Oxnard council approves Teal Club specific plan, certifies EIR and development agreement

Oxnard — The City Council voted 7–0 on April 15 to approve the Teal Club Specific Plan, authorizing annexation of the site, certifying the final environmental impact report and adopting the specific plan and development agreement for the property generally bounded by Doris Avenue, Patterson Road, Teal Club Road and Ventura Road.

Why it matters: The project proponent and city staff said the plan would create an urban-village-style neighborhood with a mix of single-family homes, townhomes and rental apartments, a roughly 10‑acre central neighborhood park, a transit hub on Ventura Road and roadway improvements intended to improve safety and walking and biking connections. Supporters said the plan adds housing stock and includes a local‑buyer preference and local‑hire provisions; opponents raised questions about traffic, water and potential airborne lead near the airport.

The approved plan follows staff’s recommended “Option 1.” The development agreement includes a 15% on‑site affordable housing requirement concentrated at low and very‑low income levels (60% low, 40% very low of the affordable set), a $2.2 million payment dedicated to farmworker housing, and a local‑buyer preference giving Oxnard residents and local employees a 30‑day purchase window before units are publicly marketed. The developer and staff committed to dedicating the project’s groundwater rights to the city; city staff and the developer said Fox Canyon Groundwater Agency processes will be used to transfer roughly 500 acre‑feet of allocation associated with the property to municipal use.

Traffic and public‑safety mitigations were a central staff and public focus. The council and applicant said perimeter streets (Ventura, Doris, Patterson and Teal Club) will be widened and that required improvements fronting Phase 1 must be constructed before the first certificate of occupancy. The final EIR and development agreement identify off‑site fair‑share contributions and specific intersection improvements, and the agreement requires construction of specified on‑site public infrastructure before occupancy.

On energy and construction standards, the applicant said prevailing wage will apply where required by state law but opposed a project‑wide prevailing wage project labor agreement, telling the council it would make the project infeasible. The applicant also declined a requirement that all construction be under a project labor agreement and cited a University of California analysis estimating an added cost (the applicant cited an $83,000 per‑unit figure from a Turner Center analysis) that would threaten feasibility.

Water and soils: City staff and the developer said the project is water‑neutral because the developer will dedicate existing groundwater rights to the city and follow Fox Canyon procedures to document allocations. City engineers told council the 500 acre‑foot figure in the EIR represents the available allocation for the site. On soil remediation, staff noted the EIR contains a soils testing and remediation program (phase‑2 environmental site assessments and mitigation measures) and that any contaminated topsoil (for example historically used agricultural pesticides) would be removed or remediated in accord with state guidance.

Housing and timing: The developer estimated construction could occur from about 2026 through 2029, subject to market conditions, and said it would not allow occupancy until required streets and utilities are completed. The specific plan ties certain public benefits to development milestones, including affordable units, dedication of water rights and the farmworker housing payment.

Council deliberations and public comment: Council members heard two hours of testimony from the applicant, staff and roughly two dozen in‑person and virtual speakers who raised traffic, airport lead exposure, water supply, farmland preservation and community benefits. The council asked detailed questions about the EIR, sewer and wastewater capacity, groundwater transfers, affordable housing mix and the proposed local hire and buyer preference programs. Several council members asked staff to pursue additional design details — for example, considering traffic circles and enhanced bicycle infrastructure during the tentative tract‑map stage — and to return specifics on street‑naming and park‑naming if the council wants to honor local Chumash heritage.

Outcome and next steps: The council adopted the package as described by staff (Option 1), with recorded vote 7–0. The action certifies the EIR, adopts the specific plan and approves annexation and the development agreement. Next steps include the developer’s LAFCO application for annexation and submittal of the tentative tract map; the tentative map and subsequent construction drawings will return to city review and will include the detailed infrastructure and financing steps needed to implement the specific plan. The development agreement will be enforced through the city’s standard entitlement and improvement plan process.

Notable commitments and conditions stated on the record: the developer agreed to a 30‑day local buyer preference, a local‑hire preference for construction, a 15% affordable requirement concentrated at low and very‑low incomes, a $2.2 million farmworker housing payment, and dedication of groundwater rights to the city. Staff said sewer capacity is sufficient for the project and that the project will generate about 0.23 million gallons per day vs. the treatment plant capacity of roughly 32 million gallons per day.

Council member dissent: Councilmember Star said he supported many elements of the project but voiced a procedural and constitutional objection to a proposed mechanism in the development agreement for protecting mitigation financing (a Community Facilities District / CFD provision discussed in public testimony). At the final council roll call he recorded: “I object to section 7 of the development agreement,” but the overall Option 1 package passed 7–0.

Votes at a glance: Council adopted Option 1 (certify final EIR; approve annexation, specific plan and development agreement) — vote 7–0.

What to watch: tentative tract map submittal (detailed infrastructure conditions), LAFCO annexation application, implementation of the local buyer and local‑hire programs, and the soils remediation workplan produced under the EIR’s mitigation monitoring program.