Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone and welcome to the city of Oxnar Planning Commission for Thursday, June 5, 2025. This meeting will come to order at 6:03 p.m. The public may view the meeting from home on the city's website, Spectrum channel 10, Frontier channel 35, or on the city's YouTube website. To participate in the meeting, the public may provide comments to the planning commission via email at planning@oxnar.org no later than 3 p.m. on the day of the meeting or through the city's website at oxner.org/city-me or call the planning division office. Additionally, those wishing to speak can dial the phone number listed at the bottom of the screen, follow the instructions to access the meeting, and press star 9 to raise your hand, indicating your intention to speak on the agenda item being discussed. Madam Secretary, can we please have the roll call? Chairo, present. Vice Chair, Dr. Stewart, here. Commissioner Dr. Lopez, present. Commissioner Schuli, present. We have a quorum. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We will now move on to the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Dr. Lope Meal Lopez, will you kindly lead us in the pledge of allegiance and uh immediately after we'll have a brief moment of silence for the passing of Mayor Tom Holden. Thank you. If able, please stand. Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Dr. Lopez. The next agenda item is C public comment on items not on the agenda. At this time, a person may address the planning commission on matters within the jurisdiction of the planning commission,

including information consent items and any time not appearing on the agenda. The planning commission cannot take action on any item presented during public comments that is not on the agenda, and such item may only be referred to the commission secretary. Persons wishing to speak on public hearing items should do so at the time of the public hearing. Madam Secretary, do we have any public comments for items not on the agenda? No, chair. Thank you. And the next is section D, consent agenda. The minutes for the following meetings have been distributed for D1, April 3, 2025 and D2, May 1, 2025. Did I say right? April 3 and May 1. If there is no objection, we will take up all the items at the same time. And if there are no corrections to be made, a motion is in order. Vice Chair Dr. I'll make the motion to approve the minutes for April 3rd, 2025 and May 1st, 2025 as presented. Thank you. It has been moved by Vice Chair Dr. Stewart to approve the minutes as distributed for April 3 and May 1. Is there a second? I'll second. Seconded by Commissioner Schuli. There's no deliberation. Madam Secretary, can we have the roll call, please? Vice Chair Dr. Stewart. Yes. Commissioner Schuli. Hi. Commissioner Dr. Lopez I chair I. This motion passes. Thank you. Moving on to section E. Exparte declarations for public hearing items. Please state any exparte declarations if any. I'll move across the dis. Commissioner Dr. Lopez. None chair. Thank you. Thank you vice chair Dr. Stewart. None. Thank you chair. Thank you. Commissioner Schuli. None. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. And none for myself. Going to the first public hearing. Agenda item F1. Project name 2030 general plan and local coastal plan conformity determination for the city of Oxard midcycle update to the capital improvement program fiscal years 25 to 29. City staff Morgan Kesler, city

engineer. The planning commission will review the midcycle update to CIP or to the CIP for fiscal years 25 to 29 to confirm the projects are in conformance with the city of Oxner 2030 general plan and relevant coastal land use plan policies pursuant to section 6541 the government code. The CIP includes a range of roadway improvements, maintenance of public facilities, storm water drainage improvements, and other miscellaneous projects. The whole of the proposed CIP projects are located throughout the city of Oxnard and vary in scope and funding filed by the city of Oxnard public works department. Per measure M. A staff presentation has pre-recorded and the link has been posted to YouTube per previously approved standing role. Staff can provide a brief summary of the pre-recorded presentation in addition to other analysis at this time. Does staff wish to give some introductory remarks? All right. Well, good evening, chair and commissioners. I'm Morgan Kesler, city engineer from the public works department. Um, the item before you tonight is uh part of our um approval process for the um update to the five-year CIP. As as this body is, I'm sure is aware, the city of Oxnard has a five-year capital improvement program, rolling five years, or the CIP as we call it, and we do a complete update and revision on that document every two years. Right now, we're in between those two years. And um we're we uh just completed an update to that document. Uh generally the update is uh

fairly simple and minor. Its purpose is to revise um individual um well there's a couple a couple goals of the update. The first is to provide a revision for projects that need either the schedule of the projects or the project's budget revised. Um, and we've done that for uh 32 existing projects, I believe. Um, the second purpose is to capture any new CIP items that just couldn't wait until the full CIP revision. Um, in this case, I believe we have uh 13 and um they are listed on the second page of the staff report. And these uh projects were added at this time because the uh the the departments that requested the CIP projects felt like that these projects had to move forward now rather than wait a full another year before the new uh update to the CIP. So, um, you know, the the recommendation for the planning commission is, uh, stated in the first part of the staff report, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about this CIP update. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. I'll move on to the commission if they have any questions. I'll lead off to questions. Um hopefully a simple one. Of these 13 projects, will any need an additional hearing before the planning commission?

Uh, no. I I don't believe they will because they will be added to the CIP and once the CIP is approved by the uh planning commission and the city council, those um those projects uh are considered uh reviewed and vetted and and found um conforming to all the uh all the requirements that they need to conform to. And we we typically um we will bring them when we're ready to proceed with the project, we will uh well there'll be a step where it's determined if they need uh if the project needs uh further environmental uh review and compliance such as an environmental impact report or something like that. Other than that, the uh project will go uh straight to the um city council for approval. Thank you for that. And um one follow-up question. Um this is a midcycle update. Is there ever a time when you've come to the planning commission for a mid fiscal year update or do you just leave it for every every year for the regular two uh every Yeah. Do you have a midyear update or is it just every fiscal year? It's it's every fiscal year and that's a necessity because um as part of this update it has an impact on the uh city's budget. So this the updates and the full um and the and the full redoss of the CIP have to they necessarily have to um preede the approval of the budget every year. Okay. Um, and then probably one last followup. If there is a major increase or decrease in any ground

funding that goes to any of these projects, would that be a time that you would come back to the planning commission in case a project drastically changes because of those funding increments or likely decreases? Um, I'm not sure. I guess that would have to be handled on a uh case-bycase basis. Um I I I I would say if the uh if the funding mechanism through the grant requires that we would return to the uh planning commission with with any sort of uh grant conditions that would need input from the planning commission or have an impact on um planning issues, we would return to the planning commission. Uh yeah, and I can maybe speak to that because ultimately what's before the commission isn't necessarily tied to the funding. It's tied to the project itself and whether the project is in conformance with the general plan. Um so if there was changes to the funding amounts or things like that or in that nature, that would not necessarily trigger a change that wouldn't necessarily need to come back here. It'd only be if the project was again not the same project that was essentially presented um before in which case that would just be a different project. Thank you both. Appreciate it. Vice Chair Dr. Stewart. I have more of a curiosity question. I see under the advanced alley maintenance program they're redoing asphalt, but I know that driving around the city some of the alleys have been redone in concrete. what uh why some are special and others aren't. What gives there? Right. So, prior to this new project which we're calling the advanced alley maintenance program or AMP, right, is the acronym.

Um we we had two levels of treatment for um alleys that are in high levels of deterioration which honestly is a lot of them. Um we had a kind of a reactionary maintenance program where somebody would call in and say there's potholes and my alleys falling apart. So, our our city maintenance crews, street maintenance crews would go out there, patch the potholes, put a skin patch on the um you know, the the part that was bad and call it good. The second level, I guess, of alley repair is kind of our gold standard. It's where we go to an alley that needs reconstruction, completely tear it out, replace all the um buried utilities and things that need attention, and come back and and reconstruct it with Portland cement concrete. So, those were the two kind of let's say extremes of of uh treatment options that we had. We realized that we needed an intermediate treatment option because we have a pavement management plan. And in that pavement management plan, each alley kind of has its turn based on its condition as to when it will receive that top level treatment that I talked about. Okay? Sometimes that would be on the order of years and they can't wait that long. So we came up with the advanced alley maintenance program which uses a combination of repair techniques which is essentially what we call mill and overlay um crack sealing and um using a variety of um pavement preservation treatments like slurry seals and microsurfacing

[Music] to bring the alley up to a point where it will act it will last those years until their turn comes up to be fully reconstructed with the uh Portland cement concrete. So, it's it's it's considered an intermediate treatment, a stop gap treatment that's of high enough quality that it will last until the alley is fully reconstructed. Okay. The other thing I didn't see in my report is there was no list of the locations that are going to be uh able to have this service done to them. Well, in our pavement management program, it's it's called our five-phase pavement management program that we brought before and was approved by council last not this April, last April, April 2024. has a list of those locations. Okay. Um and uh it's it's updated yearly because the conditions change over time, but that's that's really where we we keep those uh the the list of um streets and their and their level of their condition level and when, you know, it's a running tally of when they'll be treated. So, all right. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Vice Chair, Dr. Stewart. Any others on the commission at this time? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on to public comment. Madam Secretary, is there any public comment? No, chair. Thank you. The public hearing is now closed. We'll move on to deliberation commission. Vice Chair, Dr. Stewart. Um, this project has been brought before us on several occasions and it was delayed

uh for various reasons, but having gone through it several times and I know that they've made changes and refined it. So, I don't find any issues with this, so I'm uh willing to uh give it my uh or support it, I should say. Thank you, Vice Chair Dr. Stewart. Any others from the commission? And from myself and maybe a little from um Commissioner Steve Nash, we saw this um item in our Measure O committee. And so I apologize a little. There's a little bit crossplation um in regards to my financially relevant questions um on the measure O committee. There were some planning uh engineering related questions. So it's interesting if you see both of them, you can't help but ask questions. Anyway, so I believe um at least for me and Commissioner Nash, we definitely got a good dose of this and are fully aware of um all the projects and what they've done and of course with the planning commission. Um I believe that this is in keeping with what the city needs. Um at this time, any other commission any other commissioners? And if not, a motion is in order. Okay, I'll make a motion to approve the recommended action. Um the it has been moved by vice chair Dr. Stewart to find the midcycle update to the capital improvement plan projects for fiscal years 25 to 29 is not a project under SQA pursuant to sections 15601B3 and 15 387B4 and adopt resolution 2025X finding that the proposed additional midcycle update to the capital improvement projects program projects for fiscal years 25 to 29 are in conformance with the city of Oxnard 2030 general plan and relevant coastal land use plan policy. policies pursuant to section 6541 of the government code. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. Seconded by Commissioner Schuli. There's no further deliberation on the motion before us. Madam Secretary, can

we have the roll call, please? Vice Chair Dr. Stewart. I. Commissioner Schulen. I. Commissioner Dr. Lopez. I. Chair Arjo. I. This motion passes. Thank you. And thank you very much. Moving on to agenda item F2, Albany Apartments. Uh planning and zoning permit number 24-500-03 special use permit 24-300-03 tenative parcel map and 24-535-01 density bonus property located at 2929 to 2931 Albany Drive a request to partially demolish classroom buildings totaling 7,977 ft. The project side construction includes reuse of an existing classroom building and new construction of new buildings to allow for a 20 unit 42,24 square foot apartment complex with 10 two-bedroom and 10 three-bedroom units. The project also includes a tenative parcel map merging three existing lots into one lot and vacating and relocating of an alleyway. The project also includes the ministerial approval of a density bonus permit to allow the reduction to the setbacks in parking. The project is exempt from SQA pursuant to sections 15315 and 15332 of the SQA guidelines filed by designated AHM Andrew out Al outouse um of 360 architecture and design on behalf of property owner Albany Apartments of Oxnard um city staff one Carlos Torres Associate planner per measure M a staff presentation has been pre-recorded and the link has been posted to YouTube per previously approved standing role staff can provide a brief summary of the pre-recorded presentation in addition to other analysis at this time. Does staff wish to give some introductory remarks?

Uh thank you. Uh good evening chair members of the planning commission. Thank you for for uh describing the project. Sir, can you um put the microphone a little bit closer to you? Uh if you can apologies. Thank you just for the public. Thank you. Good evening chair right members of the planning commission. Thank you for the introduction of the project. Um I want to start by uh saying that before or prior to the meeting there were a few questions that were asked by the planning comm by some members of the planning commissioners. uh and uh some of those questions had uh to do with uh if we can increase the affordability uh uh percentage of the project. Uh the answer to that was no. Uh we are very limited on when it comes to a uh when the applicant submits a density bonus uh application. Uh and um some of the other questions that were asked were uh if the planning commissioners can add additional conditions of approval to the project in regards to the noise. Uh this is to further uh mitigate the the noise uh requirements uh for the site and the answer to that is yes. Uh but as uh as proposed the project currently complies with the uh uh city's noise ordinance. Um furthermore uh uh there was some questions asked in regards to uh what type of me uh mechanical ventilation uh the project was going to be proposed. Um the answer to that was uh the project uh as proposed uh provides um uh condensing units for each one of the the units. Uh um and uh and in case of you guys are going to be asking for uh if we're going to have any additional mechanical ventilation uh during the plan check process, uh the planning department will

be reviewing that and um and we can also ask the applicant if there is additional ventilation besides the uh the condensing units. Um in regards to uh that there was some also some questions asked in regards to the uh inclusionary requirements. Um uh there is a condition of approval in the project that requires the project to be uh bound uh by uh 20 years. But again um the uh state density bonus law uh requires the project to uh record a covenant for 55 years. Um and um while that was some of the extent of the uh questions that were asked, uh there were also some questions asked for uh you know distance between the railroad track uh distance and the proximity to the closest uh um uh habable uh unit and that was roughly about approximately 15 ft. Um in addition to that um the uh the staff have made some uh modifications to uh the conditions of approval um in which u I can go ahead and and and and tell you where it is and then uh tell you the the changes to that condition. So uh the first change uh to the conditions of approval was to condition number 172 of the special use permit resolution attachment. You can find this condition on page 28 of uh 33 for the special use uh resolution attachment under the development services division special condition section within uh condition 172 at the end of the second

sentence. Uh staff has added new text the new text after the war issuance as follows, unless approved otherwise by the city engineers. Uh the same change will apply to condition number 21 of the tenative parcel map resolution. Um condition number 21 is on page 11 of 12 of the resolution attachment within the development service uh division special condition section. uh the revised condition 172 and uh of the special uh use permit resolution and condition number uh 21 of the tenative parcel map resolution will read as follows. Developer shall process the parcel map uh PC24-300-03 concurrent with the requirement with the required building and site improvements for the planning and zoning permit number 24-5003 are approved and ready for permit issuance unless approved otherwise by the city engineers. city uh improvement permit issuance for the project site shall occur concurrently with the parcel map recordation and those are the uh the remarks that we have so far. Um thank you very much Mr. Torres. We will if the applicant is here um the you have 15 minutes to present if you're here or online. Okay. Um thank you sir. Um if you could just please state your name. Um and you have 15 minutes. Um you don't have to use all 15 minutes and you can begin when ready. Good morning. My name is James Allen. um a a long-term property owner in the city of Oxnard. Uh and I am the um applicant

um and I'm a member of Albany Apartments of Auctionard LLC. Um the reason for for uh designing this project as it is is u my uh partners and I recognize the need in this city for larger units, larger rental units. Uh as you can see from the package, we're providing rental units two and three bedrooms. Average minimum size for the existing units is over a thousand square feet. For the new units is 1,500 to,600 square feet. Uh these are familyoriented units and it seems that in Oxard we have more rental housing but less family oriented rental housing. So our thought was let's create a little area where families can live. Uh our experience in in providing rental housing is larger units, family oriented units have a tendency to be occupied for longer term by families and families like to be near other families. Uh so this is not really a typical uh apartment complex. It it actually lends itself more to being considered a townhouse type of development. All the all the uh units there's no upstairs downstairs uh different ownership. It's all side by side by side and all uh two or three bedrooms. The two two bedrooms have uh a den area. Um and uh they all have at least two baths. Um and our thought was this is something that the city of Oxnard needs more of. Um, as I indicated, there's just a lot of folks that uh uh are building very

small units in Oxnard and um our way of thinking is that's good for the younger and the transient occupancy, but what we wanted was a more permanent housing uh provided for folks that are in need of rental housing. Um, with that thought, we acquired this site. It was the site was originally the Mary Law School. It was a a uh K through 12 I think originally. Uh when when uh we first uh acquired it, we submitted some plans uh to planning, got some feedback, submitted more detailed plans, got some feedback. Uh we've been at this for like three years now. Uh in the last time before we submitted our plans, we tried to address absolutely every area of concern that planning uh and um public works uh expressed and based upon that we feel that we've presented a plan for the development of a area that's designed it's it's RPD well it's zoned for 30 units on this on this property. So we're looking for 20. We're not going very dense. Um and we've asked to be allowed to preserve the existing one-story portion right along Cham Islands Boulevard. It's in good shape before I uh even uh closed on the on the property. I walked in with the structural engineer, made sure it met met current structural requirements. It's a welldesigned uh it's going to be basically four one-story units uh completely handicapped accessible and we just feel that this is a good project for the city of Ouxard. Um, this evening I brought the architect with me that did all the drawings. Uh, his name is Andrew Altos. And I brought uh the civil engineer from Pacific Coast Civil uh uh

in order to uh answer any specific questions the commission might have relative to the design of the project or the needs that we've had to meet in order to have a project that the city would be happy with. Um, I I think we've done a good job. I've had rental properties in Oxnard since since I was in law school, so it's been that was a long time ago. Um, and um I I know the city fairly well and um I I like the project. I like I liked the location when I found it. Uh there's other apartments around it. um all the concerns that uh the staff has expressed, we've tried to address and I think we've uh resolved them all. I would be pleased to answer any questions that the commission has. Uh with that, unless you have questions I will that I can direct uh that I can't answer directly, I can turn it over to both the architect and the engineer to uh answer your specific questions. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Um, at this time, uh, members may ask questions of the applicant, Mr. Allen or staff, Mr. Torres, and then they can delegate from there if needed. Commission Chair, if I could just add in, I just wanted to note that we are joined by Tai Chow, our assistant director and city engineer as well, if there are any questions for him as well. Thank you very much, Mr. Pearson. looking to the commission for any questions at this time. Okay. Uh Vice Dr. Stewart, you know, I guess I just want to make the statement. Uh these density bonus type projects, uh a lot of the things that I probably want to bring up, I can't because my hands

are tied. Uh I think it is a good project, but I do have some concerns, but I will hold those. Thank you, Vice Chair, Dr. Stewart. Um, I'll lead off with a couple of questions then. Um, in regards to one of the questions that was pre previously submitted in regards to can the 10-ft sound wall be allowed to have vegetation vines on it? uh looking to staff, is that something that we need to include if the commission desires into the condition of approval or can that just be asked of the applicant? Chair Rah would say if that was a specific thing that the commission wanted to see that that would be something that we could add as a condition to make it clear that that requirement exists. Okay. And in regards to the 4 foot noise barriers of the walls, um, I'm looking at the Iser Associates analysis page at least starting from 12 through 16. Um, but particularly table five. Um, in regards to the exterior noise levels, um, being above the 65 level, um, can can you provide in layman's terms, um, when or how that number was, um, determined? Um, I know that there are times that they are being measured. Um, I was wondering if that's a maximum or

an average. Um, and then I have follow-up questions from there. Um, I I can tell you um that uh it was measured at various times. Uh, and that um I'm going to have to defer to the architect because he has had more in-depth conversations with our sound engineer. But, uh, the bottom line is, well, there's a couple things. Um, we created this 10-ft sound barrier wall along the railroad track. Uh, the the council, the commission, I I'm sorry, should be aware that uh this is a very seldom used u railroad. Usually maximum of one trip a day. It's freight. It's not it's not uh passenger rail. And uh the track itself ends less than two miles from the crossing of Channel Islands Boulevard. It's seldom used. And uh when I heard some concerns from the commission uh from my own personal knowledge, I know it's seldom used, but also I know that uh the soundwall is going to dead and sound not just from the railroad train, but from everything to the north, which would include traffic or anything else. Um so the calculations that were originally done were done prior to the uh installation of the intended soundwall. So, um I also made a point of meeting with the uh neighbors uh live there next building down um this last week and and uh each one of them said, "Yeah, it's seldom used and it's we never notice it." So, the the uh if the concerns relative to uh railroad noise, I think we've addressed it. um relative to the street noise. Um it was measured at both prime traffic time and and regular time and I think those are all

contained in the tables from uh Mr. Eer, but I I can have Andrew Altos answer that question more directly if you want. Uh yes, I think I would appreciate that. Um I'll tap on another question that either you or he might be able to answer. Um, and that I'm I'm hesitant with more than half of the units being so close to the exceeding the noise limit. I can see your point in regards to the railroad being um seldom used and so then I'll focus my attention to those that are street facing. Um but yes, I would appreciate any further comments in regards to increasing the number andor the height of the sound barriers and why you would be willing or not willing to do that. I I can I can advise uh the commission that uh we would be willing to increase the height of the uh of the soundwall um up up to you folks. It only requires that we build larger footings. Uh but um it's not going to be a negative impact on the development. Um and uh as far as additional um sound barriers, I I did have a suggestion uh made by the architect that uh that after consulting with the sound engineer that uh on the second uh story uh decks uh rather than just having a a rail fencing, we could put a more solid uh fencing. We're already providing uh for double insulation all along the north walls of all of the all the units. Um I think the quick answer is I don't

think there's going to be any reason for concern for uh noise from the railroad. One, it's seldom used and it and two, just looking down the railroad way, there's just lots and lots and lots of housing, singlestory, that are uh as close as we are to uh the railroad tracks, and they don't seem to be having any issues with it. It's just a very seldom used railway. I think the only thing they ever haul up there are cars um from a a yard about as I say less than two miles to the south. Um and of uh I know yesterday there was a total of one crossing took about a minute to cross uh Channel Islands Boulevard, but it's just it's just not that loud and it's just not that uh often. Thank you, Mr. Alan um to staff in regards to at least just for the units if not for all of the units. Um can we add a condition of approval just to tell those who might be there that uh just to give them notification that noise uh could be a concern or is there anything in regards to that? I I just at least to the commission I don't want to be I've stayed in at least a couple of Airbnbs where it wasn't made known to me that there was going to be significant noise. And so that was unfortunate. And so I think at least on the city side that we would be protecting the city if there's at least even at just um use you um you initial or you get a pamphlet about the noise. Um so I look to staff

if that's something that we are able um to do and if that's been done before that we could add some similar language to a condition of approval. May I suggest since these are going to be rental units that we just include in uh the rental uh disclosure that uh it's they're railroad uh uh and maybe noise uh uh emanating from it um as as just part of our disclosure to prospective tenants. Thank you for that. Um I'll look to staff if we need to formalize that then. Yeah. So, Chair Rojo, yes, we have had similar types of things. We've had that with like the airport um as well as notifications if you're being um a project being constructed near farmland. Um so, yes, this is something that we can do and um as Mr. Allen mentioned, typically it is done as part of like the rental disclosure. Um, so they would we would have a condition that would just state that the property owner would notify all future residents of the um presence of the railroad nearby and potential no noise impacts associated with that. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Ellen. Um, those are my questions at this time. Uh, I'll look to Vice Chair, Dr. Stewart, and any any others from the commission. Vice Chair, Dr. Stewart, just have a real quick one for you. I know that I too was concerned about noise. Are the windows and I didn't see it in here. Are those double plane glass windows? They they will be they were exterior windows they would have today. Okay. All right. That was my only question. Thank you. Thank you vice chair Dr. Sur any from the commission commissioner Dr. Lopez. Uh quick question maybe to the staff or the applicant but on this theft presentation uh condition number 69 and 70 it said two of the 20 units being developed must be affordable units shall

be for rent to very lowincome households. Have those been identified as two twobs or one twobedroom and one threebedroom? I I think that that is uh given to us by uh the housing authority as to I they're probably going to want one of each. Okay. Um but um it's it's kind of their call and um I've had some discussions with them. In fact, that's one of the things that they mentioned in in my meeting a few months back was that they're very pleased that we're building large units here. Um because most of the things they have coming in, they're going, "Well, 450, 500 square feet for for housing. you know, it's we don't really have housing available for families is was the answer. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Dr. Lopez. Sorry. Just to respond to Commissioner Lopez, condition 83 does outline that it is one two-bedroom and one threebedroom. Thank you, Mr. Pearson, and thank you, Mr. Allen. Um if there are no other further questions from the commission, I have one last followup just as we go into public comment. Um this commission has before in various resolutions or in comments have um requested or wanted a higher affordable housing. Um and I asked the question of if if it can be increased. Um, and I just want something from staff to um, if you could state the reason why the planning commission is unable to request an increase in the affordable income uh, or affordable housing percentage at this time. So, Chair Rejo and commissioners with regards to the affordable housing percentages as it relates to the I guess first starting with the city's inclusionary ordinance. So the

inclusionary ordinance which has been adopted by city council um establishes what the affordable housing percentage is. So the current inclusionary ordinance is currently set at 10%. So that establishes the baseline for the entire city. Um so unless the ordinance is updated which is um in process and I believe may have been some time ago but did come before the commission. Um until that is officially updated and adopted by city council, the um standard across the city has to still be the 10%. And then as it relates to density bonus law, density bonus law obviously is a state law which does establish what the affordable housing requirements are based on the concessions or additional density bonus the applicant is requesting. given that they're asking for the two concessions, the state density bonus law does specifically identify what the applicant is required to provide in order to receive those. So, the city does not have the ability to to modify that state law. Thank you for that explanation. I'll probably have comments related to that during our deliberation. Um, but if there's no further questions, I'll move on to public comment. Madam Secretary, is there any public comment? No chair. Okay. Thank you very much. Since there's nothing to respond to, I'll look to staff if there's any closing remarks. No further comments. Thank you. The public hearing is now closed. We'll move on to deliberation. Commission. Uh Commissioner Dr. Lopez, go ahead and uh get us started here. Um I will say that I uh I do share I think the concern that uh has been expressed by some fellow commissioners about the proximity to the railroad of just 15

feet right from the required uh 85 ft uh setback. I also do understand that along that railroad track there are, you know, there is an existing uh neighborhood uh where uh homes uh single family homes uh do line again uh just the extent of of the railroad uh there. Um and so that for me uh you know just really um just um gives me that moment of of of pause uh with with the project itself. I think when I look at uh you know just the the the background of of our housing uh situation of our available housing uh stock uh there are other elements uh of the project that uh certainly uh you know make it stand apart uh to me including the fact that they will be looking to preserve what the existing uh structure that is there uh and um you know just uh enhance it to accommodate uh the remaining units uh on the property. Uh so that's kind of like what I'm I'm juggling uh with here. I do appreciate uh you know the the noise study uh that was done as well as the questions being asked to enhance if you will the the sound barrier uh including the double pane windows. I think the uh applicant talked about it being double insulated. So that you know is uh you know um a mitigating uh step uh there nonetheless to help out. Uh so my only concern I'll say is is uh that 15 foot setback uh from the railroad right there at that uh busy uh crossing on on Channel Islands. Um you know which is really right upon uh the property. But all thing considered, I think it would provide um you know much needed uh affordable housing and just uh housing stock and option uh in a part of the

community uh you know South Oxnard that could uh benefit from it. I think about uh its proximity to um you know whether it's uh existing uh stores, businesses, educational uh uh you know schools um the high school, the college right there at at the next intersection as well as then just access to to the one or those main roads that take you uh to the 101. So, um, looking forward to seeing what, uh, my fellow commissioners, uh, say, but nonetheless, again, just weighing this with, uh, this proximity to the railroad, uh, along with, uh, the muchneeded housing inventory and stock that is, uh, needed here and and everywhere. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Dr. Lopez. Vice Dr. Stewart. Yes. Um, as I look at this, I know that, you know, having worked on the housing elements, the various ones since 2010, um, you know, housing arena numbers are always the worst of any of the other cities in this county. And so, we have a continuous need for housing. And so I think it's important that housing gets built, but I think it is also the mission of this commission to ensure that that housing with the density bonuses that allow for certain concessions to take place that that housing is the best quality that we can afford it to be and still allow the project to go through or make changes to the project so that what is offered to those when they go out to get housing is is something of quality. So, I I support this. Um I understand it. I think that we've addressed the issues that I have. And then the other issues uh are part of concessions that uh need to be made as part of the density bonus. We have some low-income housing in here. And so again, I can support this. Thank you, Vice Chair, Dr. Surret.

Any others in the commission? uh for myself. Um when a motion is proposed, I'll just let the commission know that I plan to propose uh two amendments to include vegetation on the 10-ft soundwall. Um and uh including a notice of the noise impacts as part of the rental disclosures. Um but I'll offer that as separate in case commission would like to vote no on one of them. Um and so I'll wait at that time. Um just in general um yeah uh uh based on my questions um yeah the noise was my main concern um related a little to the setback from the railroad and one of my questions to staff before was um our default is 85 ft. Um, and so, um, I think it would be time in sometime in the near future if council could look at all the setback minimums and see if they're in accordance with what they want to do going forward um, for any new development. Um, so I'll leave that up to them. Um, but I appreciate um, the applicant or the property owner, Mr. Allan in answering my questions in regards to the noise in the railroad that they're minimal um and open to the suggestions already of increasing um or adding more noise walls. Um however given the explanations um uh I think that I um only propose the notice of the noise impacts especially given that um it seems like those are maximums and um they do realize um where they are in regards to proximity to the street and to the railroad um however seldom that is. Um, anyways, my concerns

are laid in regards to the noise to a great extent. Um, and I definitely appreciate the explanation. Um, that there aren't enough rental for family. Um, it's a little bit unheard of. Um, or not unheard of, but not par for the course cuz they're usually uh, one bedroom and studio. So, um, definitely appreciate um, the project or property owner um, emphasizing that. um for us and for the public. Um if there is no further deliberation um before us, I'm looking to the commission for a motion. Happy to move uh the staff recommended uh action. Thank you. It's been moved by uh Commissioner Dr. Lopez to find the project to be exempt from SQA pursuant to sections 15315 and 15332 of the SQA guidelines and adopt resolution 2025X recommending that the city council approve planning and zoning permit number 24-300-03 subject to certain findings and conditions and adopt resolution 2025X approving planning and zoning permit number 24-500-3 and planning and zoning permit number 24-535- 01 subject to certain findings and conditions. And before I ask for a second, I'll request that staff can repeat their change in regards to I I try to write as much as I could. Um but uh if you could just summarize it to something that um I could repeat. Sure. Um, there are provisions to the condition of approval number 172 as listed in the special use permit resolution attachment on page 28 of 33 within the development services division

special conditions. Um, and condition number 21 as listed in the tenative partial map resolution attachment on attachment page 11 of 12 within the development services division uh special condition have been modified to read as follows. Developers shall process the parcel map PC24-300-3 concurring with the required building and site improvements for planning and zoning permit number 24-500-03 are approved and ready for permit issuance unless approved otherwise by the city engineer. Site improvement permit issuance for the project site shall occur concurrently with this with the parcel map recordation. All right. Thank you. I'm going to do this instead. If there's no objection from the commission and no objection from the maker of the motion, Commissioner Dr. Lopez, uh the comment in regards to amending it by Mr. Torres will be included in the motion. No objection from Commissioner Dr. Lopez. No objection from C commission. Thank you. That has been included. Is there a second on the motion as amended? I'll seconded. Seconded by Vice Chair Dr. Stewart. Um, at this time I'm going to move to amend the motion before us to include a vegetation, what was the vegetation vines on the 10-ft wall and a notice of the noise impact as part of the disclosure. Before I ask for a second, I'm going to look to staff if I need to say something more legally in regards to that. Nope. Thank you, Mr. Zergosa. Thank you, Mr. Pearson. Um, is there a second to the amendment to the MOT main motion? I'll second it. Seconded by Vice Chair, Dr. Stewart, any deliberation on the

amendment. Uh, Madame Secretary. Um, so just to clarify or make sure, um, the next vote is just going to be on the amendment to include the vegetation on the 10-ft wall and the noise impact. If that is amended or that is approved, then the newly amended motion, main motion will include both of those um, criteria. So if there's no questions on that, Madam Secretary, can we have a roll call on the amendment? Um, Commissioner Dr. Lopez, I comm Vice Chair Vince uh Stewart I. Commissioner Schuli, I. Chair Arjo, I. This motion passes. Thank you. The motion before the commission um is the recommended action that was stated in our packet plus the changes recommended by Mr. Torres plus the included vegetation vines on the 10ft wall and the notice of noise impacts. Is there any deliberation on the motion as amended before us? Seeing and hearing none, Madam Secretary, can we have the roll call, please? Commissioner Dr. Lopez. I vice chair Dr. Stewart I Commissioner Schuli I chair orjo I this motion passes. Thank you very much and congratulations. Moving on to agenda item F3. Oh man, where is my two? Sturgis Business Park tenative parcel map planning and zoning permit number 24-500-04 special use permit and

24-300-02 tenative parcel map property located at 2360 2362 and 2364 Sturgis Road a crest to subdivide an existing industrial developed property of approximately 3.215 acre lot for condominium purposes. The tenative subdivision map would subdivide the existing site and current buildings to create one lot for common area containing parking driveways and current buildings to create uh and 22 lots matching the buildings for industrial condominiums. The project would also include minor site improvements, including relocation of compact parking spaces within the site and replacement of the existing sidewalk and driveway approach along Sturgis Road to comply with Americans with Disability Act requirements. The project is exempt from SQA guidelines section 15301K of the SQA guidelines filed by agent Scott UHLES Delay Engineering Incorporated on behalf of property owner James Left. City staff one Carlos Torres, associate planner for measure M. A staff presentation has been pre-recorded and the link has been posted to YouTube per previously outstanding rules. staff can provide a brief summary of the pre-recorded presentation in addition to other analysis at this time. Does staff wish to give some introductory remarks? Thank you, Chair uh uh Rejo. Um uh also I wanted to start with this uh project u uh by telling the public that there was a few questions that were asked by the planning commissioner one some members of the planning commission uh asking uh more in line uh how the uh why is there why is it that that is required a special use permit for this project? Uh one of the reasons for the uh project requiring a special use permit is

because uh uh the code uh requires any time that a uh project is uh subdiv proposing a subdivision um um it you know according to the uh the section uh Oxon city code section uh 16-395 it will require for a project that was previously approved under a DDR to submit a special use permit. And uh some of the other questions were more in line uh of some of the things that we actually uh required to review when um a special use permit is uh submitted as part of the tenative parcel map. We also reviewed uh for the project to be in compliance with the development standards, parking requirements uh and also uh the zoning code uh rec requirements and as well to some of the general plan um uh development standards. Thank you, Mr. Torres. We will have the applicant present at this time if there is any here or in Zoom. Okay. Thank you very much. Um and uh if you could introduce yourself if you wish and you have 15 minutes. Thank you. Uh good evening commissioners. My name is Scott Yules. I'm with Delay Engineering. Um uh along with me is the project applicant and owner as well. If you guys have any questions, um we agree with the staff report from Mr. Torres and the conditions of approval that have been presented. Um one minor note is it noted 22 lots. It's actually only one legal lot and 22 units, but they'll be condo units, which is a airspace subdivision. It's It's not a lot. Um, and this is, as he pointed out, an existing project. Um, there's there's no change that we're um proposing to the project other than bringing some of the site issues up to current codes in terms of trash

enclosure, ADA, and and things like that. But otherwise the project will will stay as is. So we're here for any questions. Um but we don't have anything further. Thank you Mr. Yules. Thank you. At this time uh members may ask questions of either the applicant Mr. Yules or staff Mr. Torres Commission. Seeing no questions of either the applicant or the staff, we'll move on to public comment. Madam Secretary, is there any public comment? No, chair. Thank you. And since there's no public comment, nothing to respond to. Um and if there's no closing remarks from staff, the public hearing is now closed. Um commission, any deliberation before us. If there is none, I'm looking for a motion. Oh, moved by um it's been moved by Commissioner Schuli to find the project to be a category exempt from environmental review pursuant to SQA guidelines section 15301K and adopt resolution 2025X recommending that the city council approved planning and zoning permit number 24-300-02 for a tenative subdivision map subject to certain findings and conditions and adopt resolution 2025X approving planning and zoning permit number 24- -500-04 for a special use permit subject to certain findings and condition. Is there a second? Now seconded seconded by Vice Chair Dr. Stewart. If there's no deliberation on the motion before us, Madam Secretary, can we have the roll call, please? Commissioner Schuli, I. Vice Chair Dr. Stewart, I. Commissioner Dr. Lopez, I. Chair or I. This motion passes. Thank you. And

congratulations. We'll move on to agenda item F4. I want to say it's Pantoa or Panja, but I think it's Pantoa trucking facility planning and zoning permit number 24-500-05. Special use permit planning property located at 210 and 320 East Wimi Road. The applicant requests a special use permit to authorize the construction of a 77 acre truck parking area, perimeter fencing with landscaping, drainage improvements, and restore a portion of the western most lot to vacant undeveloped land on a 4.76 acre developed site within the light manufacturing plan development zone. The request include certification of the proposed final initial study mitigated negative declaration and adoption of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program which has been prepared pursuant to provisions of SQUA filed by Wade Lewis on behalf of property owners. Jesus Pentoha and Rebecca Pentoha of Pentoha Truck Line. City staff Jay Doberwalsski planning supervisor per measure M a staff presentation has been pre-recorded and the link has been posted to YouTube per previously approved standing role staff can provide a brief summary of the pre-recorded presentation in addition to other analysis at this time staff wish to give some introductory remarks [Applause] thank you chair good evening planning commission staff doesn't have any specific remarks regarding the pre-recorded uh presentation, but staff does have comments regarding uh questions received from the planning commission as well as one uh public comment letter that staff just received this afternoon. So, I will uh try to summarize these for you. Staff received uh a few questions from the planning

commission. I'll go through those first. Uh, one of the questions was, uh, why wasn't a special use permit offered or applied for in light of the, uh, multiple citations that the SUP intends to conform to the previously intended uses. Uh, and so to to respond to that, staff did summarize the code case on this property in the staff report. Uh more specifically, the uh applicant team was informed that a discretionary permit would be required to abate the violation. That application was submitted uh about 2 months after the stop work order was issued. So the special use permit uh has been in process for quite some time. The initial application was not complete. staff needed additional information. Uh and so here we are this evening. Uh this requested SUP uh would partially abate the violation. Another question staff received is uh can an annual reporting or check by staff be made to check that mitigation efforts have continued or are continuing? and staff responds that the current conditions of approval as well as mitigation measures they do not necess nec necessitate special ongoing compliance. Uh once the final approval is granted to the project that would be via a building permit the property would then be in full compliance with the applicable regulations. Uh it is worth noting that the code case remains open on the uh subject property and that will remain open until uh the city permits receive final approval. Uh and then during the grading

permit and building permit uh approval process, the applicant team would not be able to use the portion of their facility that was developed without permits. uh any use of that portion of the facility would be caused for further enforcement action. Um and if it is found that the permittee is not in compliance with the approved special use permit, then the property would be subject to further enforcement actions which may include revocation of the special use permit. Uh and then of course the planning commission uh can deliberate this evening and it can also add additional conditions of approval to the SUP. Staff did receive a question regarding the uh code violation history. And that question is that uh when uh staff inspected the the property, discovered that the western portion of the project site had been cleared, uh gravel base was installed, a chainlink fence with barb wire had been installed. uh staff opened a code case and specifically can the can staff offer an analysis of the damage done by this violation? Uh were any fines levied and if fines were levied were they paid? So to respond to those in order uh it's not uh clear what uh type of damage this question is referring to. The environmental impacts of the development are discussed in the M &D that is before you this evening. Uh more specifically, the unpermitted development uh did cause aesthetic damage to the adjacent scenic roadway. It may have created damage to drainage and storm water, cultural resources, air quality, biological

resources, and other areas that staff uh in consultation with environmental consultants are unable to exactly quantify. Uh and that's mostly because the conditions that existed prior to the undei unpermitted development were not definitively evaluated. As far as were any fines levied? Uh that question goes. Uh yes, there were fines levied. Uh more specifically, during the past few years, the city has issued a total of eight citations that included fines. Uh and the city did not issue another four citations when violations were observed on the property. Uh and then the last question was uh if fines were levied, were they paid? Uh so staff researched that of the eight citations that were issued uh two have been paid to date. Staff received another question regarding um the air quality impacts. uh specifically there was a a table uh referenced regarding uh air criteria pollutants in the M &D and that question asks that of the pollutants that were measured in that table uh all have shown a a decrease since the year 2020 is there a reason for this and so Steph's response is that the uh pollutants that were measured uh are ozone nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter uh only two of the three actually went down during the 3-year period. Uh nitrogen stayed nearly steady and it did not represent a significant decrease. Uh it is a slight increase. Uh regarding the decreases in ozone and particulate matter pollution, uh those are measured levels at local

air quality monitoring stations. And so the decrease could have happened for various reasons. Um for example, ozone levels could be higher in years that had more hot sunny days since that kind of weather promotes ozone formation. Particulate matter may be higher in years with more wildfires. Uh it would be speculative to try to extrapolate these trends into future years uh based on only a three-year sample. This information referenced is uh the setting uh and it does not report anything that would be a result of the proposed project. Staff did receive another question regarding uh electric vehicle truck charging facilities on the site. Uh specifically, is there any movement towards uh electric vehicles for port related businesses? and staff responds that the city currently enforces electric vehicle parking and charging requirements through the uh Cal Green building standards. The proposed redevelopment is unlikely to trigger the EV truck charging facilities under the current chapter 5 of the Cal Green Building Standards. staff did receive a uh comment letter earlier this afternoon and uh that letter has been added to the record and posted u online. Specifically uh in that letter, the commenter alleges that the proposed project poses substantial risks to public safety, traffic flow, and the overall health of the community. Uh, regarding the increase in truck trips, the commenter states that the increase in truck trips will likely increase the already significant traffic delays in the neighborhood, make it

difficult for emergency vehicles to navigate safely through the area, and further stress an already inadequate road system, and increase the likelihood of accidents, particularly for residents, pedestrians, and cyclists. In response to that concern, uh the project will increase the daily truck trips from 24 to 72. Uh per city council ordinance, Wanimi road is a designated truck route. Uh therefore, trucks should be traveling on this roadway as it is designed to handle the truck traffic. Uh per SQUA vehicle delay is not an environmental impact as discussed in the M andd the project will have a less than significant impact on emergency access and the project would not conflict with the adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Regarding the increase in diesel truck emissions, the commenter states that the increase in diesel emissions will degrade air quality. As discussed in the M &D, the project will have a less than significant impact regarding criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. As the project includes less than 100 trucks per day, the project actually includes 72 peak daily trucks. Uh further in that letter, the commenter requests additional mitigation measures including immediate repairs to the roadway, limitations to truck idling, dedicated truck access lanes, enhanced drainage systems, and regular monitoring of mitigation measures. In response to that concern, the city's public works department must determine that public improvements are necessary and city council must direct

staff to complete any public improvements. As discussed in the M &D, the proposed project would not substantially contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts related to transportation and circulation. Uh and in summary, the information in that letter does not change staff recommendations. Uh staff did also receive a few questions regarding the uh on-site drainage uh of the project and so I'll refer those to our engineering staff. Good evening, Commissioner, Mr. Chair, and vice chair. Uh, this is Tai Chao, assistant director and city engineer for land development. Uh, staff did receive questions about whether this project has been designed to comply with the storm water uh, regulation. And the short question is yes. Uh the project has been designed to include a bio swell uh to to the rear of the project site that will provide storm water treatment as well as storm water detention to mitigate the increase in flow due to the increase of the development. Right. Um thank you Mr. Daroski and Mr. Cho. Um we'll move on at this time to the applicant if they are here. And if so, um, please introduce yourself if you'd like and you have 15 minutes. Okay. Um, good evening. I am here to, uh, present to you Bondoha Truck Line as the family-owned business. It is. Bantoha Truck Line was started by uh,

Jesus and Rebecca Bantoha. They are the uh, proud owners and proud native natives of Oxnard. They have the luxury of not just raising a business in Oxnard, but also raising a family in Oxnard. Like I stated before, this is a family-owned business, so we take pride in that. Um, my name is Christine Bonttha. I am their daughter-in-law, so we I we definitely take pride in that. Uh, together they have seven children. Their oldest, David, he works as uh their sales manager in the office and their youngest son, Javier, is the second uh second generation truck driver. Uh in between that they have other children who have not only started their journeys at Bonttha Truck Line but have always reverted back and um and definitely they've been able to become proud business women and business owners themselves because of starting at such a business. Uh so they are very proud of that. Uh with this development, we not only want to grow the business, but also bring jobs and um work to the city of Oxnard. Uh so with that with that being said, the existing yard is located adjacent to the applicant. Um Oh, I didn't know this was here. Sorry. Okay. So, as I stated before, Javier is pictured on the right. He is second generation truck driver. That is Javier looking and uh David Bonttha, their sales manager, is pictured on the left and between him and his younger sister Christina. She's in high school. She currently attends St. Bon Adventure and uh she helps out in the office every summer. In between them two are the

proud owners, Jesus and Rebecca. This is the uh this this is what we would like to do. Park trucks on this land. Um and the uh existing yard is located adjacent to this to the planned parking expansion. Um and it houses the working office. Our goal is to accommodate the trucks as shown in the project design. This expansion will not only create opportunities for Bontto Truck Line Fam uh as the family-owned business, but also for Oxnard and that is all. Thank you for your time in tonight. Okay. Thank you. Um you said your last name, Miss Penha, right? Yes. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Um I'm sorry. Would you like it Miss or Mrs.? Mrs. Okay. Mrs. Pentoha. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Um at this time um members of the commission may ask questions of the applicant or applicant through Mrs. Pantoa or staff Mr. Doberwalsski Commission Commissioner Schuli. Uh thank you chair. I have a question for uh staff please. I um uh I'm glad to hear from the family-owned business um this evening. Um, I'm also sympathetic to uh parts of the uh public letter received this afternoon. I appreciate staff um responding to many of these concerns a short while ago. I wanted to ask specifically about um the recommendation put forward in this letter about um placing limitations on truck idling. As I understand it, it seems like you're saying that would be unnecessary given that there aren't there isn't a concerning level of diesel

emissions or uh or impact to air quality. Nevertheless, would it be possible to consider limitations on truck idling? Uh, Commissioner Schuli, yes, as the uh commission wishes, uh, that would be a condition that the, uh, commission could add to the SUP. As far as the, uh, air quality impacts go. The, um, the the planning response is that, uh, the additional trucks, they they don't create no impact. So, so there is a a impact. That impact is less than significant. Uh, so I hope that helps. Uh, thank you. It does. What What would it look like to place limitations on the idling? The commissioner SH gave basically be setting like a time frame in which a truck is allowed to idle for any given time. So if it was sitting there on site, maybe setting like a five minute cap or three minute cap on how long a truck can be idling before it would need to be shut off and then restarted at a different time. Well, thank you. I'll cop to being a a layman on the trucking industry. um except to say that so I I couldn't say how many minutes I I think would make sense or be reasonable. Uh only that I I am sympathetic to the um the suggestion that there be some limitation given these are right across the street from a number of homes. So I I I don't I wouldn't know what number to pick out of the air. Um I know some of air quality ones I believe kind of limit it to maybe five minutes um for idling but also we could look to the applicant and kind of get some feedback from them as to kind of

their operations as well. Uh sure. Yeah, that that might be helpful. Thank you. Would you like to respond to that? Okay. in response to that question um that it's not necessary. We don't have trucks idling. Um however, if you do want to put some type of limitation as to when a truck waits to park, I can see as that would be the only time that a truck sits there and waits and and idles. However, um that's not something that we don't want trucks idling either. So, we don't that's not something that we have to time. Uh, however, if you want to put on a five minute timer, that would be more than necessary. Good. Thank you for your response. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Shuli. Any other commission? Um, I have a few. Um, I'll start off with I'm trying to figure out if I'm saying comments or actually asking questions. Um, you know, um, as staff, um, as of right now, we have a temporary loss of quorum. Should I just stand at ease right now just in case for out of abundance of caution or can I continue in my questions at this time? I'm sorry, Chair Rojo. Yes, I believe you could continue your questions. Thank you very much. Um, okay. My first questions or my maybe my only category of questions are in regards to the code violation history referring to pages

four to five. Um I think this would only be directed to Mrs. Pentoha and I'll just preface my before I go into my questions that um I greatly appreciate the family history in regards to the projects. Um uh for better I mean for worse um we unfortunately don't see as many of the personal impacts that these projects can have. So um that's greatly appreciated to have that intro into in regards to this agenda item. Um, but I have to ask because if I'm going to stay just on the face of it consistent, um, three years agoish, um, there was another project that came to us, school in the downtown that had similar violations. I don't know if you would classify them as code. Um but at that time I didn't believe that um a permit or um anything that came before the planning commission should absolve them of those violations. Um and so in that regard I I wasn't um allayed allayed by um the concerns that I had in regarding to them following the in my opinion overwhelming but good amount of condition of approvals that protect um everyone in the city and the city itself. Um, and at that time I believe I was the only one who um I either rejected or abstained from that permit. Um, I have to ask I have a couple of questions in regard to it. Um, why was the violation still

recurring when the city already told you that it should not be done? And then in regards to that, I'll follow up on one of my comments that um there's a lot of conditions of approvals in here. Um and how can the commission and the city be assured that you will be following them for the health and safety for the city, the residents and anyone who visits the city. And my question is directed to Mrs. Pantoa. I believe we have the engineers on um on Zoom and they are going to answer any type of violation questions and any type of reassurance. Okay. Um thank you. Uh Madam Secretary, are there people online? There's a Bill Lindsay. Okay. Bill Lindsay. Yes. Yes. Okay. I will unmute unmute him now. Uh thank you, Madam Secretary. Um Mr. Lindsay, um you are unmuted. I think you need to press star something or if you could just talk and we can confirm that we can hear you. Good evening, commissioners, and thank you for having me on. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes, confirm that we can hear you. Thank you, Mr. Lindsay. Commissioner, thank you for your question and um the concerns that relate to that. Um and both this site and the adjacent site had undergone um years of looking to obtain um the conditional use permit or as we're at now an SU uh as we're moving forward. Um the history of

the site uh currently that's before you has historically always been used as a trucking site. And so unfortunately as they were moving through this process the violations that had come from this was with regards to the existing operation and it had somewhat been a I'm going to use for lack of better description here kind of penalized them that they could not continue in that truck operation when they bought that business out and at that location. So it it it really kind of began to injure the the the business and you are of any are aware of the time, the restraints, the conditions that are placed on many of these projects. Some based on the city uh delays, some based on the applicant delays, some based on consultants. So there are a lot of delays that move through this. And really in the spirit of just trying to operate their business and keep families fed, food on the table is why they operated. Anytime there was a violation brought to their, you know, attention, it was immediately resolved. And ultimately what they really want is to legally operate. And this is part of the problem we see across the county is it would be great to have some sort of streamline process to be able to have businesses operate temporarily. In the public sector, we find that they get checks every week regardless of approvals, regardless of what takes place. In the private sector, that is just not the that's not what happens. And so, unfortunately, without any of that progress, many of these families would not be able to feed their families, have income, keep roof over their heads. So, I definitely would agree with you. There are violations with this case. They were met, paid, resolved immediately. I personally met um a couple different times with staff there on site. Um we resolved them, work

through them. We've met with the mayor. This has gotten a lot of attention as it's moved through. And really what we're asking tonight is a little bit of mercy and grace as we look to legalize and get this project approved as it has been close to a decade in the work. So again, we are very respectful of that. Do not deny it. It's not right. it was to get the business operating. So, I would ask that your consideration would go to the family and be in favor of approving this project. Uh, thank you, Mr. Lindsay. And you um you were introduced as the engineer is are you with a particular consulting firm? I am. I'm with Robert William Company. The engineer of record was WDE Lewis. He is our civil engineer on the project. Acknowledged. Thank you for that. Um, and thank you for your response. Um, again to Mrs. Pantoa, um, referencing partially the letter that Commissioner Schuli was looking on. I'm not sure if you had the opportunity to look at it um but there were five mitigation measures um proposed um but not limited to um several um the second was in regards to truck islanding um for myself because um one of my questions was in regards to that to staff before is that regular monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness um at least in a comment letter of these mitigation measures. But uh I just want to say for any conditions of approval that might be in this permit um what is

your response to any monitoring that might be done of this property in the future in regards to this permit if imposed by the planning commission? I will go ahead and speak to that. Uh, we regularly monitor everything in this in this business. We are a family-owned business, so everything has money attached to it, whether it's to feed our families or put our kids through school. Um, so a truck idling would use fuel. And using fuel, fuel is the biggest expense in our business. We don't we do not want to do that. We we monitor every every aspect. If it is a truck idling, we would put limitations on that. Uh like I said, that's not something that we have to worry about because we do stress that with all drivers, all trucks. Um do not waste fuel. Yeah, I'm sorry. I maybe I confused you with the question. I I meant to um expand the parameters of that. So, if it wasn't just Chuck Eing, if it was just any of the conditions of approval within the permit, um is that something that's something that you can you can rest assured we will we will definitely monitor any type of parameters that you would like us to. Uh then my another followup would be what would be your response if the planning commission impose that? not that we would I just want to be assured that there's a third party monitoring of the condition of approval. Um, just me speaking as an individual, I'm not sure if it'll be um approved by a majority of this commission, but I wanted to know what would be something reasonable that you could

um live under. If there are third party uh, you know, testing or whatnot that we would have to go through, that is something that we can put in place. Uh we do follow all state guidelines um all federal guidelines and we report to their you know their responders that that we have to report to and their entities. Uh so we would gladly report to another one. Um thank you Mrs. Pantoa for your um replies. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Um, I'll look to any others to the commission before we move on to public comment. Seeing and hearing none, Madam Secretary, is there any public comment for this agenda item? Yes, chair. Um, we have a raise hand on Zoom. Okay. Thank you. Let's unmute that. Um, can you say the last four and then I'll call on that. 7632. Okay. Thank you. Um, caller ending in 7632. Um, we're unmuting you and if uh if you could uh say your comment, you have 3 minutes. Um, at this time we cannot hear you. I believe you need to star six on your Can you hear me? Okay. Yes, we can hear you. You have three minutes. Please begin. Okay. Well, I just um want to mention also that you know regarding the um the third party monitoring, I want to emphasize that and if you guys could um consider that before making your decision. And also another point I want to share is that the that this is a

family business and you know usually when you want to run a business it it you know it's that's how it is. it it would have all the cost that's you know required to to run the business and um they have mentioned about their family that they're trying to raise a family well the thing is so are the hundreds of families that are living in that area and to say that uh that wini road are are meant for for trucks semi-truck only well why why are there many homes that are built in the area and more are getting built there's another 90 homes that are getting built right next to that in your road. So, I'm just, you know, I'm I'm just confused why the city would approve more homes getting built in the area if that's only meant for semi-truckss. That's um pretty much what I have for now. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Is there any public comment here in person or on Zoomland? Chair Rejo, I saw that Bill Lindsay raised his hand again. Okay. Um, well, Mr. Lindsay, you already uh responded, but you do have three minutes if you want for public comment. I'm going to look to before you begin, I'm going to look to staff if I'm allowed to do that. They're they were technically the applicant, but yeah, you can ask follow a followup. It's essentially a follow-up comment from an applicant. Okay. Um, Mr. Lindsay, you have three minutes. if you would still like to comment. Thank you. No, that was hit by accident. Um I'm no comments. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lindseay. Um Madam Secretary will mute the both that I see on Zoomland.

And uh seeing no others in person uh at this time, are there any um does the applicant wish to respond to the public comment? Mrs. Pentoa, and am I able to speak? Uh commissioners, uh is that you, Mr. Lindsay? Yeah. Um, yes. I'll wait for Mrs. Pantoa to delegate it to you. Um, great. If she would like I have one quick comment and then Bill can go ahead and take the lead. Okay. Thank you. Prior to being in Wimi, we were located in Santa Paula. Uh, and there were a lot of the port is down the street. We were coming from the port going all the way to Santa Paula. Uh so to use wine road, we've always used it. Uh I to add to the the comment of it not making a significant it wouldn't compromise in any way because we've always used it the same way. Now we would just park closer. We would emit less fuel um and and less pollution. And with that I will hand it to Bill. Thank you, commissioners. I would agree uh with the comments um that were just stated. Uh the the other thing to take into consideration, we had talked earlier um in regards to placing additional conditions or third party. I just want to draw the the attention to the technical side and the review in California and the standards of the EPA uh both within idling um as well as now these new clean engine idols um each

year as they continue to roll these out. We're faced with more and more scrutiny. So I would ask again that uh just uh have that consideration um that these businesses are already placed um with heavy scrutiny by others that are in a form of a third party uh oftent times by the state or federal level that's completed. Um so to that we are very sensitive to the area to the residents of the area. We want to be a good neighbor in this area. Um, and as it was stated, the port um has had trucking down this route um for decades. And so we feel that it will definitely help reduce a portion of that with this operation, but I would like to just ask that we are considerate of the conditions placed on this project. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lindsay, and thank you, Mrs. Manho. Um, are there any closing remarks from staff? Thank you, Chair Wjo. Uh staff has no further comments. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Daroski. The public hearing is now closed and looking to the commission for deliberation andor motion. Vice Dr. Stewart. Yes. I look at the project and it's been operating for a while. Uh what I want to say now is now it's an opportunity for it to be legal and so everything comes into place there has been a whole lot of uh additional stuff coming on with this. Uh we're just uh bringing it in so that we can have better control because now it's a legitimate uh legal according to the city rules um uh for this. So I can support it. I think it's a good thing that they are coming, you know, under

the uh legal umbrella of uh the city. Thank you, Vice Dr. Stewart. Any others in the commission? Commissioner Schuli. Commissioner Schuli. Um again, I I appreciate hearing from the um uh the business uh the applicant and I'm grateful for the uh public letter and the staff time that have gone into this. Um I uh regarding the limitations on truck idling. Um I I understand the argument that um the applicant would hope to uh see low fuel costs and therefore there wouldn't be any idling. But if that were so, I don't know that I'd ever have seen a truck idling. So, I I think there must be a variety of reasons that drivers choose to idle their trucks given the proximity to a residential neighborhood. Um, I'll hope to uh stipulate um that there be a fiveminute cap on truck idling. Uh I don't walk around with Robert's rules the way uh some people I admire do. So, I'll be uh leaning on on you a little to to put that forward, please. Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Schuli. um a process that as a a point of parliamentary inquiry. Um you may or any other commission can include that in the main motion if they wish to or you can like in a previous item wait for the main motion to be proposed and then move for an amendment separately. Um and that's up to the decision of whoever proposes the main motion. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Um, are there any other comments from the commissioners at this time? Um, for myself, um, I I think my

entire questioning was my reticence, um, at going to have an possible approval of this permit. um just given my past history on similar items. Um one in particular was the one mention in regards to the school in downtown. Um another indirectly was I believe it was a pharmacy um that had in what they believed was um ownorous regulations on themselves. Um and we at least for myself we I noted that um that they're there to protect the city, the people, anyone visiting um and the applicant themselves. And it was for a good reason. And that's why we have these hearings and we go through staff in regards to figuring out what the conditions of approval are. Um I'm I'm torn because of just at least at the public comment they were heavily researched um and very formal in terms of why they should be deni why this should be denied or approved. Um I know both of these individuals at least indirectly and so um I know that they wouldn't be commenting facitiously but only for some serious concerns and they've they go both ways. Um I think with the recommendation as um as proposed to the planning commission I wouldn't approve it. Um, however, I'm willing to abstain if it goes as distributed and I'm willing to approve it if there are any further amendments

in regards to ensuring that the conditions of approval um and any negative detrimental effects will be limited to the city. Um, and those are my comments at this time. Any others from the commission? And if not, a motion is in order. Commissioner Schuli. Chair, I move that we adopt the recommendation with the suggested amendment um of a fiveminute cap on truck idling. Thank you. has been moved by Commissioner Schuli to adopt a resolution adopting final initial study mitigated negative declaration number 25-01 and adopt resolution number 2025X approving planning and zoning permit number 24-500-05 special use permit subject to certain findings and conditions and uh the addition of a condition of approval with a cap of 5 minutes um idling in regards to the vehicles. Is there a second? I'll second it. Seconded by Vice Chair Dr. Stewart. Is there any deliberation on the motion before us? Uh before we go, um I I was considering um including as also uh mentioned by the public comment letter of some type of regular monitoring and reporting. Um I take the I take at face value um the comments that Mr. Lindsay said that the there are heavy um requirements on all sorts of jurisdictions put upon them.

Um I'm I'm hesitant to approve it still. I'll see if there's any further deliberation and I'm unsure of my vote at the end. Thank you very much. Looking to the other commissioners um further deliberation or comments. Vice chair Dr. Stewart. Yes. I guess with your last statement uh I guess I'd ask Commissioner Shi how he feels about adding that to the other um in other words revising the current uh you know make an amendment to um the motion. Um thank you Vice Dr. Stewart. Um, at this time the motion as proposed is before the body and so we wouldn't go to Commissioner Schuli. However, I will propose something and we can deliberate that if it's seconded. And so at this time I move to amend the motion um to add a condition of approval that there um that there is a um monitoring of this property on an annual basis for the next five years to ensure that they're um to ensure that they're uh uh uh following the conditions of approval as stated in the permit. Is there a second? I'll second it. Seconded by vice chair Dr. Stewart. Is there any deliberation on the motion before us? Um I Oh, I'll look to Mr. Pearson first. I have my own comments and then I'll look to the rest of the commission. Mr. Pearson. So chair rajo just in regards to the ongoing monitoring there's not a set process for that at this point in time um however we have had other projects where the

condition has essentially been phrased they will submit like an annual report showing compliance I believe we received it that for the project down also on vani road I believe it was the event center so the applicant would be required to submit an annual report to the city which we would then be able to review and then determine compliance with the conditions of approval related to their operational um activities. So I would ask that if that does make it into the um conditions that it be phrased as they will submit the report to the city um for our review for compliance. Okay. Um, at this time, since the amendment has been seconded, I'm going to ask if there's any objection to changing the amendment uh to deliberate on to what Mr. Pearson has worded as was that a self-reporting report to the department on an annual basis for the next five years? Is that probably the wording I should use? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pearson. Um, I'll look to the commission if there's any objection to substituting the amendment as proposed and seconded with the language that Mr. Pearson um suggested. Seeing no objection, the amendment before us is to include a condition of approval um to for the project applicant to report to the department on an annual basis for the next 5 years. Um I'll comment first and look to the commission after. Um although not

my it's not my preference to have a self-reporting because I'd like a third party or I would be I would be more confident in that. Um I think at this time given all the comments um pro uh posed to the planning commission um at least if this amendment is approved I would be willing to approve the permit as amended. Um looking to the commission if they have any comments on the amendment. Vice Dr. I guess we I guess my understanding was and let me see that I got it right is that there isn't a process in place at this time and so self-reporting is the only way it's being handled. Is that correct? Um so vice chair Dr. Stewart outside of so the city does have our code enforcement process. So if there was a notice violation then code enforcement would be able to take action as they have on this property and historically. Um so that is essentially the process in which we make sure that projects that are approved are um in compliance with their conditions. Um but there's no uh like followup process where we go out and the city does like a report of compliance. it is generally once a violation has been um identified by a member of the public or if code enforcement happens to see that. So this the way the condition would be written would be they would report that to us so that way we would then be able to review at that point in time and then make a determination that they're still in compliance as opposed to having a system in place where we proactively monitor various projects throughout the city. So we get this self-report and let me make

sure I understand it and then we review it and if for some reason we need to send code enforcement out because there's a doubt and how does that doubt come into play? In other words, what triggers that that we look at the self-reporting and say uh don't think so and we need to go check it out or we say oh looks good. Okay, I think we're fine. So like Dr. Stewart essentially yes that would be the way in which it would be handled. Um, obviously we'd be able to review the report. If we had questions about it, we could follow up. Um, if there were concerns or if we had received complaints that kind of went um in contrary to the report that was received, then we could send out code enforcement and begin those enforcement actions um which Mr. Dawski mentioned, which would be sending out code enforcement citations and then the kind of final step would be that uh permit revocation process. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair, Dr. Stewart. Are there any other comments from the commission on the amendment before us? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, can we have a roll call on the amendment, Chair Arjo? I, Vice Chair, Dr. Stewart, I, Commissioner Dr. Lopez. Hi, Commissioner Schuli. I, this motion passes. Thank you very much. Um the motion before us is the recommended action as distributed in the packet plus the fivem minute cap on the truck islanding plus the selfmonitoring report on an annual basis for the next 5 years. Is there any deliberation on the motion as amended before us? Um I I like that there are some

types of monitoring. Um and I I take the applicant's word that they will be cognizant of the condition of approvals and by Mr. Lindsay's comments that in regards to the history of this and that um I I do like Vice Chair Dr. Stewart's um comment that this will um basically this regulation, this permit will regulate um the activities that happen here and hopefully that will be in the best interests of both the applicant and all those um living in the city or traversing through it. Are there any other comments from the commission at this time? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, can we have the roll call, please? Commissioner Schuli. Hi. Commissioner, excuse me. Vice Chair Dr. Stewart, I. Commissioner Lopez, I. Chair Arjo. I. This motion passes. Thank you. Congratulations. Um, with no study sessions or reports on the agenda, the business will move on to planning commission business. Is there any business or updates to report from the commission? Oops. Um, oh, vice chair, Dr. Stewart, I guess I just want to make a comment. Um, Junth, city of Oxnard is going to be June 21st at Plaza Park. And so everybody in the city is invited to uh participate. It's from 10 till 5 and there's going to be all kinds of vendor booths and uh just an opportunity to uh

come out and enjoy uh Junth and what it's about. Thank you. Thank you vice chair Dr. Stewart. Any others from the commission vice oh commissioner Shuli? Oh you were gonna promote me there. No thank if you'd like. I just want to thank the chair for your for your command of Robert's rules and for helping me there with that amendment. I appreciate it. Um, as always, of course, Commissioner Schuli. Um, Commissioner Dr. Lopez. I know we started today's meeting uh with a moment of silence, but I wanted to uh also extend uh and express my heartfelt condolences to uh the family of former uh mayor uh Dr. Holden, to Dr. Lisa Knap, uh their sons, and everybody who knew and loved him. our heartfelt condolences. Thank you, Commissioner Dr. Lopez. Um, a couple for myself. Um, in addition to Commissioner or Vice Chair, Dr. Stewart, um, in regards to Junth, I saw him a couple days ago in regards to the proclamation in regards to at city council. and one again of um the next Fridays, June 13th, is going to be the Philippine flag day raising. Um and so looking forward to that event. Um usually it would be on June 12th, but the state of the city will be um presented by uh Mayor MacArthur. And so that was the move from the 12th as would normally be to the 13th. Um, and then following up on my comments regarding planning commission appointments, I I'm still very hopeful that Mayor MacArthur and Councilman Star will be choosing the replacements for both myself and Commissioner Dr. Lopez um by their July 15 city council meeting for our potential July 17 meeting. Um, and I continue to ask the commission to be proactive in reporting any planned

absences so that Mr. Pearson in the department is able to accommodate staff and project applicants in scheduling agenda items. Um, I myself will unfortunately not be able to attend a potential June 19th planning commission meeting and have every confidence in Vice Chair Dr. Stewart's stewardship at the meeting. Um, however, I'll recommend if possible and if there's nothing time-sensitive um that we cancel the June 19 planning commission, but I'll leave that up to him um to do so in conjunction with vice chair Dr. Stewart. Um thank you very much. Um going to section I, community development staff update. Is there any update from the community development staff? Yes, Chair Rojo and commissioners. Um just to note that the at this time the June 19th meeting will be cancelled. Um so um obviously then we will not have the meeting on the June 3rd or in July 3rd as that was a previously canceled meeting. So the next meeting will be the July 17th. Um it does look like we may have you know about four or five items for that meeting. Um so hopefully we have a quorum for that one. Um and then um just also to note that staff is still working towards moving the the HUN commission stipen forward. So that is tenatively um to go forward. Believe it's June 26th but yes that okay uh thank you Mr. Pearson um and thank you for confirming that. Um I invite the other members of the commission um in the resolution that were proposed to also speak on that. Commissioner Dr. Lopez um and vice chair Dr. Stewart um to say any comments before after um and we'll look um until it's official um and then we can go on from there. Um let's see. I know I had one more

thing. You know what? I don't remember. Um, we will since there's no further business, the meeting will be adjourned. If there is no objection, the meeting is adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Thank you all and good night.