Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. Progress.

Good evening everyone and welcome to the city of Oxnard Planning Commission for Thursday, November 6, 2025. The meeting will come to order at 6:05 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@oxnner.org no later than 5 pm on the day of the meeting or through the city's website at oxnner.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?

Chair Arjo, present. Vice Chair Dr. Stewart, present. Commissioner Lopez, here. Commissioner Nash, present. Commissioner Schulen, present. Commissioner Barca is absent and we have a quorum.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. We we will now move on to the pledge of allegiance. I'll lead us if you please kindly stand up if able to and 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 all. The next agenda item is C. Public comments 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 item 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, are there any public comments for items not on the agenda?

No, chair. Thank you. Next is the consent agenda for the minutes of September 4, 2025. I got a request from staff um to postpone this item until the next meeting. Um if there are no further comments from staff um and if there's no objection from the commission, this meeting will be postponed to the next meeting. Um section E, exparte declarations for public hearing items. Please state any exparte declarations, if any. I don't think that's really as relevant for this, but I'll still go through. Um, Commissioner Nash, none. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Dr. Lopez. None. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Dr. Stewart. None. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Schuli. Uh, none. Thank you.

Thank you. And none for myself. Next uh is agenda item F1, planning and zoning permit number 23-580-03, zone text amendment relating to accessory dwelling units and other minor zoning text amendments. The project includes amendments to the city's zoning code chapter 16 related to accessory dwelling units that reflect compliance with changes to California state ADU law along with other min minor zoning code updates to the definitions and process procedures to streamline single family residential development followed by the city of Oxnner community development department planning environmental services division of Oxnar Jamie Peltier planning supervisor for city staff per measure M staff presentation has been pre-recorded and the link has been posted to YouTube. Does staff wish to give some introductory remarks?

Yes, thank you, chair. Um this morning we received a letter um from the California Housing Defense Fund and we have two recommendations to the ADU ordinance based on this uh letter received on page 25 of the PDF section 16465.5D3. staff is recommending to strike out the that section for total gross area of not more than 800 square ft of livable space. In addition to that on page 26 of the PDF is section 16465.6D1B to strike out is built on a permanent foundation for manufactured homes. Um those are the two recommendations included for for the ADU ordinance. Um in addition, staff received a handful of questions from the commissioners including the chair and commissioner Nash and I wanted to address those comments um in person in here in the meeting. Um so I'll go through those questions um at this time. Uh the first question was if this uh zone text amendment alters, deletes or invalidates any portion of the general plan. No, it does not. The general plan rule will remain unch unchanged um and will not be impacted by the zone text amendment. Um the next question is if the zone text amendment is in full compliance with state law. Yes. Um we have proposed the ordinance to be very similar if not the same as uh the state law for um ADUs. Um there are other port parts of the zone text amendment that are not related to any state laws. It is just cleanup items. Um

but the ADU ordinance is in full compliance with the state law. Next question is um if staff could provide any examples of where a project um requiring a special use permit would not have to come before the planning commission. There are no examples of that. Special use permits are reviewed and heard by the planning commission. The next question is related to the rental terms of an ADU um and not being longer than 30 days. The question is if we can increase the minimum rental terms to 6 months in order to prevent short-term rentals. Um ADU ADU state law requires renting longer than 30 days and our current short-term vaca short-term rental ordinance is renting less than 30 days. At this time, we are using state law as the foundation for this ordinance, and we're not going beyond state law to include any additional um uh standards um that would then require some public output, some input, some public participation and and further communication. So, this ordinance that you see is is truly just for state law to to ensure that the city has a compliant ordinance. Anything beyond that would require a little more public input um which can be explored at a later time but it is not being proposed at this time. The next question is about floor area and if the ADU floor area will be advertised as gross or actual. ADUs and JADUs are measured by gross interior living space area. Um the gross interior living space means that there's no exterior square footage that would be included in the calculation of the

square footage. So if someone is proposing an ADU with a attached patio cover or any um unhabitable storage areas, those areas would not be included in the square footage of the ADU. The next question is related to junior accessory dwelling units and the size of 500 square f feet and if that is um gross floor area um that is the same measurement as the ADUs that we are using the interior livable space of gross floor area for both ADUs and Jedus. Uh the next question is following uh the table for the the minimum off- streetet parking requirements. What's seen in the report and in the ordinance is a partial table. So you are going to see just a table with a strikeout of all the text because we are referencing that in the ADU ordinance. Um not no longer within the off- streetet parking requirements. The rest of the table within that section will remain as is. There are no modifications to it. It is just a lengthy table that um wasn't necessary to include in the in the ordinance. Um so the next set of questions um the f the next question is are there Oxnard timelines with what's described in SB543 section um or if those are purely from the state and if we could review any um shortened timelines. Um, again, this ordinance is a reflection of state law. State law has recently, very recently, passed new legislation that reduces or I mean, not

even reduces, but has now included new time frames for the city to um adhere to a 15-day review period, whether it's initial submitt or a resubmitt, that is a new time frame that the city will implement moving forward. Shorten time frames again have not explored because we are sticking to what the state law has recommended um in their not even recommended but what is required by the law. Anything shortened would require public input. Um next question is what is the minimum size by square feet for an ADU? Could the maximum size be less than what California government code section 66323? Um are set back is that all one I'm sorry one question. Um so the the size of an ADU the minimum size is an efficiency unit. It doesn't specifically say in the ordinance what that size is but an efficiency unit is essentially 150 square feet. Um, however, uh, building code does have additional standards. So, typically you'll see them around 220 square feet as an efficiency unit. Um, so that is the minimum size of of an ADU that can be proposed. The maximum sizes are are there's two different sections. Um, the 66323, we cannot um propose any additional maximum sizes within that. Um the single family uh primary dwelling um ADU option is 800 square ft or attached um uh again 800 square ft for multif family. It is different and that is where we're proposing to strike out the 800 square ft. There is no maximum

proposed within the 66323. Now, for the other ADUs, if someone does want to propose, we are allowing 850 for a onebedroom and 1,200 square feet for anything more than one bedroom. And again, that is a reflection of state law. Those are the parameters that state law allows our local jurisdiction to implement. Um, the next question, are we able to propose lesser setbacks even if not in relation to ADUs? Um yes um if if we want to explore setbacks for other zones um whether it's residential for R1 R2 R3 um or commercial those can be explored at a later time not not something that we're looking into right now but um can be can be proposed at a later time. Um the next question, can you explain the reason why babysitting was removed and carport was added? Um babysitting is just not a regulated use that that we have um seen come through. It's not regulated, doesn't require a state license, doesn't require a business license. um it is just an outdated um zoning code requirement that again part of the cleanup items that we're removing some of these items that have historically never been used or come up in in question. So that was just one of those items. Um carport was added simply because it's uh ADU adjacent. Um a lot of questions about converting accessory structures. A carport would be an accessory structure that could be converted to an ADU. Um the city did not have a definition of carport, so that was included in in this packet. Um not a

state law, but a convenience for staff and applicants to use to move forward when understanding what a carport is. Uh next question with regards to 16-469.6. Has this something has this or something similar happened to any previous ADU permits? This section references the old code requirement for ADUs and requiring a development design review permit um when converting the existing uh single family home to an ADU and proposing a new single family home in its place. The city has never seen that happen. And with this new ordinance, that section no longer exists. And um along with the zone text amendment, we are removing the requirement for a development design review permit for a single family home altogether. Anyway, but that situation has never occurred um in the time that this provision has been in place in the ordinance. And lastly, the question about um has city council ever tightened any restrictions, timelines, or on approvals um for permitting? Not with regards to ADUs. Um again, ADU state law recently passed the 15-day time frame. Um overall there has been a state law regarding the um issuance of permits within a 60-day time frame and that has been in place for several years. Um city council has not explored anything beyond what the state has already had for ADUs and um we intend on keeping that because again if we want to tighten any time frames we would like to get public participation prior to doing that. Um and then I'd

also like to clarify the second part of that question. Um Chair Rejo, um the if you could elaborate on that second part. Um when the last time um there were any changes made made irrespective of states mandate.

Yeah. Um thank you for that Miss Peltier. Um my original question submitted to you was when was the last time that the city council saw and or made updates or changes irrespective of the state's mandate? I I just wanted to know when city council did anything in regards to ADUs unless um other than being made to do it like did city council ever do it themselves because they wanted to do it or did they always have to wait for um the state to tell them what to do? Thank you Joe. I'll answer that one.

Um Chair Rejo, um all the changes beginning in 2020 with that update were a result of changes to state law. So all the changes generally that we brought forward related to ADUs um have been a result of those changes. Those changes at this point occur on a yearly basis. So this year we had three or five um new ADU laws go into effect. Last year there was a couple as well. So generally yeah it's just kind of been a reaction to the changes that the state is making. And again, there's they're progressing fairly quickly. So really trying to get ahead of them is something that many cities really can't do because they are kind of staying on top of that.

Thank you for that, Mr. Pearson and Miss Peltier. And before Oh, I'm sorry. Are you completed? Yes, that is all. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Miss Peltier. Um, before I continue, um, I just want to special thanks to Miss Peltier. Usually if ever I get questions, I try to give it to staff by Tuesday morning at the latest. Um but I had a second win last night. So greatly appreciate. I actually wasn't expecting you to answer all of the questions. I was going to um slice off a few of them um during questions. So I appreciate it. Um and thank you very much. Uh we'll move on um to members uh planning commission. You may ask questions of staff looking to the commission. Thank you. Um, we'll move on to and if there's no questions of staff, we'll move on to public comment. Madam Secretary, can we have is there any public comment?

No, chair. Thank you very much. Uh, since there's no public comment to respond to, the public hearing is now closed and we'll move on to deliberation commission. Commissioner Dr. Lopez. Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Nash.

Thank you, Chair, and u thank you staff for answering my questions. Um I I think that that is a better way to uh provide answers to the full commission rather than uh provide them in writing or an email or whatever. So, I I do appreciate that. So, I'll go over some of the some of the reasons why I'll I'll uh uh recommend approval of staff staff's recommendation here. And briefly, the prop the proposed uh zone text amendment updates the Oxnard city code to comply with current state laws. Uh it streamlines provisions of the residential permit procedures in Oxnard city code chapter 16. It will exempt single family residential development from a development design review permit. The zone text amendment will not have a significant in effect on the environment and is therefore not subject to SQA review and these reforms will reduce barriers to build ADUs and create additional housing opportunities within residential zones. So, um I I definitely support this and uh I thank staff for their hard work. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Nash. Any others from the commission? Commissioner Dr. Lopez. I'll just uh add a second.

Thank you. Any others from the commission? Um, for myself, um, I, uh, uh, I'll, I'll speak to first the public comment that was submitted by, um, HDF, the California Housing Defense Fund. Um, appreciate their input into, um, this in regards to ADUs. Um and um some of my questions were just in regards I just uh I would like to see the city be a little bit more proactive in terms of um just housing and the ADUs in general. So that's what my questions were asking if um council um had any um extra input or programs or changes to ordinance that they wanted to do since a lot of them say that housing is um one thing that they want to work on and especially affordable housing. Um my question is in regards to efficiency. I used to live in an efficiency apartment um 280 ft. Um, and so at least for me in particular, I was very pro- ADUs in terms of what the state wanted to do. Um, and many people think like, oh, it's not that big. Um, but um, uh, with limited income, I think that was the perfect one. And, um, we have, in my opinion, an overabundance of single family housing and I think we need to look at that middle income of two, threetory, duplex, triplex and ADUs are included in that. Um uh actually I was going to um the requests of the commission or ask if it's possible that we can uh since we're just looking at a recommendation um just to have um council look at the entire letter and approve all of the

recommendations that HDF has um um in addition to what was already previously stated by Miss Peltier in regards to the impermissible size limits and the impermissible permanent foundation. And so, um, if the commission, uh, I request your indulgence into asking a follow-up question in regards to this, um, Mr. Aragosa, um, uh, in regards to this being a recommendation to council, do we need to have a majority vote in terms of any recommendations that we want to pass to council or can we just state um, whatever we would like in regard to this item. Thank you.

Yeah, I would recommend that you would make it as an official recommendation if that is a pleasure of the commission.

Thank you very much. Um and uh to make it easy for the commission, I'll request in a separate amendment that we approve um that we move to recommend all of the um recommendations of HDF. So that would just be on top of the impermissible size limits, impermissible permanent foundations, and everything all the bullet points at the top of page three. And I'll just state it for the record. um code sections um uh in regards to the regulation of architectural style, in regards to requiring materials to be consistent in look with primary residents, um with regulation of roof style and requirement that ADUs be located to limit the view from public right of way to the furthest extent possible. Um I agree with the um with the state of recommendations of AG HDF um to facilitate the most likely possibility of the most number of ADUs in Oxnard. Um and so um that's my intent um to propose that amendment after a motion is made. Um any others from the commission at this time? And if not, I'll be looking for a motion. Chair Rejo, if I could ask for one clarification on your I guess potential amendment.

Uh yes, Mr. Person. Yes. for the items that you're referring to in the architectural standards. When you say, do you want them just completely be removed in the sense of not having any standards for architect or related to historical structures or asking that we just work to make them more um objective because I believe the comment was that these are not objective standards so that they shouldn't be applied. So, I just wanted to get clarification as to whether or not you're looking to just make them more objective or to remove them altogether.

Uh, thank you for the clarification. Um, uh, yes, that's probably not my words, but my intent was what you said, uh, in regards to the the paragraph ending, the city must also amend the proposed code to make its provision objective. So yes, that would be my intent for the amendment to make sure that city council uh looks at this as an option when they look at everything. So thank you. Okay. Um thank you. Uh we'll look to the commission um for a motion. Um yeah, Commissioner N.

Are we going to have any have any discussion on on your recommendation? Um uh we can um we can do it now or we can have a separated focused discussion on that when I propose my amendment because I'm I'm uncomfortable approving every uh every suggestion from the housing defense fund especially the uh uh imper impermissible historic uh regulations and some of and and just uh aggregating all all uh design review and standards on the part of the city. I think that's that's giving giving up too much.

Okay. Um thank you for that. Um if that motion is made, um I'd likely second it. Um that doesn't preclude any of the commission if they want to make an amendment to remove um any of those. So um I'll leave it up to the commission to make the first motion and we'll go from there. So Commissioner Schuli. Uh thank you, Chair. I I'd just be interested, if it's all right, in hearing uh staff's response to um some of the thoughts around these changes. I I I tend to uh be inclined to support uh staff recommendations. Uh willing to consider changes as well, but um not without hearing their perspective.

Okay. Um thank you. If there's an objection from the commission, um if anyone on staff could respond to the question from Commissioner Schuli.

Yes, I can respond to that. Um staff can and and uh has received comments about making these standards more object objective. Um there are it's a language preference that we can modify to make more objective. Um, I think that we can still apply standards to historic structures. It's just how it's it's phrased and how it's worded. So, we can include standards um to to be more objective as in architecture can um be required to to match the residence rather than it be compatible with the residence. So those slight changes can be made without losing the the intent or the um the the the community aspect of the historic the guidelines that we have in place. Um so we we can work on language before going to city council to amend uh the historic standards to be more objective. Thank you, Miss Peltier. Um, does that answer your question, M. Uh, Commissioner Schuli?

Uh, yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, if there are any no comments, uh, looking again to the commission for any action on this agenda item. Okay. Um, you know what? I I'll move the recommended action by that we have reviewed and provide comments on the proposed amendments to chapter 16 of Dr. city code and that the city council find the project to be category exempt from environmental review pursuant to SQL guidelines section 15061B3 general rule and adopt resolution 2025X recommending that the city council adopt the zone text amendment ordinance subject to certain finding conditions including Miss Peltier's comments in regards to striking 16-465-5D3 in regard to imposing a size limit and 16-465.6D1B in regards to impermissible permanent foundation um as described in the HDF public comment letter on page three and including um the recommendations of the bullet points on the top of page three in regards to 16-465.6 G1 and 4 regulation of architectural style 16-465.6 6 G2 requiring materials to be consistent in look with primary residence code section 161465.6 G5 regulation roof style and 14-465.6G7 requirement that ADUs be located to limit the view from public right of way to the furthest extent possible. Um and in those four that the city would amend the proposed code to make its provisions objective. Is there a second on this motion?

Second by Nash. Seconded by Commissioner Nash. Is there any deliberation on the motion before us? Seeing and hearing none, Madam Secretary, can we have the roll call, please? Chair Arjo. I, Commissioner Nash. I, Vice Chair Dr. Stewart, I. Commissioner Lopez, I. Commissioner Schuli, I. Commissioner Barca, I. This motion passes. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Um, with no study sessions or reports on the agenda, Ms. will move on to the community development staff updates. Mr. appear soon.

Chair Rojo and commissioners. Um, no real updates other than the November 20th meeting at this time is expected to be cancelled and our next meeting will be the December 4th meeting of uh 2025 and we will be bringing the commission calendar for um 2026 because we're already at that point. Um, so we'll be bringing that to the next agenda as well as um some additional minutes. And that's all that I have.

Thank you very much, Mr. Person. We'll move on to planning commission business. Is there any business for our planning commission to report? Um, I'll uh end this meeting by um I know that I stated that I was going to have something parliamentary procedure-wise. Um I decided to um skip that for this one and um hopefully I'll have something at the next one. Um but I did want to state a comment um not directly related to the planning commission but indirectly related to the process in regards to the planning commission and all citizen advisory groups. um in the past month I'm comfortable to say that um various people either in uh public hearings in public testimony or in a letter um from current chairs, previous chairs or um applicants to the community relations committee, cultural arts commission, parks rec and community services planning commission and the measure o citizens oversight committee have requested that members of the city council uh appoint and use their uh due diligence to um fill in the citizen advisory groups. Um for me in particular as chair the measure O um when we lose one we're just at um quorum and if we lose two we already lose everyone with three of the nine positions not being filled. Um of course you see that on the planning commission one not being filled. Um and every single KAG has at least one vacancy. And so um uh we're all appointed by our respective city council members and or mayor. And so, um, to all the commission members, and I've stated this in the INCO, um, my neighborhood council, um, and to various city council members, but if you could talk to your appointed member and ask

that the city council approve, um, for the greatest input, um, from the city, because I do think that's a detriment um, and to the process and workings to not get the full benefit from the residents of Oxnard. So anyways, those are my comments in regards to that and um before we adjourn, I just want to wish everyone a wonderful Thanksgiving. Um for me in particular, it's my favorite holiday. Um so appreciate that. So um if there are no last comments um and if there's no further since there's no further business, the meeting will be adjourned. If there's no objection, the meeting is adjourned at 6:30.