Guadalupe City Council
September 13, 2022

September 13, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 1 of 6 City of Guadalupe
AGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Guadalupe City Council
Tuesday, September 13, 2022, at 6:00 pm
at
City Hall, 918 Obispo Street, Council Chambers
and
Beach Retreat & Lodge
3411 Lake Tahoe Blvd.

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
(room number will be available at the front desk upon request) The City Council meeting will broadcast live on Charter Spectrum Cable Channel 20 and live streamed on the City of Guadalupe’s Official YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaxeHWd9JkmvKnGFU8BAYQQ If you choose not to attend the City Council meeting but wish to make a comment during Community Participation Forum or on a specific agenda item, please submit via email to [email protected] no later than 2:00 pm on Tuesday, September 13, 2022.

Please be advised that, pursuant to State Law, any member of the public may address the City Council concerning any item on the Agenda, before or during Council consideration of that item. If you wish to speak on any item on the agenda, including any item on the Consent Calendar or the Ceremonial Calendar, please submit a speaker request form for that item. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on the agenda, please do so during the Community Participation Forum.

The Agenda and related Staff reports are available on the City’s website: www.ci.guadalupe.ca.us Friday before Council meeting.

Any documents produced by the City and distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available the Friday before Council meetings at the Administration Office at City Hall 918 Obispo Street, Monday through Friday between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, and also posted 72 hours prior to the meeting. The City may charge customary photocopying charges for copies of such documents. Any documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda less than 72 hours before the meeting will be made available for inspection at the meeting and will be posted on the City’s website and made available for inspection the day after the meeting at the Administrator Office at City Hall 918 Obispo Street, Monday through Friday between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, including review of the Agenda and related documents, please contact the Administration Office at (805) 356.3891 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. This will allow time for the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting.

September 13, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 2 of 6

1. ROLL CALL:

Council Member Liliana Cardenas
Council Member Gilbert Robles
Council Member Eugene Costa Jr.

Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Ramirez
Mayor Ariston Julian

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. AGENDA REVIEW
At this time the City Council will review the order of business to be conducted and receive requests for, or make announcements regarding, any change(s) in the order of business.

4. PRESENTATION
• North SB County FRESA (Food Resilience, Equity, Sustainability, and Action)

5. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION FORUM
Each person will be limited to a discussion of three (3) minutes or as directed by the Mayor.

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on these matters unless they are listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future City Council meeting.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items are presented for City Council approval without discussion as a single agenda item in order to expedite the meeting. Should a Council Member wish to discuss or disapprove an item, it must be dropped from the blanket motion of approval and considered as a separate item.

A. Waive the reading in full of all Ordinances and Resolutions. Ordinances on the Consent Calendar will be adopted by the same vote cast as the first meeting unless City Council indicates otherwise.

B. Approve payment of warrants for the period ending September 6, 2022 C. Approve the Minutes of the City Council regular meeting of August 23, 2022, to be ordered filed.

D. Approve the Minutes of the City Council special meeting of August 16, 2022, to be ordered filed.

E. Approve the annual “Peace, Love, and Hope Around the World” holiday season parade scheduled for Saturday, December 10, 2022, by Kiwanis Club of Guadalupe.

September 13, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 3 of 6 F. Accept the revised Master Fee Schedule annual CPI update.

G. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-80 approving the Co-Ed Adult Basketball League.

H. MONTHLY REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS

1. Planning Department report for August 2022

2. Building Department report for August 2022

3. Public Works/Engineering report for August 2022

7. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT: (Information Only)

8. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT: (Information Only)

9. MAYOR’S REPORT- UPDATES

PUBLIC HEARING

10. To Consider Tract 29,066 (Planning File No. 2021-099-TTM), a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, to Allow Subdivision of a 26.82-acre Parcel into 113 lots for Future Development in Pasadera South.

Written report: Bill Scott, City Planner
Recommendation: That the City Council:
a. Receive a presentation from staff; and
b. Conduct a public hearing to consider any comments from the applicant and the public. c. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-81 to approve the proposed subdivision of Tentative Tract Map 29,066

REGULAR BUSINESS

11. Le Roy Park Phase II Scope of Work and Budget.

Written report: Shannon Sweeney, Public Works Director/City Engineer Recommendation: That the City Council provide guidance to City staff on Le Roy Park Phase II Scope of Work and Budget.

12. Bonita Pacifica Land Transfer.

Written report: Shannon Sweeney, Public Works Director/City Engineer Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-82 approving land transfers of City owned property (portions of APN 113-320-097 to adjacent property owners of APNs 115- 201-004, 115-201-013, and 115-201-012).

September 13, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 4 of 6

13. City Hall Structural Assessment.

Written report: Shannon Sweeney, Public Works Director/City Engineer Recommendation: That the City Council provide guidance to City staff on funding and schedule to address City Hall structural deficiencies.

14. Feasibility of Establishing City of Guadalupe Public Safety Department Impact Fee Nexus Study.

Written report: Michael Cash, Public Safety Director
Recommendation: That the City Council:
a. Receive presentation from staff; and
b. Deliberate and file the report; or
c. Direct staff to select a vendor to complete the study and return to Council when an impact fee study is ready for consideration; or
d. Continue to another Council meeting for further discussion and deliberation.

15. Re-Classification for the Human Resources Manager Position.

Written report: Amelia M. Villegas, Interim Human Resources Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-83 approving the reclassification of the job description for the Human Resources Manager position.

16. Denial of Unsuccessful Candidates for Commercial Cannabis Business (CCB) Permits.

Written report: Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Receive a presentation from staff;

2. Receive public comments; and
a. Deny the applications of the three unsuccessful CCB permit candidates; and b. Authorize the establishment of an eligibility list for the unsuccessful candidates in the event one or both of the prevailing candidates are unable to meet the remaining requirements for obtaining a CCB permit.

17. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

18. ANNOUNCEMENTS – COUNCIL ACTIVITY/COMMITTEE REPORTS

19. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

20. Public Employment
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b)):

Title: City Administrator
September 13, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 5 of 6

21. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4):
1 case

22. ADJOURNMENT TO OPEN SESSION MEETING

23. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS

24. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the City Hall display case and website not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 8th day of September 2022.
________________________
Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Todd Bodem
September 13, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 6 of 6

PROPOSED FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
Council Meeting: Date and Subject Department Agenda Category Tuesday, September 27, 2022, at 6:00 pm / Regular Meeting Pasquini Lease Agreement – WWTP Effluent spray field Public Works Department Consent Calendar July and August 2022 Financial Report Finance Department Consent Calendar Central Coast Processing – 151 Obispo CUP Planning Department Public Hearing Facility & Parks Use Fee Schedule Changes Recreation & Parks Dept. Regular Business Tree Maintenance Policy Public Works Department Regular Business Tuesday, October 11, 2022, at 6:00 pm / Regular Meeting Notice of Award – 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Project Public Works Department Consent Calendar Transit Update Public Works Department Consent Calendar Tuesday, October 25, 2022, at 6:00 pm / Regular Meeting Other Unscheduled Items Proposed
Date of Item
Department Agenda Category
Tree Ordinance Public Works New Business
Sidewalk Vending Ordinance Planning Department New Business Vacant Property Ordinance Administration Dept New Business Food Truck and Special Event Ordinance Planning Dept New Business Gift Policy City Attorney New Business
Master Fee Schedule Update Finance Department Workshop
Recognizing Food Distribution Volunteers Ceremonial Calendar Benefit for Unrepresented Employees Human Resources New Business Al’s Union Property New Business
Boys and Girls Club Memorandum of
Understanding
Recreation & Parks
Department
Rent Stabilization New Business
Food Resilience, Equity, Sustainability & Action!
Agenda Item No. 4
What is FRESA?
We are a proactive coalition of CalFresh advocates
advancing food access in North County.

Since our first meeting in July 2020, we’ve used
new funding to build a strong foundation of
community support. We are ready to advocate for
a new market and needed policy changes in 2022!
1000+ Hrs
Volunteers
Over
65 Hrs of Language Justice
Training
Over
$30K
Joint-Funded

CALFRESH CLIENT DISTRIBUTION
• About 20k CalFresh
households in SB County
• Largest number of
recipients are in
North County
IMPACT OF EBT CARD + MARKET MATCH
After Market Match:
• gradual rise to
$8000/month
extra income.
in santa barbara county
● 10 year-round farmers
markets
● 7 accept the EBT card
and provide the healthy
food incentive program,
Market Match
Image: courtesy of the Ecology Center (https://ecologycenter.org/fmfinder/) in santa barbara county
Yet zero markets in
North County
accept EBT.
potential impact of CalFresh in Farmers Market
About $2 million
per month in
CalFresh benefits
are distributed to
EBT holders in
North County. (2)

Adding EBT could bring in
extra money to the market. (3)
1) Source: DSS 169C ad hoc. Of a total NA/PC CalFresh population of 22,083 households, 8862 households are in North County - in or around Santa Maria 2) Source: DSS380 ad hoc, showing average monthly CalFresh benefit issuance of $226/household * 8862 = $2,002,812. 3) Assumptions: 1% of those households (89) visit in a month and each spends 10% of their monthly benefit: $22.60 * 89 = $2011.40.

Currently, about
40% of CalFresh
cases in Santa
Barbara County
are in Santa
Maria. (1)
Revenue from the program could
increase further with the addition
of healthy food incentive
programs like Market Match.

1. Monthly Community Meetings
a. Once a month; Fridays at 12:30pm until 2pm.
b. Zoom - ID: 856 5973 9556 Passcode:93434
Or join by scanning the QR Code:

2. Route One Farmers Market Model

3. Farmer and Vendor Survey

4. Outreach, Policy Education, and Advocacy
What’s Next? Action!
please contact us if you would like to join our efforts Our Website: ncfresa.org
Alhan Diaz-Correa [email protected]
Mireya Piña [email protected]
Stephanie Krause [email protected]
THANK YOU!
Agenda Item No. 6B

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of September 13, 2022
Reviewed by: Approved by:

Veronica Fabian
Finance Account Clerk
Lorena Zarate
Finance Director
Todd Bodem
City Administrator
SUBJECT:

RECOMMENDATION:

Payment of warrants for the period ending September 5, 2022, to be approved for payment by the City Council. Subject to having been certified as being in conformity with the budget by the Finance Department staff.

That the City Council review and approve the listing of hand checks and warrants to be paid on September 14, 2022.

BACKGROUND:

Submittal of the listing of warrants issued by the City to vendors for the period and explanations for disbursement of these warrants. An exception, such as an emergency hand check may be required to be issued and paid prior to submittal of the warrant listing, however, this warrant will be identified as "Ratify'' on the warrant listing.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
August 23, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 1 of 8

MINUTES
City of Guadalupe
Regular Meeting of the Guadalupe City Council
Tuesday, August 23, 2022, at 6:00 pm
City Hall, 918 Obispo Street, Council Chambers

1. ROLL CALL:

Council Member Liliana Cardenas
Council Member Gilbert Robles
Council Member Eugene Costa Jr.

Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Ramirez
Mayor Ariston Julian
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Absent were Council Member Ramirez and Council Member Cardenas. All others were present. (Note: The abbreviation, “CM”, will be used for “Council Member” in these minutes.)

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. AGENDA REVIEW
There were no requests to change the agenda order.

4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION FORUM
There were no requests to speak on any subject not on the agenda.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items are presented for City Council approval without discussion as a single agenda item in order to expedite the meeting. Should a Council Member wish to discuss or disapprove an item, it must be dropped from the blanket motion of approval and considered as a separate item.

A. Waive the reading in full of all Ordinances and Resolutions. Ordinances on the Consent Calendar will be adopted by the same vote cast as the first meeting unless City Council indicates otherwise.

B. Approve payment of warrants for the period ending August 15, 2022 C. Approve the Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of August 9, 2022, to be ordered filed.

Agenda Item No. 6C
August 23, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 2 of 8 D. Approve the agreement for Animal Control Services between County of Santa Barbara and the City of Guadalupe for fiscal years 2022-2027.

E. Approve the Annual Fiestas Celebration Parade scheduled for September 11, 2022, from Club Comité Cívico Mexicano de Guadalupe.

F. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-76 approving an update to the City’s Conflict of Interest Code.

G. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-77 approving the filing of a Notice of Completion for the West Main Street Waterline Replacement Project and authorizing the City Clerk to file it with the County Recorder.

H. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-78 accepting as complete the Public Improvements required for Tract 29,061 (Lot 5N) of the Pasadera Development (DJ Farms) and authorize the release of the remaining cash funds deposited to secure construction of the required public improvements.

I. MONTHLY REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS

1. Public Safety Department:
a. Police Department report for June and July 2022
b. Fire Department report for July 2022
c. Code Compliance report for July 2022

2. Human Resources report for July 2022

3. City Treasurer’s report for July 2022

4. Recreation and Parks report for July 2022
Item #5.D. was pulled by CM Robles. Item #5.H. was pulled by Mr. Todd Bodem.

Motion was made by Council Member Costa, Jr. and seconded by Council Member Robles to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar. 3-0 Absent: Ramirez, Cardenas Motion passed.

Item #5.D. Animal Control Services Agreement: CM Robles asked if there was any update, any feedback or concerns from staff relating to this agreement and the fees involved. Mr. Bodem said, “There was no feedback from the County after the presentation at the last meeting. The Animal Controls Services said that amount of the fees is locked in. They have no authority over the County Board of Supervisors. We can always work with Santa Maria after they do their internal analysis and maybe use the ’60-day out clause’.”
Item #5.H. Mr. Bodem said that on the signature page of the resolution, the ‘fiscal impact’ section towards the bottom should be completely removed. This clerical change is the only change. The resolution doesn’t change.

Motion was made by Council Member Costa, Jr. and seconded by Council Member Robles to approve Item #5.D. and Item #5.H, with revisions. 3-0 Absent: Ramirez, Cardenas Motion passed.

August 23, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 3 of 8

6. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT: (Information Only)
Mr. Bodem said that there was an update from Craig Smith, Pasadera. By May 2023, the Obispo Bridge should be completed. Bridge parts should be here in six (6) months and three (3) months after that, complete the head/wing walls and road. The second bridge, Arroyo Seco, will follow.

Craig Smith added , “We’re in the process of getting the agreements and check into the railroad.

Should be into them in a few weeks. The railroad will take another two (2) months to issue their permit on it. We’ve ordered bridge parts…running about six (6) months on production. The agreement with the farmers is for one (1) year period. We don’t want to start now and only have a few months to finish. When parts are installed, construction will begin to build the walls around the bridge and the wing walls…grating will then finish up the road. It should be about nine (9) months before the road will be completely through.”
Another item that Mr. Bodem mentioned was that there will be one (1) staff member short in the Finance office for about two (2) months or so.

7. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT: (Information Only) Chief said, “Mr. Smith, thank you for the signage for the big rigs parking there at Pasadera, the same signage we have for the City so we can do enforcement out there. We’re in the final stages of residential parking permits. We had to design the permit…we should have that done fairly soon.

We understand that we will relook the whole budget in six (6) months concerning personnel. In the meantime, I’d like to continue recruitment, at least for public safety, because it takes between six to seven months just to get somebody. Then we have to do this extensive background, so we want to hit the road running when, and if, we have the funds so we an continue to get our departments upto-speed.

CM Costa, Jr. said, “Thank you, Chief, for being out there helping direct traffic. The 11th & Peralta Street traffic flow makes it easier for parents and kids to cross the street.”

8. MAYOR’S REPORT- UPDATES
Mayor Julian mentioned that there was a lot of information in the Mayor’s Report. He highlighted Item #6., the Boys & Girls Club submitted an agreement with some updates to the City and we’re sending to City Attorney Sinco to move forward and bring to the Council for a vote. The mayor said that it looks good.

Also mentioned as Item #7. Post 371 Personal Property. Mayor Julian said, “On the third paragraph, it reads that ‘The city is not sure at this time what our next step will be if the Post does not remove its personal property…’ To clarify, our next steps are to make the building available to the community of Guadalupe. I didn’t want that ‘next step’ not defined. We’re moving forward with it all.” August 23, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 4 of 8

REGULAR BUSINESS

9. Approve the Cooperative Dispatch Agreement with the Santa Barbara County Fire Protection District.

Written report: Michael Cash, Director of Public Safety Recommendation: That the City Council:
a. Receive a presentation from staff;
b. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-79 approving the Cooperative Dispatch Agreement with the Santa Barbara County Fire Protection District.

The Regional Fire Communications Center (RFCC) is throughout Santa Barbara County which shows how important it is and how important Guadalupe is.

On August 18, 2018, Guadalupe entered into a Dispatch Service Agreement with the City of Santa Maria, for both police and fire dispatching. The County Board of Supervisors authorized the County Fire Department to establish an RFCC on October 1, 2018. The RFCC is currently run by Sheriff’s Department for Sheriff, Fire and Ambulance service. The City of Santa Maria agree to discontinue fire dispatching and use RFCC by FT 2024. This agreement has been vetted by Ms. Lorena Zarate, Finance Director, City Attorney Sinco, and Mr. Todd Bodem, City Administrator.

All Fire agencies have committed to the RFCC with five-year contracts, with three-year renewal terms after the initial five (5) years. It will take $65,000 to ensure adequate funding from the City. Chief Cash showed a slide showing final costs for all agencies (7) participating. For Guadalupe, total calls of 609 have an annual cost for service of $43,3421; annual fixed expense of $20,286 for a total of $63,628. (The calls per service rate is $71.17.)
For the period 2017 to 2022, averages for total calls, 561; EMS calls, 401; Fire calls, 22; Hazardous conditions, 22 and Miscellaneous calls, 116. In 2017, total calls were 530 versus 609 in 2022. The current cost for Santa Maria fire dispatching services is $2,013.08 (annually $24,156.96). Portable and mobile radios were purchased from Santa Maria. Equipment will be programmed over.

Under the current contract with City of Santa Maria, the monthly cost for Santa Maria Police dispatching services is $6,210.25 (annually $50,367)…for both Fire and PD, $74,503. City of Santa Maria is amending the contract dissolving fire dispatching. Guadalupe police dispatching will still continue under the current contract.

All fire departments will function as one. When there’s a call, three (3) stations will be able to respond for Guadalupe. This system will be automatic where other fire departments will be able to hear all calls at the same time. All 37 fire stations will hear 911 calls for improved response time.

Currently, if a 911 call goes to Santa Maria Dispatch, it’s determined not be a police call. It then goes to Fire/EMS where service starts. With the proposed new system, a 911 call goes to RFCC, service starts.

August 23, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 5 of 8 The RFCC will be staffed with 24 full-time employees with dedicated call takers and dispatcher, with no distracting law duties. Tactical radio operators-incident dispatcher follows each call with no distracting duties. The Locution fire station alerting system has been in use in the county since 2019 and will carry over to the RFCC and be fully operational.

General fund monies will need to be placed into the Fire Department’s budget to offset the payments to the RFCC. Chief Cash cited the continuing funding services for public safety as 1) Measure V2014, public service protection; 2) Measure W2014, public service preservation; 3) Measure X2014, public service preservation, and 4) Measure N2020, essential services transaction. Chief also mentioned Fund 76 and the Guadalupe/Chevron Program grant.

Costs broken down are as follows:
• Current Fire dispatching yearly budget: $24,000
• Current Fire dispatching actual yearly cost: $24,156
• Last five years – fire calls for service average: 550-620 • New average cost per service rate: $71.17
• New average yearly cost for fire calls for service: $39,143 to $44,125 • New Fire dispatching fixed yearly expense: $20,000
This represents an additional cost of about $40,000 annually. Note: this agreement is not for the current fiscal year and does not have a fiscal impact for the current fiscal year’s budget. However, costs for the fire department will increase about $40,000 more annually starting in 2024. The agreement is for five (5) years, which may include annual increases for inflation.

Discussion was turned to the City Council. Mayor Julian said, “Kudos to all fire departments responding to our needs You know we’re shorthanded. So, when there’s a call for mutual aid, you’re always there. We appreciate that.” CM Robles said, “This should have been worked on many years ago. Such a streamlined system. it’s pretty common sense and seems like a good deal.” CM Costa, Jr. added, “We should have stuck with the County instead of Santa Maria if they were going to go down. We have to have a dispatch. There will still be a delay. How soon do we need to get into this?” Chief Cash said, “We’re looking for approval now, but this doesn’t take effect for another year…but we want to get in on the ground floor.” At this point, Rob Heckman, Deputy Fire Chief from Santa Barbara County FD added, “Right now, the process is in place. We’re at 50% design schematic review. By December 2023, it will be out to bid with the hope of going live by April 2024.” CM Costa, Jr. said, “I asked ‘how soon’ because I want to see what our budget is going to be before we vote and make that decision.” Chief Cash said, “There are funds in Fund 76 available now to take care of this. When the County would actually need it, I do not know. But, currently, without affecting the General Fund, we do have the funds to make this happen.” Mayor Julian asked, “For the area on Division Road in SLO County, and also the Oso Flaco area, what station from SLO responds? Do we know that?” Chief said, “Cal Fire on the mesa…by the refinery.” The mayor said that we need this.

August 23, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 6 of 8 CM Robles said, “I want to hear from our Finance Director.” Ms. Zarate said, “When Chief presented this to Todd and me, I was concerned for this year and thought we had to switch right away. I had no idea of this timeline. But it wasn’t for this fiscal year, so it’s a bit okay. Sustainability of ongoing services is always a question when the budgets have been so tight, historically.…$40,000 more every year, going forward. That will need to be carved in at the next budget time. Fund 76 will run out…not an ongoing revenue source. It’s split between public safety and public infrastructure. That fund was allocated this fiscal year to be used up. However, could be changes where we don’t use it up and there’d be some funds available for next year. But we need to think about years after that when Fund 76 is done. This should come out of the General Fund as an ongoing Fire expenditure that we need to think about next budget year.”
Mayor Julian said, “I’m optimistic about our future and our finances. The residents passed the four (4) tax measures to support our General Fund and public safety, recreation and our downtown. This needs to happen. Is there a motion to approve Resolution No 2022-79 or are there any more questions/comments?” CM Costa, Jr. then said, “I want to hold off on this decision for our next Council meeting with our other two (2) council members here, and they can hear from Lorena. Our budget is tight right now and I know that this won’t impact our budget this fiscal year. But it will be next year…so we can see where we’re at. I know we’ll have to do it, regardless, but I want a full council on this vote. Lorena said this will come from the General Fund. We want to make sure we have the money for this and not looking to scrounge for it. I know with the tax measures and all we’re looking to get better. But those are my concerns.” CM Robles commented, “I enjoyed the presentation and support it. We can table if we don’t need to vote tonight and get the other two (2) council members on board and take another look. But this is something that has to be done.” Mayor Julian’s final comment was, “We know this has to be done. We have a council, and we have the ability to make decisions. Are there any emails regarding this?” There were no emails. The mayor then said, “I move that we approve Resolution No. 2022-

79. I’m looking for a second.”
Motion was made by Mayor Julian and seconded by Council Member Robles to approve Resolution No. 2022-79 to approve the Cooperative Dispatch Agreement with the Santa Barbara County Fire Protection District. Roll Call: Ayes: Costa, Jr. Robles, Julian Absent: Ramirez, Cardenas 3-0 Motion passed.

Mayor Julian added, “This was a hard decision. What’s even harder is not having the support of the other entities we’re talking about. We need fast response. If we had to provide this on our own, we wouldn’t be able to do it. So, we appreciate the gentlemen in the back of the chambers there for being here. And I know it’s hard, and I appreciate Gene, as an ex-firefighter, keeping an eye on us and what we need to do for fire and our public safety. Thank you all.”

10. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
August 23, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 7 of 8 Mayor Julian asked to schedule “FRESA”, food program for the Sept. 13th meeting. They want to provide a farmers’ market in Guadalupe. “FRESA” stands for ‘Food, Resilience, Equity, sustainability, and Action’. They will give a presentation on their program.

11. ANNOUNCEMENTS – COUNCIL ACTIVITY/COMMITTEE REPORTS
CM Robles: There have been two (2) meetings on Sunday at the Guadalupe Cultural Arts & Education Center. They had a bonsai class.

I’ll have more information on this but in October at Morro Bay Rock, there will be a celebration of the landing of the first Filipinos in the United States. One of the Spanish galleons, running the Acapulco-Manila galleon trade, accidentally landed in Morro Bay. There’s a lot of unknown history, but there will be a celebration in October commencing that. There’s a huge plaque that was put out there in 1995….Joe and Margie Talaugon were a part of that. The group handling this celebration is the Filipino American National Historical Society (FANHS).

CM Costa, Jr.: Youth football started. There will be four (4) home games. There isn’t a schedule yet.

On September 18th, there will be a “corn hole tournament” at O’Connell Park to raise money for the Bulldogs.

Mayor Julian: I attended Air Pollution Control District and SBCAG meetings. State Route 1-the Santa Maria River Bridge replacement is a $33.0M project. It’s currently in the design phase with a construction timeline of 2023-2025. Also, State Route 166/1-Guadalupe ADA pedestrian infrastructure improvements. This is in the design stage with a construction cost of $12.9M. The timeline for completion is 2028.

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

12. ADJOURNMENT TO THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD MEETING
Motion was made by Council Member Costa, Jr. and seconded by Council Member Robles to adjourn to the Successor Agency Board Meeting. 3-0 Absent: Ramirez, Cardenas Motion passed.

13. Biennial Update to Successor Agency Conflict of Interest Code.

Written report: Wendy Stockton, Assistant City Attorney Recommendation: That the Successor Agency adopt SA Resolution No. 2022-02 updating its Conflict-of-Interest Code and rescinding Resolution No. 2014-01.

Ms. Stockton mentioned that this resolution for the Successor Agency is the similar as Resolution No. 2022-76 that the City Council approved tonight. Each year the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) asks us to take a look at our Conflict-of-Interest Code to make sure that it’s according to Hoyle. The FPPC gives a lot of input on exactly what the code should be and what they should say.

August 23, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 8 of 8 I’ve put together a couple amendments to each of these codes so they’re real close to what the FPPC is asking for. You can then look at it and know what has to go on the Form 700, Statement of Economic Interest.

Motion was made by Council Member Robles and seconded by Council Member Costa, Jr. to adopt SA Resolution No. 2022-02 updating its Conflict-of-Interest Code and rescinding Resolution 2014-

01. Roll Call: Ayes: 3 Absent: Ramirez, Cardenas 3-0 Motion passed.

14. ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Council Member Costa, Jr. and seconded by Council Member Robles to adjourn the meeting. 3-0 Absent: Ramirez, Cardenas Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m.

Prepared by: Approved by:
________________________________ _____________________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
August 16, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 1 of 12

MINUTES
City of Guadalupe
Special Meeting of the Guadalupe City Council
Tuesday, August 16, 2022, at 6:00 pm
City Hall, 918 Obispo Street, Council Chambers

1. ROLL CALL:

Council Member Liliana Cardenas
Council Member Gilbert Robles
Council Member Eugene Costa Jr.

Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Ramirez
Mayor Ariston Julian
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. All members were present. (Note: The abbreviation, “CM” will be used in place of “Council Member” in these minutes.)

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Prior to the Pledge of Allegiance, Mayor Julian mentioned the passing of Kim Masatani, a long-time resident of Guadalupe…condolences to her family as well as Carmen Ramirez, Ventura County Supervisor and Chair of Water Education for Latino Leaders. Our condolences to her family.

3. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION FORUM
There were no requests to speak on items not on the agenda.

REGULAR BUSINESS

4. Reconsideration of Second Commercial Cannabis Business (CCB) Permit Applicant – Retail.

Written report: Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Recommendation: That the City Council:
1) Receive a presentation from staff;
2) Receive presentations from the Element 7 and The Roots Dispensary; 3) Receive public comment; and
a. Select one of these applicants to move forward with the process of obtaining a CCB permit; or b. Continue deliberations on these two CCB permit applicants to a future meeting; or c. Take no action and provide further direction to staff.

Mr. Bodem was brief in his comments regarding this special meeting. Mayor Julian quickly asked if there was any correspondence on this matter. Mr. Bodem deferred to City Attorney Sinco who said, Agenda Item No. 6D
August 16, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 2 of 12 “There are two (2) emails from Frances Romero that are posted on the website.” The mayor asked about another one. City Attorney said that there was one email not directly related to this matter and isn’t posted. Mayor Julian said that it should be part of the minutes. City Attorney Sinco stated the email was from Lanny Ebenstein and that it would be posted tomorrow.

Mr. Bodem then continued with further background on this special meeting. The two (2) CCB permit applicants, “Element 7” and “The Roots Dispensary” were asked to give another presentation at this special meeting as a result of the decision to rescind the selection of “Element 7” as the second prevailing applicant was approved at the City Council meeting of July 12, 2022. (City Attorney Sinco explained that the decision to rescind was based on a procedural irregularity.) Mayor Julian added the applicants’ entire presentations will be given with an emphasis on “Community Benefits” and “Neighborhood Impact”.
“Element 7”
The primary presenter was Josh Black, Operations and Marketing. Others representing “Element 7” were Ashley Rojas, Government Affairs, Lupe Alvarez, Co-Founder and Owner, Robert DeVito, Founder and CEO, and Greg Moreno, Community Development/Affairs.

Mr. Black briefly went through their business plan. He stated that their focus is on holistic wellness…medical patients, therapies, CB products. Four key areas: holistic wellness lab, medical products, treatment for the elderly and interactive learning center. They’re a vertically integrated business model with delivery service.

Their location is a former sports bar…a turnkey site which, by first quarter 2023, could be ready. They had previously turned in four (4) full sets of construction plans and could be handed in again tomorrow.

Some of their local partners with whom they’ve had discussions are Guadalupe Hardware, Blazen Fox Fabrication, Tab Miller Electric…some of the companies “Element 7” is looking to work with in the local community. They have a general contractor in house and is ready to get operational. “Element 7” anticipates $1.3M in taxes over the next five (5) years. They look to gross $4.0M in Year 1 and $9.0M in Year 5. Their company benefit fee is an allocated 4% of gross receipts. They specified that it was a conservative allocation.

Mr. Black said that they attract a broad customer base…not all about 21–28-year-olds. He said that 43% are age 40 and above, not just young kids looking to get high. Also, 15% of their customer base is 60 years and older. They believe this is due to how they communicate to their customers, how they treat them and also the products they deliver and how their stores are designed.

They have a full-time compliance officer. Quarterly audits are performed before agencies come in to do so. Mr. Black said they feel that they’ll be more compliant in the future. Mr. Black mentioned that in one of their other facilities, the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) recently performed an audit which they passed with “flying colors”.

Their “Labor Plan” which is part of their “Community Benefit” consists of the following: living wage of $21.00 per hour; 401(k) match for executives and management; health, dental, stock options; continuous learning support; promotions from within; 80 hours of both classroom and store training August 16, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 3 of 12 before employees go on the floor. They have a partnership with Cannabis Science, a learning center…an agreement with United Food Commercial Workers (UFCW), labor union. Their focus is 100% in local hiring, with a preference to Guadalupe residents. They believe that diversity and inclusion build talent and innovation and that the cannabis industry needs to be more representative of its consumer base and they’re focused on doing that.

Safety equipment measures: dedicated data rooms…all processes, camera access, etc. for safety and protection. Facility will be equipped with fire alarms, fire and safety plans, sprinklers, etc.

Security: there’s currently an awning area and gate outside which will be kept. The gate is an extra layer of security, a barrier between the street and the store…a “man trap” lobby and guard. They’ll have a secure check-in area where all IDs will be checked before entrance. There will be cameras in every corner, inside and outside. All rooms will be secure.

Qualifications: since they were before the Council previously, they’ve opened three (3) more stores.

They now have ten stores throughout the state. They also have manufacturing and distributions sites.

Mr. Black mentioned several other members of the company not present: Sheila Merchant, Legal Affairs; Amber Norwood, Chief Compliance Officer, and Nick Jack, Head of Retail Experience. “Element 7” has engaged in the community since 2018. They had dropped off an educational packet in the Planning Department lobbying for cannabis.

Neighborhood Compatibility: there is a dedicated full-time Community Relations Manager, Greg Moreno, who handles outreach events. There are quarterly city reports, an email newsletter, complaint process. There’s a risk mitigation policy with a 24-hour resolution program and an online tracking program to track response time. They have an “open door policy” with local law enforcement.

There’ll be a full waste management plan, not just for cannabis waste but also for plastic and cardboard. Cannabis waste is minimal as everything comes packaged. As for managing noise/lighting, the facility will be conservative, given their customer base. Parking is in the rear and side of the store as well as in front on the street. An odor management plan will also be in place with a filtration system for the outdoors and greenery/plants for the interior.

Community Benefits: in various locations, “Element 7” have held gun violence clinics and parks cleanup events. Mr. Black said that they have as proven track record in Guadalupe with Lupe Alvarez who has worked across multiple organizations such as, Boys & Girls Club, and the Guadalupe Bulldogs.

Greg Moreno, Community Relations Manager spoke briefly. He said, “I live in Santa Maria before but grew up here and worked in the fields here. A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I had an opportunity to buy a home here. And it’s hard to find a home in Guadalupe but I have four(4) sons. I’d like to see them come back to show them what it’s like to be raised in a small community. I’m retired from the Marine Corps and do a lot with veterans’ support groups. For me, it’s about giving back. There are a lot of things that Guadalupe needs that I can do for the community…to help others be successful.” “The Roots’ (Dispensary)
The primary presenter was Luis Castaneda, Director of Retail Operations. Also present were Beth Thuna, Chief Operating Officer, Atih Aikhouri, Treasurer & Security Liaison, Gustavo Alvarez, President and Joe Armendariz. This is the ownership and management team for “The Roots” Guadalupe.

August 16, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 4 of 12 What sets us apart from all the others? Equal opportunity…we won’t sue…we won’t ever mislead or lie to the City. I can attest that everything in our application is the truth. We’re looking for a strategic long-term relationship with Guadalupe. We want to be 100% honest, transparent and accountable.

When it comes to the professional and ethical operation of our company, we vow to do the right thing.

We’re proud of our reputation. The most valuable commodity we have as a company is our reputation.

I got into this business to remove the negative stigma of cannabis. We want to build a future for our employees where they get to do what they love. We’re working to become the cannabis staple of the Central Coast. We’re known in the cannabis industry as being “for the people”. We keep our local agencies informed. We’ve established ourselves as the “go-to company”. We’ve paid our fair share of taxes and supported local businesses. The City and the people of Guadalupe deserve to have a cannabis retail store that is committed to them for the long-haul. We’re here to be good partners.

In a fairly new industry that comes with many new hurdles, we advocate for equality. We represent our industry at communities with dignity and honor wherever we go…whether we’re talking to elected officials or our neighbors, our purpose is the same. We want to offer ethically sourced products to our community at affordable prices.

The City Council has a tough decision to make tonight. What is the best fit for Guadalupe? We believe we’re the best choice because we’re not a fly-by company. We want to be here for the long run. We want to be committed to our communities and help them grow. The bigger, larger companies don’t really engage with their customers or the community the way Guadalupe really needs.

Location & Operations: we’re located at 813 Guadalupe Street. There is a parking lot available, and the building is up to code. We can be operational quickly and start generating revenue for the City.

Our coming into Guadalupe doesn’t mean you’re losing a business because the current smoke shop will be relocated down the street. Our hours of operation are 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday thru Saturday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. We will be operating with Standard Operating Procedures or SOPs which include regulatory law and industry best practices. No one under age 21 or 18, without a medical prescription, can come in the store. We’ll also make deliveries within Guadalupe, as well as neighboring cities.

Labor Plan: we intend to hire 12 local residents and scale up to 22 within one (1) year of operations.

We will advertise in a variety of sources in both English and Spanish. We offer a starting wage of $23.50 per hour, which exceeds the living and minimum wage for the area; health, dental, vision and insurances; paid time off, and several forms of continuing education. Hiring locally keeps the money in our community to reinvest in it.

Neighborhood Compatibility: we have had zero complaints from any of our neighbors in any of our other locations. Those plans include creating business-to-business partnerships with our neighbors to drive the economy, designating a community relations contact to handle any community concerns, proactively and consistently engaging our neighbors, and maintaining strong relations with the City.

We have an odor and waste mitigation plans.

Safety & Security Plans: safety is critical to our plan involving all of our equipment and systems. We are in full compliance with OSHA regulations. As for security, employees go through training on August 16, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 5 of 12 various security equipment and safety matters. We have surveillance systems in place, interior and exterior cameras. We’ve never had a security breach at any of our operating locations.

Community Benefits and Investment Plan: we will commit up to 6% in gross revenues. We will focus on youth, economic revitalization, public services and facilities and community engagement. Our community contributions include financial, in-kind donations and volunteer hours. Community organizations where we have supported and will support are the Guadalupe Cultural Arts & Education, AHC Promise Program, Guadalupe Police Explorers, to name a few. We encourage our employees to volunteer, and we provide paid time off to support organizations like The Little House by the Park. We will also operate in-kind donation drives in the store to collect tangible goods which will be donated to organizations like the Guadalupe Library, local animal shelters and organizations supporting women, children and the unhoused. We are proud members of the Guadalupe Business Association and the Santa Maria Chamber of Commerce and intend to support the endeavors of both of these organizations.

At this point, Mr. Joe Armendariz added, “You already know that we are a qualified effective operator, as is ‘Element 7’. That’s why we’re here. You know we can do this and that’s why we’re here tonight.

CM Ramirez asked a good question two months ago: What sets you apart from the other company? One thing that wasn’t mentioned tonight is that we’re a woman-led company. We’re very proud of the fact that Beth Thuna, one of the owners of this company, is a leading champion and leading entrepreneur in the cannabis space. That wasn’t said before.” Mr. Armendariz then relayed a brief story explaining how he became involved with the cannabis industry and Mr. Luis Castaneda. He said, “I was told that that was the company I should work with. They have integrity. They’re ethical…they’re driven and they’re going places. You’d be lucky to have them, and they’d be lucky to have you. I just wanted to make it clear that based on my experience and knowledge of this industry, I’ve not found anyone I’m more impressed with than Luis Castaneda.”
He then spoke about the community benefits offered saying “Between a couple months ago and now, we’re building and forging a very strong strategic relationship with Allan Hancock College. Some say that the next pandemic won’t be a virus but rather an economic virus, driven by the fact there is a digital divide in this country. We may find ourselves in the future with an entire population that can’t use computers, can’t read and can’t compete in a 21st century economy. We feel strongly that Guadalupe, as we know, socially and economically, is the most challenged community in the county.

There’s no better investment than educating community members and sending our kids to college.

Also, we are reaching out to Steve Baird, Band of Brothers and continually committed to supporting all of the veterans’ organizations. In my view, there isn’t just one (1) license up for grabs. From the very beginning, I have said that these two (2) companies are the two (2) that should receive licenses.

Consider a vote for both companies. It will be a win for all.” Requests to Speak
Steve Baird: I’m not a Guadalupe resident but what I have to say, I think, is very valuable. I have had experience with all three (3) companies. I founded and run the Band of Brothers, a veterans’ organization, and am an advocate for what cannabis does for veterans. It’s about honor and integrity and doing what you say you’re going to do. I support both companies tonight for licenses. We denied a $10,000 donation from ‘Root 1’…something didn’t seem right, and in the end, it wasn’t right.

August 16, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 6 of 12 It’s about who’s going to benefit in the community. That’s what it’s all about. Competition breeds angst. I won’t vote against another veteran organization…taking money away…I had no desire to align with one. Maybe I’d do future endeavors with ‘The Roots’. Anything allocated to veterans would stay here.

Yes, there are ten stores under that name…there are a lot of licenses under that name that never come to fruition. What happens if they never open stores? All promises made…never happened. I’m a strong supporter of what I see out of ‘The Roots’ so far because they did commit. They’ll honor that.

So, no matter what tonight, you all win.

Marlene Escalante: We have the City Attorney, Chief of Police, City Treasurer, Mayor and Council here.

If you’re here to support a dispensary, check your clothes. It’s disrespectful to smell like cannabis. I’ve lived here in Guadalupe 62 years. I’ve heard both sides tonight. ‘Element 7’ had a good sales pitch.

You need both businesses…one (1) will fall. Promises made to contribute to the City…Police Explorers, open up a charter school, etc. Get in writing. A lot of promises have been made. You can’t make decisions with emotions…do it on facts. We know what the City needs. We all grew up here.

Jeannie Mello: This is not what I came here or intended to say but the gentleman who last spoke from ‘The Roots’…he said, “Woman led (company).” I take exception to that and want to know from him what bearing that has on anything. I was insulted by that comment. I don’t know any of the nonresidential applicants. I don’t know their business practices, their level of honesty, their morals or their concerns for the people of Guadalupe outside of the monetary gains they’ll reap from our citizens. But I do know both Lupe and Gustavo and their business practices, level of honesty, morals and their profound concern for Guadalupe. Both bring strength of character to Guadalupe that outside people can’t. I feel strongly that we should support the two (2) hometown men, Lupe and Gustavo Alvarez.

John “Junie” Sabedra: I was born and raised in the community. I heard what Ms. Mello said. I’ve known Lupe Alvarez a long time…served on the City Council with him. I also know Gustavo. I find him to be a very honest gentleman. The City should consider going with both. Both can help the City. The mayor said the City should be up to 10,000 people for businesses to come here but first thing people look for in a city is public safety…Fire and Police. If the City gets both companies, the City will get monies from both of them and the City needs that revenue…to build up the City…build up public works, recreation and build up public safety. The Council should vote for both.

Richard “Deek” Segovia: I came to reiterate that we’ve done this before. I speak for our chapter for Vietnam Veterans of America. We’ve been here since 2007…actually we came back here in 2012.

These companies should have come to meet us. I don’t know anyone from ‘The Roots’ except Gustavo. ‘Element 7’ made themselves a part of our community. They don’t know yet if they’re going to be accepted by the Council. Yet, they’re here in our baseball fields. They come to our meetings and introduce themselves and try to find out what we want. They work at our food banks. ‘The Roots’ talks about community and all that but I guess that starts after they get their application approved? I’m not sure. I’ve talked to everyone in our chapter who comes to meeting, and no one has heard of ‘The Roots’. They visited with the Cultural Center, Dunes Center, Kiwanis…I guess they thought they were very important to do that, but they didn’t come to the veterans.

Through the Veterans Administration, medical marijuana will be prescribed. Vets, ‘my age and older’, seem not to want to go to stores. They like the delivery aspect. Veterans suffering from a variety of August 16, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 7 of 12 illness find medical marijuana helpful. I was an advocate during the AIDS crisis. The only thing helping those people with their pain was marijuana. ‘Element 7’, Greg Moreno is Marine. I’m Army. It doesn’t matter. We’re veterans. He sought us out. They may have sought out the other organizations, but they included us. Our chapter wants to give our support for ‘Element 7’. It’s a gut feeling and sometimes that’s all we have to go by. The City Council already made the decision to have two (2) dispensaries. I believe ‘Root 1’ and ‘Element 7’, that I support, will make it.

Enrique Ortiz: It’s hard to come here. I’d rather be on the football field with the kids, but it’s very important to be here. Since the inception of our football league in 2005, I’ve been working with Lupe.

I trust him. He’s been there for us but also for the community. Greg Moreno calls me once a week to see what I need. I believe ‘Element 7’ will help out the community.

Alex Orozco: I’m with ‘The Roots’ dealing in operations. As for community benefits, we try to hit all aspects of the community. It’s hard to help everyone…every organization but we’re definitely open to everyone. We’re here to stay… to be part of the community. This came to be more about Lupe than ‘Element 7’ and ‘The Roots’. We have a track record that speaks for itself. This is our region. We’re ‘boots on the ground’. We don’t have multi-million-dollar finances but we’re here to stay and revitalize our communities. ‘Element 7’ had a license in Lompoc, but they didn’t open. It doesn’t make economic sense for them. Guadalupe, even a more magnified underserved community…why would it make sense for them to come here? We stand by what we say and what we’re going to do. We’re here for the long run to work with the community and the government to make sure that all of our promises are being met. If you choose “The Roots’, that will be the right decision. We’re here to serve the community. We know this isn’t a cash cow. Guadalupe isn’t going to make anyone rich. We’re here to revitalize and start somewhere…help other businesses. We’re the right operators for this town.

Slavic Popovich: I have a new business here, cabinet maker. I support ‘Element 7’. I looked at going into that location, but they got the lease first. They’re more of the company I want to put my name behind. They had spoken with me about making the cabinets for the location. With me, I experienced them reaching out to the community. For me, it’s a new company and it’s a little harder when you’re starting out but getting more support for businesses in town. That’s what I wanted to voice my opinion on tonight.

Emails received on this item:

Frances Romero – Dated 8/11/2022
Dear Mayor Julian, Mr. Bodem, Chief Cash and Mr. Sinco…I hope you are doing well & I want to say thank you for your service. Please forward this email to the remaining four Councilmembers prior to the meeting on 8/16.

While the City has made the decision to go forward with retail cannabis in hopes of generating revenue, I thought that today’s article in Noozhawk was timely, relative to the percentage of cities & counties statewide that don’t allow any type of cannabis business at 56% & that 62% of cities & counties have banned retail businesses. These percentages are incongruent with the Proposition 64 vote that allowed legalization that passed with 57.13% of the votes. Perhaps this is a result of experiences with retailers & community impacts?
August 16, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 8 of 12 https://www.noozhawk.com/article/county planning commission approves Orcutt dispensary after appeal?
At any rate, the reason for my email is in regard to the upcoming vote on Tuesday night. I’m glad to see that the City decided to redo the vote with a full Council and should consider their first vote as well due to this recent article:
“Dayspring claims he bankrolled other SLO cannabis dispensaries; companies and city push back” https://www.newtimesslo.com/sanluisobispo/dayspring
I believe that if this information had been available at the time of the first vote, that the Council would not have supported an applicant who already has a record of not being truthful with the City of San Luis Obispo. While your selected applicant denies any wrongdoing in this article, he was not under oath when talking to the press.

My request is that the Council reconsiders its first selection based on this recent first article, as there are probably more on the way. When new information surfaces, you have an obligation & a right to reconsider. I realize that the right choice is often not the easy one. There are so many positive things happening & on the horizon for the City because of your efforts, please reconsider.

Personally, I don’t think we need two (2) retailers. The decision for two (2) has been made & your best two (2) choices are on the agenda Tuesday night. I look forward to your decisions.

Warm regards, Frances
Frances Romero-Dated 8/12/2022
To: Todd Bodem, Philip Sinco, Ariston Julian, Michael Cash Good Morning All…It is hard to keep up with all the recent media. I’ve attached two more items, an article & an interview for the City Council to consider regarding the first approved license. Frances https://calcoastnews.com/2022/08/slo-county-upstarts-grab-a-slice-of-cannabis-kingpins-empire/ https://www.920kvec.com/show/dave-congalton-hometown-radio/ Lanny Ebenstein-Dated 8/15/2022
To: Todd Bodem, Philip Sinco, Chief Cash
Dear Mayor Ariston and Members of the Council…As a longtime participant in Santa Barbara County civic affairs (including in Guadalupe), this letter is to encourage you to consider a dispensary application other than the one from SLO CAL Roots. No one who has watched the process of cannabis dispensaries unfold in Santa Barbara County could be positively impressed with how most cities have approved their applications to this point. Far too often, promises have been made by applicants that have not been kept, people have been involved of whom it was said they were not involved, and August 16, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 9 of 12 expensive and time-consuming litigation and community controversy have followed. There is no reason for this to occur in Guadalupe. You have too many important issues that you are considering.

A good principle for public agencies is to avoid even the appearance of inappropriate policymaking.

The City of Guadalupe should not approve a cannabis dispensary with any applicant for whom there is a significant chance much controversy and possibly legal action would result. Thank you for your consideration and your service to the community. Sincerely, Lanny Ebenstein, Santa Barbara.

At this point, Mayor Julian said that there is a process to go through for the business permit and assume that the prior applicant that was approved to go forward for the permit will go through with it. He explained, “There were five (5) dispensaries that submitted applications. The decision was to allow two (2) dispensaries…having more is too much for our community. I looked at employment – looking at 10-12 hires. Labor market is dismal in this area, especially for the younger residents, collegeage type. Wages and benefits? Both are outstanding what they both can offer.

When we looked at the five (5) dispensaries that applied, I personally looked at where the business would be located. Where would they be located if we looked at five (5)…if we looked at three (3)? Where do we need an infrastructure or a business in town? One on the northside – one in the middle – one on the southside. What was happening with these businesses? An empty lot in that location…Basque House…Al’s Union station. My consideration for selecting an entity is this – location and then what they can do for Guadalupe. There’s one entity in the loop for a permit, ‘Root 1’.

Look at the grading system for the two. Close in percentage points. Benefits are comparable. There’s little difference in what they can offer the community. Both Alvarez brothers…wouldn’t go wrong with either company. Would be nice to have three (3) dispensaries because there’s no difference to me. I also want to give ‘hats off’ to the local veterans…Greg, Steve, Deek, and to all the other veterans here supporting the community. Thank you for your service. It’s really important to our community. Who’s coming to us in support? It’s the veterans, local businesses, the ‘Marlenes-of-the-world’ that are saying that the community of Guadalupe needs support. These two entities…whichever we choose, if we choose, will benefit us greatly.”
CM Ramirez asked, “Recently the County has moved through the Planning Commission an opportunity to provide cannabis business in Orcutt. Does that have an impact on either company getting a possible license in Orcutt?” ‘Element 7’ responded, “Orcutt could draw people from further away than coming to Guadalupe. There’s competition everywhere. Pt. Hueneme brings people from all areas of Ventura County. More competition normalizes cannabis.” CM Ramirez asked further of ‘Element 7’, “Would that impact your business plan or your license here?” ‘Element 7’ answered, “You have to have a defined audience. You can’t just sell to anyone. We find that audience…we communicate to that audience. We go for the older, conservative audience…a holistic/medicinal and wellness pool of customers. Not a lot of our competitors go for this audience.” CM Ramirez had another question relating to Orcutt. He asked, “Community benefits, great jobs, etc.

If a licensed store comes into Orcutt, will ‘Element 7’ decide to move in that direction? What about employees in Guadalupe? Will you support their moving to keep their jobs?” ‘Element 7’ said, “There would be no dip in sale. (An example was given of something similar to the Orcutt situation.) You have to have a clear point of view of what your business is…what you stand for, and you go for it.

Honestly, I would welcome competition.”
August 16, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 10 of 12 ‘The Roots’ was asked to respond to the same questions. They responded saying, “We’re familiar with Orcutt. ‘The Roots’ is one of the premier companies in Lompoc because we know how to adjust to our market. We understand our demographics. These corporate companies can’t compete with the ‘Mom & Pop’ styles in our relationships. We welcome competition. People will see lower prices in Guadalupe versus Orcutt. We have delivery service, competitive pricing. Our plan is to go after these neighboring cities regardless of competition there.” Mr. Castenada added, “Corporations come into different areas they’re not used to. They’re used to populations in the hundreds of thousands. So, when they come to smaller communities, it’s not the same connection, same feel as smaller companies. We can do it better.”
CM Ramirez asked the same question of ‘The Roots’, “If the County grants a license opportunity in Orcutt, would your workers be able to relocate to those other positions or would you let them unionize?” Mr. Castenada said, “Yes if employees want to unionize, we will be supportive of that decision. A little bit about our strategy and our vision - we want to be the premier dispensary and premier brand in the Central Coast. We’re focusing on building here…building on the Central Coast.

Part of the careers we want to create will be local and share the support to help others out in our region.” Mr. Orozco added, “Our hope is that employees don’t leave because they’ve been treated well here. We pay them wages that they deserve so they don’t leave. Talent in this industry is hard to find. But if another cannabis company offers a promotion, we totally support that. We want to create careers, not pass-through jobs.”
Hands were raised again in the audience, but Mayor Julian said he was going to keep the discussion with the Council at this point. CM Costa, Jr. asked both companies, “What if nothing changes, and the vote is still 3-1-0? Are we going to be back at it again in a month or so? We shouldn’t be here right now doing this again. Two (2) of us were gone when it was voted before. What’s to say we’re not back up here for the fourth time? Whoever is granted the second spot, how do we know you’ll continue the process to open up? What is your goal or timeline to be opened up by?” Mr. Lupe Alvarez, ‘Element 7’ said, “We submitted the application to the City already. We’ll pay for the permit. They’ll follow through on their promises. The difference between these two (2) companies is that ‘Element 7’ will perform. That’s a guarantee.”
Ms. Thuna, ‘The Roots’, said, “We’re ready to open. We’re ready tomorrow. Our community work will continue. We’ll introduce other non-profits to other funding opportunities, not just ‘The Roots’. I think that’s one of the benefits of working with a company like ours that’s established. If you ask us to come back, we will.”
Mr. Orozco, ‘The Roots’, added, “We truly believe we’re the right cannabis business for the City. We’re still going to continue to support Lupe…Gustavo, they’re not going anywhere. We’re going to do our best to continue to support neighboring cities. How fast will we go? As fast as you allow us. We have everything in place…we’ve done this already. We’re ready to go tomorrow. The reality is that it’s the government that holds us up. It’s the red tape…building, planning, time to get the reviews back. All of that is what holds us up. We have staff ready to train local hires. So, we’re ready to go as fast as you’ll let us. Nothing changes. We’re still a part of the community. Again, we want to be the premier dispensary and the community benefits part in this 805, all the way from Ventura up north to Paso Robles. We’re from here. We believe in our cities and our neighbors. We’re here to stay. Check our performance. We’re realistic what the City of Guadalupe economically will bring to ‘The Roots’. We like this and the cannabis is just a plus.”
August 16, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 11 of 12 Mr. Castenada added, “To add to that, we don’t give up. That says something about the company we are. We’re gonna go for it and give it our all, whether it’s competing with someone in Orcutt, or Lompoc, Los Alamos, Santa Ynez, we’re gonna give it our all. That’s how we were raised and that’s something we want to pass that down to everyone…our kids, our employees. We go for it, to the best of our ability.”
Mr. Steve Baird rose up wanting to speak again but Mayor Julian ended community participation and brought things back to the Council. He said, “We have three (3) options: a) select one of these applicants to move forward with the process of obtaining a CCB permit; or b) continue deliberations on these two (2) CCB permit applicants to a future meeting; or c) take no action and provide further direction to staff. What is the wish of the Council?”
Both CM Ramirez and CM Cardenas wanted to hear from the public who may want to speak further on the subject.

Marlene Escalante: regarding Orcutt, every dispensary carries different products. The customer will go to the dispensary that sells their product. (In reference to CM Costa, Jr’s comment) two council members weren’t present but there were still three (3) votes. There are a lot of products out there…butter, cookies, candy, gummies, you name it. There’s not just somebody who’ll carry a bottle of cannabis. Base your decision on facts.”
Steve Baird: as a community partner and a beneficiary of a cannabis club in Orcutt, I wanted to know if you’d like to hear from our standpoint in receiving funds from the community and what happens whether or not people are still pursuing. It was more of an opportunity to answer more of your question. CM Ramirez responded, “My question was more if people, when they commit to one community, if another company opens in a nearby community, would they stay there?” Mr. Baird said that he was going to comment on the question of ‘do people do what they say they’re going to do’.

Jeannie Mello: to CM Costa, Jr.’s question of ‘what if’…that’s a broad question. I don’t think anyone can answer that question…it’s nebulous.

With no other community participation, Mayor Julian again brought the subject back to the Council, giving the three (3) options one more time. CM Costa, Jr. said, “The two (2) companies that I voted on are not here. My fellow council members asked these two (2) companies to come back. So, we’re here for a third time. Let’s go forward with ‘Element 7’.”
Motion was made by Council Member Costa, Jr. and seconded by Council Member Robles to select BDSF 1 Holdings LLC dba Element 7 Guadalupe (“Element 7”) as the second prevailing applicant to move forward with the process of obtaining a CCB permit. Roll Call: Ayes: 4 Nos: 1, Ramirez 4-1 Motion passed.

Mayor Julian had a few parting comments, “Everything was professionally handled and presented.

Again, five (5) dispensaries applied. Now two (2) that we approved have to go through a process. If they don’t clear it, we’ll move the next one in line up. Hopefully, everybody that’s approved will move forward.”

5. ADJOURNMENT
August 16, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 12 of 12 Motion was made by Council Member Costa, Jr. and seconded by Council Member Cardenas to adjourn the meeting. 5-0 Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 7:54 p.m.

Prepared by: Approved by:
________________________________ ______________________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
Agenda Item No. 6E

Agenda Item No. 6F

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of September 13, 2022

_______________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Lorena Zarate, Finance Director Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Master Fee Schedule Annual CPI Update
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council accept the revised Master Fee Schedule provided as information only.

DISCUSSION:

In California, State law indicatesthat a city cannot charge more than the actual cost (including overhead) to provide a service. Cities must go through an analytical process to determine their actual cost for each service – for direct staff time, direct non-personnel expenses, and overhead. This analytical process was conducted in the fall of 2013 and provides a framework for the updates to the Master Fee Schedule for the subsequent years. In the December of 2021, the Master Fee Schedule was last updated. City Staff is also recommending for an outside consultant to perform a new analytical study in the near future to support any further changes.

Part 1
The first part of the Master Fee Schedule includes a calculation based on the payroll costs expected for fiscal year 2022-2023 to determine an hourly rate for billing purposes (Page A1). The employee hourly rate for billing purposes takes into account all items of direct pay and benefits based on hours worked for the year.

The first part of the Master Fee Schedule also includes the City’s overhead percentage which is currently at 35% (Page A2). This overhead percentage was not modified and is based on figures from the approved budget for fiscal year 2017-2018. This overhead percentage remains unchanged as Staff believes that an analytical study performed by an outside consultant would be necessary in order to support any modification. The overhead percentage is used when calculating “full cost recovery.” The City of Guadalupe Municipal Code section 3.32.030.B allows for fees to be adjusted annually for changes in the cost of living Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) for the United States as reported by the Department of Labor (for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim area). Guadalupe Municipal Code section 3.32.030.C. provides that this annual adjustment shall be accomplished by administrative action of the City Administrator on June 1st of each year, although the City Council may overrule or modify such administrative adjustment by Council resolution. The CPI for May 2022 was 8%, however code section

3.32.030.B includes that the fee changed per the CPI shall not exceed the change in California per-capita Lorena Zarate

income. The change in the California per-capita income was 7.55%, as such the update was done using the change in per-capita income instead of the CPI. There are also several fees that are set per state law, including subpoenas requests and public records requests.

Fees related to utilities (page A-4) are consistent with the SB998 Water Discontinuation policy effective April 2020. Fees related to water and wastewater connections (page A-5) are authorized to be adjusted annually by Guadalupe Municipal Code sections 13.04.020.C and 13.12.250.B, respectively, pursuant to the formula therein by which a multiplier is determined based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (“ENRCI”). City Staff calculated the updated fees by using the ENRCI for October 2021, which resulted in an overall increase of approximate 8% for each of these fees.

Other impact fees for park development and public facilities (page A-7) were not modified. No increases are proposed at this time for this section as further analysis is required.

Page A-10 was included in the Master Fee Schedule to list the new approved fees for short-term rentals.

Staff has increased all fees in accordance with the California per-capita income change rate and has updated the personnel hourly rates previously approved by the City Council as part of the budget. For this reason, the City Council is not required to approve these adjustments to the Master Fee Schedule and why this staff report is being presented as information only. The Council does have the authority to overrule or modify these adjustments by resolution, and if that is the desire of Council, staff will bring this item back to the Council at the next regular meeting with an appropriate resolution.

Part 2
The second part of the Master Fee Schedule includes fees for park and facility use (page B-1) that are consistent with Resolution No. 2020-21 adopted by the City Council on March 10, 2020. Recreation Services Manager will potentially be updating these fees as a regular agenda item in a future meeting for Council discussion.

Fees related to the Police Department (page B-2) were updated similarly as in Part 1, which resulted in an overall increase of approximate 7.55% for each fee. Fees related to parking violations were not modified as these are established by state law. Fees related to the Fire Department (page B-3) for inspections were not modified at this time as further analysis is required.

City Staff calculated the updated fees in remaining sections in this part of the Master Fee Schedule similarly as in Part 1, which resulted in an overall increase of approximate 7.55% for each fee.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed modifications to the Master Fee Schedule reflect an approximate increase of 7.55% in fees charged by the City. This increase in revenue is not currently reflected in the approved budget for fiscal year 2022-2023, for conservatism. The increase in fee revenue will help generate more revenue for the General Fund and enterprise funds.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Master Fee Schedule

2. Consumer Price Index Pacific Cities and U.S. May 2022

3. California Per Capita Income Change Rate

CITY OF GUADALUPE
2022/2023

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Guadalupe
Master Fee Schedule
Table of Contents
Section Description
Part 1 A1 Personnel Rates at Full Cost Recovery
A2 Overhead Calculation
A3 Administrative & Miscellaneous
A3 Subpoenas per State Law
A3 Public Records Request
A4 Utility Fees
A5 Water & Wastewater Connections
A6 Special Water Connection Fees
A7 Other Impact Fees
A8 Business Tax, Licenses,Permits
A9 Code Compliance & Collections
A10 Short Term Rentals
Part 2 B1 Park & Facility Use & Special Events
B2 Police Department
B3 Fire Department
B4 Planning Department
B5 Encroachment Permits & Public Improvements
B6 Miscellaneous Building Permit Fees
B7 Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing
B8 Fire Sprinkler, Alarm & Suppression Systems
B9 New Construction ‐ Plan Check Fees
B10 New Construction ‐ Inspection Fees
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 1 A-1
Hourly Personnel Rates 2022/23
Annual Comp Annual Holiday/ Vacation/ Hours Hourly Overtime SEIU (Incl Benefits) Hours Sick Leave Worked Rate Rate
Street Worker $88,279 2,080 208 80 1,792 $49.26 $43.00
Street Worker Lead $87,083 2,080 208 80 1,792 $48.60 $54.36 Street Worker $175,362 4,160 416 160 3,584 $48.93 $48.68 eng technician $92,292 2,080 208 80 1,792 $51.50 $56.23 Maintenance $62,013 4,160 208 80 3,872 $16.02 $39.18
Maint. Lead $75,530 2,080 208 80 1,792 $42.15 $51.97
Facilities Coordinator $24,361 1,040 104 40 896 $27.19 $39.99 Building Attendant $6,422 390 96 0 294 $21.84 $32.13
Admin. Asst. $149,318 2,080 208 80 1,792 $83.32 $76.32
Permit Technician $128,557 2,080 208 80 1,792 $71.74 $64.97 Business Manager $164,549 2,080 208 80 1,792 $91.82 $82.49 Acct. Clerk $107,864 2,080 208 80 1,792 $60.19 $54.79
Acct. Clerk $118,768 2,080 208 80 1,792 $66.28 $61.87
Water Dept. Super. $167,003 2,080 208 80 1,792 $93.19 $76.96 Water Maint Operator $108,861 2,080 208 80 1,792 $60.75 $50.07 WWTP Super. $128,314 2,080 208 80 1,792 $71.60 $69.81
OIT $61,863 2,080 208 80 1,792 $34.52 $37.49
WWTP Operator $99,244 2,080 208 80 1,792 $55.38 $56.85
Annual Comp Annual Holiday/ Vacation/ Hours Hourly Overtime POA (Incl Benefits) Hours Sick Leave Worked Rate Rate
Sergeant $0.00
Sergeant $182,291 2,224 116 80 2,028 $89.90 $76.08
Sergeant $182,291 2,224 116 80 2,028 $89.90 $76.08
Police Officer $0 2,224 116 80 2,028 $0.00 $0.00
Police Officer $161,579 2,224 116 80 2,028 $79.68 $68.77 Police Officer $129,978 2,224 116 80 2,028 $64.10 $58.23 Police Officer $132,216 2,224 116 80 2,028 $65.20 $60.89 Police Officer $142,787 2,224 116 80 2,028 $70.42 $64.98 Police Officer $143,730 2,224 116 80 2,028 $70.88 $65.50 Police Officer $129,635 2,224 116 80 2,028 $63.93 $59.17 Police Officer $128,850 2,224 116 80 2,028 $63.54 $57.99 Police Officer $144,031 2,224 116 80 2,028 $71.03 $60.40 Police Officer ‐ airport $154,691 2,224 116 81 2,027 $76.32 $68.22 Police Officer ‐ airport $154,632 2,224 116 82 2,026 $76.33 $68.77 Police Officer $1,422,128 24,462 1,276 883 22,303 $63.77 $57.54 PD Manager $133,098 2,080 200 80 1,800 $73.94 $69.97
Records Technician $115,143 2,080 200 80 1,800 $63.97 $57.93 Code Compliance $116,237 2,080 208 80 1,792 $64.86 $49.72 emergency preparedness $0 2,080 200 80 1,800 $0.00 $0.00 Annual Comp Annual Vacation/ Hours Hourly Overtime
Fire Dept. (Incl Benefits) Hours Sick Leave Worked Rate Rate Fire Captain A $196,703 2,974 96 80 2,798 $70.29 $55.19 Fire Captain B $176,196 2,974 96 80 2,798 $62.96 $52.56 Fire Captain C $164,915 2,974 96 80 2,798 $58.93 $52.56 Fire Captain $537,814 8,923 288 240 8,395 $64.06 $53.44 Fire Engineer A $129,901 2,974 96 80 2,798 $46.42 $41.55 Fire Engineer B $128,683 2,974 96 80 2,798 $45.98 $39.90 Fire Engineer C $136,516 2,974 96 80 2,798 $48.78 $41.55 Fire Engineer $395,100 8,923 288 240 8,395 $47.06 $41.00

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 1 A-1
Hourly Personnel Rates 2022/23
Annual Comp Annual Holiday/ Vacation/ Hours Hourly Overtime Other Employees (Incl Benefits) Hours Sick* Leave Worked Rate Rate City Administrator $201,252 2,080 208 160 1,712 $117.55 NA Finance Director $165,396 2,080 208 160 1,712 $96.61 NA Public Safety Director $207,458 2,080 208 160 1,712 $121.18 NA Lieutenant $241,787 2,080 96 160 1,824 $132.56 NA
HR Manager $127,056 2,080 208 160 1,712 $74.21 NA
PW Utility/Engineer $244,498 2,080 208 160 1,712 $142.81 NA Parks & Rec. Manager $94,205 2,080 208 160 1,712 $55.03 NA Planner $80.00
Sr. Planner $120.00
Building Inspector $45.00
Plan Checker $75.00
City Attorney $175.00
Current
Contract Note:

Rate Employer retirement costs for Classic employees differ from PEPRA employees, Classic incl unfunded liability
Other persons or entities
Employee & Contractor
rates shown do not include
35%  City overhead
Indep. Contractor Hourly Rates

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 1 A-2
General Fund -- Expenditures 2017/18
NonBudget Capital Other Fin Personnel Personnel
City Council $11,282 Overhead $10,207 $1,075
Administration $311,524 Overhead $299,834 $11,690
City Attorney $120,000 Overhead $120,000 $0 *
Finance $505,738 Overhead $471,208 $34,530
Building Maintenance $97,890 Overhead $6,750 $27,650 $63,490 Non-departmental $128,390 Overhead $0 $128,390
Police (includes PS Funds) $1,895,634 Service $10,000 $37,150 $1,615,234 $233,250 Fire (includes PS Fund) $604,832 Service $14,000 $496,131 $94,701 Permits $273,935 Service $268,535 $5,400 *
GeneralStreet Improvements $32,200 Service $32,200 $0 $0 $0 Parks $135,503 Service $6,500 $60,546 $68,457
"General Fund" $4,116,928 $48,950 $57,650 $3,369,345 $640,983 $0 Capital Other Fin Transfers
Road Funds $1,505,027 $978,000 $50,000 $196,216 $185,211 * $95,600 Water Operating $1,941,773 $34,000 $76,000 $300,889 $1,250,284 $280,600 Water Capital $850,000 $850,000 $0 $0 $0
Water -- Total $2,791,773 $884,000 $76,000 $300,889 $1,250,284 $280,600 Wastewater Operating $1,061,003 $74,000 $368,420 $424,083 $194,500 Wastewater Capital $300,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
WWTP Feas/Public Fac. $0 0 $0 $0 $0
Wastewater -- Total $1,361,003 $300,000 $74,000 $368,420 $424,083 $194,500 Sewer Bond Fund $16,850 $16,850 $0
Solid Waste $0 $0 $0
Transit $483,256 $0 $448,256 $35,000
CDBG $2,250 $0 $0 $2,250
Capital Facilities Fund $18,000 $0 $18,000
Library Fund $8,333 $0 $8,333
Public Facilities Fund $4,000 $0 $4,000
Park Development Fund $1,200 $0 $1,200
Lighting District $67,081 $0 $59,481 $7,600
Lighting & Landscaping $20,826 $0 $18,526 $2,300
Total -- City $10,396,527 $0 $2,210,950 $274,500 $4,234,870 $3,058,357 $617,850 Successor Agency $666,105 $417,105 $0 $159,000 $90,000
* Includes Contract Employees in Personnel
Cost Type Direct Overhead %
Service Personnel $2,440,446
Service Non-Pers. $401,808
Overhead Dept's $1,168,074
Interfund Transfers ($707,850) OH
Total $2,440,446 $862,032 35% Direct
Overhead Calculation
City Council ‐‐ 08/08/17 Page 3 Resolution No . 2017-48 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 1 A-3
Increase
Copy cost, Black & White (per document)
8‐1/2" X 11"
First page $1.22 $0.09
Each additional page $0.16 $0.01
8‐1/2" X 14"
First page $1.26 $0.09
Each additional page $0.19 $0.01
11" X 17"
First page $1.30 $0.09
Each additional page $0.21 $0.01
Copy cost, Color (per document)
8‐1/2" X 11"
First page $1.35 $0.09
Each additional page $0.29 $0.02
8‐1/2" X 14"
First page $1.37 $0.10
Each additional page $0.31 $0.02
11" X 17"
First page $1.43 $0.10
Each additional page $0.35 $0.02
Large Format copies
Larger than 11" x 17"
Black & White or Color
Electronic copies:  Fax or scan (per document)
First page $1.19 $0.08
Each additional page $0.12 $0.01
Electronic media (per VHS, casette, DVD, or CD)
VHS videotape $16.81 $1.18
Cassette audiotape $13.57 $0.95
DVD or CD $12.92 $0.91
Certification of true copy (per document) $14.22 $1.00
plus research time if greather than 5 minutes $5.00
Mail documents (first class mail)
Min. charge per mailing (one document, 2 oz. postage) $7.56 $0.53 Each additional ounce of postage $0.26 $0.02
Each additional document $1.18 $0.08
plus copy costs above
Mail documents (express delivery) $11.90 $0.84
Per package
E‐mail documents
First file $3.57 $0.25
Each additional file $0.59 $0.04
plus scanning costs above
Any requested service not covered by Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual cost at full cost recovery.

Full cost recovery = direct cost (personnel time & materials) + 35% overhead 1 of 2 Administrative & Miscellaneous
$1.13
$0.15
$1.17
$0.18
Current Fee
Plus cost of delivery service
Full cost recovery ‐‐
Internal & external costs
Proposed Fee
$1.26
$0.27
$0.55
$1.10
$0.11
$1.21
$0.20
$1.33
$0.32
$3.32
$12.01
$1.28
$11.06
$0.29
$15.63
$66/hour
$7.03
$0.24
$1.10
$12.62
$13.22
(requires use of outside service)
$71/hour
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 1 A-3
Increase
Returned check fee ‐‐ per CA Civil Code Section 1719(a)(2) First time $25 $0
Each additional time $35 $0
Replacement check (original check 1 year old or less) $0.52 $0.04 plus research time if original check is older than 1 year $8.38 Any requested service not covered by Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual cost at full cost recovery.

Full cost recovery = direct cost (personnel time & materials) + 35% overhead 2 of 2
$120/hour
$0.48
$111.00
$25
$35
($10 minimum)
Proposed Fee
Late payment fee 10% of balance due
Administrative & Miscellaneous Current Fee
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 1 A-3
Copy cost, Black & White (per document)
8‐1/2" X 11"
First page
Each additional page
8‐1/2" X 14"
First page
Each additional page
11" X 17"
First page
Each additional page
Copy cost, Color (per document)
8‐1/2" X 11"
First page
Each additional page
8‐1/2" X 14"
First page
Each additional page
11" X 17"
First page
Each additional page
Large Format copies
Larger than 11" x 17"
Black & White or Color
Electronic media (per VHS, casette, DVD, or CD)
VHS videotape
Cassette audiotape
DVD or CD
Electronic copies: Fax/scan/e‐mail
Mail documents (first class mail)
Per package
Mail documents (express delivery)
Per package
Subpoenas (per State Law) Fee
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.20
$0.20
$0.20
$0.10
$0.15
$0.15
$0.20
$0.20
$0.20
California State Evidence Code Section 1563 rates apply.

As of January 1, 2017
Labor Cost to locate records $24/hour
For all other requests, use Administrative & Miscellaneous Chart plus cost of media
Labor @ $24/hour
Cost of
outside service
Labor @ $24/hour
plus cost of media
These rates only apply to subpoena requests.

Labor @ $24/hour
plus cost of media
$3.00
$1.00
$0.60
Labor @ $24/hour
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 1 A-3
Copy cost, Black & White (per document)
8‐1/2" X 11"
First page
Each additional page
8‐1/2" X 14"
First page
Each additional page
11" X 17"
First page
Each additional page
Copy cost, Color (per document)
8‐1/2" X 11"
First page
Each additional page
8‐1/2" X 14"
First page
Each additional page
11" X 17"
First page
Each additional page
Large Format copies
Larger than 11" x 17"
Black & White or Color
Electronic media (per VHS, casette, DVD, or CD)
VHS videotape
Cassette audiotape
DVD or CD
Electronic copies: Fax/scan/e‐mail
First page
Each additional page
Mail documents (first class mail)
Per package
Mail documents (express delivery)
Per package
E‐mail documents
First file
Each additional file
Public Records Requests (per State law) Fee
$0.05
Cost of
$0.05
$0.07
$0.07
$0.10
$0.10
$0.15
$0.15
$0.17
$0.17
$0.20
$0.20
Cost of
Free
outside service
$8.00
$6.00
$5.60
Free
Cost of
postage
postage
These rates only apply to Public Records requests.

For all other requests, use Administrative & Miscellaneous Chart Free
Free
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 1 A-4
Increase
Account set‐up (includes temporary service) $5
plus deposit $4‐$10
Account name change $1
Transfer service $4
(After 15 days per Muni Code. 13.12.290
Returned check fee ‐‐ per CA Civil Code Section 1719(a)(2) First time $0
Each additional time $0
Reconnect Fee tied to non‐payment of bill*
During regular work day $0
After hours, weekends, holidays $0
Alternative Payment Schedule Fee $0
Check Re‐Clear Fee
Per check $1
Emergency turn‐on/turn‐off (not tied to non‐payment of bill) During regular work day $4
After hours, weekends, holidays $13
Problem report (No charge if actual problem) $4
Pull meter (No charge if actual problem with meter) $5
Pull and test meter (No charge if actual problem with meter) $9 Broken lock (may involve tampering) $7
plus citation & fine (if applicable)
Broken valve (may involve tampering) $8
plus citation & fine (if applicable)
Broken meter (may involve tampering) $20
plus citation & fine (if applicable)
Hydrant Meter $9
plus deposit (cost of meter) $51
plus basic per month fee (0‐6 units) $10
plus water used (7 or more units)
Water Meter
Event water service (City parking lot)* $2
plus deposit $9
plus water used
* Fee charged is less than full cost recovery.

Any requested service not covered by Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual cost at full cost recovery.

Full cost recovery = direct cost (personnel time & materials) + 35% overhead Fines per Municipal Code 1.08.020 Fines, if any,
1st violation: Up to $100 per offense per day will appear 2nd violation: Up to $200 per offense per day on Utility bill. 3rd violation: Up to $500 per offense per day
$10 Processing Fee $0
$675
$25
$35
$13
$54
$114
$72
$125
$87
$108
$264
See below
See below
$10 Processing Fee
Varies
$30
$135
Varies
$20
Full Cost Recovery
See below
Varies
See below
See below
$726
Varies
$33
$284
$145
$122
Full Cost Recovery
$54 ‐ $121
$129
$50
$150
$58
$189
$58
$77
$134
$93
$14
$25
$35
$58
$120
$20
Utility Fees Current Fee Proposed Fee
$116
See below
$50
$150
$54
$175
Past Due Fee
$64
$58 ‐ $131
$18 $19
$54
$60
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 1 A-5
Increase
Water Connections ‐‐ Res. & Non‐Res.

0.75" meter $233

1.0" meter $262

1.5" meter $349

2.0" meter $699

3.0" meter $932

4.0" meter $1,301

6.0" meter $2,271

8.0" meter $3,145
Single Family (per unit) $350
Multi‐Family (per unit) $233
Hotel
Base plus $350
Per Room $194
Wastewater Connections ‐‐ Non‐Residential

0.75" water meter $349

1.0" water meter $393

1.5" water meter $524

2.0" water meter $1,048

3.0" water meter $1,385

4.0" water meter $2,007

6.0" water meter $3,407

8.0" water meter $4,717
* Water connection charges are set following the provisions of Municipal Code 13.04.020.C Wastewater connection charges are set following the provisions of Municipal Code 13.12.250.B These code sections established charges in January, 1994 and allowed for annual increments based on the Engineering News Construction Cost Index.

The New Fees above use the 2021 October Engineering Construction Cost Index Water & Wastewater Connections* Current Fee Proposed Fee $4,359
$2,905
$30,603
$42,376
$3,138
$3,531
$4,709
$9,415
$12,555
$17,527
$4,359
$8,717
$11,623
$16,226
Wastewater Connections ‐‐ Residential
$2,905
$3,269
$58,841
$4,359
$28,332
$39,231
$18,658
$27,046
$45,903
$6,537
$4,359
$4,905
$13,076
the cost of installing the water or wastewater connection. $4,709
$3,138
$4,709
$2,615
$17,273
$25,039
$42,497
$63,558
$4,709
$5,298
$7,061
$14,124
Amounts shown represent the fee for connecting to City utilities, not $2,421
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 1 A-6
Increase
Water Connections where no meter required ‐‐ 13.04.020.C Single family residence $233 Uses 0.75" rate
Duplex $233 Uses 0.75" rate
Three family dwelling or apartment $262 Uses 1.0" rate
Each aparment in excess of three, add $86 33% of 1.0" rate Business establishment (5,000 sq. ft. or less) $262 Uses 1.0" rate Business establishment (5,001 sq. ft. or more)
Note:  City's standard practice is to require a meter
for all connections.

Water Connections outside City limits ‐‐ 13.04.050
Per lot Varies
Annexation required NA
Developer pays cost of extension of water main NA
* Replaces by Resolution fees formerly set by Ordinance.

Special Water Connection Fees* Current Fee Proposed Fee $2,905 $3,138
$3,269 $3,531
Use meter size for
$2,905 $3,138
$3,269 $3,531
$1,079 $1,165
Use meter size for
comparable business
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
per City's regular
Connection Fee table
Per Development Per Development
Agreement or
comparable business
Agreement or
per City's regular
Connection Fee table
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 1 A-7
Increase
Park Development Fee (3.28.060)
Each residential dwelling unit $0
(includes homes, apartments, & condos)
Hotels & motels
Per unit (including manager's quarters) $0
Industrial buildings
per square foot of floor area $0
All other uses (includes retail, commercial, service)
per square foot of floor area $0
Annexation fee (per acre or portion thereof) $0
Subdivision fee (per subdivided lot) $0
Building fee (per square foot of floor area) $0
$75
Other Impact Fees Current Fee Proposed Fee
$150 $150
Specific fees in this table were in the Municipal Code.

Same fee is now being established by Resolution.

Agreement or
Per Development
Further financial analysis must take place before City can increase these fees.

Public Facilities Fee (13.16.040)
$800 $800
$300 $300
$0.10
$0.10 $0.10
$75
$0.10 $0.10
$0.10
Per Development
Agreement or
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 1 A-8
Increase
See Municipal Code 5.04 for Business License Fees
255.674
Special Fees set elsewhere in the Municipal Code
Astrology and Fortune Telling Permit ‐‐ 5.16.030 $1
Auctioneer's Permit ‐‐ 5.16.030 $9
Permit for Jewelry Sales at Public Auction ‐‐ 5.20.140 , 5.20.170, & 5.20.200 Fee (first 30 days) $9
Each additional 30 days $5
Investigation of applicant
Deposit $23
Bingo Permits (non‐profit organizations) ‐‐ 5.24.030
One day $2
Annual $23
Annual renewal $23
Cable Television Application Fee ‐‐ 5.28.030.A.6
To cover cost of City staff review
Cardroom Work Permit (each person)‐‐ 5.32.080.E $18
Business permit = $500/business + $200/table (5.32.050) Coin‐Operated Machine Permits ‐‐ 5.36.030
Mechanical music machine (per quarter) $2
Game machine (per quarter) $5
Vending machine (per quarter) $1
Public Dance Permit ‐‐ 5.40.060.A
Per public dance $2
Maximum fee per location per year $18
Farmers Market Permit ‐‐ 5.51.090 $11
* Replaces by Resolution fees formerly set by Ordinance.

Any requested service not covered by Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual cost at full cost recovery.

Full cost recovery = direct cost (personnel time & materials) + 35% overhead Special Fees Related to Business Taxes, Licenses, and
Regulations (Title 5 of Muni. Code)* Current Fee Proposed Fee Full cost recovery
$120 $129
$18
$129
$19
$120
$60 $65
$30 $32
Full Cost Recovery
$300 $323
$32
$300 $323
$300 $323
Full cost recovery Full cost recovery
(Deposit of $2,500)
$241 $259
$144 $155
(Deposit of $2,500)
$60
$12
$65
$13
$30 $32
$241 $259
$30
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 1 A-9
Code Compliance Efforts ‐‐ Hourly personnel rate
Collection Efforts ‐‐ Hourly personnel rate
Stage 1 ‐ Internal Compliance Proceeding
Stage 2 ‐ Hearing /Court Proceeding
Late payment fee
Citation & Fines may apply:
1st violation:
2nd violation:
3rd violation:
*Full cost recovery = direct cost (personnel time & materials) + 35% overhead See Schedule of Hourly Personnel Rates for current personnel time costs Includes City employees & independent contractors
Up to $500 per offense per day
Code Compliance &  Collections
Up to $100 per offense per day
Fines per Municipal Code 1.08.020
Full cost recovery*
10% of balance due
($10 minimum)
Current Fee
Full cost recovery*
Full cost recovery*
Full cost recovery*
Up to $200 per offense per day
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 1 A-10
Initial Registration Fee
Annual Renewal Fee
Administrative Use Permit Application
see Ordinance No. 2021‐497 for Short Term Rentals, approved Aug. 12, 2022.

Short Term Rentals Current Fee
$180
$180
$394
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 2 B - 1
Current Fee

CITY AUDITORIUM/GYMNASIUM
Reservation Deposit (Non‐Refundable) $100
Kitchen Use (Non‐Refundable) $100
Cleaning Deposit (Refundable; See Cancellation Schedule) $500 Rental Fees (see Refundable/Cancellation Schedule)
Resident (per hour) $90
Non‐Resident (per hour) $110
City Approved local non‐profits/schools/other approved
fraternal/social organizations* (flat fee) $50
City Approved business/events Free

SENIOR CENTER
Reservation Deposit (Non‐Refundable) $50
Kitchen Use (Non‐Refundable) $50
Cleaning Deposit (Refundable; See Cancellation Schedule) $200 Rental Fees Room 1 (see Refundable/Cancellation Schedule) Resident (per hour) $30
Non‐Resident (per hour) $40
City Approved local non‐profits/schools/other approved
fraternal/social organizations* (flat fee) $50
Rental Fees Rooms 2 & 3 (see Refundable/Cancellation Schedule) $25 City Approved/designated Non‐profits Rooms 2 & 3 $20
City Approved business/events Free

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Reservation Deposit (Non‐Refundable) $50
Cleaning Deposit (See Refundable/Cancellation Schedule) $100 Rental Fees  (see Refundable/Cancellation Schedule)
Resident (per hour) $30
Half Chamber $20
Non‐Resident (per hour) $40
Half Chamber $30
City Approved local non‐profits/schools/other approved
fraternal/social organizations* (flat fee) $40
Half Chamber $25
City Approved business/events Free

O'CONNELL & LEROY PARKS
Reservation Deposit (Non‐Refundable) $60
Cleaning Deposit (See Refundable/Cancellation Schedule) $100 Rental Fees (see Refundable/Cancellation Schedule)
Resident (per hour) $40
Non‐Resident (per hour) $50
City Approved local non‐profits/schools/other approved
fraternal/social organizations* (flat fee) $30
City Approved business/events Free
DOWNTOWN CITY PARKING LOT**
One‐Time User Fee (Non‐Refundable) $60
Cleaning Deposit (Non‐Refundable) $50
Cleaning Deposit (See Refundable/Cancellation Schedule) $50

SPECIAL EVENTS
Mexican Independence Day Parade & Fiesta Full Cost Recovery for City overtime Christmas Parade and all City out‐of pocket costs.

Guadalupe PD/Lions Club Trunk or Treat No charge for staff assistance Other Events Approved by Council during regular work week. *Unless another fee agreement is negotiated and approved by the City Council. See list of approved non‐profits **Only available for special events authorized by City Council.

Full cost recovery = direct cost (personnel time & materials) + 35% overhead.

Park & Facility Use + Special Events
Any requested service not covered by Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual cost at full cost recovery.

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 2 B - 2
Proposed Fee Increase
Live Scan (does not include DOJ or FBI fees) $30 $2
Copies of Reports:

Minimum fee below plus copy costs from Administrative Services page:

Crime & Traffic Accident Reports $19 $1
Administrative Reports/Policies & Archival Search $25 $2 plus research time if greater than 10 minutes (per hour) $70 $5 Copies of Photographs:

Each Photograph $19 $1
Copies of Video Recordings $33 $2
Vehicle Repossession Release Fee $18 $1
VIN Verification $25 $2
Citation Sign‐Off $25 $2
Visa Clearance $33 $2
Business Solicitation License (plus state fees) $45 $3
Bicycle License (3 years) $6 $0
Public Address System on Motorized Vehicle (8.32.030) (per day) $64 $5 Loud Parties (Second Response) $90 $6
False Security Alarm $90 $6
Traffic Collision on Private Property (non DUI) $116 $8 DUI Cost Recovery (includes Lab fee) Full cost recovery Concealed Weapon Permit (does not include State fees) PC 26190 $120 $8 Concealed Weapon Renewal $32 $2
Any requested service not covered by Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual cost at full cost recovery.

Full cost recovery = direct cost (personnel time & materials) + 35% overhead 1 of 3
$30
$24
$42
$60
$84
$112
Guadalupe St. only
$108
$24
Guadalupe St. only
$18
$24
Full cost recovery
$6
$84
Police Department
$30
$17
Current Fee
$18
$65
$28
$30
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 2 B - 2
Proposed Fee Increase
48‐Hr. Parking Permit ‐‐ Large vehicles/RV's  (10.214.200) $32 $2 Parking Tickets (includes $12.50 County surcharge): Violation Code No Parking Violation (4‐6 am) $52.50 $0 10.24.070 GMC
Prohibited Truck or Trailer $52.50 $0 10.24.072 GMC
Green Zone Violation $52.50 $0 10.24.090 GMC
Red Zone Violation $52.50 $0 10.24.100 GMC
Yellow Zone Violation $52.50 $0 10.24.110 GMC
Repair of Vehicle in Road / Street Damage $52.50 $0 10.24.180 GMC Not in Assigned Stall $52.50 $0 10.28.050 GMC
Excess 72‐Hour Parking $52.50 $0 10.32.010 GMC
Basketball Hoop in Street $52.50 $0 10.48.050 GMC
Length Limit Violation $52.50 $0 10.55.040 GMC
No Valid License Tabs Visible $52.50 $0 5204 CVC
Safety Zone Violation $52.50 $0 22500 A-K CVC
18" Parking from Curb / Wrong Way Parking Violation $52.50 $0 22502 CVC Handicapped Parking Violation $339 $24 22507.8 CVC
Fire Hydrant Violation $52.50 $0 22514 CVC
Parking Fine Late Fees:

Fines less than/equal to $100
15 to 30 days (10.24.140.C) $13 $1
31 to 40 days (10.24.140.D) $45 $3
After 40 days ‐‐ includes DMV notice (10.24.140.D) $77 $5 Fines over $100
15 to 30 days (10.24.140.C) $26 $2
31 to 40 days (10.24.140.D) $72 $5
After 40 days ‐‐ includes DMV notice (10.24.140.D) $116 $8 Tow and Store Abandoned Vehicles $122 $9
plus Impound Daily Rate per Impound Yard
Any requested service not covered by Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual cost at full cost recovery.

Full cost recovery = direct cost (personnel time & materials) + 35% overhead 2 of 3
$52.50
$52.50
$30
$12
$42
$72
$113
$52.50
$52.50
$52.50
Police Department Current Fee
$52.50
$52.50
$24
$52.50
$52.50
$52.50
$52.50
$66
$108
$315.00
$52.50
per Impound Yard
$52.50
$52.50
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 2 B - 2
Proposed Fee Increase
Special Business Licenses
Full Cost Recovery
Minimum Fee
ABC license $310 $22
Adult business (book store, massage parlor, etc.) $310 $22 Gun dealer $310 $22
Pool hall/Card room $310 $22
Taxi cab $310 $22
Astrologer/Fortune Teller/etc. $155 $11
Arcades $155 $11
Auctioneer (including Jewelry sales) $155 $11
Second hand store/Pawn broker $155 $11
Filming Permit $604 $42
Catering Permit $122 $9
Baricades/Cones $181 $13
Staff Costs Full Cost Recovery
Street Closures
Special Events approved by Council, see Parks & Recreation page Multi‐Block Events Requiring Traffic Control
Pre‐Planning $587 $41
City processing of CalTrans Permit (Rt. 1 and/or Rt. 166) $271 $19 Street Closure Noticing & Advance Preparation (PWKS) $297 $21 Day‐Of Event ‐‐ from set up to take down
Each Street Worker (2 minimum) (per hour) $49 $3
Each Police Officer (2 minimum) (per hour) $71 $5
Additional personnel as needed Full cost recovery
Single Block Events Not Requiring Traffic Control
Permit Fee (includes Use of of Barricades) $136 $10
Construction Traffic Control
Pre‐Planning $71 $5
Each Police Officer (per hour) $71 $5
Additional personnel as needed Full cost recovery
Film shoots, Security Detail Full cost recovery
Any requested service not covered by Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual cost at full cost recovery.

Full cost recovery = direct cost (personnel time & materials) + 35% overhead 3 of 3
Full Cost Recovery
$288
$144
$288
$288
$288
$126
Police Department Current Fee
$288
$168
$144
$144
$144
$113
$562
Full cost recovery
Full cost recovery
$46
$66
$546
$252
$276
$66
$66
Full cost recovery
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 2 B - 3
Current Fee Proposed Fee Increase
Fire & Life Safety Annual Inspections:

School $238 $238 $0
Doctor's office/clinic $119 $119 $0
Hotel/Motel/Bed‐and‐Breakfast
10 or less rooms $119 $119 $0
11 to 25 rooms $159 $159 $0
26 to 50 rooms $238 $238 $0
51 to 75 rooms $397 $397 $0
76 to 100 rooms $518 $518 $0
Every 50 rooms or fraction thereof above 100 rooms $173 $173 $0 Multi‐Family
10 or less units $119 $119 $0
11 to 25 units $159 $159 $0
26 to 50 units $238 $238 $0
51 to 75 units $397 $397 $0
76 to 100 units $518 $518 $0
Every 50 units or fraction thereof above 100 rooms $173 $173 $0 Campground/RV Park (8.36.030)
20 or less campsites ‐ Intial Inspection $79 $79 $0
21 or more campsites $119 $119 $0
Home health or child care facility
8 or less occupants $79 $79 $0
9 ‐ 15 occupants $119 $119 $0
Assembly Hall $119 $119 $0
Business
Up to 2,500 sq. ft. $32 $32 $0
2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $60 $60 $0
5,001 to 20,000 sq. ft. $119 $119 $0
20,001 to 50,000 sq. ft. $238 $238 $0
50,001 sq ft or more $397 $397 $0
Every 25,000 sq. ft. or fraction thereof above 50,001sq.ft. $138 $138 $0 Commercial Stove Hood $79 $79 $0
Fireworks Stand $79 $79 $0
Residential Fire and Life Safety Awareness Inspection Free Free $0 Code Enforcement:

First & second notice $0 $0 $0
Each additional notice $79 $79 $0
Weed Abatement Full cost recovery Full cost recovery $0 Haz Mat Clean‐up Full cost recovery Full cost recovery $0 False Alarm (907.10.1)
First or second false alarm during calendar year $0 $0 $0 Each additional false alarm during calendar year $329 $329 $0 Emergency Response due to criminal activity or negligence Full cost recovery Full cost recovery Includes up to 1 hour of emergency response time.

Each additional hour or fraction thereof of response time $150 $150 $0 Incident Reports
Each report $19 $19 $0
Each photograph $18 $18 $0
Required Construction Permits (105.7.1‐105.7.18)
Automatic fire‐extinguishing systems $120 $120
Battery systems Full cost recovery Full cost recovery
Compressed gases Full cost recovery Full cost recovery
Cryogenic fluids Full cost recovery Full cost recovery
Fire Department
Plus copy costs (see Admin. Services fee schedule)
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 2 B - 3
Fire Department Current Fee Proposed Fee Increase
Emergency responder radio coverage system Full cost recovery Full cost recovery Fire alarm and detection systems and related equipment $120 $120 Fire pumps and related equipment Full cost recovery Full cost recovery Flammable and combustible liquids $120 $120
Gates and barricade’s across fire apparatus access roads $120 $120 Hazardous materials Full cost recovery Full cost recovery Industrial ovens Full cost recovery Full cost recovery
LP‐gas $120 $120
Private fire hydrants $120 $120
Smoke control or smoke exhaust systems Full cost recovery Full cost recovery Solar photovoltaic power systems $120 $120
Spraying or dipping Full cost recovery Full cost recovery Standpipe systems $120 $120
Temporary membrane structures and tents $120 $120
Note: Costs above do not include repeat follow‐up visits due to uncompleted work by property owner or tenant.  Those visits will be billed at full cost recovery.  Minimum charge = $60.

First‐time inspections for new businesses and/or buildings will be charged at full cost recovery.

Minimum charge = $60.

Any requested service not covered by Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual cost at full cost recovery.

Full cost recovery = direct cost (personnel time & materials) + 35% overhead MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 2 B - 4
Increase
Environmental Clearance Review ‐ Minor ) Deposit $500 Deposit $500 $0 Environmental Clearance Review ‐ Major )   by determination of Planner Deposit $1,000 Deposit $1,000 $0 Negative Declaration ‐ Simple Deposit $1,500 Deposit $1,500 $0 Negative Declaration ‐ Complex (Mitigated Negative Declaration) Deposit $3,500 Deposit $3,500 $0 EIR Addendum Deposit $7,500 Deposit $7,500 $0
EIR or Supplemental EIR Deposit $25,000 Deposit $25,000 $0 Certificate of Compliance Deposit $750 Deposit $750 $0
Mitigation Monitoring Deposit $1,250 Deposit $1,250 $0
Zoning Clearance ‐ change in use only Fee $180 Fee $194 $14 Zoning Clearance ‐ home business application Fee $180 Fee $194 $14 Zoning Clearance ‐ new single family residential Fee $298 Fee $320 $22 Zoning Clearance ‐ new multi‐family residential or commercial Fee $478 Fee $514 $36 Additional Reviews for All Zoning Clearances are billable at full cost recovery Lot Line Adjustment Deposit $1,500 Deposit $1,500 $0
Lot Merger Deposit $750 Deposit $750 $0
CUP/DRP ‐ home occupation permit Fee $298 Fee $320 $22
CUP/DRP ‐ minor ) Deposit $1,500 Deposit $1,500 $0
CUP/DRP ‐ major )   by determination of Planner Deposit $3,500 Deposit $3,500 $0 Temporary Use Permit Deposit $500 Deposit $500 $0
Variance Deposit $1,500 Deposit $1,500 $0
Pre‐Application Review ‐ minor ) Fee $394 Fee $424 $30
Pre‐Application Review ‐ major )   by determination of Planner Deposit $2,500 Deposit $2,500 $0 Zoning Code Text Amendment Deposit $2,500 Deposit $2,500 $0 Zone Code Change ‐ minor ) Deposit $5,000 Deposit $5,000 $0 Zone Code Change ‐ major )   by determination of Planner Deposit $7,500 Deposit $7,500 $0 Planned Development ‐ minor ) Deposit $3,000 Deposit $3,000 $0 Planned Development ‐ major )   by determination of Planner Deposit $6,000 Deposit $6,000 $0 General Plan Amendment ‐ minor ) Deposit $4,000 Deposit $4,000 $0 General Plan Amendment ‐ major )   by determination of Planner Deposit $8,000 Deposit $8,000 $0 General Plan Amendment & Zone Change ‐ minor     ) Deposit $10,000 Deposit $10,000 $0 General Plan Amendment & Zone Change ‐ major     )   by determination of Planner Deposit $15,000 Deposit $15,000 $0 Preliminary Parcel Map Deposit $1,000 Deposit $1,000 $0 Tentative Parcel Map Deposit $3,000 Deposit $3,000 $0
Preliminary Track Map Deposit $2,000 Deposit $2,000 $0
Tentative Track Map Deposit $5,000 Deposit $5,000 $0
Final Map Deposit $7,500 Deposit $7,500 $0
Specific Plan ‐ New Deposit $8,000 Deposit $8,000 $0
Specific Plan ‐ Revision or Amendment Deposit $4,000 Deposit $4,000 $0 Development Agreement Deposit $10,000 Deposit $10,000 $0 Sphere of Influence Adjustment Deposit $5,000 Deposit $5,000 $0 Annexation Deposit $12,500 Deposit $12,500 $0
Time Extension or Appeal Fee $687 Fee $739 $52
Sign Permit ‐ minor Fee $135 Fee $145 $10
Sign Permit ‐ major (requiring Council approval) Deposit $600 Deposit $600 $0 Landscape Plan Check ‐ minor ) Deposit $400 Deposit $400 $0 Landscape Plan Check ‐ major )   by determination of Planner Deposit $800 Deposit $800 $0 City Council Conceptual Review Fee $900 Fee $968 $68
Coastal Development Permit Deposit $1,000 Deposit $1,000 $0 Any requested services not covered by the Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual costs at full cost recovery.

Full cost recovery = actual cost + 35% Administrative Overhead .  A deposit may be required.

Planning Department Current Fee Proposed Fee
Full Cost Recovery Full Cost Recovery
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 2 B - 5
Increase
Encroachment Permits (curb, gutter, sidewalk, street)
Permit Issuance Fee $6
by Building Department $8
by Engineer (if required) $19
$11
Public Improvement Plans
Subdivisions of less than 10 lots:

Administrative Fee
per Subdivision or $29
per Single lot $6
per Subdivision or $132
per Single lot $26
per Subdivision or $85
per Single lot $17
per Subdivision or $71
per Single lot $15
Subdivisions of 10 or more lots:

For services shown above:

Deposit for 10‐49 lots $0
Deposit for 50+ lots $0
* Where Minimum Fees are shown, Minimum Fee amount is required as deposit.

If full cost recovery leads to higher charge, developer must pay difference.

City staff may require higher deposit based on the complexity of the project.

If less staff time is needed than the minimum fee or deposit, the City will refund the difference.

City will keep running tab of services charged against deposits.

If net amount reaches zero, City will require additional deposit before continuing work.

Full cost recovery = direct cost (personnel time & materials) + 35% overhead Certificate of Completion
Inspection
Plan Check
$1,755
$192
$1,129
Inspection & Certificate of Completion
Full cost recovery
Minimum Fee =
$349
Encroachment Permits & Public Improvement Plans
Plan Check Full cost recovery
$252
Current Fee
$77
Full cost recovery
Proposed Fee*
$76
Minimum Fee =
$103
Full cost recovery
Minimum Fee =
$82
$111
$5,000
Minimum Fee =
Full cost recovery
Minimum Fee =
$83
$144
Minimum Fee =
$384
$10,000
$5,000
$413
$10,000
$229
$937
$246
$207
Full cost recovery
Minimum Fee =
Full cost recovery
$1,008
Full cost recovery
Minimum Fee =
Minimum Fee =
Full cost recovery
$272
$155
$1,215
Full cost recovery
Full cost recovery
$375
Minimum Fee =
Full cost recovery
$1,887
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 2 B - 6
Miscellaneous Building Permit Fees Current Fee Proposed Fee Increase Permit Issuance Fee $75 $81 $6
Plan Check (per hour) $102 $110 $8
Inspection (minimum Fee = hourly rate) $93 $100 $7
Awning/Canopy (not patio cover) $215 $231 $16
Cellular/Radio/TV Tower & Antenna
Tower/Antenna only $1,440 $1,549 $109
Tower/Antenna with Equipment Shelter $1,881 $2,023 $142 Commercial partitions ‐ up to 12' high
First partition $204 $219 $15
Additional partition $54 $58 $4
Commercial partitions ‐ over 12' high
First partition $215 $231 $16
Additional partition $72 $77 $5
Concrete Piles
First 10 piles $303 $325 $23
Each additional 10 piles $60 $64 $5
Demolition:

Residential structures $391 $421 $30
Commercial and Industrial structures $479 $515 $36
Doors:

No structural alteration (each) $64 $69 $5
Structural alteration (each) $107 $115 $8
Exterior Walls/Fences:

Block Retaining Walls (Concrete or masonry)
First 50 sf $348 $374 $26
Each additional 50 sf $174 $188 $13
Block Fences (Concrete or masonry)
First 50 lineal ft. $348 $374 $26
Each additional 50 lineal ft. $174 $188 $13
Wood, Wire, or Chain Link Fence $171 $184 $13
Fireplaces:

Manufacturered unit (each) $171 $184 $13
Masonry (each) $260 $279 $20
Flag poles (each) $190 $204 $14
Furnace (discounted rate) $84 $91 $6
Grading (cut or fill):
1 ‐ 50 Cubic Yards $171 $184 $13
51 ‐ 100 yard $260 $279 $20
Each additional 100 Cubic Yards or portion thereof $7 $7 $1 1,000 Cubic Yards $391 $421 $30
Each additional 1,000 Cubic Yards or portion thereof $10 $11 $1 10,000 Cubic Yards $568 $611 $43
Each additional 10,000 Cubic Yards or portion thereof $15 $16 $1 100,000 Cubic Yards $921 $991 $70
Each additional 10,000 Cubic Yards or portion thereof $29 $31 $2 Any requested service not covered by the Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual costs at full cost recovery.  Full cost recovery = actual cost + 35% Administrative Overhead. 1 of 3
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 2 B - 6
Interior Walls (each) $135 $145 $10
Parking Lot Restriping $127 $137 $10
Photovoltaic System (discounted rate)
Site Visit plus $127 $137 $10
Per Panel Fee $21 $23 $2
Roofs:

Basic Reroof ‐ composition with no tear off $171 $184 $13 Complex Reroof $260 $279 $20
Sauna/Steam room $303 $325 $23
Siding:

Stone and Brick Veneer (interior or exterior)
1‐50 linear ft $171 $184 $13
50+ linear ft (per LF) $15 $16 $1
Aluminum/Vinyl
1‐50 linear ft $127 $137 $10
50+ linear ft (per LF) $11 $12 $1
Signs:

Wall or Awning Sign (no Electrical) $171 $184 $13
Wall or Awning Sign (with Electrical) $260 $279 $20
Monument Sign (no Electrical) $303 $325 $23
Monument (with Electrical) $436 $469 $33
Skylights (each) $127 $137 $10
Spa or Hot Tub (manufactured units):

Above ground $171 $184 $13
In‐ground $260 $279 $20
Stairs ‐ per story $215 $231 $16
Storage Racks:

Up to 8' high (up to 100 l.f.) $215 $231 $16
each additional 100 l.f. $107 $115 $8
Over 8' high (up to 100 l.f.) $303 $325 $23
each additional 100 l.f. $152 $163 $11
Any requested service not covered by the Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual costs at full cost recovery.  Full cost recovery = actual cost + 35% Administrative Overhead. 2 of 3
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 2 B - 6
Stucco:

New application $171 $184 $13
Re‐application $94 $102 $7
Swimming Pools (manufacturers units):

Above ground $215 $231 $16
In‐ground $391 $421 $30
Gunite $568 $611 $43
Water Heater (discounted rate) $42 $45 $3
Windows/Sliding Glass Doors
Window (each) $127 $137 $10
Sliding glass door (each) $127 $137 $10
Bay window (each) $215 $231 $16
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS FEES:

Lost Inspection card $69 $74 $5
Work begun without permit 2 times underlying fee
New Business Inspection $152 $163 $11
New Business Re‐inspection (if required) $93 $100 $7
Home Occupancy Inspection $75 $81 $6
Certificate of Occupancy $75 $81 $6
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $60 $64 $5
Change of Occupancy/Use $303 $325 $23
Appeal of Abatement Notice $93 $100 $7
Compliance Inspection $152 $163 $11
Supplemental Plan Check (up to 1 hour) $121 $131 $9
Re‐inspection (up to 1 hour) $93 $100 $7
Scheduled After‐Hours Inspection (up to 2 hours) $189 $203 $14 Emergency Call‐Out (up to 2 hours) $301 $324 $23
Re‐Inspections (special situations) ‐‐ add to base charge Incorrect address/location given by applicant (per trip) $108 $116 $8 Premature inspection request (work not ready, per trip) $108 $116 $8 Addressing Fee
First address $75 $81 $6
Each additional address $16 $17 $1
Copying of Maps & Blueprints $19 $21 $1
plus outside vendor costs
Any requested service not covered by the Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual costs at full cost recovery.  Full cost recovery = actual cost + 35% Administrative Overhead. 3 of 3
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 2 B - 7
Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing Current Fee Proposed Fee Increase Permit Issuance Fee $75 $81 $6
Minimum Permit Fee $114 $122 $9
Plan Check Fee (hourly rate ) $102 $110 $8
Re‐inspection Fee (up to 1 hour) $93 $100 $7
Scheduled After‐Hours Inspection (up to 2 hours) $189 $203 $14 Emergency Call Out (up to 2 hours) $301 $324 $23

ELECTRICAL PERMITS
Services (up to 600 volts) :
0 to 100 Amps $56 $60 $4
101 to 200 Amps $74 $80 $6
201 to 400 Amps $112 $121 $8
401 to 800 Amps $169 $181 $13
801 to 1600 Amps $244 $263 $18
over 1600 Amps $300 $323 $23
Electrical Panels $188 $202 $14
Subpanels (per panel) $93 $100 $7
Motors, Generators, transformers, rectifiers $74 $80 $6 Signs, Outline lighting and Marquees $74 $80 $6
Theatre‐type lighting fixtures or assemblies $74 $80 $6 Temporary Power Services (each) $56 $60 $4
Temporary power pole $37 $40 $3
Construction Pole $37 $40 $3
Sub poles (each) $19 $21 $1
Outdoor Lighting, Pole mounted, 1 to 10 units $74 $80 $6 each additional 10 $37 $40 $3
Fixtures/Receptacles/Outlets (each) $1.62 $2 $0
Residential Appliances $19 $21 $1
Non‐Residential Appliances $56 $60 $4
Residential Swimming Pool $151 $162 $11
Electrically‐driven rides $151 $162 $11
Any requested service not covered by the Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual costs at full cost recovery.  Full cost recovery = actual cost + 35% Administrative Overhead .  A deposit may be required. 1 of 3
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 2 B - 7
Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing Current Fee Proposed Fee Increase Permit Issuance Fee $75 $81 $6
Minimum Permit Fee $114 $122 $9
Plan Check Fees (hourly rate ) $102 $110 $8
Re‐inspection Fee (up to 1 hour) $93 $100 $7
Scheduled After‐Hours Inspection (up to 2 hours) $189 $203 $14 Emergency Call Out (up to 2 hours) $301 $324 $23

MECHANICAL PERMITS
Furnaces forced air or gravity, inch ducts & vents $56 $60 $4 Heater (Wall, Suspended, or Floor) $37 $40 $3
Heating Appliances:
up to 100,000 BTU/h $56 $60 $4
over 100,000 BTU/h $74 $80 $6
Appliance Vent $28 $30 $2
Boilers, Compressors, and Absorption Systems
up to 3 HP/100K BTU/hr $56 $60 $4
over 3 HP/100K to 15 HP/500K BTU/hr $74 $80 $6
over 15 HP/500K to 30 HP/1,000K BTU/hr $93 $100 $7
over 30 HP/1,000K to BTU/hr to 50 HP/1,750K BTU/hr $112 $121 $8 over 50HP/1,750K BTU/hr $151 $162 $11
Air‐handling unit, including attached ducts $56 $60 $4
Air‐handling unit over 10,000 CFM $74 $80 $6
Residential Hood or Duck $56 $60 $4
Incinerator, residential $56 $60 $4
Commercial or Industrial‐type incinerator $112 $121 $8
Evaporative cooler $37 $40 $3
Ventilation fan connected to a single duct $56 $60 $4
Ventilation system (not part of heating or a/c system) $56 $60 $4 Commercial hood, duct and blower $112 $121 $8
Residential Cooling Unit $56 $60 $4
Refrigeration Unit, Walk In $74 $80 $6
Residential gas appliance $37 $40 $3
Food preparation gas appliance $37 $40 $3
Any requested service not covered by the Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual costs at full cost recovery.  Full cost recovery = actual cost + 35% Administrative Overhead .  A deposit may be required.
2 of 3
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 2 B - 7
Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing Current Fee Proposed Fee Increase Permit Issuance Fee $75 $81 $6
Minimum Permit Fee $114 $122 $9
Plan Check Fees (hourly rate ) $102 $110 $8
Re‐inspection Fee (up to 1 hour) $93 $100 $7
Scheduled After‐Hours Inspection (up to 2 hours) $189 $203 $14 Emergency Call Out (up to 2 hours) $301 $324 $23

PLUMBING / GAS PERMITS
Plumbing Fixture or Trap $37 $40 $3
Grease Interceptor up to 75 Pounds $181 $195 $14
Grease Interceptor ‐ Commercial $334 $359 $25
Grey Water System $240 $258 $18
Industrial waste pre‐treatment interceptor $334 $359 $25 Ejector Pump $74 $80 $6
Backflow device up to 2" $56 $60 $4
Backflow device over 2" $74 $80 $6
Roof Drain ‐ Rainwater Systems per drain $56 $60 $4
Floor Drain $56 $60 $4
Water Heater $42 $45 $3
Gas System 1‐4 outlets $56 $60 $4
Gas System 5 or more outlets (per outlet) $11 $12 $1
Building Sewer $74 $80 $6
Drain ‐Vent Repair/ Alterations $37 $40 $3
Medical Gas Piping System 1 to 5 outlet $112 $121 $8
Each additional outlet $22 $24 $2
Lawn Sprinkler on one meter $37 $40 $3
Any requested service not covered by the Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual costs at full cost recovery.  Full cost recovery = actual cost + 35% Administrative Overhead .  A deposit may be required.
3 of 3
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE -- PART 2 B - 8
Current Proposed Fee Increase
Fire Sprinkler Systems ‐ New Construction:
1‐50 Heads $492 $529 $37
51‐100 Heads $657 $707 $50
101‐200 Heads $944 $1,015 $71
Every 200 Heads above 200 $566 $609 $43
Fire Sprinkler Systems ‐ Tenant Improvements:
1‐25 Heads (discounted) $312 $335 $24
26‐100 Heads (discounted) $537 $577 $41
Every 100 Heads above 100 $445 $479 $34
Fire Alarm System ‐ New Construction:
1‐50 Devices $492 $529 $37
51‐100 Devices $718 $772 $54
Every 50 Devices above 100 $566 $609 $43
Fire Alarm System ‐ Tenant Improvements:
1‐50 Devices (diiscounted) $371 $399 $28
51‐100 Devices (discounted) $537 $577 $41
Every 50 Devices above 100 $393 $422 $30
Other Suppression Systems:

Inert Gas Systems $492 $529 $37
Dry Chemical Systems $492 $529 $37
Wet Chemical/Kitchen Hood $604 $650 $46
Foam Systems $718 $772 $54
Paint Spray Booth $830 $893 $63
Alarm or Sprinkler Monitoring System $604 $650 $46
Other Fire Fees
Hydrants/Underground Fire Service Plan Check $575 $618 $43 Hydrant Flow Test (existing hydrants) $88 $94 $7
Fire Engineering Firm ‐ Plan Review $520 $520 deposit $0 Full cost recovery
Any requested service not covered by the Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual costs at full cost recovery.  Full cost recovery = actual cost + 35% Administrative Overhead .  A deposit may be required.

Fire Sprinkler, Alarm, & Suppression Systems
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 9

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
2,000 $            3,655 $            3,655 $0.191
8,000 $            4,798 $            4,798 $0.237
A‐1 Theater ‐ Complete 20,000 $            7,637 $            7,637 $0.258 40,000 $          12,795 $          12,795 $0.167
100,000 $          22,837 $          22,837 $0.228
250 $                717 $                717 $0.299
1,000 $                941 $                941 $0.371
A‐1 Theatre ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $            1,498 $            1,498 $0.405 5,000 $            2,510 $            2,510 $0.263
12,500 $            4,480 $            4,480 $0.358
500 $            1,411 $            1,411 $0.294
2,000 $            1,852 $            1,852 $0.365
A‐2 Restaurant ‐ Complete 5,000 $            2,948 $            2,948 $0.398 10,000 $            4,940 $            4,940 $0.258
25,000 $            8,817 $            8,817 $0.353
500 $                717 $                717 $0.149
2,000 $                941 $                941 $0.186
A‐2 Restaurant ‐ Shell 5,000 $            1,498 $            1,498 $0.202 10,000 $            2,510 $            2,510 $0.131
25,000 $            4,480 $            4,480 $0.179
250 $                717 $                717 $0.299
1,000 $                941 $                941 $0.371
A‐2 Restaurant ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $            1,498 $            1,498 $0.405 5,000 $            2,510 $            2,510 $0.263
12,500 $            4,480 $            4,480 $0.358
1,000 $            2,105 $            2,105 $0.219
4,000 $            2,763 $            2,763 $0.273
A‐3 Church & Religious Bldg ‐ Complete 10,000 $            4,398 $            4,398 $0.297 20,000 $            7,369 $            7,369 $0.193
50,000 $          13,153 $          13,153 $0.263
250 $                717 $                717 $0.299
1,000 $                941 $                941 $0.371
A‐3 Church & Religious Bldg ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $            1,498 $            1,498 $0.405 5,000 $            2,510 $            2,510 $0.263
12,500 $            4,480 $            4,480 $0.358
500 $            1,353 $            1,353 $0.282
2,000 $            1,776 $            1,776 $0.351
B Offices ‐ Complete 5,000 $            2,828 $            2,828 $0.382 10,000 $            4,737 $            4,737 $0.248
25,000 $            8,455 $            8,455 $0.338
New Construction ‐‐ Plan Check Fees
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 9

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Plan Check Fees
1,000 $                694 $                694 $0.072
4,000 $                911 $                911 $0.090
B Offices ‐ Shell 10,000 $            1,450 $            1,450 $0.098 20,000 $            2,428 $            2,428 $0.064
50,000 $            4,336 $            4,336 $0.087
100 $                495 $                495 $0.517
400 $                650 $                650 $0.640
B Offices ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $            1,034 $            1,034 $0.698 2,000 $            1,732 $            1,732 $0.454
5,000 $            3,093 $            3,093 $0.619
1,000 $            2,105 $            2,105 $0.219
4,000 $            2,763 $            2,763 $0.273
B Medical Offices ‐ Complete 10,000 $            4,398 $            4,398 $0.297 20,000 $            7,369 $            7,369 $0.193
50,000 $          13,153 $          13,153 $0.263
1,000 $                949 $                949 $0.099
4,000 $            1,245 $            1,245 $0.123
B Medical Offices ‐ Shell 10,000 $            1,981 $            1,981 $0.134 20,000 $            3,320 $            3,320 $0.087
50,000 $            5,926 $            5,926 $0.119
250 $                856 $                856 $0.356
1,000 $            1,123 $            1,123 $0.444
B Medical Offices ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $            1,789 $            1,789 $0.483 5,000 $            2,996 $            2,996 $0.313
12,500 $            5,347 $            5,347 $0.428
2,000 $            2,706 $            2,706 $0.141
8,000 $            3,553 $            3,553 $0.175
E Educational Building ‐ Complete 20,000 $            5,656 $            5,656 $0.191 40,000 $            9,475 $            9,475 $0.124
100,000 $          16,911 $          16,911 $0.169
250 $                717 $                717 $0.299
1,000 $                941 $                941 $0.371
E Educational Building ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $            1,498 $            1,498 $0.405 5,000 $            2,510 $            2,510 $0.263
12,500 $            4,480 $            4,480 $0.358
1,000 $            2,105 $            2,105 $0.219
4,000 $            2,763 $            2,763 $0.273
F‐1 Industrial Building ‐ Complete 10,000 $            4,398 $            4,398 $0.297 20,000 $            7,369 $            7,369 $0.193
50,000 $          13,153 $          13,153 $0.263
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 9

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Plan Check Fees
1,000 $            1,180 $            1,180 $0.123
4,000 $            1,548 $            1,548 $0.153
F‐1 Industrial Building ‐ Shell 10,000 $            2,465 $            2,465 $0.166 20,000 $            4,129 $            4,129 $0.108
50,000 $            7,371 $            7,371 $0.147
250 $                671 $                671 $0.279
1,000 $                880 $                880 $0.347
F‐1 Industrial Building ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $            1,401 $            1,401 $0.379 5,000 $            2,348 $            2,348 $0.246
12,500 $            4,191 $            4,191 $0.335
500 $                995 $                995 $0.207
2,000 $            1,305 $            1,305 $0.258
H Hazardous  ‐ Complete 5,000 $            2,078 $            2,078 $0.281 10,000 $            3,482 $            3,482 $0.182
25,000 $            6,215 $            6,215 $0.249
500 $            1,411 $            1,411 $0.294
2,000 $            1,852 $            1,852 $0.365
H Hazardous ‐ Shell 5,000 $            2,948 $            2,948 $0.398 10,000 $            4,940 $            4,940 $0.258
25,000 $            8,817 $            8,817 $0.353
100 $                856 $                856 $0.890
400 $            1,123 $            1,123 $1.110
H Hazardous ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $            1,789 $            1,789 $1.207 2,000 $            2,996 $            2,996 $0.784
5,000 $            5,347 $            5,347 $1.069
1,000 $            2,105 $            2,105 $0.219
4,000 $            2,763 $            2,763 $0.273
I‐1 Medical/24 Hour Care ‐ Complete 10,000 $            4,398 $            4,398 $0.297 20,000 $            7,369 $            7,369 $0.193
50,000 $          13,153 $          13,153 $0.263
1,000 $                949 $                949 $0.099
4,000 $            1,245 $            1,245 $0.123
I‐1 Medical/24 Hour Care ‐ Shell 10,000 $            1,981 $            1,981 $0.134 20,000 $            3,320 $            3,320 $0.087
50,000 $            5,926 $            5,926 $0.119
100 $                856 $                856 $0.890
400 $            1,123 $            1,123 $1.110
I‐1 Medical/24 Hour Care ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $            1,789 $            1,789 $1.207 2,000 $            2,996 $            2,996 $0.784
5,000 $            5,347 $            5,347 $1.069
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 9

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Plan Check Fees
250 $            1,133 $            1,133 $0.473
1,000 $            1,488 $            1,488 $0.587
I‐4 Day Care Facility ‐ Complete 2,500 $            2,368 $            2,368 $0.640 5,000 $            3,968 $            3,968 $0.415
12,500 $            7,083 $            7,083 $0.567
100 $                856 $                856 $0.890
400 $            1,123 $            1,123 $1.110
I‐4 Day Care Facility ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $            1,789 $            1,789 $1.207 2,000 $            2,996 $            2,996 $0.784
5,000 $            5,347 $            5,347 $1.069
500 $            1,272 $            1,272 $0.265
2,000 $            1,670 $            1,670 $0.330
M Retail Sales ‐ Complete 5,000 $            2,659 $            2,659 $0.359 10,000 $            4,454 $            4,454 $0.233
25,000 $            7,950 $            7,950 $0.318
500 $                578 $                578 $0.121
2,000 $                759 $                759 $0.150
M Retail Sales ‐ Shell 5,000 $            1,208 $            1,208 $0.163 10,000 $            2,024 $            2,024 $0.106
25,000 $            3,612 $            3,612 $0.144
100 $                648 $                648 $0.673
400 $                850 $                850 $0.838
M Retail Sales ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $            1,353 $            1,353 $0.914 2,000 $            2,267 $            2,267 $0.593
5,000 $            4,047 $            4,047 $0.809
1,000 $            2,105 $            2,105 $0.219
4,000 $            2,763 $            2,763 $0.273
R‐1 Hotel Low/Mid Rise ‐ Complete 10,000 $            4,398 $            4,398 $0.297 20,000 $            7,369 $            7,369 $0.193
50,000 $          13,153 $          13,153 $0.263
1,000 $                902 $                902 $0.094
4,000 $            1,184 $            1,184 $0.117
R‐1 Hotel Low/Mid Rise ‐ Shell 10,000 $            1,884 $            1,884 $0.127 20,000 $            3,157 $            3,157 $0.083
50,000 $            5,636 $            5,636 $0.113
250 $                671 $                671 $0.279
1,000 $                880 $                880 $0.347
R‐1 Hotel Low/Mid Rise ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $            1,401 $            1,401 $0.379 5,000 $            2,348 $            2,348 $0.246
12,500 $            4,191 $            4,191 $0.335
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 9

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Plan Check Fees
1,000 $            2,105 $            2,105 $0.219
4,000 $            2,763 $            2,763 $0.273
R‐2 Apartment/Multi‐Family ‐ Complete 10,000 $            4,398 $            4,398 $0.297 20,000 $            7,369 $            7,369 $0.193
50,000 $          13,153 $          13,153 $0.263
667 $                489 $                489 $0.062
1,333 $                530 $                530 $0.306
R‐2 Apartment/Multi‐Family ‐ Remodel 2,000 $                734 $                734 $0.165 3,333 $                954 $                954 $0.230
5,000 $            1,338 $            1,338 $0.268
333 $                739 $                739 $0.186
667 $                801 $                801 $0.930
R‐2 Apartment/Multi‐Family ‐ Addition 1,000 $            1,111 $            1,111 $0.500 1,667 $            1,444 $            1,444 $0.696
2,500 $            2,024 $            2,024 $0.810
800 $                367 $                367 $0.038
1,600 $                397 $                397 $0.193
R‐3 Manufactured Home ‐ Complete 2,400 $                551 $                551 $0.103 4,000 $                715 $                715 $0.142
6,000 $                999 $                999 $0.167
667 $                367 $                367 $0.045
1,333 $                397 $                397 $0.231
R‐3 Prefabricated Dwelling ‐ Complete 2,000 $                551 $                551 $0.123 3,333 $                715 $                715 $0.173
5,000 $            1,003 $            1,003 $0.201
500 $            1,272 $            1,272 $0.265
2,000 $            1,670 $            1,670 $0.330
R‐4 Congregate Care ‐ Complete 5,000 $            2,659 $            2,659 $0.359 10,000 $            4,454 $            4,454 $0.233
25,000 $            7,950 $            7,950 $0.318
1,000 $            1,498 $            1,498 $0.125
2,000 $            1,623 $            1,623 $0.628
IRC SFD Single‐Family (custom or model) 3,000 $            2,251 $            2,251 $0.336 5,000 $            2,923 $            2,923 $0.471
7,500 $            4,101 $            4,101 $0.547
667 $                547 $                547 $0.068
1,333 $                592 $                592 $0.345
IRC SFD Single‐Family ‐ Production / Repeat 2,000 $                822 $                822 $0.183 3,333 $            1,066 $            1,066 $0.257
5,000 $            1,495 $            1,495 $0.299
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 9

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Plan Check Fees
333 $                354 $                354 $0.087
667 $                383 $                383 $0.444
IRC SFD Single‐Family Residential ‐ Remodel 1,000 $                531 $                531 $0.239 1,667 $                690 $                690 $0.334
2,500 $                968 $                968 $0.387
167 $                547 $                547 $0.270
333 $                592 $                592 $1.380
IRC SFD Single‐Family Residential ‐ Addition 500 $                822 $                822 $0.732 833 $            1,066 $            1,066 $1.030
1,250 $            1,495 $            1,495 $1.196
333 $                392 $                392 $0.099
667 $                425 $                425 $0.492
IRC SFD Residential Building ‐ Foundation 1,000 $                589 $                589 $0.264 1,667 $                765 $                765 $0.370
2,500 $            1,073 $            1,073 $0.429
83 $                354 $                354 $0.348
167 $                383 $                383 $1.776
IRC SFD Residential ‐ Patio Cover/Balcony/Deck 250 $                531 $                531 $0.954 417 $                690 $                690 $1.334
625 $                968 $                968 $1.549
83 $                354 $                354 $0.348
167 $                383 $                383 $1.776
IRC SFD Residential Patio Cover ICC Approved 250 $                531 $                531 $0.954 417 $                690 $                690 $1.334
625 $                968 $                968 $1.549
83 $                354 $                354 $0.348
167 $                383 $                383 $1.776
IRC SFD Residential Patio Enclosure 250 $                531 $                531 $0.954 417 $                690 $                690 $1.334
625 $                968 $                968 $1.549
83 $                354 $                354 $0.348
167 $                383 $                383 $1.776
IRC SFD Residential Patio Enclosure ICC Approved 250 $                531 $                531 $0.954 417 $                690 $                690 $1.334
625 $                968 $                968 $1.549
500 $            1,180 $            1,180 $0.245
2,000 $            1,548 $            1,548 $0.306
S‐1 Garage/Service Station ‐ Complete 5,000 $            2,465 $            2,465 $0.333 10,000 $            4,129 $            4,129 $0.216
25,000 $            7,371 $            7,371 $0.295
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 9

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Plan Check Fees
500 $                578 $                578 $0.121
2,000 $                759 $                759 $0.150
S‐1 Garage/Service Station ‐ Shell 5,000 $            1,208 $            1,208 $0.163 10,000 $            2,024 $            2,024 $0.106
25,000 $            3,612 $            3,612 $0.144
100 $                648 $                648 $0.673
400 $                850 $                850 $0.838
S‐1 Garage/Service Station ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $            1,353 $            1,353 $0.914 2,000 $            2,267 $            2,267 $0.593
5,000 $            4,047 $            4,047 $0.809
500 $                949 $                949 $0.197
2,000 $            1,245 $            1,245 $0.245
S‐2 Parking Garage ‐ Complete 5,000 $            1,981 $            1,981 $0.268 10,000 $            3,320 $            3,320 $0.174
25,000 $            5,926 $            5,926 $0.237
500 $                393 $                393 $0.063
2,000 $                516 $                516 $0.079
S‐2 Commercial Carport ‐ Std. Plan 5,000 $                822 $                822 $0.086 10,000 $            1,376 $            1,376 $0.056
25,000 $            2,457 $            2,457 $0.076
167 $                367 $                367 $0.180
333 $                397 $                397 $0.924
U Residential Garage 500 $                551 $                551 $0.492 833 $                715 $                715 $0.691
1,250 $            1,003 $            1,003 $0.802
40 $                301 $                301 $0.775
160 $                394 $                394 $0.975
U Pool/Spa 400 $                628 $                628 $1.060 800 $            1,052 $            1,052 $0.688
2,000 $            1,878 $            1,878 $0.939
50 $                282 $                282 $0.587
200 $                370 $                370 $0.717
U‐1 Commercial ‐ Accessory Building 500 $                585 $                585 $0.804 1,000 $                987 $                987 $0.517
2,500 $            1,763 $            1,763 $0.705
50 $                282 $                282 $0.587
200 $                370 $                370 $0.730
U‐1 Commercial Carport 500 $                589 $                589 $0.796 1,000 $                987 $                987 $0.517
2,500 $            1,763 $            1,763 $0.705
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 9

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Plan Check Fees
83 $                354 $                354 $0.348
167 $                383 $                383 $1.776
U‐1 Residential ‐ Accessory Building 250 $                531 $                531 $0.954 417 $                690 $                690 $1.334
625 $                968 $                968 $1.549
133 $                354 $                354 $0.218
267 $                383 $                383 $1.110
U‐1 Residential Carport 400 $                531 $                531 $0.596 667 $                690 $                690 $0.834
1,000 $                968 $                968 $0.968
2,000 $            1,180 $            1,180 $0.061
8,000 $            1,548 $            1,548 $0.076
‐ Warehouse ‐ Complete 20,000 $            2,465 $            2,465 $0.083 40,000 $            4,129 $            4,129 $0.054
100,000 $            7,371 $            7,371 $0.074
200 $                486 $                486 $0.252
800 $                637 $                637 $0.315
‐ Commercial Building ‐ Foundation 2,000 $            1,015 $            1,015 $0.343 4,000 $            1,700 $            1,700 $0.223
10,000 $            3,035 $            3,035 $0.304
200 $                532 $                532 $0.277
800 $                698 $                698 $0.344
‐ Commercial Building ‐ Addition 2,000 $            1,111 $            1,111 $0.376 4,000 $            1,862 $            1,862 $0.244
10,000 $            3,324 $            3,324 $0.332
240 $                240 $                240 $0.104
960 $                315 $                315 $0.131
‐ Modular Building ‐ Complete 2,400 $                503 $                503 $0.141 4,800 $                841 $                841 $0.092
12,000 $            1,502 $            1,502 $0.125
500 $                264 $                264 $0.055
2,000 $                346 $                346 $0.068
‐ Manufactured Building ‐ Foundation 5,000 $                551 $                551 $0.074 10,000 $                923 $                923 $0.048 25,000 $            1,647 $            1,647 $0.066
200 $                856 $                856 $0.445
800 $            1,123 $            1,123 $0.555
‐ Commercial Building ‐ Remodel 2,000 $            1,789 $            1,789 $0.604 4,000 $            2,996 $            2,996 $0.392
10,000 $            5,347 $            5,347 $0.535
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 9

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Plan Check Fees
200 $                809 $                809 $0.422
800 $            1,062 $            1,062 $0.525
‐ Commercial Building ‐ Repair 2,000 $            1,692 $            1,692 $0.571 4,000 $            2,834 $            2,834 $0.371
10,000 $            5,059 $            5,059 $0.506
333 $                482 $                482 $0.120
667 $                522 $                522 $0.609
‐ Moved Building ‐ Residential 1,000 $                725 $                725 $0.324 1,667 $                941 $                941 $0.455
2,500 $            1,320 $            1,320 $0.528
120 $                240 $                240 $0.208
480 $                315 $                315 $0.261
‐ Commercial Coach ‐ Complete 1,200 $                503 $                503 $0.282 2,400 $                841 $                841 $0.184
6,000 $            1,502 $            1,502 $0.250
Any requested services not covered by the Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual costs at full cost recovery.  Full cost recovery = actual cost + 35% Administrative Overhead.

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
2,000 $            3,340 $            3,340 $0.427
8,000 $            5,899 $            5,899 $0.264
A‐1 Theater ‐ Complete 20,000 $            9,065 $            9,065 $0.249 40,000 $          14,050 $          14,050 $0.254
100,000 $          29,315 $          29,315 $0.293
250 $                585 $                585 $0.597
1,000 $            1,033 $            1,033 $0.370
A‐1 Theater ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $            1,588 $            1,588 $0.349 5,000 $            2,461 $            2,461 $0.357
12,500 $            5,135 $            5,135 $0.411
500 $            1,280 $            1,280 $0.653
2,000 $            2,260 $            2,260 $0.405
A‐2 Restaurant ‐ Complete 5,000 $            3,474 $            3,474 $0.382 10,000 $            5,384 $            5,384 $0.390
25,000 $          11,234 $          11,234 $0.449
500 $                407 $                407 $0.209
2,000 $                720 $                720 $0.129
A‐2 Restaurant ‐ Shell 5,000 $            1,106 $            1,106 $0.122 10,000 $            1,715 $            1,715 $0.124
25,000 $            3,577 $            3,577 $0.143
250 $                585 $                585 $0.597
1,000 $            1,033 $            1,033 $0.370
A‐2Restaurant ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $            1,588 $            1,588 $0.349 5,000 $            2,461 $            2,461 $0.357
12,500 $            5,135 $            5,135 $0.411
1,000 $            2,488 $            2,488 $0.635
4,000 $            4,394 $            4,394 $0.393
A‐3 Church & Religious Bldg ‐ Complete 10,000 $            6,754 $            6,754 $0.371 20,000 $          10,467 $          10,467 $0.379
50,000 $          21,842 $          21,842 $0.437
250 $                441 $                441 $0.449
1,000 $                778 $                778 $0.279
A‐3 Church & Religious Bldg ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $            1,197 $            1,197 $0.263 5,000 $            1,855 $            1,855 $0.268
12,500 $            3,868 $            3,868 $0.309
500 $            2,262 $            2,262 $1.156
2,000 $            3,996 $            3,996 $0.715
B Offices ‐ Complete 5,000 $            6,142 $            6,142 $0.675 10,000 $            9,519 $            9,519 $0.689
25,000 $          19,861 $          19,861 $0.794
New Construction ‐‐ Inspection Fees
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Inspection Fees
1,000 $                364 $                364 $0.094
4,000 $                645 $                645 $0.058
B Offices ‐ Shell 10,000 $                991 $                991 $0.054 20,000 $            1,535 $            1,535 $0.056
50,000 $            3,204 $            3,204 $0.064
100 $                273 $                273 $0.697
400 $                482 $                482 $0.432
B Offices ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $                741 $                741 $0.407 2,000 $            1,148 $            1,148 $0.416
5,000 $            2,395 $            2,395 $0.479
1,000 $            2,488 $            2,488 $0.635
4,000 $            4,394 $            4,394 $0.393
B Medical Offices ‐ Complete 10,000 $            6,754 $            6,754 $0.371 20,000 $          10,467 $          10,467 $0.379
50,000 $          21,842 $          21,842 $0.437
1,000 $                455 $                455 $0.116
4,000 $                804 $                804 $0.072
B Medical Offices ‐ Shell 10,000 $            1,234 $            1,234 $0.068 20,000 $            1,914 $            1,914 $0.069
50,000 $            3,994 $            3,994 $0.080
250 $                585 $                585 $0.597
1,000 $            1,033 $            1,033 $0.370
B Medical Offices ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $            1,588 $            1,588 $0.349 5,000 $            2,461 $            2,461 $0.356
12,500 $            5,134 $            5,134 $0.411
2,000 $            3,292 $            3,292 $0.421
8,000 $            5,815 $            5,815 $0.260
E Educational Building ‐ Complete 20,000 $            8,937 $            8,937 $0.246 40,000 $          13,851 $          13,851 $0.251
100,000 $          28,900 $          28,900 $0.289
250 $                441 $                441 $0.449
1,000 $                778 $                778 $0.279
E Educational Building ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $            1,197 $            1,197 $0.263 5,000 $            1,855 $            1,855 $0.268
12,500 $            3,868 $            3,868 $0.309
1,000 $            2,441 $            2,441 $0.624
4,000 $            4,312 $            4,312 $0.386
F‐1 Industrial Building ‐ Complete 10,000 $            6,626 $            6,626 $0.364 20,000 $          10,268 $          10,268 $0.372
50,000 $          21,427 $          21,427 $0.429
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Inspection Fees
1,000 $                420 $                420 $0.107
4,000 $                741 $                741 $0.066
F‐1 Industrial Building ‐ Shell 10,000 $            1,139 $            1,139 $0.063 20,000 $            1,764 $            1,764 $0.064
50,000 $            3,682 $            3,682 $0.074
250 $                561 $                561 $0.573
1,000 $                991 $                991 $0.355
F‐1 Industrial Building ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $            1,524 $            1,524 $0.335 5,000 $            2,361 $            2,361 $0.342
12,500 $            4,927 $            4,927 $0.394
500 $            1,280 $            1,280 $0.653
2,000 $            2,260 $            2,260 $0.405
H Hazardous ‐ Complete 5,000 $            3,474 $            3,474 $0.382 10,000 $            5,384 $            5,384 $0.390
25,000 $          11,234 $          11,234 $0.449
500 $                384 $                384 $0.197
2,000 $                679 $                679 $0.121
H Hazardous ‐ Shell 5,000 $            1,042 $            1,042 $0.115 10,000 $            1,616 $            1,616 $0.117
25,000 $            3,371 $            3,371 $0.135
100 $                225 $                225 $0.577
400 $                398 $                398 $0.358
H Hazardous ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $                613 $                613 $0.336 2,000 $                949 $                949 $0.343
5,000 $            1,979 $            1,979 $0.396
1,000 $            2,488 $            2,488 $0.635
4,000 $            4,394 $            4,394 $0.393
I‐1 Medical/24 Hour Care ‐ Complete 10,000 $            6,754 $            6,754 $0.371 20,000 $          10,467 $          10,467 $0.379
50,000 $          21,842 $          21,842 $0.437
1,000 $                443 $                443 $0.113
4,000 $                782 $                782 $0.070
I‐1 Medical/24 Hour Care ‐ Shell 10,000 $            1,203 $            1,203 $0.066 20,000 $            1,864 $            1,864 $0.068
50,000 $            3,889 $            3,889 $0.078
100 $                249 $                249 $0.633
400 $                439 $                439 $0.395
I‐1 Medical/24 Hour Care ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $                676 $                676 $0.372 2,000 $            1,048 $            1,048 $0.380
5,000 $            2,187 $            2,187 $0.437
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Inspection Fees
250 $            1,280 $            1,280 $1.307
1,000 $            2,260 $            2,260 $0.809
I‐4 Day Care Facility ‐ Complete 2,500 $            3,474 $            3,474 $0.764 5,000 $            5,384 $            5,384 $0.780
12,500 $          11,234 $          11,234 $0.899
100 $                225 $                225 $0.577
400 $                398 $                398 $0.358
I‐4 Day Care Facility ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $                613 $                613 $0.336 2,000 $                949 $                949 $0.343
5,000 $            1,979 $            1,979 $0.396
500 $            1,280 $            1,280 $0.653
2,000 $            2,260 $            2,260 $0.405
M Retail Sales ‐ Complete 5,000 $            3,474 $            3,474 $0.382 10,000 $            5,384 $            5,384 $0.390
25,000 $          11,234 $          11,234 $0.449
500 $                478 $                478 $0.245
2,000 $                845 $                845 $0.151
M Retail Sales ‐ Shell 5,000 $            1,299 $            1,299 $0.143 10,000 $            2,014 $            2,014 $0.146
25,000 $            4,200 $            4,200 $0.168
100 $                273 $                273 $0.697
400 $                482 $                482 $0.432
M Retail Sales ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $                741 $                741 $0.407 2,000 $            1,148 $            1,148 $0.416
5,000 $            2,395 $            2,395 $0.479
1,000 $            2,488 $            2,488 $0.635
4,000 $            4,394 $            4,394 $0.393
R‐1 Hotel Low/Mid Rise ‐ Complete 10,000 $            6,754 $            6,754 $0.371 20,000 $          10,467 $          10,467 $0.379
50,000 $          21,842 $          21,842 $0.437
1,000 $                620 $                620 $0.159
4,000 $            1,096 $            1,096 $0.098
R‐1 Hotel Low/Mid Rise ‐ Shell 10,000 $            1,684 $            1,684 $0.093 20,000 $            2,611 $            2,611 $0.095
50,000 $            5,446 $            5,446 $0.109
250 $                441 $                441 $0.449
1,000 $                778 $                778 $0.279
R‐1 Hotel Low/Mid Rise ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $            1,197 $            1,197 $0.263 5,000 $            1,855 $            1,855 $0.268
12,500 $            3,868 $            3,868 $0.309
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Inspection Fees
1,000 $            2,399 $            2,399 $0.613
4,000 $            4,237 $            4,237 $0.379
R‐2 Apartment/Multi‐Family ‐ Complete 10,000 $            6,511 $            6,511 $0.358 20,000 $          10,091 $          10,091 $0.365
50,000 $          21,055 $          21,055 $0.421
667 $                380 $                380 $0.339
1,333 $                606 $                606 $0.345
R‐2 Apartment/Multi‐Family ‐ Remodel 2,000 $                836 $                836 $0.312 3,333 $            1,252 $            1,252 $0.254
5,000 $            1,675 $            1,675 $0.335
333 $                720 $                720 $1.287
667 $            1,149 $            1,149 $1.317
R‐2 Multi‐Family Residential ‐ Addition 1,000 $            1,588 $            1,588 $1.184 1,667 $            2,377 $            2,377 $0.962
2,500 $            3,179 $            3,179 $1.272
800 $                155 $                155 $0.116
1,600 $                248 $                248 $0.118
R‐3 Manufactured Home ‐ Complete 2,400 $                342 $                342 $0.107 4,000 $                513 $                513 $0.087
6,000 $                686 $                686 $0.114
667 $                155 $                155 $0.140
1,333 $                248 $                248 $0.141
R‐3 Prefabricated Dwelling ‐ Complete 2,000 $                342 $                342 $0.128 3,333 $                513 $                513 $0.104
5,000 $                686 $                686 $0.137
500 $            1,493 $            1,493 $0.763
2,000 $            2,637 $            2,637 $0.472
R‐4 Congregate Care ‐ Complete 5,000 $            4,052 $            4,052 $0.446 10,000 $            6,280 $            6,280 $0.455
25,000 $          13,103 $          13,103 $0.524
1,000 $            1,775 $            1,775 $1.055
2,000 $            2,830 $            2,830 $1.081
IRC SFD Single‐Family (custom or model) 3,000 $            3,911 $            3,911 $0.973 5,000 $            5,856 $            5,856 $0.790
7,500 $            7,831 $            7,831 $1.044
667 $            1,070 $            1,070 $0.956
1,333 $            1,707 $            1,707 $0.978
IRC SFD Single‐Family ‐ Production / Repeat 2,000 $            2,359 $            2,359 $0.879 3,333 $            3,531 $            3,531 $0.714
5,000 $            4,721 $            4,721 $0.944
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Inspection Fees
333 $                269 $                269 $0.480
667 $                429 $                429 $0.492
IRC SFD Single‐Family Residential ‐ Remodel 1,000 $                593 $                593 $0.443 1,667 $                888 $                888 $0.358
2,500 $            1,186 $            1,186 $0.474
167 $                283 $                283 $1.014
333 $                452 $                452 $1.044
IRC SFD Single‐Family Residential ‐ Addition 500 $                626 $                626 $0.930 833 $                936 $                936 $0.756
1,250 $            1,251 $            1,251 $1.001
333 $                240 $                240 $0.429
667 $                383 $                383 $0.438
IRC SFD Residential Building ‐ Foundation 1,000 $                529 $                529 $0.393 1,667 $                791 $                791 $0.322
2,500 $            1,059 $            1,059 $0.424
83 $                155 $                155 $1.116
167 $                248 $                248 $1.128
IRC SFD Residential Patio Cover/Balcony/Deck 250 $                342 $                342 $1.026 417 $                513 $                513 $0.830
625 $                686 $                686 $1.098
83 $                155 $                155 $1.116
167 $                248 $                248 $1.128
IRC SFD Residential Patio Cover ICC Approved 250 $                342 $                342 $1.026 417 $                513 $                513 $0.830
625 $                686 $                686 $1.098
83 $                155 $                155 $1.116
167 $                248 $                248 $1.128
IRC SFD Residential Patio Enclosure 250 $                342 $                342 $1.026 417 $                513 $                513 $0.830
625 $                686 $                686 $1.098
83 $                155 $                155 $0.860
167 $                248 $                248 $0.873
IRC SFD Residential Patio Enclosure 250 $                342 $                342 $0.792 ICC Approved 417 $                513 $                513 $0.643 625 $                686 $                686 $0.850
500 $            1,208 $            1,208 $0.618
2,000 $            2,135 $            2,135 $0.382
S‐1 Garage/Service Station‐ Complete 5,000 $            3,281 $            3,281 $0.361 10,000 $            5,086 $            5,086 $0.368
25,000 $          10,612 $          10,612 $0.424
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Inspection Fees
500 $                395 $                395 $0.203
2,000 $                699 $                699 $0.125
S‐1 Garage/Service Station‐ Shell 5,000 $            1,074 $            1,074 $0.118 10,000 $            1,665 $            1,665 $0.121
25,000 $            3,474 $            3,474 $0.139
100 $                273 $                273 $0.697
400 $                482 $                482 $0.432
S‐1 Garage/Service Station‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $                741 $                741 $0.407 2,000 $            1,148 $            1,148 $0.416
5,000 $            2,395 $            2,395 $0.479
500 $                583 $                583 $0.297
2,000 $            1,029 $            1,029 $0.184
S‐2 Parking Garage ‐ Complete 5,000 $            1,582 $            1,582 $0.174 10,000 $            2,450 $            2,450 $0.178
25,000 $            5,114 $            5,114 $0.205
500 $                273 $                273 $0.108
2,000 $                482 $                482 $0.066
S‐2 Commercial Carport ‐ Std. Plan 5,000 $                741 $                741 $0.063 10,000 $            1,148 $            1,148 $0.064
25,000 $            2,395 $            2,395 $0.074
167 $                240 $                240 $0.858
333 $                383 $                383 $0.876
U Residential Garage 500 $                529 $                529 $0.786 833 $                791 $                791 $0.643
1,250 $            1,059 $            1,059 $0.847
40 $                216 $                216 $1.375
160 $                381 $                381 $0.858
U Pool/Spa ‐ Standard Plan 400 $                587 $                587 $0.805 800 $                909 $                909 $0.823
2,000 $            1,896 $            1,896 $0.948
50 $                145 $                145 $0.740
200 $                256 $                256 $0.460
U‐1 Commercial ‐ Accessory Building 500 $                394 $                394 $0.432 1,000 $                610 $                610 $0.442
2,500 $            1,273 $            1,273 $0.509
50 $                171 $                171 $0.873
200 $                302 $                302 $0.540
U‐1 Commercial ‐ Carport 500 $                464 $                464 $0.512 1,000 $                720 $                720 $0.521
2,500 $            1,502 $            1,502 $0.601
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Inspection Fees
83 $                169 $                169 $1.224
167 $                271 $                271 $1.248
U‐1 Residential ‐ Accessory Building 250 $                375 $                375 $1.116 417 $                561 $                561 $0.907
625 $                750 $                750 $1.200
133 $                155 $                155 $0.698
267 $                248 $                248 $0.705
U‐1 Residential ‐ Carport 400 $                342 $                342 $0.641 667 $                513 $                513 $0.519
1,000 $                686 $                686 $0.686
2,000 $            2,628 $            2,628 $0.336
8,000 $            4,641 $            4,641 $0.208
‐ Warehouse ‐ Complete 20,000 $            7,133 $            7,133 $0.196 40,000 $          11,055 $          11,055 $0.200
100,000 $          23,067 $          23,067 $0.231
200 $                225 $                225 $0.288
800 $                398 $                398 $0.179
‐ Commercial Building ‐ Foundation 2,000 $                613 $                613 $0.168 4,000 $                949 $                949 $0.172
10,000 $            1,979 $            1,979 $0.198
200 $                249 $                249 $0.317
800 $                439 $                439 $0.198
‐ Commercial Building ‐ Addition 2,000 $                676 $                676 $0.186 4,000 $            1,048 $            1,048 $0.190
10,000 $            2,187 $            2,187 $0.219
240 $                127 $                127 $0.132
960 $                222 $                222 $0.083
‐ Modular Building ‐ Complete 2,400 $                342 $                342 $0.079 4,800 $                531 $                531 $0.080
12,000 $            1,108 $            1,108 $0.092
500 $                127 $                127 $0.063
2,000 $                222 $                222 $0.040
‐ Manufactured Building ‐ Foundation 5,000 $                342 $                342 $0.038 10,000 $                531 $                531 $0.038 25,000 $            1,108 $            1,108 $0.044
200 $                393 $                393 $0.503
800 $                695 $                695 $0.311
‐ Commercial Building ‐ Remodel 2,000 $            1,068 $            1,068 $0.294 4,000 $            1,656 $            1,656 $0.300
10,000 $            3,453 $            3,453 $0.345
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B - 10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Inspection Fees
200 $                393 $                393 $0.503
800 $                695 $                695 $0.311
‐ Commercial Building ‐ Repair 2,000 $            1,068 $            1,068 $0.294 4,000 $            1,656 $            1,656 $0.300
10,000 $            3,453 $            3,453 $0.345
333 $                199 $                199 $0.356
667 $                318 $                318 $0.360
‐ Moved Building ‐ Residential 1,000 $                438 $                438 $0.328 1,667 $                657 $                657 $0.267
2,500 $                879 $                879 $0.352
120 $                127 $                127 $0.264
480 $                222 $                222 $0.167
‐ Commercial Coach ‐ Complete 1,200 $                342 $                342 $0.158 2,400 $                531 $                531 $0.160
6,000 $            1,108 $            1,108 $0.185
Any requested services not covered by the Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual costs at full cost recovery.  Full cost recovery = actual cost + 35% Administrative Overhead.

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B-9 + B10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
2,000 $6,995 $            6,995 $0.617
8,000 $10,696 $          10,696 $0.501
A‐1 Theater ‐ Complete 20,000 $16,702 $          16,702 $0.507 40,000 $26,845 $          26,845 $0.422
100,000 $52,152 $          52,152 $0.522
250 $1,303 1,303 $             $0.895
1,000 $1,974 1,974 $             $0.741
A‐1 Theatre ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $3,086 3,086 $             $0.754 5,000 $4,971 4,971 $             $0.619
12,500 $9,614 9,614 $             $0.769
500 $2,691 $            2,691 $0.948
2,000 $4,113 $            4,113 $0.770
A‐2 Restaurant ‐ Complete 5,000 $6,422 $            6,422 $0.780 10,000 $10,324 $          10,324 $0.648
25,000 $20,051 $          20,051 $0.802
500 $1,124 $            1,124 $0.358
2,000 $1,661 $            1,661 $0.314
A‐2 Restaurant ‐ Shell 5,000 $2,604 $            2,604 $0.324 10,000 $4,225 $            4,225 $0.255
25,000 $8,057 $            8,057 $0.322
250 $1,303 1,303 $             $0.895
1,000 $1,974 1,974 $             $0.741
A‐2 Restaurant ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $3,086 3,086 $             $0.754 5,000 $4,971 4,971 $             $0.619
12,500 $9,614 9,614 $             $0.769
1,000 $4,593 $            4,593 $0.855
4,000 $7,157 $            7,157 $0.666
A‐3 Church & Religious Bldg ‐ Complete 10,000 $11,152 $          11,152 $0.669 20,000 $17,837 $          17,837 $0.572
50,000 $34,995 $          34,995 $0.700
250 $1,158 $            1,158 $0.748
1,000 $1,719 $            1,719 $0.651
A‐3 Church & Religious Bldg ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $2,695 $            2,695 $0.668 5,000 $4,365 $            4,365 $0.531
12,500 $8,348 $            8,348 $0.668
500 $3,615 $            3,615 $1.438
2,000 $5,772 $            5,772 $1.066
B Offices ‐ Complete 5,000 $8,969 $            8,969 $1.057 10,000 $14,256 $          14,256 $0.937
25,000 $28,316 $          28,316 $1.133
New Construction ‐‐ Permit & Inspection Fees
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B-9 + B10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Permit & Inspection Fees
1,000 $1,059 $            1,059 $0.166
4,000 $1,556 $            1,556 $0.148
B Offices ‐ Shell 10,000 $2,441 $            2,441 $0.152 20,000 $3,964 $            3,964 $0.119
50,000 $7,540 $            7,540 $0.151
100 $768 $                768 $1.213
400 $1,132 $            1,132 $1.072
B Offices ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $1,775 $            1,775 $1.105 2,000 $2,880 $            2,880 $0.869
5,000 $5,488 $            5,488 $1.098
1,000 $4,593 $            4,593 $0.855
4,000 $7,157 $            7,157 $0.666
B Medical Offices ‐ Complete 10,000 $11,152 $          11,152 $0.669 20,000 $17,837 $          17,837 $0.572
50,000 $34,995 $          34,995 $0.700
1,000 $1,404 $            1,404 $0.215
4,000 $2,049 $            2,049 $0.195
B Medical Offices ‐ Shell 10,000 $3,216 $            3,216 $0.202 20,000 $5,234 $            5,234 $0.156
50,000 $9,919 $            9,919 $0.198
250 $1,441 $            1,441 $0.953
1,000 $2,156 $            2,156 $0.814
B Medical Offices ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $3,377 $            3,377 $0.832 5,000 $5,457 $            5,457 $0.670
12,500 $10,480 $          10,480 $0.838
2,000 $5,998 $            5,998 $0.562
8,000 $9,368 $            9,368 $0.435
E Educational Building ‐ Complete 20,000 $14,593 $          14,593 $0.437 40,000 $23,326 $          23,326 $0.375
100,000 $45,812 $          45,812 $0.458
250 $1,158 $            1,158 $0.748
1,000 $1,719 $            1,719 $0.651
E Educational Building ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $2,695 $            2,695 $0.668 5,000 $4,365 $            4,365 $0.531
12,500 $8,348 $            8,348 $0.668
1,000 $4,547 $            4,547 $0.843
4,000 $7,075 $            7,075 $0.658
F‐1 Industrial Building ‐ Complete 10,000 $11,024 $          11,024 $0.661 20,000 $17,638 $          17,638 $0.565
50,000 $34,580 $          34,580 $0.692
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B-9 + B10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Permit & Inspection Fees
1,000 $1,600 $            1,600 $0.230
4,000 $2,289 $            2,289 $0.219
F‐1 Industrial Building ‐ Shell 10,000 $3,603 $            3,603 $0.229 20,000 $5,893 $            5,893 $0.172
50,000 $11,053 $          11,053 $0.221
250 $1,232 $            1,232 $0.852
1,000 $1,871 $            1,871 $0.703
F‐1 Industrial Building ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $2,925 $            2,925 $0.714 5,000 $4,710 $            4,710 $0.588
12,500 $9,118 $            9,118 $0.729
500 $2,275 $            2,275 $0.861
2,000 $3,566 $            3,566 $0.662
H Hazardous  ‐ Complete 5,000 $5,552 $            5,552 $0.663 10,000 $8,866 $            8,866 $0.572
25,000 $17,449 $          17,449 $0.698
500 $1,795 $            1,795 $0.491
2,000 $2,531 $            2,531 $0.486
H Hazardous ‐ Shell 5,000 $3,990 $            3,990 $0.513 10,000 $6,555 $            6,555 $0.376
25,000 $12,188 $          12,188 $0.488
100 $1,080 $            1,080 $1.470
400 $1,521 $            1,521 $1.467
H Hazardous ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $2,401 $            2,401 $1.544 2,000 $3,945 $            3,945 $1.127
5,000 $7,326 $            7,326 $1.465
1,000 $4,593 $            4,593 $0.855
4,000 $7,157 $            7,157 $0.666
I‐1 Medical/24 Hour Care ‐ Complete 10,000 $11,152 $          11,152 $0.669 20,000 $17,837 $          17,837 $0.572
50,000 $34,995 $          34,995 $0.700
1,000 $1,392 $            1,392 $0.212
4,000 $2,027 $            2,027 $0.193
I‐1 Medical/24 Hour Care ‐ Shell 10,000 $3,185 $            3,185 $0.200 20,000 $5,184 $            5,184 $0.154
50,000 $9,815 $            9,815 $0.196
100 $1,105 $            1,105 $1.527
400 $1,563 $            1,563 $1.503
I‐1 Medical/24 Hour Care ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $2,465 $            2,465 $1.579 2,000 $4,044 $            4,044 $1.163
5,000 $7,534 $            7,534 $1.507
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B-9 + B10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Permit & Inspection Fees
250 $2,413 $            2,413 $1.780
1,000 $3,748 $            3,748 $1.396
I‐4 Day Care Facility ‐ Complete 2,500 $5,842 $            5,842 $1.404 5,000 $9,352 $            9,352 $1.195
12,500 $18,316 $          18,316 $1.465
100 $1,080 $            1,080 $1.470
400 $1,521 $            1,521 $1.467
I‐4 Day Care Facility ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $2,401 $            2,401 $1.544 2,000 $3,945 $            3,945 $1.127
5,000 $7,326 $            7,326 $1.465
500 $2,551 $            2,551 $0.919
2,000 $3,930 $            3,930 $0.734
M Retail Sales ‐ Complete 5,000 $6,133 $            6,133 $0.741 10,000 $9,838 $            9,838 $0.623
25,000 $19,184 $          19,184 $0.767
500 $1,056 $            1,056 $0.365
2,000 $1,604 $            1,604 $0.301
M Retail Sales ‐ Shell 5,000 $2,507 $            2,507 $0.306 10,000 $4,038 $            4,038 $0.252
25,000 $7,813 $            7,813 $0.313
100 $920 $                920 $1.373
400 $1,332 $            1,332 $1.270
M Retail Sales ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $2,094 $            2,094 $1.321 2,000 $3,415 $            3,415 $1.009
5,000 $6,441 $            6,441 $1.288
1,000 $4,593 $            4,593 $0.855
4,000 $7,157 $            7,157 $0.666
R‐1 Hotel Low/Mid Rise ‐ Complete 10,000 $11,152 $          11,152 $0.669 20,000 $17,837 $          17,837 $0.572
50,000 $34,995 $          34,995 $0.700
1,000 $1,522 $            1,522 $0.253
4,000 $2,280 $            2,280 $0.215
R‐1 Hotel Low/Mid Rise ‐ Shell 10,000 $3,568 $            3,568 $0.220 20,000 $5,768 $            5,768 $0.177
50,000 $11,083 $          11,083 $0.222
250 $1,111 $            1,111 $0.729
1,000 $1,658 $            1,658 $0.627
R‐1 Hotel Low/Mid Rise ‐ Tenant Improve. 2,500 $2,598 $            2,598 $0.642 5,000 $4,203 $            4,203 $0.514
12,500 $8,060 $            8,060 $0.645
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B-9 + B10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Permit & Inspection Fees
1,000 $4,504 $            4,504 $0.832
4,000 $7,000 $            7,000 $0.652
R‐2 Apartment/Multi‐Family ‐ Complete 10,000 $10,909 $          10,909 $0.655 20,000 $17,461 $          17,461 $0.558
50,000 $34,208 $          34,208 $0.684
667 $869 $                869 $0.401
1,333 $1,136 $            1,136 $0.651
R‐2 Apartment/Multi‐Family ‐ Remodel 2,000 $1,570 $            1,570 $0.477 3,333 $2,206 $            2,206 $0.484
5,000 $3,013 $            3,013 $0.603
333 $1,459 $            1,459 $1.473
667 $1,950 $            1,950 $2.250
R‐2 Apartment/Multi‐Family ‐ Addition 1,000 $2,700 $            2,700 $1.680 1,667 $3,820 $            3,820 $1.660
2,500 $5,203 $            5,203 $2.081
800 $522 $                522 $0.154
1,600 $645 $                645 $0.310
R‐3 Manufactured Home ‐ Complete 2,400 $893 $                893 $0.209 4,000 $1,228 $            1,228 $0.229
6,000 $1,685 $            1,685 $0.281
667 $522 $                522 $0.185
1,333 $645 $                645 $0.372
R‐3 Prefabricated Dwelling ‐ Complete 2,000 $893 $                893 $0.251 3,333 $1,228 $            1,228 $0.277
5,000 $1,689 $            1,689 $0.338
500 $2,765 $            2,765 $1.027
2,000 $4,306 $            4,306 $0.801
R‐4 Congregate Care ‐ Complete 5,000 $6,710 $            6,710 $0.805 10,000 $10,734 $          10,734 $0.688
25,000 $21,052 $          21,052 $0.842
1,000 $3,272 $            3,272 $1.182
2,000 $4,454 $            4,454 $1.708
IRC SFD Single‐Family (custom or model) 3,000 $6,162 $            6,162 $1.309 5,000 $8,780 $            8,780 $1.261
7,500 $11,932 $          11,932 $1.591
667 $1,617 $            1,617 $1.023
1,333 $2,299 $            2,299 $1.323
IRC SFD Single‐Family ‐ Production / Repeat 2,000 $3,181 $            3,181 $1.062 3,333 $4,597 $            4,597 $0.972
5,000 $6,217 $            6,217 $1.243
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B-9 + B10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Permit & Inspection Fees
333 $623 $                623 $0.567
667 $812 $                812 $0.936
IRC SFD Single‐Family Residential ‐ Remodel 1,000 $1,124 $            1,124 $0.681 1,667 $1,578 $            1,578 $0.691
2,500 $2,154 $            2,154 $0.862
167 $830 $                830 $1.284
333 $1,044 $            1,044 $2.424
IRC SFD Single‐Family Residential ‐ Addition 500 $1,448 $            1,448 $1.662 833 $2,002 $            2,002 $1.786
1,250 $2,746 $            2,746 $2.197
333 $632 $                632 $0.528
667 $808 $                808 $0.930
IRC SFD Residential Building ‐ Foundation 1,000 $1,118 $            1,118 $0.657 1,667 $1,556 $            1,556 $0.690
2,500 $2,131 $            2,131 $0.852
83 $509 $                509 $1.464
167 $631 $                631 $2.916
IRC SFD Residential ‐ Patio Cover/Balcony/Deck 250 $874 $                874 $1.974 417 $1,203 $            1,203 $2.165
625 $1,654 $            1,654 $2.646
83 $509 $                509 $1.464
167 $631 $                631 $2.916
IRC SFD Residential Patio Cover ICC Approved 250 $874 $                874 $1.974 417 $1,203 $            1,203 $2.165
625 $1,654 $            1,654 $2.646
83 $509 $                509 $1.464
167 $631 $                631 $2.916
IRC SFD Residential Patio Enclosure 250 $874 $                874 $1.974 417 $1,203 $            1,203 $2.165
625 $1,654 $            1,654 $2.646
83 $509 $                509 $1.464
167 $631 $                631 $2.916
IRC SFD Residential Patio Enclosure ICC Approved 250 $874 $                874 $1.974 417 $1,203 $            1,203 $2.165
625 $1,654 $            1,654 $2.646
500 $2,388 $            2,388 $0.863
2,000 $3,683 $            3,683 $0.688
S‐1 Garage/Service Station ‐ Complete 5,000 $5,746 $            5,746 $0.694 10,000 $9,215 $            9,215 $0.585
25,000 $17,983 $          17,983 $0.719
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B-9 + B10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Permit & Inspection Fees
500 $973 $                973 $0.323
2,000 $1,458 $            1,458 $0.275
S‐1 Garage/Service Station ‐ Shell 5,000 $2,282 $            2,282 $0.281 10,000 $3,689 $            3,689 $0.226
25,000 $7,086 $            7,086 $0.283
100 $920 $                920 $1.373
400 $1,332 $            1,332 $1.270
S‐1 Garage/Service Station ‐ Tenant Improve. 1,000 $2,094 $            2,094 $1.321 2,000 $3,415 $            3,415 $1.009
5,000 $6,441 $            6,441 $1.288
500 $1,532 $            1,532 $0.494
2,000 $2,273 $            2,273 $0.430
S‐2 Parking Garage ‐ Complete 5,000 $3,563 $            3,563 $0.442 10,000 $5,771 $            5,771 $0.351
25,000 $11,040 $          11,040 $0.442
500 $666 $                304 $0.063
2,000 $998 $                399 $0.079
S‐2 Commercial Carport ‐ Std. Plan 5,000 $1,563 $                636 $0.086 10,000 $2,524 $            1,065 $0.056
25,000 $4,852 $            1,901 $0.076
167 $607 $                607 $1.032
333 $779 $                779 $1.800
U Residential Garage 500 $1,079 $            1,079 $1.281 833 $1,506 $            1,506 $1.332
1,250 $2,061 $            2,061 $1.649
40 $517 $                517 $2.150
160 $775 $                775 $1.833
U Pool/Spa 400 $1,215 $            1,215 $1.865
800 $1,961 $            1,961 $1.511
2,000 $3,774 $            3,774 $1.887
50 $427 $                427 $1.327
200 $626 $                626 $1.180
U‐1 Commercial ‐ Accessory Building 500 $980 $                980 $1.234 1,000 $1,597 $            1,597 $0.959
2,500 $3,036 $            3,036 $1.214
50 $452 $                452 $1.467
200 $672 $                672 $1.270
U‐1 Commercial Carport 500 $1,053 $            1,053 $1.308 1,000 $1,707 $            1,707 $1.039
2,500 $3,265 $            3,265 $1.306
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B-9 + B10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Permit & Inspection Fees
83 $523 $                523 $1.572
167 $654 $                654 $3.024
U‐1 Residential ‐ Accessory Building 250 $906 $                906 $2.070 417 $1,251 $            1,251 $2.242
625 $1,718 $            1,718 $2.749
133 $509 $                509 $0.915
267 $631 $                631 $1.823
U‐1 Residential Carport 400 $874 $                874 $1.234 667 $1,203 $            1,203 $1.353
1,000 $1,654 $            1,654 $1.654
2,000 $3,808 $            3,808 $0.397
8,000 $6,189 $            6,189 $0.284
‐            Warehouse ‐ Complete 20,000 $9,598 $            9,598 $0.279 40,000 $15,185 $          15,185 $0.254
100,000 $30,438 $          30,438 $0.304
200 $711 $                711 $0.540
800 $1,035 $            1,035 $0.493
‐            Commercial Building ‐ Foundation 2,000 $1,627 $            1,627 $0.511 4,000 $2,648 $            2,648 $0.394
10,000 $5,013 $            5,013 $0.501
200 $782 $                782 $0.592
800 $1,137 $            1,137 $0.542
‐            Commercial Building ‐ Addition 2,000 $1,787 $            1,787 $0.562 4,000 $2,911 $            2,911 $0.433
10,000 $5,511 $            5,511 $0.551
240 $367 $                367 $0.238
960 $538 $                538 $0.213
‐            Modular Building ‐ Complete 2,400 $845 $                845 $0.220 4,800 $1,373 $            1,373 $0.172
12,000 $2,609 $            2,609 $0.217
500 $390 $                390 $0.119
2,000 $569 $                569 $0.108
‐            Manufactured Building ‐ Foundation 5,000 $893 $                893 $0.112 10,000 $1,454 $            1,454 $0.087
25,000 $2,754 $            2,754 $0.110
200 $1,248 $            1,248 $0.950
800 $1,818 $            1,818 $0.865
‐            Commercial Building ‐ Remodel 2,000 $2,856 $            2,856 $0.898 4,000 $4,651 $            4,651 $0.692
10,000 $8,800 $            8,800 $0.880
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ‐‐ PART 2 B-9 + B10

ICC (UBC)
Use Type Occupancy
Size Basis
(square feet)
Base Fee
FY 22‐23
Base Cost FY
22‐23
Each
Additional SF
New Construction ‐‐ Permit & Inspection Fees
200 $1,202 $            1,202 $0.927
800 $1,758 $            1,758 $0.834
‐            Commercial Building ‐ Repair 2,000 $2,759 $            2,759 $0.866 4,000 $4,490 $            4,490 $0.670
10,000 $8,512 $            8,512 $0.851
333 $681 $                681 $0.477
667 $840 $                840 $0.969
‐            Moved Building ‐ Residential 1,000 $1,163 $            1,163 $0.651 1,667 $1,597 $            1,597 $0.721
2,500 $2,198 $            2,198 $0.879
120 $367 $                367 $0.475
480 $538 $                538 $0.426
‐            Commercial Coach ‐ Complete 1,200 $845 $                845 $0.440 2,400 $1,373 $            1,373 $0.343
6,000 $2,609 $            2,609 $0.435
Any requested services not covered by the Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual costs at full cost recovery.  Full cost recovery = actual cost + 35% Administrative Overhead. 







 




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    

 







! 

!
 "#  

!  $  # !!#"!

" ! ! # "#!!!!
 
 
$%&'
  ! "!
!! "  !  "!


!

""  

$%&'
() 

 !#
!!
   
" 
#   " 

!
 
*
!+++++++++++++++++++
!
""

"##

#! 

 
,!+++++++++++++++++++++ #! "

"!#  "

 

    -
'.-
(
 .
/0++++++++  #
! !!
"
#
 #
!


"!
!

    





 

  




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   1

.
(

.2
0!++++++++ !#!
!
""!#"

" !


 

3
.
'4

0++++++++ !#"!!  !"!#
!!"!!""!!#

# 
  4
5
6 +++++++++++++++++++ 


! !####

""!!!
!!!" "#!

 





 

  



74747474    . .
'08"+++++++++++++++++ # #
!

#!


"


" 
#
 

7
.2
9'

.5
6

0 ! "
!
!" # !
"!
"
!!

  
'.:
/
.(''
*0$ 

!# !
 

#!#!
   # 4
'
9
+++++++++++++++++ !!
"
!

"#"#
!!"! "
 """#"## 
;<=>?@ABCADCEFGHIJKLMNOAPEQRDSTRCATUVTQVECWXOSCETCYCZW[T\QEPXT]QAYDZTE^EOST@ART_`]^@a?UUUbc[YbVQdeETVOQAYeUTYPe\CSPYXTTPeGHIJSWOETdOYOQAUTYPbWR\ IfghiIHHcCYTFTCEOART_TYCARPCc[TYUOPXYTZOCAADC[CARCAADC[CdTECVTRCPCCETCdCO[Cc[TCP?UUUbc[YbVQdeETVOQAYeUTYPe\CSPYXTTPeSQAYDZTEjWEOSTjOART_jRCPCjPCc[TYbXPZ 2k:5-l3: (
.2k:5-l3: m*4'  ,

/ n (
.2k:5-l3: m*4'  ,
/ n 



l
 1'

o*0: '

 
*'
,o*'!07p*0'

*
(-,7q4'

m"n
.#
]<;Nrs>t^t@]>@;u>v>N^w]@x@]]@=@>Nw;urbNb]@=ywz>tw{> swyGHGG `w[[OPTZYOART_TYbIfJGjJ|iIHHDA[TYYQPXTEUOYTAQPTRb;QPYTCYQAC[[FCR}DYPTRba 


w[[rEcCA]QAYDZTEY`]^@jra rEcCA~CVT>CEATEYCAR][TEOSC[~QETEY`]^@j~a l l
 




l
 

l
 l
 *'

00*'
00

*
03

€!3#€"3€ ATTACHMENT 2












  !"#$%&'()$#*+$%,(+-.',/ 0+%),-1-2,(3+%),- 4//(,/()+%),-56)3)% 7



8

9

7


:;








 






 










<
 =





 









>
?@@

 

=


A









@



@





 





BCDEEFGHIJKEDLMNOPQJREHJGHFKSJPKTFUPVNMKPFWRLJMGFLPEFLJMRNKFU








X









 


 
BC





Y
Z







 





 
Y
7





  











9



 
 







X








 ',/ 0+%),-'#($#-%[\+-]#2,(/#$)+0^)5%()$%5 _



`









7



8

 9

7


a








 







 Y
bcccZ@

de7f

7



7











 








9



7



7





 `


A

A`
 _


;
`A










 





Y
;







;


`





@

 

@
A

g
 

A
 





 ',/ 0+%),-[#(%)2)$+%),- 9

















7



8

 9

7


??hi












 JREPIFEJEHFEJjGJJQREHJGkMMJKEGJMEPVPJQLNLkUFEPNKlPEHEHJmEFEJTNKEMNUUJMWRnVVPGJo*)-+-$# p)00$#(%)2q%\#\)]\#(#5%)3+%#%,%\#%+%#[,-%(,00#(!qr -#stuvuu '0#+5#w,%#9MPNMxJFMWRGPExLNLkUFEPNKJREPIFEJRIFxyJMJOPRJQo9 






`




 c


;

 


@




8z

 ed?ifCCB{ai |<<}~Y89cgZ
_}<8



Z <8c|Y}c
7





 Y

ATTACHMENT 3





 


 !"#$#%&'$("$$!)(* !#$$$+ &"# $ #$(+,-#)$$!"*$)((*,$'-." $$!)(*!#$ $)''" # # $(#($+ !" (#*
"#(*( # # $(#($+'/" (#*"#(*$, &'((*"!#-#0100203# $ #$(+ 45# #4$(#
($+
6#7#4(#*"#(*
8679$) $-#
0100203:;;

6$$<(*#(=#+ &(*#+  $ &#$("#(*#('""#(*( 5#!$(# # # $(#($+#*$<"!#$($+ &(*#0100203 # $ #$(+
>?@
45# #5$$!A)(*5"#(*B:;; (
4$ &#$(5"#(*B2131 (
45# #5$$!A)(*$()'$##$:;;CD11BD1:;; D11
4$ &#$($()'$##$2131CD11B1EE:
D11
5#&#$($!!#$!$670100203D1:;;=1EE:BD1:03

Agenda Item No. 6G

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of September 13, 2022
_Hannah Sanchez_______________ __________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Hannah Sanchez, Recreation Services Manager Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Co-ed Adult Basketball League
RECOMMENDATION:

To review the Co-ed Adult Basketball League content and price thereof to approve for commencement of the program.

BACKGROUND:

The Recreation Department is proposing an adult co-ed basketball league to enhance recreational opportunities for the community. In order to improve the chances of attracting enough players for league play, the Recreation Department would like to begin preparations now, and also, so that the basketball season can finish up before the major fall and winter holidays. Drop-in Basketball has been occurring on Friday nights with a consistent group of people and continues to grow in its numbers. Many participants have expressed their desire to compete in a league run by the city. Starting with a Co-ed League would allow the Recreation Department to assess if there are enough participants to add multiple divisions the next year. It would also give members of the community, whether playing or not, the opportunity to gather together and socialize while also promoting healthy living.

DISCUSSION:

The Co-ed Adult Basketball League proposal is as follows:
• Co-ed Basketball League
o Length of Season: Eight (8) weeks with additional week for playoffs o Number of participants on roster
 Minimum: 8
 Maximum: 14
o Participant Ages: 16+
o Dates: October 14th – December 19th
o Location: City Hall Auditorium/Le Roy Community Center o Registration Fee per Team
 Resident Team (At least 5 players must show proof of residency) - $495  Non-resident Team - $595

o Registration Timeline
 Opens: September 14th
 Deadline: October 5th
o Referee Fee per Game: $15 per team
The proposed registration fees were created based on the following costs: administrative time, referee assigner time, building attendant for scorekeeping, and game supplies. The fee is set per team. These fees would give the Recreation Department a starting point to work from for future basketball league program registration fees. If the city decides in the future that prices need to be altered, those updated fees would be presented to the council for approval.

The City of Guadalupe’s referee assigner would assign referees to the City of Guadalupe’s adult basketball league. The assigned referee of the game would be paid $15 from each team playing for a total of $30 per game.

A minimum of four (4) teams would be needed to run the league. A roster would require at least eight (8) individuals and no more than 14. A team manager would need to be established to start a team. It would be the team manager’s responsibility to complete the team entry/roster form. The team manager would be responsible for collecting the registration fee and participation waivers from all members on the roster and submit them to the Recreation Services Manager.

Individuals that would like to participate that do not have a team would submit a free agent sign-up form to the Recreation Services Manager. After receiving the form, the Recreation Services Manager would then add the individual to an existing team and give the manager of that team the individual’s contact information.

The program would be advertised for one (1) month prior to the first game with flyers throughout the community, on the city website, at drop-in basketball nights, through the water bill, and on the Royal Theatre marquee. Registration would begin September 14th and the deadline to register would be October 5th.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The registration fees are structured to cover all costs associated with the program.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Co-ed Adult Basketball League Cost Breakdown

2. Resolution No. 2022-80
Attachment 1: Cost Breakdown
Location Dates Weeks for Season
Auditorium 10.07-12.16 9
total expenses $ 1,979.50 Needed # of teams 4
Staff Game hrs 2
hrs rate #ofstaff total
Admin 29.5 $ 31.00 $ 914.50
Building Attendant 10 $ 16.50 1 $ 165.00
Ref Coordinator 40 $ 22.00 1 $ 900.00
part. Per team cost per part per team cost per part res. res. Fee non-res.

Registration Fee 8 $ 61.86 $ 494.88 $ 61.88 $ 495.00 $ 595.00 Santa Maria - 10 wk $ 69.13 $ 553.00 $ 692.00
Difference $ 58.00
SLO - 8 wk $ 69.63 $ 557.00
Difference $ 62.00
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-80

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE APPROVING THE

CO-ED ADULT BASKETBALL LEAGUE
WHEREAS, the City of Guadalupe has had a long history and love for sports activities for our community; and
WHEREAS, the pandemic has hindered the City of Guadalupe from offering such activities; and WHEREAS, an initial step in developing a growing sports/recreation program for the City would be a co-ed adult basketball league which would allow for not only enjoyment of the sport of basketball but would present an opportunity to gather together, promoting healthy living; and WHEREAS, the regular season will run for eight (8) weeks with participants aged 16 and above with an additional ninth week for playoffs; and
WHEREAS, the team registration fee is set for both residents and non-residents such fees being structured to cover all costs associated with the program with any excess to be marked for future recreational programs; and
WHEREAS, a referee assigner would be hired as an independent contractor with the assigned referees paid per game by the two teams playing; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe as follows:

SECTION 1: The City of Guadalupe Co-Ed Adult Basketball League is approved and adopted.

SECTION 2: The City Clerk hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Administrator and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting on 13th day of September 2022, by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTACHMENT 2
I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2022-80, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held September 13, 2022, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
________________________________ ______________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Phillip F. Sinco, City Attorney

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
City of Guadalupe
918 Obispo Street
P.O. Box 908
Guadalupe, CA 93434
Tel (805) 356-3903
To: Mr. Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Larry Appel, Contract Planning Director
Date: September 1, 2022 Planning Report Covering August 2022

MINISTERIAL PROJECTS
Zoning Clearances Approved 2
Zoning Clearances Denied 0
Zoning Verification Letters 0
Business Licenses Approved 1
Business Licenses Denied 0
ADUs approved 0

DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS
The following projects are in for Planning Department review and have been worked on during July:
 General Plan Update – .Mitigated ND is being circulated locally as well as with state agencies both in English and Spanish
 2020-003-GPZ/2020-101-LLA Almaguer - LAFCo hearing approved on August 11, 2022.  2021-098-TTM/2021-099-TTM - DJ South tract maps being processed. Applications deemed Complete for processing 1-28-22 for TTM -098, working on final conditions of approval before staff report is prepared with Resolution Approved by CC on May 10, 2022. TTM -099 application deemed complete July 27, 2022
 2021-099-TTM - Lot 4 Pasadera South tentative tract map (111 single-family lots). Set for September 13, 2022, CC public hearing.
 2022-016-GPZ Snowy Plover map and design review remain Incomplete  2022-027-CUP/2022-030-DR - Conditional Use Permit for Patrick Kimbell to allow 24 affordable apartments in a Street. Second Incomplete Application letter sent June new 3-story building and Design Review to allow renovation of upstairs space for three apartments at 823 Guadalupe. Second Complete August 28, 2022.
 2022-034-CUP - Conditional Use Permit for Central Coast Processing, LLC to allow processing, bulk packaging, and transportation of cannabis at 151 Obispo Street. Application under review. .

Incomplete Application letter sent May 18, 2022.
 2022-037-CUP - Conditional Use Permit for Hwy - 1 General Auto Repair, to allow auto repair shop at 333 Guadalupe Street. Incomplete Application Deemed Complete July 6, 2022.  2022-037-CUP - Conditional Use Permit for Hwy - 1 General Auto Repair, to legalize auto repair shop at 333 Guadalupe Street. Application Deemed Complete July 6, 2022.  2022-056-DR - Submitted July 7, 2022 - Application Under review.  2022-063-LM - Mahoney Lot Merger - Submitted August 11, 2022 -Under Review.  2022-065-LLA - La Guardia Townhomes lot line adjustment Submitted August 22- under review.

Agenda Item No. 6H 1.

Ministerial Permit Report– July 2022
(Reported 9-1-2022)
Zoning Clearance Approvals
2021-128-ZC T-Mobile generator 4550 10th St
2022-064-ZC Wine Tasting and Event Space 945 & 4941 Guadalupe St ADU Approvals
Business License Approvals
VanWingerden Wine Tasting and Event Space 945 & 4941 Guadalupe St Business License Denials
None
Guadalupe City Planning Department
Planning Processing Summary for August 2022
(9-1-22 update)
Case No. Name Submittal
Date
Comp. Date Status OK for Bldg.

Permit Issuance
2021-099-TTP $$ DJ Farms South
Tract map
Sept 2021 Complete
7-27-2022
CC hearing September 13th NO
2020-101-LLA $$ Almaguer

LLA/GPZ
Oct 2020 Complete LAFCO approved August 11th NO
N/A
$$ thru SB2 grant
General Plan
Update
2019 City
Council
authorization
N/A Mitigated ND released for public review in
English and Spanish
N/A
2022-063-LM - -
Submitted -
Mahoney Lot
Merger
August 11,
2022
30-day
review
Under review NO
2022-065-LLA - La
Guardia
La Guardia
Townhomes lot
line adjustment
August
22,2022-
under review.
30-day
review
LLA needed so design review project can
be built without crossing property lines
NO
2022-016-GPZ
2022-017-DR
2022-018-VTTM
Snowy Plover 3-10-22 Incomplete
4-09-22
Project remains Incomplete for
processing.

NO
2022-037-CUP General Auto
Repair
March 2022 Compete
7-6-22
Staff working on revised site plan prior to
City Council hearing.

NO
2022-027-CUP
2022-030-DR
Kimbell
Apartments
2nd INC 8-7-
22 24 new apartments with three apartments
in converted second floor
NO
2022-034-CUP Central Coast
Processing
INC May 18 30-day review of new application NO
2022-056-DR Design Review July 7, 2022 30-day
review
Initial review of application NO
No$ = unreimbursed planning work
$ = projects where a fixed fee has been paid
$$ = projects where a variable fee / deposit is made and the applicant is billed for time beyond the initial deposit // 9-1-22
Agenda Item No. 6H 2.

Building Inspection Log - August 2022

1 Public Works/Engineering Report
August 2022
Development
Pasadera
City staff sent Pasadera a punch list of final elements necessary for the City to take over maintenance and operation of public facilities in Lot 5N. The City assumed operation and maintenance of streetlights, streets, sidewalk, water, sewer and parks in Lot 5N on September 1. Street slurrying occurred the week of August 9. On August 12, City staff provided comments on Tract 29,066.

Other
On August 1, staff provided T-mobile consultant with the water atlas for the area adjacent to the elevated water tank. On August 24, staff evaluated and approved the third alternative site for a cell company’s generator as this site does not interfere with operation of City water facilities.

On August 22, staff reviewed two encroachment permit applications.

On August 31, an evaluation of possible land transfer of small portions of City property to adjacent property owners was completed to reduce the City’s maintenance and liability burden and to maximize the efficiency of adjacent properties for development, after discussing options with property owners.

Facilities
City Hall
Kinyon Construction painted the City Hall auditorium from August 3 through August 18.

On August 31, the modifications to the Public Works portion of City Hall were completed.

There is now a storage area for files and package delivery, as well as a new office for the Engineering Technician/Intern position.

Staff continued working with Ashley & Vance on alternatives for addressing structural deficiencies associated with City Hall.

Agenda Item No. 6H 3.
2 General
Special projects
Public Works staff worked on several special projects requested by others along with normal tasks of emptying streets trash cans twice a week, daily street inspection, bulky trash pickup, and weekly cleaning of the pedestrian bridge in the month of August including:

• August 1: Assist Recreation and Facilities division with a waterline repair at Le Roy Park. Attend final walkthrough for water project. Work with two properties on encroachment issues.
• August 2: Assist Recreation and Facilities division with clearing the City Hall auditorium in preparation of painting project. Assist wastewater with removingan aerator from one of the water basins. Clear tree branches near open space on east side of Obispo Street. Remove tagged sign at Fifth and Tognazzini and clear dirt piles that had accumulated on Guadalupe Street. Borrow scissor lift to fix dangling streetlight in front of Far Western Tavern on Guadalupe Street • August 3: Assist Recreation and Facilities division with clearing auditorium for painting project. Coordinate painting contractor for auditorium painting project.

Coordinate with contractor for improvement at Public Works area. Coordinate with Finance Department for addressing flea infestation. Install lock in City Hall restroom.
• August 4: Install lighting at Bonita bus stop. Assist Recreation and Facilities division by covering vandalism at Paco Park. Coordinate with pressure washing contractor to get a quote for removing graffiti on sidewalk on Guadalupe Street. • August 5: Assist Recreation and Facilities division by investigating fire system at Le Roy Park.
• August 8: Assist Recreation and Facilities division with flea infestation at Finance Department. Coordinate with contractors for both the public works modifications project and the City Hall Auditorium painting project. Perform annual maintenance on north side of W. Main St. west of Guadalupe Street landscaping project. • August 9: Continue all projects from August 8.
• August 10: Continue work on West Main Street landscape project. • August 15: Fix radar sign at Mary Buren, purchase blue reflectors for marking hydrants
• August 16: Assist Recreation and Facilities division with O’Connell Park irrigation box. Install 14 blue hydrant reflectors, mostly in Treasure Park area, assist Whittle and Recreation and Facilities division in testing fire extinguishers. Assist wastewater by replacing hydraulic line on tractor.
• August 17: Assist Recreation and Facilities with Le Roy Park irrigation and Paco Park transients. Help water with new hydrant on Maryknoll. 3 • August 18: Assist Recreation and Facilities with the demobilization of City Hall painting contractor.
• August 22: Assist Recreation and Facilities division in obtaining multiple quotes for installing additional irrigation at Le Roy Park. Coordinate with electrician on upgrades to Public Works area. Finish work on W. Main St. landscape. Reinstall damaged speed limit sign on 11th St. that was knocked over in a traffic accident. • August 25: Meeting at Leroy Park to finalize the and bench dedication plaque style and placement.
• August 31: Purchase bricks and sand for flagpole at Le Roy Park The Public Works Director participated in the following meetings in August:
• August 2: Attend webinar in completing the California Air Resources Board’s zeroemission bus rollout plan with a focus on small transit agencies. Final walk-hrough for West Main Street waterline replacement project.
• August 4: Technical Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC)/Technical Planning Advisory Committee (TPAC) meetings. Highway 1/166 intersection improvements discussion with Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) and CalTrans.
• August 9: Community/Water District Partner Meeting.
• August 10: Sewer Collection system inspection teleconference. • August 11: Meeting with Wastewater Treatment Plant adjacent landowner. • August 12: Grant finances discussion. Meeting with Bishop Peaks consultant to facilitate electric bus specification development and purchase. • August 15: Meeting with bus consultant, SMOOTH, and bus manufacturer to hammer out bus specifications.
• August 16: Final walkthrough for Pasadera Lot 5N. Meeting to finalize Integrated Regional Water Management Program Proposition 1 Round 2 grant application for $990,000 grant opportunity to fund Pioneer Lift Station Rehabilitation. • August 18: Meeting to discuss options for funding Cycle 6 of the General Plan Housing Element. Meeting with Los Amigos de Guadalupe to discuss project costs.
• August 22: Meeting with the Regional Climate Collaborative (RCC) to work on the grant application for an opportunity to receive $300,000 for the preparation of the City of Guadalupe Climate Action Plan.
• August 23: Regional Water Efficiency Program meeting. • August 24: Meeting with Los Amigos de Guadalupe staff to complete obligations associated with the Le Roy Park Capital Campaign program, including engraved papers around the flagpole, and plaques for the trees, picnic tables, and benches. • August 25: Broadband Consortium Meeting. Central Park renovation project design kickoff meeting.
4 • August 26: Meeting with electric bus manufacturer to coordinate application preparation for $156,000 rebate through California’s Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) program. • August 30: Meeting with the Regional Climate Collaborative (RCC) to help finalize the grant application for an opportunity to receive $300,000 for the preparation of the City of Guadalupe Climate Action Plan.

Parks
Le Roy Park
On August 9, staff submitted the Notice of Termination for the Construction General Permit for Le Roy Park to the State Water Resources Control Board.

City staff is working with Los Amigos de Guadalupe staff to complete the plaques and pavers associated with the capital campaign program. On August 24, staff met to discuss alternatives and on August 25, a site visit was held to finalize style and placement. Bricks and sand were purchased on August 31.

Central Park
A very productive kickoff meeting and site visit were held on August 25 for the Central Park Renovation Project design with Pacific Coast Land Design and several of their subconsultants. A public meeting is tentatively scheduled for October 13.

Solid Waste
SB 1826
On August 17, City staff was notified of 14 additional customers that may be subject to the SB 1826 regulations for mandatory commercial organics recycling. Letters and waiver applications were sent out to these additional customers on August 23. For those commercial accounts that do not submit waiver request applications by October 1, new mandatory commercial organics recycling service will begin November 1.

SB 1383
The City received $20,820 in grant funding for the purchase of kitchen pails to facilitate residential kitchen organics recycling. A water bill insert on this topic was included in the September billing. Anyone interested receiving a free kitchen organic waste collection pail, first-come first-served and one per household, may come to the Planning Office during business hours to receive one.

Streets
Street Rehabilitation
5 On August 9, reviewed draft construction drawings and discussed edits with the consultant. The project was advertised on August 26, with a bid opening date of September 22, and contract award scheduled for October 11.

Transit
EV buses
On August 12, the City received a $553,688 check from the LCTOP program to be applied toward the purchase of our first electric bus. After significant work on developing the specifications for the bus, on August 22, staff issued a purchase order in the amount of $1,049,977.50 to purchase our first electric bus. The purchase order was sent to 3CE to qualify for $250,000 rebate. City staff continues to work with the manufacturer on the application to receive $156,000 from the California's Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) program.

On August 30, City staff was notified that we were awarded an additional $957,211 for the purchase of our third electric bus through the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities grant through the Escalante Meadows project.

Service Changes
Throughout August, City staff was regularly in contact with our contract service provider SMOOTH to answer questions, resolve issues, and obtain a general opinion of the impacts of the service changes that went into effect on July 1. So far, the City has received several verbal complaints and received and responded to one written complaint, but the overall impression is that the new routes and schedule are meeting passenger needs and ridership appears to have increased. Ridership, expense, and revenue data from August and September will be evaluated and presented to Council in October.

Bus Shelters
In August, staff observed a significant number of people waiting at the Amtrak station with no good place to sit. On August 10, staff moved a concrete bench from the railroad platform to the front of the building to provide greater comfort to those who are waiting for the bus. Staff has observed that this bench is used regularly.

Water
West Main Street Water Line Project
This project involves replacing approximately one-thousand feet of 4-inch pipe with 12- inch pipe on West Main Street from Guadalupe Street to Pioneer Street and will improve fire flows to the middle school. This project was completed August 5, 2022. Final costs were $367,301.72, which is well below the budgeted amount of $400,000. Staff has already observed benefits from this project, including higher pressures on the western edge of town, and more stable chlorine residuals, indicating lower water age and higher quality. Staff has requested hydrant pressure testing from the Fire Department on Calle Cesar Chavez and Tognazzini to document fire flows and pressures. A small project remains to connect the water main on West Main at Pioneer Street to the water line feeding the east end of the school. Staff was unaware of this connection until it was unearthed during construction. To facilitate project completion, staff decided to put off this 6 connection until after that main project was complete. Staff is currently seeking three bids for this work, which is is estimated to cost around $25,000.

Operations
August 17 the dry barrel fire hydrant on Maryknoll was replaced with our standard wet barrel hydrant, which included replacement of the riser. A similar hydrant on Wong will be replaced in the near future.

On August 23, a recently repaired variable frequency drive (VFD) was replaced at the Obispo Pump Station.

Staff is soliciting three quotes for the purchase of a valve exercising machine to facilitate valve maintenance. The City’s water system has approximately 603 valves. Regular exercising of the problems helps to keep them operational and to identify failed valves. A valve machine reduces the time needed to complete this work and reduces the potential for staff injuries.

Pasadera Well
City staff solicited quotes for the 100 hp spare motor for Pasadera well. $25,000 was budgeted in the fiscal year 2022 – 23 budget, account #10 – 4420 – 1550 for this item.

By August 5, three quotes were received, at $25,378.17 (Perry’s Electric), $32,484.14 (M&W Pumps), and $40,594.87 (All American Drilling/Fisher Pump Service). Although the low bid is slightly over the budgeted amount, the account line item has $81,000 total, providing sufficient funding to proceed with the purchase of this critical piece of standby equipment. Staff placed an order for this item with Perry’s Electric in August. The delivery time for this new well motor is approximately 15 weeks. Motor failure is the most common reason for loss of well productivity.

Wastewater
Regulatory
No overflows occurred in August 2022.

The wastewater treatment plant experienced no violations the month of August.

City staff was informed on August 1 that our sewer collection system will be inspected to validate the City of Guadalupe’s compliance with the Waste Discharge Requirements for sanitary sewer systems, WDR order number 2006-003-DWQ.

Effluent Pump Station Rehabilitation
This project involves the rehabilitation of the effluent pump station at the wastewater treatment plant. It is partially funded through an Integrated Regional Water Management Program (IRWMP) grant. PG&E finally indicated approval of the switchgear on July 5. 7 The Contractor sent the fabrication drawings for the switchgear to the manufacturer, who indicated delivery of switchgear by November. The City issued an amendment extending the construction contract to December 31, 2022.

Highway 1 Lift Station Rehabilitation
The design engineer made plan changes and City staff submitted a letter of response and revised drawings to Caltrans on July 29 for an encroachment permit for this project. The City continues to wait for Caltrans encroachment permit issuance to move forward on this project
8 Project
# Account # 2022-23 TOTAL
2022-23 Spent/
Encumbered August 2022 Update
100 Buildings089-104 89-4444-3044 155,127 $ 089-105 89-4444-3045 40,840 $ 089-106 89-4444-3077 90,000 $ 089-107 89-4444-3076 70,000 $ 089-108 89-4444-3075 170,000 $ 26,527 $ PG&E design underway089-109 New Royal Theatre 5,459,320 $ 089-110 New Library Relocation 30,000 $ 089-111 New City Hall Restroom Redesign 154,000 $ 089-112 New 400,000 $ 70,495 $ Building assessment complete. Waiting for Council input.200 Parks089-201 New 4,882,054 $ 611,887 $ Design awarded. Kickoff meeting August 25.089-204 New CDBG (Leroy Phase 2) 1,700,000 $ Waiting for Council input.300 Streets, Sidewalks, Bicycle Facilities 089-307 89-4444-3067 200,000 $ 089-308 89-4444-3068 1,700,000 $ 119,244 $ Design complete. Project bid August 2022. Bid opening Sept. 22089-309 89-4444-3097 100,000 $ Design complete. Project bid August 2022. Bid opening Sept. 22089-310 New 293,809 $ Developer to address089-311 89-4444-3092 60,000 $ 400 Water089-406 89-4444-3093 95,000 $ 089-407 89-4444-3094 200,000 $ 089-408 89-4444-3095 50,000 $ 089-409 89-4444-3096 450,000 $ 362,655 $ Completed 8/9/22089-410 New 40,000 $ 500 Wastewater089-503 89-4444-3083 522,821 $ 516,180 $ Construction tentatively scheduled for December 2022089-504 89-4444-3084 1,200,000 $ Design complete. Waiting for CalTrans encroacment permit.089-510 89-4444-3090 90,000 $ 600 Transit 089-603 New 1,700,000 $ 1,049,978 $ $1,049,977.50 P.O. issued 8/22/22089-602 New 494,000 $ Transfer to CIP fund 089: 20,346,971 $ 2,756,966 $
Completed
General Plan UpdatePublic Facilities Master Plan (w/ parks & library)American Legion wood repair Building improvements (PD Electrical, misc)City Hall Upgrades (roof & assoc. building repairs) CDBG (Central Park)11th st multimodal path designStreet Rehabilitation FY 22/23Sidewalk repairsLa Guardia SidewalkElevated Tank Repairs/Evaluate Antenna RevenueAdvanced Metering Infrastructure Phase 1SCADA ImprovementsWest Main WaterlineBonita Tank Demolition Effluent Irrigation Pump Station RehabilitationHwy 1 Lift StationAIPS vaultEV Bus and chargingAmtrak Tran Station Rehab (design)

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Financial Accounting Software
City of Guadalupe
Capital Improvement Projects Budget - Fiscal Year 22-23 Storm Drain Improvements

MAYOR’S REPORT
August 13, 2022
(Information below may be subject to change)

1. Brut Force
Two years ago, several parts of Brut Force were filmed here at city hall and throughout the city. The movie is out for rental and purchase on Amazon Prime.

LINK:
https://www.aazon.com/gp/video/detail/B09P4GCZS5/ref=atv_dp_share_cu_r

2. Breaking Through: The Story of Francisco Jimenez
Parts of another movie will be filmed in Guadalupe and the surrounding area. Staff is grateful about the possibility of another movie being shot here at city hall and or the vets hall. City staff met with the producer at the end of August to see parts of our facilities. The camera crew and producer will meet with staff and the mayor on Tuesday, September 13th to go over some more details.

Story Synopsis
Breaking Through: The Story of Francisco Jiménez is a dramatic short film based on the awardwinning book by Francisco Jiménez, a lifelong resident of Santa Maria. Set in 1950s California, Breaking Through tells the true story of a Mexican family of undocumented migrant farmworkers through the eyes of a 14-year-old boy; a story of faith, hope, work, fear of deportation, and an unrelenting determination to realize the universal dream of a better life.

Their Team
MRPRODUCTIONS is a small team of professional filmmakers based in the San Francisco Bay Area. They have been granted permission to film in a variety of locations in Santa Maria, such as a strawberry field, Twitchell Law Offices, etc. They will be filming from October 6 - October 14 for six days, exact shoot dates are TBD. The headcount of our crew and talent is approximately 15 - 18. Their budget is modest nevertheless they would like to show their appreciation as much as possible with an appropriate donation. They would also provide a certificate on insurance, a standard location agreement and filming permit.

They are hoping to film the following scenes in Guadalupe:

Classroom Scene: 14-year-old “Francisco” is preparing to recite the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence when his lifelong fear of being deported comes to life when the Principal and a Border Patrol Office enter to escort him away.

Agenda Item No. 9

Filming location: Recreation Services Office, Guadalupe City Hall.

To prepare for their filming, the office would need to be completely empty so they can set and dress the scene with student desks, the American flag, and small props. They would like to set and dress the office the day before our filming. They are more than happy to work after hours if necessary. The actual filming will take approximately 4 - 5 hours and they will return the room to its original condition immediately after our filming.

Border Patrol Office: The Jiménez family is in the process of being deported by an Officer.

The family pleads for time to pack and prepare their return trip to Mexico.

Filming location options: Chamber of Council Office, Guadalupe City Hall, or Vet’s Hall.

They really like the Vets Hall Office and want to explore this possibility. The Chamber Room would be fine too.

They welcome the opportunity to meet members of the community such as the mayor and county supervisors.

3. 151 Obispo Commercial Processing Update
EMC Planning Group is preparing their environmental analysis (paid for by applicant) for inclusion in the Conditional Use Permit Hearing materials.

4. Joint Powers Agreement – School Athletic Programs
A couple weeks ago, the mayor had the pleasure of meeting McKenzie’s athletic director as well as speaking with Kelli, volleyball queen with the school. Coming out of the Pandemic, it is obvious that everyone, young and old, will be venturing out to play, including and especially the school district.

The city has the responsibility of maintaining facilities, paying for utilities, staffing of events, etc., for most programs which use the city facilities, although minimal.

In the years past, the city did have a Joint Powers Agreement with the school district, probably 2 decades ago. The mayor believes the district and city leaders/staff, must come to some type of agreement where limited facilities are available to the school district at a minimal cost: if any.

The mayor is a firm believer that our facilities must be made available for youth and school programs, yet we need to understand and detail the cost elements to providing these facilities for local youth and non-profits.

The mayor is in the process of bringing a round table together and connect it with the recreation and parks manager and commission to see about shared uses.

5. Hotel / Motel Interest
More and more, we are hearing about motel and hotel interest in the city. Recently, someone visited city hall asking about what is allowed in the General-Commercial zone, specifically the property on the corner of Tenth Street and Olivera, the old pharmacy and health clinic. He was interested in converting it into a hotel. There have been inquiries on the Al’s Union property, but the city is working through the disposition of Als, currently.

6. Central coast Community Energy CCCE.

On February 8, 2022, the City of Atascadero passed a binding resolution requesting to join CCCE, seeking the Policy Board’s approval of the membership request, and authorizing its mayor and city manager to execute the joint powers agreement. Atascadero then adopted the ordinance authorizing participation in CCCE and adding the City of Buellton as a member agency. The proposed fifth amendment to add the City of Atascadero must be approved by a final vote of at least two-thirds of the present CCCE Policy Board of Directors. If approved, the proposed fifth amendment will become effective September 22, 2022.

7. Guadalupe Central Park Kick-off Meeting
On August 25, 2022, the city hosted an in-person/virtual hybrid meeting between key city staff (Hannah, Todd, Shannon, Rudy) and the Pacific Coast Land Design Team to plan for the development of the Central Park grant funded project. Project discussion points:
a. Project Background
• SPP Grant
• Identify Stakeholders
b. Field Investigation/Utility Coordination
• Project Team site visit
• ECG survey
• Well status
• Title Report/easements
• Arborist Analysis of existing trees
• Geotech – Coordinate w/ team for recurring meetings
c. Monthly Project Team meetings
• Schedule date/time w/ team for reoccurring meetings
• Invoice submittal date/time
d. Project Schedule
• Review schedule
• Set tentative milestones
e. Community Engagement
• Coordinate meetings with City, LADG, etc.
• Skatepark workshop – PCLD/SITE
f. Design Considerations
• Landscape – Drought Restrictions for plant establishment • Site planning/flexibility from concept plan
g. Site Visit

The tentative Central Outreach meeting for Central Park is Thursday, October 13, 2022, at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

8. Housing Element Cycle 6 – Cal Poly
The city administrator reached out to the City and Regional Planning Division of the College of Architecture and Environmental Design at California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly, CPR Department) to see if they can complete the Housing Element Cycle 6 for the city. The city administrator corresponded with Cornelius Nuworsoo, Ph.D. AICP who is the instructor who led the students in preparing multiple planning documents for the City of Guadalupe, which EMC acknowledged as source materials for the 2021 General Plan.

The CRP Department has capstone studio courses for final year students. They were able to prepare the 2009 Background Report and accompanying Draft General Plan update as well as the 2018 Background Report and accompanying Draft General Plan update. In Professor Nuworsoo’s 17 years at Cal Poly, he led classes to collect background material and develop drafts of general plans for cities each year across the State of California. In some of the cases, they followed up with the preparation of a GP-EIR to enable adoption of the Plans.

After the 2018 report for Guadalupe, they entered into an agreement under which Nuworsoo prepared the 5th Cycle Housing Element for the City of Guadalupe in 2019. They do not have a class or studio to handle housing elements. However, since he teaches the material, he had no problem preparing the Housing Element. One immediate outcome of the 2019 Housing Element was the HCD award of a planning grant to the City of Guadalupe. He submitted a proposal to use that grant to prepare the EIR necessary to enable adoption of the 2018 General Plan but that did not come to be.

Indeed, this summer, Professor Nuworrsoo is wrapping up a Housing Element for another city. If we enter an agreement by early this fall, he can certainly complete the 6th Cycle HE by June 2023. Since there is no class attached to doing the housing element, his relatively affordable fixed price to complete it is $50k is far less than the consultant quote of $250k presented by the consultant. This assumes he is doing it for the city directly. It is known that the city did not have this item budgeted, but it is extremely important for the city to complete this process as we will satisfy the state mandates and ensure we become eligible for grant opportunities that will far exceed the cost of this work. Staff recommends hiring Cal Poly even if we need to use some other source funding. The city administrator will work with the contract planning director and finance to come forward with a city staff proposal with options.

9. Allan Hancock College Board Meeting
The City Administrator met with Councilmember Antonio Ramirez about hosting Allan Hancock College within our Council Chambers on Tuesday, October 18th at 6 p.m. Speaking as someone affiliated with both entities, staff understands Councilmember Ramirez excitement to see this come to fruition.

10. Royal Theatre – Historic Tax Credits
City staff is pursuing a grant writing effort to procure an additional $1.5M (?) in Historic Tax Credits to add to the combination of grants totally over $10M for the Royal Theater. The city can always expect project cost to increase due to supply chain issues and consumer price index or inflation so any additional funding for this project will be appreciated.

Below is an outline of key elements, including the mechanics/net benefit of state/federal Historic Tax Credits (HTC)and New Market Tax Credits (NMTC):
• Historic Tax Credits are obviously of no direct use to a tax-exempt entity. Fortunately, they can be turned into cash for the project/organization through a legal structure that involves an entity that can directly use tax credits. Generally, they make a payment into the project, in exchange for the HTCs (among other possible benefits). • Tax Credits are a dollar-for-dollar reduction in what is owed to the government. This makes tax credits far more valuable than deductions (which just reduces taxable income), and as a result, there is a market out there for entities/individuals that are interested in these tax credits.
• Very conservatively, the city can expect to net about 30% of qualified renovation costs from HTCs. So, if we have a $5 million renovation, we can expect to realize a NET (after all fees/expenses, including ours) of at least $1.5 million (and likely more) from HTCs. • While HTCs are a source we can rely on as the city renovates the building according to the Secretary’s Standards, it is important to note that most of that benefit comes in at the end of construction. As a result, there is often a need to ‘bridge’ the HTC equity/proceeds with debt.
• Unlike HTCs, NMTCs are competitive (increasingly so), but the project generally aligns well enough with the intent of the program. In addition, staff did confirm the building is not only in an eligible census tract, but it is designated as severely distressed, enhancing our chances of getting allocation.

END OF REPORT

Agenda Item No. 10

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of September 13, 2022
__________________________ __________________________
Prepared by: Approved by:

Bill Scott, Contract City Planner Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Public hearing to consider Tract 29,066 (Planning File No. 2021-099-TTM), a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, a to allow subdivision of a 26.82-acre parcel into 113 lots for future development in Pasadera South
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The applicant is proposing creation of a new Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Tract 29,066, for a subdivision of 26.82-acres into a total of 113 lots. The subdivision includes 111 single-family home lots. In addition, Lot 112 (14,889 square-feet) would accommodate a small park and a stormwater retention basin; and Lot 113 (2.6-acres) on the east side of Arroyo Seco Road, is not a part of this subdivision and will remain as undeveloped. Tract Map 29,066 is part of the 85.1-acre portion of the DJ Farms Specific Plan on the south side of the Union Pacific/Santa Maria Valley railroad tracks commonly known as Pasadera South. A Location Map is provided as Attachment 2; and a copy of Tract Map 29,066 is provided as Exhibit C.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:
a) Receive a presentation of the staff report (Bill Scott, Contract City Planner) followed by questions of staff from City Council.
b) Conduct a public hearing to consider any comments from the applicant and the public; and c) Approve Resolution No. 2022-81 to conditionally approve the proposed subdivision of Tentative Tract Map 29,066.

BACKGROUND:

DJ Farms Specific Plan
On November 13, 2012, the City Council, by Resolution No. 2012-29; adopted the revised version of the DJ Farms Specific Plan. The Specific Plan area covers 209-acres and establishes the development parameters for a mixed-use community consisting of up to 802 residential dwelling units, 250,00 square feet of commercial uses, 12.5-acres for a school site and 15.9-acres for neighborhood serving parks and recreational facilities.

Bill Scott

DISCUSSION:

Residential Lots
Of the 113 lots to be created by this subdivision; 111 lots will accommodate residential homesites.

The residential lots cover about 23.9-acres of Tract 29,066. Consistent with the Medium Density Residential (MDR-8) land use designation and the R-1-5000 zoning, the residential lots will have a minimum size of 5,000 square-feet.

Lot 112 – Recreation Designation
Lot 112 is 14,889 square-feet in size and is designated for “Recreation” use by the specific plan. The tract map proposes a dual use for the Lot 112 site. Just under 9,000 square feet of Lot 112 is proposed by the tract map for use as a stormwater retention basin. The remainder, roughly 6,000 square feet, as shown on the map, would accommodate recreational space.

Lot 113 – Remainder Area
Lot 113 is on the easternmost portion of Tract 29,066. Lot 113 is 114,089 square-feet in size. The Lot 113 site is designated for Very Low-Density Residential land use by the specific plan. The Land Use Plan (Figure III-2) in the specific plan envisions fifteen 7,000 square-foot minimum lots in this area.

However, the Arroyo Seco bridge and its roadway realignment reduced the size of the area designated for 7,000 square-foot lots from its original 4.6-acres to approximately 2.6-acres. As a result, the developer has opted not to pursue immediate subdivision of this area pending further consideration of the best use of the area. If a change in density is proposed in the future (e.g., smaller lots), a specific plan amendment would be required. For the immediate purposes of Tract 29,066 the Lot 113 area is designated “Not a Part” of this subdivision. In the interim, the Lot 113 site will be leveled and planted with a suitable ground cover; and the area will be maintained in a condition to ensure it is safe visually attractive and compatible with the adjoining residential neighborhoods.

Site Access
Primary access to the development will be from Obispo Street north of the Santa Maria Valley Railroad; and secondary access will be provided from Arroyo Seco Road on the east side of the subdivision. New bridges will be constructed to extend Obispo Street and Arroyo Seco Road over the railroad tracks. The Obispo Street bridge and its roadway access is anticipated to be fully established prior to the beginning of construction of this subdivision. The Arroyo Seco Bridge will be fully constructed by the developer and operational prior to the construction of the 210th home in Pasadera South.

Conclusion
As conditioned, the design of the Map, its land uses, and roadway alignments are found to substantially meet the specifications of the DJ Farms Specific Plan. The tract map will be implemented in full compliance with the environmental measures identified in the Project EIR. The associated roadways, utilities, public facilities, and infrastructure will be more precisely defined and implemented during the subsequent Final Map, Improvement Plan and Grading Plan stages for subdivision Tract 29,066.

CEQA Compliance
A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH 1992111025) and Addendum to the Final EIR was

prepared for the Revised DJ Farms Specific Plan and certified by the City of Guadalupe in November 2012. The Certified Final EIR and Addendum to the Final EIR addressed the physical impacts on the environment resulting from the development plans outlined in the adopted Specific Plan.

The current project is essentially the same project assessed in the Project EIR. The proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (VTPM) would implement the adopted Specific Plan and it would not substantially alter the project previously analyzed in the Certified Final EIR and the Addendum to the Final EIR.

The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) of the EIR Mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed VTTM have been incorporated as Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B). Staff will continue to review the MMRP to ensure that all mitigation measures are incorporated and considered during each future discretionary and development stage. This Vesting Tentative Tract Map has been found to follow CEQA and the MMRP.

Public Outreach.

This is a public hearing item. Notices of the VTTM approval request and City Council public hearing were published in the Santa Maria Times and mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site as required by the City's Zoning Code.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City Council Resolution No. 2022-81
Exhibit A - City Council Findings
Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval
Exhibit C - Tentative Tract Map Tract 29,066
Exhibit D - Excerpts from Development Agreement
Exhibit E – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

2. Land Use Map/Location Map

3. SB County Air Pollution Control District Letter

Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-81

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY GUADALUPE APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29,066 AND ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT SECTION 15182 AND SECTION 15162.

WHEREAS, on November 13, 2012, the City Council, by Resolution No. 2012-29 adopted the revised version of the DJ Farms Specific Plan which promotes the development of a mixed-use community consisting of up to 802 single-family residential dwelling units, 250,000 square-feet of commercial uses, 12.5-acres for a school and 15.9-acres for neighborhood serving parks and recreational facilities on 209-acres: and
WHEREAS, in September 2021, GB Land South LLC (the Subdivider), filed Planning application 2021-099-TTM for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 29,066 to allow subdivision of the parcel identified as Lot 4 of that certain Parcel Map entitled Tract 29,063 in the southerly portion of the DJ Farms Specific Plan community; and
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map 29,066 will create 113 lots including 111 – 5,000 square-foot minimum lots for single-family detached residential uses one 14,889 square-foot lot for supportive open space and public facilities use; and a 2.6-acre remainder area designated as Lot 113, will not be developed as a part of this subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director has found that the design of the map, the configuration of the lots, and the land uses in Tract Map 29,066 are in substantial conformance to the DJ Farms Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2022, the Guadalupe City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider Vesting Tentative Tract Map 29,066; and the City Council opened the public hearing and invited testimony of the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, notice for the public hearing was published in the Santa Maria Times on September 2, 2022; and notices were mailed to individual property owners within 300-feet of the project site on August 31, 2022 as required by the Subdivision Map Act and the Municipal Code of the City of Guadalupe; and
WHEREAS, the Guadalupe City Council at its regular meeting of September 13, 2022, received public testimony and other evidence at the meeting; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires state and local governmental agencies to inform decision makers and the public about potentially significant environmental effects of a proposed project, and ways to minimize those environmental effects, and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2012, the Guadalupe City Council certified the Final EIR and Addendum to the EIR (SCH 1992111025) (City Council Resolution Number 2012-27); and the City ATTACHMENT 1
Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
Council adopted CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15182 (Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan) provides that a project shall be exempt from further environmental review where a public agency has prepared an EIR on a specific plan after January 1, 1980; and where the project meets the requirements of Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations), an EIR or negative declaration need not be prepared for a project undertaken pursuant to and in conformity to that Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 29,066 (Planning Application 2021-099-TTM) is fully consistent with the certified EIR for the Specific Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15182 (Projects pursuant to a Specific Plan) is exempt from further environmental review because the project meets the requirements of Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations); and WHEREAS, the City Council directs the Planning Director to file a Notice of Determination upon approval of the project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe as follows:

SECTION 1. The recitals and findings set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby find and determine that none of the findings for denying Vesting Tentative Tract Map 29,066, set forth in Guadalupe Municipal Code Section 17.20.060(B), can be made based on the evidence set forth in the administrative record pertaining to this application as provided before or at the Council hearing on this matter, whether verbal or documentary.

SECTION 3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 29,066, Exhibit C, is approved subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit B of this resolution.

SECTION 4. The Final Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report adequately evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the project and meets all the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

SECTION 5. The project shall be subject to the Development Agreements stipulations; Exhibit D – Excerpts from Development Agreements.

SECTION 6. The project shall be subject to the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Exhibit E.

SECTION 7. Acceptance of Conditions. The property owner’s and business owner(s) shall submit affidavits of acceptance of the conditions of approval for this project, including an acknowledgement that failure to comply with the conditions of Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
approval shall constitute grounds for revocation or other enforcement prior to Tentative Tract Map 29,066 (2021-099-TTM) becoming effective.

SECTION 8. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

SECTION 9. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Administrator and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 13th day of September 2022 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2022-81, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held September 13, 2022, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
____________________________________ __________________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney
Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TRACT 29,065
(2021-099-TTM)

1.0 CEQA Findings

1.1 CONSIDERATION OF THE CEQA REVIEW AND FULL

DISCLOSURE
The City Council considered the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH 1992111025) and the Addendum to the Final EIR prepared for the Revised DJ Farms Specific Plan and certified by the City of Guadalupe in November 2012. The Certified Final EIR and Addendum to the Final EIR addressed the physical impacts on the environment resulting from the development plans outlined in the adopted DJ Farms Specific Plan.

The current project is the essentially same project assessed in the Project EIR. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) would implement the adopted Specific Plan and it would not substantially alter the project previously analyzed in the Certified Final EIR and the Addendum to the Final EIR.

The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) of the EIR. Mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed VTTM have been incorporated as Conditions of Approval. Staff will continue to review the MMRP to ensure that all mitigation measures are incorporated and considered during each future discretionary and development stage. This Vesting Tentative Parcel Map has been found to follow CEQA and the MMRP.

1.2 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
Based on the whole record, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore the activity is not subject to CEQA.

1.3 LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS
The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are in the custody of the City of Guadalupe, 918 Obispo Street, Guadalupe, CA 93434.

Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022

2.0 City Council Findings

2.1 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to City of Guadalupe Municipal Code, Section 17.20.060, the Guadalupe City Council hereby makes all the following findings:

1. The proposed map is consistent with the City of Guadalupe General Plan and the DJ Farms Specific Plan.

2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable General Plans and Specific Plans.

3. The site is physically suitable for the type of future development.

4. The site is suitable for the proposed density of development.

5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems.

7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

8. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements meet minimum standards by the City Council.

Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022

EXHIBIT B

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29,066
(2021-099-TTM)

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. Project Description: Subject to the conditions set forth below, this permit authorizes Tract 29,066 to subdivide that certain 26.8-acre parcel identified as Lot 4 in Master Parcel Map 29,063 into 113 lots for single-family detached residential and associated public facilities. This subdivision is processed by Application No. 2021-099-TTM, on file with the City of Guadalupe; and implements the DJ Farms Specific Plan, last as revised by the Guadalupe City Council in August 2012. The tract map consists of four sheets, last revised on 5/20/2022, and establishes a total of 113 lots including the following land uses:

Lots 1 through 111 covers approximately 23.9 acres; and are single-family residential lots having a minimum size of 5,000 square feet. The residential lots are consistent with the R-1-5000 zoning specified by the DJ Farms Specific Plan.

Lot 112 is 14,889 square-feet in size and its location is designated by the specific Plan for a public park site. Tract 29,066 is proposing a dual purpose for Lot 112. As shown, an estimated 9,000 square-feet of Lot 112 would serve as a stormwater retention basin; and the remainder, roughly 6,000 square feet would accommodate a public park use.

Lot 113 in the easternmost portion of Tract 29,066 is 114,089 square-feet in size. This area is designated by the specific plan for 7000 square foot lots under the Very LowDensity Residential land use designation. Lot 113 is designated Not a Part of this subdivision. The subdivider has stated the 2.6-acre Lot 113 is envisioned to be subdivided later. In the interim, any undeveloped area within the subdivision will be smooth graded and planted with a suitable ground cover to maintain as safe and appealing visual appearance within the project area.

Primary access to the development will be from Obispo Street north of the Santa Maria Valley Railroad; and secondary access will be provided from Arroyo Seco Road on the east side of the subdivision. New bridges will be constructed to extend Obispo Street and Arroyo Seco Road over the railroad tracks. As previously conditioned by Tract Map 29,065, the Obispo Street bridge will be constructed and functional prior to the occupancy of the first home in the Lot 1 subdivision. Therefore, primary roadway access is anticipated to be fully established prior to the beginning of construction of this subdivision. The Arroyo Seco Bridge will be fully constructed by the developer and operational prior to the construction of the 210th home in Pasadera Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
South. Perimeter walls will be constructed, as shown on the tract map prior to the first home occupancy.

The Planning Director has found this subdivision to be in substantial conformance with the land use plan in the DJ Farms Specific Plan. Furthermore, the City Engineer has concluded the roadway alignments, the public street rights-of way and public infrastructure improvements proposed by Tract 29,066 are substantially in conformance with the DJ Farms Specific Plan. Any deviations found to be substantial may require amendments to the permit, including additional CEQA review. Deviations without the above-described approval will constitute a violation of this permit approval.

2. The implementation of this tentative map shall comply with the financial and infrastructure obligations, and the timing mechanisms established by the Development Agreement adopted by Ordinance No. 2012-411; Amendment No. 1 (Ordinance 2014-048); and Amendment No. 2 (Ordinance No. 2015-427). Excerpts from the Development Agreement are attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

3. The Applicant agrees, as a condition of approval of this resolution, to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, at Applicant’s expense, City and City’s agents, officers, and employees from and against any claim, action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this permit or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attach hereto. City shall promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding to which City receives notice, and City will cooperate fully with Applicant in the defense thereof. Applicant shall reimburse the City for any court costs and attorney’s fees that the City may be required to pay because of any such claim, action or proceeding. City may, in its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding, but such participation shall not relieve Applicant of the obligation of this condition. Applicant’s acceptance of this permit approval or commencement of construction or operations under the approval shall be deemed to be acceptance of all conditions of approval.

4. If any condition imposing a fee, exaction, or dedication is challenged by the project sponsors in an action filed in a court of law or threaten to be filed therein which action is brought within the period provided for by law, this approval shall be suspended pending dismissal of such action, the expiration of the limitation period applicable to such action, or final resolution of such action. If any condition is invalidated by a court of law, the entire project shall be reviewed by the City and substitute conditions may be imposed.

5. In accordance with Sections 17.28.010 of the City Municipal Code, a final tract map shall be recorded within a period of 18 months after he approval of the tentative tract map by the City Council.

Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
The following mitigation measures are established by the Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program entitled: DJ Farms EIR, approved by the Guadalupe City Council by Resolution 2012-27, on November 13, 2012, attached herein and incorporated as Exhibit D. These measures shall be implemented by the project to the satisfaction of the Planning Department, the City Engineer, and the Building Official as specified by the mitigation Monitoring Program. The timing for implementation of each measure shall be as specified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program.

Aesthetics and Visual

6. MM 3.1-2: The applicant shall prepare and submit detailed building and landscaping plans to the City. The Plans must be determined by the City staff to be consistent with the design guidelines contained in the Revised DJ Farms Specific Plan and other City requirements prior to the issuance of any building or landscaping permits for development of the project site.

7. MM 3.1-3: Prior to Final Map approval and recordation, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed exterior lighting plan that indicates the locations and type of lighting that will be used. The exterior lighting shall demonstrate a unintrusive quality. All external lighting shall be indicated on the project improvement plans as they are submitted for future site development.

Air Quality.

8. Air Quality mitigation is updated and is consistent with MM 3-2.1a and 3-2.1b. The Air Quality measures are provided in the transmittal from Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, dated October 13, 2021, and attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and Air Quality Dust Control mitigation is provided below by these conditions of approval.

Biological Resources

9. M.M. 3.3-5: To maintain consistency with the measures listed under the Programmatic Biological Opinion issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (January 26, 1999), the following mitigation will be required.
• Prior to construction, a US Fish and Wildlife Service approved biologist shall survey the drainage outlet on the western perimeter and associated channel two weeks prior to construction.
• If California red-legged frogs are present on the project site, the biologist will contact the Service ad receive authorization to capture and relocate the frogs to a Service approved location. If frogs are observed, the biologist or a site monitor (as designated by the biologist) will be present until the ditch is drained or graded. If no frogs are found, the site will be deemed clear and if no frogs are found, the site will Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
be deemed and clear and a screen will be placed over the drainage pipe leading to the off-site drainage ditch. All other measures listed below will be implemented. • All construction personnel will receive a training session which shall include a description of the California red-legged frog and its habitat, the importance of redlegged frogs, and the areas where such frogs may occur. If present on the project site.
• All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment shall occur at least 20 meters from any elements of the drainage channel proposed to remain within the project site into the off-site agricultural ditches.
• To control erosion, the project and after project implementation, the project will implement best management practices, as identified by the Regional Water Quality Control, Board.

10. MM 3.3-8: The project applicant shall obtain the necessary state and federal permits required under federal and state law that is applicable to the project and shall obtain the required permits or concurrence from the authority prior to issuance of grading permits.

The project applicant shall comply with all permit conditions and employ best management practices and measures (established by the Corps) to minimize and compensate for potential impact to any jurisdictional waters. Wetland delineation and mitigation details shall be noted on the design.

11. MM 3.4-2a: The following language, or equivalent, shall be included in all construction contracts and permits issued within the project area.

As a condition of project approval, if any prehistoric or historic artifacts or other indications of archaeological resources are found once project construction is underway, all work in the immediate vicinity must stop and the City of Guadalupe shall be immediately notified. An Archaeologist meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Professional qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archeology, as appropriate, shall be retained to evaluate the finds and inadvertently discovered cultural resources.

12. MM 3.4.2b: As a condition of project approval, if human remains are discovered once project construction is underway, all work must stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and the County Coroner must be notified, according to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064 5(d) and € shall be followed.

13. MM 3.4-3: The following language or equivalent, shall be included in all construction contract and permits issued within the project area:

As a condition of approval, if any paleontological resources (fossils) are found once project construction is underway, all work in the immediate vicinity must stop and the City of Guadalupe shall be immediately notified. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to evaluate the finds and recommend appropriate mitigation measures for the inadvertently discovered paleontological resources.

Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
Geology and Geologic Constraints

14. MM 3.5-1a: All future residential development within the Specific Plan area shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of the current edition of the California Building Code and the recommendations contained within the Preliminary Soils Engineering Report (dated October 11, 2002), and the Soils Corrosivity Study (dated May 21, 2003), subject to review and approval by the City of Guadalupe. These recommendations include but are limited to site preparation and grading; utility trenches; foundations (general, post-tensioned, and conventional); slabs-on-grade and exterior flatwork; retaining walls; pavement sections; and drainage around improvements.

15. MM 3.5-4: The City of Guadalupe shall ensure implementation of erosion prevention and sedimentation control into site preparation and construction activities prior to approval of final improvement plans for subsequent tentative maps proposed within the Specific Plan area. These measures shall be incorporated into all construction contracts and shall be monitored by the City to ensure effectiveness through construction activities at the project site during the rainy season (November 1 through April 15) of each year. Such measures shall include, but not be limited to the following:
• Limit disturbance of soils removed to a minimum area necessary for access and construction,
• Re-vegetate disturbed areas with a mix of seeds best suited for the climate and soil conditions, and native to the region;
• Cover and protect stockpiled soils during periods of rainfall. • Inform construction personnel prior to construction and periodically during construction activities of environmental concerns, pertinent laws and regulations, and elements of proposed erosion control measures.
• Adhere to construction schedules designed to avoid periods of heavy precipitation or high winds; and
• Ensure that all exposed soil is provided with temporary drainage and soild protection when construction ceases during winter periods.

Hazards and Hazardous Material

16. 3.6.6: If significantly contaminated soil and/or ground water, other than what has been identified and mitigated for in the DJ Farms Specific Plan EIR, is encountered during the removal of on-site debris or during excavation and/or grading both on and offsite, the construction contractors shall stop work and immediately inform the City of Guadalupe Fire Department. A City approved environmental Hazardous materials professional shall be contacted to conduct an on-site assessment. If the materials are determined to pose a risk to the public or construction workers, the construction contractor shall prepare and submit a remediation plan to the appropriate agency and comply with all federal, state and local laws.

Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
Hydrology and Water Quality

17. MM 3.7.1a: Prior to issuance of grading permits and as part of Final Map Submittals, project applicants shall submit drainage and erosion control plans ensuring that drainage plans are consistent with the drainage concepts for the project and that stormwater discharge volumes into the receiving drainage system are equal to or less than runoff from the site prior to initiation of the project, in accordance with Santa Barbara County Flood Control District Standards.

18. MM 3.71a: In accordance with current State regulations, all future development resulting in grading or excavation that disturbs five acres or more shall require coverage under the NPDES General Permit. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that documents best management practices (filters, traps, bio-filtration swales, et.) to ensure that urban runoff contaminants and sediment are minimized. The erosion control measures necessary to control runoff shall be in place during the rainy season (November 1 through April 15) and which measures shall be in place year-round. The SWPPP shall be consistent with CCWQCB standards.

19. MM 3.7-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and as part of final Map submittals, the Applicant shall include detailed engineering plans for on-site stormwater and detention facilities for review and approval by the City Engineer, as well as other approving or permitting agencies.

Land Use and Agriculture

20. MM 3.8-3a: The applicant shall demonstrate on all maps and development plans, including landscaping plans, a minimum 100-foot agricultural buffer on the eastern, southern, and western boundaries of the DJ Farms site. The minimum distance shall be measured from the nearest habitable structure to active agricultural operations on adjacent farms. Consistent with the project proposal, the buffer will be fully landscaped and incorporate tree windows along the inside (residential boundary) and along the property line (agricultural boundary). The Landscape Buffer shall be established and implemented in accordance with the specifications of the Pasadera Landscaping and Lighting District, City of Guadalupe, County of Santa Barbara.

21. MM 3.8-3b: To discourage trespassing and vandalism on the adjacent farms to the east and south, a six-foot view-type fence shall be installed along the property boundary. The type of material shall be determined during the site plan review process.

22. MM 3.8-3c: Consistent with notification required by Santa Barbara County as a component of the Right-to Farm Ordinance, the City of Guadalupe shall require the recordation of an Agricultural Notification Statement to run with the Title on all properties sold and resold in the proposed development area. The statement shall inform any future property owners of the continuations of agricultural activities in the area and Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
shall disclose the potential effects of agricultural activities on adjacent land uses to future project residents.

Noise and Vibration

23. MM 3.9-1a: All structures constructed near noise generators (roadways and railways) shall be designed and constructed to meet the City’s residential indoor noise standard.

These measures will likely include sound rated windows and doors. Depending on the proximity of the residences to the railroad tracks, special exterior wall construction might also be required. According to City policies, those residences that must have their windows closed to meet the prescribed interior level will require a ventilation or airconditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment Building plans shall be subject to review and approval of final maps, the applicant shall submit acoustical design data to the City specifying the type and effectiveness of the proposed noise attenuation measures.

24. MM 3.9-1b: In residential areas along the UPRR corridor, homes with backyards within 125 feet of the tracks will require a noise barrier to reduce the backyard (exterior) Ldn to 60 dBA. Noise attenuation measures (such as the construction of sound walls, berms, or a combination of both) shall be required of sufficient height to achieve the City’s maximum acceptable Ldn of 60 dBA for low density residential land use. Final maps shall demonstrate the design of any such feature. Design of noise attenuation features shall be accompanied by supporting documentation (acoustical report) quantifying the design’s effectiveness.

25. MM 3.9-2: Habitable structures within the project area shall not be constructed within 100 feet of the UPRR track centerline, nor within 60 feet of SMVRR track centerline. Final Maps for the project shall illustrate these distances for review by the City of Guadalupe.

26. MM 3.9-4: The applicant shall submit a noise mitigation plan as part of the building permit application that will include, but not be limited to:
• Noise generating construction activities will be limited to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm,
• Construction schedule showing the dates and location for activities • List of equipment to be used during each major construction phase and sound level estimates for each phase.
• Truck routing to minimize noise at existing noise sensitive uses. • Designation of a construction noise coordinator that will be responsible for implementing the noise control measures and responding to complaints. This person’s name and contact information should be posted clearly around the project site.

Traffic and Parking

27. MM 3.11-1a: Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all work constructed in State Highway right-of-way. Additional Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
improvements required by Caltrans t accommodate the project during the encroachment permit phase, shall be incorporated into the project and funded by the developer.

28. MM 3.11.1b: The proposed access locations on State Route 166 at Obispo Street and Flower Avenue will align with the existing access locations on the north side of Routh 166.

Prior to issuance of any building permits for the first phase, the applicant shall install STOP signs on the southbound approaches of Obispo Street and Flower Avenue.

29. MM 3.11.1c: Prior to issuance of building permits for the first phase, the Applicant shall develop a Traffic Count Program to be tied to the construction phasing. The Traffic count Program shall monitor the intersections at Highway 166/Highway 1. Highway 166/Obispo Street and/or Highway 166/Flower Avenue to determine when the actual operating conditions meet Caltrans operational traffic 12-hour signal warrants. Prior to issuance of building permits for the third phase, or at which point the Traffic Count Program determines that the count exceeds Caltrans traffic 12-hour signal warrants as presented in the Traffic Manuel, whichever occurs earlier, the applicant shall demonstrate that required permits have been obtained and install signals at these intersections. The Caltrans approved Traffic Impact Analysis (prepared by Rick Engineering) includes the requested traffic count. This document is dated December 16, 2019.

30. MM 3.11-1d: Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for the first phase, the Applicant shall make the following improvements (or as approved by Caltrans) to facilitate access to the site:
• A right turn lane will be installed on the eastbound approach to the State Route 166/Obispo Street and State Route 166/Flower Avenue intersections. • A left turn pocket will be installed on the westbound approach to the Highway 166/Obispo Street and Highway 166/Flower Avenue intersections. • A southbound left turn lane shall be installed at the Highway 1/166 intersection. • The southbound and westbound approaches of the Highway 166/Flower Avenue intersections shall be re-striped to include a southbound left turn lane, a westbound through lane and a westbound left turn lane.
• A left-turn, a through lane and a right-turn lane shall be installed at the northbound approaches o the Obispo Street and Flower Avenue intersections with Highway 166. • The project site will be designed to accommodate moving van/truck and emergency vehicle access and trash pick-up.

31. MM 3.11-4a: On-street parking shall be required on both sides of all collector and local Street identified in the project Street Plan and on at least one side of the Type 7 streets.

32. MM 3.11-4b: Off-street residential parking shall be provided in accordance with Section

18.60.030 of the City of Guadalupe Zoning Ordinance as follows:

A) All off-street parking required by this chapter in any residential zone shall be constructed as follows:

Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
• In Single-family residential zones, all such parking spaces shall be covered by a fully enclosed garage.

B) Parking required in this chapter shall be subject to design review and approval by the Zoning Administrator/Planning Director.

33. MM 3.11.7b: Prior to certificates of occupancy for the first phase, an irrevocable offer of Right-of-Way along the project frontage adjacent to the Route 166 ROW . The minimum right of way required in the dedication would be 25 feet (or as approved by Caltrans). All drainage requirements for the DJ Farms project must be accommodated outside of the State’s rights-of-way. The ROW will be accepted by Caltrans in accordance with the approved PIPs for the Main Street frontage improvements. These are currently under review.

Utilities and Service Systems

34. MM 3.12-1b: Prior to final map approval the applicant shall prepare and submit to the City a Water Conservation Plan that specifies the strategies and specific measures to be incorporated into the project to reduce the total water demand. Such measures may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Incorporation of drought tolerant landscape elements (such as minimal lawn areas and xeriscape concepts), as well as drought tolerant plant species, into required landscape plans.
• Set water user rates that severely discourages water use during dry periods. • Require low flow plumbing fixtures in all new development. • Use of reclaimed water for irrigation.
• Use of captured and treated stormwater for immediate storage and/or for groundwater recharge to the Basin.

CITY ENGINEER CONDITIONS
All the following conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to recordation of the final Tract Map, unless otherwise stated herein or as agreed by the City Engineer. All references to the Specific Plan are to the Revised DJ Farms Specific Plan, adopted by the city of Guadalupe City Council resolution number 12 – 2012 – 411, August 2012.

All the following conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, unless otherwise stated herein.

Drawings/Administrative

35. All engineering submittals and drawings prepared by the applicant's engineershall be signed and sealed by a California licensed civil engineer.

36. Prior to construction, the developer shall provide a copy of a preliminary Title Report, no more than 6 months old to the City.

Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022

37. Consistency with the Specific Plan, Development Agreement and Environmental document is mandatory for approval, except as noted in the planning application dated 5;27;2022.

38. Park development and public facilities fees shall be paid per the master fee schedule.

39. Submit grading and drainage plans, to the City for plan checking and comment, including a geotechnical report prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer providing technical specifications for grading of the site. The grading and drainage plans shall be submitted before building permits are issued and shall address all comments to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

40. Upon approval of the improvement plans, the applicant shall provide a scanned pdf of the signed plans and three sets of prints of the signed improvement plans for inspection purposes.

41. Site Maintenance and Landscape: The entire site shall be maintained by the Developer prior to acceptance of the public improvements by the City. The site shall be free of accumulated dirt and litter and in an otherwise neat and attractive manner and adhere to the requirements of the City of Guadalupe Municipal Code. Any graffiti on the property shall be promptly painted out. All landscaping areas in the property shall be permanently maintained with healthy, growing plant material, free from weeds. Dead or dying plant material shall be replaced within one month of plant deterioration. Failure to comply with this condition is a public nuisance and is subject to the adopted citation ordinance of the City of Guadalupe. Upon acceptance of the public improvements by the City, the city will become responsible for the maintenance as noted above. The existing Pasadera Landscape and Lighting District provides funding for the City maintenance noted herein. (REPLACE WITH NEWLY WRITTEN CONDITION) Bonding

42. The applicant shall provide an engineer's estimate for all work included on the public improvement plans, and enter into an agreement with the City, subject to the City's approval. If approved by the City, bonds or other forms of securities shall be submitted as a guarantee for the construction of infrastructure improvements before the issuance of building permits.

Dedication

43. Before final inspections and acceptance of the public improvements, the applicant shall provide to the City Engineer record as-built drawings, signed by the engineer of record in the following method: one set of scanned pdfs, and one set of reproducible mylars. Developer agrees to dedicate public Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
improvements to the City.

Infrastructure improvements

44. Public infrastructure improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Santa Maria standards (adopted by the City of Guadalupe), and the City of Guadalupe standard drawings when available. The decision of the City Engineer shall be final regarding the specific standards that shall apply.

Water

45. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the 12-inch water main is installed across Highway 166 at Flower and connected on the north end to the City's existing water infrastructure.
a. All water meters shall be placed adjacent to the curb. b. Landscape area greater than 5,000 square feet requires a separate, appropriately sized irrigation meter.
c. Water main size shall be consistent with the specifications of the DJ Farms Specific Plan.

Sewer

46. All sewer laterals on-site shall be privately owned and maintained. Drawings shall label all privately owned lines as such. Private sewer laterals shall tie into the public sewer main using a wye connection. Sewer laterals shall not be connected to the public sewer main with a manhole.
a. Sewer main size shall be consistent with the DJ Farms Specific Plan.

Storm

47. The project shall comply with all Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) requirements. Low Impact Development, best management practices and similar regulations and guidelines shall be met. The design shall comply with the Santa Barbara County Post Construction Requirements, Stormwater Technical Guide, and all future updates.
a. Stormwater control plans are required for all projects with new and replaced impervious surface greater than 2500 ft.2
b. The applicant shall submit drainage calculations or an updated drainage report with the public improvement plans.

48. Submit an Erosion and Drainage Control Plan to the City Engineer forreview and approval prior to construction. The plan shall reflect "Best Management Practices" as proposed in the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual and shall include both temporary Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
measures (to be used during construction, and until permanent measures are completed/established) and permanent measures. Erosion control measures shall be in place and approved by the City before the start of construction. The plan shall include both source control and perimeter containment measures.

All Drainage and Erosion Control Measures shall be designed and sized by a qualified professional.

49. Install Storm Drain Markers on all drainage inlets and bioretention signage on all bioretention areas.

Powerlines

50. All new electrical, telephone, and communication utility distribution service wires onsite and in adjacent easements shall be placed underground.

Street/sidewalk

51. Applicant shall repair any cracked or broken curb, gutter, driveway, and sidewalk within the project area prior to dedication of public facilities.

52. Obispo Street bridge shall be constructed and functional priorto the first certificate of occupancy and Arroyo Seco Bridge shall be constructed and operational prior to occupancy of the 210th home in Pasadera South.

Other

53. Build relevant perimeter wall(s) prior to issuing the first certificate of occupancy in Lot 4 South.

54. Adhere to all conditions outlined in the APCD's letter, dated October 13, 2021,

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS

55. Lot 113: The 114,089 square-foot Lot 113 is not designated as a part of this subdivision. Except for the lands described in Condition 56 below, the all the lands covered by Lot 113 shall be graded smooth and planted with a satisfactory ground cover to provide a level, clean, attractive, and dust-free surface until such time as a permanent use established for the area.

56. Bridge Access: Primary access to the development site will be provided by the new bridge constructed to extend Obispo Street over the railroad tracks. Secondary access will be provided by a new bridge to extend Arroyo Seco Road over the railroad tracks. • Obispo Street Bridge: The Obispo Street bridge will be fully constructed and operational prior to the first home occupancy in the previously approved Tract 29,066.

Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
• Arroyo Seco Bridge: The Arroyo Seco bridge will be fully constructed an operational prior to occupancy of the 210th home occupancy in Pasadera South.
• Bridge Access: The permanent access right for the bridges over the railroad right-of-way shall be provided in the C&M Agreement between the City and UPRR prior to recordation of a Final Map, for the future subdivisions of Parcels 1, 3 and 4, of Parcel Map 29,063 unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.

57. Highway 1/Main Street Sidewalk: Caltrans recommends the project construct a sidewalk on the south side of west Highway 166 to Highway 1 to the specifications of Caltrans.

58. EV Charging stations: The project is encouraged to install electronic vehicle (EV) charging station(s) in convenient locations within the project area as recommended by Caltrans.

59. Public Street Improvements: Prior to approval of an occupancy permit for any of the lots created by this tract map, all public streets, including but not limited to the Obispo Street Bridge, the Obispo Street extension, and all local connecting streets, identified to serve the Lot 1 area, shall be constructed fully to the specifications of the City. The alignment of the streets and the roadway network shall be found by the City to be in substantial conformance to Figure IV-3 (Conceptual Road Plan); and street improvements shall conform to the standards in Chapter IV (Circulation) as specified by the DJ Specific Plan.

Any phasing of the public infrastructure shall be agreed upon by the Public Works Director.

60. Low Impact Development: Each phase of development shall implement Low Impact Development infiltration measures in accordance with the adopted standards established by the Santa Barbara County’s Project Clean water document; and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

61. Archaeological Resources: During site grading, if any prehistoric or historic artifacts or other indications of archaeological resources are found, all work in the immediate vicinity must stop and the City of Guadalupe shall be immediately notified. An archaeologist meeting of Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology, as appropriate, shall be retained to evaluate the finds and recommend appropriate mitigation measures for the inadvertently discovered cultural resources.
• During site grading, if human remains are discovered, all work must stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and the County Coroner must be notified, according to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5(d) and (e) shall be followed.

Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
• During site grading, if any paleontological resources (fossils) are found, all work in the immediate vicinity must stop and the City of Guadalupe shall b immediately notified. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to evaluate the finds and recommend appropriate mitigation measures for inadvertently discovered paleontological resources.

62. Geology and Soils: All future residential development within the Specific Plan shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of the current edition of the California Building Code and the recommendations contained within the preliminary Soils Engineering Report (dated October 11, 2002), the Soils Corrosivity Study (dated May 21, 2002) and an updated soils report by Geo Solutions (dated March 21, 2014). O updates by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer.

63. Erosion Control: Prior to the issuance of building permits, erosion prevention and sedimentation control measures shall be incorporated into site construction plans and contracts. These measures shall be incorporated into the site construction plans and construction contracts.
• Limit disturbance of soils removal to the minimum area necessary for access and construction.
• Re-vegetate disturbed areas with a mix of seeds best suited for the climate and solid conditions, and native to the region;
• Cover stockpiled oil during periods of rainfall;
• Inform construction personnel prior to construction and periodically during construction activities of environmental concerns, pertinent laws and regulations, and elements of proposed erosion measures;
• Adhere to construction schedules designed to avoid periods of heavy precipitation or high winds; and
• Ensure that all exposed soil is provided with temporary drainage and soil protection when construction ceases during winter periods;

64. Soil Remediation: If significantly contaminated soil or ground water is encountered during the removal of on-site debris or during excavation and/or grading both on offsite, the construction contractors shall stop work and immediately and inform the City. A City approved environmental hazardous materials professional shall be contracted to conduct an on-site assessment. If the material are determined to pose a risk to the public or construction workers, the contractor shall prepare and submit a remediation plan to the appropriate agency and comply with all federal, state and local laws.

65. Veterans Street Names: The applicant is reminded that this subdivision should strive to incorporate street names reflecting local veterans from the approved list of veteran’s names provided by the City.

66. Off-Street Parking: Off-street residential parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.60.030 of the City of Guadalupe Zoning ordinance as follows:

Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
• The parking provided for all the homes in this subdivision, shall be covered by a fully enclosed garage.
• Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in length from garage face to the back of sidewalk.
• Parking required by this condition shall be subject to design review and approval by the Zoning Administrator/Planning Director or designee.

67. Air Quality/Dust Control: Prior to grading permit issuance, the applicant shall prepare a dust control plan to control particulate matter (PM10) during grading and site preparation activities at the project site.
• During construction, use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than three minutes in any 60- minute period. At a minimum, this should include wetting down such areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. Increased watering frequency should be required when sustained wind speed exceeds 15 mph. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.
• Onsite vehicle speeds shall be no greater than 15 miles per hour when traveling on unpaved surfaces. Install and operate a track-out prevention device where vehicles enter and exit on unpaved roads onto paved street. The track-out prevention device can include any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out dirt such as gravel pads, pipe-grid track out control devices, rumble strip or wheel washing systems.
• If importation, exportation, and stockpiling or fill material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than one day shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting fill material to and from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.
• Minimize the amount of disturbed area. After clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation is completed, treat the disturbed area by watering. Or, using rollcompaction, Or, revegetation, Or, by spreading soil binders until the area is paved or otherwise, developed that dust generation will not occur. All roadways, driveways sidewalks, etc., to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. • Schedule clearing, grading, earthmoving, and excavation, activities during periods of low wind speed to the extent feasible. During periods of high winds (>25 mph) clearing, grading, earthmoving, and excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent fugitive dust created by onsite operations from becoming a nuisance or hazard.
• The contractor or builder shall designate a person to monitor and document the dust control program requirements to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result in a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
as necessary to prevent transport or dust offsite. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number o such persons shall be provided to the Air Pollution Control District prior to grading/building permit issuance and/or map clearance. • Plan Requirements: All requirements shall be shown on grading and building plans and/or as a separate information sheet listing the conditions of approval to be recorded with the map.
• Timing: Requirements shall be shown on plans prior to grading/building permit issuance and/or recorded with the map during the map recordation. Conditions shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods. • Monitoring: The Lead Agency shall ensure measures are on project plans and/or recorded with maps. The Lead Agency staff shall ensure compliance onsite.

Inspectors will respond to nuisance complaints.

68. Perimeter Walls: All perimeter walls shall be constructed to height and material specifications consistent with the existing perimeter walls in the previous development phases and the noise mitigation measures in the Project EIR. All perimeter walls shall be constructed as shown on the approve Tract Map prior to the first home occupancy in Tract 29,066.

69. Public Landscape/Tree Planting: To the maximum extent practicable, street trees shall be utilized along either utility strip areas for small trees; and within front yards for larger trees. The tree planting specifications are as shown on Pave IV-10 (Street Tree Landscaping) in the DJ Farms Specific Plan.
• Tree Selection: To minimize potential maintenance costs, tree varieties should exhibit little to no fruit disposition, no obstructive branches, and non-aggressive roots systems.
• Tree Locations: The Project Landscape Architect, Project Developer and City Planning Department shall work to identify and maximize landscaped areas, where feasible, along street frontages, bridge approaches, pedestrian walkways, and public spaces.
• Lot 113 Park/Open Space Sites: A Conceptual Landscape Plan shall be submitted for the Lot 113 open space site prior to for City Council review and approval of a Final Map.
• Agricultural Buffer: The agricultural buffer shall provide two-rows of large trees along the inside of the perimeter walls and fences as shown in Figure III-1 of the DJ Farms Specific Plan.

Conditions of Approval 2021-099-TTM September 13, 2022
• Landscape Plans: Landscape Plans shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Department, prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the first building in this subdivision.

End of Conditions
i e
; ' �g
T 2 OF I I i
1 '/ (BASl:0�°:i 1
1 l'
I-
, ----'"""'--1--1\ /./ ,BUILD 'MlH LOT 1 I � 8 1/! 1/, (NOT-A-PARl) ? 8 /!/�//,// 11 Ii · 81-==::'::::'::"':::�v %1/J A I 1 ; I I I l-;;'-:\--.!-:-1!- � I// 11 I """""''" =--=
---c:::=�==t=��,

GRAPHIC SCALE
AREA
�-� @@
(INPEBT)
1 inc:h • 10 tL
TRACT MAP 29,066

AREA AFEA AREA LOT NO (ACRES) LOT NO (SA (ACRES) LOT NO (SA (�CRES) LOlNO (SF) (SF) (ACRES)
\ , .... D.13 3\ 11,490 0.26 ., � ... 0.15 " S.000 0.11 2 5,075 0.12 J2 9.�, 0.22 112 1,n+ 0.18 92 , .... 0,11
J 5,075 0.12 JJ 10,681 0.25 Ill 7.200 0.17 SJ , .... 0,11 . 5,075 0.12 J4 B.B05 0.20 64 5,000 0.11 94 5,000 0.11
5 5,050 0.12 JS I.ID 0.2\ 115 5.000 D.11 95 ·�· 0.1l
. 5.J711 0.12 J6 1.573 0.22 .. ,.ooo 0,11 .. ·�· D.13
7 7,935 0.11 37 ..... 0.\3 67 5.000 0.11 '7 5.000 0.11
' 10,467 0.24 J8 '·""' 0.\5 68 5,247 0.12 ,. 5,000 0.11 ' 7,657 0.11 J9 11.022 0.25 .. 5,000 0.11 .. 5,000 0.11 \D 8,8111 0.15 40 .... , 0.21 70 ,.ooo 0.11 \OD 5.000 0.11 I\ 8.356' D.15 " 8,881 0.\6 7\ 5.000 0.11 10\ 5,447 0.1J \2 6,357 D.15 42 6,150 0.14 72 7.470 0.17 102 ,.,,, 0.1l \3 6,157 0.15 4J 6,1!10 0.14 7J 5.000 0.11 10J 5,000 0.11 ,. 6,357 0.15 .. 6,l!ICI 0.14 74 5,000 0.11 104 5.000 0.11 15 , ..... 0.15 45 6,150 0.14 75 5,000 0.11 \OS 5,000 0.11 16 , ..... 0.15 .. 1,150 0.14 76 ,.ooo 0.11 106 5,000 0.11 17 ...... 0.15 ., 1,452 0.15 n 5,447 0.13 107 5,569 0.1l 10 '·"' 0.15 .. ..... 0.13 70 5,447 0.13 108 5,054 0.12 19 IS,355 0.15 .. B,024 0.14 711 5,000 0.11 100 s.w 0.12 ,0 '·"' 0.15 50 5.35J 0.12 80 5,000 0.11 1\0 5.27' 0.12 " 1,355 0.15 51 S.09J 0.12 B1 s.ooo 0.11 11\ 8,798 0.16 22 . .,.. 0.15 52 5.000 0.11 82 s.ooo 0.11 112 14,M9 O.l4 " . .,.. 0.15 5J s.ooo 0.11 Ill 5,742 0.13 m 114,089 2.02 24 8.354 0.15 .. "·"" 0.12 .. 5,580 0.13
25 8,35J 0.15 55 s.oso 0.12 .. MOO 0.11
26 6,3SJ 0.15 56 5.122 0.12 .. 5,000 0.11
27 6,3SJ 0.15 57 5,728 0.13 ., ,.ooo 0.11
.. 6,352 0.15 .. 7,493 0.17 .. s.ooo 0.11
,. 7,191 0.17 .. 7,158 0.16 .. 5,447 0.13
JO , .... 0.18 ID 9,614 0.22 .. M47 0.13
i
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP JNfORMA]ON
FmERAL EMERGENCY MANACEMENT AGENCY (F.E.M.A.) AND Fl..000 INSURANCE RATE MAP {f,l,R.M.) CERTlFlCATE:

COMMUNITY NUMBER: 06oeJ PANEl. NUMBER: 0155F
DATE CF F.I.R.M.: S£P'TEM� 30, 2005 F.I.R.M. ZONE:: X
I CERTIFY lHA.T 11,£ INFORMATION ON lHS CERTIACAlE R[PRES[NlS MY BEST EFFORlS TO INlERPRET lHE DATA AVAII...ABl.E. 1 UNDERSTAND 'D-IAT ANY FALSE SlATEIIENT MAY BE PUNISHABLE BY ANE OR IMPRISONMENT U�ER 18 U.S. COOE, SECTION 1001.

LORI M. SPEER, SENIOR atGINEER, RC.E. 68449
2624 AIRPARK DRIVE, SANTA MARIA. CA 93455
PHONE (80�) 934-57a7
BOUNDARY AND JOPO JNfORMA]ON
lHE BOUNDARY ANO TOPO INFORMATION SHOWN ON TrllS VESTING lEHTATIVE TRACT lrotAP IS BASED ON AN ALTA SURVEY DONE BY PENFlELD ANO SMITrl DATU> AUGUST 2003.

I [GAL DfSCRIPJJON
. AS STATED IN THE PRELIMINARY TITI..E REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER S, 2017:
"THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OR TRACT OF l.AHD IN "THE CITY CF CUADAL..UPE, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, STA1E Of" CAUF�IA, BEING A PORTION OF 11-IE M� ENTln.ED "MAP Of lHE SU8Dl\,1Sl0N CF THE RANCHO GUADAWPE.

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ANO SAN LUIS OBISPO COJNTY, CALJFORNIA• SURVEYED AND SUBDIVIDED BY JAMES T. STRATTON. NOVEMBER 1!1171, Al£D IN lHE COUNlY RECORDER'S OfF1CE Of SAID COUNTY Of SANTA BARBARA ON MARCH 8, 1880 AND POSTEO IN 900K •e• Of MISCELUNEOUS RECDRDS, AT PAGE 44-Z. AS SHOWN ON TrlE MAP ENllTl.ED "MAP Of TrlE SUEIDl\1SION CF RANCHO GUAOALUPC. • FlLED AS MAP 3 IN RACK 4, IN lHC:

OFFla: OF THE COJNTY RECORDER Of SANTA BARBARA COUNTY.

DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

ALL lHAT PORTION OF SUBDIV1SION NUlrotBER 10. RANCMO GUADALUPE. AS SHOVIN ON lHE MAP or SAID RANCHO L¥1NG SOUlHERLY OF lHAT PORTION Of ABO� MENTIONED SUBDl',1SION NUMBER 10. RANCHO CUADALUPE.

CON'JEYED 10 ll-iE SOUlHERN PACFIC RAILROAD COMPANY BY DEED RECORDED APRH.. ZJ, 18Q5 IN BOOK 39. PAGE 268 Of DEEDS. ANO RECORDED AUGUST 30, 18951 IN BOOI< 157, PACE 54J OF Dm>S, AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 7, 1891 IN BOOK 67, PAGE 545 Of DEEDS: AND L'tlNG SOUTHERLY CF 'Tl-lAT PORTION Of' SAID SUBDIVISION NUMBER 10, RAND-10 CUADALUPE. CONVETED TO SOUTHERN PACIFlC COMPANY SY OEED RECX>ROEO AUGUST 24, 1966 AS INSlRUMENT NUMBER 27548 IN BOOK 2153. PAGE 291 CF OFFlOAL RECORDS.
��TING lHEREFROM lHAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED IN TrlE DEED J. NEWTON SLANCHARD, TAX COU£CTOR OF THE COUNTY Of SANTA BARBARA. STAlE or CAUFORNIA. TO ALBERT BYRNES, A MARRIED MAN, AND MAXWEU. B. SANDERS, A MARRtED WAN, R£COROEO MARo-1 2.+, 1072 AS INSTRUMEJH NUIIIBER 10191 IN BOOK 2392, PAGE 258 OF OFFlQAL RECORDS, DESmlBED AS FOU.OWS:

THE STRIP OF LAND L"l'INC BETWEEN STAlE HIGHWAY NUMBER 1. 66 FEET IN WIDTH, AND TrlC SOUTI--IERN PAOFIC CQMPN-,Y RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, 100 FEET 1N WIDTH. WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION 10.

ALSO EXCEPTING ll-£REFROM AU. OIL. GAS. MINERALS, GASOUNE.

ASPHALT\JM, AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS 0:- �A'TE\l'ER CAT[CORY IN AND UNDE R SAID l.NID.

SAID LAND IS SET fORlH AS LOT •e• IN CERTIFlCATE Of COMPLIANCE =��gr.> FEBRUARY 5, 2002 AS INSlRUMENT NO. 02-11547 OF OFFIOAL 'EXHIBIT C -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
STREET ________ _
�;B�f:�EEi�Ei5�5:��:oj , •.

LOT'88 wro,g LDT868 wrosls LDTB48
il 5247 8 s.ooo 8 S.000 8 S.000 ci S.000 g
� _,:::.J :o,oo· _
_ :'J :'J s.r.
_

LOT J OF
TRACT f29.063
(NOT A-PARl)

GENERAL NOTES
1, 'IRN:T' IIAP A0ADI ND U1IJTIES
BONDS SHAU BE IN PL.ACE FOR TrlE PREPARATION or
PUBLIC IIIIIPROVEMENT PLANS FOR Tl1E ROADS AND UllLillES SHOWN PRIOR TO THE RECORDING OF lHE FINAL MAS1'ER
lRACT MAP.

2. - OF N'llAl11UfflllE - PUalC-, .._
A. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHO\IIN HEREON TO PROVIDE ACCESS
AND UTILITIES TO EAQi LOT {IN ACCORDANCE WllH THE
SUBDIVISION MAP ACT) SHALl BE BONDED FOR PRIOR TO
FlNAL MAP RECORDATION.

B. CONSTRUCllON OF ll!IPROVEMENTS SHAU BE 1N OEVD..OPWENT ACCORDANCE 'MTrl lHE RE'IIISED DJ FARMS SPECIFIC PLAN,
AGREEME NT NO. 2012-001 BETIIIEEN 11£ CITY
OF GUADALUPE AND RCT 2oo;,, LLC, AND THE CERTIFED ElR
FOR: THE DJ FARMS SPECIRC Pl.AN. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PAACEL MAP 21,063 SHAll. BE INa.LJOED AS PART Of
TrlE REQUIREMDITS OF lRACT MAP 29,065.

C. OFF-SllE IWPROVEMENTS WILL HE SHOWN ON

SUBSEQUENT TRACT MAPS,
1 OFFEll-1'0-GEDCA'IE PWIJC lllOi\DI
ALL PUEUC ROADS INOICAlW ON THE VESl\NG TENTATIVE
lRACT MAP ARE a=f'ERED F'OR DEDICATION TO lHE ClTY OF
GUADAUJPE 'MTH TtiE FlNAL MAP.

3. ---� PRO.£CT OE\'El.DPMENT
DEVELOPMENT SHAll. USE LOW IMPACT
(UO) TO DETAIN, RETAIN ANO TREAT RUNOfF
PER 11-tE POST CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMElllS (PCR'S}
AOOPlW BY lHE CfNlRAL COAST WATER SOMO IN .lJLY
2013. TrlE OESICN 9-IAU. BE PER TrlE SANTA BARBARA
COltHY STORMWA'TER lED-INICAL. GUIDE AND AS APPRO'-'ED
BV THE OlY OF' GUADALUPE.

EXJS]NG fASEMfNJS
[TI �=�:TO: �� ':,�� ��l"
APPUAiENANctS. INGRESS AND EGRESS
RECORDED: OCTOBER 28, 1938 AS INSlRUMENT NO.
8366 BOOK 374 PACE 358 OF' Of'FlCIAL

RECORDS
AFFECTS: 1 o· mlP OF LANO SOU1l-t'IIIEST OF'

RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY
1HE EFFECT DF A DOCUMENT E NTIT\.ED "QUITCLAIM DEED•,
RECORDED AUGUST 31. 2015 AS INSTRUMENT NO.
2015-4«1628 Of OfTlCIAL RECORDS.
� �i%�: �r�,��g�::::TRUMENT NO.
12490 BOOK 1011 PAGE 51 Of' OflQAL

RECORDS
AFFECTS: 10' STRIP OF LANO SOU1l-t'IIEST OF
RAILROAD RIGHT Of WAY.
lHE EFFECT Of A DOCUMENT ENlln.ED •oul'Cl.AIM DEED".

RECORDED AUGUST 31, 2015 AS INSTRUMENT NO.
2015-48628 Of OFTICIAL RECORDS.
pRoposrn EASfMfNJS
0 ��� ���os:5:iT

UTIUTY EASEMENT
@ GRANTED TO: an OF' CUAOAUIPE
PURPOSE: •e• SlREET a: UTILITY EASEMENT
RECORDED: PROPOSED EASfMENT
@ CRANTED TO: CITY OF GUADALUPE
PURPOSE; •c• S'TREET a: UTILITY EASEMENT
RECORDED: PROPOSED EASOIDIT
© GRANTED TO: CI TY OF GUADALUPE
PURPOSE: •o• SlREET a: UTILITY EASEMENT
RECORDED: PROPOSED EASEMENT
@ GRANTED TO: CITY OF CUAOAL.UPE
PURPOSE: •e• SlREET a: UTILITY EAS£MENT
RECORDED: PROPOSED EASEMENT
@ �:O�: TO �TY �EE�":��;., EASEMENT
RECORDED: PROPOSED EASEMENT
('i) GRANTED TO: CITY OF. GUADALUPE
PURPOSE: ·c· smEET I: UTILITY EASEMENT
RECORDED: PROPOSED EASEMENT
@ ��PO� T
O �,Y S��'t'"'tiJE

TY EASEME NT
RECORDED: PROPOSED EASEMENT
® ��P01:: TO: ?J"s��":��� EASEMENT
REalRDED: PROPOSED EASEMENT
0 �=: m �� �I:���� EASEMENT
RECX>ROEO: PROPOSED EASEMOIT
® ���: TO: �0� ��":fo� .k UTlUTY EASEMENT
RECORDED: PROPOSED EASEMEJH
@ ��N
fo.or ci��io�ltT
PURPOSE: SEWER MAIN
RE CORDED: PROPOSED EASEMENT
PBP,lfCT INfORMA]ON
-'SSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:

GROSS AREA:

NUMBER OF LOTS:

LANO USE OESIGNAllON: llilUJlES_
ZONING:

LOT 4 Of PM 29,0IJ

26.92 AC.
113 TOTAL / 111 RESIDOITIAL
MDR-8
R-1-5000
WATtR: TEl.EPHONE:

ELEClRICITY:

SEWER:

CITY OF GUADALUPE
PACIFlC GAS 11: a.£CTRIC

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
CITY Of' GUADALUPE
�LE TV: �AR�·c=��s
FLOOD INfORMA]ON
Tl-1IS PROJECT LIES Wn-llN Oll!ER AREAS ZONE X, 'M-IICH IS DESCRIBED AS: ARtAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE
THE 0.2X ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PLAIN.

Om:,JER's CER]FJCATE
WE HEREBY CONSENT TO lliE DIVISION Of REAL PROPERTY
SHOWN ON rn1s MAP AND CERTIFY 11-IAT WE ARE n£ LEGAL
OWNERS AND lHAT lHE INFORMATION HEREON IS lRUE AND
CORRE:CT TO rue BEST OF OUR KNow...EOCE AND BELJEf.

GB LAND SOUlH. LLC
2716 OCEAN PARK Bl.W. IJ006, SANTA MONICA. CA 90405
MARK LEEKl£Y, PRESIDENT

SUBPIYJDER'S CERJJFJCATE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY lH-'T lHE DESIGN OF T11IS SUBDIVISION WLL IN NO WAY CONFLICT WllH Tri£ EASEME:NTS REQUIRE D
BY 11£ PUBLIC-AT-LARGE FOR ACCESS lliROUGH OR USE
OF PRa:'ERTY WITrllN THIS SUBDIVISION.

GO LAND SOUlH, UC
2716 OCEAN PARK BLW. f3006, SANTA MONICA. CA. 90405
�AIG SNITH
SHEET NO.
201.09'
"-
'
'
'
,
/
,/.... ,
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
100'N.IM'fER�
LOT 113 '

DJ FARMS

VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 29,066
SHEET 1 OF 4
11◄,089 \.

NOT itPART )
/
/
/
100 M;9UfRR�//
/
INDEX

DESCRIPTION
ITNT-' TI\l'E lR-'CT MAP

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN

SCCTIONS
COMPOSllE UTILITY PLAN
/
/
/
/
282.+ Alrparti: Drive
LEGEND
PRO.ECT BOUNDARY

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE CENTERLINE
�1eu�E :.-::.-::.-::.-::.-::.-::.-::.-::.-::.-::.-::.-::.-::.-::.= EXISTING EDGE Of PAVEMENT

EASEMENT LINE

STORM DRAIN
��S=DRAJN

EXIST SEYER MAIN
WAlER MAIN
EXIST. WAT£R MAIN
EXIST. CONTOURS
SAN. SE'1IER IIIANHa..E • £XIST. SOER MANHa.£ 0
STORM CR�N MANHOI..£ e
smEETUGHT �
FlRE tilORANT -$

YJCINIIY MAP
URBAN

PLANNING
CONCEPTS, INC.

NOT TO SCAl.£
DA TI:, 5/20/2022
2624 Alrpork Drlw
Santa M«la, CaUfomlo 93.+55
{BOS) 934-5767
SClnta Marla, Cdlfornio g3-455 805/934--57150 L�I M. SPEER. P.E.

EXERPTS FROM DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Excerpts from Development Agreement as Amended
December 12, 2012 Ord 2012-411;
Amendment #1 -November 25, 2014 Ord 2014-428, and
Amendment #2 June 25, 2015 Ord 2015-437
Exhibit B of Development Agreements on File at the City of Guadalupe City Clerk's Office
Consolidated DA Exhibit B - Dates: Adopted December 12. 2012, Ord 20 I 2-411; Amendment # I -November 25, 2014 Ord 2014-428, and Amendment #2 June 25, 2015 Ord 2015-437 Page 1 of9

EXHIBIT D
FJ
XgbEFl
E FEErqO TtJE=
9EF
H r-l J.H<H
FF3
8HZ
588 Lg'{ 6*o
l-ld uHo Irl X Fi
sH5EEE F:E-
(, L-r -*L
L bJ€< 3su 3HH\)
"FF
F
o
z
oJ!.t,r-t gXH ESE !9 0 tl !t Frt
-< f ts aHl 8Fo !.o
Q s*( a lix o Er{ A'alJ E.i.> Ft f9 l..l | 30Fi EPU Fa> isE F$3
= ez
=.
h. t-t 8.Kq O o)LJ e{sd E'
c)8
ao
oEio
iT7
mI,
otr
o
mo{Jt-|.'?t
Qtr
3 mU'
gFFfi
$Ef$
ffi$fi
$H$$
s_ Es
F*
U
oo6, r.!
6-6(', 4+qtA
t
o
$o6
F9rlDo$5
N)s
+o
n
0)!!
cg
f3
d,
t
od,IL5a
5 d)
Fog)
s
E
tol)
soIt
-rF
A
t
g)
d)tP3d) t.0)to
0)Iq)
rDt
!(D
t
mzgmo
{
ov
m
o
q)
3 J
oo
1zlot<lo
l3Irt lolqh.rlctt
h.r lct l-Jlsfol.r lcL
lJlqr l=lc) lolz
l9h.r lct l.slslsINe
+ -'cr
=5. HE T' io=m
F6 ff edb o *1, o) r'; lTl
dE
r
*! N'g dl A= >3e €e.o dP= <- 1 9:tadg
E'Eda3e
alt
= 5cL 9st
FAo. 9. 6g3qo.€'
*u
rgdP

39. oo
.Yg
='O- -\<=€J6' E=
e=. 3=gF
Eo' !! or
J
CI'o
o=i ol\'E
{mv
aocFom@zo'tI
ot-{ffi
@
E ilg$ dqe
b _-=*T
E 6'd'm
fia:g+H 3E
3 =+s Q oo
6 =q! 41= gtEq3a*B O -(D =' -v*J €ooQ
€Esa
3s+q 5'o- O !-l
nE*; $E E'8gE a4
H d g? 39=o 9g'dl FE
d
=E
e ,d =g' E 3a
*s5H.; l- J-t*
-eO- 5J
(f
mmtotl
mIU'J
AIot
a
o(t=: o.q)o.o6'$€o@0) :Jo
€o)
o
-lU'
oil (oooo
=
;
a
o'
:
o€(n
tJ /-sXs6aO
:dN) qral.l ir>IJ:
oo tlt :. x.X('Pts(Dl IFt:ta:: v)*>Ni>ri aDN)-
{(DX8
(,r OtOEtQ. O t\)
AN3o
a
Not.)
I .5'U- D)s 0a e' tnr
p{
4g\OA
P
o
*
I
zo
ootJy,
o)
$gflg$
g$$$F
: fi F$g -r$$g
il$$fi
fif,$$fi$$fi (h -T tFrf,' t6'd! O
6 3l+i$t ,***
ffi$E
lC) t-l-{ t<
IolJlnt
lor lolc) lols
l-l5lol=lolot=lolor loIt/) lolc,
lo)l(Dl3l=l-+r l-lola
lclo
IEl-loI'lo
l-l t<
lol=lq)l-l:' lololo:lolololcn lc
l=lo
lSlB lo lo l= lolo.15EEl*l+ l*Fl.J l{r
lz19
13F13 loFIH lNle lcrrlO l' l=Its lE lild
lolSlaHl='lo
ls l{18 lH lzlo
le I:lrl*
lslt EE
lo) lcr, lololc)
lo) l+tolo.l=l+lorl@l-lcloleIF
l(' t>
q3d3= € st F eEpiAB+ {arr:f J -i: <o)E a o) i'll
**i$gsFe*i3$Ff,Ffr ,Aa8.9r qE
r
dFgFBgs€ q gFi r pE i'
EeEEgqf,a d8.e&i? eF
B=3d"JPq'F qD di::a9: =.=' ToOtn -# d
g ggf ;: E *i* .<- T,U o E< i5 Qq SsE q&f
F ' E =.<-S dl.o
EE$ fr?#
3 6Hfr.3i8a
FIq:'=s
H 6'*65=Qt l!.* {a'atr
5AH if;$ fi ilEe.Eg F
f
AE gES BilH ts3 bE=F li Q $ -(,6'o
9 5 s qF= ** e#S&d{* =i8 if =dd 4d'r
= =
I I 4iEa
&
rrl*ggaa€gg:
as*i$E*s*+$i
EfiEfiigEFg3Eg
Fgr*gEa1ig*
EggIfiEE$9gE
aF*I;g8ilggg
BiBEFEgEFga
sroo)ottr=o)b
€Bgn-EEIA g6'gaEEi=
d 3 ri dg;3
sIafrq ig
a ts6&€9Be
-FA:-.-.\r) .c. E x o.7'q' ,:
g
$efr g4FF
*
$< Q!6'6€{*
o
eRH-€ ab$
g
es;sqE3g Ho or 6 r.*
=g ?=X =l iio fi)
P e gE 3,u d-e !E Ei4*{e Ll.l-<-g? $ 6:9
+
da x*;=B'H4ff gH 3 fx"6
E S.=--1 8 d.q
b
*E'e;fi Eq# E e i3€ ri$a' 8€ s I6'bl3- 'rr ='X cD Ot T1 5 = F$ E{€ +rE ; aE:; s*s +3illd'EE5d :.= oQ bio NQ o 8Lt3 56 or I E crr ri.'6't qd $= nd R F? 3 IS8xi39I €.rtdESdl.e q) 5 =:;16:l 3
0'E
=.=
H E e: Flie: q il;
; " g 6E ia r
='o_
-o
ta
NAQO:
.sd cr9
!i6.s.FIs>N): oo lll "XDf
;l
y(t =CD+DNb- L.O:i.DNwox8
(''r Oi aO
N)' OtJ F<>
i-bJ 3o
\)otJ
ts
D+ qA v. (Dxtlf cH+r5 \o q..
3 o
t
2ooJ(tott\)
i3EFgiFg€FF[Fiiigi$F
Ea-r* $gF$3;i'+E 3 $
mz
omo-{o
vm
I
N) rsdrr9
r- =' ci !+
N) ct oXPU5>I..J : oo(I
!r ;t
fool 3H
x(D:! u)*DN ia' L.Os'o6&
N)-
e(DP8
('l gtaO&5N). o r.J
i}) 3o
a\)oN
I5 T- Ft- 0a e. 1>

9., g \o oo
2 oo(0ts1t.)
J.rl
l8
tf
ElmlzItrt
lmlol-,1 lolalmt>lo
=F
R 6"c)-'99 t=' <a=#;( r- Eg;BF Ig gd!'3F l;
5: E #Fq lF
gr d **f
e q;rt d'==
>
fisE$ {g
g
lrA$H 5
g
d q';Eg
$ a*sd3 ts
='l 8.6 q
d [{eFB I gsHFr
d
EH F33
3 $5f;{F
$ ho,u3 =. or
EEEgg I 3'66 =8
v
Fd 1[e FgSE
H 3<6'd<
!etrg
E
gil:..=
$ < c.!-q)' FA:9E ;a +
E ilEft
g o'9.5 m (D E't1t 7 (D
=a :t€
EE HE
=
A B #B U' CLFCL
F=Q= J $ lo, *ETE
H 3FI Ff; <(tLolsES qB
F$g $F gSir-uiii =63x xo dH-<
= o, -<
*
*Eg43 i+5 9. o
o
=Ff (I)
C 5Es3
Q=.b
q <(ogrtt
e p.3- I 5'P * -o
* eE:6€ 5q
3B{A= (D:-.:- *v
- o<
o
F#=
e
gd;
E
JI=Fc-{ ^$3'< ,i 3e.
a
='= o ;s E'da j.o(cl
H ggE flegE H i a5 o.m d;sT
t 83€d -r
ilfl9q
H
5 d_49
3 ilrg e ;
€E*r
H i 588 F € aN=. E,
=.P
rd
= 5(/, F<=
O
BAEg fr fip:E
g
3 3 3i
d
s$g.3
z
dgd4 dF t, (cro E=gg, 30) ==q"g (D< 86
(D ces
Eq) =.+ qdo*
tJ^eosdo9X='
!i6iU5>t.): 6CE
or5*cr
(Dl 5HfD) 59*!t9o-
'<Otr-6 BI
N)x
vo
ts8(,r Af
oqE5I.J' otJF()iNSo
at.J
FtA tsd;
$e Aa s. o5
(Jl tr oHF: it \o oo
+
I
zog
q(DbtN) y,
6 o
ostoF
=
cn{m
€
{
m
v
-lv
m
{
m=
z{!r
z-tTotr
Jmcn
*lfi*ggggil*g
fl+figBillEFfiA
ii*FFgE$ig$
F$gg*l*fi*i
='='q+
$HXgsSH
gggilrg
isafisr
H$E FE
f 3;E 4ig
r€EB iH g$ 3eHfl
Hs 3C e"g
g€gEgg
igE{r*
$g=s3 a33DH o aa @.
d
earqr
s I s'-E q# )
o
N)n
sdn9Yx'
pF5Fs>tJ: 60 frl
Dffcg(!l 5-=o) EI*!Nir r<O(Dx tJ88
Ln or9etJ. oN)
iP3o
t\)o
t\)
I
5 rEg !D- ga v' Ox orf pH
\o o.
3o5:!E
2ood@
t)Lrt
ao
os
o
Io
{
t-lm
og'o
m=z{
g E $Eo =E. lll =" 3:g iSam ! qH,D i 3q
t g :EE fl q€E
Z 6'to B HqE m f Oc * s=e
r- 30'
X
r qFa
grF9.*5 o =6-
E 8-E roE
o fl)qtf
i{ -9 K EE fo.ct 9€= odo <$c) o =o a(Dgt o.- Zi
BE
= 8q= eFs. tloo
= -\< dsc> :+cr+c-l
o. _-' 5'= (o
gsd EgaE s'3g..' 3 3 rri ffg aF'gE
b
F'ts3 s g X ffi d Ai'o 3
n
3 eE ag I @F s oF'sL f,; aPr* a'ggpqH,
*se*Eg
=.e
q 3_= i
sgFs8$ q$€ g*g
EF9EEg q A3lrr 6 d'o 5 E'crt IE
=
E
=H ed x.g;
s
=e
i sE
3 (D J r< !l * +9 9aF I
fi *H 3€€
a; s
=
t3
or d 55 crxaa; 3#B I gE'e *E.
cfrEagg gF$r-g q*
o
${$i$$**iiggfiE$
13 lfrt=
l= l:lIH
lililFlS lE:18
FIgH l:!-io lr lor fcr lA
EEIIlslelsffiRH
FHIF13 11=
F FIg l=E Iq l(2 lo lJlE- 131916 13 lrt
IFH 13 lo lI lot3 t*F13 lqlg18.11ll
lg lfl ts.t6' t(, t5
lE
Jo
f/rfo AE
4: l(D 9ls JF
90€F3;E4An;
=:*N
C.oNo(tl
!
o
CL :ftNo
Ol
f(.t
{
E gH
1_<ff
d':.
5 $ afi rii
o
e =.-F=,8
g
9EE
u qi<
d'€ ffi 1il9 oo:v
-.*
O ufr3 hP6
3 pl o =.:t o *- l6^9. 5(D
- 3 gE ogrcL 3:QFr*
iTi qt
o
c dP
^'-A
O Htg c o-l EoX o< Y
=@-* € Ea
k Es
=.qr o. 93
= ogo 6He *ir dot =' o 9P o L-.=
$;u I +<9
N)n ox.sd
x6}Uj\>t)bo frt
N!t
PS
ol 5Fr
=o) ;fi+! NA-.<Oc'o 8g8ue(! X8
qgr
OEAst9- oN)
i. J') SoI
oNoN)
I
5 'g- !D- 0a u' 6r -rf oHE)5 \o o.

I*
I
zo
odon
t.) (Jt
i$iag3gEEaJ
[ggEgg$iEI
+gE g agH gF$ s *g
;t* F * aa$$f, E ge a*a a 'D 3 *; E
e
bJ ra
vosdo9;r='
!ia}U5>N): oo Gt ex
$=lts(Dl 3r<5a)
gs, =(D
rt>bJil. ,<o trfd 8gNX8
(rt -5 oi
OEE5tJ' ONra
APSo
oNo
NJ
I
5 "u- !cH
0P e'

3.Pqg\0 0.

El+:s
t
zo
o(t(DElN)
J,l
CN
o(t
9 .A:r
(t, -l
-l m
E{mv!cvoC"m
SAsdgilBe-t^ - O Cto Sa c<(D*
EA$s €3e= Oo;iO ' € 6'il
H=$ fi Jaq
==6 -ocafrE e!
4 fi*E
€aF *O
6 ooo
-el- E=ilF
*e; *J
=5CL Q *O
; d; q ='8 E# 6'
FEi,
Fag -a3 iEb
=r'g
P
=ofn d ex=' \J J=::(J Jm(Dv
; Bs3fr eg3 [
s
E 9Fg
F
F I'g $.' **'CLo) li
3E qEF
* AE H339: fi tr3:
n
ae€ fi
gg*ft
Feg I qB € =a ito
o dt a o =t= ooo
J'Rvro=L
= cL+ t-(D= llE
o
at* oo:atrr 3r' oa''qt=(D 9FdEB' 5'
E:$ o=.

JAcL (ct 8.9 q";
mzE'
N)n oxuEsd
aOVFo" E- !i6
iU5>H F,J
!0:rP; (Dl 5Fr5s59:+b
> N ir- qrOcrd
xa!
t$- {ox8lJt Ot a(D
&gtJ' Ot.J xO
LhHa-N 3o
at\)
o
NI5, E; D- 0A v. gFcH
\o ir.
g:fr2o
(?d(0
l'Jy,

DJ FARMS MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 13, 2012
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-27

EXHIBIT E
L{
Y
-o\)o(t
{
hFI Ft F'
a
Fl
frt
oz
?Ft
o
zl-Fl
o
n)lt
zo
tr
n E FrJ
'EFg BEF=
EE
"tr o
F
+FaH
E
F
t!1
lrl
0 FI
UUg-{
d1
FE? l.:l a<
vgEIA 11 r{l i.idral
> l{ f-/ o:1 FdF FC
z t.J
V)
oHrJr tr
l--l \o\otJ
Ot\) L'I
oEAO\cbt Fe -{ Feo tt rn rll e Vo
e€EE3F
EF
g Sgrll
o\
o
oo
oRoc
Oq
s\
b
€coo
t
T
oc
d$
It-
oo2
dzrtEh
SAtFlg a#=''o - occ
fi 9E {(Dt00Y ti >t'
- x gil
.
=6 B;s. og.6
3 Et
E. 5'e g-rt * (trl - - !tPrr
ii' s'u 5 g-e 399. I F'd6=.0a - OoIE.AE @-E $(!5af. o 3i' !-rdrl (D E-= Ed6 e
Es
e 6€ i
39'=. !r!f(D
xo*
v> ax9 g{i a "6 g'
!ioa"-, (Dg
ch (b
E- 3(D b. qq ar. ot
OO g;. *2
<l 'o
FaEilgi?Ea
*?agiEgEEB
lglgglBga
sei$€EFA
FeEg E€1
*FaF s€F 858'X 8.5
q
eES
3 <-= (! r
sE=
= i;!.
e E€.; ' s9E
O I;E F
$38
E
{o" !: R*r e5d' sr3 i
EE i
;a
f
o:!cLu.F?-5 i-q g E.F
*g? iFF 5^E
eag gqi :rOQ
i[HilEo
sg€
=.s
A
E3E
CPhi'* ir6
E S"? " R.3
:(!
3 0(I !9
3 .Dt9a
cEl (!
lDatt
o:'5
q
o!o
976r- 50.D3 r!=
5 0Q
F
.D
o-t
m
rlrt
s.: gfr
g*B559
€FPo}+Hr Va. ,9d
Fs
qe
to
o
7 (D!)CD
Cho

0. (Drao.CD
5aD =F !tFaD- 5(D d: JtD
3odq3U; o9+_- 4a6qag€o
LB56|D.< gr^ 2E
dE
5o
o
:o
g
o,
to
T'
of6
6do
as
F i3"
g
diJg o @oov, g +CL O60,g: f;
r
g E't id 9;a
z d(D>. :-
s 3: 6'
.i g;
€ t.! t I 33e {i * *s
o 6eg 'r 93d rl- d =< aD :tss
H
d 6E
e y:-!4- (D
=Jct
5 (D36' F qf
a !D3
o
doJ=o7 L1 sO- a1 1< (D= *E
q
q-d
o\ r,
!(!
14G
tr
\S.
f:h
s(l
o
a\s
R
Co
s
o
o
s6\
?a
a
s\hG
\
af,
=-
Oo
t3tad
s
rl>3E7Ec3. F. t,
Y Fl? (D5 €3' gs
d6
s
\
- sr
S 69 : ce1aF.t ga'
G
;v, ! Fd xA:oo HF :
b.$
CD J. e+FO!t- ('
E'tt (!cB5'
a4(D
s- 5'
FE, g-6
'iJ
- E-E
8- 6' '{
gFtE
a(Dts,il
F
a{!
(1
o
.:=E
Aaaffig$gE
gAEiAE €
E A-;;sF; Fg :38 aee a; 5<di'aE' =(D q.:t=s- E r
Eac gAF F
I
*lEgEBE
raiia
e
aE isE
a sqdx 5
5 g-E-€ *H
E
< 5.:;E; E;;fF
F EaaEil B IgBFE
g *g*a
E
3€ -E =.
s E ='Er t
g- t5
o\
5 'o
3a)
oq4
oFt
2 A-tsI H gE 3 5o HS 8.3 gf sE
EE I3 !F Fg. Ig E E.

EE H
F
TE gS
EE gg
FF *r F* 3a:< s fi's. 3 B.P
E 9rL
-
R
oa
o
o
\
o
o
:
oo
s
\
x(t \i
o
O!
!
\stori
s
h(\
s.4,, t\tr
v
ts'*
a(!
$
o
s
Miigatinn futonitoing and Reponing Progratn
TirBing/
Ftequemy
Flnal
Cleerance
Ilate
Cornments MouitorlnglRcporliry Done By Responstble Frrty Mitiption Meoure Midgrtion Number AESTT{EfiCS ANDVISUALRESOURCES Prior to
issuance of a
building or
landscaping
City of Guadalupe
Planniag Depanmeot
Applicant/Design
er
ard derailed submit and strall Tbe prePare
be must determiocd by Thesc the plans to cilv plans landscaping tlre m conrained the wilh be to consistent desigt guidelines staff City to arid Plan Pnor oiher Farns DJ Cit'/ rcquireanents Rervised Specffic fot dcveloprneot of or rssuance building landscaping permits the 8ty site. on&e
MM 3.r-2
Prior to Final
Map approval
City of Guadalupe
Planning Departrnent
ApplicantlDesign
er
adequate amourn of lighl All external ligt*ing shsll b€ iodicated onprojlt improrarnent llans as they are submined for frnrre sitelocation shell the rec,ordation, and Final to approval ldap
the indicates tbar detaited a extmor subrnil liehdne plao ard PrePare exterior uscd. 'l'hc will that rghtioe be and of tichtbC tttr ultr stil while non-ntruslve providing demonstalc quality shall t[!I3.1-3
City of Guadal*pe
Plaooing Department prior to issuance of gladhg/
building pennits
Implcment
duinggrding
and ccrns*rrrction
activities
program Applicant/
conuactor
limited ro tbe fotlowing:
. lffater mcks ot sprrinkler sysenrs shall be us€d to keep all areas ofrchicie movesrent danp enough to prevent dust from teaviry he project site druing gading and constnrctionactiviries at the p*ioa sic. Al a minirnum this shall include vrctting dorva sucn arcas in tbc lare morning ad after vsk is co*pGtee for &e day. tncrcas€d wateriog frcqtrercy shalt be requiaa uihenever the wild speeds cxceed 15 milcs pet hotn (nrph). Reclaimed water shall be {tsed wtrenever possiblc' . Minimize asount of disturbed area and redrre on-site vehicle conEol dust to perticulate slrall a plan The pfePare Appticant at the activities site and prre,paratiou rnag€f, grading duing (PMro) on shown all shdl Eleasures b€ gadire 'lle site. conrrol dust prqject on ircluded shaII be and &e for and project building glans proposed carch wilh be resorded shcst infonnatiooal subsegrcnt to a scP8rate not be but shaI firertsutcs includc, control Dust tentative $llrP. speeds to 15 nph or less. of to at ail access . lnstall MM 3.2-
AIR
1a

QUALITY
65 Raised DJ Farms SpeciJic PIan
Mitigation M onitoring atd Reporting P ro g ram
Mitigatbn Monitoing an"d Reporting Progratn
Mifigation
Number Mitigation Measure ResponsiHe Party Monitoring/Repordng IloneEy Timing/ Frequency Finsl Clegr:ance Ilate Comments on topublic roads in of lhc pruject site (e.g.

I
SlateRolb 166).

All soil soclcpilas at the poject site shall be coverod' kcptmoist or teated with soil binders to Prevent drst generation.

A seq.rred tarp sbatl be places oo all trucks trausporting fitl uaterisl to 8ud from &e project site from the point of origin After grading aod eaflh moving is completed' citbr reat tbe disurtcd area by watering, or revcgetatrng, or by spreading soil birders until the area is pavcd or otherwise devebpcd sothat dusr pneration will not occur.

The con6actor shall desigrr,ate a qualified site monitor to uFsitor dle dLst control program and to order increased warrirg,8s oecessary b Prevent mnsport of dust off-site' 1te monitor shalt include hotiday and weekend geriods whe'o work nay not be in progress- The nasre and telephouenumbcr of the site monitor shall be providcd to tbeSBCArcD prior to land usc clearance rnap recordation and I
a
land clearance for finisb
Appticant/Contraa City of Guadalupe
Planning Department
During grading
and consnuction
activities
Equipment
coulo] Ineasures
shall be s:ted on
thc preliminary
ard final grading
plans and
constrtrcdon
plars
IVC![ 3.2-
1b
The shall adhere to following rneasures during
coDstn ction activities at the proJect slte to reduce the emrsston ofozooe prpc!$ors (NOx aod ROC) ftorn the Oper'atioo of cotrstruction cquipment wibi! the Spu"ific Plao atga. Tbes€ cquipmcot control mcasures shall bc noted on the prelirninary and fiDal gradrot plansand coostructionplans for *re proposed Prcject. ' HeavyduY dicsel-powcred cotr-smrction cquipment
manufactured afler 1996 should be utilized wheneverfeasible. . The engine size of consmrction equipnrent shall be &e mioinun practical size.
. The number of conslruction cquipmcnt utilized 8t tbe pmject site operating sirnultanqrusly sbdl bc minfunized ttrough effrcient marugemenl practiccs to ensute &at the smallest number of equiprnent is operating at &e Projcct site at atyone time. 66 Revised D.I Farms SpectJic PIan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progran
Mirtgation Monitoing attd Reporting Progratn
Mitigptio
Number Mitigation Meaeure ResponsiHe Party Monitoring/Repordry DorcBy Tinlne/ Ibequency Flnat Clcar:ance Ihte Commentc cquipncnt shall tune per the
a
maaufacnrer's sJrecifications.

Constnrrion equtpneil opcrating at tlre project site shall be equippod with tuo to four degree engine timing retard or precombrstiou cbastbo engines, if available.

Cat tyuc converlef,s shall be installed on gasoline-powered equipnenu if fcasible.

Dierl catalytic @nverters, diesel oxidarion catalysts anddiarel particutate filrcrs ccrtified and/or vcrified by EPA orthe Sute of California shall be installcd. if available' Diesel porvered equ'rpment strall be replaced by electric equipclt wtrerercr fssibte.

Consgnction vrorker trips o tlle project sit€ shall be
nilinfued by encouragiag carpooling and by makingavailable food for purchasc during tire lunch breaks ar the a
srte.

Not a
required
Mitigatio
n
The should consider appropriatc and
reasonable conservation measures to rcduce air ernissiors iilo final improvemeot plans oo subsequent rentative rnaPs as deemed aprpropriare by tle City of Guadalupe.

Measures tbat would reduce poenrially signifrcant air emissionsassociated wib Oe proposed proi€ct roay include, but are not limit€d ro, tre following Dcaslres:
r losull nanral gas fueplacc irrserts and eliminate the use of .umod burning fireplases in all r$idential unis;
. Insalllow NO' residendal water heaters and spacc heaters:' lngallheu transfer modules in fumaces:
. Use outdoor ligbting dasigned for high efficiency, i.e- solarpowued or arntrollcd by motion delostors; . Site and orient buildings in such a suluer as to reduce erergy usc (ic. pa.ssive solar cooling/heating);
. Use light colored watet-based paint and roofing materials; . Employ stlluner shading and wind protection nreasures to u6ease
Applicant/
Contractor City of Guadalupe Planning Deparnnent Demoustrate on Tentativc Mape 67 . RevisedDJ Farms Specific PIan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting P rogram
Mitigation Monitwing and Reponing Progran
Mitipti,on
Number MtigadonMeasure Resporsible hrty MonitoringrReporting DooeBy Tlmiug/ Frequemy Anet Ctearance Date Insull alr corditioners that use non-ozone
depletirg dernicals:
r Ma,rimize he lxe of narural ligbting in the building desigos; . Irstall eoeiry efiicientappliances and ligbting;
. Use lardscrpiog o shade buildings asd pa*ing lots;. Install sidewalks and bike patbs; ad/or. In*all covcred br:s stops, wterc appropriate, to cncouragc the use of

BIOIOGICALRESOURCFJ
MM33-5 To maintain coosisterrcy the mcasr,u€s listed under the Prograrnmatic B'rrlogical Opinion issucd by ttrc US Fish asd rl/ildlife Service (January 26lgca*r. the following mitigation will berequired:
' Prior to coEstnrction, a US Fish and Wildlife Semice
approwd biologist shall suvey clre work area two weeks
prior to cunstruction If California red-tegged frogs are p(escnt o! rlrc gropct site, the biologist will conract thcS€rvice ard reccive authorbation to caPtute ard re-.locate lbe ftogs o aService agproved location' If frogs arc obscrve4tle binlogist or a site monitor (as designated by ttre biologist) will be present nntil &e dilch is drained or gnded.
r If no kogs are found, the site will bc decrrEd clear aod a screen will bc placed over tbe drainage pipe leading to the off-site dninage ditch- All oth€r measucs listed below willbeimplarcnted. - All consguction personoel will rcccivc a training se^ssion wtrich shall include a description of the California redJegged frog and irs habitel &e imPortance of redJegged frogs' aod t&e aras where such frogs may occtu, if Present on theprojea sia. . All fielioc and maintenancc of vehicles and otlrcr equipment shall occur at lest 20 meters from any riparian habian or wat€r within &c site to avoid &at
ApplicanVUSFWSAgproved Biologist City of Guaddupe Planning Deparmeot Survey rhell !s completed two wecks prior to constructioo
Retuelingand
best managementpracti<;es sball be
cmployed
during aod after
project
implementation
Comments
68 Raised DJ Farms Specific Plan
Mitigation Moninring and Reporting Progrant
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prograrn
Mit[adoD
Nmber Mitigptlon Measure Respouibte Party Monitoring/nepordry IloneBy TirrtuE/ Frequency Ftml Cleannce Ihb Comments may flotl
dilches.
site into off-site agrirxrltural
' To contol erosion during and after project implanenoation' lbe projeo will best management practices, as
identifid tbe Water Board.

U sitc will occu duriug ths nesting seasoo (lvlarch I lhrough for lcsting birds Aug0st 30) pre*onsuuction surveys Et8ralory should be conducted by a qualificd biologist Pnor to atly soit-alteritg activity' ocurning within the projcct area ard 4 sunorndiag area of potential effea. Thc Pre-construction surveys shall be cosdrcted within 30 daln of any construction or gading activities. If activenests are loc€ted during pre-construction survelrs, USFWS aod/orCDFG shall be rptified regarding lhe statrrs of llre nests' Fnrthesnore, co$lruction activities shaU be resEicted as o€cessery to avoid distubarce of tire ncst until it is abandooed or tbe biologist deerm disnnbarct potential to be minirnat. Resuictions may includc estsbtishment of bufrer Tones or altcntion of thc constnrfxln schcdule.

Applimt/tJSFWS
Approved Biologist City of Guadalupe Planning Depanrncnt Prior to issuance of grading penDits, and no more chaa 30
days ro
carthwork
MM3J6
Prior to lhc
issuance of
gradiog permits
MM33{ The project applicant shall obtain tre appropriate S€ctbn 4M permit Applicant US ArmyCorps of EagineerV urder the Clean Water Act asd Streambed Alteration Agre€neil stull be obtained prior o issuance of grading permits The poject appticant shall compty with 8ll permit conditions and eoptoy best managctrcnt practices and rneasues (cstabtishd by Corps) to minimiz.e ard courpensatc for potcndal irnpact to any jruidictiorul 'rraters. Wetland delineation and mitigation details shall be nrrted on City of Guadalupe
Planning Department
6e for the
fi'LTTJRAL A}TD HISTONC BESOURCE
VM Thc mrriwolaar vlsta.v.rrr cllall stB!r haw :-r..J^J rrrLlNVu -tt trlr Conkactori Applicant
Pritr to i*sunce
of gtadiagl
building pennits
construcnolr coDtacts ard permis issued within the project area: City of Grudalupe Planning Departnent As a coriditbn of project apprcval, ,f arry prehistoric or histo'ic aaifacts or other hdicatiotrs of arctueologbal resounce,s are fowd project corLttnrcuon wo* uz the bMiate
?A
atofte
m&st and tlu
ts utderway, aIl
slall be
69 Revised DJ Farm"s Specific Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Repttning Prograrn
Ilnix€/
Frequency
Final
Clear:anae Commenls Mottoring/Reporting
Done BY
Respocible
Prrty Mitigation Mea$re Mitiggtioo Number
meeting Secretary oJ
or historical ut Stondards prehisarb Aualilations Pmfessionol t,E svaltate fittds retaircd to be sIaIl ot a?pmpriate- archaeology, tte measures for mitigation recontwnd atd appropriate J
dscovered
inrplernented in
the field, if
recessary
Ciry of Guadalupe
Ptoning Department/
Native Americas Heritage
Corgsrissioo
C,ornrrtor/
Applicant
shall be folloved
Conrnission
8ng reElams ol approval, condition As
ta th€ must rvork rs stoP all coNtructios underuray, OIrcC projecr be Bust Cororcr the Iird asd Counry of $s irnfitcdiat€ viciniy ard Health California's 7050.5 of Section to accotding notified, bc to ve Nari Amcricarl determincd im remalns If thc Code. Safety American ttreriage Native the uill ootify corolrer the
and Section 5064.s(d) (e) lo outlined CEQA the aud procedures MM3.4-2b
Prior to issuance
of gradingl
buildingpermits
Ptanning Departnrnt
City of Contactor/
Applicant project
all ra included qh.1l be or The lssguager equivalent,
area: within the ard issued @trracts construction perafa resources a As conditbn approval, paleontobgical { arry o[project work alI tn ,s udzrwq, construction are once proiect fouttd (fossils) be slzall mISt the and Guadalupe City of itntnediale ths stoP vicinity A paleontologist qualified natifred iwnediatelY
recommend ann tlrE evaluate oppropriae fnns
discovered tlu
sl:r,ll be retained to
mttigation measlrres
re$ources.

MM 3.4-3
70 RevLsed DJ Farms Specific Plan
Mitigation Monitoing ond Reporting P rogram
Mitigatian Monitoing and Reponing Progratn
ModtoringlReporting
DoneBy
finiDg/
Freqpency
ResponsiHe
Party
Fbr
Clearaffe
Ihe
Comments Mitigldon
Number Mtigation Measure
PlenninB De?arEneoy'
City Engineer
ofGuadalupe
Prior to
issaance of
a buiWing
pennit
Conlrastor/
Applicaot MM 3.5-la be dcsignd in accordance with the requirerncob of dre current edition of lhe Califonria Buitding Code and tlre rccommendationscontained within $re Preliminry Soils Engineaing Report (datedOcbber ll,202), and the Soils Corrosivrty Strdy (dated May 21. 2003), subject to review and appr,oval by tre City of Cuadalupe.These recommmdarions include, but are limit€d to site preparation and grading; urility trcnches; foundatioos (general, post-teosione4 and convcntional); slabson-grade and exterior flarwork; rcraining tbc Specific Plan area shall residcn'ial future All dcvelopmcot around sections;
City of Guadalupe
Planning Dcpartrncnt/
City Engineer
Prior to
issuance of
a building
pennil
Geotechnical
Engineer
the proposed project (commercial. regreatioml ard itstiutional)prior to inpl@otatiotr of ihese comPorctfs of tbe Specific PlaoTbese reports shall b€ subject to review and approral by the Ctty of Guadalupe atd all firnrc development shall be designed inaccordarce with drese requilements and the curent editios of the a sball by prcpareO A iovestigation site-specific
surface to the deterrnine engineer site-specific geotcttnical qualified of for cons8aints the olher soil and aspectE and s$surfac€ geologlc Code.

MM 3.5-Ib
City of Guadalupe
Planning Deparunent/
City Engineer
Agplicatl to approval
of firul
inproverneot
plasfor
subsequent
tentative uraps
Included on
constnrction
contracts
MM 3-5-
4 preveotion end sedineqtation coDtrol
co$lruction actirities prior o appfovat
for subseqnent tcntativc maps proposed witbin ee Specifr Planarea. 'fneso rroures shall be iorcqporated isro all constructionconracts and shall bc monitored by the City to cnsure cffectiveuess througlr corutruaion activititis at the project site during thc rainysearcn (Novemhr I &rough April 15) of each year. 'Sttch InE$ur€s shall include, butnot be limited to &e followiog:
. Limit disurtanc€ of soils removal to the minimum area narssary for arress aod cooemrction;
. Re-vegctate disturb€d areas with a mix of seeds best suited for tire clinate and soil conditioss, and native to lhe into site frreParation acd
of fural irryrovement plans
of ensure implenrentarion
7t Revised DJ Farms Specific Plan
Mitiguion Monitoring and Reponing Progrant
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progratn
Mitigption
N"mber MtigadonMeasure ResponeiHe Party MonitorluglReporti4 DoneBy finiing/ F}equeneT nnsl CLegrance Date I andprotect stoclgiled soils duing periods of rainfall; t
Infonn constuction personnel prior tn comtruction ard
priorlically duriag construction activities of environmennl couogtrs. pertineut laws and regulations, ard elemeats ofproposd erosion control measures; Mhere to corsrtrction schedules designed to avoid periods of hcavy pecipiution or high winds; andEraure thrl all exposcd soil is provided with tetoPorarydrainagp and soil protection when consuttctioo ceases during MM 3.63 Site design in the vicinity of &e school and park shall demonstrate a@uate separation and/or provide a barrier bet"veen public or school rrses and rhe rrcarby rail lines. Separadon shnll bc Pmvtded and specifically dxigned to prevelt the public or school age children access to the niboad rigba of ways. Final school site plaming shallbc conduc(cd irr consultation wi& thc Stare Architect (and Catifornia Educatioa Code),and the local school district.

Applicant/Design
er
City of Guadalupe
Planoing Department/
City Engineer
in coruultrtion with
Stale Architect and
iocal School Disuict
Prior to
issuance of a
Building
Permit
MM 3.6-5 In order o kiogthe abandoned Union Sugar Oil Well No- lGl and sump arca into compliance with federat, State and locdrequirements. the appticant shall retnediate soils around the well as defined and recommended in Ore Phase II Environn€ntal SiteAss€s$neDt (Earth Sysems Pacific, March 20O3). The rrcll shdl be abandored rnnsisteot with curent State and locsf requireme'tts, and Oc applicant shall provide appropriatc access to tb abandoncd weUhcad as rccomrncnded by Earth Systems Pacific.

In additioa, any futtue tract maps or developnrcnt plans that involvethe area wiilrin 100 feet of this well sball indicate &e location of the Applicant
well on tbe maps atrd site plans.

City of Guadalupe
Pla.nning DepartmenU
City Engineer
Prior to
issuance of a
srading
permit
MM 3.6'6 u contaminated soil end/or grotmd water, other than what has bceo ktcntified and mitigued for in lhe November,20O4DJ Farms Spcr:ific Plan EIR, is eoouotered duriag the resoval of onexcavation and/or graciing botb on ard offsite, site dcbris orduring Applicant
City approved
City of Guadalupe
Planning Dcpartment/
City Engineer
Duringprojcct
implcmentatio
C-ornrnen&
72 Revised DJ Farms Specific Plan
Mitigaion Monitoring and Reporting Progrant
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigrdm
Number Mitgation Mecure Rcsporible Partt Moniloring/Reporting DoueBy Tintus/ ftequency Finai Clearance Ilate Comments the coutnptirn conlraclors shall sop inforsl environmental hrzardous
materials
pnofessional
during
implementation
n
the City. A Ciry appmved cnvironrrental hazardous materialsprofessional shallbe contracted to conduct an on-sitc assessnenl If the materials aa determined to pose a risk to the public or construction r,roriers, the constrrrction corl8actor shall prepare and submit a remedirtion plao to the appropriate ageocy ard comptywith all federal, sate and local laws.

Appropriate €ency (if nece.ssary)
EYDROI,OCY A}ID WATER QUALTTT
MM3.7-
la
Prior to of grading permits and as part of Enal Map Applicant ofGuadalupe Prior to issuan<p of
grading
permiuasd as
part ofFinal
Map
submittals
submiuals, projo,t appticana shdl submit drainage aod erosion conuol plam enruring t&at drafurage plans are consi*eru with dtedrainagc concep$ for tbe projecr aod tiat stormwat€c discbarge volurues inO rlre receiving &ainage system are eqnal to or less lhen runoff from tle sitc prior to initiation of the project. in accordance with Santa Barbara County Flood Control District standardsPlarming DcpartnenU Cicy Engincer MM 3.7-
1b
In accomanc€ wih current Sute reguladons, alt future dcveloprnent rasultiog in gcading or excavation that dist$6s five acres or ntorc shall requirc cor'€rage nder tbe NPDES Creneral Permit' hior to issusrce of the frst grading perrnit, tlre project agplicant shall prepare a Shrnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) thatOocunents bcst nanagemenr practices (lilttf,s, lrap' bio-fiIuadon 5walcs, etc.) to eNurc that urban runoff costamina8b and sedioenr are minimized. The crosion and sedirnent control plan sball spccifyu,hich erosion control measures nccessary to cootrol runoff shall bcin place durieg tre raily season (Novernber I drrough April 15) atd uihich me8$r€s shall be in place year rourd. The SWPPP shall be consistent, wilh CCWQCB stardards.

Applicant City of Guadalupe
Planning DepartoenU
Cily Engiacer
hior to
issuance of
the firstgrading
perrrit
MM3.7-2 nior o issrance of a grading pcrmit and as patt of t-rnal Map submittals. rie Agplicant srdl Lrclude derailed ergineeriog plans for the on'site stonnuatsr and dercntion fasilili€s for review ard ^---.-t L.,.L^ l'r:h, E--:-^^- ^. ..-ll -- ^{L^. ^^*^.ri-- c
Applicant Cityof Guadaluge
Ptandng Departnen/
City Engineer
hior to
issuance of
gadiag
73 Revised D.l Farms Specific PIan
Mitigation Monitoring aul Reporting Progran
Mitigation Monboring and Reponing Program
Mitigption
Number trfitigrdon Measrre RespoN$iHe Party Monitcing/ReporlfuE Don!By Timiog Fbequency Final Cleanrnce Dats by the City Engineer, as r,rrcll as otler approving or
pernriuing agetcies.
permia and as
part of Final
Map
submittals
I.AND T]SE, AND AGHq.JITUNE
MM 3.8-3a
The Appticanrsball demonstrate on all maps and devdopment plans. inctuding landscaping plans, a minimum l0Gfoot agicutEual buffer on the castem, soulhern and western boundaries of the DJ Farms site. r['he minimom distance shall be measwpd fiom the lcat€sthabiable structttre to actirre agricultrual operations on adjaoentfarms. Consistentwith ttre project proposat, the bufu will be fully laodscEped and lrrcorporatc tree wisdrows along the inside(residentid bottdary) and along tbe propeny line (agiculaual h,rdrry). A ladsape Maintenance Distict shall be esablirshed at tlre time of proicct approval to maiotain ths buff€rApplicant City of Guadalupe Planrdng Departnrent At application MM 3.E.3b
To discourap trapassing and vaodalism on rbe adjacenr farus to Ore east and mutll. a six-foot view-type fence shall be insalled alongthe poperty bornlary. The type of material shdl be determined durins, the sitc plar revbw processApplicaot City of Guadatupe Planning Department At application MM3.8.
3e
Comisteot wih mtification required by Santa Barbara County as a conpon€nl of tbr Righ-to-Fann Ordinance, the Ctt!' of Guadalupeshall require tle recordation of an Agriculnral Notifi<rtion Stalemcnt to ruo wilh the Thle on all propcrties soH artd resold is thc proposed doeloprnent arca. The slatement shall inform anyfutre propeny owner.s of the contbruation of agriculural activities in the area artd 6halt disclose tbe potential effects of agricultural activities on adiacent land uses to fuurre proiect resideots.

Applicant City of Guadalupc
Planning Departmcnt
Recorded
wi*r Final
Maps
MM3.8-3d
Alt firare developrcot plans aad tandscapiog plans for commercial and school-relatal uses sbatl incorporate screening ard buftriag feat{cs bcts,pen non-resideqtial arcas arrd adjacsrr residsntisl laoduscs to mitigatc potential irnpacts frorn noise, lightilg. traffic and odors. All buffcrine and screening shall be desicncd to the Applicant City of Guadalupe
Planning Department
At application
Commen8
74 Revised DI Farms Specific Plan
fuIitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reponing Program
Mitigslion
Number Mitigtion Measure RespodHe Psrty Mmitorirg/Reporling DoneBy Tiningl Frequency Finel Clearence Itste satisfsction of treRuilding and Planning Ofifrcial ard includcd in tbsCommercial Deralopment Desigr Guidelines within tlre ProPosed plan

NOISE ANDVIBRATION
MM 3.9-
1a
All sgncttnes consrruced near ge$eratols (roadwaysrailways) stull be &signed and constroced to neet dre City'sresideodal iodoor ooise standard. These measures will likely include sound rated vrindows aod doors. hpending on tbe proximity of tbe rcsideoccs o thc raikoad uacks, special exterior wall conslnrctioamight also be reEircd. Accordiog to Ciry policies, those rcsidenccsthat mtst have tlpir windows closed to mect the prcscribcd interior level will requirea ventilation or air+onditioning system to providc a babitable inerior environnent. Building plans slrall be subject to review and approval by tbe Planning ard Building Inspector. Prior tr approval of frml mags, :he applicant shall submit amustical desigl data tu tbe Ciry Eecifying lbe t)?c ard effectiveocss of tbe proposed attcnuation oeasures.

Applicant/
Contractor
City of Guadalupc
Plaorfqg Department
Prior to
approval of
Final Maps
MM 3.9-
lb
In af&ls UPRR coni<tor, homes backyards
within 125 feet of the tracks will requke a noisc barricr to reduce thc backfard (exredor) L.a to 60 dBA.. Noise attenuat'ron measures(such as the onsnrction of soundwalls. benns sr a combinalion of both) shall be nquired of sufFcient height to achieve the City's maximum accepuble l.d, of 60 dBA for low density resideotial lald use. Final rnps sball demonstrate the desrgn of any srch feature.

Dcsign of noise attenuatioo features shall bc accompaoicd by supporting documentation (acoustical rcpon) qruntifying the 's
Applicaut/
Contractor
City of Guadalupe
Planning D€,partnent
Prior to
approval of
final unaps
MM 3.9.
lc
In areas that are wi0dn I 15 feet dte 166 centerline.acoustical reporu wiU be required to indicate building desig rneasures to rEet *re City's couaercial indoor noise sandardEuildiog plars stralt be subjecr to review aod approral by tbe ard
Applicant /
contractor
City of Guadalupe
Planning DcparrmenU
Pl'anning aod
Buildiag Inspector
Prior to
approval of
final nraps
MM 3.9-2 arca sball not be consrrrrcd Habitabte slructures within the Applicant/ City of Guaddupe Prior to C;omments
75 RevisdDJ Farms Specific Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reponing Progrant
Mitigation Monitoing and Reporting Prograrn
Mitigafiotr
Number MitigationMeasure R€sposiUe Parly MuitortngtReporttrg IloneW Tfnd€/ lbquency Anst Clearance Dre C,ommente lm feet the track centedine, nor within of
the SlvIlrrRR tacl<' centerline. Final mrps for &e projoct shall illusuate these digarces for review by the City of GuadalupeContractor Planning Department/ Planoi:ng and Buildiog Inspector approval of fitr8l meps MM 3.94 Applicant slall a noisc mitigation plan as Part of thc will include, but notbc limited to the building permit aplication tbat following:measu*:
. Noise gelgrating construction sctivities rvill be limited to vcekdays between the hous of 7:00un and ?:00pm.
. Consmrdon scbedule showing dat€s ard, locatioo of
activities.
. List of equipment to bc used during each unjor corstruction pha.sc and sound level estimares for cach phase.
. Tluck routing to minimize noise at existing noise sensitive uses.
r lrcation of sationary equipment to rninimize noise at sensitire u;es.
a Dcsiglatio
respoosiblc
responding
of a consuuctioo aoise coordinator &at rvill be
for irqplcmeuting lhc noise conrol measures ardto complaints. This pcrson's Eune and contact informatirn should be around the
Applicant/
Contractor
City of Guadalupe
Planning DeparmenU
Planning and
Buildirog Inspector
At Building . Permit
application
lT.ATT'rc AI\DPARKING
MM 3.1r1a -hior to Final Map approval, ihe applicant sball obtab an encroschmeot permit from Caltrans for all rrork conducted in the Stue Highway rigbt-of-way. Addfuional inprovements rcquired by Caltrans tr.r a<ror8trtodate lhe project, during the encf,oacbnrentpermit phase, shall !s iocorporated ioto tlrc woject ard funded by the developer.

Applicant Caltrans/
Cityof Guadatupe
Planning Departnrent/
City Engineer
Prior to Final
Map approval
MM 3.11-
1b
fnc proposct access locations on State Route 166 at Obispo Steet ard Flor,r,rr Avenrc witl aligr widr thc existing access locations onrhc nonh sidc of State Route i66. I'rior to issuance of any buildingpermits for dre fusr ptrasa &c applicant sball install STOP signs on &e southbound approaches of Obispct Street and Flourr Avenue.

Applicant Cityof Guadalupe
Plenning DepartmenU
City Engine€,r
Priorto the
issuarrce of
any building
permits for
76 Revised DJ Farms Specific Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mfuigation Monitoing and Reporting Progratn
Tftniag/
fteq1aency
Monitorlrg/Reporlfug
Doe By
Finrt
Ctecrance Comrnente Reryonsible Party Mtigatton Measure Midgrtion Number the first phase
City of Guadalupc
Planning Dcpartrncnt/
City Enginecc
hior to the
issuance of
any buildlog
permits for
the {irst phase (Iraffrc
'Count)
Priorto the
issuance of
any building
perrnits for
the third
$ase or at the
point the
count exceeds
warrants
(traffic
Applicant
Applicant shrll develoP a Traffic Cormt Program to be tied oconsruction phastnS. The Traffic Count Program shall rroairor the interscctions at lligbway 166/llighway I' Higbway 166/ObispoStreet arxyor High*"y 166/Flo*'er Avearre in order to derernirc when tlre acruaL opcraling conditions nreet Caltraos operational trafiic lZ-horu signal r*arrants. Prior to tic issuawe of building pecnrits for tte rtrira phase, or at wtrich lniot &c Traffic Countil"grr* det€tmh€s that tlre count exceeds Caltrass traffic l2-hour siglrat warrants as presented mthe T>rftc Manlral, uaichever occurs oitio, tl* applicant sha[ d€molstrate that re€fu€d permiE have bc.cn obtainc{ aad iustatl 5ignrls 4t thesc irrrersectioos. permits for tbe frrst phase, of building Prior to the lsuance MM 3.11- lc
Cityof Grudaiupe
Planning Department/
City Engineer
the first
kiorto the
issuancc of
certificates of
occupancy for
Applicant MM 3.11-
1d the Applicar sbsll make the following irrproveruents in order !o facilitate access to the site:
. A riglrt rr.rn iarrc will bc irutallcd on the castbourd approach tn &e Srate Route 166/Oblspo Street and Statc Route
of ocarpancy for fte first Phasg hior to tbe $sua8ce of ertificates be coordinatcd the
77 Revised DJ Farm-s Specific PIan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progratn
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progratn
Mitigatioil
Number MitigationMeamre
ReslrcnslHe
Party
ModtorinerReportlng
Ilone By
Timing/
Frequency
Fhal
ClearsneB
Ilsb
Comneuts
r55 widening
a A lefr tum pocket will be irutalled
apploaA o de Highwayt66/ObisPo
166/Flovnr Avenue imenections (to be
on the weslbound
Strcet and Highway
coordinated with tle
Ia
Highvny 165 widening project). A soubbousd left tgro lase shall be installed at the tlighway I ll 66 intersection
Tte soutbbouod and westbouod agproachcs of tbc Highway
166/ Ilighway I interscction strall bc re-striped to irclude a sourlrbound left nrm lane. a wcstbound through lanc and a westbound left tum lane.

A leftqro larr, a through lane and a right-nrn lane sball be imalld a dre northbound approachss to the Obispo Sreet
ard Flonrcr Avesue iotcrsections witb Highway 166.

The poject site will be desigtcd to accomsrodate rnoviag I and vehiclc arress and trash
MM 3.1r2a to deveJopncnt of tbe proposed school, thc Applicant iastall for-r-way stops at the intersections formed by tire southerly extensios of 0bigo Street, Flow€r Avenue and tbe roadway scrving dre school site at such tine as the school 's developed.

Appli<ant City of Guadalupe
Planning DepartmenU
City Engineer
Prior to the
development
of rhe
proposed
school
Iv[\I3.U2b Coosistent with Plao Policy C-9, the proJect facilitics tha promote a ped€stdan-friendly and bicycle-fricrdly environrnenL In aniicipation of &c development of a school sitc within the Specific Ptan area, rhe applicant shall dc'sign and iastall pedestiau bicycle aod taffic calming facilities as amropriate ihat are consistenl wih the "sofe route to schoof' guidelines contained in tbe Caluans Traffic Manual
Applicant City of Guadalupe
Plaoning DepartmenU
City Engineer in
consultation with the
School District
Prior to the
orpening of the
proposed
school
.vM 3.r1-4t
On-suaet bc required on both sides of all and
locator Strceb idcntified in thc project Street Plan and oa at lcqst onc sidc of TypcT soeets.

Applicant Cityof Guadalupe
Planning Departrnent/
CityEngrneer
Prior to
Occupaacy
-vM 3.11- shall be providcd in acoordaace with Off-scect Applicant City of Guadaiupe Prior to 78 Revised DJ Farms Specifrc Plan
M itigation Monitoring and Reporting P rogram
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Itditigatioo
Number Mitigation Il{easur,e Responcible Party Monitoriq/Reportiry DoueBy TiEdEg/ Freqoency ffnel Clearaoce DNte C.omments 4b Section 18.60.030 of the City of Guadalupe Taning Ordinance as follows:
r All off-sreet parkiog required by this drapter in any residential zo'le shall be constructed as follows:
o In sb$c-family residenlial zones, alt srrch parking spaces sha[ !ggeysled by a fully crcloscd gatage,
o In multifamily residcntial zoncs, ar least ose suctr parking spce shall be covered by a carport.
. Parking required in this chaptcr shall bc subjcct to design review ald ap'proval of the zoning adsrinistratcrrrflarming dbector.
' Parking dasign uot approved by the zoniog
adainisuator/plaoaing direcOr may bc redesigned by rlpapplican! or thc decision appealed ro tbe ptanning comrnission
planning DepartmenU
City Engineer
Occupancy
MM 3.11-
4c
Ao number of parking spaccs shall be provided inaccordarue with Section I 8-60.60 of the Ciry of Guadalupe's Zoning Ordinance.

Applicant City of Guadalupe
Planning Department/
Ciry F.ngineer
Psior to
Oocupancy
MM 3.UI2 to issuance the first phase, tbe applicant stull pay irs fair share portioa (pro rate shie) towards the Santa Barbara Couray Association of Governrnents (SBCAG) Route 166 Guadalupe Wideling prcj€ct if an adopted aad applicable feeprogam is in plre al that tirne. The pro rare sharc contibutionsbould be based on the existing order of rnagnitrde. cost estinate provided in tle linat Projcct Study Report (PSR) for the widening or as ottnrwise defincd an fee
Applicant City of Guadalupe
Planning Depanmenr/
City Engineer
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
the first phase
I\,f,lt 3.11-7b
hior to isuancc of building pcrmits for thc first phasr, an inevocable ofi'er of Riglrt of Way along &e pmject ftonage adjacent with the Route 166 ROrV that v/ould accomnro&re Ore Highway 166lvidsning project The miaimum right of way required in the dedication urculd be 25 ter)- Att draioage requiremenrs for the DJFarms plojar mtst be accomrnodared outsi& of tlre Stare's rigbs of way.

Applicant City of Guadalupe
Planning D?ailmenU
City Engineer
hior to
issuance of
building
permits for
the first phase
79 Revised DJ Farms Specifc plan
Mitigation Monitoring and. Reponing program
Mitigation Monitoring ctttd Reporting P rogratn
Midgrdo
Nnmber Mtt[a6onMesure Responsible Party Monttorigg/Reportitrg Done By ftming/ Ilequency Firsl CIeanene Dab Comnen& UTILITIES AI{D SERVICE SYSTESTS
Iltnr 3.u1a Io augmenr Swe Water supplbs in quantities necessary for blcrxling and o neet increascd demad aod watcr qualiry standards, tire project applicant shall be rcquired to scflrc additional Sarc $/ater either directly or tluough exchange for goundwater resources. In order to [tect perfonnarrce standards for the purposesof this EIR. ary Bew surface uater supply must be contracted ard guara$€od prior o issuance of building permits for tle project Theapplimnt nrst demoostrate the source of &e 'nater, natec quantity, looB- tefin reliability and the terros of iu suprply to &e satisfastion ofthc Ciry.

Applicant City of Guadalupe
Plmning Depmmeat/
CityEngineer
Prior to
issuance of
buitding
permits for
the projectMM 3.r2-
1b
Prior to final mapapproval thc applicant shall prepare and subrnil to the City a Wacr Conservation Plan that spccifies the strategies ard specific rrreasues to be irrcorporated into the project !o reduc,e totalwater demand. Srrh measures may ircludg but are not limited o, rhe following:
. Incorpration of droqht blerant landscape elerne,ns (srrch as minimal lawn areas and xerisrxpe comepts), as rrrell as drough rolerant plant spccies, into requircd tandscape plar. . Set water user rates that severely discorrages water use duiogdryperiods.
" Reguinlowflowplumbing fixrures in all new development. . Use of rcclairned water for inigtion r Use 0f capu€d aod treatsd storm water for immediate storate and/or for goundwatcr recharge to tbe Basin.

Applicant Cityof Guadalupe
Planning DepartmenU
CityEngineer
Prior to Final
Map approval.

I
-vrM 3.12-
2 As part of ttrc pmcess of providiag long terln water srpply under MM3.I2-la" uy rcw wells proposcd for the projcct aod pruposcd for connectior to the municipal supply system wiil be drilled. tested and developed consistent with City of Guadalupe asd California Departmant of Hcaltr Services stardards. All uells and off-site$ater $y$em iopoveoents sru$ be completed prior to issuance of building pcrnia for Pbase I of tbe DJ Farms project Consrructionrclated impacrs for off-sitc imorovcmenb shall bc addressed by thc Applicaat City of Guadalupe
Planning Departneat/
City Engineer/
hrblicWorks
Director
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
Ptrase I of the
project.
80 Revised DJ Farrns Specific plan
Mitigation Monitoring and, Reporting program
Mitigation Monitoriry and Reporting Progran
Mttigrtm
Nrmrber Mitigsfon Illssurt ReslnnsiHe Party Monttorirg/Repordng DoneBy Thrng/ Freqgency Find Oearance Dete Comments conractor by best fianagemeat Practiols tocrosion conEol suface qrater runoff and dust conuolMM 3.12- 3 TtF shall bs for n€cessary on-site se\r€r
infrastructure, and for a fair share contribution to conurtotr off-siteimpmvemelb go the seuler systeoL All sev,tr infrasmrcture sball bed*gDed in aocordance with dre adorpted staodards of Ore City of Guadalupe City Engioeer arrd hrblic Works Director prior lo approval of filal iurpruvene,nt plans. The City Engineer ard PublicWorks Director sball dctermine projcct's oexus toward cotnrron improvements ardlot asca of bcocfit, and calcularc fair sbarc "onuibution
to off-site improvemenls rsing methods acccptod in the
ard corsistert with current law.

Applicant City F',$neer/Po61i"
Works Director
Prior to
aprproval of
finat
improvement
plans
!vf\t 3.12-
5 @val, the Applicant strall obtaiuand submit
an agreemenUcontract approved by PG&E fot utility sendce.

Applicant City of Guadalupc
Plaming Department/
Citv Eneine€r
Prior to Final
Map appmval
8r Revised DJ Farms Specific Plan
Mirtgation Monitoring and. Reponing Prcgram
l
�
,l
')
,,
_J
_J
7 r--i
I I
I
I
I I

I I I I
I! I I I
I II
ff w l
wjo
�<( ��(lj,� i� I�

0....
z
0 z
:=,
I '
HWY 166
..•
I .
!:_::__.;,��-� �
' ' .

FERINI RANOI INC.

APN 113-080-023
ADAM

AGRICULTURAL
APN 113-080-010
'; -�: •• :�. 'REC � (�·
�
1" = 500'
I
!--I -
I \'1.DR-6
vERY LOW DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL

4.6 ACRES
I LDR-7

LOW DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL

25.4 ACRES
E
t ·i,
AN

PLANNING
CONCEPTS, INC.
• LAND PUfNNC • ENWiAL. ANAL.'WSIS
L ·-: --·-�:.�
f; �� ---·
MDR-8 � COMMERCIAL
MEDIUM DENSITY SER�CE
RESIDENTIAL 6.9 ACRES

71.4 ACRES

COMMERCIAL -
NEIGHBORHOOD I RSL-14 14.6 ACRES

HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL I.

I SCHOCX..

44.6 ACRES 12.5 ACRES
D. J. FARMS

SPECIFIC PLAN

PUBLIC FACILITIES

13.1 ACRES

I RECREATION
.__ _ ___.

15. 9 ACRES

LAND USE
LOCATION MAP/L DUSE MAP FIGURE 111-3
ATTACHMENT 2
aped
October 13, 2021
Bill Scott
City of Guadalupe
Planning Division
air pollution control district

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
918 Obispo Street
Guadalupe, CA 93434
ATTACHMENT 3
Re: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Suggested Conditions on Pasadera/DJ Farms Tentative Tract Map 29,06X, 2021-098-TTM, 2021-099-TTM Dear Bill Scott:

The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the referenced project, which consists of the subdivision of a 21.8-acre parcel, located in the south portion of the DJ Farms Specific Plan area, into 98 lots for single family residential units and four common lots for public facilities and open space. The parcel is zoned R-1-5000 & PF, identified in the Assessor Parcel Map Book as APN 113-080-018, and is located on the east side of Highway 1 and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and south of the Union Pacific/Santa Maria Valley Railroad tracks in the City of Guadalupe.

The proposed project is subject to the following regulatory requirements that should be included as conditions of approval in the applicable land use permit:

1. All portable diesel-fired construction engines rated at 50 brake horsepower or greater must have either statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) certificates or District permits prior to grading/building permit issuance. Construction engines with PERP certificates are exempt from the District permit, provided they will be on-site for less than 12 months.

2. The application of architectural coatings, such as paints, primers, and sealers that are applied to buildings or stationary structures, shall comply with District Rule 323.1, Architectural Coatings that places limits on the voe-content of coating roducts.------ - ----

3. Asphalt paving activities shall comply with District Rule 329, Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving Materials.

4. Natural gas-fired fan-type central furnaces with a rated heat input capacity of less than 175,000 British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr) and water heaters rated below 75,000 Btu/hr must comply with the emission limits and certification requirements of District Rule 352. Please see www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/rule3S2.pdf for more information.

5. Boilers, water heaters, and process heaters rated between 75,000 and 2.0 million British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr) must comply with the emission limits and certification requirements of District Rule 360. Note: Units fired on fuel(s) other than natural gas still need to be certified under Rule 360. Please see www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/rule360.pdf for more information.

Aeron Arlin Genet, Air Pollution Control Officer
\. 805.961.8800 q 260 N. San Antonio Rd., Ste. A Santa Barbara, CA 93·1·10 (I) ourair.org "fl E @OurAirSBC !oa .EBE
rsdgLl
NI ts
6o-o
aa_
\
h
o
aio
ooo
o
!
fv
so
oOr
x
l!oN)Ho(o00:{
?l!ot\)o(o(oI
oc)= ooJ
=fc) -o-a550 o)hf 5^--=d -o): geE'' de
q oo91 l<{
o -- ;-ith)A Qa.l tsil3h
-.= (D=J .-dQ
=rDQ- a*2
o_o
5 C nO) ha--(Dd " o-= coO+
OQ= ='o AE
3sa='IEF Ylo a9o[o
r: ltr -16
= tf. o16=.
lo
o lt,tard
=.o o5=v\ hd0.,
o 3A
6o" Xa6-o)-o aC
9!.
o)
(
fSqgl Fi:FS8. H..DaSC
=-t, cao o ()'al3.O +iFO* eiln:il 6'= r 5rr l3=.39
€q85*
-+h+A' S"'a S I c =rl >o =ocr;+o) ad=i:
s
E g ig
s i *e=Q
-itD-!4 nqa&i. E 3 E SI i o o2c rD 5 =|,--:(D o { =t! 6'g*e o o-t?1- orDsc) = o-:3-o fa8.i :-i:eci
-(DJ- v_6^ I ;-"i Roo] e-J\ f 6 0-Q
l-irlL=Cc< h?.e: *OUJY v-^\ ('J9(^
_ O) lJ + Y = -\r' ?*sg o-X ! - Qcro\ ga= I e$. 5'-
<b()oE:tE--l-t eq9€Ed3dB-e F;=Q3ceb4r
s 3; iP 3 B-3;
g
F f aH i g a q q
d
: q r + g
=
q aE
- r r +=f a a iE E
*i$FEa5*Fg
;i?ii$6fi8F
+a8;€ igsi
*
iEE 3 s q r *
g Fa6+3i*c=
g1r*+g$aF
e A I 3 tE
+; g 3 i e q g'cr sgiF sF* l Fc *3 s--33:E a3:er-RBf; 3p qa ig . . o . . . . a=
EqsFjsSFTgj lElES€ilq:q;= Ea=qdqp;k3.3 Ii qs;egerE Bq +E qai,{ ga Ea eIq.resaa E1 F3q*E€iE
lsq 3*=$ilg! e dEdS r.€E-6" H € $ECg *sg
E ge9E€E gE 6 AgsEE=€s q =dHfr9 aE J:, tt' + - i' ga 3 ffEieFe flE' Fil [r g
e J sr. ?'P.
g
r :F $d
g <--' 6 nid Y
3 c L =
< I =.? 3
g
u g*
=:
a E i6' B. q (DCaO=gB 3
+ da 6
m3=o.< or9 oXOa (tl =- (o- -oo) Sa Pci coaD 0oo !*00 c,, eE>. l) q)O) oJ3; o, o) s.1 (D do) l<3 l<.< lP -o l^Ll=(D ll 6 Ue rl loYlJh lm_ bld lX s'o 13x lo -s lo= lo ga l- il t9d Ito (^ '.o (1 o3
3 o
-(,
9-
rDO)o(Do(Dotoa)o5o,
4fo(D-o fl qF
I
L\e
{
!>mo-J :J^:
= Y<. fog @
=; (r< o- ?'rrr
-o F: E; t. (')- :t 6'o
6' fr
c) a)3of
I
ol a'&
o ar.!oo-(') (Fa)of =oor4 loo-- zZOQ
rn9
-.i
- =.o v,t
66'
oot
-(Dtt)
r') a)
!c) :' f.
:
qa
o
5of=o
o
!
n
o_
.?lc6)=mFDCJgt ^r) ii-zz
=i tn ozr-{ 3>rv1c
7n
: o o_-{ tU r
-
- ;;.d
s
=' 9!. f.
o 993= :-6o :g -Ec) J='-o d f.e. s oJdOni 1^c)O 6->fror sAsd ::38 c)L*c ao 6 =' r, (rro 1! qE g 5 +a )'qot
9^rJ*3 d=-d. eo)6
@ 9q (D
3 'L+b
>
-!. oi -' 3r+5 vco<
,b6a c o) e6&d3q -b^aa ur>55
-1rA'I c)(,-x oo
Z
,6) 9-@oc0)
,.. 11 c) W-+ g==: -o;' -)io-i; f(D- a-r di a' i. 0Q <!60) ni !?. :
-.o
s ff,rD
g &[' El+-.UJ o)do d8: znJ.
'->g. =sgVN 6o(D >qo Et, (^)s.
tnd
o
aaaaaaa
iiEii I
iig$Fi
i I liiiiiii igiiFF
iagagg ggigEgitsg glggigagai
FHFil1=i*FaeEaf$i*-s$Ft
O9L=. IE I d etF gE tlz .af5l- 6' o 9l# tesE
= E 4l;
=g
BE (D =. -lrlt ^. o a'lZ X - f-l-{ fafrtP {ooa} (Da5= Q-9 o r a!-ro(D o f oo +OQ f C j_\q-' AE=E --.vJ E_4;
q dd e.* Fc or
g c, PP d
J
-
- ga:i-O - ; a.s 6
duD--h='!rr 6b"g ga35 e-tu;
o ooiS: I d-9e 4;-*3 a-^: I a ifr 5'U+E 5;;6_ EIdp F'=.; 4 6-9J ;-'ga
J-rI o3o,)-6 PB c,IPQ-q
d a's 3fo, !)(Dh 1J>.D
- f E (D-'oJ^b- X f c) lga o-36
?
5'13&19
#ldr lro €l=
o 16'l
OJ3-6 or---ooPl*92> LOQ d3
a)() o.< 16
=oJ 6'- :t(D of (D(, oE=rdej !Do
o, >p!i(^)o 9(^
-- o) fah(D Ee
6E;.9. eB=--!1rDo) p-^ 9t
ge- 6bf-=.o 6a) c.,
o l:oO- oo
6Q- 9e
-g5
OJre6.?
-l5o
6=' E
gc=- of,
n
oJ+-t
oo_6' +
=- o+
U,z
{
oE@
7noC2{
at
ut al
ill Po@
F=(!
vf
3eL.Z -'t io
o_3?
o
tnv, l!!
-r')=c-{t'lD
ztr,> 21ot x|.) m- 33atr ]t G, 9d
7t tltIc(')
o=z3tnv,c7t tll a^
............=.o..+
o
e ieai* a{ggig3;g11g $ $i]gi$gfgF$1A$g $ f$ B€ salei
il +rgiiiigigiiiig I ggililggl 0 B 6 F = ai gg *FIqPtlssEsn a3 ici+EFFi-g*EF-$ IllFrliF|i,
iigi E3 g3l g F5:Fl*sg=iseEF e3 *i-i esi r +3IEFEF SiEi F$s a--aSa[g3e;fir+lf[$g+[[ q 'F g E ;$ g *sH.H=$g t =
g qE EE
g i; Fl= 3 il i EIB
o FglE +^'ll5 o5 5lE 9; BIH !.il81=
o, -?lut
fr r
=lE q4;lI
,-', E ql=
51€
E -'o d "
? =erd' co o 1 E €;
g Fo;!t OcXoi OQ+=O_
=o,);
j o) =Yigct 6E gs- r oJ ==. *99d of==' -qccad Oor:o- 1a5E 26= 88;3. q? = a' o{tP 3ax3 eo'3
e (- o, or @c,^
=
:i,'' =q6q 0' 3 I - *d
= +J Y(Do) J6=6-
='6=- 38Eg qqohi
gaTs o-(D- .^60) +=9-
o aO-di < -(D
x O - O-E ES=.A
rD-= 3J q*r3
q,E ;tz5l{ o)tn
-lzE12
E IF.)o- -t gd' --5(D '15 o)
-.qo)r :6' oooI
6=<!Dd
= Do 3aEt
s
5'o tn= Edc1 q)ocoo=.

I
-og9E- o1t
=^1
+Oo9frca'Pooi3or (tlJ ^o- u;- J- p_d oro *a'o
=.
3o,
!
?
-{
otooocra
o=