract shall be bound by the foregoing terms and conditions.

Does offeror agree? YES Initials of Authorized Representative of offeror Offeror agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations and ordinances, as applicable. It is further acknowledged that offeror certifies compliance with all provisions, laws, acts, regulations, etc. as specifically noted above.

Offeror’s Name: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agreement No. 32700179

Page 109 of 137 ends

1079
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 25 of 44 ends

Address, City, State, and Zip Code: _____________________________________________________________________________ Phone Number:___________________________________ Fax Number: ______________________________________ Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative:______________________________________________________________________ Email Address: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Authorized Representative: ____________________________Date: _________________________________ Agreement No. 32700179

Page 110 of 137 ends

1080
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 26 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE

NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
Suppliers intending to do business in the State of New Jersey must comply with policies and procedures required under New Jersey statues. All offerors submitting proposals must complete the following forms specific to the State of New Jersey. Completed forms should be submitted with the offeror’s response to the RFP. Failure to complete the New Jersey packet will impact OMNIA Partners’ ability to promote the Master Agreement in the State of New Jersey.

DOC #1 Ownership Disclosure Form
DOC #2 Non-Collusion Affidavit
DOC #3 Affirmative Action Affidavit
DOC #4 Political Contribution Disclosure Form
DOC #5 Stockholder Disclosure Certification
DOC #6 Certification of Non-Involvement in Prohibited Activities in Iran DOC #7 New Jersey Business Registration Certificate
New Jersey suppliers are required to comply with the following New Jersey statutes when applicable:
all anti-discrimination laws, including those contained in N.J.S.A. 10:2-1 through N.J.S.A. 10:2-14, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, and N.J.S.A. 10:5-31 through 10:5-38; Prevailing Wage Act, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.26, for all contracts within the contemplation of the Act;
Public Works Contractor Registration Act, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.26; and Bid and Performance Security, as required by the applicable municipal or state statutes.

Agreement No. 32700179

Page 111 of 137 ends

1081
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 27 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
DOC #1

OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM
(N.J.S. 52:25-24.2)
Pursuant to the requirements of P.L. 1999, Chapter 440 effective April 17, 2000 (Local Public Contracts Law), the offeror shall complete the form attached to these specifications listing the persons owning 10 percent (10%) or more of the firm presenting the proposal.

Company Name:

Street:

City, State, Zip Code:

Complete as appropriate:

I _______________________________________, certify that I am the sole owner of ____________________________________, that there are no partners and the business is not incorporated, and the provisions of N.J.S. 52:25-24.2 do not apply.

OR:

I _______________________________________, a partner in___________________________, do hereby certify that the following is a list of all individual partners who own a 10% or greater interest therein. I further certify that if one (1) or more of the partners is itself a corporation or partnership, there is also set forth the names and addresses of the stockholders holding 10% or more of that corporation’s stock or the individual partners owning 10% or greater interest in that partnership.

OR:

I _______________________________________, an authorized representative of ______________________, a corporation, do hereby certify that the following is a list of the names and addresses of all stockholders in the corporation who own 10% or more of its stock of any class. I further certify that if one (1) or more of such stockholders is itself a corporation or partnership, that there is also set forth the names and addresses of the stockholders holding 10% or more of the corporation’s stock or the individual partners owning a 10% or greater interest in that partnership. (Note: If there are no partners or stockholders owning 10% or more interest, indicate none.) Name Address Interest
I further certify that the statements and information contained herein, are complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Date Authorized Signature and Title
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 112 of 137 ends

1082
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 28 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
DOC #2

NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT
Company Name: ________________________________________
Street: ________________________________________________ City, State, Zip Code:____________________________________ State of ________________________________________________ County of ______________________________________________ I, of the_______________________________________________ Name City
in the County of ____________________________, State of _______________________________ of full age, being duly sworn according to law on my oath depose and say that:

I am the _________________________of the firm of _____________________________________ Title Company Name
the Offeror making the Proposal for the goods, services or public work specified under the attached proposal, and that I executed the said proposal with full authority to do so; that said Offeror has not directly or indirectly entered into any agreement, participated in any collusion, or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free, competitive bidding in connection with the above proposal, and that all statements contained in said proposal and in this affidavit are true and correct, and made with full knowledge that relies upon the truth of the statements contained in said proposal and in the statements contained in this affidavit in awarding the contract for the said goods, services or public work.

I further warrant that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure such contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, except bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by
Company Name Authorized Signature & Title
Subscribed and sworn before me
this ______ day of ______________, 20____ __________________________________________ Notary Public of ______________________ My commission expires _________________ , 20____
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 113 of 137 ends

1083
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 26 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE

Agreement No. 32700179

Page 114 of 137 ends

1084
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 27 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
DOC #1

Company Name:

Street:

City, State, Zip Code:

Complete as appropriate:

OR:

Date Authorized Signature and Title
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 115 of 137 ends

1085
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 28 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
DOC #2

Page 116 of 137 ends

1086
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 27 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
DOC #1

Company Name:

Street:

City, State, Zip Code:

Complete as appropriate:

OR:

Date Authorized Signature and Title
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 117 of 137 ends

1087
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 28 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
DOC #2

Page 118 of 137 ends

1088
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 26 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE

Agreement No. 32700179

Page 119 of 137 ends

1089
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 27 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
DOC #1

Company Name:

Street:

City, State, Zip Code:

Complete as appropriate:

OR:

Date Authorized Signature and Title
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 120 of 137 ends

1090
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 28 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
DOC #2

Page 121 of 137 ends

1091
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 29 of 44 ends

SEAL

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
DOC #3

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AFFIDAVIT
(P.L. 1975, C.127)
Company Name:

Street:

City, State, Zip Code:

Proposal Certification:

Indicate below company’s compliance with New Jersey Affirmative Action regulations. Company’s proposal will be accepted even if company is not in compliance at this time. No contract and/or purchase order may be issued, however, until all Affirmative Action requirements are met.

Required Affirmative Action Evidence:

Procurement, Professional & Service Contracts (Exhibit A) Vendors must submit with proposal:

1. A photo copy of their Federal Letter of Affirmative Action Plan Approval OR

2. A photo copy of their Certificate of Employee Information Report OR

3. A complete Affirmative Action Employee Information Report (AA302) ________ Public Work – Over $50,000 Total Project Cost:

A. No approved Federal or New Jersey Affirmative Action Plan. We will complete Report Form AA201-A upon receipt from the
B. Approved Federal or New Jersey Plan – certificate enclosed I further certify that the statements and information contained herein, are complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
_______________________ _________________________________ Date Authorized Signature and Title Agreement No. 32700179

Page 122 of 137 ends

1092
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 30 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
DOC #3, continued P.L. 1995, c. 127 (N.J.A.C. 17:27)

MANDATORY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LANGUAGE

PROCUREMENT, PROFESSIONAL AND SERVICE

CONTRACTS
During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows:

The contractor or subcontractor, where applicable, will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of age, race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, marital status, sex, affectional or sexual orientation. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that such applicants are recruited and employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their age, race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, marital status, sex, affectional or sexual orientation. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following:
employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the Public Agency Compliance Officer setting forth provisions of this non-discrimination clause.

The contractor or subcontractor, where applicable will, in all solicitations or advertisement for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to age, race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, marital status, sex, affectional or sexual orientation.

The contractor or subcontractor, where applicable, will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice, to be provided by the agency contracting officer advising the labor union or workers' representative of the contractor's commitments under this act and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.

The contractor or subcontractor, where applicable, agrees to comply with any regulations promulgated by the Treasurer pursuant to P.L. 1975, c. 127, as amended and supplemented from time to time and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The contractor or subcontractor agrees to attempt in good faith to employ minority and female workers trade consistent with the applicable county employment goal prescribed by N.J.A.C. 17:27-5.2 promulgated by the Treasurer pursuant to P.L. 1975, C.127, as amended and supplemented from time to time or in accordance with a binding determination of the applicable county employment goals determined by the Affirmative Action Office pursuant to N.J.A.C. 17:27-5.2 promulgated by the Treasurer pursuant to P.L. 1975, C.127, as amended and supplemented from time to time.

The contractor or subcontractor agrees to inform in writing appropriate recruitment agencies in the area, including employment agencies, placement bureaus, colleges, universities, labor unions, that it does not discriminate on the basis of age, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, marital status, sex, affectional or sexual orientation, and that it will discontinue the use of any recruitment agency which engages in direct or indirect discriminatory practices.

The contractor or subcontractor agrees to revise any of it testing procedures, if necessary, to assure that all personnel testing conforms with the principles of job-related testing, as established by the statutes and court decisions of the state of New Jersey and as established by applicable Federal law and applicable Federal court decisions.

The contractor or subcontractor agrees to review all procedures relating to transfer, upgrading, downgrading and lay-off to ensure that all such actions are taken without regard to age, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, marital status, sex, affectional or sexual orientation, and conform with the applicable employment goals, consistent with the statutes and court decisions of the State of New Jersey, and applicable Federal law and applicable Federal court decisions.

The contractor and its subcontractors shall furnish such reports or other documents to the Affirmative Action Office as may be requested by the office from time to time in order to carry out the purposes of these regulations, and public agencies shall furnish such information as may be requested by the Affirmative Action Office for conducting a compliance investigation pursuant to Subchapter 10 of the Administrative Code (NJAC 17:27). ________________________________________________ Signature of Procurement Agent Agreement No. 32700179

Page 123 of 137 ends

1093
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 31 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
C. 271 POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE FORM
Public Agency Instructions
This page provides guidance to public agencies entering into contracts with business entities that are required to file Political Contribution Disclosure forms with the agency. It is not intended to be provided to contractors. What follows are instructions on the use of form local units can provide to contractors that are required to disclose political contributions pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.26 (P.L. 2005, c. 271, s.2). Additional information on the process is available in Local Finance Notice 2006-1 (http://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/dlgs/resources/lfns_2006.html). Please refer back to these instructions for the appropriate links, as the Local Finance Notices include links that are no longer operational.

1. The disclosure is required for all contracts in excess of $17,500 that are not awarded pursuant to a “fair and open” process (N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.7).

2. Due to the potential length of some contractor submissions, the public agency should consider allowing data to be submitted in electronic form (i.e., spreadsheet, pdf file, etc.). Submissions must be kept with the contract documents or in an appropriate computer file and be available for public access. The form is worded to accept this alternate submission. The text should be amended if electronic submission will not be allowed.

3. The submission must be received from the contractor and on file at least 10 days prior to award of the contract.

Resolutions of award should reflect that the disclosure has been received and is on file.

4. The contractor must disclose contributions made to candidate and party committees covering a wide range of public agencies, including all public agencies that have elected officials in the county of the public agency, state legislative positions, and various state entities. The Division of Local Government Services recommends that contractors be provided a list of the affected agencies. This will assist contractors in determining the campaign and political committees of the officials and candidates affected by the disclosure. a. The Division has prepared model disclosure forms for each county. They can be downloaded from the “County PCD Forms” link on the Pay-to-Play web site at http://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/dlgs/programs/lpcl.html#12. They will be updated from time-to-time as necessary. b. A public agency using these forms should edit them to properly reflect the correct legislative district(s). As the forms are county-based, they list all legislative districts in each county. Districts that do not represent the public agency should be removed from the lists.
c. Some contractors may find it easier to provide a single list that covers all contributions, regardless of the county.

These submissions are appropriate and should be accepted. d. The form may be used “as-is”, subject to edits as described herein. e. The “Contractor Instructions” sheet is intended to be provided with the form. It is recommended that the Instructions and the form be printed on the same piece of paper. The form notes that the Instructions are printed on the back of the form; where that is not the case, the text should be edited accordingly. f. The form is a Word document and can be edited to meet local needs, and posted for download on web sites, used as an e-mail attachment, or provided as a printed document.

5. It is recommended that the contractor also complete a “Stockholder Disclosure Certification.” This will assist the local unit in its obligation to ensure that contractor did not make any prohibited contributions to the committees listed on the Business Entity Disclosure Certification in the 12 months prior to the contract (See Local Finance Notice 2006-7 for additional information on this obligation at http://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/dlgs/resources/lfns_2006.html). A sample Certification form is part of this package and the instruction to complete it is included in the Contractor Instructions. NOTE: This section is not applicable to Boards of Education.

DOC #4
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 124 of 137 ends

1094
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 32 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
C. 271 POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE FORM
Contractor Instructions
Business entities (contractors) receiving contracts from a public agency that are NOT awarded pursuant to a “fair and open” process (defined at N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.7) are subject to the provisions of P.L. 2005, c. 271, s.2 (N.J.S.A. 19:44A20.26). This law provides that 10 days prior to the award of such a contract, the contractor shall disclose contributions to:
any State, county, or municipal committee of a political party any legislative leadership committee*
any continuing political committee (a.k.a., political action committee) any candidate committee of a candidate for, or holder of, an elective office:
o of the public entity awarding the contract
o of that county in which that public entity is located o of another public entity within that county
o or of a legislative district in which that public entity is located or, when the public entity is a county, of any legislative district which includes all or part of the county The disclosure must list reportable contributions to any of the committees that exceed $300 per election cycle that were made during the 12 months prior to award of the contract. See N.J.S.A. 19:44A-8 and 19:44A-16 for more details on reportable contributions.

N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.26 itemizes the parties from whom contributions must be disclosed when a business entity is not a natural person. This includes the following:
individuals with an “interest” ownership or control of more than 10% of the profits or assets of a business entity or 10% of the stock in the case of a business entity that is a corporation for profit all principals, partners, officers, or directors of the business entity or their spouses any subsidiaries directly or indirectly controlled by the business entity IRS Code Section 527 New Jersey based organizations, directly or indirectly controlled by the business entity and filing as continuing political committees, (PACs).

When the business entity is a natural person, “a contribution by that person’s spouse or child, residing therewith, shall be deemed to be a contribution by the business entity.” [N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.26(b)] The contributor must be listed on the disclosure.

Any business entity that fails to comply with the disclosure provisions shall be subject to a fine imposed by ELEC in an amount to be determined by the Commission which may be based upon the amount that the business entity failed to report.

The enclosed list of agencies is provided to assist the contractor in identifying those public agencies whose elected official and/or candidate campaign committees are affected by the disclosure requirement. It is the contractor’s responsibility to identify the specific committees to which contributions may have been made and need to be disclosed. The disclosed information may exceed the minimum requirement.

The enclosed form, a content-consistent facsimile, or an electronic data file containing the required details (along with a signed cover sheet) may be used as the contractor’s submission and is disclosable to the public under the Open Public Records Act.

The contractor must also complete the attached Stockholder Disclosure Certification. This will assist the agency in meeting its obligations under the law. NOTE: This section does not apply to Board of Education contracts. * N.J.S.A. 19:44A-3(s): “The term "legislative leadership committee" means a committee established, authorized to be established, or designated by the President of the Senate, the Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the General Assembly or the Minority Leader of the General Assembly pursuant to section 16 of P.L.1993, c.65 (C.19:44A-10.1) for the purpose of receiving contributions and making expenditures.” Doc #4, continued
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 125 of 137 ends

1095
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 33 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
C. 271 POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE FORM
Required Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.26
This form or its permitted facsimile must be submitted to the local unit no later than 10 days prior to the award of the contract.

Part I – Vendor Information
Vendor Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

The undersigned being authorized to certify, hereby certifies that the submission provided herein represents compliance with the provisions of N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.26 and as represented by the Instructions accompanying this form. _______________________ _______________________ ________________________ Signature Printed Name Title Part II – Contribution Disclosure
Disclosure requirement: Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.26 this disclosure must include all reportable political contributions (more than $300 per election cycle) over the 12 months prior to submission to the committees of the government entities listed on the form provided by the local unit.

Check here if disclosure is provided in electronic form Contributor Name Recipient Name Date Dollar Amount
$
Check here if the information is continued on subsequent page(s) Doc #4, continued
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 126 of 137 ends

1096
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 34 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
List of Agencies with Elected Officials Required for Political Contribution Disclosure N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.26
County Name:

State: Governor, and Legislative Leadership Committees
Legislative District #s:

State Senator and two members of the General Assembly per district.

County:

Freeholders County Clerk Sheriff
{County Executive} Surrogate
Municipalities (Mayor and members of governing body, regardless of title):

USERS SHOULD CREATE THEIR OWN FORM, OR DOWNLOAD

FROM THE PAY TO PLAY SECTION OF THE DLGS WEBSITE A
COUNTY-BASED, CUSTOMIZABLE FORM.

Doc #4, continued
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 127 of 137 ends

1097
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 35 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
DOC #5

STOCKHOLDER DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATION
Name of Business:

I certify that the list below contains the names and home addresses of all stockholders holding 10% or more of the issued and outstanding stock of the undersigned.

OR
I certify that no one stockholder owns 10% or more of the issued and outstanding stock of the undersigned.

Check the box that represents the type of business organization:

Partnership Corporation Sole Proprietorship
Limited Partnership Limited Liability Corporation Limited Liability Partnership Subchapter S Corporation
Sign and notarize the form below, and, if necessary, complete the stockholder list below.

Stockholders:

Name: Name:

Home Address: Home Address:

Name: Name:

Home Address: Home Address:

Name: Name:

Home Address: Home Address:

Subscribed and sworn before me this ___ day of ___________, 2__.
(Notary Public)
My Commission expires: _________________________________ (Affiant) ________________________________
(Print name & title of affiant)
(Corporate Seal)
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 128 of 137 ends

1098
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 36 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
DOC #6
Certification of Non-Involvement in Prohibited Activities in Iran Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:32-58, Offerors must certify that neither the Offeror, nor any of its parents, subsidiaries, and/or affiliates (as defined in N.J.S.A. 52:32 – 56(e) (3)), is listed on the Department of the Treasury’s List of Persons or Entities Engaging in Prohibited Investment Activities in Iran and that neither is involved in any of the investment activities set forth in N.J.S.A. 52:32 – 56(f).

Offerors wishing to do business in New Jersey through this contract must fill out the Certification of Non-Involvement in Prohibited Activities in Iran here:
http://www.state.nj.us/humanservices/dfd/info/standard/fdc/disclosure_investmentact.pdf. Offerors should submit the above form completed with their proposal.

Agreement No. 32700179

Page 129 of 137 ends

1099
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 37 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT G- NEW JERSEY BUSINESS COMPLIANCE
DOC #7

NEW JERSEY BUSINESS REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
(N.J.S.A. 52:32-44)
Offerors wishing to do business in New Jersey must submit their State Division of Revenue issued Business Registration Certificate with their proposal here. Failure to do so will disqualify the Offeror from offering products or services in New Jersey through any resulting contract. http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/revenue/forms/njreg.pdf Agreement No. 32700179

Page 130 of 137 ends

1100
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 38 of 44 ends

OMNIA PARTNERS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT H- OMNIA PARTNERS ADVERTISING COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT Pursuant to certain state notice provisions, including but not limited to Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 279A.220, the following public agencies and political subdivisions of the referenced public agencies are eligible to register with OMNIA Partners and access the Master Agreement contract award made pursuant to this solicitation, and are hereby given notice of the foregoing request for proposals for purposes of complying with the procedural requirements of said statutes:

Nationwide:

State of Alabama State of Hawaii State of Massachusetts State of New Mexico State of South Dakota
State of Alaska State of Idaho State of Michigan State of New York State of Tennessee State of Arizona State of Illinois State of Minnesota State of North Carolina State of Texas State of Arkansas State of Indiana State of Mississippi State of North Dakota State of Utah State of California State of Iowa State of Missouri State of Ohio State of Vermont State of Colorado State of Kansas State of Montana State of Oklahoma State of Virginia State of Connecticut State of Kentucky State of Nebraska State of Oregon State of Washington State of Delaware State of Louisiana State of Nevada State of Pennsylvania State of West Virginia
State of Florida State of Maine State of New Hampshire State of Rhode Island State of Wisconsin State of Georgia State of Maryland State of New Jersey State of South Carolina State of Wyoming District of Columbia
Lists of political subdivisions and local governments in the above referenced states / districts may be found at http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/State_and_Territories.shtml and https://www.usa.gov/local-governments. Certain Public Agencies and Political Subdivisions:

CITIES, TOWNS, VILLAGES AND BOROUGHS
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:

BAKER CITY GOLF COURSE, OR

CITY OF ADAIR VILLAGE, OR

CITY OF ASHLAND, OR

CITY OF AUMSVILLE, OR

CITY OF AURORA, OR

CITY OF BAKER, OR

CITY OF BATON ROUGE, LA

CITY OF BEAVERTON, OR

CITY OF BEND, OR

CITY OF BOARDMAN, OR

CITY OF BONANAZA, OR

CITY OF BOSSIER CITY, LA

CITY OF BROOKINGS, OR

CITY OF BURNS, OR

CITY OF CANBY, OR

CITY OF CANYONVILLE, OR

CITY OF CLATSKANIE, OR

CITY OF COBURG, OR

CITY OF CONDON, OR

CITY OF COQUILLE, OR

CITY OF CORVALLI, OR

CITY OF CORVALLIS PARKS AND RECREATION

DEPARTMENT, OR

CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, OR

CITY OF DONALD, OR

CITY OF EUGENE, OR

CITY OF FOREST GROVE, OR

CITY OF GOLD HILL, OR

CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OR

CITY OF GRESHAM, OR

CITY OF HILLSBORO, OR

CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, OR

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HI

CITY OF KENNER, LA

CITY OF LA GRANDE, OR

CITY OF LAFAYETTE, LA

CITY OF LAKE CHARLES, OR

CITY OF LEBANON, OR

CITY OF MCMINNVILLE, OR

CITY OF MEDFORD, OR

CITY OF METAIRIE, LA

CITY OF MILL CITY, OR

CITY OF MILWAUKIE, OR

CITY OF MONROE, LA

CITY OF MOSIER, OR

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, LA

CITY OF NORTH PLAINS, OR

CITY OF OREGON CITY, OR

CITY OF PILOT ROCK, OR

CITY OF PORTLAND, OR

CITY OF POWERS, OR

CITY OF PRINEVILLE, OR

CITY OF REDMOND, OR

CITY OF REEDSPORT, OR

CITY OF RIDDLE, OR

CITY OF ROGUE RIVER, OR

CITY OF ROSEBURG, OR

CITY OF SALEM, OR

CITY OF SANDY, OR

CITY OF SCAPPOOSE, OR

CITY OF SHADY COVE, OR

CITY OF SHERWOOD, OR

CITY OF SHREVEPORT, LA

CITY OF SILVERTON, OR

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OR
CITY OF ST. HELENS, OR
CITY OF ST. PAUL, OR

CITY OF SULPHUR, LA
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 131 of 137 ends

1101
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 39 of 44 ends

CITY OF TIGARD, OR

CITY OF TROUTDALE, OR

CITY OF TUALATIN, OR

CITY OF WALKER, LA

CITY OF WARRENTON, OR

CITY OF WEST LINN, OR

CITY OF WILSONVILLE, OR

CITY OF WINSTON, OR

CITY OF WOODBURN, OR

LEAGUE OF OREGON CITES

THE CITY OF HAPPY VALLEY OREGON

ALPINE, UT

ALTA, UT

ALTAMONT, UT

ALTON, UT

AMALGA, UT

AMERICAN FORK CITY, UT

ANNABELLA, UT

ANTIMONY, UT

APPLE VALLEY, UT

AURORA, UT

BALLARD, UT

BEAR RIVER CITY, UT

BEAVER, UT

BICKNELL, UT

BIG WATER, UT

BLANDING, UT

BLUFFDALE, UT

BOULDER, UT

CITY OF BOUNTIFUL, UT

BRIAN HEAD, UT

BRIGHAM CITY CORPORATION, UT

BRYCE CANYON CITY, UT

CANNONVILLE, UT

CASTLE DALE, UT

CASTLE VALLEY, UT

CITY OF CEDAR CITY, UT

CEDAR FORT, UT

CITY OF CEDAR HILLS, UT

CENTERFIELD, UT

CENTERVILLE CITY CORPORATION, UT

CENTRAL VALLEY, UT

CHARLESTON, UT

CIRCLEVILLE, UT

CLARKSTON, UT

CLAWSON, UT

CLEARFIELD, UT

CLEVELAND, UT

CLINTON CITY CORPORATION, UT

COALVILLE, UT

CORINNE, UT

CORNISH, UT

COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

DANIEL, UT

DELTA, UT

DEWEYVILLE, UT

DRAPER CITY, UT

DUCHESNE, UT

EAGLE MOUNTAIN, UT

EAST CARBON, UT

ELK RIDGE, UT

ELMO, UT

ELSINORE, UT

ELWOOD, UT

EMERY, UT

ENOCH, UT

ENTERPRISE, UT

EPHRAIM, UT

ESCALANTE, UT

EUREKA, UT

FAIRFIELD, UT

FAIRVIEW, UT

FARMINGTON, UT

FARR WEST, UT

FAYETTE, UT

FERRON, UT

FIELDING, UT

FILLMORE, UT

FOUNTAIN GREEN, UT

FRANCIS, UT

FRUIT HEIGHTS, UT

GARDEN CITY, UT

GARLAND, UT

GENOLA, UT

GLENDALE, UT

GLENWOOD, UT

GOSHEN, UT

GRANTSVILLE, UT

GREEN RIVER, UT

GUNNISON, UT

HANKSVILLE, UT

HARRISVILLE, UT

HATCH, UT

HEBER CITY CORPORATION, UT

HELPER, UT

HENEFER, UT

HENRIEVILLE, UT

HERRIMAN, UT

HIDEOUT, UT

HIGHLAND, UT

HILDALE, UT

HINCKLEY, UT

HOLDEN, UT

HOLLADAY, UT

HONEYVILLE, UT

HOOPER, UT

HOWELL, UT

HUNTINGTON, UT

HUNTSVILLE, UT

CITY OF HURRICANE, UT

HYDE PARK, UT

HYRUM, UT

INDEPENDENCE, UT

IVINS, UT

JOSEPH, UT

JUNCTION, UT

KAMAS, UT

KANAB, UT

KANARRAVILLE, UT

KANOSH, UT

KAYSVILLE, UT

KINGSTON, UT

KOOSHAREM, UT

LAKETOWN, UT

LA VERKIN, UT

LAYTON, UT

LEAMINGTON, UT

LEEDS, UT

LEHI CITY CORPORATION, UT

LEVAN, UT
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 132 of 137 ends

1102
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 40 of 44 ends

LEWISTON, UT

LINDON, UT

LOA, UT

LOGAN CITY, UT

LYMAN, UT

LYNNDYL, UT

MANILA, UT

MANTI, UT

MANTUA, UT

MAPLETON, UT

MARRIOTT-SLATERVILLE, UT

MARYSVALE, UT

MAYFIELD, UT

MEADOW, UT

MENDON, UT
MIDVALE CITY INC., UT

MIDWAY, UT

MILFORD, UT

MILLVILLE, UT

MINERSVILLE, UT

MOAB, UT

MONA, UT

MONROE, UT

CITY OF MONTICELLO, UT

MORGAN, UT

MORONI, UT

MOUNT PLEASANT, UT

MURRAY CITY CORPORATION, UT

MYTON, UT

NAPLES, UT

NEPHI, UT

NEW HARMONY, UT

NEWTON, UT

NIBLEY, UT

NORTH LOGAN, UT

NORTH OGDEN, UT

NORTH SALT LAKE CITY, UT

OAK CITY, UT

OAKLEY, UT

OGDEN CITY CORPORATION, UT

OPHIR, UT

ORANGEVILLE, UT

ORDERVILLE, UT

OREM, UT

PANGUITCH, UT

PARADISE, UT

PARAGONAH, UT

PARK CITY, UT

PAROWAN, UT

PAYSON, UT

PERRY, UT

PLAIN CITY, UT

PLEASANT GROVE CITY, UT

PLEASANT VIEW, UT

PLYMOUTH, UT

PORTAGE, UT

PRICE, UT

PROVIDENCE, UT

PROVO, UT

RANDOLPH, UT

REDMOND, UT

RICHFIELD, UT

RICHMOND, UT

RIVERDALE, UT

RIVER HEIGHTS, UT

RIVERTON CITY, UT

ROCKVILLE, UT

ROCKY RIDGE, UT

ROOSEVELT CITY CORPORATION, UT

ROY, UT

RUSH VALLEY, UT
CITY OF ST. GEORGE, UT

SALEM, UT

SALINA, UT

SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, UT

SANDY, UT

SANTA CLARA, UT

SANTAQUIN, UT

SARATOGA SPRINGS, UT

SCIPIO, UT

SCOFIELD, UT

SIGURD, UT

SMITHFIELD, UT

SNOWVILLE, UT

CITY OF SOUTH JORDAN, UT

SOUTH OGDEN, UT

CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE, UT

SOUTH WEBER, UT

SPANISH FORK, UT

SPRING CITY, UT

SPRINGDALE, UT

SPRINGVILLE, UT

STERLING, UT

STOCKTON, UT

SUNNYSIDE, UT

SUNSET CITY CORP, UT

SYRACUSE, UT

TABIONA, UT

CITY OF TAYLORSVILLE, UT

TOOELE CITY CORPORATION, UT

TOQUERVILLE, UT

TORREY, UT

TREMONTON CITY, UT

TRENTON, UT

TROPIC, UT

UINTAH, UT

VERNAL CITY, UT

VERNON, UT

VINEYARD, UT

VIRGIN, UT

WALES, UT

WALLSBURG, UT

WASHINGTON CITY, UT

WASHINGTON TERRACE, UT

WELLINGTON, UT

WELLSVILLE, UT

WENDOVER, UT

WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT

WEST HAVEN, UT

WEST JORDAN, UT

WEST POINT, UT

WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

WILLARD, UT

WOODLAND HILLS, UT

WOODRUFF, UT

WOODS CROSS, UT

COUNTIES AND PARISHES INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO:

ASCENSION PARISH, LA
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 133 of 137 ends

1103
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 41 of 44 ends

ASCENSION PARISH, LA, CLEAR OF COURT

CADDO PARISH, LA

CALCASIEU PARISH, LA
CALCASIEU PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE, LA

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HI

CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OR

CLACKAMAS COUNTY DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION,
OR

CLATSOP COUNTY, OR

COLUMBIA COUNTY, OR

COOS COUNTY, OR

COOS COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, OR

COUNTY OF HAWAII, OR

CROOK COUNTY, OR

CROOK COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT, OR

CURRY COUNTY, OR

DESCHUTES COUNTY, OR

DOUGLAS COUNTY, OR

EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA

GILLIAM COUNTY, OR

GRANT COUNTY, OR

HARNEY COUNTY, OR

HARNEY COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, OR

HAWAII COUNTY, HI

HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OR

JACKSON COUNTY, OR

JEFFERSON COUNTY, OR

JEFFERSON PARISH, LA

JOSEPHINE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, OR

LAFAYETTE CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT, LA

LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA

LAFAYETTE PARISH CONVENTION & VISITORS

COMMISSION

LAFOURCHE PARISH, LA

KAUAI COUNTY, HI

KLAMATH COUNTY, OR

LAKE COUNTY, OR

LANE COUNTY, OR

LINCOLN COUNTY, OR

LINN COUNTY, OR

LIVINGSTON PARISH, LA

MALHEUR COUNTY, OR

MAUI COUNTY, HI

MARION COUNTY, SALEM, OR

MORROW COUNTY, OR

MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR

MULTNOMAH COUNTY BUSINESS AND

COMMUNITY SERVICES, OR

MULTNOMAH COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, OR

MULTNOMAH LAW LIBRARY, OR

ORLEANS PARISH, LA

PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LA

POLK COUNTY, OR

RAPIDES PARISH, LA

SAINT CHARLES PARISH, LA

SAINT CHARLES PARISH PUBLIC SCHOOLS, LA

SAINT LANDRY PARISH, LA

SAINT TAMMANY PARISH, LA

SHERMAN COUNTY, OR

TERREBONNE PARISH, LA

TILLAMOOK COUNTY, OR

TILLAMOOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, OR

TILLAMOOK COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL, OR

UMATILLA COUNTY, OR

UNION COUNTY, OR

WALLOWA COUNTY, OR

WASCO COUNTY, OR

WASHINGTON COUNTY, OR

WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA

WHEELER COUNTY, OR

YAMHILL COUNTY, OR

COUNTY OF BOX ELDER, UT

COUNTY OF CACHE, UT

COUNTY OF RICH, UT

COUNTY OF WEBER, UT

COUNTY OF MORGAN, UT

COUNTY OF DAVIS, UT

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, UT

COUNTY OF DAGGETT, UT

COUNTY OF SALT LAKE, UT

COUNTY OF TOOELE, UT

COUNTY OF UTAH, UT

COUNTY OF WASATCH, UT

COUNTY OF DUCHESNE, UT

COUNTY OF UINTAH, UT

COUNTY OF CARBON, UT

COUNTY OF SANPETE, UT

COUNTY OF JUAB, UT

COUNTY OF MILLARD, UT

COUNTY OF SEVIER, UT

COUNTY OF EMERY, UT

COUNTY OF GRAND, UT

COUNTY OF BEVER, UT

COUNTY OF PIUTE, UT

COUNTY OF WAYNE, UT

COUNTY OF SAN JUAN, UT

COUNTY OF GARFIELD, UT

COUNTY OF KANE, UT

COUNTY OF IRON, UT

COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, UT

OTHER AGENCIES INCLUDING ASSOCIATIONS,

BOARDS, DISTRICTS, COMMISSIONS, COUNCILS,

PUBLIC CORPORATIONS, PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITIES, RESERVATIONS AND UTILITIES
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:

BANKS FIRE DISTRICT, OR

BATON ROUGE WATER COMPANY

BEND METRO PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT
BIENVILLE PARISH FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 6,
LA

BOARDMAN PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT

CENTRAL CITY ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORP, LA

CENTRAL OREGON INTERGOVERNMENTAL

COUNCIL

CITY OF BOGALUSA SCHOOL BOARD, LA

CLACKAMAS RIVER WATER

CLATSKANIE PEOPLE'S UTILITY DISTRICT

CLEAN WATER SERVICES

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN

RESERVATION

COOS FOREST PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION

CHEHALEM PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT
DAVID CROCKETT STEAM FIRE COMPANY #1, LA

EUGENE WATER AND ELECTRIC BOARD

HONOLULU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
HOODLAND FIRE DISTRICT #74

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND

ILLINOIS VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT

LAFAYETTE AIRPORT COMMISSION, LA
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 134 of 137 ends

1104
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 42 of 44 ends

LAFOURCHE PARISH HEALTH UNIT – DHH-OPH
REGION 3

LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, LA

LOUISIANA WATER WORKS

MEDFORD WATER COMMISSION

MELHEUR COUNTY JAIL, OR

METRO REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

METRO REGIONAL PARKS

METROPOLITAN EXPOSITION RECREATION

COMMISSION

METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT (METRO)

MULTNOMAH EDUCATION SERVICE DISTRICT

NEW ORLEANS REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LA

NORTHEAST OREGON HOUSING AUTHORITY, OR

PORT OF BRANDON, OR

PORT OF MORGAN CITY, LA

PORTLAND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, OR

PORTLAND FIRE AND RESCUE

PORTLAND HOUSING CENTER, OR

OREGON COAST COMMUNITY ACTION

OREGON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

OREGON LEGISLATIVE ADMINISTRATION

ROGUE VALLEY SEWER, OR

SAINT LANDRY PARISH TOURIST COMMISSION
SAINT MARY PARISH REC DISTRICT 2
SAINT MARY PARISH REC DISTRICT 3
SAINT TAMMANY FIRE DISTRICT 4, LA

SALEM MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT

SEWERAGE AND WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS,
LA

SOUTH LAFOURCHE LEVEE DISTRICT, LA

TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION

DISTRICT OF OREGON

TUALATIN HILLS PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT

TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE

TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

WILLAMALANE PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT

WILLAMETTE HUMANE SOCIETY
K-12 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:

ACADIA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

BEND-LA PINE SCHOOL DISTRICT

BOGALUSA HIGH SCHOOL, LA

BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

BROOKING HARBOR SCHOOL DISTRICT

CADDO PARISH SCHOOL DISTRICT

CALCASIEU PARISH SCHOOL DISTRICT

CANBY SCHOOL DISTRICT

CANYONVILLE CHRISTIAN ACADEMY

CASCADE SCHOOL DISTRICT

CASCADES ACADEMY OF CENTRAL OREGON

CENTENNIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

CENTRAL CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL
CENTRAL POINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.6
CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 13J
COOS BAY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.9
CORVALLIS SCHOOL DISTRICT 509J
COUNTY OF YAMHILL SCHOOL DISTRICT 29

CULVER SCHOOL DISTRICT
DALLAS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.2

DAVID DOUGLAS SCHOOL DISTRICT
DAYTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.8

DE LA SALLE N CATHOLIC HS
DESCHUTES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.6

DOUGLAS EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT SERVICE
DUFUR SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.29

EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL DISTRICT
ESTACADA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.10B

FOREST GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT

GEORGE MIDDLE SCHOOL

GLADSTONE SCHOOL DISTRICT
GRANTS PASS SCHOOL DISTRICT 7

GREATER ALBANY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

GRESHAM BARLOW JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT

HEAD START OF LANE COUNTY

HIGH DESERT EDUCATION SERVICE DISTRICT

HILLSBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT

HOOD RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
JACKSON CO SCHOOL DIST NO.9
JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 509-J

JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL DISTRICT

JEFFERSON SCHOOL DISTRICT

JUNCTION CITY SCHOOLS, OR

KLAMATH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

KLAMATH FALLS CITY SCHOOLS

LAFAYETTE PARISH SCHOOL DISTRICT
LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT 7J
LANE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 4J

LINCOLN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
LINN CO. SCHOOL DIST. 95C

LIVINGSTON PARISH SCHOOL DISTRICT

LOST RIVER JR/SR HIGH SCHOOL
LOWELL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.71

MARION COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
MARION COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 103

MARIST HIGH SCHOOL, OR

MCMINNVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NOAO
MEDFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT 549C

MITCH CHARTER SCHOOL
MONROE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1J

MORROW COUNTY SCHOOL DIST, OR

MULTNOMAH EDUCATION SERVICE DISTRICT

MULTISENSORY LEARNING ACADEMY
MYRTLE PINT SCHOOL DISTRICT 41
NEAH-KAH-NIE DISTRICT NO.56

NEWBERG PUBLIC SCHOOLS
NESTUCCA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.101

NOBEL LEARNING COMMUNITIES
NORTH BEND SCHOOL DISTRICT 13

NORTH CLACKAMAS SCHOOL DISTRICT

NORTH DOUGLAS SCHOOL DISTRICT
NORTH WASCO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 21

NORTHWEST REGIONAL EDUCATION SERVICE

DISTRICT

ONTARIO MIDDLE SCHOOL
OREGON TRAIL SCHOOL DISTRICT NOA6

ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL DISTRICT

PHOENIX-TALENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NOA

PLEASANT HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT

PORTLAND JEWISH ACADEMY

PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS

RAPIDES PARISH SCHOOL DISTRICT

REDMOND SCHOOL DISTRICT

REYNOLDS SCHOOL DISTRICT

ROGUE RIVER SCHOOL DISTRICT

ROSEBURG PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SCAPPOOSE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1J

SAINT TAMMANY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, LA
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 135 of 137 ends

1105
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 43 of 44 ends

SEASIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT 10
SHERWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT 88J
SILVER FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT 4J
SOUTH LANE SCHOOL DISTRICT 45J3

SOUTHERN OREGON EDUCATION SERVICE

DISTRICT

SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS

SUTHERLIN SCHOOL DISTRICT
SWEET HOME SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.55

TERREBONNE PARISH SCHOOL DISTRICT

THE CATLIN GABEL SCHOOL

TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT

UMATILLA MORROW ESD

WEST LINN WILSONVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT

WILLAMETTE EDUCATION SERVICE DISTRICT

WOODBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT

YONCALLA SCHOOL DISTRICT

ACADEMY FOR MATH ENGINEERING & SCIENCE
(AMES) , UT

ALIANZA ACADEMY , UT

ALPINE DISTRICT , UT

AMERICAN LEADERSHIP ACADEMY , UT

AMERICAN PREPARATORY ACADEMY , UT

BAER CANYON HIGH SCHOOL FOR SPORTS &

MEDICAL SCIENCES , UT

BEAR RIVER CHARTER SCHOOL , UT

BEAVER SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

BEEHIVE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ACADEMY
(BSTA) , UT

BOX ELDER SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

CBA CENTER , UT

CACHE SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

CANYON RIM ACADEMY , UT

CANYONS DISTRICT , UT

CARBON SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

CHANNING HALL , UT

CHARTER SCHOOL LEWIS ACADEMY , UT

CITY ACADEMY , UT

DAGGETT SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

DAVINCI ACADEMY , UT

DAVIS DISTRICT , UT

DUAL IMMERSION ACADEMY , UT

DUCHESNE SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

EARLY LIGHT ACADEMY AT DAYBREAK , UT

EAST HOLLYWOOD HIGH , UT

EDITH BOWEN LABORATORY SCHOOL , UT

EMERSON ALCOTT ACADEMY , UT

EMERY SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

ENTHEOS ACADEMY , UT

EXCELSIOR ACADEMY , UT

FAST FORWARD HIGH , UT

FREEDOM ACADEMY , UT

GARFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

GATEWAY PREPARATORY ACADEMY , UT

GEORGE WASHINGTON ACADEMY , UT

GOOD FOUNDATION ACADEMY , UT

GRAND SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

GRANITE DISTRICT , UT

GUADALUPE SCHOOL , UT

HAWTHORN ACADEMY , UT

INTECH COLLEGIATE HIGH SCHOOL , UT

IRON SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

ITINERIS EARLY COLLEGE HIGH , UT

JOHN HANCOCK CHARTER SCHOOL , UT

JORDAN DISTRICT , UT

JUAB SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

KANE SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

KARL G MAESER PREPARATORY ACADEMY , UT

LAKEVIEW ACADEMY , UT

LEGACY PREPARATORY ACADEMY , UT

LIBERTY ACADEMY , UT

LINCOLN ACADEMY , UT

LOGAN SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

MARIA MONTESSORI ACADEMY , UT

MERIT COLLEGE PREPARATORY ACADEMY , UT

MILLARD SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

MOAB CHARTER SCHOOL , UT

MONTICELLO ACADEMY , UT

MORGAN SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

MOUNTAINVILLE ACADEMY , UT

MURRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

NAVIGATOR POINTE ACADEMY , UT

NEBO SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

NO UT ACAD FOR MATH ENGINEERING & SCIENCE
(NUAMES) , UT

NOAH WEBSTER ACADEMY , UT

NORTH DAVIS PREPARATORY ACADEMY , UT

NORTH SANPETE SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

NORTH STAR ACADEMY , UT

NORTH SUMMIT SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

ODYSSEY CHARTER SCHOOL , UT

OGDEN PREPARATORY ACADEMY , UT

OGDEN SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

OPEN CLASSROOM , UT

OPEN HIGH SCHOOL OF UTAH , UT

OQUIRRH MOUNTAIN CHARTER SCHOOL , UT

PARADIGM HIGH SCHOOL , UT

PARK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

PINNACLE CANYON ACADEMY , UT

PIUTE SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

PROVIDENCE HALL , UT

PROVO SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

QUAIL RUN PRIMARY SCHOOL , UT

QUEST ACADEMY , UT

RANCHES ACADEMY , UT

REAGAN ACADEMY , UT

RENAISSANCE ACADEMY , UT

RICH SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

ROCKWELL CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL , UT

SALT LAKE ARTS ACADEMY , UT

SALT LAKE CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION, UT

SALT LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

SALT LAKE SCHOOL FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS,
UT

SAN JUAN SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

SEVIER SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

SOLDIER HOLLOW CHARTER SCHOOL , UT

SOUTH SANPETE SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

SOUTH SUMMIT SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

SPECTRUM ACADEMY , UT

SUCCESS ACADEMY , UT

SUCCESS SCHOOL , UT

SUMMIT ACADEMY , UT

SUMMIT ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL , UT

SYRACUSE ARTS ACADEMY , UT

THOMAS EDISON - NORTH , UT

TIMPANOGOS ACADEMY , UT

TINTIC SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

TOOELE SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 136 of 137 ends

1106
Requirements for National Cooperative Contract

Page 44 of 44 ends

TUACAHN HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE PERFORMING

ARTS , UT

UINTAH RIVER HIGH , UT

UINTAH SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

UTAH CONNECTIONS ACADEMY , UT

UTAH COUNTY ACADEMY OF SCIENCE , UT

UTAH ELECTRONIC HIGH SCHOOL , UT

UTAH SCHOOLS FOR DEAF & BLIND , UT

UTAH STATE OFFICE OF EDUCATION , UT

UTAH VIRTUAL ACADEMY , UT

VENTURE ACADEMY , UT

VISTA AT ENTRADA SCHOOL OF PERFORMING

ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY , UT

WALDEN SCHOOL OF LIBERAL ARTS , UT

WASATCH PEAK ACADEMY , UT

WASATCH SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

WASHINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

WAYNE SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

WEBER SCHOOL DISTRICT , UT

WEILENMANN SCHOOL OF DISCOVERY , UT

HIGHER EDUCATION

ARGOSY UNIVERSITY

BATON ROUGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, LA

BIRTHINGWAY COLLEGE OF MIDWIFERY

BLUE MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY - HAWAII

CENTRAL OREGON COMMUNITY COLLEGE

CENTENARY COLLEGE OF LOUISIANA

CHEMEKETA COMMUNITY COLLEGE

CLACKAMAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE

COLLEGE OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

COLUMBIA GORGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY

GEORGE FOX UNIVERSITY

KLAMATH COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

LEWIS AND CLARK COLLEGE

LINFIELD COLLEGE

LINN-BENTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE

LOUISIANA COLLEGE, LA

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SERVICES

MARYLHURST UNIVERSITY
MT. HOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE

MULTNOMAH BIBLE COLLEGE

NATIONAL COLLEGE OF NATURAL MEDICINE

NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN COLLEGE

OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY

OREGON INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

PACIFIC UNIVERSITY

PIONEER PACIFIC COLLEGE

PORTLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY

REED COLLEGE

RESEARCH CORPORATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
HAWAII

ROGUE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA UNIVERSITY

SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY (OREGON

UNIVERSITY SYSTEM)

SOUTHWESTERN OREGON COMMUNITY COLLEGE

TULANE UNIVERSITY

TILLAMOOK BAY COMMUNITY COLLEGE

UMPQUA COMMUNITY COLLEGE

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII BOARD OF REGENTS

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII-HONOLULU COMMUNITY

COLLEGE

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON-GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND

UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS

WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY

WESTERN STATES CHIROPRACTIC COLLEGE

WILLAMETTE UNIVERSITY

XAVIER UNIVERSITY

UTAH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, UT

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, UT

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, UT

WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY, UT

SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY, UT

SNOW COLLEGE, UT

DIXIE STATE COLLEGE, UT

COLLEGE OF EASTERN UTAH, UT

UTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY, UT

SALT LAKE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, UT

UTAH COLLEGE OF APPLIED TECHNOLOGY, UT

STATE AGENCIES
ADMIN. SERVICES OFFICE

BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

HAWAII CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY

HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

HAWAII HEALTH SYSTEMS CORPORATION

OFFICE OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER

OREGON BOARD OF ARCHITECTS

OREGON CHILD DEVELOPMENT COALITION

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY

OREGON DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
OREGON DEPT. OF EDUCATION

OREGON LOTTERY

OREGON OFFICE OF ENERGY

OREGON STATE BOARD OF NURSING

OREGON STATE DEPT OF CORRECTIONS

OREGON STATE POLICE

OREGON TOURISM COMMISSION

OREGON TRAVEL INFORMATION COUNCIL

SANTIAM CANYON COMMUNICATION CENTER
SEIU LOCAL 503, OPEU

SOH- JUDICIARY CONTRACTS AND PURCH

STATE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, STATE OF
HAWAII

STATE OF HAWAII
STATE OF HAWAII, DEPT. OF EDUCATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
STATE OF LOUISIANA DEPT. OF EDUCATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ATTORNEY

STATE OF UTAH
Agreement No. 32700179

Page 137 of 137 ends

1107
1108
1109
1110

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

INFORMATION/CONSENT AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM NO. L.10
DATE: October 20, 2026
TO: City Council
FROM: Michael Wolfe, Public Works Director, (805) 385-8055, [email protected] SUBJECT: Public Project Agreement 32700206 with Ardalan Construction Company, Inc. for the Wilson Senior Center Improvements Project, Specification No. PW 25-72.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve and authorize:

1. A total of $282,780 in Project funds for the Wilson Senior Center Improvements Project, Specification No. PW 25-72;

2. The Mayor to execute an Agreement with Ardalan Construction Company, Inc in the amount of $217,523 for the Project and approve a Project contingency amount of $43,505 (~20%) with Ardalan Construction Company, Inc. for a total not to exceed value of $261,028 for the Project; and

3. A Project allocation amount of $21,752 (~10%) for engineering, inspection, survey and project management for the Project.
(This item did not originate in Committee as this is a capital improvement project specifically listed in the City's Capital Improvement Program budget, which was previously approved by the City Council.)

BACKGROUND
The Project scope consists of improvements to the Wilson Park Senior Adult Services Building, including the route to the building located at 350 N C Street, Oxnard, CA, to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Building Code Chapter 11B. This involves removing physical barriers and ensuring equal access to public programs, services, and public buildings. The scope of work includes the reconfiguration of a breakroom and restroom, new ADA-compliant signage, door hardware, plumbing fixtures, counters, and toilets, and improvements to the exterior path of travel. Work will also include new floor and wall tile and paint, replacing existing fluorescent light fixtures with new LED light fixtures, and modifying the existing HVAC equipment.

The work is tentatively scheduled to begin in the last quarter of 2026 and continue into Spring of 2027 (90 working days) absent any delays for supply chain issues, unforeseen site conditions or weather. Staff will work closely with the Senior Center occupants to keep them informed of the schedule and will also work closely with the neighborhoods and residents directly impacted by the work to keep them informed of the project schedule. General project information will be disseminated to help keep the public informed as well.

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Reference:

Project No. C2612 – Wilson Senior Center Improvements Project, Specification No. PW 25-72 - CIP 2027-2031 - Adopted May 19, 2026– Page 106.

DISCUSSION
1111
The Notice Inviting Formal Bids (NIFB) for this project was published on July 30, 2026, in the local newspaper. Additionally, the NIFB was posted on multiple online platforms, including the City’s website, and distributed directly to 22 contractors who registered with the City to be notified of Public Project bids within their license category.

All bids were opened on August 25, 2026 and the City received the following bids:

Ardalan Construction Company, Inc: $217,523.00
Valor Construction, Inc.: $263,800.00
G2K Construction: $375,888.00
Aquaphoenix Builders: non-responsive bid
Carbon Construction: non-responsive bid
MSH Development Group Inc: non-responsive bid
The bids submitted by Aquaphoenix Builders, Carbon Construction, and MSH Development Group Inc were nonresponsive for not meeting the minimum requirements as stated in the bid documents. Accordingly, Ardalan Construction Company, Inc. (Ardalan Construction) is determined to be the lowest responsive bidder to the City’s NIFB.

Following this determination, procurement staff reviewed all documentation received from Ardalan Construction and its subcontractors. Procurement staff verified possession of required currently valid licenses, reviewed the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website for safety violations, and verified registration with the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Based upon the available information and research performed to date, staff believes that the contractor is capable of satisfactorily completing the project. Thus, staff recommends that the City Council award the contract for this Project to Ardalan Construction Company, Inc.

In addition to the project award amount of $217,523, Staff recommends authorizing $65,257 for the project, which includes $43,505for project contingency (20% of the contract costs) and $21,752 for the cost of engineering services and City staff (10% of the contract cost). The recommended 20% contingency amount in lieu of the typical 10% contingency amount, is to account for a severely aged building that may have significant unforeseen items arise during the construction process once the finishes (paint, drywall) are removed and the structure is exposed. Engineering services include the following activities during construction: engineering, inspection, survey and project management. These recommendations bring the total estimated cost of the project to $282,780.

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

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The total cost for this Project shall not exceed $282,780, which includes the construction agreement, contingency and project allocation. The Wilson Senior Center Improvements Project, Specification No. PW 25-72 (Munis Project C2612) has a total available project budget balance of $1,000,000 from the Measure O Fund (104). Staff will be evaluating a second phase to this project which, if financially feasible, includes rehabilitating the parking lot to address tree root intrusion.

The ongoing maintenance cost for the Wilson Senior Center (“Center”) improvements will have no new impacts to the Facilities Division’s Operating budget, when compared to the annual operating cost for the Center prior to this work of improvement.

COMMITTEE OUTCOME
This item did not originate in Committee as this is a capital improvement project specifically listed in the City's Capital Improvement Program budget, which was previously approved by the City Council.

Prepared by: Morgan Kessler, City Engineer

ATTACHMENTS

1. Agreement 32700206
1112
1113
Agreement No. 32700206
1 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR

WILSON PARK SENIOR ADULT SERVICES

ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
SPECIFICATION NO. PW 25-72

BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF OXNARD
AND
ARDALAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.

THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (the “Contract”) is made and entered this ______ day of _____________, 2026 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF OXNARD, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and ARDALAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. (“Contractor”).

Contractor’s license number is 893121. The City and Contractor are sometimes hereinafter referred to as a “Party” and collectively referred to as the “Parties.” WHEREAS, the City requires construction of the Wilson Park Senior Adult Services Accessibility Improvements Project as more fully described in the bid package issued by the City for Specification No. PW 25-72 (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on July 30, 2026, the City issued a Notice Inviting Bids and Contract Documents to prospective bidders for the Project. In response, Contractor submitted a Bid which the City determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bid; and WHEREAS, Contractor is a duly organized corporation in good standing in the State of California, and represents that it has the background, knowledge, experience, expertise and resources to perform the Work and other obligations encompassed by this Contract; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Department accepted the Contractor’s Bid Proposal for the Project and directed that a written agreement for the Project be entered into with Contractor; and WHEREAS, in light of the facts set forth above and the certifications made by Contractor as part of its Bid, the City desires to retain Contractor to perform the construction Work for the Project as set forth in this Contract and in the Contract Documents, as hereinafter described.

NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND

PROMISES CONTAINED HEREIN AND FOR SUCH OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. RECITALS
The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this Contract by this reference, as though set forth herein.
1114
Agreement No. 32700206
2 2. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS; ORDER OF PRECEDENCE
A. Contract Documents. The Contract Documents consist of the following documents, all of which are either attached hereto as exhibits or are incorporated herein by this reference.

Said Contact Documents are complementary; what is called for in one is binding as if called for in all, and together constitutes Contractor’s performance obligations:

1. Contract and its attached Exhibits, subject to the limitations in Sections 10 (“Prevailing Wage”) and 24 (“Ambiguities”) with respect to Exhibit “A” (Contractor’s submitted Bid Proposal as accepted by the City);

2. Change Orders issued and approved by the City;

3. Regulatory Permits from other agencies specified in Appendices A and B of the bid package or as may otherwise be required by law;

4. Bid Addenda issued by the City;

5. Notice Inviting Bids and Instructions to Bidders;

6. Special Provisions

7. General Provisions

8. Appendices

9. Plans

10. Bid Forms and attachment thereto;

11. Performance Bond;

12. Payment Bond.

3. CONTRACTOR’S OBLIGATIONS
A. Contractor will perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor must provide, furnish, and supply all things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including all necessary labor, materials, supplies, tools, equipment, transportation, onsite facilities, and utilities, unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor must use its best efforts to diligently prosecute and complete the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards required by the Contract Documents, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the “Project Manager”).

B. Until the acceptance of the Work, the Contractor shall have the responsible charge and care of the Work and of the materials to be used therein, (including materials for which partial payment has been received or materials which have been furnished by the Owner), and shall bear the risk of injury, loss or damage to any part thereof by the action of the elements or from any other cause, whether arising from the execution or from the nonexecution of the Work.

C. The Contractor shall rebuild, repair, restore, and make good all injuries, losses, damages to any portion of the Work or the materials occasioned by any cause before its completion and acceptance, and shall bear the expense thereof. Where necessary to protect the Work or materials from damage, the Contractor shall, at the Contractor’s expense, provide suitable drainage and erect such temporary structures as are necessary to protect the Work or materials from damage.

D. The suspension of the Work from any cause whatever shall not relieve the Contractor of his responsibility for the Work and materials as herein specified. If ordered by the Owner’s 1115
Agreement No. 32700206
3 Representative, the Contractor shall, at the Contractor’s sole cost and expense, properly store materials which have been partially paid for by the Owner or which have been furnished by the Owner. Such storage by the Contractor shall be on behalf of the Owner, and the Owner shall, at all times, be entitled to the possession of such materials, and the Contractor shall promptly return the same to the site for the work when requested. The Contractor shall not dispose of any of the materials so stored, except with written authorization from the Owner.

E. In an emergency affecting the safety of life or property, including adjoining property, the Contractor, without special instructions or authorizations, is authorized to act at the Contractor’s discretion to prevent such threatened loss or injury, and shall so act as though instructed to do so by the Owner.

F. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article, the Contractor shall not be responsible for the cost of repairing or restoring damage to the work, which damage is determined to have been proximately caused by an Act of God, in excess of five (5) percent of the contracted amount, provided the work is built in accordance with accepted and applicable building standards and the approved Plans and Specifications.

1. “Acts of God” shall include earthquakes in excess of a magnitude of 3.5 on the Richter Scale, wildfires and tidal waves.

4. LICENSES REQUIRED
A. The Contractor shall possess a valid Class B-General Building Contractor’s license issued by California State Contractors License Board.

B. If traffic control in a construction zone is required, it must be performed by a State of California Construction Zone Traffic Control Contractor, Specialty License Classification C-31.

C. In accordance with Section 7028.15 of the Business and Professions Code, all Contractors shall be licensed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and any Contractor or Subcontractor not so licensed is subject to the penalties imposed by such laws.

D. The Contractor will also be required to possess a City of Oxnard business license at the time of Contract award.

5. CONTRACT PRICE; PAYMENT AND RETENTION
A. As full and complete compensation for Contractor’s timely performance and completion of the Work in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, City will pay Contractor TWO HUNDRED SEVENTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY THREE DOLLARS, ($217,523.00) (the “Contract Price”) for all of Contractor’s direct and indirect costs to perform the Work, including all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, taxes, insurance, bonds and all overhead costs, in accordance with Contractor’s Bid Proposal (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”) subject to the provisions of this Contract and the Contract Documents.

B. Procedures relating to payment and retention are set forth in the Special Provisions. 1116
Agreement No. 32700206
4 6. CONTRACT TIME; NOTICE TO PROCEED; TERM
A. Contract Time. The Work under this Agreement shall be diligently prosecuted to completion before expiration of ninety (90) Working Days, after the issuance of the Notice to Proceed. The City will not issue a Notice to Proceed to the Contractor until this Contract, including payment and performance bonds, insurance documents, business tax certificate have been executed and/or approved by the City.

B. Notice to Proceed. No work, service, material, or equipment shall be performed or furnished under this Contract unless and until a Notice to Proceed has been given to the Contractor by the City. Contractor shall commence Work pursuant to the Contract Documents and as directed by the City in the Notice to Proceed, and diligently execute the same to completion within the Contract Time. Any Work that is done by the Contractor in advance of such time shall be considered as being done at the Contractor’s own risk and responsibility, and as a consequence will be subject to rejection.

C. Term. The Contract is effective as of the Effective Date listed, and shall remain in full force and effect until the Contractor has completed all Work pursuant to the Contract Documents, the City has accepted all Work, and the Contract Term has ended, unless the Contract has been otherwise terminated by the City.

7. DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND CLAIMS PROCEDURES
A. Public Contract Code Section 9204. For purposes of any Public Works Claims filed by a Contractor or Subcontractor (as those terms are defined in Public Contract Code Section 9204) under this Contract, the claims procedures in Public Contract Code Section 9204 (“Section 9204”) and the provisions of this Section shall apply.

1. In the event of a Section 9204 Public Works Claim, Contractor may not stop working pending resolution of the dispute, but must continue to comply with its duty to diligently prosecute the performance and timely completion of the Work during the Section 9204 process.

2. Any Public Works Claims not resolved by the Section 9204 procedures (and/or any tort claims) shall be subject to the provisions of the Government Claims Act (Government Code section 810 et seq.).

B. Public Contract Code Section 20104 et al. For purposes of any Public Works Claims of three hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars ($375,000) or less filed by a Contractor or Subcontractor (as those terms are defined in Public Contract Code Section 9204), the claims procedures in Public Contract Code Section 20104.2 and the provisions of this Section shall apply.

1. In the event of a Section 20104 Public Works Claim, Contractor may not stop working pending resolution of the dispute, but must continue to comply with its duty to diligently prosecute the performance and timely completion of the Work during the Section 20104.2 process.

2. Any Public Works Claims not resolved by the Section 20104.2 procedures (and/or any tort claims) shall be subject to the provisions of Section 20104.4 and the Government Claims Act (Government Code section 810 et seq.).
1117
Agreement No. 32700206
5 C. For disputes or claims that do not constitute Public Works Claims, City and Contractor agree to comply with the following process:

1. Each Party shall designate a senior management or executive level representative to negotiate any dispute.

2. The representatives shall attempt, through good faith negotiations, to resolve the dispute by any means within their authority.

3. If the issue remains unresolved after ten (10) days of good faith negotiations, the Parties shall attempt to resolve the disagreement by negotiation between the legal counsel for each Party. If the above process fails, the Parties may mutually agree to engage in non-binding mediation or arbitration in which the Parties equally share the costs of any mediator or arbitrator, or may proceed with suit or other remedies, subject to the provisions of subparagraph (5) of this Subsection and other applicable provisions and laws.

4. The alternative dispute resolution process set forth herein is a material condition to Contract and must be exhausted as an administrative remedy prior to either Party initiating legal action.

5. The provisions of the Government Claims Act (Government Code section 810 et seq.) are also required prior to initiating suit against the City.

8. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT FOR CONVENIENCE
A. The City may, by providing thirty (30) days' advance written notice to Contractor, terminate this Agreement in whole or in part, whenever the City shall determine that such termination is in the best interests of the City, or when it becomes impracticable or impossible to proceed, or because of conditions or events beyond the control of the City. Any such termination shall be effected by delivery to Contractor of a Notice of Termination for Convenience, specifying the extent to which performance of Work under this Agreement is terminated, and the date upon which such termination becomes effective. Upon such termination, the obligations of the Contractor for portions of the Work already performed shall continue.

B. Upon receipt of a Notice of Termination for Convenience, the Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following:

1. Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice.

2. Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services, or facilities, except as may be necessary to complete such portion(s) of the Work that are not to be discontinued.

3. Promptly cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts to the extent that they relate to the performance of the discontinued portion of the Work.

4. Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect the Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project site or in transit thereto.
1118
Agreement No. 32700206
6 C. Upon such termination, the Contractor will be paid without duplication for:

1. Work completed in accordance with the Contract Documents prior to the effective date of the Notice of Termination for Convenience;

2. Reasonable costs incurred in settlement of terminated contracts with Subcontractors, suppliers and others; and

3. Reasonable expenses directly attributable to termination.

The Contractor shall submit a final termination settlement proposal to the City no later than ninety (90) days from the effective date of termination, unless extended in writing by the City, upon written request by the Contractor. If the Contractor fails to submit a proposal, the City may determine the amount, if any, due the Contractor as a result of the termination. The City will pay the Contractor the amount it determines is reasonable. If the Contractor disagrees with the amount determined by the City as being reasonable, the Contractor shall provide notice to the City within thirty (30) Days of receipt of payment. Any amount due shall be subject to the dispute resolution provisions set forth in the Contract Documents.

D. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders, and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor under this Section 7.

9. TERMINATION FOR CONTRACTOR’S DEFAULT
A. Default. The City may terminate this Contract for Contractor’s default as set forth in this Section. The City will consider the Contractor in default of this Contract if, prior to the City’s acceptance of the Work, the Contractor:

1. becomes insolvent, assigns its assets for the benefit of its creditors, is unable to pay its debts as they become due, or is otherwise financially unable to complete the Work;

2. abandons the Work by failing to report to the Work site and diligently prosecute the Work to completion;

3. disregards written instructions from the City or materially violates provisions of the Contract Documents;

4. fails to prosecute the Work according to the schedule approved by the Engineer,

5. disregards laws or regulations of any public body having jurisdiction, or

6. commits continuous or repeated violations of regulatory or statutory safety requirements.

Notices, and other written communications regarding default between the Contractor, the City, and the Surety shall be transmitted in accordance with Section 25 (“NOTICES”) of this Contract.

B. Notice and Opportunity to Cure. The City will issue a written notice to cure the default to the Contractor and its Surety. The Contractor shall commence satisfactory corrective actions within five (5) Working Days after receipt. If the Contractor fails to commence satisfactory corrective action within five (5) Working Days after receipt of the notice to cure, or to diligently continue satisfactory and timely correction of the default thereafter, the City will consider the Contractor in default of the Contract and:
1119
Agreement No. 32700206
7 1. will terminate the Contractor’s right to perform under the Contract by issuing a written notice of termination for default to the Contractor and its Surety;

2. may use any materials, equipment, tools or other facilities furnished by the Contractor to secure and maintain the Work site, and

3. may furnish labor, equipment, and materials the City deems necessary to secure and maintain the Job Site;
C. Remedies Cumulative. The provisions of this Section shall be in addition to all other legal rights and remedies available to the City. Termination of this Contract will not relieve the Surety of its obligation for any just claims arising out of the Work performed.

10. PREVAILING WAGE
A. Compliance with State Prevailing Wage Requirements. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773, the City has obtained the prevailing rate of per diem wages and the prevailing wage rate for holiday and overtime work applicable in Ventura County, California from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to perform the Work required under this Contract. A copy of these prevailing wage rates are on file at the City’s Finance Department/Purchasing Division and shall be made available for review to any interested party on request. In addition, a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages may be obtained via the internet at:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR/PWD. Contractor and all Subcontractors shall pay not less than said specified State of California rates to all workers employed by them in the execution of the Work contemplated by this Contract, including workers performing Work covered by under Labor Code Sections 1720 and 1720.9. Contractor shall be responsible for using the correct and current prevailing wage rates. Contractor shall be solely responsible for using the correct wage decision or determination and performing accordingly. An error on the part of any awarding body does not relieve the Contractor from the responsibility for payment of the correct prevailing wage.

B. Conflict. It is further expressly agreed by and between the Parties hereto that should there be any conflict between the terms of this Section 10 and the provisions of Exhibit “A”, the terms of this Section 10 shall control and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the terms of Contractor’s Submitted Bid Proposal conflicting with the requirements of this Section 10.

C. Payroll Records. Contractor must comply with the provisions of Labor Code sections 1776 and 1812 and all implementing regulations, including without limitation, those set forth in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 16000 et seq. (hereinafter the “Regulations”), which are fully incorporated by this reference, including requirements for electronic submission of payroll records to the DIR.

1. Contractor and Subcontractor Obligations. Contractor and each Subcontractor must keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed in connection with the Work. Each payroll record must contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under penalty of perjury, stating both of the following:
1120
Agreement No. 32700206
8 a. The information contained in the payroll record is true and correct; and b. Contractor or the Subcontractor has complied with the requirements of Labor Code §§ 1771, 1811, and 1815 for any Work performed by its employees on the Project.

2. Certified Record. A certified copy of an employee’s payroll record must be made available for inspection or furnished to the employee or his or her authorized representative on request, to City, to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, to the Division of Apprenticeship Standards of the DIR, and as further required by the Labor Code.

3. Enforcement. Upon notice of noncompliance with Labor Code § 1776, Contractor or Subcontractor has ten days in which to comply with the requirements of this section.

If Contractor or Subcontractor fails to do so within the ten-day period, Contractor or Subcontractor will forfeit a penalty of $100.00 per day, or portion a day, for each worker for whom compliance is required, until strict compliance is achieved. Upon request by the Division of Apprenticeship Standards, or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, these penalties will be withheld from payments then due to Contractor.

D. Apprentices. Contractor is responsible for compliance with the requirements governing employment and payment of apprentices, as set forth in Labor Code section 1777.5, which is fully incorporated by reference.

E. Notices. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1771.4, Contractor is required to post all Job Site notices, including prevailing wage rates and other notices as required by regulation.

F. Other Labor Requirements. Contractor has the responsibility for and shall comply with all other requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720 et seq., the Regulations, and all other applicable State labor laws. Contractor further acknowledges and agrees that it will be independently responsible for reviewing the applicable laws and regulations and effectuating compliance with those laws. Contractor will require the same of all its Subcontractors.

G. Statutory Penalties. The statutory penalties for failure to pay prevailing wage or to comply with State wage and hour laws will be enforced as follows:

1. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1775, the Contractor and any Subcontractor under it shall forfeit as a penalty to the City not more than two hundred dollars ($200.00), for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing wage rate as determined by the Director of the DIR for such work or craft in which such worker is employed for any public work done under this Contract by it or by any Subcontractor under it. The difference between such prevailing wage rate and the amount paid to each worker for each calendar day or portion thereof, for which each worker was paid less than the prevailing wage rate, shall be paid to each worker by the Contractor.

2. The Contractor or Subcontractor shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the execution of this Contract by the respective contractor or Subcontractor for each calendar day during which the worker is required or permitted to work more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty (40) 1121
Agreement No. 32700206
9 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of this Subsection. In awarding any contract for public work, Contractor must forfeit to City twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per day for each worker who works in excess of the minimum working hours when Contractor does not pay overtime. In accordance with the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1810 et seq., eight (8) hours is the legal working day.

H. DIR Monitoring. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1771.4, the Contract for this Project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR.

I. DIR Registration. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Contractor and its Subcontractors must be registered with the DIR prior to the execution of a contract to perform public works. By entering into this Contract, Contractor represents that it is aware of the registration requirement and is currently registered with the DIR. Contractor shall maintain a current registration for the duration of the Project. Contractor shall further include the requirements of Labor Code sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 in any subcontract and ensure that all Subcontractors are registered at the time this Contract is entered into and maintain registration for the duration of the Project.

11. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
If Contractor fails to complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will assess liquidated damages in the amount of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250) per day for each Calendar Day of unexcused delay in completion, and such liquidated damages may be deducted from City’s payments due or to become due to Contractor under this Contract.

12. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
Contractor shall comply with all Laws applicable to the performance of the Work required by the Contract Documents, including any rule, regulation, or bylaw governing the conduct or performance of Contractor, its employees, officers, board members, agents, independent contractors, and Subcontractors. Unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents, all required permits and licenses, including a City business license, shall be held or obtained by the Contractor at its sole expense and prior to commencing any Work hereunder.

13. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Labor Code § 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Labor Code § 3700 which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract.”

14. INSURANCE
Contractor shall procure and maintain at its own expense at all times during the period covered by this Contract (and through the one-year guarantee period following the date of City’s acceptance of the Project) the following policies of insurance as approved by the City’s Risk Manager as set forth in INS-G attached as Exhibit B to this Contract.

15. [RESERVED]
1122
Agreement No. 32700206
10 16. TIME OF THE ESSENCE
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Contract.

17. INDEMNIFICATION
A. Notwithstanding the limits of any insurance and to the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify the City, its elected or appointed officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, suits, claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities, (hereinafter "Claims or Liabilities") that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising or alleged to arise out of or in connection with the performance of the Work, operations, or activities of Contractor, its agents, employees, Subcontractors, or invitees on the Project, or arising or alleged to arise from the acts or omissions of Contractor hereunder, or arising or alleged to arise from Contractor's performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Contract, but excluding such Claims or Liabilities or portion of such Claims or Liabilities arising or alleged to arise from the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of the City, its elected or appointed officials, officers, agents, volunteers, or employees, and in connection therewith:

1. Contractor will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said Claims or Liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys' fees incurred in connection therewith;

2. Contractor will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its elected or appointed officials, officers, agents, volunteers, or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising or alleged to arise out of or in connection with Contractor's (or its agents', employees', Subcontractors' or invitees') performance of or failure to perform such Work, operations or activities hereunder; and Contractor agrees to save and hold the City, its elected or appointed officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees harmless therefrom;

3. In the event the City, its elected or appointed officials, officers, agents, volunteers, or employees is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Contractor for such damages or other claims arising or alleged to arise out of or in connection with the performance of or failure to perform the Work, operation, or activities of Contractor hereunder, Contractor shall pay to the City, its elected or appointed officials, officers, agents ,volunteers, or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, agents, volunteers, or employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys' fees for counsel acceptable to City;

4. Contractor's duty to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless as set out in this Section shall include any claims, liabilities, obligations, losses, demands, actions, penalties, suits, costs, expenses or damages or injury to persons or property arising or alleged to arise from, in connection with, as a consequence of, or pursuant to any state or federal law or regulation regarding hazardous substances, including but not limited to, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA"), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), 1123
Agreement No. 32700206
11 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ("RCRA"), the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, the Hazardous Material Transportation Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the California Hazardous Substance Account Act, the California Hazardous Waste Control Law or the PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act, as any of those statutes may be amended from time to time.

B. City will timely notify Contractor upon receipt of any third-party claim relating to the Contract, as required by Public Contract Code § 9201. The Contractor's indemnification and defense obligations pursuant to this Section shall survive the termination of this Contract. Contractor shall require the same indemnification from all Subcontractors.

18. THIRD PARTY CLAIMS
The City shall have full authority to compromise or otherwise settle any claim relating to the Project at any time. The City shall timely notify the Contractor of the receipt of any third-party claim relating to the Project. The City shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs incurred in providing this notice.

The Contractor shall not have any authority to compromise or otherwise settle any claim relating to the Project; any effort by the Contractor to do so shall be deemed a breach of the Contract, and the City will not participate in any such compromise or settlement. Within five (5) Calendar Days of the date that the Contractor receives any third-party claim relating to this Project, the Contractor shall provide written notice thereof and a copy of the claim to the City Attorney.

19. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The Contractor shall not accept any employment or representation during the Contract Term or within twelve (12) months thereafter that is or may likely make the Contractor “financially interested,” as provided in Government Code Sections 1090 and 87100, in any decisions made by the City on any matter in connection with which the Contractor has been retained pursuant to the Contract Documents.”

20. REPORTS; BOOKS AND RECORDS; AUDIT
A. Upon request by the Project Manager, Contractor shall prepare and submit reports concerning Contractor's performance of the Work required by this Contract.

B. Contractor shall keep such books and records as shall be necessary to perform the work required by this Contract and enable the Project Manager to evaluate the cost and the performance of such Work.

C. Books and records pertaining to costs shall be kept and prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and Contractor and its subcontractors shall establish and maintain a financial management system and records that properly accumulate and segregate reasonable, allowable, and allocable incurred Project costs and matching funds by line item for the Project. The Project Manager and designee(s) shall have full and free access to such books and records at all reasonable times, including the right to inspect, copy, audit, and make records and transcripts from such records. 1124
Agreement No. 32700206
12 D. Records and supporting documents pertaining to the use of funds paid to Contractor hereunder shall be retained by Contractor and made available to the Project Manager for purposes of performing an audit for a period of five (5) years from the termination of this Contract.

21. NONDISCRIMINATORY EMPLOYMENT
A. The Contractor shall not unlawfully discriminate against any individual based on race, religion or religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, ethnic group identification, primary language, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, immigration status, citizenship or military and veteran status. The Contractor shall comply with the nondiscrimination mandates of all statutes, ordinances and regulations.

B. For every Subcontractor who will perform Work on the Project, the Contractor shall be responsible for such Subcontractor’s compliance with this Section. The Contractor shall include in the written contract between itself and each Subcontractor a copy of the provisions in this Section and a requirement that each Subcontractor shall comply with those provisions. The Contractor shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure Subcontractor’s compliance. The Contractor shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any failure to comply.

22. MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS
This Contract may be modified or amended only by written Change Orders as specified in the Contract Documents or a written instrument signed by both Parties.

23. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
A. This Contract supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, either oral or written, between the City and Contractor with respect to the subject matter of this Contract.

B. The Contract Documents contain all of the covenants and agreements between the Parties with respect to the subject matter herein, and each Party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or agreements have been made by or on behalf of any Party, except those covenants and agreements in this Contract and the Contract Documents incorporated herein.

C. No agreement, statement, or promise with respect to the subject matter of the Contract Documents, which is not contained in the Contract Documents, or in a valid modification or amendment to the Contract Documents, shall be valid or binding on either Party.

24. AMBIGUITIES
This Contract is in all respects intended by each Party hereto to be deemed and construed to have been jointly prepared by the Parties and the Parties hereby expressly agree that any uncertainty or ambiguity existing herein shall not be interpreted against either of them. Except as expressly limited by this paragraph, all of the applicable rules of interpretation of contract shall govern the interpretation of any uncertainty or ambiguity of this Contract. Notwithstanding the 1125
Agreement No. 32700206
13 foregoing, the Parties agree that Exhibit “A” is attached hereto for reference purposes, and to the extent there are any ambiguities, inconsistencies, or conflicts between the terms of this Contract and Exhibit “A”, the terms of this Contract shall control and nothing set forth in Exhibit “A” shall be deemed to supersede any of the provisions of this Contract.

25. NOTICES
A. Any notice to be provided pursuant to this Contract shall be in writing, and all such notices shall be delivered by personal service or by deposit in the United States mail, certified or registered, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid, and addressed to the Parties as follows:

TO CITY: City of Oxnard
305 W. Third Street, East Wing, Third Floor
Oxnard, CA 93030
TO CONTRACTOR: Ardalan Construction Company, Inc.
8 E. Gainsborough Road
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
Notices, payments, and other documents shall be deemed delivered upon receipt by personal service or as of the second (2nd) day after deposit in the United States mail.

B. Either Party, or the surety, may change its address by giving notice in writing to all other parties listed above, and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to such new address.

26. NON-LIABILITY OF CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to Contractor, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount, which may become due to Contractor or to its successor(s), or for any breach of any obligation of the terms of this Contract.

27. REVIEW BY ATTORNEYS
Each Party hereto has had its attorneys review this Contract and all related documents. Each Party hereto has consulted with its attorneys and has negotiated the terms of this Contract based on such consultation.

28. BONDS
Concurrently with the execution of this Contract by the Contractor, and before the commencement of any Work, Contractor shall furnish to the City a Performance Bond, and a Payment Bond (Labor and Materials Bond) each in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the Contract Price written on the forms included in the Contract Documents. These bonds must remain in force until the later of (a) the expiration of the one-year guarantee period; or (b) one year from the date of completion of the corrective Work. Such bonds must be issued by a responsible corporate Surety, licensed and authorized to issue such bonds in the State of California. 1126
Agreement No. 32700206
14 29. CARE OF WORK
Contractor must adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Contract to furnish continuous protection to the Work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents, plans, studies, and other components to prevent losses or damages, and will be responsible for all damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the Work by the City, except those losses or damages as may be caused by the City’s own negligence. The performance of the Work by Contractor or the payment of money by the City shall not relieve Contractor from any obligation to correct any incomplete, inaccurate, or defective Work (including the obligation to remedy any defective Work or materials during the one-year guarantee period after the City’s acceptance thereof) at no further cost to the City.

30. CAPTIONS AND HEADINGS
The captions and headings contained in this Contract are provided for identification purposes only and shall not be interpreted to limit or define the content of the provisions described under the respective caption or heading.

31. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
No portion of the Contract Documents may be used for any purpose other than construction of the Project, without prior written consent from City. Contractor is deemed to have conveyed the copyright in any designs, drawings, specifications, Shop Drawings, or other documents (in paper or electronic form) developed by Contractor for the Project, and City will retain all rights to such works, including the right to possession.

32. SUCCESSORS, HEIRS, AND ASSIGNS
Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, this Contract shall be binding upon the successors, endorsees, assigns, heirs, and personal representatives of each of the Parties and, likewise, shall inure to the benefit of the successors, endorsees, assigns, heirs, and personal representatives of each of the Parties. This Contract may not be assigned or transferred by Contractor without the concurrence of the surety and express written consent of the City.

33. GENDER; PLURAL
In this Contract, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the masculine, feminine and neuter genders and the singular and the plural shall include one another.

34. SEVERABILITY
If any one or more of the sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained herein is declared invalid, void, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the same shall be deemed severable from the remainder of this Contract and shall not affect, impair, or invalidate any of the remaining sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained herein.

35. GOVERNING LAW
The validity of this Contract and any of its terms or provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the Parties under this Contract, shall be construed pursuant to and in accordance with California law.
1127
Agreement No. 32700206
15 36. CUMULATIVE REMEDIES
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Contract, the rights and remedies of the Parties are cumulative and the exercise by either Party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default of any other default by the other Party.

37. VENUE
All proceedings involving disputes over the terms, provisions, covenants, or conditions contained in this Contract and all proceedings involving any enforcement action related to this Contract shall be initiated and conducted in the applicable court or forum in Ventura County, California.

38. EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTRACT
This Contract shall not be binding upon the City until signed by the authorized representative(s) of Contractor, approved by the City’s Risk Manager and as to form by the City Attorney, and executed by the authorized City personnel or the Mayor.

39. REPRESENTATIONS OF PARTIES AND PERSONS EXECUTING CONTRACT Each of the Parties to this Contract hereby represents that all necessary and appropriate actions of their governing bodies have been taken to make this Contract a binding obligation of each of the Parties hereto. The persons executing this Contract warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Contract on behalf of and bind the Parties each purports to represent.

40. WAIVER
No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by a non-defaulting Party on any default under this Contract shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. A Party's consent to or approval of any act by the other Party requiring the Party's consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the other Party's consent to or approval of any subsequent act. Any waiver by either Party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Contract.

41. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS
Contractor is an independent contractor. All persons working for or under the direction of the Contractor are the Contractor's employees, agents, or subcontractors, and they shall not be deemed agents, servants, or employees of the City.

42. COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each such duplicate counterpart shall constitute an original, but they shall not be effective nor enforceable unless and until it is executed with the handwritten signature or electronic signature of an authorized representative of each of the relevant Parties. Each counterpart shall be deemed to be a part of this Contract.
1128
Agreement No. 32700206
16 43. PROVISIONS REQUIRED BY LAW DEEMED INSERTED
Each and every provision of law and clause required by Law to be inserted in this Contract shall be deemed to be inserted herein and the Contract shall be read and enforced as though it were included herein, and if through mistake or otherwise any such provision is not inserted, or is not currently inserted, then upon application of either Party the Contract shall forthwith be physically amended to make such insertion or correction.

44. ATTORNEY'S FEES
If either Party commences an action against the other Party, whether legal, administrative, or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Contract, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and all other costs of such action.
[END OF THIS PAGE – SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
1129
Agreement No. 32700206
17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Contract effective on the date as stated herein and upon signature of all Parties.

CITY OF OXNARD CONTRACTOR

 Luis A. Mc Arthur, Mayor1 Date Mazafar Aradalan, CEO 2 Date ☐ Purchasing Agent

Lea McLaughlin, Secretary Date
ATTEST:

Lourdes A. López, Date
City Clerk (only if Mayor signs)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________ __________
Stephen M. Fischer, Date
City Attorney (always required)
1 The City Council must authorize and the Mayor must execute any agreement over $220,000. The Purchasing Agent may execute any authorized agreement up to $220,000.
2 The City requires the following for any contract:
● For a corporation, the signatures of the Board President, CEO or Vice President and of the Board Secretary, Assistant Secretary, CFO or Assistant Treasurer;
● For an LLC, the signatures of at least two managers of the LLC (company directors, not lower-level managers); or ● For a partnership, the signature of a partner. If the partnership is a limited partnership, the signer must be a general partner.

If the company has a different structure, or if the above-listed persons are not the appropriate signers, please submit to the City Attorney legally-binding documentation stating who can sign and bind your company. 1130
Agreement No. 32700206
18 EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Contractors Bid Proposal.

Exhibit B: Form INS-G: Insurance Requirements.

Exhibit C: [RESERVED]
Exhibit D: [RESERVED]
Exhibit E: [RESERVED]
Exhibit F: [RESERVED]
EXHIBIT G: Grant of Non-Exclusive Right of Entry Agreement Bonds
The corresponding exhibits and forms contained within follow. 1131
PlanetBids

EXHIBIT A

CONTRACTORS BID PROPOSAL
1132

EXHIBIT B
FORM INS-G: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (WITHOUT BUILDER’S RISK REQUIREMENT)

1. Contractor shall obtain and maintain during the performance of any services under this Contract the following insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of services hereunder by Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. a. Commercial General Liability Insurance, including Contractual Liability, in an amount not less than $2,000,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage for each claimant for general liability with coverage equivalent to Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability Coverage (Occurrence Form CG 0001). If a general aggregate limit is used, that limit shall apply separately to the project location or shall be twice the occurrence amount; b. Business Automobile Liability Insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage for each claimant for automobile liability with coverage equivalent to Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability Coverage (Occurrence Form CA0001) covering Code No. 1, “any auto;” c. If architectural, engineering, or electrical work will be performed under the Contract, Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions Insurance appropriate to the work being done in an amount not less than $1,000,000, with neither Contractor nor listed subcontractors having less than $500,000 individually. The Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions Insurance must be project specific with at least a one-year extended reporting period, or longer upon request. d. Workers’ Compensation Insurance in compliance with the laws of the State of California, and Employer’s Liability Insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claimant. Additionally, the workers’ compensation policy shall include a waiver of all rights of subrogation which the insurer may have against the City.

2. Contractor shall, prior to performance of any services, file with the Risk Manager certificates of insurance with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this Exhibit INS-G. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be on the attached forms or on other forms approved by the Risk Manager. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the Risk Manager before work commences. City reserves the right to require complete certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. The certificates of insurance and endorsements shall be sent via email. If you have not received your request or are having difficulty with electronic upload, contact [email protected]

3. Contractor agrees that all insurance coverages shall be provided by a California admitted insurance carrier with an A.M.

Best rating of A: VII or better and shall be endorsed to state that coverage may not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, or reduced in coverage or limits without 30 days’ prior written notice to the Risk Manager. The Risk Manager shall not approve or accept any endorsement if the endorsement contains “best effort” modifiers or if the insurer is relieved from the responsibility to give such notice.

4. Contractor agrees that the Commercial General Liability and Business Automobile Liability Insurance policies shall be endorsed to name City, its City Council, officers, employees and volunteers as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Contractor; products and completed operations of Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, its City Council, officers, employees and volunteers. The General Liability Special Endorsement Form and Automobile Liability Special Endorsement Form attached to this Exhibit INS-G or substitute forms containing the same information and acceptable to the Risk Manager shall be used to provide the endorsements (ISO form CG 2010 11/85 or if not available, CG 2010 with an edition date prior to 01/04 and CG 2037).

5. The coverages provided to City shall be primary and not contributing to or in excess of any existing City insurance or self-insurance coverages (this must be endorsed). Additionally, the workers’ compensation policy shall include a waiver of all rights of subrogation which the insurer may have against the City. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to City, its City Council, officers, employees and volunteers. The insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.

6. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Risk Manager. At the option of the Risk Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects City, its City Council, officers, employees and volunteers, or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.

7. All insurance standards applicable to Contractor shall also be applicable to Contractor’s subcontractors. Contractor agrees to maintain appropriate agreements with subcontractors and to provide proper evidence of coverage upon receipt of a written request from the Risk Manager.
9/26

1133

INSTRUCTION FOR SUBMITTING INSURANCE CERTIFICATES AND ENDORSEMENT FORMS Certificates of Insurance
The sample accord form on the following page is provided to facilitate your preparation and submission of certificates of insurance.

You may use this or any industry form that shows coverage as broad as that shown on the attached sample. Please note the certificate holder address must be as shown on the attached sample accord form with the contract number and insurance exhibit identification information completed. Improperly addressed certificates may delay the contract start-up date because the City=s practice is to return unidentifiable insurance certificates to the insured for clarification as to the contract number.

Cancellation provisions must be endorsed to the policy. Modifying the certificate does not change coverage or obligate the carrier to provide notice of cancellation.

Endorsement Forms
Original endorsements are required for general liability and automobile liability insurance policies and must be attached to the applicable certificate of insurance. City preference is that you use the endorsement forms which are attached. Substitute forms will be accepted, however, as long as they include provisions comparable to the attached.

INS-G.doc
1134

ACORD CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE ISSUE DATE (MM/DD/YY)

PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.

CODE SUB-CODE COMPANIES AFFORDING INSURANCE COVERAGE

INSURED COMPANY

LETTER A SPECIFY COMPANY NAMES IN THIS SPACE

COMPANY

LETTER B

COVERAGES

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY

REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.

CO
LTR

TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE

DATE (MM/DD/YY)

POLICY EXPIRATION

DATE (MM/DD/YY)
LIMITS

A GENERAL LIABILITY
[x] COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
[x] CLAIMS MADE [x] OCCUR.
[x] OWNER’S & CONTRACTOR’S PROT.

GENERAL AGGREGATE $2,000,000
PRODUCTS COMP/OP AGG. $2,000,000
PERSONAL & ADV. INJURY $2,000,000
EACH OCCURRENCE $2,000,000
FIRE DAMAGE (Any one fire) $
MED. EXPENSE (Any one person) $

A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
[x] ANY AUTO

ALL OWNED AUTOS

SCHEDULED AUTOS

HIRED AUTOS

NON-OWNED AUTOS

GARAGE LIABILITY
COMBINED SINGLE $1,000,000
LIMIT
BODILY INJURY $
(Per person)
BODILY INJURY $
(Per accident)
PROPERTY DAMAGE $

A EXCESS LIABILITY

UMBRELLA FORM

OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM
EACH OCCURRENCE $
AGGREGATE $
A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
AND
EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY

STATUTORY LIMITS
EACH ACCIDENT $1,000,000
DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $1,000,000
DISEASE-EACH EMPLOYEE $1,000,000

A OTHER
Errors and omissions insurance or malpractice insurance available for the insured’s profession; if architectural, engineering or electrical work will be performed under the Contract
Minimum coverage $1,000,000
Each consultant/ $500,000
& Listed sub-consultant

DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/RESTRICTIONS/SPECIAL ITEMS

CERTIFICATE HOLDER
CITY OF OXNARD ℅ Evident ID, Inc.
8520 Allison Pointe Blvd. Ste 223
PMB 5210
Indianapolis, Indiana 462500-4299 US

CANCELLATION

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER

NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES.

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
 Broker/Agent  Underwriter 
I (print/type name), warrant that I have authority to bind the above-mentioned insurance company and by my signature hereon do so bind this company to this endorsement.

Signature
(Original signature required)
Telephone: ( ) Date Signed
INS-G.doc
1135

GENERAL LIABILITY SPECIAL ENDORSEMENT
FOR THE CITY OF OXNARD (the ACity@)

SUBMIT IN DUPLICATE
ENDORSEMENT NO. ISSUE DATE (MM/DD/YY)
PRODUCER POLICY INFORMATION:

Insurance Company:

Policy No.:

Policy Period: (from) (to)
LOSS ADJUSTMENT EXPENSE  Included in Limits
 In Addition to Limits
Telephone:  Deductible  Self-Insured Retention (check which) of $ with an Aggregate of $ applies to NAMED INSURED coverage.  Per Occurrence  Per Claim (which) APPLICABILITY. This insurance pertains to the operations, products and/or tenancy of the named insured under all written agreements and permits in force with the City unless checked here  in which case only the following specific agreements and permits with the City are covered:

CITY AGREEMENTS/PERMITS

TYPE OF INSURANCE

GENERAL LIABILITY
 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
 COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY
 OWNERS & CONTRACTORS PROTECTIVE
 Claims Made
Retroactive Date

 Occurrence

OTHER PROVISIONS

COVERAGES
LIABILITY LIMITS IN THOUSANDS $

EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
 GENERAL
 PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS
 PERSONAL & ADVERTISING INJURY
 FIRE DAMAGE


CLAIMS: Underwriter=s representative for claims pursuant to this insurance.

Name:

Address:

Telephone: ( )

In consideration of the premium charged and notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached or any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto, insurance company agrees as follows:

1. INSURED. The City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers are included as insureds with regard to liability and defense of suits arising from the operations, products and activities performed by or on behalf of the named insured.

2. CONTRIBUTION NOT REQUIRED. As respects: (a) work performed by the named insured for or on behalf of the City; or (b) products sold by the named insured to the City; or (c) premises leased by the named insured from the City, the insurance afforded by this policy shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers; or stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the named insureds scheduled underlying primary coverage. In either event, any other insurance maintained by the City, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers shall be in excess of this insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3. SEVERABILITY OF INTEREST. This insurance applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the company’s limits of liability. The inclusion of any person or organization as an insured shall not affect any right which such person or organization would have as a claimant if not so included.

4. CANCELLATION NOTICE. With respect to the interests of the City, this insurance shall not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by receipted delivery has been given to the City.

5. PROVISIONS REGARDING THE INSUREDS DUTIES. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policy or breaches or violations of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers.

6. SCOPE OF COVERAGE. This policy, if primary, affords coverage at least as broad as:
a. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability Coverage, occurrence form CG0001; or b. If excess, affords coverage which is at least as broad as the primary insurance form CG0001.

Except as stated above nothing herein shall be held to waive, alter or extend any of the limits, conditions, agreements or exclusions of the policy to which this endorsement is attached.

ENDORSEMENT HOLDER
CITY OF OXNARD ℅ Evident ID, Inc.
8520 Allison Pointe Blvd. Ste 223
PMB 5210
Indianapolis, Indiana 462500-4299 US

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
 Broker/Agent  Underwriter 
I (print/type name), warrant that I have authority to
bind the above-mentioned insurance company and by my signature hereon do so bind this company to this endorsement.

Signature
(original signature required)
Telephone: ( ) Date Signed
INS-G.doc
1136

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY SPECIAL ENDORSEMENT
FOR THE CITY OF OXNARD (the ACity@)

SUBMIT IN DUPLICATE
ENDORSEMENT NO. ISSUE DATE (MM/DD/YY)
PRODUCER POLICY INFORMATION:

Insurance Company:

Policy No.:

CITY AGREEMENTS/PERMITS

TYPE OF INSURANCE OTHER PROVISIONS
 COMMERCIAL AUTO POLICY
 BUSINESS AUTO POLICY
 OTHER
LIMIT OF LIABILITY CLAIMS: Underwriters representative for claims pursuant to this insurance.

Name:

Address:

Telephone: ( )
$ per accident, for bodily injury and property damage.

1. INSURED. The City, its officers, agents, volunteers and employees are included as insureds with regard to liability and defense of suits arising from the operations, products and activities performed by or on behalf of the named insured.

2. CONTRIBUTION NOT REQUIRED. As respects: (a) work performed by the named insured for or on behalf of the City; or (b) products sold by the named insured to the City; or (c) premises leased by the named insured from the City, the insurance afforded by this policy shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers; or stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the named insured=s scheduled underlying primary coverage. In either event, any other insurance maintained by the City, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers shall be in excess of this insurance and shall not contribute with it.

6. SCOPE OF COVERAGE. This policy, if primary, affords coverage at least as broad as:
a. Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability Coverage, ”occurrence” form CA0001, code (any auto); or b. If excess, affords coverage which is at least as broad as the primary insurance form referenced in the preceding section (1).

Except as stated above nothing herein shall be held to waive, alter or extend any of the limits, conditions, agreements or exclusions of the policy to which this endorsement is attached.

ENDORSEMENT HOLDER
CITY OF OXNARD ℅ Evident ID, Inc.
8520 Allison Pointe Blvd. Ste 223
PMB 5210
Indianapolis, Indiana 462500-4299 US

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
 Broker/Agent  Underwriter 
I (print/type name), warrant that I have authority to
bind the above-mentioned insurance company and by my signature hereon do so bind this company to this endorsement.

Signature
(Original signature required)
Telephone: ( ) Date Signed
INS-G.doc
1137

EXHIBIT C
[RESERVED]
1138

EXHIBIT D
[RESERVED]
1139

EXHIBIT E
[RESERVED]
1140

EXHIBIT F
[RESERVED]
1141

EXHIBIT G

GRANT OF NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF ENTRY AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF OXNARD AND _______________
THIS RIGHT OF ENTRY AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), is made and entered into by and between the City of Oxnard, a municipal corporation located in the County of Ventura, State of California, hereinafter referred to as the “Grantor”, and _____________, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as the “Grantee.” Grantor and Grantee are sometimes hereinafter referred to individually as “Party” and collectively referred to as the “Parties.”
RECITALS:

WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of certain properties located in the City of Oxnard, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers _________________, as more particularly described in Attachment A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Subject Properties”); and WHEREAS, _____________ is planning to secure a temporary non-exclusive right of entry on City of Oxnard property; and
WHEREAS,__________ will procure an agreement with a contractor who will utilize the Subject Properties for staging of construction equipment, materials, office trailer, vehicle parking and portable restrooms with overnight security; and
WHEREAS, In light of the benefits of the__________ and in cooperation with _______________, the Grantee is requesting the Grantor to permit the Grantee, its contractor and its representatives, servants, employees, subcontractors and other agents to enter upon the Subject Properties in order to use the Subject Properties, as well as any restoration thereto, in accordance with this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to permit the Grantee to enter upon and use the Subject Properties in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND PROMISES CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. GRANT OF RIGHT OF ENTRY
The Grantor hereby grants the Grantee a temporary non-exclusive right of entry upon the Subject Properties for the purpose of use for working, lay down and staging areas, including the right to locate construction trailers and construction equipment, storing equipment and materials; on the areas shaded in pink and blue on Attachment “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof, hereinafter referred to as “staging area.”

1142
Section 2. GRANTEE’S RESPONSIBILITY
The Grantee shall, at its sole expense, perform, or cause to be performed, all of the services associated with installing, maintaining, operating, repairing, and removing any improvements necessary to make the Subject Properties suitable for safe use of Subject Properties, in a manner causing the least amount of interference with the Subject Properties, including, without limitation, taking reasonable precautions to assure the safety of persons and property on the Subject Properties.

The Grantee shall erect and maintain temporary fencing and gates with a locking device to enclose the areas of use, and shall remove such fencing and gates at the end of the term of this agreement.

The Grantee shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations pertaining to its use. Grantee is required under State and local law to re-stabilize any disturbed locations within the area of use in order to control soil erosion and sediment runoff at the conclusion of the use of the Subject Properties by Grantee.

The Grantee shall restore, replace, or repair, as applicable, any of the Grantor’s property damaged or destroyed as a result of the Grantee’s right of entry on the Subject Properties during the Term of this Agreement.

Section 3. INDEMNIFICATION
The Grantee shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Grantor, and its respective officers, officials, employees, agents, representatives, and assigns from and against any and all actions, suits, proceedings, claims, demands, losses, costs, expenses, and judgments for any injury or damage of any type claimed that may involve the Grantee, its contractor and its representatives, servants, employees, subcontractors and other agents resulting from or arising out of this Agreement, except in the case of Grantor’s gross negligence or willful misconduct Section 4. COMPENSATION [Optional]
Monthly Base Rent. During the Initial Term, Grantee shall pay to Grantor as rent for the Subject Properties, the amount of ______ ($____.00) per month (the “Monthly Base Rent”), for a total amount of ____________ ($____.00) as compensation for the Right of Entry use of Subject Properties. If Grantee extends the term of the Agreement, Grantee will pay Grantor Five hundred dollars ($___.00) per month and shall continue thereafter per month or for any portion thereof.

Section 5. TERM
The Term of this Agreement shall commence on _______ __, ____ (the “Effective Date”) and shall terminate on _____ __, ____ (the “Expiration Date”).

However, if the work is not completed by the Expiration Date the right of entry shall be extended for thirty (30) calendar days after the Expiration Date of this Agreement, then Grantee’s right to enter the Subject Properties for the purpose of performing the work shall expire on that date (the “Extended Expiration Date”). A request to postpone the Expiration Date any further than the 1143
Extended Expiration Date shall be accompanied by revised proposed scope of services and shall require the prior written approval of the Grantor.

Section 6. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION
If Grantee is in violation of the terms and conditions set forth herein, this Agreement may be terminated or suspended provided Grantor provides Grantee with written notice of such violation.

Grantee shall have thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receiving said written notice of violation, to cure such violation. In the event Grantee fails to cure the violation within the time prescribed herein, Grantor has the right but not the obligation to terminate this agreement at which point Grantee shall remove all of Grantee’s or its contractors equipment materials and fencing, etc. and shall restore the Subject Properties to its original conditions.

Section 7. MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written instrument signed by both parties.

Section 8. NOTICES
a. Any notice to be provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing, and all such notices shall be delivered by personal service or by deposit in the United States mail, certified or registered, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid, and addressed to the parties as follows:

To the Grantor: The City of Oxnard [ATTN ] Address
To the Grantee: Contractor [ATTN] Address
b. Notices and other documents shall be deemed delivered upon receipt by personal service or as of the second (2nd) day after deposit in the United States mail. c. The parties to this Agreement may change their notification addresses from time to time upon written notice to one another.

Section 9. INSURANCE

14. INSURANCE
Grantee shall procure and maintain at its own expense at all times during the period covered by this Agreement the following policies of insurance as approved by the City’s Risk Manager as set forth in INS-X attached.

Section 10. INTERPRETATION
Any rule of construction which states that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in interpreting this Agreement.
1144
Section 11. WAIVER
a. No waiver of a breach, failure of any condition, or any right or remedy contained in or granted by the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective, unless executed in writing and signed by the party making the waiver.
b. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any such waiver constitute a continuing or subsequent waiver of the same provision.
c. Failure of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the right to compel enforcement of the remaining provisions of this Agreement.

Section 12. CAPTIONS AND HEADINGS
The captions and headings contained in this Agreement are provided for identification purposes only and shall not be interpreted to limit or define the content of the provisions described under the respective caption or heading.

Section 13. SEVERABILITY
If any one or more of the sentences, clauses, paragraphs or sections contained herein is declared invalid, void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the same shall be deemed severable from the remainder of this Agreement and shall not affect, impair or invalidate any of the remaining sentences, clauses, paragraphs or sections contained herein.

Section 14. GOVERNING LAW
The validity of this Agreement and any of its terms or provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the parties under this Agreement, shall be construed pursuant to and in accordance with California law.

Section 15. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party.

Section 16. MUTUAL COOPERATION
The parties hereto agree that they will each cooperate with the other, and shall provide such information and documentation as is reasonably necessary to fulfill the intent of this Agreement, and shall make diligent response to inquiries and requests for information from the other party.

Section 17. VENUE
All proceedings involving disputes over the terms, provisions, covenants or conditions contained in this Agreement and all proceedings involving any enforcement action related to this Agreement 1145
shall be initiated and conducted in the applicable Court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Ventura, California.

Section 18. ATTORNEY'S FEES
In the event any action, suit or proceeding is brought for the enforcement of, or the declaration of any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement or as a result of any alleged breach of any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such suit or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, and any judgment or decree rendered in such a proceeding shall include an award thereof.

Section 19. AUTHORITY
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties.

Section 20. COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts, and when executed by each of the parties, each counterpart shall be deemed to be a part of this Agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of _________________________, 2026.

GRANTOR GRANTEE
The City of Oxnard ______________________________
By: ______________________ By: ___________________________ Michael L. Wolfe, P.E.

Public Works Director ______________________________
Approved as to Form
By: ______________________
Stephen M. Fischer
City Attorney
1146

ATTACHMENT A
(SUBJECT PROPERTIES) Parcel Numbers:
1147
Bond No. __________

PAYMENT BOND
(LABOR AND MATERIALS)
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that:

WHEREAS the City of Oxnard (“Agency”), State of California, has awarded to

(“Principal”)
(Name and address of Contractor)
a contract (the “Contract”) for the Work described as Wilson Park Senior Adult Services Accessibility Improvements Project, Specification No. PW 25-72.

WHEREAS, under the terms of the Contract, the Principal is required before entering upon the performance of any Work, to file a good and sufficient Payment Bond with the Agency to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal, and

(Name and address of Surety)
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of __________________ (“Surety”) a duly admitted surety insurer under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, and our heirs, assignees, successors, executors and administrators are held and firmly bound, jointly and severally, unto the Agency and all Contractors, Subcontractors, laborers, material suppliers, and other persons employed in the performance of the Contract and referred to in Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code in the penal sum of
Dollars ($ ), this amount being not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the total Contract Price in lawful money of the United States of America, for materials furnished or labor thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to this Work or labor, that the Surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount hereinabove set forth, and also in case suit is brought upon this Bond, will pay, in addition to the face amount thereof, costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by Agency in successfully enforcing this obligation, to be awarded and fixed by the court, and to be taxed as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered.

It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this Bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies, and corporations entitled to file claims under Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this Bond.

Upon expiration of the time within which the California Labor Commissioner may serve a civil wage and penalty assessment against the principal, any of its Subcontractors, or both the principal and its Subcontractors pursuant to Labor Code Section 1741, and upon expiration of the time within which a joint labor management committee may commence an action against the principal, any of its Subcontractors, or both the principal and its Subcontractors pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.2, if the condition of this Bond be fully performed, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect.
1148
The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract, including all incorporated documents, shall in any manner affect its obligations on this Bond. The Surety hereby waives notice of any such change, extension, alteration, or addition.

Additionally, the Surety hereby waives California Civil Code 2845 and 2849 as well as any statutes of limitation, statutes of repose and laches as they may apply to an action on this Bond.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by Principal and Surety, on the date set forth below, the name of each party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative(s) pursuant to authority of its governing body.

Dated:
“Principal”
By:

Its:

(Seal)

“Surety”
By:

Its:

By:

Its
(Seal)
Notes: This Bond must be executed and dated, all Surety signatures must be notarized, and evidence of the authority of any person signing as attorney-in-fact must be attached. Date of Bond must not be before the Effective Date of the Contract. Surety companies executing Bonds must appear on the Treasury Department’s most current list (Circular 570 as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the State of California.
1149
Bond No. __________

PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that:

WHEREAS the City of Oxnard (“Agency”), has awarded to

WHEREAS, Principal is required under the terms of the Contract to furnish a Bond for the faithful performance of the Contract.

NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal, and

,
(Name and address of Surety)
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of __________________ (“Surety”) a duly admitted surety insurer under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the Agency in the penal sum of
Dollars ($ ), this amount
being not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the total Contract Price in lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, assignees, successors, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, if the hereby bounded Principal, his, her or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and provisions in the Contract and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on the Principal’s part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless the Agency, its officers, agents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void one (1) year from the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion for the Project; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect.

As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by Agency in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. Surety hereby waives any statutes of limitation, statutes of repose and laches as they may apply to an action on this Bond.

The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract, including all incorporated documents, or of the Work to be performed thereunder or the Specifications accompanying the same shall in any way affect the Surety’s obligations under this Bond. The Surety hereby waives notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract or to the Work or to the Specifications. Surety hereby waives California Civil Code 2845 and 2849. The City is the principal beneficiary of this Bond and has all rights of a party hereto. 1150
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by Principal and Surety, on the date set forth below, the name of each party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative(s) pursuant to authority of its governing body.

Dated:
“Principal”
By:

Its:

(Seal)
“Surety”
By:

Its:

By:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM NO. M.1
DATE: October 20, 2026
TO: City Council
FROM: Jeff Pengilley, Community Development Director, (805) 385-8208, [email protected] SUBJECT: RiverPark Specific Plan Amendment.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing;

2. Certify Addendum No. 16 to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 00-03 together with the previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report and subsequent addenda, and determine that no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required.; and

3. Approve the first reading by title only and waive further reading of the proposed ordinance titled: AN

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD APPROVING PLANNING AND ZONING PERMIT NO. 26-630-01 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO THE RIVERPARK SPECIFIC

PLAN) TO CHANGE THE PUBLIC FACILITIES LAND USE DESIGNATION WITHIN PLANNING DISTRICT E TO COMMERCIAL: REGIONAL.

This is a public hearing item and was reviewed by the Planning Commission. Therefore, this item did not originate in Committee.

Please click on the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/SiySTJaBJ9o

BACKGROUND
The RiverPark Specific Plan (RPSP) General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Annexation, Development Agreement, and EIR certification were adopted by the City Council on September 10, 2002. There have been several amendments to the specific plan since its approval and this proposed amendment to modify Planning District E changing Public Facilities to Commercial: Regional will be the ninth amendment to the RPSP.

The RPSP was developed with various land use designations ranging from low-medium, medium, and high density residential to regional, office, retail, and convention hotel commercial. The plan includes Planning Districts to identify the type of land uses anticipated in certain areas based on the scale and location of the property to streets, automobile usage, and development type. Planning District E is within the East Peripheral Commercial District, which was intended for commercial uses that could benefit from the accessibility and visibility from the 101 freeway and Vineyard Avenue.

Planning District E was initially approved entirely as Commercial: Regional in 2002, and is currently developed with a McDonald’s, Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, and WSS Shoes. In 2009, a city-owned parcel in Planning District E (APN 132- 0-033-010) was approved for a city maintenance storage and administration facility that was ultimately never constructed and currently remains vacant. The Public Facilities zoning designation was intended to allow that facility. 1152
The City of Oxnard owns the three vacant properties within Planning District E (APNs: 132-0-033-010, 132-0-311-065, and 132-0-311-075) zoned Public Facilities subject to the proposed amendment.

One of the properties (APN 132-0-311-075) is currently entitled for the construction of a Freeway Adjacent Digital Display Billboard. The largest of the city properties (1.3 acres) at 250 Riverpark Boulevard where the previous maintenance facility was approved entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with Dynamic Real Estate Partners LLC (“Developer”). This ENA was authorized by the City Council on March 3, 2026, allowing the City and the Developer to negotiate terms for selling and developing the property for commercial use. As agreed upon, the City would process an amendment to change the land use from Public Facilities to Commercial: Regional. This proposed amendment would fulfill that agreement to allow the city to continue negotiations with the developer.

Under the terms in the ENA, the City and Developer can negotiate in good faith for a 12-month period after the date of the agreement. The negotiation period may be extended 12 additional months as executed in writing by the developer and the City’s Housing Director. Currently, the City and Developer are still in negotiations and the Developer will conduct due diligence studies through a license agreement in order to determine future development of the property while the specific plan amendment is ongoing.

The proposed amendment was reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission at the September 3, 2026, meeting for Council approval, with a 6-0 vote, with one commissioner absent.

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
Planning District E of the RPSP consists of approximately 8.9 acres with two land use designations - Commercial:

Regional and Public Facilities. The proposed specific plan amendment changes the land use of Planning District E back to entirely Commercial: Regional, as originally approved. There are five areas of the RPSP that will be amended: 1. Exhibit

2.J Land Use Summary by Planning District (Table 1), 2. Section 2.5.2.5 location and permitted land use text, 3. Section

2.5.2.5 land use summary (Table 2), 4. Section 2.5.2.5 allowed uses for each permitted land use (Table 3), and 5. Land Use Map changing entirely to Commercial: Regional (Attachment 3), as follows below.

Table 1: Proposed Planning District E Land Use Summary (Partial Table) Section 2.5.2.5 Planning District E will be amended to remove Public Facilities and update the typo from 111,000 square feet to 110,000 square feet as approved in RPSP amendment number 7 and EIR Addendum 15 and will be read as:

The Permitted Land Use are Commercial: Regional and Public Facilities. The Specific Plan accommodates up to 111 110 KSF of freeway-oriented commercial uses, a maximum of five stories high, including offices, retail and take-out restaurants that could best benefit from this access and visibility. A landscaped buffer shields the buildable sites from the freeway.

Table 2: Proposed Section 2.5.2.5 Land Use Summary
Land Use Gross Acreage
(Acres)
Permitted Maximum Commercial
Square Footage (1,000 sq. ft.)
Commercial; Regional 7.4 8.9 110
Public Facilities 1.4 -
Total 8.9 110
Permitted Land Use Gross Acreage Max KSF Allowable
COMMERCIAL: REGIONAL 7.5 8.9 111 110
PUBLIC FACILITIES 1.4 NA
Planning District E Totals 8.9 acres 111 110 KSF
1153
Table 3: Proposed Section 2.5.2.5 Allowed Uses
The allowed uses within Planning District E would be modified to remove Public Facilities and park maintenance and the Commercial: Regional uses would remain as-is.

The proposed amendment does not alter the land area, permitted maximum square footage, or include new development.

Amending the land use to Commercial: Regional will allow future commercial development; however, the future proposed development would be subject to conformance to the zoning standards within the RPSP including but not limited to commercial standards, landscaping standards, infrastructure, and public hearing process.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The City’s 2030 General Plan land use designation for the subject site is Commercial Regional uses, which allows retail, commercial, government and residential uses. The proposed amendment of the RPSP zoning to Commercial: Regional is consistent with the 2030 General Plan land use, goals, and policies. The underlying General Plan land use and proposed zoning would then match. Future development would be reviewed accordingly for consistency with the 2030 General Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On July 16, 2002, the City Council certified FEIR No. 00-03 for The RPSP (State Clearinghouse No. 2000051046) and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The FEIR No. 00-03 found four areas of significant impacts (Earth Resources-Mineral Resources, Water Quality, Agricultural Resources, and Cultural Resources-Historical Resources).

Land Use Allowed Use
Commercial: Regional
• Freestanding restaurants; restaurants involving
any drive-in or drive-thru facilities.
• Banks; savings and loan associations and other
financial institutions
• Pharmacies, primarily engaged in the
merchandising of pharmaceuticals and medical
supplies.
• Retail uses such as restaurants, coffee shops, gift
shops, and services such as barber shops, health
centers and clubs, and travel and ticket agencies.
• Office uses
• On-sale and off-sale alcohol*
• Similar uses as determined acceptable by the
Director Development Services Department of the
Community Development Department of the City
of Oxnard.

Public Facilies Park maintenance facility
1154
Addendum No. 16 to the approved FEIR No. 00-03 and subsequent addendums (Attachment 4) was prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project in accordance with 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 is the Lead Agency. Addendum No. 16 is appropriate pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15164 since only minor changes and additions to FEIR No. 00-03 are necessary to address the Project changes and no circumstances exist calling for the preparation of an additional CEQA document pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15162 and 15163. The analyses in the addendum established that the proposed project is consistent with the FEIR and would not result in new or more severe impacts when compared to those identified in the FEIR for the Original Project. Lastly, the original mitigations will remain applicable. These mitigations will be applicable to any future projects developed under the RPSP.

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

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There are no financial impacts associated with this agenda item. The approval of the Project provides a future opportunity for commercial development that could result in increased tax revenue for the City. Any future development will be required to pay the applicable service fees for permit processing and inspections, utility services, and development impact fees.

COMMITTEE OUTCOME
This is a public hearing item and was reviewed by the Planning Commission. Therefore, this item did not originate in Committee. During the Planning Commission public hearing on September 3, 2026, the Commissioners inquired about future development and potential impacts and staff responded that the future proposed projects would be reviewed accordingly requiring any necessary studies and documents at that time. No written public comments were received and no members of the public spoke at the hearing.

The Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-22 recommending the City Council certify Addendum No. 16 to FEIR No. 00-03 and adopted an Ordinance recommending City Council approve Planning and Zoning Permit No. 26-630-01, subject to certain findings and conditions (Attachment 6). The Planning Commission meeting can be viewed online at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/live/JGoLZBQhPZ8?si=yC0r8QuJ4BmNIQWb. The Measure M Presentation for the Planning Commission meeting may be viewed at the following link: https://youtu.be/CU77uLNguO8?si=miB0d_q09uqEHMOv.

The final motion carried 6 (in favor) - 0 (against), with one commissioner absent.

Attachment 5 reflects the Commission’s recommended action to the City Council.

Prepared by: Jamie Peltier, Planning Supervisor

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Commission Staff Report - September 3, 2026

2. Maps (Vicinity, Aerial, General Plan, Zoning)

3. Project Plans

4. Addendum No. 16 to FEIR 00-03

5. Planning Commission Signed Resolution No. 2026-22

6. Draft City Council Ordinance - RiverPark Specific Plan Amendment

7. Staff Presentation
1155

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jamie Peltier, Planning Supervisor
DATE: September 3, 2026
SUBJECT: Project Name: RiverPark Specific Plan Amendment; Planning and Zoning Permit No. 26-630-01 (Specific Plan Amendment) and Addendum No. 16 to Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 00-03 (State Clearinghouse No. 2000051046), Properties Located at APN: 132-0-033-010, 132-0-311-065, and 132-0-311-075.
1) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission (“Commission”):
a) Adopt Resolution 2026-XX recommending that the City Council approve Planning and Zoning Permit No. 26-630-01 (Specific Plan Amendment), subject to certain findings and conditions, and certification of Addendum No. 16 to FEIR No. 00-03. 2) Project Description and Applicant: A request for a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to make map amendments to the RiverPark Specific Plan (RPSP) redesignating the land use of Public Facilities to Commercial: Regional within Planning District E, update Exhibit 2.J Land Use Summary by Planning District to remove Public Facilities from Planning District E: East Peripheral Commercial District, and update the text in Section 2.5.2.5. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Addendum No. 16 (Attachment C) to FEIR No. 00-03 has been prepared with subsequent addendums1.

No physical development is proposed with this request. Any future development proposals would be required to comply with the 2030 General Plan, the RPSP, and applicable development standards. All future proposals would also be subject to compliance with the CEQA Guidelines.

For purposes of this Staff Report, the foregoing project description shall be referred to as the “Project.” The project application was filed by David Metchis, City of Oxnard Housing Department, 435 S D Street, Oxnard, CA 93030 on behalf of the property owner, City of Oxnard, (referred to as the “Applicant”).
3) Existing & Surrounding Land Uses: The 702-acre RPSP area is located in the western portion of Ventura County, in the northwestern edge of the City of Oxnard, and is bounded by 1 The RiverPark FEIR and Addendums are available on the City’s website:
https://www.oxnard.org/environmental-document-archives/ 1156
PZ# 26-630-01, RiverPark Specific Plan Amendment
Planning Commission Date: September 3, 2026

Page 2 ends

the Ventura Freeway (Highway 101) to the South, Vineyard Avenue to the east, Central Road to the North, and the Santa Clara River to the west. (Attachment A).

Table 1 - Existing Land Uses
LOCATION ZONING 2030 GENERAL PLAN EXISTING LAND USE
Project Site Public Facilities (RPSP) Commercial Regional Vacant North R-1-PD, R-2-PD,
C-2-PD
Residential Low,
Residential Light Medium,
Commercial General
Mixed residential (Single
Family, Duplexes,
Apartments), Commercial:

Drive-thru Restaurant
East Commercial: Regional
(RPSP)
Commercial Regional Commercial: Drive-thru
Restaurants
South Ventura 101 Highway Caltrans Highway Freeway
West Public Facilities (RPSP) Commercial Regional Vacant 4) Background Information: The RPSP was adopted by the City Council on September 10, 2002 with the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Annexation, Development Agreement, and EIR certification. As amended, the RPSP allows for the phased development of 4,068 dwelling units and 1,536,000 square feet of commercial development. This will be the ninth amendment to the RPSP.

The RPSP was developed following the design principles of the New Urbanism and Smart Growth movements, which emphasized the importance of mixed land uses in close proximity, communities scaled for pedestrian walkability; limiting the need for automobile usage; higher density development, and the importance of physical design. There are various land use designations ranging from low medium, medium, and high density residential to regional, office, retail, and convention hotel commercial. The Planning Districts identify the type of land use anticipated in certain areas based on the scale and location of the property to streets, automobile usage, and development type. Planning District E is within the East Peripheral Commercial District, which was intended for commercial uses that could best benefit from the accessibility and visibility from the 101 freeway and Vineyard Avenue.

Planning District E was initially approved entirely as Commercial: Regional and is currently developed with a McDonald’s, Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, and WSS Shoes. Of the previous eight RPSP amendments, three amendments altered Planning District E including changing 1157
PZ# 26-630-01, RiverPark Specific Plan Amendment
Planning Commission Date: September 3, 2026

Page 3 ends

the land use to add the Public Facilities land use in 2012 and reducing the maximum permitted square footage within this district.

The City of Oxnard owns three vacant properties within Planning District E (APNs:
132-0-033-010, 132-0-311-065, and 132-0-311-075). One of the properties (APN 132-0-311-075) is currently entitled for the construction of a Freeway Adjacent Digital Display Billboard. The largest of the properties, the 1.3-acre site at 250 Riverpark Boulevard (APN 132-0-033-010), entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with Dynamic Real Estate Partners LLC (“Developer”) that was approved and authorized by the City Council on March 3, 2026. The ENA with the City and the Developer agreed to pursue commercial development of the property, and the City would amend the land use to Commercial: Regional. Under the terms, the City and Developer can negotiate in good faith for a 12-month period after the date of the agreement (March 2027). The negotiation period may be extended 12 additional months as executed in writing by the developer and the City’s Housing Director. Currently, the City and Developer are still in negotiations and the Developer will conduct due diligence studies through a license agreement in order to determine future development of the property.
5) Environmental Determination: On July 16, 2002, the City Council certified FEIR No. 00-03 for The RPSP (State Clearinghouse No. 2000051046) and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The FEIR No. 00-03 found four areas of significant impacts (Earth Resources-Mineral Resources, Water Quality, Agricultural Resources, and Cultural Resources-Historical Resources).

Addendum No. 16 to the approved FEIR No. 00-03 and subsequent addendums (Attachment C) was prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project in accordance with 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 is the Lead Agency.

Addendum No. 16 is appropriate pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15164 since only minor changes and additions to FEIR No. 00-03 are necessary to address the Project changes and no circumstances exist calling for the preparation of an additional CEQA document pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15162 and 15163.

This addendum evaluated the original specific plan, the development thus far, and the existing subsequent environmental documents, and the proposed project to change the land use. The proposed SPA would permit a maximum buildout of 110,000 square feet of Commercial; Regional uses on 8.9 acres within Planning District E – resulting in an overall decrease in the intensity of development across the planning district. The project proposes a SPA to eliminate the subsequently-added "Public Facilities" land use designation from Planning District E and update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to correctly reflect the maximum permitted commercial buildout of 110,000 square feet, as analyzed in Addendum No. 15. The proposed SPA would revert allowable land uses back to Commercial; Regional throughout the entirety of Planning District E, consistent with the land uses evaluated in the Final EIR. The SPA would not change the type of land uses allowed in 1158
PZ# 26-630-01, RiverPark Specific Plan Amendment
Planning Commission Date: September 3, 2026

Page 4 ends

Planning District E or increase the allowable intensity of land uses allowed within Planning District E compared to the Final EIR.

The analyses in the addendum established that the proposed project is consistent with the Final EIR and would not result in new or more severe impacts when compared to those identified in the Final EIR for the Original Project.
6) Analysis:
a) General Discussion: Pursuant to Oxnard City Code (OCC) Section 2-95, the Planning Commission is an advisory body which provides land use recommendations to the City Council on items such as General Plan Amendments, Specific Plans, Ordinance Amendments and Development Agreements. The application request is for a Specific Plan Amendment.

Planning District E of the RPSP consists of approximately 8.9-acres with two land use designations - Commercial: Regional and Public Facilities. The proposed SPA changes the land use back to Commercial: Regional for all of Planning District E as originally approved. RPSP Land Use Summary by Planning District will be amended to remove Public Facilities as follows:

Table 1: Proposed RPSP Land Use Summary
Land Use Gross Acreage
(Acres)
Permitted Maximum
Commercial Square Footage
(1,000 sq. ft.)
Commercial;
Regional 7.4 8.9 110
Public Facilities 1.4 -
Total 8.9 110
Additionally, the land use description in Section 2.5.2.5 Planning District E will be amended to remove Public Facilities and update the typo from 111,000 square feet to 110,000 square feet as approved in RPSP amendment number 7 and EIR Addendum 15, also reflected in RPSP Exhibit 2.J Land Use Summary by Planning District table.

The proposed amendment does not alter the land area, permitted maximum square footage, or include new development. Amending the land use to Commercial: Regional will allow future commercial development subject to the requirements of the RPSP. b) General Plan Consistency: The City’s 2030 General Plan land use designation for the subject site is Commercial Regional uses which allows retail, commercial, government and residential uses. The proposed Project to amend the RPSP zoning to Commercial:

Regional is consistent with the 2030 General Plan land use, goals, and policies. The underlying General Plan land use and proposed zoning would then match for consistency. 1159
PZ# 26-630-01, RiverPark Specific Plan Amendment
Planning Commission Date: September 3, 2026

Page 5 ends

Future development would be reviewed accordingly for consistency with the 2030 General Plan.
c) Conformance with Zoning Development Standards: The proposed SPA for a change of land use to Commercial: Regional does not include associated development. The development standards for Planning District E are already provided in Section 3 - Commercial standards, Section 5 - Landscaping, Section 6 - Infrastructure, and Section 7 - Implementation, which are not subject to change with this amendment. Any future development would be required to meet the standards of the RPSP. 7) Community Workshop and Public Input: On May 8, 2026, the applicant mailed notices of the Community Workshop meeting to all property owners within the RiverPark Neighborhood. A notice of this meeting was posted on the project site with a brief description and contact information. The Community Workshop was conducted on May 18, 2026. There were no attendees for this item and no public comments submitted prior to the Community Workshop. No public comments have been received on this project. 8) Appeal Procedure: The Planning Commission’s action is a recommendation and the Project will be considered by the City Council at a later date. As the Planning Commission does not take formal action, but recommends an action to the City Council, an Appeal procedure is not necessary.

Attachments:

A. Maps (Vicinity, General Plan, Zoning)
B. Project Plans
C. Addendum No. 16 to Final EIR
D. Draft Planning Commission Resolution Recommending approval of PZ No. 26-630-01 (Specific Plan Amendment)
E. Staff Presentation
1160
Dean Dr
N Ventura Rd
101
Telephone Rd
101
101
Olivas Links
Golf Course

MONTALVO
SERRA

PIERPONT
OLIVAS

NORTH BANK

ARUNDELL
THILLE
Doris Ave
S E St
S J St
W Hemlock St
N
C St
N H St
Sunset Ln
N
Ventura Rd
W Gonzales Rd W Gonzales Rd
Victoria Ave
Harbor Blvd
S Ventura Rd
W Wooley Rd
W 5th St
W Vineyard Ave
Naval CBC Port
Hueneme
River Ridge
Golf Club
Seabee Golf
Course
McGrath State
Beach
Oxnard Airport
S J St
Port Hueneme
Beach Park
Channel
Islands Beach
Port Hueneme
Santa
Clara
River
Central Ave
Santa
Clara
Ave
118

STRICKLAND
El Rio
Sturgis Rd
Hailes Rd
Kohala St
Del Norte Blvd
Emerson Ave
S Rice Ave
N Rose Ave
E Wooley Rd
S Rose Ave
N Rice Ave
Saviers Rd
1 1
1 34
101
101

NYELAND
ACRES
Oxnard
Casper Rd
Etting R
Arnold Rd
Olds Rd
Edison Dr
Rice Ave
E Hueneme Rd
E P leasant Valley Rd
Saviers Rd
Ventura County
Game Reserve
PZ 26-630-01
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
¯
0 0.5 1 2 Miles Vicinity Map
1161
101

FWY SOUTH

RIVERPARK BLVD

COLONIA AVE
101

FWY NORTH
ALLEY
SB 101 OFF RAMP
NB 101 ON RAMP
City of Oxnard
0 50 100 200 Feet Aerial Map
1162
CG
CG
CG
CR
CR
CR
CR
ESM
ESM
RL
RL
RL
RLM
RM
RM
RM
RMH
CG
CG
COF
Sources: Esri, Vantor, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 155 310 620 Feet General Plan 2030
1163
C-O-PD
C-2-PD
C-2-PD
C-2-PD
C-2-PD
C-2-PD
C-2-PD
C-2-PD
ESM-RW
R-1-PD
R-1-PD
R-1-PD
R-1-PD
R-1-PD
R-2-PD
R-2-PD
R-1-PD
C-2-PD
C-2-PD
SPLAN
SPLAN
R-1-PD
C-O
C-O-PD
C2-PD
Sources: Esri, Vantor, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 125 250 500 Feet Zoning Map
1164
exhibit
August 27, 2002
prepared for

RTKL / EDSA / CRAIN AND ASSOCIATES /
RiverPark Development, LLC by AC Martin Partners

WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS
with
/ HUITT-ZOLLARS

2.B LAND USE PLAN: PERMITTED USES
update through 3/2012
Modified in
SPA 2015
Existing Land Use Map
1165
exhibit
August 27, 2002
prepared for

RTKL / EDSA / CRAIN AND ASSOCIATES /
RiverPark Development, LLC by AC Martin Partners

WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS
with
/ HUITT-ZOLLARS

2.B LAND USE PLAN: PERMITTED USES
update through 3/2012
Modified in
SPA 2015
Proposed Land Use Map
1166
Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 16
RiverPark Specific Plan
LEAD AGENCY:

City of Oxnard
435 South D Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
PREPARED BY:

BKF Engineers
Emily Creel, JD
Regional Lead – Northern California Environmental
811 El Capitan Way, Suite 130
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
August 2026
1167
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
This page is intentionally left blank.
1168
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE i August 2026 Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Location..........................................................................................................................1

1.2 Background.................................................................................................................................1

1.3 Adopted RiverPark Specific Plan.............................................................................................13

1.4 Consistency Analysis...............................................................................................................17

1.5 CEQA Compliance ....................................................................................................................17 2 Project Description ..............................................................................................................21

2.1 Project Characteristics.............................................................................................................21 3 Determination.......................................................................................................................27

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...........................................................................27

3.2 Determination............................................................................................................................28 4 Environmental Analysis.......................................................................................................29

4.1 Land Use, Planning, Programs and Policies...........................................................................30

4.2 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................33

4.3 Earth Resources .......................................................................................................................37 Impact Thresholds......................................................................................................................42

4.4 Biological Resources ...............................................................................................................44

4.5 Water Resources.......................................................................................................................48

4.6 Agricultural Resources ............................................................................................................53

4.7 Transportation and Circulation................................................................................................55

4.8 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................58

4.9 Noise..........................................................................................................................................64

4.10 Public Services .........................................................................................................................68

4.11 Public Utilities...........................................................................................................................80

4.12 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................................91

4.13 Hazards......................................................................................................................................95 5 References..........................................................................................................................100 6 Report Preparers................................................................................................................102 1169
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE ii August 2026

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Regional Location........................................................................................................................3 Exhibit 2: Project Vicinity.............................................................................................................................5 Exhibit 3: Land Use Designation Map – Adopted Specific Plan ...................................................................7 Exhibit 4: Land Use Summary – Adopted Specific Plan...............................................................................9 Exhibit 5: RiverPark Specific Plan Update.................................................................................................23 Exhibit 6: RiverPark Specific Plan Update (Continued) .............................................................................25 TABLES
Table 1: Residential and Commercial Development Status by District.......................................................14 Table 2: Addendum 10 Land Use Changes in Planning District E..............................................................16 Table 3: Addendum 13 Land Use Changes in Planning District E..............................................................16 Table 4: Addendum 15 Land Use Changes in Planning District E..............................................................17 Table 5: Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Summary............................................................21 1170
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE iii August 2026 This page is intentionally left blank.
1171
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 1 August 2026 1 Introduction

1.1 Project Location
The City of Oxnard (City) is located on the central coast of Ventura County, California, approximately 60 miles northwest of the City of Los Angeles and 35 miles south of Santa Barbara. Refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity. The 702-acre RiverPark Specific Plan development is an integrated mixed-use community of residences, commercial uses, parks, schools, civic uses, and support infrastructure, and is located immediately north of the Ventura Freeway (US-101) between the Santa Clara River and Vineyard Avenue/State Route 232 (SR-232) in the City of Oxnard. Exhibit 2, Project Vicinity, shows the boundaries of the RiverPark Specific Plan Area and its location in relation to the City.

Exhibit 3, RiverPark Specific Plan Area, shows the location of the entirety of the Specific Plan Area as analyzed in the RiverPark Specific Plan EIR, while Exhibit 4, Current Project Area, shows the portion of the Specific Plan Area for which a Specific Plan Amendment is proposed.

1.2 Background
This document constitutes the sixteenth (16th) Addendum to the certified RiverPark Project Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the RiverPark Project (State Clearinghouse [SCH] 2000051046; July 2002) located in the City. Planning District E of the RiverPark Specific Plan has been subject to multiple amendments since the approval of the Final EIR, resulting in changes to the maximum permitted development allowed for this site. The proposed 16th Addendum (“proposed project” or “project”) would include a Specific Plan Amendment to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E. Furthermore, Section 2.5.2.5, Planning District E: East Peripheral Commercial District, of the RiverPark Specific Plan would be updated to reflect the correct maximum permitted square footage in Planning District E in accordance with Addendum 15. This Addendum to the Final EIR has been prepared to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and to ensure all potential environmental impacts have been addressed through existing environmental documentation and project approvals (Final EIR and prior addendums).

Development of RiverPark is guided and regulated by the RiverPark Specific Plan and several related implementation agreements, including the RiverPark Development Agreement (DA) and the RiverPark Owner Participation Agreement (OPA). The Final EIR was prepared and certified by the City to meet the requirements for environmental review of the RiverPark Project under CEQA.

The Final EIR addressed a series of related discretionary actions that made up the RiverPark Project (Original Project), including a General Plan Amendment, adoption of the RiverPark Specific Plan, and annexation of a portion of the site. In addition, the Final EIR addressed several agreements related to the implementation of the Original Project, including the DA between the City and the applicants and the OPA between the Oxnard Community Development Commission and the applicants for the portion of the RiverPark Specific Plan area located within the City’s Historic Enhancement and Revitalization of Oxnard (HERO) Redevelopment Project Area.
1172
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 2 August 2026 This page intentionally left blank.
1173
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 3 August 2026 Exhibit 1: Regional Location
1174
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 4 August 2026 This page intentionally left blank.
1175
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 5 August 2026 Exhibit 2: Project Vicinity
1176
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 6 August 2026 This page intentionally left blank.
1177
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 7 August 2026 Exhibit 3: Land Use Designation Map – Adopted Specific Plan 1178
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 8 August 2026 This page intentionally left blank.
1179
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 9 August 2026 Exhibit 4: Land Use Summary – Adopted Specific Plan
1180
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 10 August 2026 This page intentionally left blank.
1181
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 11 August 2026 The Oxnard City Council certified the Final EIR and approved the Original Project and the related agreements on August 27, 2002. Development of RiverPark began in May 2004 and continues to this date. The RiverPark Specific Plan has been the subject of several minor administrative amendments since its original adoption. Errata documents have been prepared for the RiverPark Specific Plan to document these approved specific plan amendments and correct minor inconsistencies in the text and graphic exhibits within the RiverPark Specific Plan as they have been identified during implementation of the project. In addition, there have been minor amendments to the RiverPark OPA, and other agreements related to the implementation of the RiverPark Project. For each of these modifications to the Original Project, an Addendum to the Final EIR was prepared by the City to comply with CEQA.

Addendums to the Final EIR were also prepared to address minor changes to the construction of the project during the land development phase and minor revisions to the mitigation measures for the air quality impacts of the Original Project to reflect changes in the planning of the main commercial area. A summary of each of the previous addendums is provided below:
• Addendum 1 – August 2002: The RiverPark Project, as described and analyzed in the Final EIR, included a proposal for temporary dewatering of limited areas during grading activities. This Addendum addressed a minor change to the dewatering plan to include a second location for a dewatering well.
• Addendum 2 – September 2002: Addendum 2 included a Specific Plan Amendment to include regulations for temporary uses for the RiverPark Specific Plan area. • Addendum 3 – January 2004: Addendum 3 evaluated a change of land use designation of a privately held parcel from Open Space to Commercial. This amendment was the result of an unintentional conversion of the parcel to Open Space.
• Addendum 4 – November 2005: The RiverPark Specific Plan, as described and analyzed in the Final EIR, included a conceptual grading plan for the entire RiverPark Specific Plan area.

This conceptual grading plan identified a total of 10 million cubic yards of cut and fill of earth material on the project site. It was anticipated that the grading operations would be a balanced operation, requiring no import or export of earth materials, based on the soil characteristics identified in the geotechnical report prepared for the project site. During the initial mass grading of the site, it was determined that soil compression was higher than anticipated. In addition, implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR required removal and recompaction of soil at depths greater than the conceptual grading plan. As a result, soil needed to be imported to balance grading on the site. Addendum 4 assessed the environmental effects of importing of up to 600,000 cubic yards of soil.
• Addendum 5 – June 2007: Addendum 5 addressed an amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement to permit the hotel allowed in Planning District C to be developed in Planning District D on a 5-acre site on the southeast corner of Oxnard Boulevard and Danvers River Street and allow up to 100,000 square feet of retail commercial development on the 12-acre site in Planning District C where the hotel was originally allowed in the RiverPark Specific Plan. • Addendum 6 – June 2007: Addendum 6 addressed minor changes to the mitigation measures for air quality impacts included in the Final EIR to reflect the planning of the retail commercial project, The Collection at RiverPark, planned in Planning Districts B, C, and D as identified in the RiverPark Specific Plan.
1182
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 12 August 2026 • Addendum 7 – November 2007: Addendum 7 addressed an amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement and an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Oxnard Community Development Commission (CDC) and the applicants related to financing of public infrastructure, parking facilities, and improvements in support of commercial development in RiverPark, including a 500-space parking structure within the primary commercial district, Planning District D, of the RiverPark Specific Plan. • Addendum 8 – December 2007: Addendum 8 addressed an amendment to the RiverPark Specific Plan to allow changing the amount of residential development allowed on the remaining land in Planning District A, the Mixed Use/Office District and Planning District F, and the Vineyards Neighborhood District.
• Addendum 9 – February 2009: Addendum 9 addressed a minor amendment to the RiverPark Specific Plan to allow a single freeway-oriented sign, up to 60 feet in height, in one of three designated locations in the main commercial district, Planning District D. • Addendum 10 – July 2009: Addendum 10 evaluated the addition of an administrative office and maintenance facility for the City’s General Services Department in Planning District E of the RiverPark Specific Plan area.
• Addendum 11 – January 2010: Addendum 11 evaluated the impacts of the Ventura Road Utilities Project for the City’s Public Works Department, which proposed infrastructure improvements under Ventura Road between Gonzales Road and Vineyard Avenue. • Addendum 12 – January 2011: Addendum 12 evaluated an amendment to the signage standards in Section 5.9.3.3 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to allow three freeway-oriented monument signs up to 20 feet tall, in designated locations within Planning District D of the RiverPark Specific Plan area. In addition, the change evaluated in Addendum 12 allowed changeable electronic display panels on the pylon sign subject to approval of a Special Use Permit. The locations of these signs are shown on the revised Exhibit 5.HH of the RiverPark Specific Plan.
• Addendum 13 – June 2011: Addendum 13 evaluated a proposed amendment to the uses allowed in Planning Districts A and D. The amendment proposed an increase in the maximum number of residential units from 2,805 to 3,145 units with a corresponding reduction in the amount of commercial development allowed from 2,485,000 to 2,078,000 square feet. This proposed amendment was considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in June 2012. The City Council approved an increase in the maximum number of residential units allowed from 2,805 to 3,043 residential units and a decrease in the amount of commercial development from 2,485,000 to 2,098,000 square feet.
• Addendum 14 – December 2018: Addendum 14 evaluated the addition of allowing two (2) monument signs, non-freeway-oriented signs within “The Landing” commercial area in Planning Districts B and C of the RiverPark Specific Plan area.
• Addendum 15 – March 2022: Addendum 15 evaluated an option to allow the development of an additional 1,025 multifamily residential units in three of the commercial mixed-use districts in the southern portion of the RiverPark Specific Plan area. If these additional residential units are developed, the amount of commercial development currently permitted by the Adopted 1183
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 13 August 2026 RiverPark Specific Plan in these Planning Districts would be reduced by 562,000 square feet.

The addition of a Residential: Very High land use category was proposed to allow the development of the additional residential units. This new land use designation applied to three locations in Planning Districts B, C, and D. This development of additional residential units could occur in any or all of these three districts under Addendum 15. New development standards were also proposed for multifamily development that would be allowed by this category.

1.3 Adopted RiverPark Specific Plan
The RiverPark Specific Plan permits the development of an integrated mixed-use community consisting of open space, residential, commercial, and public facilities uses. The design of the RiverPark community follows the design principles of the ‘New Urbanism’ and ‘Smart Growth’ movements, which emphasize the importance of mixed land uses, communities scaled for pedestrian movement, limiting automobile usage and the importance of physical design in creating communities that people want to live, work, and shop in. The RiverPark community is made up of four basic land uses: (1) the commercial area within the southern portion of RiverPark, (2) the residential neighborhoods to the north and east of the commercial areas, (3) the open space areas in the northern portion of the RiverPark Specific Plan area, and (4) public facilities located throughout the community. These land uses are linked and unified by a landscaped pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation system.

Exhibit 3, Land Use Designation Map – Adopted Specific Plan, presents the Land Use Plan for the RiverPark Specific Plan area. Exhibit 4, Land Use Summary – Adopted Specific Plan, presents the land use summary by planning district, which describes the type and maximum intensity of allowed land uses. As originally adopted, the RiverPark Specific Plan allowed the development of up to 2,805 residential units and 2.485 million square feet of commercial development.

The RiverPark Specific Plan established 13 planning districts to regulate the location and configuration of the planned land uses. Each planning district has a specific variety of permitted and specially permitted land uses, densities, parking requirements, and other development controls. Each planning district allows a range in the number of units allowed within that district to allow for flexibility in the development of the RiverPark Specific Plan. However, the total amount of residential units is not allowed to exceed the maximum number of residential units allowed by the RiverPark Specific Plan. For this reason, development of the maximum number of units allowed in all planning districts cannot occur.

The RiverPark Specific Plan identified sites for two new elementary and one new intermediate school, new City of Oxnard and County of Ventura fire stations, neighborhood parks, and community open space. The RiverPark Specific Plan also provides for the reclamation of the existing mine pits located in the northern portion of the RiverPark Specific Plan area and allows the reclaimed mine pits to be used as water storage and recharge basins as part of ongoing groundwater management efforts. 1184
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 14 August 2026

1.3.1 Current Status of Development in the RiverPark Specific Plan Area Development of the RiverPark Specific Plan area began in May 2004. The adopted RiverPark Specific Plan, as modified through previous addendums, currently permits approximately 1,536,000 square feet of commercial space and 4,068 residential dwelling units. Table 1, Residential and Commercial Development Status by District, displays the amount of residential and commercial development approved and built in each district.

Table 1: Residential and Commercial Development Status by District Planning
District
Approved and Built to Date Approved and Built to Date
Commercial (sq. ft.) Residential (units)
A 356,483 400
B 0 0
C 257,733 0
D 812,060 512
E 21,066 0
F 0 468
G 0 415
H 0 486
I 0 477
J 0 158
K 0 87
L 0 0
M 0 0
Total 1,447,342 3,003
Of the 4,068 residential units permitted by the approved Specific Plan, 3,003 units have been approved and built, including 447 affordable housing units. Since approval of the RiverPark Specific Plan, commercial development has occurred in Districts A, C, D and E. Of the 1,536,000 square feet of commercial space permitted by the approved Specific Plan, 1,447,342 square feet of commercial space has been approved and built.

Schools
Three schools have been built in the RiverPark Specific Plan area by the Rio School District: Rio del Mar Elementary School, Rio Vista Middle School, and the Rio Del Sol K-8 STEAM Academy. The Rio del Mar Elementary and Rio Vista Middle Schools are in Planning District J along Vineyard Avenue, and the Rio Del Sol STEAM Academy is in Planning District G along N. Ventura Road.

Fire Facilities
The RiverPark Specific Plan designated a site for a new fire station to provide service in the northern portion of Oxnard, including RiverPark. The City built Fire Station No. 7, located at 3300 Turnout Circle in RiverPark, on the northwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Thames River Drive. Apparatus at Fire Station No. 7 includes Engine 67 and Hazardous Materials Unit 67. All personnel at this station are trained as Hazardous Materials Technicians and Specialists. The City’s fire station is located adjacent to Ventura County Fire Station No. 51, which serves the unincorporated community of El Rio. 1185
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 15 August 2026 Police Facilities
An Oxnard Police substation is located at 2751 Park View Court in the Collection retail commercial development in District D. One (1) full-time police officer is dedicated to providing service in RiverPark.

Parks
The RiverPark Specific Plan contains approximately 53 acres of parks and open space including the joint use park for Rio Del Mar Elementary School and Rio Vista Intermediate School:
• Vineyard Park
• East Park
• Village Green Park
• Gateway Park
• Crescent Park
• Town Square
• Children’s Park
• Central Park
• Windrow Park
• Phase 1 Water Recharge Basin Trail
System
• Commons Green
• Santa Clara River Trail Phase 2
• Phase 3 Recharge Basin Trail

1.3.2 Addendum History of Planning District E
Addendum 10 (Named as Addendum 8)
According to the Final EIR, Planning District E of the RiverPark Specific Plan permitted a maximum buildout of 130,000 square feet of commercial uses on 7.5 acres. However, Addendum 10 states that the City’s General Services Department proposed an administrative and maintenance facility in Planning District E. The administrative and maintenance facility would consist of a 16,892 square foot building, covered vehicle storage areas, and other storage areas. According to Addendum 10, the administrative and maintenance facility was previously analyzed in the Final EIR as an approved public facility in Planning District L, which designated 2.5 acres for various public facilities.

The proposed site in Planning District E for the administrative and maintenance facility was determined to be an appropriate location by the Master Developer, the Town Master Planner/Architect, and the City.

Planning District L was developed with a fire station, school district facility, and sewer lift station that occupied a greater portion of the 2.5 acres designated for public facilities than originally anticipated.

According to Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan, similar uses (i.e., commercial and public facilities) are allowed “as determined acceptable by the Director of the Development Services Department” in Planning District E. Therefore, Addendum 10 concluded that the proposed relocation of the administrative and maintenance facility from Planning District L to Planning District E would not change the land use type or intensity and would be an allowable similar land use in District E. The addendum concluded that the relocation would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental impacts, nor would it introduce new environmental effects that were not previously analyzed in the Final EIR.

Addendum 10 determined that the construction of the proposed administrative and maintenance facility would result in a reduction of the potential commercial/office area in Planning District E. Table 2, Addendum 10 Land Use Changes in Planning District E, displays the land use changes for Planning District E evaluated under Addendum 10. Although Addendum 10 was approved in July 2009, the administrative and maintenance facility that was contemplated under that approval was never constructed.
1186
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 16 August 2026 Table 2: Addendum 10 Land Use Changes in Planning District E Land Use
RiverPark Specific Plan Land Use
(Final EIR)
RiverPark Specific Plan Land Use
(Addendum 10)1
Gross Acreage
(Acres)
Permitted Maximum
Square Footage
(1,000 sq. ft.)
Gross Acreage
(Acres)
Permitted Maximum
Square Footage
(1,000 sq. ft.)
Commercial; Regional 7.5 130 8.9 130
Total 7.5 130 8.9 130
Notes:

1. As discussed above, Addendum 10 proposed a 16,892 square foot administrative and maintenance facility. However, the square footage of the proposed administrative and maintenance facility did not increase the maximum buildout square footage. Furthermore, the proposed administrative and maintenance facility was to be constructed on a Cityowned 1.4-acre parcel that was originally located in Planning District E. The addition of 1.4 acres for the proposed administrative and maintenance facility did increase the total acreage in the “Commercial; Regional” land use category.

Addendum 13 (Named as Addendum 10)
Addendum 13 describes Planning District E as encompassing 8.9 acres with a permitted maximum Commercial; Regional buildout of up to 130,000 square feet of retail commercial development. At the time Addendum 13 was prepared (June 2011), no commercial development had been approved or constructed in Planning District E. Addendum 13 proposed a reduction of 19,000 square feet from the previously permitted Commercial; Regional maximum of 130,000 square feet. Therefore, the total permitted Commercial; Regional buildout for Planning District E was revised to 111,000 square feet in Addendum 13. Furthermore, Addendum 13 revised the land use acreage of Planning District E to distinguish between commercial and public facilities development, dedicating 1.4 acres to the “Public Facilities” designation in accordance with the land use changes originally established by Addendum 10.

Addendum 13 concluded that this reduction in maximum square footage and separation of land use would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental impacts, nor would it introduce new environmental effects that were not previously analyzed in the Final EIR.

Table 3, Addendum 13 Land Use Changes in Planning District E, displays the land use changes evaluated under Addendum 13.

Table 3: Addendum 13 Land Use Changes in Planning District E Land Use
RiverPark Specific Plan Land Use
(Addendum 10)
RiverPark Specific Plan Land Use
(Addendum 13)1
Gross Acreage
(Acres)
Permitted Maximum
Square Footage
(1,000 sq. ft.)
Gross Acreage
(Acres)
Permitted Maximum
Square Footage
(1,000 sq. ft.)
Commercial; Regional 8.9 130 7.5 111
Public Facilities - - 1.4 -
Total 8.9 130 8.9 111
Notes:

1. As discussed in Addendum 10, the square footage of the proposed administrative and maintenance facility did not increase the maximum buildout square footage. Furthermore, the proposed administrative and maintenance facility was to be constructed on a City-owned 1.4-acre parcel that was originally located in Planning District E. Addendum 13 updated the land use acreage in order to distinguish between commercial and public facilities.

Addendum 15
Addendum 15 describes Planning District E as encompassing 8.9 acres with a permitted maximum Commercial; Regional buildout of up to 111,000 square feet of retail commercial development. At the time Addendum 15 was prepared (November 2021), 21,066 square feet of commercial development 1187
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 17 August 2026 had been approved or constructed, leaving 89,934 square feet remaining. Addendum 15 proposed a reduction of 1,000 square feet from the previously permitted Commercial; Regional maximum.

Therefore, the total permitted Commercial; Regional buildout for Planning District E was revised to 110,000 square feet in Addendum 15. Addendum 15 concluded that this reduction would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental impacts, nor would it introduce new environmental effects that were not previously analyzed in the Final EIR.

Table 4, Addendum 15 Land Use Changes in Planning District E, displays the land use changes evaluated under Addendum 15.

Table 4: Addendum 15 Land Use Changes in Planning District E Land Use
RiverPark Specific Plan Land Use
(Addendum 13)
RiverPark Specific Plan Land Use
(Addendum 15)
Gross Acreage
(Acres)
Permitted Maximum
Square Footage
(1,000 sq. ft.)
Gross Acreage
(Acres)
Permitted Maximum
Square Footage
(1,000 sq. ft.)
Commercial; Regional 7.5 111 7.5 110
Public Facilities1 1.4 - 1.4 -
Total 8.9 111 8.9 110
Notes:

1. The “Public Facilities” land use designation did not increase the maximum build out square footage in Planning District E.

1.4 Consistency Analysis
The Project-level Final EIR for the RiverPark Specific Plan was certified August 27, 2002. The City, as the lead agency for that Project, must determine if or to what degree the proposed Specific Plan Amendment (current project) requires additional documentation under CEQA. CEQA authorizes a Lead or Responsible Agency to prepare an addendum to the EIR if a proposed action is within the scope of a previously analyzed Project and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a Subsequent EIR or State CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 requiring the preparation of a Supplement to an EIR are met. If none of the conditions in Sections 15162 or 15163 are met, then the most appropriate CEQA documentation for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is an Addendum to the previously approved RiverPark Specific Plan Final EIR under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

1.5 CEQA Compliance

1.5.1 Supplemental or Subsequent EIR
CEQA authorizes a Lead or Responsible Agency to determine if a proposed action is within the scope of a previously analyzed project and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a Subsequent EIR or State CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 requiring the preparation of a Supplement to an EIR are met.

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1188
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 18 August 2026 (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. (c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed.

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15163:
(a) The lead or responsible agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if:
1189
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 19 August 2026 (1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and
(2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. (b) The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised.
(c) A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a draft EIR under Section 15087.
(d) A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR.
(e) When the agency decides whether to approve the project, the decision-making body shall consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. A finding under Section 15091 shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised.

Based on the analysis provided in Section 4 of this document, the proposed project does not involve changes that will result in new or increased environmental effects, new significant impacts, or the need for additional or increased mitigation beyond those identified in the previously certified Project-level RiverPark Specific Plan Final EIR; thus, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or 15163 will be triggered by the proposed project. Therefore, the City may analyze the project in an Addendum according to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 to document consistency with the approved EIR. The Addendum must be supported by substantial evidence.

1.5.2 Addendum to an EIR
Provisions related to preparing an Addendum to an EIR are found in Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, subsections (a) and (b) as summarized below:
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to a certified EIR may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. To determine if an Addendum is the most appropriate CEQA compliance document for the proposed project, the project will be compared to the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (sub-sections 1 through 3 below). When an EIR has been certified, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following occurs.
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
1190
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 20 August 2026 (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

In addition, the project must be evaluated relative to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 regarding preparation of a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR. The lead or responsible agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if: (1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and (2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.

1.5.3 Summary of Results
The analyses in Sections 4.1 through 4.13 of this document establish that the proposed project is consistent with the Final EIR and would not result in new or more severe impacts when compared to those identified in the Final EIR for the Original Project. The Original Project evaluated in the Final EIR permitted a maximum buildout of 130,000 square feet of Commercial; Regional uses on 7.5 acres within Planning District E. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would permit a maximum buildout of 110,000 square feet of Commercial; Regional uses on 8.9 acres within Planning District E – resulting in an overall decrease in the intensity of development across the planning district. The project proposes a Specific Plan Amendment to eliminate the subsequently-added "Public Facilities" land use designation from Planning District E and update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to correctly reflect the maximum permitted commercial buildout of 110,000 square feet, as analyzed in Addendum No. 15.

The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would revert allowable land uses back to Commercial; Regional throughout the entirety of Planning District E, consistent with the land uses evaluated in the Final EIR. The Specific Plan Amendment would not change the type of land uses allowed in Planning District E or increase the allowable intensity of land uses allowed within Planning District E compared to the Final EIR. Although the size of Planning District E has increased from 7.5 acres to 8.9 acres, the allowable land use development would be decreased compared to that evaluated in the Final EIR.

The changes associated with the proposed project are best documented using an Addendum to the Project-level RiverPark Specific Plan Final EIR consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

The City has, therefore, prepared Addendum No. 16 to the RiverPark Specific Plan Final EIR to evaluate the changes proposed by the project to the RiverPark Specific Plan. If approved, a Notice of Determination (NOD) will be filed with the County Clerk and State Clearinghouse to fully document this CEQA compliance action.
1191
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 21 August 2026 2 Project Description

2.1 Project Characteristics
The RiverPark Specific Plan regulates the amount of commercial and residential development permitted in each Planning District and determines the maximum buildout of such developments. The adopted RiverPark Specific Plan, as modified through previous addendums, currently permits approximately 1,536,000 square feet of commercial space and 4,068 residential dwelling units.

Planning District E, the East Peripheral Commercial District, includes 8.9 acres located south of Myrtle Street (RiverPark Boulevard) at the eastern edge of the RiverPark Specific Plan area. The RiverPark Specific Plan, as modified through previous addendums, currently permits up to 110,000 square feet of Commercial; Regional development in District E. As shown in Table 1 and based on the slight reduction in maximum Commercial; Regional square footage in Addendum 15, the current amount of commercial development built and approved in District E to date is 21,066 square feet with 88,934 square feet remaining.

The proposed project would include a Specific Plan Amendment to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation from Planning District E. As discussed above, although Addendum 10 was approved in July 2009, the administrative and maintenance facility that was contemplated under that approval was never constructed. The 1.4 acres originally designated for Public Facilities is City-owned; however, the City is making the parcel available for purchase. As such, the 1.4 acres dedicated to “Public Facilities” would be moved to the “Commercial; Regional” land use designation. The proposed project would not increase or decrease the maximum permitted buildout of 110,000 square feet of commercial uses in Planning District E.

Adoption of Addendum 15 resulted in a reduction of 1,000 square feet from the previously permitted Commercial; Regional maximum (111,000 square feet to 110,000 square feet). However, Section

2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan still states that Planning District E permits a maximum permitted buildout of 111,000 square feet of commercial uses. To correct this inconsistency, the proposed project would update the RiverPark Specific Plan to correctly reflect the maximum permitted buildout of 110,000 square feet of commercial uses in Planning District E. Table 5, Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Summary, presents the land use changes under the proposed project. Additionally, Exhibit 5, RiverPark Specific Plan Update and Exhibit 6, RiverPark Specific Plan Update (Continued), display the updates to Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect changes from Addendum 15 and the proposed project.

Table 5: Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Summary Land Use
RiverPark Specific Plan Land Use
(Addendum 15)1
Proposed Specific Plan Land Use
(Addendum 16)
Gross Acreage
(Acres)
Permitted Maximum
Square Footage
(1,000 sq. ft.)
Gross Acreage
(Acres)
Permitted Maximum
Square Footage
(1,000 sq. ft.)
Commercial; Regional 7.5 110 8.9 110
Public Facilities1 1.4 - -
Total 8.9 110 8.9 110
Notes:

1. The “Public Facilities” land use designation did not increase the maximum build out square footage in Planning District E.
1192
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 22 August 2026 This page intentionally left blank.
1193
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 23 August 2026 Exhibit 5: RiverPark Specific Plan Update
1194
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 24 August 2026 This page intentionally left blank.
1195
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 25 August 2026 Exhibit 6: RiverPark Specific Plan Update (Continued)
1196
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 26 August 2026 This page intentionally left blank.
1197
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 27 August 2026 3 Determination

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below were identified in the Project-level RiverPark Project EIR as being a ‘Potentially Significant Impact’ and the checklist on the following pages will identify to what degree the proposed changes in the proposed project would compare to these significant impacts.

Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Public Services
Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials Recreation
Air Quality Hydrology and Water
Quality Transportation
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Tribal Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Energy Noise Wildfire
Geology and Soils Population and Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance
1198
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 28 August 2026

3.2 Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.

An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Jamie Peltier
Planning Supervisor, City of Oxnard
Date
1199
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 29 August 2026 4 Environmental Analysis
This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The issue areas evaluated in this Addendum include the following and are the same issue areas analyzed in the RiverPark Specific Plan Final EIR:
• Land Use, Planning, Programs and
Policies
• Aesthetics
o Geology and Soils
o Mineral Resources
• Biological Resources
• Water Resources
• Agricultural Resources
• Transportation and Circulation
• Air Quality
• Noise
• Public Services
o Public Schools
o Fire Protection
o Police Protection
o Parks and Recreation
o Solid Waste Management
o Library Services
• Public Utilities
o Stormwater Drainage
o Water Supply and Distribution
o Wastewater Service
o Energy
• Cultural Resources
• Hazard
The environmental analysis section includes separate subsections for each environmental topic addressed in the Final EIR. Each topical section first presents a summary of the information and conclusions of the analysis in the Final EIR and subsequent addendums, if applicable. Updated information reflecting any changes in the environmental setting related to each topic is presented first in each subsection, followed by analysis of the environmental impacts of the RiverPark Project with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. For each topic, a determination is made regarding whether the current proposal would result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts identified in the Final EIR. The mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and applicable, subsequent addendums, are also included.

For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in this document are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the EIR Addendum. The environmental analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. 1200
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 30 August 2026

4.1 Land Use, Planning, Programs and Policies
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Land Use, Planning, Programs, & Policies: The City of Oxnard considers a project to have a significant land use impact if it would be:

Inconsistent with the goals or objectives of
Oxnard’s plans or ordinances related to land use
planning;
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of another public agency; or
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Substantial incompatibility between the uses
proposed and neighboring land uses is identified
as a significant impact.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums The consistency of the Original Project with applicable land use plans and policies, as well as the compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses, were analyzed in the Final EIR.

This evaluation addressed the consistency of the project with the City’s 2020 General Plan, the HERO Redevelopment Plan, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan & Guide (RCPG), and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) policies.

The Specific Plan Area is located within the LAFCo Sphere of Influence (SOI) line for the City and within the 20-year City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) established by the City’s 2020 General Plan. Prior to approval of the Original Project, the southern 269 acres of the Specific Plan area (referred to as “RiverPark Area A” in the Final EIR) were located within the City. The northern 432 acres of the Specific Plan area (referred to as “RiverPark Area B” in the Final EIR) were located outside of the City. After adoption of the Specific Plan by the City, RiverPark Area B was annexed into the City.

Annexation of RiverPark Area B to the City and development of the entire Specific Plan Area with the proposed uses was found to be consistent with the City’s land use plans and policies. Annexation of RiverPark Area B was also determined to be consistent with LAFCo policies. The Original Project was determined to be consistent with the SCAG RCPG, given that the amount of growth allowed by the Specific Plan was consistent with adopted regional growth forecasts and the characteristics of the project as proposed were consistent with relevant objectives of this regional plan. In addition, the RiverPark Specific Plan defined a pattern of land uses determined to be compatible with the residential, agricultural, and open space uses located around the Specific Plan area. No significant impacts related to inconsistencies with applicable land use plans and policies were identified in the Final EIR and no mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR. No update to this analysis or conclusions was provided in any subsequent addendum.
1201
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 31 August 2026 Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) Inconsistent with the goals or objectives of Oxnard’s plans or ordinances related to land use planning?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation from Planning District E. Additionally, the proposed project would update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to correctly reflect the maximum permitted buildout of 110,000 square feet of commercial uses in accordance with Addendum No. 15. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City with similar adjacent commercial uses. The Final EIR indicated that the RiverPark Specific Plan represented land use changes that were anticipated in the City’s General Plan. As such, this change in permitted land use designation would not create an inconsistency with the goals or objectives of the City’s plans or ordinances related to land use planning. No new significant impacts related to the City’s land use planning goals and objectives would occur as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of another public agency? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Final EIR addressed the consistency of the Original Project with the City’s 2020 General Plan, the HERO Redevelopment Plan, the Southern SCAG RCPG, and LAFCo policies. As such, the Original Project was analyzed for potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations of other public agencies and was determined to not conflict with such plans. Similar to the Original Project, the proposed project would not conflict with another public agency’s land use plans, policies, and/or regulations since the project proposes to revert to the previously-approved Final EIR land use designation of Commercial; Regional. No new significant impacts related to other public agencies’ land use planning goals and objectives would occur as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. c) Substantial incompatibility between the uses proposed and neighboring land uses is identified as a significant impact?
Less Than Significant Impact. A Community Landscape Master Plan was prepared for the Original Project, which is intended to establish identities of place, provide a unified appearance along street frontages, reinforce the street hierarchy, and provide additional native habitat that complements and enhances the Santa Clara River Corridor. Open space within the Specific Plan Area has been designed to buffer neighboring land uses and communities, provide active and passive open space within the community, and enhance natural habitat values by replanting disturbed areas with native vegetation. The Landscape Master Plan provides designs for streets, parks and buffer areas and provides site landscape guidelines and standards for individual building sites, surface parking areas, service and loading areas design guidelines, walls and fences, paving design, plant material, landscape maintenance, and exterior lighting. As such, the Final EIR concluded that the Original Project would not result in a substantial incompatibility between the uses proposed and neighboring land uses. Similarly, since the proposed project would be required to adhere to the design guidelines for Planning District E, the proposed project would also not result in a substantial incompatibility between the uses proposed and neighboring land uses. No new significant impacts related to a substantial incompatibility between the uses proposed and neighboring land uses would occur as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
1202
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 32 August 2026 Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

No applicable mitigation measures have been identified for land use, planning, programs and policies. 1203
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 33 August 2026

4.2 Aesthetics
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the
Certified Final
EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Aesthetics: Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Oxnard considers the aesthetic impact of a project to be significant if it would:

Have a substantial, demonstrable negative
aesthetic effect on a scenic vista;
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of a site and its surroundings;
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Substantially damage scenic resources within a
state scenic highway;
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views of the area; or
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Measure
Incorporated
No No No
Be inconsistent with any applicable policies in the
2020 General Plan Community Design Element.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums The EIR provided analysis of the significance of changes to the visual character of the area that would result from implementation of the RiverPark Project. The Community Design Element of the 2020 General Plan identifies scenic resources within the City. Roadways that provide views of the scenic resources and agricultural lands within and around the City are designated as image corridors. The Ventura Freeway is designated as Regional Image Corridor, and Oxnard Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue are designated as City Image Corridors. In addition, the intersection of the Ventura Freeway and Vineyard Avenue is designated as a Regional Gateway. Prior to development, the Specific Plan Area had an open space visual character as viewed from surrounding roadways and uses due to the small number of existing structures at the time the Specific Plan was approved.

The change in the visual character of the Specific Plan Area as a result of the proposed RiverPark Project was not identified as having a significant impact on the visual character of the area. This was because the development that would be allowed by the Specific Plan will not obstruct long-range views of the mountains and hills in the Los Padres National Forest to the north from the Ventura Freeway or Vineyard Avenue. The height and character of the residential and commercial development proposed will also be consistent with existing development in the area. In addition, the northern portion of the Specific Plan area will continue to have an open space character because the existing mine pits would be preserved, and no buildings will be located along the northernmost portion of Vineyard Avenue.

Mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR to mitigate all potentially significant impacts to aesthetics to a less than significant level and no significant unavoidable impacts to aesthetics were 1204
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 34 August 2026 identified in the Final EIR. No update to this analysis or conclusions was provided in any subsequent addendums.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. As determined in the Final EIR, commercial development within the RiverPark Specific Plan would be visually consistent in terms of height and character with other commercial uses on the eastern side of Vineyard Avenue and south of the Ventura Freeway (U.S.

Route 101). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation from Planning District E. Additionally, the proposed project would update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to correctly reflect the maximum permitted buildout of 110,000 square feet of commercial uses in accordance with Addendum No. 15. This change in permitted land use would not alter the physical character, scale, or massing of development contemplated for Planning District E beyond what was originally analyzed in the Final EIR and subsequent addendums. The proposed project would not expand the boundaries of Planning District E, introduce new building types, or permit structures of greater height or bulk than those already envisioned under the approved RiverPark Specific Plan.

There would be no change to important aesthetic features such as landscape buffers or the location and amount of open space currently required by the RiverPark Specific Plan. Scenic views of the mountains and hills of the Los Padres National Forest would remain unobstructed, particularly along Vineyard Avenue, Oxnard Boulevard, and the Ventura Freeway. Landscape buffers and preservation of open space provided for by the adopted Specific Plan would ensure that views of the project site from adjacent areas are not adversely impacted by development permitted under the RiverPark Specific Plan. No new significant impacts related to aesthetics would occur as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
b) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of a site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not result in any substantial change to the visual character of the RiverPark community. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation from Planning District E and designate all areas within Planning District E for Commercial; Regional use, consistent with the Original Project. Additionally, the proposed project would update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to correctly reflect the maximum permitted buildout in accordance with Addendum No.

15. This change in permitted land use designation would not alter the physical character, scale, or massing of development contemplated for Planning District E beyond what was originally analyzed in the Final EIR.

The proposed project would not expand the boundaries of Planning District E, introduce new building types, or permit structures of greater height or bulk than those already envisioned under the approved RiverPark Specific Plan. All development within Planning District E would remain subject to the development standards adopted in the RiverPark Specific Plan, including applicable building height limits, setbacks, landscaping requirements, and design guidelines. Compliance with these standards would ensure that any future commercial development within Planning District E would be consistent with the overall pattern of development and unified visual character established by the 1205
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 35 August 2026 RiverPark Specific Plan. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. c) Substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. U.S. Route 101, an eligible state scenic highway (though not Officially Designated), is the closest eligible scenic highway to the project site and is located adjacent to Planning District E.1 While Planning District E is adjacent to U.S. Route 101, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not disturb any scenic resources within or visible from this eligible scenic highway. The proposed amendment would remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to correctly reflect the maximum permitted buildout in accordance with Addendum No. 15. It does not propose substantial changes to the physical development, grading, or removal of vegetation proximate to U.S. Route 101 not previously analyzed in the Final EIR, and it does not propose alterations to any trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings, or other scenic resources that would be visible from U.S. Route 101.

Planning District E is located within an established urban development area, and any future commercial development within the district would be consistent with the existing characteristics of surrounding structures, roadways, and infrastructure. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views of the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Final EIR determined that the buildout of the RiverPark Specific Plan would introduce new sources of nighttime lighting which would consist of street lighting, parking lot lighting, and exterior security lights. Additionally, commercial uses may include the use of glazed windows which would introduce a new source of glare.

Any future development within Planning District E would be subject to the City of Oxnard's standard conditions of approval and applicable development standards governing exterior lighting.

Furthermore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not increase the overall intensity of development beyond what was originally analyzed in the Final EIR. Since future development would remain subject to standard lighting regulations, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. No new significant impacts to light or glare would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. e) Be inconsistent with any applicable policies in the 2020 General Plan Community Design Element?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not be inconsistent with any applicable policies contained in the City of Oxnard 2020 General Plan Community Design Element. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation from Planning District E. Additionally, the proposed project would update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to correctly reflect the maximum permitted buildout in accordance 1 California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway interactive map, https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/47e2009986264718a5a13a2c81382774, accessed May 8, 2026. 1206
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 36 August 2026 with Addendum No. 15. The proposed amendment does not introduce new land uses, nor does it increase the overall development intensity beyond what was originally analyzed in the Final EIR.

Since the proposed project would not introduce new development types that were not analyzed in the Final EIR, alter the physical development standards of the RiverPark Specific Plan, or introduce new land uses in Planning District E, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not conflict with the 2020 General Plan Community Design Element policies. Any future development within Planning District E would be subject to the City's design review process and applicable development standards. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

No applicable mitigation measures have been identified for aesthetics. 1207
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 37 August 2026

4.3 Earth Resources
The Final EIR included the “Earth Resources” section which analyzed the RiverPark Project’s environmental impacts on two different topics: geotechnical conditions and mineral resources. As such, this addendum presents a summary of the information and conclusions of the analysis in the Final EIR and subsequent addendums, if applicable, for each topic. Additionally, a determination for each topic has been made on whether the current proposal would result in any new significant impacts or any substantial increase in the severity of the impacts identified in the Final EIR and subsequent addendums.

4.3.1 Geology and Soils
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination in
the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Geology and Soils: Realtive to geology and soils, the City of Oxnard considers a project to result in a significant effect on the environment if it would:

Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, involving:
- - - -
a. rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault;
Less than
Significant Impact
With Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
b. seismic-related ground shaking; Less than
Significant Impact
With Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
c. seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction;
Less than
Significant Impact
With Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
d. landslides. Less than
Significant Impact
With Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil
Less than
Significant Impact
No No No
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 off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse
Less than
Significant Impact
With Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property
Less than
Significant Impact
With Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
1208
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 38 August 2026 Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums The Final EIR concluded that the RiverPark Specific Plan Area contains a variety of topographic and soils conditions as a result of historic mining and agricultural activities. The mine site in RiverPark Area B contains substantial areas of artificial fill which are potentially unstable (it should be noted that the proposed project relates to areas within the boundaries of RiverPark Area A as identified on Final EIR Figure 2.0-3, Project Location). Significant impacts related to the potential instability of the slopes of the existing mine pits have been identified. Areas adjacent to the existing and proposed pit slopes may be impacted by: (1) gross instability of the pit slopes under static or seismic conditions, and/or (2) seismically induced lateral movements. Approximately 10 million cubic yards of earth materials will be graded over the entire 701-acre site. A balanced grading program involving excavation and replacement of the 10 million cubic yards of material is planned. The majority of this grading would consist of the excavation and/or replacement of earth materials in RiverPark Area B to improve the structural characteristics of the soils in the mine site stockpile and plant areas and to stabilize the slopes of the existing mining pits. A comprehensive program of 44 specific measures is proposed to mitigate all identified geotechnical impacts to a level that is less than significant. However, the Final EIR also identified that as individual building projects are proposed within the Specific Plan Area in the future, additional and more detailed geologic and geotechnical information on individual building sites would be provided, including information derived from future subsurface investigations.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii) Seismic-related ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The RiverPark Specific Plan area is situated in the southern portion of the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The province is characterized by east-west-trending mountain ranges composed of sedimentary and volcanic rocks ranging in age from Cretaceous to Recent. Major east-trending folds, reverse faults, and left-lateral strike-slip faults reflect regional north-south compression and are characteristic of the Transverse Ranges. The Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province is bound on the north by the Santa Ynez fault, on the east by the San Bernardino Mountains, on the south by the Transverse Ranges frontal fault zone, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. On the basis of subsurface investigations both on and near the RiverPark Specific Plan Area, the general native soil profile predominantly consists of alluvial (i.e., river bed and floodplain) deposits. Natural elevations across RiverPark Area A (in which the proposed project is located) vary from about 75 feet above mean sea level (msl) adjacent to the base of the southwestern end of the river levee to about 90 feet above msl at the eastern end of the property.

The RiverPark Specific Plan area is located in a seismically active region and it can be expected that the project would be subjected to strong ground shaking during its design life. Geodetic surveys indicate that the Ventura Basin is experiencing crustal shortening at an annual rate of about 1 1209
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 39 August 2026 centimeter per year in a north-south direction. Because no historical earthquakes have been recorded in the area over the course of at least 200 years (aside from the 1812 and 1857 earthquakes occurring on the San Andreas fault - occurrences that probably did little to relieve crustal strain in the Ventura Basin), the Ventura region is likely to experience a large earthquake, or a cluster of large earthquakes, in the near future.

No Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, or any other mapped fault zone, encroaches onto the Specific Plan area. The nearest fault to the project site is the Oak Ridge fault system. The closest portion of the Oak Ridge fault system to the project is along the inferred McGrath fault trace, located approximately 1,500 feet northwest of the site. Therefore, there is a potential for ground rupture, seismic-related groundshaking, liquefaction, and/or landslides in the event of an earthquake associated with this fault system.

The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would revert Planning District E to its original Final EIR designation of Commercial; Regional, restore the maximum permitted commercial buildout in accordance with Addendum No. 15, and eliminate the Public Facilities designation. In compliance with Final EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-14, future development of Planning District E would be required to conduct a site-specific geotechnical investigation including construction recommendations pertaining to site conditions at the time of development. In addition, all structures within the project site would be required to be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC), with amendments, as adopted by the City of Oxnard. Similar to other Southern California sites that are located near earthquake sources, project compliance with the UBC would reduce effects associated with strong ground motion; although, the risk of damage would not be completely eliminated. However, the implementation of Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards for new construction is the procedure that is commonly applied in Southern California to mitigate earthquake shaking hazards to an acceptable level.

No new significant impacts related to seismic hazards would occur as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction Impacts
The proposed project does not involve any construction activities or development that would substantially differ from that evaluated in the Final EIR and future development within Planning District E would be required to conduct a site-specific geotechnical investigation. At the time of development of Planning District E, pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board requirements, the proposed project would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities, which includes a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for any ground-disturbing activities of one acre or more. The SWPPP would specify which Best Management Practices (BMPs) would reduce soil erosion and sedimentation for the project, which could include the use of silt fencing, sediment berms and erosion control blankets during project construction. Therefore, no new significant impacts related to loss of topsoil would occur as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur with implementation of standard construction practices.
1210
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 40 August 2026 Operational Impacts
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not substantially change the type or intensity of development within Planning District E compared to the land uses evaluated in the Final EIR. Once the proposed development areas of the site (including the proposed project site) are built-out, the ground surface would be covered with non-erosive materials (i.e., pavement and structures) and vegetation that would minimize wind and water-related erosion of the site. As a result, no significant post-development impacts associated with erosion from those areas would occur. No new significant impacts related to soil erosion would occur as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. c) 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 off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project does not involve any construction activities or development that would substantially differ from that evaluated in the Final EIR and future development within Planning District E would be required to conduct a site-specific geotechnical investigation. With the implementation of regulatory compliance and seismic design measures outlined in the site-specific geotechnical investigation, future structures including those that would be constructed on Planning District E would be adequately protected. In addition, the project would be required to implement Final EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2, which include specifications for grading and project construction during the initial stage of the mitigation of any unstable soil units during site preparation.

No new significant impacts related to a geologic unit or soil that is unstable would occur as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the Final EIR, surficial materials on the overall Specific Plan area generally consist of granular materials (silty sand, well-graded sand, sandy silt, and some clayey silt) that are not anticipated to be expansive.

However, clayey silt soils on the site may demonstrate a slight to moderate expansion potential. As discussed previously, the proposed project does not involve any construction activities or development that would substantially differ from that evaluated in the Final EIR and future development of Planning District E would be required to conduct a site-specific geotechnical investigation, including the evaluation of expansive soils on the proposed project site. If expansive soils are identified on the project site during the site-specific geotechnical investigation, the project would be required to implement Final EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-24, which outlines general construction considerations relative to expansive soils.

No new significant impacts related to expansive soils would occur as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.3-1 During the initial stage of the mitigation of unstable soil units during site preparation, organic material and vegetation, hazardous materials, old foundations from demolished 1211
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 41 August 2026 structures, underground utilities, debris, unsuitable fill materials, and/or deleterious materials shall be stripped, removed, and wasted from construction areas by the contractor. Abandoned below-grade or underground structures, such as wells, cesspools, pipelines, mining equipment, old foundations, etc., that are not relocated prior to grading shall be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the controlling governmental agencies.

MM 4.3-2 Grading shall be performed by the contractor in accordance with the City of Oxnard grading ordinance and Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (1997).

MM 4.3-14 Prior to final design, a site-specific study for the different development types (i.e., residential, commercial, and educational) and with a specificity commensurate with individual structure use, size, and footprint, shall be completed to estimate the potential for liquefaction-induced differential settlement in submerged native earth materials.

Although a significant impact from liquefaction is not anticipated in native materials on the RiverPark Specific Plan Area, site-specific evaluations of that potential shall be performed within footprint areas of future commercial and educational facilities to verify that there is no significant impact within specific building areas. Measures to reduce the liquefaction hazard, if any, to less than significant, shall be included in the study. These studies shall require review and approval by the City of Oxnard.

MM 4.3-24 To mitigate potentially significant impacts associated with expansive soils, foundations bearing on soils with a low to moderate shall be designed with deeper perimeter footing embedment to act as a barrier for moisture migration under interior floor slabs; low to moderately expansive foundation subgrade shall be pre-moistened to reduce the potential and the effects of shrink/ swell cycles beneath the slabs; and slabs shall be thickened and contain additional reinforcement, as specified by the Geotechnical Engineer.
1212
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 42 August 2026

4.3.2 Mineral Resources
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Mineral Resources: With respect to mineral resources, based on the City’s 2020 General Plan, the City considers a project to result in a significant effect on the environment if it would:

Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state;
Significant and
Unavoidable No No No
Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or
other land use plan;
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Be inconsistent with Section 2763(a) of SMARA
which states:

Lead agency land use decisions involving areas
designated as being of regional significance shall
be in accordance with the lead agency's mineral
resource management policies and shall also, in
balancing mineral values against alternative land
uses, consider the importance of these minerals
to their market region as a whole and not just their
importance to the lead agency's area of
jurisdiction.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums The Final EIR identified that the Specific Plan area was in an area designated by the State Mining and Geology Board as containing sand and gravel resources of regional significance; specifically, the site was identified as being located within Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2). While all available resources on the site had been mined, some aggregate resources remained. Mining of the remaining resources was not considered economically feasible due to the relatively small amount of low-quality aggregate available on the southern portion of the site, which had been designated for urban development since 1986. Development of the portion of the site was, therefore, consistent with the mineral resource policies of the City’s 2020 General Plan. Nonetheless, the permanent loss of access to the approximate 2.2 million tons of sand and gravel resources on the southern portion of the site was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the RiverPark Project. No update to this analysis or conclusions was provided in any subsequent addendums.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) Result in the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
Significant and Unavoidable. Planning District E was identified in the Final EIR as part of RiverPark Area A. As discussed in the Final EIR, development of RiverPark Area A, which includes Planning District E, would result in the loss of approximately 2.2 million tons of sand and gravel resources. 1213
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 43 August 2026 The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation from Planning District E and designate the entirety of Planning District E as Commercial; Regional, consistent with the Final EIR. Additionally, the proposed project would update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to correctly reflect the maximum permitted buildout in accordance with Addendum No. 15. As such, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not substantially change or expand the types and intensity of uses within Planning District E compared to those previously analyzed in the Final EIR. Nevertheless, development of Planning District E in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would still result in the permanent loss of mineral resources in RiverPark Area A. As such, similar to what was concluded in the Final EIR, impacts on mineral resources would be significant and unavoidable. No new significant impacts on mineral resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Impact 4.3.2(a). There are no locally important mineral resource recovery sites identified within the Specific Plan area. No new significant impacts on mineral resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. c) Be inconsistent with Section 2763(a) of SMARA?
Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Impact 4.3.2(a). No new significant impacts on mineral resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

The Final EIR did not identify any mitigation measures for mineral resources. 1214
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 44 August 2026

4.4 Biological Resources
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Biological Resources: Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Oxnard considers the impact of a project on biological resources to be significant if it would:

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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means;
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites;
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites;
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums The Specific Plan Area contained limited natural habitat as a result of the long-term disturbance of the site for agricultural and mining activities. The southern portion of the Specific Plan Area supported no native plant communities because vegetation within this area was limited to agricultural crops, landscaping associated with existing development, and nonnative weedy species in disturbed areas.

The northern portion of the Specific Plan Area included scattered patches of disturbed open space on the sand and gravel mine site and a small amount of agricultural land. The existing mine pits contained exposed groundwater, providing resting and limited foraging area for several waterfowl and other water associated bird species. No special status plant or wildlife species were identified within the Specific Plan Area during biological surveys. The Santa Clara River, located immediately west of the Specific 1215
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 45 August 2026 Plan Area provides habitat for several special-status fish and wildlife species, including southern steelhead, arroyo chub, and tidewater gobi, which have adapted to the seasonal and daily changing conditions of the river.

The RiverPark Specific Plan included proposals to plant native vegetation on the reconstructed slopes of the mine pits and on the western edge of the Specific Plan Area along the Santa Clara River levee.

No significant impact to native plant communities was identified and the introduction of additional native vegetation was identified as a beneficial effect of the project.

Potential impacts to native bird species nesting on the site during grading was identified as a potentially significant impact. A potential for significant indirect impacts to the natural habitat in the Santa Clara River from new lighting sources within the Specific Plan Area and the use of invasive nonnative plant species in landscaping were also identified as potentially significant impacts. Measures were included in the Final EIR to mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level.

As proposed and approved, the RiverPark Specific Plan included a water quality treatment system designed to treat runoff from the new land uses proposed within the Specific Plan Area and from off-site agricultural and industrial areas that drain into the Specific Plan Area. This water quality treatment system was designed to trap and remove pollutants and urban sediments to the degree necessary to ensure high water-quality levels. Therefore, potential indirect impacts to biological resources in the Santa Clara River from stormwater runoff from the Specific Plan Area were not significant. Mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR to mitigate all potentially significant impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level and no significant unavoidable impacts to biological resources were identified in the Final EIR. No update to this analysis or conclusions was provided in any subsequent addendums.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed changes to the permitted land use within Planning District E would not propose any new development or alter any plans which may introduce any habitat modifications resulting in direct or indirect impacts on specifies identified as candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. The Final EIR identified no special-status plants during the focused survey efforts. It was determined that the Southern California Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) steelhead, arroyo chub, and southwestern pond turtle were known to occur in the portion of the river adjacent to the project site. However, no significant impacts were expected to wildlife. In addition, no impacts were expected to the Least Bell’s vireo or Southwestern Willow Flycatcher.

Nesting bird surveys would be required according the MM 4.4-1 before construction is to occur. No new significant impacts on biological resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. b) 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed changes to the permitted land use within Planning District E would not propose any new development types or intensities not previously allowed and evaluated in the Final EIR. No direct impacts were identified in the Final EIR to any riparian or other 1216
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 46 August 2026 sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service. The Final EIR did identify potential indirect impacts associated with changing upland areas through hardscaping. However, the Riverpark Specific Plan includes a water quality treatment system designed to treat runoff from the new land uses. Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant on the discussed habitats. Because the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not change the extent or type or intensity of land use development, no new significant impacts on biological resources would occur and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Impact 4.4(b) above. No new significant impacts on biological resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact. The Final EIR determined that the project site is not part of a regional habitat linkage. However, due to the proximity to the Santa Clara River, potential indirect impacts associated with increased lighting and noise, and increased human and domestic animal presence were identified as potentially significant impacts.

Nighttime lighting can disturb resting and foraging behavior and can potentially alter breeding cycles and nesting behavior. In order to address these potential impacts, MM 4.4-2 was identified to ensure lighting adjacent to the Santa Clara River was controlled. Planning District E is located in the southeastern corner of the Specific Plan area; the Santa Clara River runs along the western boundary of the Specific Plan area, approximately 0.9 mile west of Planning District E. The proposed updates to the project would not introduce any new type or intensity of development not previously analyzed in the Final EIR and no changes are proposed in proximity of the Santa Clara River. As such, no new significant impacts on biological resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed changes to the permitted land use within Planning District E would not propose any new type or intensity of development not previously analyzed in the Final EIR. The Final EIR determined that the project complied with all federal, state, and local policies and ordinances related to the protection of biological resources. Appropriate mitigation measures were introduced to lessen any potential impacts to less than significant. As such, no new significant impacts on biological resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? 1217
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 47 August 2026 Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Impact 4.4(e). No new significant impacts on biological resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.4-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project site, and within 15 days prior to construction or site preparation activities that would occur during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting on the site (February through July), the applicant shall retain the services of a qualified biologist. The biologist must, at a minimum, have a degree in biology or a related field, and five years field experience in identification of flora and fauna in the southern California region, and be recognized as qualified by appropriate regulatory agencies. The biologist shall conduct on-site surveys to determine if active nests of special-status and common bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game Code, are present within 100 feet of the construction zone. If active nests are found on or immediately adjacent to the site, a minimum 100-foot buffer area (300 feet for raptors) shall be temporarily fenced around the nest site. No construction activities shall be permitted within this nest zone until the young birds have fledged, as determined by the biologist.

MM 4.4-2 All lighting adjacent to the Santa Clara River and berm, particularly street lamps, shall be downcast luminaries and shall be shielded and oriented in a manner that will prevent spillage or glare (greater than one-half foot candle illumination at ground level) into the remaining natural and open space areas. Final lighting orientation and design shall be approved by the City of Oxnard Community Development Department. 1218
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 48 August 2026

4.5 Water Resources
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Water Resources:

Any discharges to exposed groundwater in the
existing mine pits containing concentrations of
selected constituents greater than ambient
groundwater concentrations or Basin Plan
objectives as measured where the discharged
water physically leaves the pits is identified as a
significant impact.

Significant and
Unavoidable No No No
Any discharges to exposed groundwater of water
containing pathogen concentrations greater than
ambient groundwater concentrations or Basin
Plan objectives as measured at the boundary of
the Specific Plan Area is identified as a significant
impact
Less than
Significant
Impact No No No
Any discharge to the Santa Clara River exceeding
the Basin Plan objectives for sulfate, chloride,
total dissolved solids, boron, nitrate, ammonia,
fecal coliform, and oil and grease is identified as
a significant impact.

Significant and
Unavoidable No No No
Any discharge to the Santa Clara River exceeding
the California Toxics Rule Criteria Maximum
Concentrations (CMCs) for freshwater aquatic life
for arsenic, cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI,
copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc is
identified as a significant impact.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Any discharge to the Santa Clara River exceeding
the California Toxics Rule Criteria Maximum
Concentrations (CMCs) for human health for
mercury is identified as a significant
impact.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Any discharge to the Santa Clara River exceeding
ambient concentrations46 of iron, manganese,
MTBE, total coliform, fecal coliform, fecal
streptocooci, giardia and cryptosporidium is
identified as a significant impact.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Any discharge of groundwater dewatered during
construction exceeding the numerical standards
for specific water constituents as contained in
General NPDES Permit and Waste Discharge
Requirements (Order No. 97-045) issued by the
LARWQCB is identified as a significant impact.

Significant and
Unavoidable
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums An extensive analysis was conducted in the Final EIR on potential impacts to groundwater and surface water quality, and on groundwater quantity. This analysis determined that the RiverPark Project would result in a beneficial impact on groundwater quantity. Existing conditions documented in the Final EIR 1219
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 49 August 2026 resulted in a net loss of 573 acre-feet (af) of groundwater per year due to evaporation from the exposed groundwater in the existing mine pits and the use of groundwater pumped from on-site wells. The RiverPark Project was projected to result in a net gain to the groundwater system of approximately 8,000 acre-feet per year (afy) due to the elimination of groundwater use on site for the existing agricultural and mine uses and from the planned incorporation of the reclaimed mine pits into the United Water Conservation District (UWCD) groundwater recharge program.

Construction of the Project required dewatering around the existing mine pits. Potential impacts to groundwater quantity and quality were identified depending on the volume of groundwater pumped and the discharge location. Measures were identified to mitigate these potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Changes to the amount, quality, and direction of stormwater drainage flows in the Specific Plan Area were assessed in the Final EIR. Stormwater flows generated within the RiverPark Specific Plan Area and those generated from off-site areas that drain onto the Specific Plan Area were proposed to be collected and treated by a system including water quality detention basins and additional features, including dry swales and mechanical treatment elements such as centrifugal separators. After treatment, stormwater was proposed to be discharged to the Santa Clara River through existing drain outlets, or to the mine pits, depending on existing drainage patterns and the magnitude of the storm event.

Changes in minerals, nutrients, metals, pesticides, hydrocarbon, and microbial contaminants in runoff discharged to the Santa Clara River and the mine pits were analyzed. Conservative thresholds of significance were selected for determining impacts. This analysis determined that the planned use of the reclaimed mine pits by UWCD for diverted surface water flows from the Santa Clara River would not have a significant impact on groundwater quality.

The analysis determined that the concentration of pollutant constituents in the Specific Plan Area would be reduced from existing conditions or would not be greater than the maximum ambient concentrations for these constituents in the Santa Clara River. The proposed water quality detention basins were designed to collect and treat all runoff from storms up to a 10-year storm event prior to discharge to the mine pits, with runoff from larger events being allowed to discharge directly into the pits. This design was intended to ensure treatment of “first flush” storm runoff that contains the highest concentrations of pollutants. Because runoff from storms with a frequency less than a 10-year event would not enter the pits, overall mass loading of pollutant constituents would be reduced.

Reduction of the concentrations of all pollutant constituents to levels below the conservative numeric thresholds of significance used in the water quality analysis was determined to be infeasible because of the significant capital, operational and standby costs associated with the treatment systems examined as potential mitigation measures and because of the potential low reliability of these treatment systems that would only operate infrequently during large storm events. The Final EIR concluded that although the RiverPark Project would maintain or improve existing water quality, all potential impacts could not be reduced to a less than significant level even with implemented mitigation measures; for this reason, some significant unavoidable impacts to water quality were identified. No update to this analysis or conclusions was provided in any subsequent addendums.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) Any discharges to exposed groundwater in the existing mine pits containing concentrations of selected constituents greater than ambient groundwater concentrations or Basin Plan objectives as measured where the discharged water physically leaves the pits is identified as a significant impact?
1220
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 50 August 2026 Significant and Unavoidable Impact. As analyzed in the Final EIR, the mine pits would be reconfigured. The existing slopes of the pits were to be stabilized and the existing peninsula of fill material in the Vickers Pit and the land bridge separating the Vickers and Brigham Pits. The reclaimed mine pits were reclaimed to be used by UWCD for the storage of surface water. The concentrations of fecal coliform in surface water discharge and the concentrations of iron, manganese, and nickel in runoff that will be discharged to the mine pits will be higher than the significance thresholds for these constituents and are identified as significant impacts in the Final EIR. The proposed changes to the permitted land use designation within Planning District E would not facilitate the development of any new type or intensity of development not previously analyzed in the Final EIR or alter any plans which may introduce any new pollutants to the local water supplies.

As such, no new significant impacts on water resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
b) Any discharges to exposed groundwater of water containing pathogen concentrations greater than ambient groundwater concentrations or Basin Plan objectives as measured at the boundary of the Specific Plan Area is identified as a significant impact? Less than Significant Impact. The Final EIR determined that levels of pollutants associated with discharges of water containing pathogen concentrations to exposed groundwater as determined by Basin Plan objectives within the boundary of the Specific Plan Area to be less than significant. The proposed changes to the permitted land use designation within Planning District E would not facilitate the development of any new type or intensity of development not previously analyzed in the Final EIR or alter any plans which may introduce any new pollutants to the local water supplies.

As such, no new significant impacts on water resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
c) Any discharge to the Santa Clara River exceeding the Basin Plan objectives for sulfate, chloride, total dissolved solids, boron, nitrate, ammonia, fecal coliform, and oil and grease is identified as a significant impact?
Significant and Unavoidable. Discharges to the Santa Clara River are anticipated to have a fecal coliform concentration of 2,027 MPN/ 100 mL based on analogous runoff data. The threshold of significance used in the Final EIR analysis is 200 MPN/ 100 mL based on Basin Plan standards.

The fecal coliform threshold is based on a Basin Plan Objective that is lower than what has been observed historically in the Ventura River during rainfall events that would be expected to generate runoff. The anticipated runoff concentration is substantially less than the maximum observed ambient river concentration of 5,000 MPN/100 mL. However, because anticipated fecal coliform concentrations in runoff are expected to exceed Basin Plan standards, impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Planning District E is located approximately 0.9 mile east of the Santa Clara River and the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not change the type or intensity of land use allowed within the district compared to that analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, no new significant impacts on water resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. d) Any discharge to the Santa Clara River exceeding the California Toxics Rule Criteria Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for freshwater aquatic life for arsenic, cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc is identified as a significant impact?
1221
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 51 August 2026 Less than Significant Impact. According to the Final EIR, iron concentration in discharges to the Water Storage/Recharge basins exceeds ambient groundwater concentration but is lower than the SMCL and the existing discharge concentration. Manganese concentration in discharges to the Water Storage/Recharge basins also exceeds ambient groundwater concentration but is lower than the existing discharge concentration and matches the SMCL. Nickel concentration in discharges to the Water Storage /Recharge basin exceeds the ambient groundwater concentration but is lower than the MCL. Although concentrations for these constituents could potentially degrade groundwater quality, the frequency of these occurrences is expected to be very rare. Based on the historical rainfall data from 1979 to 1999 and the proposed stormwater treatment system, no runoff would have reached the Water Storage/Recharge basins and thus no threshold exceedances would have been observed. In this respect, the implemented stormwater treatment system would, under all but the most extreme rainfall events, reduce mass loading of these contaminants to groundwater. These impacts were found almost entirely to be related to Water Storage/Recharge basins, and not to the Santa Clara River. As a result, impacts to the Santa Clara River for arsenic, cadmium, chromium III, chromium, VI, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc were determined to be less than significant. Planning District E is located approximately 0.9 mile east of the Santa Clara River and the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not change the type or intensity of land use allowed within the district compared to that analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, no new significant impacts on water resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. e) Any discharge to the Santa Clara River exceeding the California Toxics Rule Criteria Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for human health for mercury is identified as a significant Impact?
Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Impact 4.5 (d). Impacts related to mercury for human health were determined to be less than significant. Planning District E is located approximately 0.9 mile east of the Santa Clara River and the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not change the type or intensity of land use allowed within the district compared to that analyzed in the Final EIR.

Therefore, no new significant impacts on water resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
f) Any discharge to the Santa Clara River exceeding ambient concentrations of iron, manganese, MTBE, total coliform, fecal coliform, fecal streptococci, giardia and cryptosporidium is identified as a significant impact?
Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Impact 4.5 (d). Impacts related to mercury for human health were determined to be less than significant. Planning District E is located approximately 0.9 mile east of the Santa Clara River and the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not change the type or intensity of land use allowed within the district compared to that analyzed in the Final EIR.

Therefore, no new significant impacts on water resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
g) Any discharge of groundwater dewatered during construction exceeding the numerical standards for specific water constituents as contained in General NPDES Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements (Order No. 97-045) issued by the LARWQCB is identified as a significant impact?
1222
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 52 August 2026 Significant and Unavoidable Impact. From a water quality perspective, the groundwater extracted during the dewatering operation will reflect the ambient quality of the groundwater. Observed TDS concentrations have been as high as 1,710 mg/L in comparison to the threshold limit of 1,200 mg/L.

Observed sulfate concentrations have been as high as 740 mg/L in comparison to the threshold limits of 600 mg/L. These exceedances are based on maximum observed values; average values for these constituents are below the standards and are not anticipated to be a significant impact, particularly if the water is recharged to the groundwater basin. Although no data exists for several constituents, including BOD5,20, oil and grease, settleable solids, and sulfides, these are constituents typically associated with wastewater and not groundwater. These constituents are not included among the drinking water MCL or SMCL standards and are therefore expected to be lower than the NPDES permit concentration.

Because nitrate concentrations vary both with location and hydrologic conditions, there is a potential for the dewatering operations to temporarily alter groundwater flow patterns and result in higher nitrate levels at UWCD’s El Rio Spreading Ground wells. This potential impact could be mitigated, if feasible, by discharging the dewatered groundwater to the El Rio Spreading Ground recharge basins. This would develop a mound that should attenuate the impacts of the dewatering operations.

This impact was considered significant. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not change the type or intensity of land use allowed within the district compared to that analyzed in the Final EIR and would not change dewatering operations within the Specific Plan area. Therefore, no new significant impacts on water resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.5-1 Groundwater extracted as a result of dewatering during construction shall be discharged to the UWCD El Rio Spreading Ground recharge basins, if feasible, to mitigate potential impacts on groundwater quantity and quality.
1223
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 53 August 2026

4.6 Agricultural Resources
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Agricultural Resources: Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Oxnard considers impacts on agricultural land to be significant if:

A project converts prime farmland, farmland of
statewide importance, and/or unique farmland, as
shown on the State Important Farmlands maps, to
non-agricultural use;
Significant and
Unavoidable No No No
Conflicts with a Williamson Act contract; or Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Involves other changes in the existing environment
which could result in the conversion of
prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance,
and/or unique farmland to non-agricultural uses.

Significant and
Unavoidable No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums Approximately 155 acres of the southern portion of the RiverPark Specific Plan area was in active agricultural use and a small portion of land along Vineyard Avenue in the northern portion of the Specific Plan Area was also in agricultural use at the time the RiverPark Project was proposed. In total, 209 acres of the 702- acre RiverPark Specific Plan area were in agricultural use. The 155 acres of agricultural land in the southern portion of the RiverPark Specific Plan area was identified as Prime Farmland on the Important Farmlands Map for Ventura County prepared by the State Department of Conservation. This portion of the RiverPark Specific Plan area had been designated for urban uses since 1986 in the City’s General Plan and the RiverPark Project was determined to be consistent with the policies of the 2020 General Plan addressing preservation of agricultural land. Since approval and implementation of the RiverPark Project would result in the conversion of this agricultural land to urban use, this loss of agricultural land within the RiverPark Specific Plan area was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Original Project. No mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR. No update to this analysis or conclusions was provided in any subsequent addendums.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
The project proposes a Specific Plan Amendment to remove the "Public Facilities" land use designation from Planning District E and update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to correctly reflect the maximum permitted commercial buildout of 110,000 square feet. The Final EIR previously analyzed environmental impacts associated with a maximum permitted buildout of 130,000 square feet of commercial uses in Planning District E.
a) A project converts prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, and/or unique farmland, as shown on the State Important Farmlands maps, to non-agricultural use? 1224
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 54 August 2026 Less than Significant Impact. The proposed changes to the permitted land use within Planning District E would not affect Planning Districts A or B, which were identified in the Final EIR as containing farmland. It should be noted that, since preparation of the Final EIR, Planning Districts A and B have been developed and are no longer classified as farmland. Planning Districts A and B are currently identified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” on the California Department of Conservation’s (CDC) California Important Farmland Finder interactive map.2 No new significant impacts to agricultural resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. b) Conflicts with a Williamson Act contract?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the CDC’s Williamson Act Enrollment Finder interactive map, no farmland within the RiverPark Specific Plan area is enrolled under the Williamson Act, and the nearest enrolled farmland is located adjacent to the northeastern boundary of the Specific Plan area.3 The proposed project would not result in direct or indirect impacts to adjacent agricultural lands. No new significant impacts to agricultural resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
c) Involves other changes in the existing environment which could result in the conversion of prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, and/or unique farmland to nonagricultural uses? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of any identified prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, and/or unique farmland to no agricultural uses. The proposed project would remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation from Planning District E. Furthermore, the proposed project would update the RiverPark Specific Plan to correctly reflect the maximum permitted buildout of 110,000 square feet of commercial uses in Planning District E. The proposed project would not result in new types or intensities of land uses that could have an adverse effect on proximate agricultural uses compared to that analyzed in the Final EIR. No new significant impacts to agricultural resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

The Final EIR did not identify any mitigation measures for agricultural resources. 2 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/, accessed May 8, 2026.
3 California Department of Conservation, Williamson Act Enrollment Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/, accessed May 8, 2026.
1225
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 55 August 2026

4.7 Transportation and Circulation
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Transportation and Circulation: The City of Oxnard considers the traffic impact of a project on intersections in the City of Oxnard or the County of Ventura to be significant if:

The project adds 75 or more trips per hour that
result in a level of service of D, E or F.

Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums Potential traffic impacts of the RiverPark Project were assessed in accordance with the City Traffic Impact Study Standards as well as with procedures specified by the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) and SCAG in the Ventura County Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The analysis incorporated a detailed evaluation of traffic conditions at 33 intersections, including 25 intersections in Oxnard and immediately surrounding areas and 8 intersections in the City of Ventura.

Five segments of the State highway network were also evaluated.

It was estimated that the uses allowed by the RiverPark Specific Plan would generate approximately 94,500 daily trips, of which 9,860 would occur in the evening peak traffic period. Of the total daily trips, 78,840 would leave the Specific Plan Area. The remainder of the daily trips would be internal trips between the residential, commercial, and school uses within the Specific Plan Area. The traffic analysis determined that these additional trips would significantly impact 8 of the 33 intersections studied.

Roadway improvements were identified to mitigate all these impacts to a less than significant level.

Traffic conditions on the Ventura Freeway were also forecast for future year 2020. All freeway segments analyzed were projected to operate at level of service (LOS) D and better with the exception of the Ventura Freeway south of Central Avenue, where traffic conditions were projected at LOS F in the northbound direction during the morning peak hour and in the southbound direction during the evening peak hour with all projected cumulative growth. Traffic from the RiverPark Specific Plan area would contribute to this cumulative impact. As this level of service exceeds the minimum acceptable Level of Service C standard set by the Ventura County CMP, this cumulative impact was identified as significant.

Improvements necessary to achieve an acceptable level of service on the Ventura Freeway will be identified and addressed through the Ventura County CMP program. Mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR to mitigate all potentially significant impacts to transportation and circulation to a less than significant level and no significant unavoidable impacts to transportation and circulation were identified in the Final EIR.

Addendum 4 evaluated the potential effects associated with importing additional soil during the original mass grading of the site. This Addendum identified an additional measure to mitigate the potential for traffic impacts from truck trips hauling soil to the site. This measure restricted hauling between the hours of 9 AM and 4 PM to avoid the morning and evening peak hour travel periods. 1226
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 56 August 2026 Addendum 12 updated the traffic analysis to evaluate a proposed specific plan amendment to increase the number of residential units allowed to 3,145 units and decrease the amount of commercial development allowed to 2.078 million square feet. This analysis, which used the City’s updated 2030 traffic model, determined the proposed amendment would reduce traffic impacts when compared to the Original Specific Plan. The certified Final EIR identified significant impacts at 7 intersections and the updated analysis identified significant impacts at only 4 of these 7 intersections. The City Council considered the results of this analysis and approved an amendment to the Specific Plan increasing the number of residential units allowed from 2,805 to 3,043 residential units and decreasing the amount of commercial development from 2.485 to 2.098 million square feet.

Addendum 15 further updated the traffic analysis to evaluate a proposed specific plan amendment to increase the number of residential units to 4,068 units and decrease the commercial development to approximately 1,536,000 square feet. According to Addendum 15, the proposed increase in residential uses and decrease in commercial uses would reduce the overall daily trips generated by the RiverPark Specific Plan area. As impacts were reduced in comparison to the Original Project as evaluated in the certified Final EIR, no additional mitigation measures were identified in Addendum No. 15. This reflects the amount of residential and commercial development currently allowed by the adopted Specific Plan.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) The project adds 75 or more trips per hour that result in a level of service of D, E or F? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measure Incorporated. The proposed project would not result in daily trip generation beyond what was originally analyzed in the RiverPark Final EIR. The Final EIR evaluated buildout of Planning District E at 130,000 square feet of commercial use; the proposed project would allow up to 110,000 square feet of commercial development. Since the proposed project would not exceed the land use assumptions and development intensity analyzed in the Final EIR, the trip generation associated with full buildout of Planning District E remains within the envelope of traffic impacts previously studied in the Final EIR. The proposed project would be required to implement Final EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-1, which requires payment of traffic impact fees. Upon payment of fees, impacts associated with the development of Planning District E would be reduced to less than significant. No new significant impacts on transportation would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.7-1 City/County Transportation Fees -- All applicable City of Oxnard and County of Ventura traffic impacts fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits for individual building projects within the Specific Plan Area. These fees will be used, in part, to fund the construction of the specific improvements identified in measures 4.7-2 to 4.7-12 by the City of Oxnard and County of Ventura when warranted by traffic conditions. Any of the improvements in measures 4.7-2 to 4.7-12 implemented by the project will be subject to reimbursement / credit as applicable. Based on the estimate of the number of trips that will be generated by the project, the estimated total amount of fees to be paid is:

City of Oxnard County of Ventura
Daily Trip Ends 94,174 94,174
1227
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 57 August 2026 Percent Using Jurisdiction
Roads 100% 10%
Fee/Trip $173.90 $139.00
Total Fee $16,376,858 $1,309,019
1228
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 58 August 2026

4.8 Air Quality
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Air Quality: The proposed project would have a significant project level air quality impact if it would:

Generate daily operational emissions of greater
than 25 pounds per day (ppd) ROC or NOX;
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Measure
Incorporated
No No No
Cause an ambient air quality standard (State or
Federal) to be exceeded, or make a substantial
contribution to an already exceeded air quality
standard. In this context, “substantial” is defined as
making the ambient pollutant level measurably
worse;
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Measure
Incorporated
No No No
Create a human health hazard by subjecting
sensitive receptors to harmful toxic air emissions;
or,
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Measure
Incorporated
No No No
Subject persons to objectionable odors. Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums The analysis for potential air quality impacts resulting from the RiverPark Project was completed in accordance with the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (APCD Guidelines). The APCD has established criteria for determining significant air quality impacts from a project. The APCD does not consider normal construction-related impacts to be significant. Standard mitigation measures will be applied to the Project to minimize any adverse effect from construction to the maximum extent possible.

Emissions would be generated by both stationary and mobile sources on a regular, day-to-day basis from the proposed residential and commercial uses. Based on the threshold of significance recommended by the APCD, a project is considered to have a significant impact on air quality if it would generate more than 25 pounds per day of either reactive organic compounds (ROCs) or oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Emission modeling completed for the RiverPark Project in the Final EIR, showed emissions of NOx and ROCs would exceed the thresholds for both pollutants. Accordingly, these impacts were identified as significant in the Final EIR. Certain design features, consistent with the APCD Guidelines, were incorporated into the RiverPark Specific Plan, including:
• Encourage the development of higher density housing and employment centers near public transit corridors;
1229
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 59 August 2026 • Encourage compact development featuring a mix of uses that locates residences near jobs and services;
• Provide services, such as food services, banks, and other personal services, within office parks and other large developments;
• Encourage infill development;
• Ensure that the design of streets, sidewalks, and bike paths within a development encourage walking and biking; and
• Provide landscaping to reduce energy demand for cooling.

The incorporation of other standard mitigation measures recommended by the APCD were identified in the Final EIR to reduce daily emissions of pollutants to the maximum extent feasible. However, even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the project, daily emissions generated would still exceed the 25 pounds per day significance threshold. In accordance with the APCD mitigation guidelines, contribution of funds to an off-site Transportation Demand Management (TDM) fund administered by the City was required to mitigate the remaining impacts. Contribution of funds is required for each individual building project within the Specific Plan Area to fund trip reduction measures to mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level.

Modeling was also completed to determine if traffic generated by the project would result in significant increases in carbon monoxide levels, referred to as carbon monoxide hotspots, at any intersections that would be impacted by the project. No significant carbon monoxide hotspot impacts were identified in the Final EIR. In addition, no significant health impacts or odor impacts were identified for residents of the proposed project due to air emissions generated by facilities and land uses in the vicinity of the project site. Mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR to mitigate all potentially significant impacts to air quality to a less than significant level and no significant unavoidable impacts to air quality were identified in the Final EIR. No update to this analysis or conclusions was provided in any subsequent addendums.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) Generate daily operational emissions of greater than 25 pounds per day (ppd) ROC or NOX? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measure Incorporated. The Final EIR determined that emissions from mobile and stationary sources associated with buildout of the RiverPark Specific Plan would result in an exceedance of the operational emission thresholds of 25 ppd for ROC and NOx.

The project proposes a Specific Plan Amendment to remove the "Public Facilities" land use designation from Planning District E and update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to correctly reflect the maximum permitted buildout in accordance with Addendum No. 15. The Final EIR previously analyzed environmental impacts associated with a maximum permitted buildout of 130,000 square feet of commercial uses in Planning District E. The proposed amendment does not increase the overall buildout of Planning District E beyond what was originally studied, nor does it introduce any new land uses or operational characteristics that would generate emissions above those previously evaluated. Since the maximum commercial buildout of Planning District E under the proposed amendment would not exceed the buildout assumptions used in the Final EIR air quality analysis, operational emissions associated with future development of Planning District E would be the same or less than what was previously analyzed in the Final EIR. No new significant 1230
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 60 August 2026 impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. b) Cause an ambient air quality standard (State or Federal) to be exceeded, or make a substantial contribution to an already exceeded air quality standard. In this context, “substantial” is defined as making the ambient pollutant level measurably worse? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measure Incorporated. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would remove the "Public Facilities" land use designation from Planning District E and update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect the maximum permitted commercial buildout of 110,000 square feet. The amendment does not increase the maximum permitted commercial buildout beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR, which evaluated impacts associated with up to 130,000 square feet of commercial uses. As such, the proposed amendment would not result in any increase in vehicle trips, construction activity, or operational emissions beyond the level previously analyzed. Since the maximum commercial buildout of Planning District E under the proposed amendment does not change the type or mix of allowable land uses and would not exceed the buildout assumptions used in the Final EIR air quality analysis, operational and construction emissions associated with future development of Planning District E would be the same or less than what was previously analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a substantial contribution to the existing ambient air quality standards beyond what was previously analyzed. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. c) Create a human health hazard by subjecting sensitive receptors to harmful toxic air emissions?
Less than Significant Impact.

Diesel Exhaust
The Final EIR determined that the Ventura County APCD has classified diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant (TACs). However, during the preparation of the Final EIR, the Ventura County APCD had not established methodologies and/or models to assess the impact of mobile diesel exhaust sources. Nevertheless, the Final EIR determined that diesel exhaust emissions from construction would not result in any significant impacts.

Diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations would be generated during construction of the commercial uses in Planning District E. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SCAQMD Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, health effects from TACs, including diesel exhaust, are described in terms of individual cancer risk based on a lifetime (i.e., 30-year) resident exposure duration. Given the temporary and short-term nature of construction activities, and the overall reduction (from 130,000 square feet to 110,000 square feet) of allowable commercial development within Planning District E, future development would not result in a long-term (i.e., lifetime or 30-year) exposure to harmful toxic air emissions beyond that evaluated in the Final EIR. Furthermore, construction-based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions) would not exceed any local or regional thresholds.

Future development in Planning District E would comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than 5 minutes at a location, and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these requirements would 1231
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 61 August 2026 minimize emissions of TACs during construction. As such, no new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Carbon Monoxide
The Final EIR analyzed carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations at nearby intersections due to the implementation of the RiverPark Specific Plan. The Final EIR determined that the future CO levels at study intersections are expected to be similar to current levels even with the inclusion of vehicle traffic from the full buildout of the RiverPark Specific Plan and other nearby projects. As such, future concentrations at all of the study intersections was determined to be well below Federal and State standards.

As discussed, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would remove the "Public Facilities" land use designation from Planning District E and update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect the maximum permitted commercial buildout of 110,000 square feet. The Final EIR evaluated a buildout of 130,000 square feet of commercial uses in Planning District E. After subsequent addendums, Planning District E now has a maximum permitted buildout of 110,000 square feet of commercial uses. As such, the proposed project would result in a reduction in overall trips and thus, would result in lower CO concentrations than what was analyzed in the Final EIR. As such, no new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. d) Subject persons to objectionable odors?
Less than Significant Impact.

Construction
Construction of commercial uses may emit odors during the application of materials such as asphalt.

However, odors associated with construction are short-term in nature and would cease upon construction completion. However, the proposed project would not exceed the buildout assumptions used in the Final EIR air quality analysis and does not propose new or different types of land uses that could generate odors not previously considered. Thus, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not emit odors that exceed what was previously analyzed in the Final EIR. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Operation
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would remove the "Public Facilities" land use designation from Planning District E and update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect the maximum permitted commercial buildout of 110,000 square feet. The proposed project would not increase the maximum permitted commercial buildout beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIR.

Commercial land uses permitted within Planning District E are not associated with sources of objectionable odors. The Final EIR did not identify any significant odor impacts associated with the previously analyzed commercial buildout, and the proposed amendment would not introduce any new land uses or activities that would generate objectionable odors. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
1232
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 62 August 2026 Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

Construction Mitigation Measures
MM 4.8-1 The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

MM 4.8-2 Pre-grading /excavation activities shall include watering the area to be graded or excavated before commencement of grading or excavation operations. Application of water (preferably reclaimed, if available) should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities.

MM 4.8-3 Fugitive dust produced during grading, excavation, and construction activities shall be controlled by the following activities:
• All trucks shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle Code § 23114
• 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 MM 4.8-4 Inactive graded and/or excavated areas shall be monitored at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll-compaction, and environmentally-safe dust control materials, 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, the area should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally-safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust.

MM 4.8-5 Signs shall be posted on-site limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less.

MM 4.8-6 During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site. The site superintendent/supervisor shall use his /her discretion in conjunction with the APCD in determining when winds are excessive.

MM 4.8-7 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 MM 4.8-8 Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors, should be advised to wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations.

Valley Fever Mitigation Measures
MM 4.8-9 Hire crews from local populations where possible, since it is more likely that they have been previously exposed to the fungus and are therefore immune 1233
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 63 August 2026 MM 4.8-10 Require crews to use respirators during project clearing, grading, and excavation operations in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations.

MM 4.8-11 Require that the cabs of grading and construction equipment be air-conditioned.

MM 4.8-12 Require work crews to work upwind from excavation sites.

MM 4.8-13 Pave construction roads.

MM 4.8-14 Where acceptable to the fire department, control weed growth by mowing instead of disking, thereby leaving the ground undisturbed and with a mulch covering.

MM 4.8-15 During rough grading and site development, the primary access roads into the Specific Plan Area from adjoining paved roadways should be treated with environmentally-safe dust control agents.

ROC and NOx Mitigation Measures
MM 4.8-16 Minimize equipment idling time.

MM 4.8-17 Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufactures’ specifications.

MM 4.8-18 Lengthen the construction period during smog season (May through October), to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.

MM 4.8-19 Use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), Liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric, if feasible.

Operation Phase Mitigation Measures
MM 4.8-21 Incorporate employee locker /shower /changing facilities into all non-residential buildings in the commercial portions of the Specific Plan area.

MM 4.8-22 Plant and maintain shade trees and shrubs to reduce heat build-up on structures.

MM 4.8-24 A TDM Fee Program shall be developed for the project and approved by the City of Oxnard prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any individual development project within the Specific Plan Area. This program shall define a methodology for determining the pro-rata share of the total TDM fee to be paid by each individual building project. The total amount of the TDM fee to be paid shall be based on project emissions calculated prior to approval of the first development project under the Specific Plan 1234
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 64 August 2026

4.9 Noise
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Noise: The City of Oxnard considers a project to have a significant noise impact based on the following:

An increase of 5 dB(A) or greater in noise levels
that occurs from project-related activities would be
considered noticeable, but not significant, if the
resulting noise level would be within the acceptable
range as identified in the General Plan. However,
an increase of 3 dB(A) or greater in noise levels
that occur from project-related activities would be
significant if the resulting noise level would be
greater than the acceptable range as identified in
the General Plan.

Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Noise associated with the operation of any facility
within the Specific Plan Area is considered
significant if it would create, maintain, cause or
allow the sound level, when measured on any other
property, to exceed the allowable exterior sound
level for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30)
minutes in any hour.

Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Construction noise is considered significant when
it exceeds the significance levels. Additionally, the
City has adopted a Noise Ordinance which
regulate the permitted hours of construction. As
stated in §19-60.9, construction activity is
permitted between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM
Monday through Saturday. As shown, mobile
construction noise sources that would exceed 75
dB(A) Leq at single family residences during
permitted construction hours would result in a
significant impact, while stationary noise sources
exceeding 60 dB(A) Leq at single family residences
would result in a significant impact.

Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums Analysis of potential noise impacts resulting from construction activities, roadway noise, and stationary sources to both on- and off-site land uses was presented in the EIR. Temporary noise increases from equipment used during site development and individual building projects would result in significant impacts to both on- and off-site residential uses. However, with the inclusion of the recommended mitigation measures, these potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Future roadway noise levels were modeled based on the projected traffic volumes in the project traffic study. The increase in roadway noise along roadways, both on and off site, generated by project traffic was determined not to be significant. Mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR to mitigate all potentially significant noise impacts to a less than significant level and no significant unavoidable noise impacts were identified in the Final EIR. No update to this analysis or conclusions was provided in any subsequent addendums.
1235
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 65 August 2026 Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) An increase of 5 dB(A) or greater in noise levels that occurs from project-related activities would be considered noticeable, but not significant, if the resulting noise level would be within the acceptable range as identified in the General Plan? However, an increase of 3 dB(A) or greater in noise levels that occur from project-related activities would be significant if the resulting noise level would be greater than the acceptable range as identified in the General Plan.

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measure Incorporated.

Construction
The project proposes a Specific Plan Amendment to remove the "Public Facilities" land use designation from Planning District E and update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to correctly reflect the maximum permitted commercial buildout of 110,000 square feet. The proposed amendment does not introduce new land uses, nor does it increase the overall development intensity beyond what was originally analyzed in the Final EIR. Since the proposed project would not exceed the maximum buildout originally contemplated in the Final EIR and does not propose any new land use types, the level of construction activities equipment, and associated noise sources anticipated under the proposed project would be consistent with, or generally reduced compared to, those evaluated in the Final EIR.

No new sources of construction noise beyond those previously analyzed would be introduced, and no changes in the surrounding land use environment have occurred that would alter the significance determination in the Final EIR. Future development in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in Planning District E would be subjected to applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. No new significant impacts on construction noise would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Operation
As discussed, the Final EIR concluded that off-site ambient noise levels would increase along roadways in and around RiverPark Specific Plan area because of project-generated traffic. The project proposes a Specific Plan Amendment to remove the "Public Facilities" land use designation from Planning District E and update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to correctly reflect the maximum permitted commercial buildout of 110,000 square feet. Since the proposed project does not exceed the development intensity originally contemplated in the Final EIR, traffic volumes generated by the proposed project would be the same or less than what was previously evaluated.

As a result, roadway noise levels associated with the proposed project would not exceed those analyzed in the Final EIR, and no new significant impacts to off-site sensitive receptors would occur.

The City of Oxnard Sound Regulation Ordinance (Chapter 7, Article XI, Sound Regulation of the City’s Municipal Code) prohibits excessive sound due to its detrimental effect on public health. While the Ordinance does not regulate traffic noise along public streets, it applies to other noise sources, including stationary sources from commercial uses (i.e., Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning [HVAC], loading docks, mechanical equipment, etc.). Properties within the City are assigned a sound zone based on their corresponding land use. Commercial uses such as those proposed in Planning District E are subject to the applicable sound zone standards. The proposed project would be 1236
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 66 August 2026 required to comply with all applicable provisions of the City’s Sound Regulation Ordinance, consistent with the requirements identified in the Final EIR.

Since the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not increase the maximum buildout originally analyzed in the Final EIR, operational mobile and stationary noise impacts associated with the proposed project would remain within the scope of what was previously evaluated. Future development in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in Planning District E would be subjected to applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. No new significant impacts on operational noise would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. b) Noise associated with the operation of any facility within the Specific Plan Area is considered significant if it would create, maintain, cause or allow the sound level, when measured on any other property, to exceed the allowable exterior sound level for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour.

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measure Incorporated. Refer to Impact 4.9 (a). No new significant impacts on operational noise would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. c) Construction noise is considered significant when it exceeds the significance levels.

Additionally, the City has adopted a Noise Ordinance which regulate the permitted hours of construction. As stated in §19-60.9, construction activity is permitted between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM Monday through Saturday. As shown, mobile construction noise sources that would exceed 75 dB(A) Leq at single family residences during permitted construction hours would result in a significant impact, while stationary noise sources exceeding 60 dB(A) Leq at single family residences would result in a significant impact.

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measure Incorporated. Refer to Impact 4.9 (a).

Construction activities would be subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance which outlines permitted hours of construction and applicable significance thresholds. No new significant impacts on construction noise would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

Construction Mitigation Measures
MM 4.9-1 On-site construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and exclude Sundays.

MM 4.9-2 Staging areas shall be provided on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These staging areas shall be located to maximize the distance to residential areas.

MM 4.9-3 Construction equipment is fitted with modern sound-reduction equipment. 1237
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 67 August 2026 MM 4.9-4 When construction operations occur adjacent to occupied residential areas, additional noise reduction measures shall be implemented, including, but are not limited to, changing the location of stationary construction equipment, shutting off idling equipment and notifying adjacent residences in advance of construction work.

MM 4.9-5 During rough grading construction activities adjacent to the El Rio West Neighborhood, the temporary acoustical barriers shall be provided along the property boundary separating the construction site from the residences. These barriers shall be at height equal to that of the tallest mobile equipment being used.

Operation Phase Mitigation Measures
MM 4.9-6 Where practical, locate loading zones and trash receptacles in commercial, office, and restaurant areas away from adjacent residential areas.
1238
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 68 August 2026

4.10 Public Services
The Final EIR included the “Public Services” section which analyzed the Original Project’s environmental impacts on six different topics. The different topics include public schools, fire protection, police protection, parks and recreation, solid waste management, and library services. As such, this addendum would present a summary of the information and conclusions of the analysis in the Final EIR and subsequent addendums, if applicable, for each topic. Additionally, a determination for each topic is made regarding whether the proposed project would result in any new significant impacts or any substantial increase in the severity of the impacts identified in the Final EIR.

4.10.1 Public Schools
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Public Schools: The City of Oxnard considers the impact of a project on school facilities and services to be significant if:

School facilities will not have sufficient capacity to
accommodate the new students generated by the
project or the ability to construct the facilities
necessary to serve the additional students
generated in a timely manner.

Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums The RiverPark Specific Plan Area is located within the Rio School District (RSD) and the Oxnard Union High School District (OUHSD). The RiverPark Specific Plan included two sites designated for three new RSD schools. Planning Districts J and K included a 27-acre site for a new K-5 elementary school and a new K-8 middle school. Planning District G included a 9-acre site for a second new elementary school with 9 net acres. These 36.0 net acres were determined to be sufficient in size to accommodate schools with a capacity of 1,660 students, plus space for full track and field facilities at the middle school.

Approximately 2,110 students can be accommodated on these sites if 2-story buildings are built.

RSD and OUHSD provided student generation rates, which vary according to grade level and dwelling unit type, and which represent an estimate of the average number of students generated per residential dwelling unit. Based on these student generation rates, it was estimated that approximately 1,990 K–12 students would be generated by the development of all the residential uses that would be allowed by the Specific Plan area, including 1,654 K–8 students and 337 high school students. The addition of these students generated by the permitted residential uses would significantly impact both school districts. However, with construction of the planned school facilities and payment of developer impact fees to the school districts, adequate school capacity would be created to accommodate these students and impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Addendum 15 determined that the increase in residential units would generate 205 additional K-8 students and 62 additional high school students. While the increase in students is in excess of RSD and OUHSD capacity, Addendum 15 determined that payment of developer impact fees would offset any potential impacts.
1239
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 69 August 2026 Mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR to mitigate all potentially significant impacts to schools to a less than significant level and no significant unavoidable impacts to schools were identified in the Final EIR.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) School facilities will not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the new students generated by the project or the ability to construct the facilities necessary to serve the additional students generated in a timely manner?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would amend the RiverPark Specific Plan to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section

2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan. This change in land use designation is limited to Planning District E and would not affect the residential planning districts, the number of approved dwelling units, or the projected residential population within the Specific Plan area. Since the proposed project would not introduce new residential dwelling units, increase residential density, or expand the projected population within the Specific Plan area, it would not directly generate additional student enrollment or increase demands on public school facilities beyond what was previously analyzed in the Final EIR.

Commercial development would be subject to the payment of developer impact fees as outlined in Senate Bill 50. Developer impact fees would be collected by RSD and/or OUHSD which would be used for the construction of new school facilities and maintenance of existing facilities. Payment of these fees would constitute full and complete mitigation of the proposed project's impacts on school facilities, as provided under Section 65995 of the Government Code. No new significant impacts public schools would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.10.1-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for individual residential development projects in the Specific Plan Area all legally allowable developer impact fees shall be paid to the Rio School District and the Oxnard Union High School District.

MM 4.10.1-2 School facilities may be constructed and dedicated to the Rio School District or Oxnard Union High School District in-lieu of cash fee payments, so long as all State requirements are satisfied and the facilities are approved by the applicable District.

The District receiving facilities shall give credit in the form of waiving or reducing developer fees based on the amount of facilities dedicated to the Districts. For example, if forty percent of the required capacity is provided, the first forty percent of fees shall be waived.
1240
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 70 August 2026

4.10.2 Fire Protection
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Fire Protection: For the purposes of this analysis, the City of Oxnard considers the impact of the project on fire protection services significant if the project would result in:

Adequate response times to handle calls for
services cannot be maintained
No significant
impact No No No
Special fire protection problems are associated
with the proposed project or general area; and/or
No significant
impact No No No
There would be substantial interference with an
evacuation plan
No significant
impact No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums Fire protection and emergency medical services to the Specific Plan Area are provided by the City Fire Department to the Project area. At the time the Final EIR was prepared, the City was operating six fire stations staffed by three fire fighters at all times.

The potential for fire hazards during construction was determined not to be significant. The potential for interference with emergency vehicles traveling through the area was considered minimal given the periodic and short-term nature of any construction-related traffic resulting from the development of individual projects within the Specific Plan area.

As proposed, the RiverPark Specific Plan included a site for a new joint City/County fire station on Vineyard Avenue. This station, Station No. 7, would replace the existing County fire station located in the County El Rio Maintenance Yard on El Rio Drive in the RiverPark Specific Plan area and provide an additional City fire station to serve this area. With the addition of this new fire station, no significant impacts were identified. No mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR. No update to this analysis or conclusions was provided in any subsequent addendums.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) Adequate response times to handle calls for services cannot be maintained? Less than Significant Impact. The Final EIR determined that the RiverPark Specific Plan would be served by adequate fire and emergency response services. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not alter this conclusion. The amendment would amend the RiverPark Specific Plan to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to correctly reflect the maximum permitted commercial buildout of 110,000 square feet. As such, the proposed project would not increase the overall development intensity of the RiverPark Specific Plan area beyond what was previously studied. As such, the incremental increase in demand for fire and emergency services associated with future buildout of Planning District E would be consistent with the service levels and response times previously 1241
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 71 August 2026 analyzed in the Final EIR. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. b) Special fire protection problems are associated with the proposed project or general area? Less than Significant Impact. The Final EIR determined that the RiverPark Specific Plan would not require any unusual or unique calls for special fire protection problems. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not alter this conclusion. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would amend the RiverPark Specific Plan to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to correctly reflect the maximum permitted commercial buildout of 110,000 square feet. As such, the proposed project would not propose any land uses, building configurations, or site characteristics that would introduce new or atypical fire protection demands beyond those already contemplated in the Final EIR. Future commercial development within Planning District E would be subject to the City of Oxnard Fire Department's standard plan check and inspection requirements, ensuring that adequate fire protection measures are incorporated into any future development. Additionally, future buildout of Planning District E under the Specific Plan Amendment would be subject to City’s Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article XV, California Fire Code, which would ensure that future development is designed and constructed to minimize fire risk and provide adequate emergency access, water supply, and fire protection measures. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
c) There would be substantial interference with an evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The Final EIR determined that the RiverPark Specific Plan would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and that the project site would provide adequate emergency access and evacuation of residents in the event of an emergency. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not alter the conclusion of the Final EIR since the amendment would not propose changes to roadway configuration, or modifications to site access that would interfere with emergency response or evacuation routes. Future development within Planning District E would continue to be subject to City of Oxnard standards for emergency access and would be reviewed for consistency with applicable emergency response and evacuation plans. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

The Final EIR did not identify any mitigation measures for fire protection. 1242
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 72 August 2026

4.10.3 Police Protection
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Police Services: For the purposes of this analysis, the City of Oxnard considers the impact of the project on police services significant if the project would result in:

An unusual number of calls for service, inadequate
police staffing, a substantial decline in response
times to handle calls for services, and/or
substantial interference with an evacuation plan.

Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums Law enforcement and police protection services are provided to the City and the Specific Plan area by the City Police Department. The Police Department has one station, located near Oxnard City Hall, and three storefront police substations, which are used for community-based policing. Site development and construction would not normally require services from the Police Department, except in the cases of trespassing, theft, and vandalism. Such activities at a construction site are not unusual but are only occasional and do not typically place undue demands on police protection services. Slow-moving construction-related traffic along local roadways may reduce optimal traffic flows on these roadways and could conceivably delay police and emergency vehicles or contribute to a vehicle accident. This potential is considered minimal given the periodic and short-term nature of any construction related traffic, and no significant impacts are expected with implementation of standard construction practices.

Based on available crime statistics at the time the EIR was prepared, the Police Department based its service planning on a basis of 0.4 calls for service per capita. The projected increase in population for the 2,805 units allowed by the Specific Plan was approximately 7,220. This population would generate approximately 2,900 calls for service annually. Based on the number of calls for service estimated to be generated by buildout of the RiverPark Specific Plan, the Oxnard Police Department determined additional police personnel would be required to provide police services to the Specific Plan area. Based on the fiscal impact study prepared for the Specific Plan, revenues accrued to the City’s General Fund from sales taxes, property taxes, etc., would provide the funds needed for police service.

District D of the Specific Plan permits the development of a storefront police station of approximately 1,000 square feet within the commercial portion of the RiverPark Specific Plan area when warranted by the increase in the number of calls for service to mitigate the impact of the addition of service area to the existing response beat serving the Specific Plan area. A mitigation measure was identified in the Final EIR to mitigate all potentially significant impacts to police protection to a less than significant level and no significant unavoidable impacts to police protection were identified in the Final EIR.

Addendum 15 determined that the increase of residential units in the RiverPark Specific Plan would result in an increase of 702 calls. Nevertheless, Addendum 15 concluded that the estimated increase in calls was not substantial and would not interfere with response times. 1243
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 73 August 2026 Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) An unusual number of calls for service, inadequate police staffing, a substantial decline in response times to handle calls for services, and/or substantial interference with an evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed, the proposed project would amend the RiverPark Specific Plan to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial buildout. The Final EIR previously analyzed environmental impacts associated with a maximum permitted buildout of 130,000 square feet of commercial uses in Planning District E.

According to the Final EIR, an estimated 0.4 service calls per capita were expected for residential uses. No service call ratios were provided or analyzed in the Final EIR for commercial uses.

Nevertheless, the Final EIR determined that commercial development in the RiverPark area, including the original maximum permitted buildout of 130,000 square feet of commercial uses in Planning District E, would not generate an unusual number of police service calls. The proposed project would neither expand the boundaries of Planning District E nor increase the maximum permitted commercial buildout beyond the level previously analyzed in the Final EIR and subsequent addendums. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in a demand for police protection services beyond what was previously evaluated.

As required, all proposed commercial development in Planning District E would be subject to a detailed review by the Police Department staff for conformance with the Police Department’s design standards to reduce demands for police protection services to the site. No new significant impacts on police protection would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

No applicable mitigation measures have been identified for police protection services. 1244
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 74 August 2026

4.10.4 Parks and Recreation
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Parks and Recreation: The City considers the impact of a project to be significant if sufficient park space is not provided based on the following standards:

Neighborhood Parks: 1.5 acres per 1,000 new
residents and/or Community Parks: 1.5 acres per
1,000 residents.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums At the time the EIR was prepared, there were 756 acres of developed parkland in the City, including a 224- acre public golf course. The City park planning standard for total developed acres of parkland is

3.0 acres per thousand population, as established by the Quimby Act. Individual standards for Neighborhood and Community Parks are 1.5 acres per 1,000 population.

As originally proposed, the RiverPark Specific Plan would allow development of a maximum of 2,085 dwelling units, with an estimated residential population of approximately 7,220 persons. Based on the City’s park planning standards, approximately 11 acres of neighborhood parkland and 11 acres of community parkland are required to serve this estimated population. Since the Specific Plan was originally adopted, an addendum was processed analyzing the development of up to 4,068 residential units. This increase in residential units proposed would increase the residential population within the Specific Plan Area. Specifically, Addendum 15 determined that the RiverPark Specific Plan would require approximately 16 acres of Neighborhood Park space and 16 acres of Community Park space.

The Specific Plan included a variety of parks and open space areas. The Specific Plan Area as developed includes approximately 23 acres of Neighborhood Park space and 30 acres of Community Park space. This amount exceeds the required park space under the City planning standards. Based on the school facilities requirements of the State Department of Education, a minimum of 12 acres of playfields was required for the number of students planned for the schools planned in RiverPark.

Depending on the site plans for the elementary and intermediate school sites, up to 18 acres of playfield space would be provided. The amount of community playfields provided on the school sites would be greater than the 12 acres required under the City’s planning standards for community parkland. In addition, the Specific Plan would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Parks and Recreation Element Plans and Policies of the General Plan. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreation were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) Neighborhood Parks: 1.5 acres per 1,000 new residents and/or Community Parks: 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed, the proposed project would amend the RiverPark Specific Plan to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to 1245
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 75 August 2026 update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial buildout. The Final EIR previously analyzed environmental impacts associated with a maximum permitted buildout of 130,000 square feet of commercial uses in Planning District E.

The proposed project involves a change in land use designation within Planning District E from a mix of commercial and public facilities uses to commercial-only use consistent with the mix of uses analyzed in the Final EIR. This change does not affect the residential planning districts, the number of approved dwelling units, or the projected residential population within the Specific Plan area.

Demand for parks and recreational facilities were determined to be generated by the residential population in the Final EIR. The proposed project would not introduce new residential dwelling units, nor would it increase the density of residential districts. Thus, the proposed project would not generate a demand on parks and recreational facilities beyond what was previously analyzed in the Final EIR for Planning District E. No new significant impacts on parks and recreation would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

The Final EIR did not identify any mitigation measures for parks and recreation. 1246
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 76 August 2026

4.10.5 Solid Waste Management
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Solid Waste Management: The City of Oxnard considers the impact of a project on solid waste collection services and disposal facilities to be significant if:

The project solid waste disposal stream would be
reduced less than the applicable waste reduction
target of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent past
the year 2000
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums Site preparation and construction activities related to development of the RiverPark Specific Plan was estimated to produce approximately 52,000 cubic yards of solid waste, assuming no diversion of construction waste. Some of this waste would be diverted at the City’s Del Norte Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). This facility separates recyclables from trash, thereby reducing the waste stream entering local landfills. Given the present and expected future availability of landfill space at the Simi Valley and Toland Road Landfill, the incremental nature of solid waste generated during construction, and the recycling rate of waste at the City’s MRF, no significant impacts to solid waste disposal facilities were identified from construction that would occur in the Specific Plan area.

Approximately 15,130 tons per year of waste would be generated annually by the uses allowed by the Specific Plan. This amount would average approximately 41.5 tons per day. Based on the daily capacity of the Del Norte MRF, no significant impacts to this facility were identified. After diversion, the amount of solid waste generated by the Original Project for disposal in landfills was estimated at 5,145 tons per year.

In 2011, Addendum 12 analyzed a proposed amendment to the Specific Plan to allow an increase in the number of dwelling units allowed within the Specific Plan area to a maximum of 3,145 units and reduce the maximum amount of commercial development by approximately 407,000 square feet. This change resulted in an increase of the total amount of solid waste generated by construction of the uses allowed by the Specific Plan to approximately 54,450 cubic yards. This represents a maximum increase of approximately 7,000 cubic yards as compared to the estimated construction waste calculation contained in the Final EIR.

In 2022, Addendum 15 proposes an additional 1,025 additional multifamily residential units which would generate 1,199 tons per year of solid waste based on the solid waste generation factor in the Final EIR while the respective decrease in commercial development would generate 3,686 tons per year of solid waste, resulting in an overall decrease of 1,695 tons per year of solid waste. Addendum No. 15 analyzed Planning District E’s solid waste impacts associated with buildout of 110,000 square feet of commercial uses on 8.9 acres and concluded that impacts would be less than significant. 1247
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 77 August 2026 Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) The project solid waste disposal stream would be reduced less than the applicable waste reduction target of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent past the year 2000? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed, the proposed project would amend the RiverPark Specific Plan to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial buildout. The Final EIR previously analyzed environmental impacts associated with a maximum permitted buildout of 130,000 square feet of commercial uses in Planning District E.

Construction
Construction of commercial uses within Planning District E would generate temporary solid waste associated with demolition debris, excavation spoils, packaging materials, and other constructionrelated refuse typical of commercial development. However, as discussed above, the proposed project would not propose a greater construction footprint than what was envisioned for Planning District E. Thus, the scope and intensity of construction activities under the proposed Specific Plan would not be greater than that analyzed in the Final EIR. As such, the volume of solid waste generated during construction activities would be consistent with, or generally lower than, what was previously evaluated.

Furthermore, construction waste would comply with applicable State and local solid waste regulations which include the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). CALGreen mandates that a minimum of 65 percent of construction and demolition waste be diverted from landfill disposal through recycling, reuse, or salvage. Compliance with such regulations would reduce the overall volume of solid waste generated during construction. No new significant impacts to solid waste during construction would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Operation
During operation, commercial development within Planning District E would generate long-term solid waste associated with the day-to-day activities typical of retail and commercial land uses, including packaging materials, food waste, paper and cardboard, and other refuse generated by businesses and their patrons. As discussed, the proposed project would amend the RiverPark Specific Plan to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section

2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan. The proposed project would not expand the currently approved buildout or acreage of Planning District E. As such, the proposed project would not result in excess solid waste generation beyond what was previously analyzed for the site. No new significant impacts to solid waste facilities or landfill capacity during operation would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

The Final EIR did not identify any mitigation measures for solid waste management. 1248
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 78 August 2026

4.10.6 Library Services
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Library Services: Based on the goals contained in the Public Facilities Element of General Plan, the City of Oxnard considers the impact of a project on library services to be significant if:

The City’s library system does not have the
capacity to serve the project
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums The Oxnard Public Library operates three facilities and provides library services to the residents of the City. Under the adopted RiverPark Specific Plan 3,003 units are currently built and approved to date.

According to Addendum 15, approximately 9,869 new residents would be generated by buildout of the RiverPark Specific Plan. This increase in residents would result in an increase in the demand for library materials and space. The City’s Public Library system currently contains adequate capacity to serve the City.

District D of the Specific Plan permits the development of a storefront library facility to serve the residents in the Specific Plan area, as well as residents throughout the City. Funding for the operation of library facilities is provided by allocations from the City’s General Fund. Based on the fiscal impact study prepared by the City, revenues accrued to the City’s General Fund from sales taxes, property taxes, etc., would meet the capital outlay for library service as well as fully funding all other necessary urban services required by the Specific Plan. Therefore, the increased demand for library services could be met through the allocation of revenue from the City’s General Fund. As such, no significant impacts related to the provision of library services would occur as the cost to operate and maintain library services to the site would be covered by established funding sources and no mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR. No update to this analysis or conclusions was provided in any other subsequent addendums.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) The City’s library system does not have the capacity to serve the project? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed, the proposed project would amend the RiverPark Specific Plan to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial buildout. The Final EIR previously analyzed environmental impacts associated with a maximum permitted buildout of 130,000 square feet of commercial uses in Planning District E.

The proposed project involves a change in land use designation within Planning District E from a mix of commercial and public facilities uses to commercial-only use, consistent with the mix of land uses evaluated in the Final EIR. This change does not affect the residential planning districts, the number of approved dwelling units, or the projected residential population within the Specific Plan area. Demand for public library services is primarily driven by residential population. Specifically, commercial uses, by their nature, do not generate the same type of sustained demand for library 1249
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 79 August 2026 services as residential uses. Employees and patrons of commercial establishments within Planning District E would not meaningfully increase the demand for library collections, facilities, or staffing beyond levels already attributable to the broader community. The proposed project would not introduce new residential dwelling units, nor would it increase the density of residential or commercial districts within the Specific Plan area. Thus, the proposed project would not generate demands on public library services beyond what was previously analyzed in the Final EIR. No new significant impacts to library facilities would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

The Final EIR did not identify any mitigation measures for library services. 1250
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 80 August 2026

4.11 Public Utilities
The Final EIR included the “Public Utilities” section which analyzed the Original Project’s environmental impacts on four different topics. The different topics include stormwater drainage, water supply and distribution, wastewater services, and energy. As such, this addendum presents a summary of the information and conclusions of the analysis in the Final EIR and subsequent addendums, if applicable, for each topic. Additionally, a determination for each topic has been made regarding whether the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would result in any new significant impacts or any substantial increase in the severity of the impacts identified in the Final EIR and subsequent addendums.

4.11.1 Stormwater Drainage
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Stormwater Drainage: The City of Oxnard considers a project to have a significant impact related to storm drainage and flooding if it would:

Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water systems; or
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard
area.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums The drainage master plan included in the RiverPark Specific Plan maintained the general drainage patterns established in the City’s Master Plan of Drainage and was designed to meet and exceed Ventura County and City drainage criteria. The RiverPark Specific Plan area is generally flat, with gradients of less than 0.5 percent. The land generally slopes to the southwest corner of the Specific Plan area, where the Ventura Freeway crosses the Santa Clara River. The approximately 702-acre Specific Plan area also accepts runoff from approximately 500 acres of area to the north and east of the Specific Plan area.

In addition to being designed to provide the capacity needed to convey storm flows from the Specific Plan area and the off-site areas that drain into the site, the proposed drainage system was designed to provide water quality treatment of all storm flows from on- and off-site tributary areas. As the proposed drainage system provided adequate capacity for on- and off-site runoff, no significant impacts to drainage conditions in the area were identified in the Final EIR.

The RiverPark drainage plan routes stormwater flows from storms in excess of a 10-year event into the reclaimed mine pits in the northern portion of the Specific Plan area. Analysis conducted for the Final EIR determined that there was adequate storage capacity and freeboard available in these pits, even if groundwater levels are at historic highs. Based on this analysis, it was found that no significant flooding impact from the use of the water storage basins as drainage facilities would result.

The RiverPark Specific Plan also allows the Water Storage/Recharge Basins to be used by the UWCD for the storage of water diverted from the Santa Clara River at the UWCD Freeman Diversion Dam to recharge groundwater in the Oxnard Plain Aquifer System. UWCD plans to integrate the reclaimed mine 1251
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 81 August 2026 pits into its network of facilities in the area and diverted water stored in these pits may be pumped to other existing groundwater spreading facilities or supply pipelines in the area. UWCD will have the ability to manage the level of water in the Water Storage/Recharge Basins to ensure that adequate capacity for stormflows and adequate freeboard are maintained. No significant flooding impacts, therefore, were identified from the proposed use of the reclaimed mine pits as water storage and recharge basins by UWCD.

A review of the flood protection provided by the Santa Clara River levee indicated the site was adequately protected from potential flooding impacts from the river by the levee. The Specific Plan area is not located within a designated 100-year flood zone and no significant flooding impacts were identified and no mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR. No update to this analysis or conclusions was provided in any subsequent addendums.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water systems?
Less than Significant Impact. Planning District E is located within Drainage Area 1 of the RiverPark Specific Plan. Drainage Area 1 would drain into the storm drain along Santa Clara Boulevard and an extension from Stroube Street Drain. These two drains would then connect to the existing Stroube Street Drain and outlet into the Santa Clara River. In addition to the storm drains, Drainage Area 1 would also include water quality treatment features such as dry swales, pervious pavement, centrifugal separates, and other Best Management Practices (BMP) in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System discharge requirements.

As discussed, the proposed project would amend the RiverPark Specific Plan to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial buildout. The proposed project would not result in an increase in impervious surface area or development which would result in increased runoff. As such, the proposed project would not result in an increase in runoff which exceeds the capacity of existing or planned stormwater systems. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
b) Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area? Less than Significant Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer, Planning District E is located within Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06111C0910E. Planning District E is located within Zone X, which is classified as an area of minimal flood hazard risks.

The Final EIR determined that the RiverPark Specific Plan would not result in any structures being placed within a 100-year flood hazard area and that no significant flooding impacts would be created by the project. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not alter this conclusion. The proposed project would not expand the boundaries of Planning District E into flood hazard areas.

Future commercial development within Planning District E would occur within the same development footprint and under the same flood hazard conditions previously analyzed in the Final EIR. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. 1252
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 82 August 2026 Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

The Final EIR did not identify any mitigation measures for stormwater drainage. 1253
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 83 August 2026

4.11.2 Water Supply and Distribution
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Water Supply and Distribution: The City of Oxnard considers the impact of a project on water supply and distribution to be significant if:

The City would not have a sufficient water supply
to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources or new resources currently being
developed;
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
A project would use water in a wasteful manner Less than Significant
Impact
No No No
The City’s water distribution system would be
unable to serve the Specific Plan Area with
adequate flow and pressure per applicable City
standards
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums The City’s water supply consists of imported surface water and local groundwater sources. The City blends the water from these two sources to achieve a balance between water quality, quantity, and cost.

The water demand for the uses allowed by the RiverPark Specific Plan was developed based on the water consumption factors outlined in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan and historical City data.

If all uses permitted by the RiverPark Specific Plan as originally adopted are built at the maximum allowed intensity, approximately 1,835 afy of water will be needed. Under the RiverPark Specific Plan as currently adopted, approximately 1,487 afy of water will be needed.

Individual building projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to meet standard requirements of the City, the State, and the Uniform Building Code. These requirements act to conserve potable water, ensure adequate water flow, and pay for the construction of improvements to the water distribution system as outlined in the City’s Water System Master Plan. The overall demand would build over time as individual building projects within the Specific Plan area are developed.

A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the Original Project and included in the Final EIR.

As required by the State Water Code and CEQA, this WSA describes the City’s water supplies and assessed the ability of the City to provide the water needed to serve RiverPark and meet all other projected demands over a 20-year period. These projections are required for periods when normal water supplies are available, and during single- and multi-year drought periods.

Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) manages local extraction of groundwater from the Oxnard Aquifer System to prevent overdraft of the aquifer system in accordance with a groundwater management plan adopted in 1985. The FCGMA adopted an ordinance in 1990 that established groundwater extraction allocations for all cities using local groundwater. Unused allocations can be accumulated for use in future periods. The City has two existing allocations, one for the City’s own water wells and a second allocation held in trust by the United Water Conservation District. 1254
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 84 August 2026 Under the FCGMA Ordinance, when irrigated agricultural land is converted to municipal uses, an additional groundwater allocation is transferred to the agency providing water to these uses. Since the RiverPark Specific Plan area contained eight active water wells, the allocations for these wells were also eligible to be transferred to the City, in addition to the allocation from conversion of agricultural land.

A total of 1,580 afy of groundwater allocations were available for transfer to the City. This additional supply would meet approximately 85 percent of the total estimated demand for the Original Project of 1,835 afy.

In addition to local groundwater extraction, the WSA reflected the City’s Groundwater Recovery Enhancement and Treatment (GREAT) Program as part of projected future water supplies. The GREAT Program is a key component of the City’s long-range water strategy to combine wastewater recycling, groundwater injection, and groundwater desalination to make more efficient use of existing local water resources to meet projected water supply needs. The WSA concluded the City would have adequate supplies to meet the needs of the Specific Plan area and all other existing and projected needs over the next 20 years.

The proposed on-site water distribution system consists of a looped network of 12-inch water transmission lines in the major streets. The proposed water transmission system was designed to conform to all City standards and determined to be adequate to serve the proposed Specific Plan area.

No mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR. Addendum No. 15 analyzed Planning District E’s water resource impacts associated with buildout of 110,000 square feet of commercial uses on 8.9 acres and concluded that impacts would be less than significant. No update to this analysis or conclusions was provided in any other subsequent addendums.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) The City would not have a sufficient water supply to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or new resources currently being developed? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in the Final EIR, the RiverPark Specific Plan area would be serviced by eight active water wells which provide 1,580 afy of water. Furthermore, the WSA prepared for the Final EIR concluded that the City has adequate water supplies to service the needs of the RiverPark Specific Plan. As discussed, the proposed project would amend the RiverPark Specific Plan to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial buildout. The proposed project would not expand the building development footprint beyond what was originally analyzed for Planning District E and would not increase water demands. As such, the existing water supply currently serving the RiverPark Specific Plan area would be capable of servicing Planning District E. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
b) A project would use water in a wasteful manner?
Less than Significant Impact. The Final EIR determined that the RiverPark Specific Plan, including Planning District E, would not use water in a wasteful manner. As discussed, the proposed project would amend the RiverPark Specific Plan to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial buildout. The proposed project would not expand the building development footprint beyond what was originally analyzed for Planning District E and would not 1255
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 85 August 2026 increase water demands. Furthermore, the proposed project would not include any unique or unusual features that would result in wasteful water consumption.

Future commercial developments within Planning District E would install water-efficient fixtures and appliances in accordance with the CALGreen standards. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that future development within Planning District E does not use water in a wasteful manner.

No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. c) The City’s water distribution system would be unable to serve the Specific Plan Area with adequate flow and pressure per applicable City standards? Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Impact 4.11.2(a) and (b) above. The Final EIR concluded that the proposed looped network of 12-inch water transmission lines would be adequate to service the RiverPark Specific Plan area, including Planning District E. It should be noted that the looped network of 12-inch water transmissions lines has since been constructed in accordance with applicable City standards.

As discussed above, the proposed project would remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial buildout. Future commercial development within Planning District E would be required to comply with CALGreen standards and would not result in any development that would result in excessive water demands. Thus, the existing water distribution system would be capable of servicing Planning District E. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

The Final EIR did not identify any mitigation measures for water supply and distribution. 1256
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 86 August 2026

4.11.3 Wastewater Service
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Wastewater Service: The City of Oxnard considers the impact of a project on wastewater service to be significant if:

Existing wastewater collection and conveyance
lines do not have sufficient capacity to
accommodate wastewater from the project.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Projected wastewater flows would exceed the
present capacity of the Oxnard Wastewater
Treatment Plant.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums A sewage collection system, consisting of roughly 300 miles of trunk sewers and 16 sewage lift stations, conveys flows from seven major sewer trunk systems in the City to the Oxnard Wastewater Treatment Plant (OWWTP), located at the southern end of the City in the Ormond Beach area. The development and operation of this sewage system is outlined in the City’s Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (2001), which outlines the general location and sizing of existing and planned sewage lines in the City.

The RiverPark Project was estimated to generate approximately 775,968 gallons per day (0.78 million gallons per day [mgd]) of wastewater when fully developed. The OWWTP currently has an average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of 31.7 mgd and a peak wet weather flow (PWWF) capacity of 68.2 mgd.

Total volume treated at the OWWTP in 2000 was 21.75 mgd, indicating there was capacity to treat an additional 9.95 mgd of wastewater. An expansion of the OWWTP, planned to coincide with the growth in the demand for treatment, would provide for treatment of an ADWF of 39.6 mgd and a PWWF of 75.4 mgd. With this expansion, adequate future capacity in the treatment plant would be provided for all projected growth in the City’s Oxnard Planning Area. The Oxnard Wastewater Treatment Plant has the existing and planned capacity to treat the approximately 0.78 mgd of additional wastewater that would be generated by the RiverPark Specific Plan. No significant impact on wastewater treatment capacity was identified.

All the proposed sewage lines within the Specific Plan Area were sized to accommodate the wastewater generated by the proposed uses. After collection in the on-site sewer system, wastewater will be conveyed in the Central Trunk Sewer to the Oxnard Wastewater Treatment Plant. The City requires individual building projects to pay the City’s sewer connection fees, which provides funds to the City to make the improvements identified in the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. In addition, the City requires individual building projects to provide adequate capacity to convey sewage to a safe point of discharge. In this manner, the existing sewage collection and conveyance system would be upgraded as necessary to accommodate sewage created by development of the land uses allowed by the RiverPark Specific Plan. Addendum No. 15 analyzed Planning District E’s wastewater impacts associated with buildout of 110,000 square feet of commercial uses on 8.9 acres and concluded that impacts would be less than significant. No significant impacts related to wastewater collection and conveyance were identified and no mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR. No update to this analysis or conclusions was provided in any other subsequent addendums. 1257
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 87 August 2026 Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) Existing wastewater collection and conveyance lines do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate wastewater from the project?
Less than Significant Impact. The Final EIR concluded that the proposed sewage lines within the RiverPark Specific Plan area would be adequate to service the entire Specific Plan, including Planning District E. It should be noted that the proposed sewage line has since been constructed in accordance with applicable City standards. As discussed above, the proposed project would remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial buildout.

The proposed project would not introduce any new land uses or increase the buildout of Planning District E. As such, the existing sewage lines currently servicing the RiverPark Specific Plan, including Planning District E, would have sufficient capacity to accommodate wastewater from the project. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. b) Projected wastewater flows would exceed the present capacity of the Oxnard Wastewater Treatment Plant?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in the Final EIR, buildout of the RiverPark Specific Plan area would result in an increase of 0.78 mgd of wastewater. The OWWTP has adequate capacity to treat this increase in wastewater.

As discussed above, the proposed project would remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial buildout. The proposed project would not introduce any new land uses or increase the buildout of Planning District E. As such, the proposed project would not generate an increase in wastewater flows beyond what was previously analyzed for the site. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

The Final EIR did not identify any mitigation measures for wastewater service. 1258
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 88 August 2026

4.11.4 Energy
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Energy: Based on Appendices F and G of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Oxnard considers a project to result in a significant energy impact if it would:

Consume fuel or energy in a wasteful manner or
fail to comply with the Energy Building Regulations
adopted by the California Energy Commission
(Title 24 of the California Administrative Code).

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Consume energy in an amount that could not be
accommodated within the long-term electricity
source and distribution planning of the utilities
serving the area.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Consume energy in an amount that would result in
the need for new power system; and/or
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Require significant alterations to an existing
distribution system.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums Natural gas and electricity are provided to all developed portions of the City, including the Specific Plan area, by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) and Southern California Edison, respectively. The total amount of electricity needed to serve the Original Project as analyzed in the certified Final EIR was estimated at approximately 60 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year; the total amount of electricity needed to serve the Specific Plan as amended in March 2022 was estimated at approximately 50 million kilowatt-hours per year as analyzed in Addendum No. 15. Approved facilities located in central and Southern California alone will provide approximately 3,613 additional megawatts, which is enough power to supply over 2.7 million homes. The additional electrical demand of the Project can be accommodated within the long-term source and distribution planning. In addition, individual building projects within the Specific Plan Area are required to comply with the Energy Building Regulations adopted by the California Energy Commission (Title 24 of the California Administrative Code) as mitigation against the wasteful use of energy. For these reasons, no significant impacts on electrical supply or service were identified.

Total natural gas consumption for the Original Project as analyzed in the certified Final EIR was estimated to be approximately 285.5 million cubic feet (cf) per year and total natural gas consumption for the Specific Plan as amended in March 2022 was estimated at approximately 88.3 million cubic feetper year as analyzed in Addendum No. 15. Available information indicated natural gas supplies to California will remain plentiful for the next several decades. The total resource base for the lower 48 states is estimated to be 975 trillion cf, enough to continue current production levels for more than 50 years. Technology enhancements will continue to enlarge the resource base; however, production capacity increases remain less certain.

Because the Original Project could be accommodated within the long-term source and distribution planning of SoCalGas, and because future uses on the Project site are required to comply with Title 24 1259
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 89 August 2026 of the California Administrative Code as mitigation against the wasteful use of energy, it was determined the Original Project would not result in significant impacts to natural gas service and no mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR. No update to this analysis or conclusions was provided in any subsequent addendums.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) Consume fuel or energy in a wasteful manner or fail to comply with the Energy Building Regulations adopted by the California Energy Commission (Title 24 of the California Administrative Code)?
Less than Significant Impact.

Construction
The proposed project would not expand the boundaries of Planning District E, introduce new land use types, or increase the maximum permitted commercial buildout beyond the level originally analyzed in the Final EIR. As such, the energy demands associated with construction (i.e., fuel consumption and electricity) would be no greater than those previously evaluated. Constructionrelated energy consumption, including fuel use by heavy equipment and haul trucks, would be temporary in nature and consistent with the level of construction activity already anticipated for Planning District E at full buildout. No new significant impacts to energy resources during construction would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Operation
During operation, commercial development within Planning District E would generate long-term energy demands associated with building systems typical of retail and commercial land uses, including interior and exterior lighting, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), and other electrical equipment. As discussed, the proposed project would amend the RiverPark Specific Plan to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section

2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial buildout. The proposed project would not expand the maximum permitted buildout beyond what was previously approved for the site. As such, the proposed project would not result in an increase in electricity or natural gas consumption beyond what was previously evaluated in the Final EIR. No new significant impacts to energy resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. b) Consume energy in an amount that could not be accommodated within the long-term electricity source and distribution planning of the utilities serving the area? Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Impact 4.11.4(a). As discussed, the proposed project would amend the RiverPark Specific Plan to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial buildout. As such, the proposed project would not expand the buildout of Planning District E beyond what was previously analyzed and thus, would not result in excessive energy consumption that could not be accommodated by existing electricity sources and distribution. No new significant impacts to energy resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
1260
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 90 August 2026 c) Consume energy in an amount that would result in the need for new power system? Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Impact 4.11.4(a) and 4.11.4(b). No new significant impacts to energy resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. d) Require significant alterations to an existing distribution system? Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Impact 4.11.4(a) and 4.11.4(b). No new significant impacts to energy resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

The Final EIR did not identify any mitigation measures for energy resources. 1261
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 91 August 2026

4.12 Cultural Resources
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Cultural Resources: The City of Oxnard considers a project to have a significant impact if it would:

Cultural Resources – If the project will disrupt or
adversely affect a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site or a paleontological site except
as a part of a scientific study.

Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Historical Resources – If the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of
an historical resource as a project that may have a
significant effect on the environment. Substantial
adverse change in the significance of an historical
resource means physical demolition, destruction,
relocation, or alteration of the resource or its
immediate surroundings such that the significance
of an historical resource would be materially
impaired.

Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums Archeological and historic resource surveys of the Specific Plan Area were completed during preparation of the Final EIR. The archeological survey included a records search and a field survey. No sites of any kind had been previously recorded within the study area or adjacent properties, and no new sites were discovered during the Phase I survey. A low-density, mixed scatter of historical debris, possibly dating between 1879 and 1884, was found southeast of Myrtle Street (now named Riverpark Boulevard) and El Rio Drive. This was an open lot in a disturbed state as a result of the demolition of structures that had been present on this parcel. Development of the proposed project would result in grading and earthwork at this location that had the potential to impact a potential historical deposit.

All existing structures within the Specific Plan Area were reviewed for possible historical significance.

The historic resource study identified 33 existing buildings and structures on the project site that would be demolished. Eighteen of these buildings, including 16 buildings in the Ventura County El Rio Maintenance Yard, and an existing home and a commercial showroom building on El Rio Drive, were determined not to eligible as historic resources as defined by the CEQA because they were not 50 or more years of age. Three other residential structures and the buildings on the mine site were surveyed and researched to determine whether any of these structures were historically significant. This research found that five of the existing buildings on the mine site, including an office building, garage, and three metal storage buildings, are of sufficient age to be potential historic resources. In this case, these five buildings and structures were associated with an industry that has made a significant contribution to the physical development of Ventura County through the construction of roads, bases, airfields, and buildings. While these existing structures are not eligible for listing on the national or State registers of historical resources, they were identified as potentially eligible for listing as Ventura County Landmarks, a designation that has no integrity criteria. For this reason, these five structures were identified as having local historical significance, and demolition was identified as a significant impact. 1262
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 92 August 2026 Mitigation measures were identified to mitigate all potential impacts to archeological resources to a less than significant level. Historic documentation of the buildings on the mine site prior to demolition was determined to mitigate this impact to the fullest extent feasible. As this mitigation would not mitigate this impact to a less than significant level, the loss of these structures was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the project. No update to this analysis or conclusions was provided in any subsequent addendums.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) Cultural Resources – If the project will disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or a paleontological site except as a part of a scientific study? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. As discussed, the proposed project would amend the RiverPark Specific Plan to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial buildout. The Final EIR previously analyzed environmental impacts associated with a maximum permitted buildout of 130,000 square feet of commercial uses in Planning District E.

Mass grading of the Specific Plan Area, including Planning District E, has already occurred and mitigation measures pertaining to cultural resources were implemented during ground-disturbing activities. As such, buildout of Planning District E would occur in previously disturbed and paved areas. Furthermore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not expand Planning District E into areas that were not previously analyzed in the Final EIR. However, construction of commercial development within Planning District E may require excavation activities which could encounter previously undiscovered cultural resources that were not encountered during prior mass grading.

Thus, any ground disturbance activities and resources encountered in Planning District E would be subjected to applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3 (SB 18), the City initiated tribal outreach for the proposed project by contacting California Native American tribes identified on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. Tribes were provided a 90-day period from the date of notification to request consultation regarding potential impacts to tribal cultural resources within the project area. The 90-day response period concluded on July 16, 2026, and no tribe requested consultation during this period. Accordingly, the SB 18 tribal outreach process has concluded.

Future development in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in Planning District E would be subject to applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR for the protection of cultural resources. No new significant impacts on cultural resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
b) Historical Resources – If the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired?
Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Impact 4.12(a) above. construction of commercial development within Planning District E may require excavation activities which could encounter 1263
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 93 August 2026 previously undiscovered cultural resources that were not encountered during prior mass grading.

Thus, any ground disturbance activities and resources encountered in Planning District E would be subject to applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Furthermore, buildout of Planning District E would not result in the demolition of structures previously identified in the Final EIR as eligible historical resources under the Ventura County Landmarks. No new significant impacts on cultural resources would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. 1264
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 94 August 2026 Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.12-1 A qualified Archaeological Monitor shall be present at the site during grading and earthwork activities. If any unpredicted cultural resources are uncovered during earthmoving activities, construction work shall stop immediately and the appropriate local and regional authorities shall be consulted.
1265
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 95 August 2026

4.13 Hazards
Impact Thresholds
Impact
Determination
in the Certified
Final EIR
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis?
Hazards: The City of Oxnard considers a project to have a potential impact related to the presence of hazardous materials and/or risk of upset impact of hazardous materials is identified as significant based on the following thresholds:

Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials within one quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment.

Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No No No
For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles or a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area
Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in the safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Impair the implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No No No
Summary of Analysis in the Final EIR and Subsequent Addendums A series of Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) reports were prepared for the properties included in the proposed Specific Plan area to determine the potential for impacts related to the presence and use of hazardous materials by existing and historical uses within and around the Specific Plan area. These risks are primarily associated with the potential for on-site hazards from abandoned oil wells, storage of materials categorized as hazardous under existing regulations, underground and aboveground storage tanks, and the operations of facilities historically located within the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan area.
1266
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 96 August 2026 Analysis of soils in the agricultural portions of the Specific Plan area determined that no significant concentrations of herbicides or pesticides are present in the soils. These studies determined that the Specific Plan area contained several abandoned oil wells that may need to be re-abandoned to current standards. In addition, the existing buildings on the site that would be demolished were of sufficient age to potentially contain asbestos building materials and lead paint. Demolition of these structures in conformance with existing regulations would mitigate any potential impacts. Mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR to mitigate all potentially significant hazardous impacts to a less than significant level and no significant unavoidable hazardous impacts were identified in the Final EIR. No update to this analysis or conclusions was provided in any subsequent addendums.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Analysis
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated.

Construction
Construction of commercial uses would require the use of hazardous materials; however, similar to what was evaluated in the Final EIR, these materials would be handled, stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. Furthermore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not increase the maximum permitted square footage of commercial uses and, therefore, would not result in the use of hazardous materials during construction beyond what was previously analyzed in the Final EIR. Additionally, Planning District E was not identified in the Final EIR as an area where abandoned oil wells are present. Nevertheless, development of Planning District E in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would be subject to applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. No new significant impacts on hazards would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Operation
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not expand Planning District E into areas that were not previously analyzed in the Final EIR. Operation of commercial uses within Planning District E, at a maximum permitted buildout of 130,000 square feet was previously evaluated in the Final EIR. As discussed, the proposed project would amend the RiverPark Specific Plan to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial buildout. The proposed project would not increase the intensity of commercial uses in Planning District E which may result in an increase of hazardous waste use. Consistent with the Final EIR, commercial uses in Planning District E would generate hazardous waste which would be handled, stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. No new significant impacts related to hazards would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
1267
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 97 August 2026 Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. Refer to Impact 4.13(a).

Construction
Construction of commercial uses in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would require the use and storage of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, solvents, and other construction-related substances. However, the storage and use of such substances would be temporary in nature and would cease upon completion of construction. Furthermore, construction activities associated with any future development within Planning District E would be subject to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing the use and storage of hazardous materials. No new significant impacts related to hazards would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Operation
Future commercial development within Planning District E would not involve the routine use or storage of hazardous materials beyond those typically associated with standard commercial land uses, such as cleaning products, landscaping chemicals, and similar incidental substances. These materials are not expected to be used or stored in quantities that would pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Furthermore, any future commercial uses involving the storage or handling of hazardous materials would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local requirements. No new significant impacts related to hazards would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials within one quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact. Since the approval of the Final EIR, the RSD developed the Rio Del Mar Elementary School at 3150 Thames River Drive, located approximately 0.75 miles to the north of Planning District E. Rio Del Mar Elementary School is the closest school to Planning District E.

As such, no new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The Cortese List comprises of various regulatory databases regarding facilities and sites that are listed as hazardous materials sites. According to Cortese List, two sites on Planning District E were identified:
• Department of Toxic Substance Control EnviroStor database4 o 2425 Colonia Road – McCaslin Oil Company
• State Water Board GeoTracker database5
4 Department of Toxic Substance Control, Envirostor interactive map, https://envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/, accessed May 8, 2026. 5 State Water Board, Geotracker interactive map, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Search+GeoTracker, accessed May 8, 2026. 1268
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 98 August 2026 o 2425 Colonia Road – MacValley/McCaslin Oil Company
However, regulatory cleanup of these sites has been completed, and the cases have since been closed. Furthermore, Department of Toxic Substance Control confirms a No Further Action (NFA) determination for the Department of Toxic Substance Control listed site, indicating that no additional investigation, cleanup, or remediation is required. As such, the presence of these closed cases would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment in connection with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in the Final EIR, the RiverPark Specific Plan area, including Planning District E, is not located within the jurisdiction of an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest airport to the River Park Specific Plan is the Oxnard Airport located approximately 2.6 miles to the southwest of Planning District E. The proposed project would not expand the boundaries of Planning District E into areas that are within the jurisdiction of an airport land use plan. As such, no new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in the safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Impact 4.13(f). As discussed, the proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or within two miles of a public airport. As such, no new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur. g) Impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Final EIR determined that the RiverPark Specific Plan would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and that the project site would provide adequate emergency access and evacuation of residents in the event of an emergency. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not alter the conclusion of the Final EIR since the proposed project would not result in changes to roadway configuration, or modifications to site access that would interfere with emergency response or evacuation routes. Future development within Planning District E would continue to be subject to City of Oxnard standards for emergency access and would be reviewed for consistency with applicable emergency response and evacuation plans. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Less than Significant Impact. The Final EIR determined that the RiverPark Specific Plan area is located within a low wildland fire hazard area. However, wildfire hazard area designations have been 1269
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 99 August 2026 updated since the adoption of the Final EIR. According to the Office of the State Fire Marshal’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, RiverPark Specific Plan is located within a Local Responsibility Area and portions of Planning Districts A, B, and H are located within Moderate or High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

As discussed, the proposed project would amend the RiverPark Specific Plan to remove the “Public Facilities” land use designation in Planning District E and to update Section 2.5.2.5 of the RiverPark Specific Plan to reflect a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial buildout. The proposed project would not increase the intensity of commercial uses in Planning District E which may result in an increase of wildland fire risk. Future buildout of Planning District E under the Specific Plan Amendment would be subject to City’s Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article XV, California Fire Code, which would ensure that future development is designed and constructed to minimize fire risk and provide adequate emergency access, water supply, and fire protection measures. No new significant impacts would occur because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and no increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR would occur.

Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM 4.13-2 In the event that an abandoned oil well is encountered during construction activities, the regional DOGGR office in Ventura shall be notified immediately of the discovery. The oil well casing shall be checked for leaking oil or gasses. The DOGGR representative shall determine appropriate actions, up to and including re-abandonment of the oil well casing.

MM 4.13-3 If abandoned oil sumps or associated oilfield site contamination are located within the project site during grading or other construction activities, remediation shall be completed in accordance with existing regulations and subject to the oversight of VCEHD prior to development of the individual properties.

MM 4.13-4 Asbestos and lead-based paint that could potentially result in surface contamination of the project site shall be properly abated from project site buildings prior to demolition activities, with oversight by the APCD and VCEHD.
1270
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 100 August 2026 5 References
California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/, accessed May 8, 2026.

California Department of Conservation, Williamson Act Enrollment Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/, accessed May 8, 2026.

California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway interactive map, https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/47e2009986264718a5a13a2c81382774, accessed May 8, 2026.

City of Oxnard, RiverPark Specific Plan, https://www.oxnard.gov/wpcontent/uploads/Riverpark_Specific_Plan_Rev-April-2023.pdf, updated April 2023.

City of Oxnard, RiverPark Addendums, https://www.oxnard.gov/wp-content/uploads/RiverparkAddendums.pdf, accessed May 8, 2026.

City of Oxnard, RiverPark Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JMHaAfvFKPEe-mjdFzTxJls0Ah4Xt34V/view?usp=sharing, December 2001.

City of Oxnard, 2030 General Plan, https://www.oxnard.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Oxnard-2030- General-Plan-Amend-12.2022-SMda.pdf, adopted October 2011.

Department of Toxic Substance Control, Envirostor interactive map, https://envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/, accessed May 8, 2026.

State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker interactive map, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Search+GeoTracker, accessed May 8, 2026.
1271
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 101 August 2026 This page intentionally left blank.
1272
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 102 August 2026 6 Report Preparers
City of Oxnard
435 South D Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
BKF Engineers (CEQA Consultant)
3850 Vine Street, Suite 110
Riverside, CA 92507
Peter Minegar, AICP (Vice President - Planning)
Debra Leight (Principal Planner)
Emily Creel (Project Manager)
Renee Gleason, CEP-IT (Senior Environmental Planner)
Dennis Dinh (Environmental Planner)
Maggie Martinez (GIS Analyst)
1273
City of Oxnard
RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM NO. 16
Public Review Draft EIR Addendum No. 16 PAGE 103 August 2026 This page is intentionally left blank.
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD
ORDINANCE NO. __________________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD
APPROVING PLANNING AND ZONING PERMIT NO. 26-630-01 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO THE RIVERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN) TO

CHANGE THE PUBLIC FACILITIES LAND USE DESIGNATION WITHIN PLANNING DISTRICT E TO COMMERCIAL: REGIONAL.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Oxnard has considered the proposed Specific Plan Amendment to amend the RiverPark Specific Plan (RPSP) to change the Public Facilities land use to Commercial:Regional within Planning District E on Exhibit Exhibit 2.B Land Use Map, Exhibit 2.J Land Use Summary by Planning District table, Section 2.5.2.5 location and permitted land use text, Section 2.5.2.5 land use summary table, and Section 2.5.2.5 allowed uses for each permitted land use table; and
WHEREAS, the City of Oxnard Housing Department filed Planning and Zoning Permit (PZ) No. 26-630-01 (Specific Plan Amendment) to amend the land use designations for three city-owned properties identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers: 132-0-033-010, 132-0-311-065, and 132-0-311-075; and
WHEREAS, in July 2002 the City Council certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 2000-03 (State Clearinghouse No. 2000051046) and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIR was prepared to analyze potential impacts associated with the approval and the implementation of The RiverPark Specific Plan and the anticipated build out of the 702-acre specific plan site. The FEIR No. 00-03 found four areas of significant impacts (Earth Resources-Mineral Resources, Water Quality, Agricultural Resources, and Cultural Resources-Historical Resources); and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2002 the City Council approved the entitlements for The RiverPark Specific Plan (RPSP) to guide future development on the 702-acre project site; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the first amendment request (PZ 02-630-05) on October 22, 2002, which amended the Specific Plan to include regulations for temporary uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the second amendment request (PZ 03-630-03) on July 27, 2004, allowing a minor change in the land use designation on a small parcel from Open Space to Commercial; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the third amendment request (PZ 09-630-09) on April 14, 2009, allowing a freeway-oriented pylon sign subject to approval of a Design Development Review permit (DDR) by the Development Services Director; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the fourth amendment (PZ 10-630-02) on June 14, 2011, and allows three freeway oriented monument signs subject to approval of a DDR, and an electronic digital display panel for the pylon sign, subject to subsequent approval of a Special Use Permit; and
1282
Ordinance No. _____________ (PZ 26-630-01 - RiverPark Specific Plan Amendment) City Council Hearing Date: October 20, 2026

Page 2 of 8 ends

Oxnard City CouncilOctober 20, 2026

Oxnard City Council
October 20, 2026