OXNARD, Calif. — The City of Oxnard Planning Commission on Dec. 4 heard a high‑level presentation from Assistant City Attorney Jason Zaragoza and planning staff on two recently enacted state laws meant to speed housing development: AB 130 and SB 131, both effective July 1, 2025.

“Tonight, Joe and I are going to be presenting on AB 130 and SB 131, key provisions of the bill, the bills that were adopted, in June, effective July 1,” said Assistant City Attorney Jason Zaragoza as he opened the overview. Zaragoza and Mr. Pearson summarized how the measures amend the Public Resources Code and Government Code to create new CEQA exemptions and targeted streamlining for housing projects.

The presentation outlined several key provisions: AB 130 establishes an urban‑infill exemption for qualifying housing projects (residential‑only projects, mixed‑use projects where at least two‑thirds of the new converted square footage is residential, or very large mixed‑use projects with a majority of residential area). The exemption generally limits project size to 20 acres (or 5 acres for a builder’s‑remedy project) and requires a minimum density equal to 50% of a jurisdiction’s default housing‑element density. The exemption excludes sites with wetlands, prime farmland, protected habitat, conservation easements or local coastal zones, and it disallows projects that include transient lodging.

Zaragoza said the law also builds in environmental safeguards: projects must complete Phase I environmental site assessments (and Phase II plus remediation if contamination is found) and buildings within 500 feet of freeways must include HVAC filtration and avoid balconies or operable windows that face the freeway to limit exposure to traffic‑related air pollution.

The presentation stressed that tribal consultation is mandatory under AB 130: the lead agency must notify a California Native American tribe with traditional and cultural affiliation within 14 days; the tribe then has 60 days to request consultation, which must begin within 14 days of acceptance and generally conclude within 45 days (with an optional 15‑day extension). Zaragoza said any mitigation measures agreed through consultation become enforceable conditions of approval.

SB 131, Zaragoza said, includes a ‘near‑miss’ streamlining provision for projects that would otherwise qualify for a categorical exemption but for a single disqualifying condition (for example, a limited construction‑period noise issue). In those cases the lead agency may limit CEQA review to that narrowly confined impact, allowing a focused mitigated negative declaration instead of a full environmental impact report.

Commissioners asked how the bills would affect Oxnard projects. Commissioner Doctor Lopez thanked staff for the overview and asked whether the laws conflict with the city’s locally adopted SOAR protections for agricultural land. Mr. Pearson replied that the statutes do not change local general‑plan or zoning designations: “one of the things that this still requires is that it’s compliant with the general plan and the zoning,” and SOAR‑designated agricultural lands would remain agricultural under existing local designations.

Commissioners also queried high‑profile local proposals. Staff said projects larger than the AB 130 acreage limit or projects that required a general‑plan or zoning change would typically not qualify for the infill exemption; the Teal Club (roughly 150 acres) and the Mulhart urban‑village area (about 100 acres) were cited as examples that exceed the statute’s size limits or involve necessary rezones. Staff noted that prior projects that already proceeded under full EIRs would not be retroactively covered by the new exemptions.

On labor rules, Zaragoza said prevailing‑wage obligations and skilled‑worker requirements apply in specific circumstances: prevailing wages apply for projects where 100% of units are restricted to low‑income households, and projects over 85 feet must meet skilled‑labor standards. He added there are unique carve‑outs in some provisions (for example, San Francisco‑specific rules) and that details remain to be clarified in implementation.

Staff cautioned that while AB 130 and SB 131 add tools to shorten CEQA review and reduce costs associated with environmental documents, they do not eliminate other constraints — building permits, financing, and market factors still affect whether entitled projects reach construction.

The commission did not take formal action on AB 130 or SB 131 at the meeting. Mr. Pearson and Zaragoza said they would return answers if specific technical questions arise as new projects seek to use the statutory exemptions.