Agenda packet, special meeting, second session — Santa Paula City Council, February 13, 2024 (part 1 of 3)

City of Santa Paula
City Council

MAYOR LESLIE CORNEJO
VICE MAYOR PEDRO A. CHAVEZ

COUNCILMEMBER JENNY CROSSWHITE

COUNCILMEMBER CARLOS JUAREZ

COUNCILMEMBER ANDY SOBEL

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

SANTA PAULA CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2024
6:30 PM - City Council Special Meeting

SANTA PAULA CITY HALL
970 VENTURA STREET
SANTA PAULA, CA 93060

JULIE LATSHAW, CITY CLERK

DAN SINGER, CITY MANAGER

MONICA CASTILLO, CITY ATTORNEY

BRINGING ITEMS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Santa Paula - City Council - City Council Special Meeting 1

1. CALL TO ORDER
REMINDER: in order to minimize distractions during public meetings, all personal communication devices should be turned off or put in a non-audible mode.

2. FLAG SALUTE

3. ROLL CALL

4. CLOSED SESSION REPORT

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.A PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive and file the Parks & Recreation Department's Activity Report for the period of August 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023.

Presented by: Gregory Barnes, Parks & Recreation Director

5.B SANTA PAULA YOUTH AMBASSADORS PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION:

Presented by:

Robin Binder Gillette, SPUSD Director of Community Groups' Engagement Michael Schouten, Administrative Analyst I
You are invited to participate in all Regular City Council meetings. Agendas are posted in the front of Santa Paula City Hall, 970 Ventura Street, Santa Paula, 72 hours in advance of the scheduled meetings. The City Council's regular meetings start at 6:30 p.m. the first and third Wednesday of each month in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 970 Ventura Street in Santa Paula. Special and Closed Sessions vary by date and time.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN PERSON DURING THE MEETING: If you wish to speak at a City Council meeting, please fill out a Public Comment Form noting your name and address and submit the form to the City Clerk. Include the Agenda item number you wish to speak on. Members of the public may address the Council on items on this agenda only. Public Comments are limited to 3 minutes.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE BEFORE THE MEETING: Members of the public are encouraged to submit email correspondence on any agenda item by sending an email to [email protected]. All public correspondence received by three hours before the meeting date will be provided to the legislative body before the meeting.

Public Comments received after, will be provided to the legislative body the next day.

Your Participation in this meeting is in the public domain; meetings are cablecast; minutes of this meeting will reflect your participation in this meeting and are posted on the city’s website.

PLEASE NOTE: Be advised that if you bring a legal challenge to an action, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the meeting described in this Agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or before the meeting. Any action is subject to the ninety-day time period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (805) 933-4208. Notification 48 hours before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 35, 102-35.104 ADA Title II). Written materials distributed to the City Council within 72 hours of the City Council meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk’s office.

SPECIAL MEETING - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
City of Santa Paula - City Council - City Council Special Meeting 2

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may comment on any item appearing on the agenda only. Individual Councilmembers may briefly respond to Public Comments or ask questions for clarification. Public Comments are limited to three minutes.

7. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

8. CITY MANAGER REPORTS

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Background information has been provided to the City Council on all matters listed under the Consent Calendar and these items are considered to be routine by the City Council and are normally approved by one motion. If discussion is requested by a Councilmember on any item, or a member of the public wishes to comment on an item, that item may be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.

9.A APPROVAL OF MINUTES
City Council Regular Minutes January 24, 2024
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends Council approve minutes.

9.B AGREEMENT WITH THE SANTA PAULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

FOR SUMMER CAMP PROGRAMS
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Santa Paula Unified School District for Summer Camp Programs.

2. Authorize a budget adjustment of $218,000 in new revenue and $218,000 in new expenditures in the General Fund.

9.C AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

WITH PHOENIX CIVIL ENGINEERING FOR THE MESA TANKS

REPLACEMENT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute Contract Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Phoenix Civil Engineering in a form approved by the City Attorney; and

2. Approve budget adjustments as shown in Table 2 of the Staff Report to allocate $242,644.29 in funds from the Water Main Replacement Program to the Mesa Tanks Replacement Project, to complete the necessary funding of $621,574.29 needed for this contract.

9.D TELEGRAPH ROAD WIDENING AND MAIN STREET/HARVARD

BOULEVARD/TELEGRAPH ROAD ROUNDABOUT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION:

City of Santa Paula - City Council - City Council Special Meeting 3 Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Approve budget adjustments and allocations as recommended by staff for the Telegraph Road Widening Project.

2. Approve budget adjustments and allocations as recommended by staff for the Main Street/Harvard Boulevard/Telegraph Road Roundabout Project.

9.E SANTA PAULA CREEK BRIDGE OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (HARVEST AT LIMONEIRA PROJECT)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute the proposed Offsite Improvement Agreement with Limoneira Lewis Community Builders LLC for construction of the Santa Paula Creek Bridge; and

2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to make technical corrections to the proposed Offsite Improvement Agreement subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

Presented by: City Attorney Monica Castillo

10. PUBLIC HEARING

10.A EIR ADDENDUM FOR THE EAST AREA 1 PROJECT AND AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (HARVEST AT LIMONEIRA

PROJECT)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 7500 approving Addendum No. 3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) associated with the East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 and Amendment No. 3 to the Development Agreement; and

4."
Staff intends to present the proposed East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council in February 2024, which would then be brought to the City Council for first reading in March 2024 and later for second reading and adoption in April 2024. These dates will depend on each decision-making body's actions.

City of Santa Paula - City Council - City Council Special Meeting 4 PRESENTED BY: Various Presenters

11. ACTION ITEMS

11.A URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1334 AMENDING CHAPTER 16.35
"HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES OVERLAY ZONE" OF THE SANTA PAULA

MUNICIPAL CODE, UPDATING THE CITY'S PERMIT REVIEW

PROCEDURES FOR QUALIFYING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW AND THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE

SANTA PAULA GENERAL PLAN, AND FINDING THAT THE ORDINANCE IS NOT A "PROJECT" OR IS OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 1334 amending Chapter 16.35 “Housing Opportunities Overlay Zone” of the Santa Paula Municipal Code, updating the City’s permit review procedures for qualifying housing development projects consistent with state law and the Housing Element of the Santa Paula General Plan, and finding that the Ordinance is not a “Project” or is otherwise exempt from CEQA.

Presented by: Community Development Director James Mason

11.B SANTA PAULA HOUSING AUTHORITY REQUEST FOR AFFORDABLE

HOUSING TRUST FUNDS
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Approve the allocation of Housing In-lieu fees from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to the Housing Authority of Santa Paula in an amount not to exceed $389,209.82.
2) Authorize the City Manager to pay up to $389,209.82 in funds from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to the Housing Authority of Santa Paula.

Presented by: Community Development Director James Mason

11.C FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends City Council review future agenda items and give consideration to two Councilmember requests for future discussion and action.

Presented by: City Manager Dan Singer

12. ADJOURNMENT
State of California )-
City of Santa Paula - City Council - City Council Special Meeting 5 County of Ventura )- ss
City of Santa Paula )-
I declare under penalty of perjury that I posted this City Council Agenda on the bulletin board near the front door of City Hall, 970 Ventura Street, Santa Paula, California.

On_________________ at______________Signed:_________________________ Julie Latshaw
City Clerk
City of Santa Paula - City Council - City Council Special Meeting 6 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Greg Barnes, Parks and Recreation Director
Subject: PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT
Date: February 13, 2024
Agenda Item: 5.A

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

MEMORANDUM
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive and file the Parks & Recreation Department's Activity Report for the period of August 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023.

Presented by: Gregory Barnes, Parks & Recreation Director BACKGROUND:

For the months of August 2023 through December 2023, the Parks & Recreation Department worked on and executed the following:

RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES
Youth Classes Number of Participants
Guitar 12
Baking 21
Piano 36
Folklorico Dance 53
Archery 72
Taekwondo 130
Gymnastics 259
Youth Sports Number of Participants
Cheer Squad 145
Flag Football 272
City Corps
City Corps Leader Trainees worked a total of 3,122 hours completing 535 projects across the city, some of these projects include:

Event Logistics
7 Town Keeping
Senior Nutrition (Meal Preparation and Delivery)
Graffiti Abatement
Tree Healthcare
Adult Classes Number of Participants
Piano 3
Guitar 9
Baking 20
Archery 55
Adult Sports Number of Participants
Indoor Pickleball 35
Fall Kickball 8 Teams; 120 participants

COMMUNITY EVENTS
Over the past six months the Department has hosted and collaborated on a number of community events, these events include:

Movie Nights
Completed the Movie Night Series on August 18th at Obregon Park. The movie was well attended. Thank you to the Optimist Club for their continued support; they served free popcorn to all attendees.

Pickleball Clinic
On August 19th a pickleball clinic was offered at the High School. There were eight registered participants. We anticipate holding more clinics in the future.

Santa Paula Beautiful
The department hosted a volunteer cleanup and beautification event on October 7th. The focus was Veteran's Park and the County 150th Celebration footprint. Over 110 volunteers participated. All were treated to lunch following the event.

Halloween Carnival
The Halloween Carnival saw hundreds of residents and families come out and enjoy a night of fun games and activities. There was trunk or treat hosted by various residents. The Optimist Club once again supported the event by offering free popcorn and a low-cost hot dog meal to attendees. Cardinals Spark offered shaved ice and cotton candy; Santa Paula High School ASB and HSA students participated in creating a haunted house for the event.

Holiday Happenings
The department offered a variety of holiday events for the community. Most were at no cost and free to attend.

Event Date
Number of
Participants
Gingerbread House Decorating December 5, 2023 40
8 Come See Santa Pancake Breakfast December 9, 2023 500+ Visit with Santa at the Train Depot (Cookie
Decorating)
December 15, 2023 60
Santa Tours December 22, 2023
Santa Paula Proud Volunteer Program
New Volunteer software has been adopted and is in operation. We currently have 150 volunteers who assist with everything from delivering a warm meal to helping out at special events like Santa Paula Beautiful. These 150 volunteers have logged over 470 hours during this time period. Equating to a value of $14,946.00 according to independentsector.org and givingcompass.org.

SENIOR SERVICES
There are over 250 seniors currently participating in various programs and classes at the senior center. These classes include:

Enhanced Fitness
Tai-Chi
Mat Yoga
Chair Yoga
Knitting Club
Zumba
Craft Classes
Walking Club
Coffee Club
The Senior Center programming continues to include monthly movies and luncheons which are hosted in the auditorium. During this time the Senior Center hosted five luncheons all of which averaged over 100 attendees.

Senior Nutrition Program
From August to December of 2023 the senior nutrition program served the following number of meals:

Congregate Meals 3,909
Homebound Delivery Meals 4,939
Meals Served FY to Date (Dec 31st) 10,369
Santa Paula Master Plan for Aging
The Santa Paula Master Plan for Aging is in its early stages, laying the groundwork for a future that prioritizes the well-being of our older residents. Initial steps include assessing the needs of seniors, identifying areas for improvement in accessibility, healthcare, and social services. The plan envisions a future where aging residents can thrive independently, and efforts are underway to establish the foundational framework necessary for achieving this goal. As the plan gains momentum, the focus remains on building a strong foundation that will support a vibrant and inclusive community for individuals as they age in Santa Paula.

PARKS & FACILITIES
During this time period our Parks & Facilities staff have:
9 Replaced all the sprinklers on the Las Piedras sports field and updated the irrigation system.

Graded all low spots around valve boxes at both Teague and Las Piedras Park. In addition, soil samples were analyzed in order to prepare an in-depth yearly maintenance plan for both fields.

Repaired drain/piping in chase in the Las Piedras Park restroom.

Entered into new contract with Natural Green for park maintenance at Teague, Las Piedras Park, and the Sports Park once it has been accepted by the City; this includes restroom maintenance.

Installed Christmas lights at City buildings, including the Train Depot during the holidays.

Painted the Caretaker House at Harding Park.

Installed a new mural at Harding Park.

Remodeled City Hall break room.

Prepared for the Ventura County 150th "Mountains to Sea Jubilee" celebration.

Work Orders Issued 3,054
Work Orders Completed 3,065
Tree Maintenance Report
Planted 1
Removed/Fallen 5
Pruned 196
Barranca Park Master Plan
Staff is working alongside a local landscape architect to create a Barranca Park Master Plan.

A conceptual design has been completed. Staff anticipates holding a number of community events over the next 6-8 months to garner input and additional ideas.

ADMINISTRATION
Continued to work with RWC (Project Management) on various CIP projects. These projects include:

City Hall Campus Security Fencing
Police Station Remodel
Teague Park Restrooms
Mill Park Restrooms
Community Center Emergency Generator
Santa Paula Police Department Generator
10th Street Beautification Project
Community Center Storage Facility
Recreation Park Drainage Design
Youth Center Feasibility Study
After meeting with current youth center participants, a conceptual design has been completed. City and RWC staff will be meeting with youth center participants again to review the design. Community events will also be organized to garner additional input.

Successfully submitted the 2023-2024 Cal Recycle Beverage Container Funding Request, this is expected to bring in $8,215 to assist with litter abatement. 10 Submitted the 2023 Tree City USA application, this is the third year we have submitted an application for this designation. With the help of Human Resources, onboarded four new full-time employees:

Michael Schouten, Administrative Analyst I
Katherine Herrera, Recreation Program Coordinator
Mark Medrano, Custodian
Javier Cancino, Custodian
Alongside other city departments successfully completed due diligence and negotiations for the Union Oil Building and its contents.

Awards and Recognition
This year's Mel L. Howery Shining Star Award was presented to Nina Unzueta.

Facility Rentals
Cultural Arts Building 3
Train Depot 10
Community Center 19
Park Rentals & Reservations
Recreation Park 6
McKevett Park 38
Las Piedras Park 105
Teague Park 109
Harding Park 441
Permits, Banners & Other Transactions
Main Street Banner 2
Teague Park Banner 2
Film Permits 2
Special Event Permits 10
ANALYSIS:

STRATEGIC PLAN:

FISCAL IMPACTS:

No fiscal impact.

OPTIONS:

N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
11 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Julie Latshaw, City Clerk
Subject: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
City Council Regular Minutes January 24, 2024
Date: February 13, 2024
Agenda Item: 9.A

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

MEMORANDUM
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends Council approve minutes.

BACKGROUND:

An account of all proceedings of the Legislative Body in open meetings shall be kept by the Clerk/Secretary. The Clerk/Secretary shall prepare an abbreviated record of the meeting proceedings for approval by the Legislative Body which when adopted by the Legislative Body shall be the official Minutes of the meeting. Amendment of the minutes may be made only as to factual accuracy and not as to a change of intent. The Minutes of the meeting need not be verbatim. Only the best and most complete available recording of the meeting shall constitute the official record of the Legislative Body, but the Minutes shall constitute the official record of the Legislative Body meeting where a verbatim record of the meeting is not available. Unless requested by a majority of the quorum, the minutes may be approved without reading.

ANALYSIS:

None.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

This item is not a goal or objective in the City Council's two-year Strategic Plan, however, the Minutes shall constitute the official record of the Legislative Body.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

There are no fiscal impacts for this item.

OPTIONS:

ATTACHMENTS:
2024.01.24 City Council Regular Minutes.pdf
12 CITY OF SANTA PAULA
City Council Regular Meeting
January 24, 2024, 6:30 PM

MINUTES

REGULAR MATTERS - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1) CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Cornejo called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
2) INVOCATION
Rev. Maddie Sifantus provided the Invocation.
3) FLAG SALUTE
Councilmember Sobel led the flag salute.
4) ROLL CALL
Members Present: Leslie Cornejo, Pedro A Chavez, Jenny Crosswhite, Carlos Juarez, and Andy Sobel
5) PUBLIC COMMENT
Oralia Vega was called to speak with concern of trucks hauling dirt and gravel creating a mess on the roads.

Francisco Leaz was called to speak with concern of trucks hauling dirt and gravel creating a mess on the roads.

Maria Estrada was called to speak with concern of trucks hauling dirt and gravel creating a mess on the roads.

James Mason, Community Development Director, introduced new employee Ceasar Hernadez, Management Analyst.

City Manager Dan Singer announced Don Aguilar was selected as the new Chief of Police, to begin January 29, 2024.
6) PRESENTATIONS

6.A) CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (ALRB)

PRESENTATION
13 California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB), Assistant General Counsel Rosalia Garcia provided presentation on ALRB.

6.B) SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION PRESENTATION
George Kostyrks, liaison for US Small Business Administration (SBA) presented a presentation on loans available through SBA.

6.C) ANNUAL CITY AUDIT
Veronica Hernandez, Audit Manager with Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott provided an audit presentation for the Year Ended June 30, 2022.

6.D) FINANCE DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT
Finance Director Christy Ramirez provided the Finance Department Report July 2023 through December 2023.
7) CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Crosswhite:

Watched the Martin Luther King Jr service online; attended the city birthday celebration at the Union Oil Building; and Southern California Association of Governments.

Councilmember Juarez:

Attended the Blanchard Library reopening; Farmer's Market; Aerospace Exhibit at the Union Oil Building; Santa Paula High School reconstruction meeting of the Gym and pool; and Ventura Regional Sanitation District.

Vice Mayor Chavez:

Attended the Blanchard Library reopening; Leap Lab Ventura County Science Center; Martin Luther King service; welcomed the delegation from the country of Bulgaria; and Economic Development Collaborative.

Councilmember Sobel:

Attended Blanchard Library reopening; Aerospace Exhibit at the Union Oil Building; Martin Luther King service; and Economic Development Collaborative.

Mayor Cornjeo:

Attended Ventura Council of Government; Blanchard Library reopening; Martin Luther King service; meet and greet with representatives from Taiwan and Bulgaria; and met with outgoing Chamber President Caitlin Barringer. 8) CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Singer:

Attended the city birthday celebration at the Union Oil Building; provided city update at Rotary; and met the delegation from Tiawan and Bulgaria.

Public Works Director Clete Saunier provided update on the Harvard Blvd project.
9) CONSENT CALENDAR
14 9.A) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
- City Council Special Minutes for January 10, 2024
- City Council Regular Minutes for January 10, 2024

9.B) NOVEMBER 2023 WARRANTS AND CERTIFICATIONS

9.C) DECEMBER 2023 WARRANTS AND CERTIFICATIONS

9.D) PECK ROAD & HARVARD BOULEVARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL

REPLACEMENT PROJECT
This item was pulled for discussion and separate vote.

Motion: Approve budget adjustments and allocations as recommended by staff for the Peck Road & Harvard Blvd Traffic Signal Replacement Project.

Moved by Jenny Crosswhite, seconded by Andy Sobel
Vote: Motion carried 5-0
Yes: Leslie Cornejo, Pedro A Chavez, Jenny Crosswhite, Carlos Juarez, Andy Sobel

9.E) ALCOHOL ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT 19-CUP01, GUNSMOKE BBQ LOCATED AT 817 E. MAIN STREET This item was pulled for discussion and separate vote.

Motion: Approve as amended Enforcement Agreement for Project No. 19-CUP-01, Gunsmoke BBQ located at 817 E. Main Street, amending to be in compliance with ordinance on alcohol signage, and correction of approval date from January 10, 2024 to January 24, 2024.

Moved by Jenny Crosswhite, seconded by Carlos Juarez
Vote: Motion carried 5-0
Yes: Leslie Cornejo, Pedro A Chavez, Jenny Crosswhite, Carlos Juarez, Andy Sobel

9.F) ALCOHOL ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT 20-CUP-09 / 23-MM-03, SANTA PAULA CELLARS, LLC LOCATED AT 926 E. MAIN STREET
This item was pulled for discussion and separate vote.

Motion: Approve as amended Enforcement Agreement for Project No. 20-CUP-09 / 23-MM-03 Santa Paula Cellars, LLC at 926 E. Main Street, amending to be in compliance with ordinance on alcohol signage, and correction of approval date from January 10, 2024 to January 24, 2024.

Moved by Jenny Crosswhite, seconded by Carlos Juarez
Vote: Motion carried 5-0
Yes: Leslie Cornejo, Pedro A Chavez, Jenny Crosswhite, Carlos Juarez, Andy Sobel
15 9.G) RESOLUTION NO. 7498 ACCEPTING PUBLIC WATER AND

RECYCLED WATER IMPROVEMENTS, ACCEPTING WARRANTY

SECURITIES AND EXONERATING PERFORMANCE SECURITIES
City Attorney Monica Castillo requested a separate vote for the amended resolution to incorporate the edits with the redline copy provided to Council.

Motion: Approve as amended Resolution No 7498, accepting the East Area 1 Tracts 5854, 5986-5992 public water and recycled water improvements, accepting warranty securities, exonerating faithful performance securities, and incorporating the edits with the redline copy provided.

Moved by Carlos Juarez, seconded by Jenny Crosswhite
Vote: Motion carried 5-0
Yes: Leslie Cornejo, Pedro A Chavez, Jenny Crosswhite, Carlos Juarez, Andy Sobel

9.H) ANNUAL AUDIT - FY 21/22
The following items were pulled for separate discussion and vote: 9.D, 9.E, 9.F, and 9.G.

Motion: Approve Consent Calendar items 9.A, 9.B, 9.C, and 9.H. All other items under consent pulled for separate discussion and vote.

Moved by Jenny Crosswhite, seconded by Pedro A Chavez
Vote: Motion carried 5-0
Yes: Leslie Cornejo, Pedro A Chavez, Jenny Crosswhite, Carlos Juarez, Andy Sobel
10) ACTION ITEMS

10.A) 2023-2025 CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT Jonathan Royas, Deputy City Manager, provided a six month progress report on the Council's Strategic Plan.

Council provided staff with direction on updates/changes.

10.B) FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS & FEBRUARY MEETING

CONSIDERATIONS
City Manager Dan Singer presented this item.

Motion: Approve cancellation of the City Council Regular meeting on February 7, 2024, in lieu of adding a Special City Council meeting on Tuesday, February 13, 2024, at 6:30 p.m., and provide translation and record and broadcast live. Council is available on February 7, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. for a closed session if needed.

Moved by Pedro A Chavez, seconded by Carlos Juarez
Vote: Motion carried 5-0
16 Yes: Leslie Cornejo, Pedro A Chavez, Jenny Crosswhite, Carlos Juarez, Andy Sobel
11) ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Cornejo adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m.

Julie Latshaw, City Clerk
ATTEST:
17 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Greg Barnes, Parks and Recreation Director
Subject: AGREEMENT WITH THE SANTA PAULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

FOR SUMMER CAMP PROGRAMS
Date: February 13, 2024
Agenda Item: 9.B

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

MEMORANDUM
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Santa Paula Unified School District for Summer Camp Programs.

2. Authorize a budget adjustment of $218,000 in new revenue and $218,000 in new expenditures in the General Fund.

BACKGROUND:

The Parks & Recreation Department has historically offered a summer camp program to the community for youth ages 5-14. Over the past two summers, the department has partnered with the Santa Paula Unified School District to offer all day summer programming at two locations:

Glen City Elementary School
Barbara Webster Elementary School
The outcome of last summer's partnership resulted in all day summer programs, from 8am5pm, offered to over 400 youth at no cost to participants.

Youth participated in morning classroom instruction, received lunch daily, followed by an afternoon full of recreational and specialty theme camps.

ANALYSIS:

The Santa Paula Unified School District is interested in partnering again this summer to offer no cost summer programs to youth in the community.

Summer programming will again be offered at two school sites: Glen City Elementary and Barbara Webster Elementary Schools. The goal is to have 400 youth in grades K-6 participate in the summer session.
18 Youth will participate in morning classroom instruction, lunch, and in the afternoon, youth will have a menu of various recreational and enrichment opportunities to choose from.

Examples of the afternoon "Specialty Camps" that the Parks & Recreation Department will be offering:

Basketball Camp
Soccer Camp
Woodworking
Magic Camp
Outdoor Camp
Sports of all Sorts Camp
Taekwondo Camp
Dance Camp
Camp is anticipated to be offered from 8am-5pm daily at each school site. In addition, breakfast, lunch and an afternoon snack will be served.

Parents can register their children by contacting the Santa Paula Unified School District.

The attached agreement is for three summers, beginning May 1st, 2024, and ending August 31st, 2026.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Approval of this item continues to move us closer to completing City Council's two-year Strategic Plan, Section F, Community Vitality, Objective #8, Work with the school district to create a joint use agreement for school and city facilities.

Although, this is not a joint use agreement, it does continue to build on and foster a good relationship with the school district. Staff from both the City and the District continue to work on the framework of a joint use agreement.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

The School District will be reimbursing the City up to $218,000 for all costs related to the Summer Camp Program. The following journal entries are needed:

Debit Credit
Salaries 100-5-1502-002
$67,647
Retirement 100-5-1502-042
$3,666
Workers Comp 100-5-1502-043
$2,706
Medicare 100-5-1502-044
$981
Shop & Field 100-5-1502-123 $45,000
19 Prof Services 100-5-1502-209 $60,000
Office Supplies 100-5-1502-120 $ 1,500
Staff Shirts 100-5-1502-121 $ 2,000
Training 100-5-1502-352 $4,500
Transportation 100-5-1502-209 $ 30,000
Total Expenses $218,000
Staff Reimbursement 100-4-1500-5063 $ 75,000
Support & Services
Reimbursement
100-4-1500-2036 $ 143,000
Total
Reimbursement
$ 218,000
OPTIONS:

In addition to the recommended action, Council has the following options:

1. Do not approve the agreement with the Santa Paula Unified School District.

If the agreement is not approved, the Parks & Recreation Department will look to offer a fee based summer camp program this summer.

ATTACHMENTS:

EXHIBIT A - Summer Camp Agreement.pdf
20 EXHIBIT A

SUMMER CAMP AGREEMENT WITH THE

SANTA PAULA UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT
21

Page 1 of 7 ends

AGREEMENT FOR SUMMER CAMP PROGRAM SERVICES BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SANTA PAULA AND

THE SANTA PAULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
This AGREEMENT is entered into this 13th day of February, 2024, by and between the CITY OF SANTA PAULA, a municipal corporation and general law city (“CITY”) and the SANTA PAULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public school district organized pursuant to provisions of the California Education Code (“DISTRICT”).
l. RECITALS. This Agreement is entered into with reference to the following facts and objectives:

A. The CITY and DISTRICT believe it is a benefit to the community to share resources and facilities in order to better serve the youth and offer a comprehensive summer enrichment and recreation program.

B. The CITY and DISTRICT (collectively, the “Parties”) agree to collaborate by offering Enrichment, STEM and Recreation programs and activities for elementary school participants during the traditional summer school / camp months of June, July and August. The primary locations for these programs and activities will be Barbara Webster Elementary School and Glenn City Elementary School.

C. The Parties believe it is in the public interest to enter into this Agreement.

2. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES.

The CITY will coordiniate various specialty and sports camps immediately following the morning summer school session. The programs will take place on DISTRICT property at Barbara Webster Elementary School, Glenn City Elementary School, and Santa Paula High School; and on CITY property at Harding Park and the Community Center.

B. CITY will ensure that during program hours they are staffed appropriately for instruction of each camp.

C. The CITY will be responsible for ordering all supplies and equipment needed for the camps they have oversight.

D. CITY will invoice the DISTRICT by the 15th day of each month for services for the previous month.
22

Page 2 of 7 ends

3. DISTRICT'S RESPONSIBILITIES.

A. The DISTRICT will provide access to Barbara Webster Elementary School, Glenn City Elementary Schools, Santa Paula High School, and any facilities necessary to provide summer programming.

B. The DISTRICT will be responsible for providing all snacks and lunch to students during the summer program.

C. DISTRICT will reimburse the CITY for the Salary and Benefits of all summer staff (Recreation Coordinator and Recreation Leaders) in the amounts set forth in EXHIBIT A.

D. The DISTRICT is responsible for all costs associated with summer camp programming, including supplies, equipment, and transportation in the amount set forth in EXHIBIT A.

E. Any extra duties the DISTRICT requests of CITY staff will be at a rate of $130 per hour for full-time staff and $45 per hour for part-time staff.

F. The CITY will invoice the DISTRICT in July, August and September of each year of this agreement. The District will pay the invoice within thirty (30) days of receipt.

G. In the event of any question or dispute on the amount, DISTRICT will notify the CITY within fifteen (15) days of receipt of invoice, and CITY will respond within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of the inquiry to the DISTRICT contact as in 14, below.

4. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. The Parties acknowledge that they are public entities subject to the Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 7920.000-7930.215) and that this Agreement, and documents ancillary to this Agreement, must generally be disclosed upon request. However, the Parties agree that student records are specifically excluded from disclosure under Government Code §§ 7927.700, 7927.705, 7930.195 and 7930.200. Accordingly, the Parties agree that such records will not be released except as otherwise provided by law.

5. TERM. The initial term of this Agreement will be from May 1, 2024, to August 30, 2026, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement. 23

Page 3 of 7 ends

6. TERMINATION. Except as otherwise provided, the Parties may terminate this Agreement at any time with or without cause. DISTRICT will pay CITY on a prorated basis for all services rendered and all necessarily incurred costs performed in good faith in accordance with the terms of this Agreement that were not previously reimbursed up to the date of termination. CITY will provide all necessary documentation of services rendered to the DISTRICT including but not limited to:
time sheets for City full time and part time staff, logs or service records for educational or tobacco enforcement activities, and any documents needed as verification of service.

7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All documents, data, studies, and reports prepared by DISTRICT relating to this Agreement are DISTRICT’S property.

DISTRICT will provide copies of said documents and materials to the CITY as requested, but will retain all original materials.

8. INDEMNIFICATION.

A. DISTRICT shall be responsible for all damages to persons or property that occur as a result of DISTRICT or its officers, agents, employees, independent contractors, and volunteers’ fault or negligence in connection with DISTRICT’S participation in the Summer Program. Further, DISTRICT shall indemnify and save harmless the CITY, its officers, agents, employees, independent contractors, and volunteers from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, description, brought for, or on account of, injuries to or death of any person or damage to property arising from or related to the fault or negligence of DISTRICT, its officers, agents, employees, independent contractors, and volunteers in connection with the Summer Program.

CITY shall indemnify and save harmless DISTRICT, its officers, agents, employees, independent contractors, and volunteers from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, description, brought for, or on account of, injuries to or death of any person or damage to property arising from or related to the fault or negligence of the CITY, its officers, agents, employees, independent contractors, and volunteers in connection with the Summer Program.

B. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions will survive termination of this Agreement.

9. INSURANCE.

Each Party may utilize a program of self-insurance to meet the insurance requirements of this Agreement.
24

Page 4 of 7 ends

10. ASSIGNABILITY. DISTRICT's attempts to assign the benefits or burdens of this Agreement without CITY's written approval are prohibited and will be null and void.

11. AUDIT OF RECORDS. Both the CITY and DISTRICT will maintain full and accurate records with respect to all services and matters covered under this Agreement. Both will have access at all reasonable times to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make transcript therefrom, and to inspect all program data, documents, proceedings and activities. Both the CITY and DISTRICT will retain such financial and program service records for at least three (3) years after termination or final payment under this Agreement.

12. NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party will be deemed made when received by such party at its respective name and address as follows:

If to DISTRICT: If to CITY:

Superintendent City Manager
Santa Paula Unified School District City of Santa Paula 201 South Steckel Drive P.O. Box 569
Santa Paula, CA 93060 Santa Paula, CA 93061-
0569
Any such written communications by mail will be conclusively deemed to have been received by the addressee upon deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as noted above. In all other instances, notices will be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names or addresses of persons to whom notices are to be given by giving notice in the manner prescribed in this paragraph.

13. INTERPRETATION. This Agreement was drafted in, and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and exclusive venue for any action involving this agreement will be in Ventura County.

14. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the parties.

There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written. This Agreement will bind and inure to the benefit of the parties to this Agreement and any subsequent successors and assigns.

15. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Each Party had the opportunity to independently review this Agreement with legal counsel. Accordingly, this Agreement will be 25

Page 5 of 7 ends

construed simply, as a whole, and in accordance with its fair meaning; it will not be interpreted strictly for or against either Party.

16. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then such portion will be deemed modified to the extent necessary in the opinion of the court to render such portion enforceable and, as so modified, such portion and the balance of this Agreement will continue in full force and effect.

17. AUTHORITY/MODIFICATION. The Parties represent and warrant that all necessary action has been taken by the Parties to authorize the undersigned to execute this Agreement and to engage in the actions described herein. This Agreement may be modified by written amendment. CITY's city manager, or designee, may execute any such amendment on behalf of CITY.

18. ACCEPTANCE OF FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES. The Parties agree that this Agreement, agreements ancillary to this Agreement, and related documents to be entered into in connection with this Agreement will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by facsimile or email transmission.

Such facsimile or electronic signature will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

19. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which so executed WILL irrespective of the date of its execution of delivery be deemed an original, and all such counterparts together constitute one and the same instrument.

20. CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. This Agreement is subject to and conditioned upon approval and ratification by the Santa Paula City Council. This Agreement is not binding upon the City until executed by the appropriate City official(s) acting in their authorized capacity.

21. SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD APPROVAL. This Agreement is subject to and conditioned upon approval and ratification by the Governing Board of Trustees of the Santa Paula Unified School District. This Agreement is not binding upon the DISTRICT until executed by the appropriate DISTRICT official, acting in their authorized capacity.

22. TIME IS OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

23. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE. By executing this Agreement, DISTRICT represents that it has demonstrated trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fitness and capacity to perform the Agreement in a manner satisfactory to CITY.

DISTRICT represents that its financial resources, surety and insurance experience, service experience, completion ability, personnel, current workload, experience in 26

Page 6 of 7 ends

dealing with private consultants, and experience in dealing with public agencies all suggest that DISTRICT is capable of performing the proposed contract and has a demonstrated capacity to deal fairly and effectively with and to satisfy a public CITY.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this contract the day and year first hereinabove written.

CITY OF SANTA PAULA SANTA PAULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT _________________________ _________________________________________ Dan Singer Jeffrey Weinstein

CITY MANAGER SUPERINTENDENT
ATTEST:
__________________________
Julie Latshaw, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Monica Castillo, City Attorney
27

Page 7 of 7 ends

EXHIBIT “A”
Summer Camp Budget 2024-2026
[Attached behind]
28 EXHIBIT A Summer Camp Budget
June - August 2024-2026
Personnel
Recreation Coordinator $ 30,000.00
Recreation Leaders $ 45,000.00
Equipment & Supplies
Theme Camps $ 45,000.00
Office Supplies $ 1,500.00
Staff Shirts $ 2,000.00
Professional Services
Contract Services $ 60,000.00
Transportation $ 30,000.00
Training $ 4,500.00
$ 218,000.00
Budget to increase by 6% annually.

Line item adjustments allowed as long as total budget amount does not increase. 29 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Clete Saunier, Public Works Director
Subject: AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

WITH PHOENIX CIVIL ENGINEERING FOR THE MESA TANKS

REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Date: February 13, 2024
Agenda Item: 9.C

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

MEMORANDUM
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute Contract Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Phoenix Civil Engineering in a form approved by the City Attorney; and

BACKGROUND:

On October 19, 2022, the City executed a Professional Services Agreement with Phoenix Civil Engineering for $378,930 for construction management, materials testing, and associated construction period services for the Mesa Tanks Replacement Project.

The project specifications call for special inspection of tank fabrication to be provided by the City. Further, the specifications state that “contractor purchased materials, fabricated items, and equipment, produced at sources more than 50 miles outside the corporate limits of the City, and which are specified to be inspected in the Contract Documents, shall be inspected by inspectors or testing laboratories arranged for and paid for by City”.

Often tanks are fabricated on-site and do not require inspectors to travel to provide the special inspection services. At the time of the construction contract award for the Mesa Tanks Replacement Project, the means and methods for tank fabrication were unknown and inspection costs were based on local fabrication.

Additionally, the contractor encountered challenges when installing the waterline located within a 15-foot wide, curvy road on the side of the hill leading from Vista Grande to Montclair Drive by the tank while maintaining access to the residents. The site restrictions did not allow for 30 multiple vehicles to perform the waterline installation work and it was a challenge to stockpile material, install pipe, and other related work. Therefore, the materials testing firm was required to be onsite longer in duration than originally anticipated.

ANALYSIS:

The tank fabrication for the Mesa Tanks Replacement project is occurring in Paso Robles, CA and Hemet, CA, both of which are over 150 miles outside the city limits. Staff requested a proposal from Phoenix Civil Engineering (Phoenix) that covers the fabrication shop on-site observation inspector for fabrication of the tank shell and fittings and a NACE inspector for the coating observation for both tanks. The coating inspection at the shop covers the primer application only as well as the observation at the project site for the intermediate and finish coats. These services will be provided by On-Site Technical Services (OSTS), as a subconsultant to Phoenix, and will be subject to the State of California DIR Prevailing Wage rate requirements. This proposal covers the work to take place during the commissioning of the first and second tanks. The estimated time for mobilization and fabrication for the inspection is 5 weeks, for each separate tank, with minor technicalities accounted for. This timeframe assumes the fabrication operations are on schedule and have no major delays. Should the production take longer than 5 weeks, the inspection costs will likely increase and need to be amended, therefore this request also includes an additional budget to cover this increase, if required. OSTS personnel will remain in the area during the fabrication timeframe, saving on travel time costs. Once the inspected material is at the project site, OSTS will continue inspection services for both welding and coating as noted above.

Due to the extended time that the waterline installation required, Union Materials Testing will also require an additional budget for geotechnical materials testing for the second tank grading and concrete pad. Phoenix will coordinate and manage the inspection but will not travel to the tank shop fabrication sites.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

The Project supports the currently adopted Strategic Plan in achieving the following goals:

Infrastructure, Transportation & Mobility
Goal: Maintain and develop the City’s infrastructure to be safe, sustainable, innovative and cost-efficient.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

Amendment No. 1 to Phoenix Civil Engineering for the Mesa Tank Replacement Project proposes an increase of $242,644.29 for a total of $621,574.29. The cost for previously approved construction engineering services provided by the project design engineer (MNS Engineers, Inc.) is $84,587, which brings the total Construction Management and Engineering cost item to $706,161.29. The total project budget is shown in Table 1 below. Amendment No. 1 is contingent upon City Council approval of the required budgetary allocations and adjustments reflected in Table 2.

Table 1: Project Construction Costs
31 Item Original Amount Proposed Amount Change
Construction Contract $4,449,900 $4,449,900 $0

12.5% Construction Contingency $556,238 $556,238 $0
Construction Management and
Engineering
$463,517 $706,161.29 $242,644.29
Right of Way $72,000 $72,000 $0
Total = $5,541,655 5,784,299.29 $242,644.29
Table 2: Budget Adjustments Needed
2023-2025 CIP Program Account Decrease Increase
Mesa Tank Study and Replacement 620-5-9299-660 $242,644.29 Water Main Replacement Program 620-5-9108-660 $242,644.29 OPTIONS:

The Council has the following available alternative options to staff’s recommendations:

1. Do not approve Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Service Agreement with Phoenix Civil Engineering for additional inspection services. Doing so would negatively impact this important project by not providing proper inspection of the tanks and their appurtenances which may result in performance failure of the tanks after they are operational.

ATTACHMENTS:

First Amendment PSA_Phoenix Engineering for Mesa Tank.pdf 32 EXHIBIT A
Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services
Agreement with Phoenix Civil Engineering for
the Mesa Tank Replacement Project
33 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SANTA PAULA AND
PHOENIX CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) is made and entered into this 13th day of February 2024, by and between the CITY OF SANTA PAULA, a general law City and Municipal Corporation existing under the laws of California (“CITY”), and Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc. (“CONSULTANT”).

1. RECITALS. This First Amendment is made with reference to the follow facts and objectives:

A. On October 19, 2022, the City and Consultant entered into an agreement for the Construction Phase Services for the Mesa Tank Replacement Project (the “Agreement”);
B. The Agreement authorizes the CITY to utilize the Consultant to provide construction management services for the replacement of two new approximately 47-foot diameter, above grade steel water tanks at the existing Mesa Tank site services;
C. CITY and the Consultant now mutually desire by the First Amendment to the Agreement (“Amendment”) to amend the term of the Agreement as set forth below.

2. AMENDMENT. In consideration of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 8 and 28 of the Agreement, the Agreement is amendment as follows:

A. Subsection C of Section 1, entitled “Consideration of Compensation,” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“C. As additional consideration, City agrees to pay Consultant on a time and materials basis an amount not to exceed Six Hundred Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-Four Dollars and Twenty Nine cents ($621,574.29), unless otherwise by written amendments to the Agreement.

3. COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed in any number or counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which together constitutes one instrument executed on the same date.

4. LIMITED AMENDMENT. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment, remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between this Amendment and the Agreement, the provisions of the Agreement control.
34 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SANTA PAULA AND
PHOENIX CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.

This Amendment is executed on and shall become effective this 13th day of February 2024, at Santa Paula, California
CITY OF SANTA PAULA PHOENIX CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC.
_________________________________ ____________________________ Dan Singer,
City Manager
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________ Julie Latshaw,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Taxpayer ID No.
_________________________________ **2nd Signature required for Corporations.

Monica Castillo,
City Attorney
35 Tatiana B. Arnaout, PE February 6, 2024
Deputy City Engineer
City Santa Paula
866 E. Main St.

Santa Paula, CA 93060
City of Santa Paula –Engineering Consulting Services for the Mesa Tanks Replacement Project – Additional Services Request – Tank Coating and Welding Inspection Dear TatianaThis proposal is for additional construction management services for the City of Santa Paula Public Works Department (PWD) Mesa Tanks Replacement Project. The proposal covers the fabrication shop on-site observation inspector for fabrication of the tank shell and fittings and a NACE inspector for the coating observation for both tanks. The coating inspection at the shop covers the primer application only as well as the observation at the project site for the intermediate and finish coats. These services will be provided by On-Site Technical Services (OSTS), as a subconsultant to Phoenix Civil, and will be subject to the State of California DIR Prevailing Wage rate requirements. The tank fabrication shop will require on-site observation in both Paso Robles, CA and Hemet, CA. This proposal covers the work to take place during the commissioning of the first and second tanks. The estimated time for mobilization and fabrication for the inspection is 5 weeks, for each separate tank, minor technicalities are accounted for. This timeframe assumes the fabrication operations are on schedule and have no major delays. Should the production take longer than 5 weeks, the inspection costs will likely increase and need to be amended. OSTS personnel will remain in the area during the fabrication timeframe, saving on travel time costs. Once the inspected material is at the project site, OSTS will continue inspection services for both welding and coating as noted above. Due to the extended time that the waterline installation required, Union Materials Testing will require additional budget for geotechnical materials testing for the second tank grading and concrete pad. Phoenix will coordinate and manage the inspection but will not travel to the tank shop fabrication sites.

Per our discussion, this fee amendment will become a part of the current construction phase services contract.

I appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal to assist you with this City project. The fee breakdown is shown on the following page.

Fee Amendment #1 (Task 3.6) $242,644.29
Current Contract Fee $378,930.00
Amended Contract Fee $621,574.29
Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss my proposal.

Sincerely,
______________________________
Jon Turner, PE
Principal Engineer
36 Phoenix Civil Engineering Fee Amendment Mesa Tanks Project Additional Fee Task Description UMT
On-Site
Technical Markup Total Task
Task 3.6 Materials Testing/Inspection Tank 1
(10% markup) $0 $74,050.72 $7,405.07 $81,455.79
Task 3.6 Materials Testing/Inspection Final
Coating/Tank 2 (5% markup) $5,006.00 $128,500.00 $6,675.30 $140,181.30 Task 3.6 Allowance for Potential Delays $21,007.20
Total $242,644.29
37 Delivering Worldwide Inspection Solutions
12842 Valley View, Suite 108 Garden Grove CA. 92845
714.903.3990
August 10, 2023
Rev 1/23/24
Jon Turner, PE
Principal Engineer
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
535 E. Main Street
Santa Paula, CA 93060
Re: FEES – CITY OF SANTA PAULA MESA TANKS REPLACEMENT PROJECT On-Site Technical Services Proposal # 5282 Rev. 1- Estimate Breakdown PRS-Santa Paula, CA Dear Jon:

It is our understanding that the City would like a breakdown of estimated hours verse actual hour/expenses utilized on the project associated with the first tank, for shop and field activities associated with welding inspection and paint inspection activities. As we indicated during our original estimate this is a very rough estimate as we do not have control over the production schedule or efficiency in fabrication or technical challenges.

The following activities were performed.
− Quality Assurance based hands on inspection verifying fit up/welding steel reservoir, witness nondestructive test of welds/tank leak testing, surface preparation and coating operations applied to reservoir roof structure for conformance with manufactures recommendations and specification requirements.

It is our understanding that the City would like the breakdown to be shown on each proposal as follows:

Mesa Tanks Site: Santa Paula CA.

Tank 1 actual fee: $70,500.90 (based on 3-week production schedule 10/09/23-10/27/23) Actual 10/09/23-12/28/23 Tank 1 estimate immediate and final coating inspection $14,000 (assumes 2 weeks) Tank 2 estimate: $86,000 (based on similar costs as associated with first tank) You informed that activities that occur on and offsite Santa Paula designated construction sites will fall under the Prevailing Wage requirements as defined by the State of California DIR. We have based our fees for inspectors on the current Prevailing Wage rates, taken from California State, Director of Industrial Relations web site for prevailing wage determinations for Southern California. The classification that most closely relates to our duties is “Building Construction Inspector” for Commercial Building, Highway, Heavy Construction, and Dredging projects; Determination SC-23-63-2-2011-2D.

The below hourly fees reflect our 2022 fee schedule.

Prevailing Wage Services
CWI/NACE inspector $145.00/hr ST, $165.00/hr OT
Coordinator $150.00
Travel Time Billable
Auto/mile Current IRS rate / mile
Per Diem When required per GSA rates for region
Note:

1. The above rates include the normal amount of overhead required to process the inspection reports and coordinate the assignment. The coordination rate listed above is designed to cover attendance at pre-fabrication meetings, specification review and problem resolution, visits to the manufacturer, etc.

2. All services including specification and supplier contract review, preparation, travel, and reporting time are chargeable.
38 Client: Phoenix Civil Proposal Reference: 5282 Rev.1 Delivering Worldwide Inspection Solutions
12842 Valley View, Suite 108 Garden Grove CA. 92845
714.903.3990

3. Premium rates are in effect for services in excess of 8 hours in any one day, including travel and reporting time, and for all time incurred on Saturdays, Sundays and ON-SITE Holidays. Double time will be in effect for all hours in excess of 12 hours on any weekday and in excess of 8 hours on Saturday and all-day Sunday.

4. Minimum hourly charges are as follows:
a. Services under 4 hours-4 hour minimum
b. Services over 4 hours, up to 8 hours-8 hour minimum
Other Direct Costs
Item Detail
Out-of-pocket expenses are charged at cost. Office costs including postage, phone, and courier services will be charges at cost. Copies, faxes and digital photos will be charges at cost.

Mileage Southern California IRS Allowable
Estimate of Anticipated costs-Mesa Site
You requested we provide a cost estimate to provide QA oversight during the erection welding, NDE testing and coating operations at Paso Robles Tank beginning October 9, 2023 through October 27, 2023. This estimate will be based on the following assumptions:
− PRT project site erection welding and NDE testing operations 3-week duration-1 inspector working 8 hrs a day, inclusive of travel; 5 days a week
− This estimate is based on minimal technical challenges during fabrication operations. Should erection continue longer than 3 weeks it could lead to increased inspection costs. − This location will require the mobilization of inspector from Orange County CA. and require overnight stay during the duration of the assignment.

Project Site Inspector Support:

Once critical fabrication operations begin to wind down, we will be able to reduce inspection as necessary in order to control costs.

Project Site Inspector Support: Meas Site

QUANITY EQUIPMENT

DESCRIPTION

EQUIPMENT

MANUFACTURER TOTAL MAN HOURS TOTAL COST
1 Tank/Fittings Paso Robles Tank QA Inspection ST 120 hrs fabrication 120 hrs x $145.00 =$ 17,400.00 Mobilze-4hs ST 200 miles x 3 12hrs x $145.00 + $393.00 milage= $2,133.00 Demobilze-4hs ST 200 miles x 3 12hrs x $145.00 + $393.00 milage= $2,133.00 Per Diem $223.00 12 days x $223.00=$ 2,676.00
Total Est. 3-week duration 8hr day -5 days a week = $24,342.00 This is a very rough estimate as we do not have control over the production schedule or efficiency in fabrication or technical challenges. Inspection costs will be reduced as fabrication operations wind down.

We trust this provides the information required. If you would like further information on how our company resources can be beneficial, kindly contact me at 714.903.3990.

Respectfully Submitted,
ON-SITE TECHNICAL SERVICES INC.

Ron Coleman
Operations Manager-CWI/NACE III
39 Client: Phoenix Civil Proposal Reference: 5282 Rev.1 Delivering Worldwide Inspection Solutions
12842 Valley View, Suite 108 Garden Grove CA. 92845
714.903.3990
Standard Terms and Conditions
Basis of Charges

1. All services including specification and supplier contract review, preparation, travel and reporting time are chargeable.

2. Out-of-pocket expenses are charged at cost. Office costs including postage, phone, and courier services will be charges at cost. Copies, faxes and digital photos will be charged at ON-SITE’s at cost.

3. Premium rates are in effect for services in excess of 8 hours in any one day, including travel and reporting time, and for all time incurred on Saturdays, Sundays, and contract acknowledged Holidays. Double time will be in effect for all hours in excess of 12 hours on any weekday and in excess of 8 hours on any Sunday.

4. Minimum hourly charges are as follows:
a. Services under 4 hours-4 hour minimum
b. Services over 4 hours, up to 8 hours-8 hour minimum
Terms and Conditions

1. This proposal is valid for a period of forty-five (45) days from date of the proposal letter.

2. Invoices will be issued periodically in standard ON-SITE format and payable within thirty (30) days of its receipt.

3. ON-SITE shall not be required to sign any documents, no matter by whom requested, that would result in ON-SITE having to certify, guarantee or warrant the existence of conditions whose existence ON-SITE cannot ascertain. The Client also agrees not to make resolution of any dispute with ON-SITE or payment of any amount due to ON-SITE in any way contingent upon ON-SITE’s signing any such certification.

4. As used herein, the word certify shall mean an expression of ON-SITE’s professional opinion to the best of its information, knowledge and belief, and does not constitute a warranty or guarantee by ON-SITE.

5. The Client shall promptly report to ON-SITE any defects or suspected defects in ON-SITE’s services of which the Client becomes aware, so that ON-SITE may take measures to minimize the consequences of such a defect.

6. Payments to ON-SITE shall not be withheld, postponed or made contingent on the construction, completion or success of the project or upon receipt by the Client of offsetting reimbursement or credit from other parties who may have caused Additional Services or expenses. No withholdings, deductions or offsets shall be made from ON-SITE’s compensation for any reason unless ON-SITE has been found to be legally liable for such amounts.

7. The Client agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold harmless ON-SITE, its officers, directors, employees and sub consultants (collectively, ON-SITE) against all damages, liabilities or costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees and defense costs, to the extent caused by the Client's negligent acts in connection with the Project and the acts of its contractors, subcontractors or consultants or anyone for whom the Client is legally liable. Neither the Client nor ON-SITE shall be obligated to indemnify the other party in any manner whatsoever for the other party's own negligence.

8. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Client agrees to limit the Consultant's liability for the Client's damages to the sum of $50,000 or the Consultant's fee, whichever is less. This limitation shall apply regardless of the cause of action or legal theory pled or asserted. 40 Delivering Worldwide Inspection Solutions
12842 Valley View, Suite 108 Garden Grove CA. 92845
714.903.3990
August 10, 2023
Rev 1/23/24
Jon Turner, PE
Principal Engineer
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
535 E. Main Street
Santa Paula, CA 93060
Re: FEES – CITY OF SANTA PAULA MESA TANKS REPLACEMENT PROJECT On-Site Technical Services Proposal # 5282 Rev. 1- Estimate Breakdown PRS-Paso Robles, CA Dear Jon:

It is our understanding that the City would like the breakdown to be shown on each proposal as follows:

Paso Robles ON-SITE: PRT Paso Robles CA.

Tank 1 actual fee:$ 16,878.89 (based on 2.5 week production schedule 8/28/23-9/,14/23) Actual 8/27/23-9/8/23 Tank 2 estimate: $ 18,500.00 (based on similar costs as associated with first tank) You informed that activities that occur on and offsite Santa Paula designated construction sites will fall under the Prevailing Wage requirements as defined by the State of California DIR. We have based our fees for inspectors on the current Prevailing Wage rates, taken from California State, Director of Industrial Relations web site for prevailing wage determinations for Southern California. The classification that most closely relates to our duties is “Building Construction Inspector” for Commercial Building, Highway, Heavy Construction, and Dredging projects; Determination SC-23-63-2-2011-2D.

The below hourly fees reflect our 2022 fee schedule.

2. All services including specification and supplier contract review, preparation, travel, and reporting time are chargeable.
41 Client: Phoenix Civil Proposal Reference: 5282 Rev.1 Delivering Worldwide Inspection Solutions
12842 Valley View, Suite 108 Garden Grove CA. 92845
714.903.3990

Mileage Southern California IRS Allowable
Estimate of Anticipated costs-PRT Paso Robles CA.

You requested we provide a cost estimate to provide QA oversight during the fabrication welding and coating operations at Paso Robles Tank beginning August 28, 2023 through September 14, 2023. This estimate will be based on the following assumptions:
− PRT facility operations 2.5-week fabrication duration-1 inspector working 8 hrs a day, inclusive of travel; 5 days a week − This estimate is based on minimal technical challenges during fabrication operations. Should fabrication the production continues longer than 2.5 weeks it could lead to increased inspection costs. − This location will require the mobilization of inspector from Orange County CA., and require overnight stay during the duration of the assignment.

In-Plant Inspector Support:

Once critical fabrication operations begin to wind down, we will be able to reduce inspection as necessary in order to control costs.

In-Plant Inspector Support: PRS Paso Robles, CA.

QUANITY EQUIPMENT

DESCRIPTION

EQUIPMENT

MANUFACTURER TOTAL MAN HOURS TOTAL COST
1 Tank/Fittings Paso Robles Tank QA Inspection ST 112 hrs fabrication 112 hrs x $145.00 =$16,240.00 Mobilze-5hs ST 300 miles 8hrs x $145.00 + $196.50 milage= $1,356.50 Demobilze-5hs ST 300 miles 8hrs x $145.00 + $196.50 milage= $1,356.50 Per Diem $223.00 18 days x $223.00=$ 4,014.00
Total Est. 2.5-week duration 8hr day -5 days a week = $22,967.00 This is a very rough estimate as we do not have control over the production schedule or efficiency in fabrication or technical challenges. Inspection costs will be reduced as fabrication operations wind down.

We trust this provides the information required. If you would like further information on how our company resources can be beneficial, kindly contact me at 714.903.3990.

Respectfully Submitted,
ON-SITE TECHNICAL SERVICES INC.

Ron Coleman
Operations Manager-CWI/NACE III
42 Client: Phoenix Civil Proposal Reference: 5282 Rev.1 Delivering Worldwide Inspection Solutions
12842 Valley View, Suite 108 Garden Grove CA. 92845
714.903.3990
Standard Terms and Conditions
Basis of Charges

1. All services including specification and supplier contract review, preparation, travel and reporting time are chargeable.

4. Minimum hourly charges are as follows:
a. Services under 4 hours-4 hour minimum
b. Services over 4 hours, up to 8 hours-8 hour minimum
Terms and Conditions

1. This proposal is valid for a period of forty-five (45) days from date of the proposal letter.

2. Invoices will be issued periodically in standard ON-SITE format and payable within thirty (30) days of its receipt.

8. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Client agrees to limit the Consultant's liability for the Client's damages to the sum of $50,000 or the Consultant's fee, whichever is less. This limitation shall apply regardless of the cause of action or legal theory pled or asserted. 43 Delivering Worldwide Inspection Solutions
12842 Valley View, Suite 108 Garden Grove CA. 92845
714.903.3990
August 10, 2023
Rev 1/23/24
Jon Turner, PE
Principal Engineer
Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc.
535 E. Main Street
Santa Paula, CA 93060
Re: FEES – CITY OF SANTA PAULA MESA TANKS REPLACEMENT PROJECT On-Site Technical Services Proposal # 5282 Rev. 1- Estimate Breakdown PRS-Hemet, CA Dear Jon:

It is our understanding that the City would like the breakdown to be shown on each proposal as follows:

Paso Robles ON-SITE: PRT Hemet CA.

Tank 1 actual fee: $ 9,063.20 (based on 3 week production schedule 9/11/23-9/29/23) Actual 8/27/23-9/8/23 Tank 2 estimate: $ 10,000.00 (based on similar costs as associated with first tank) You informed that activities that occur on and offsite Santa Paula designated construction sites will fall under the Prevailing Wage requirements as defined by the State of California DIR. We have based our fees for inspectors on the current Prevailing Wage rates, taken from California State, Director of Industrial Relations web site for prevailing wage determinations for Southern California. The classification that most closely relates to our duties is “Building Construction Inspector” for Commercial Building, Highway, Heavy Construction, and Dredging projects; Determination SC-23-63-2-2011-2D.

The below hourly fees reflect our 2022 fee schedule.

2. All services including specification and supplier contract review, preparation, travel, and reporting time are chargeable.
44 Client: Phoenix Civil Proposal Reference: 5282 Rev.1 Delivering Worldwide Inspection Solutions
12842 Valley View, Suite 108 Garden Grove CA. 92845
714.903.3990

Mileage Southern California IRS Allowable
Estimate of Anticipated costs-Hemet CA
You requested we provide a cost estimate to provide QA oversight during the fabrication welding and coating operations at Paso Robles Tank facility located in Hemet CA., beginning September 11, 2023 through September 29, 2023. This estimate will be based on the following assumptions:
− PRT facility operations 3-week fabrication duration-1 inspector working 8 hrs a day, 5 days a week − This estimate is based on minimal technical challenges during fabrication operations. Should fabrication the production continues longer than 3 weeks it could lead to increased inspection costs. − This location will utilize local area inspector from Orange County CA.

In-Plant Inspector Support:

Once critical fabrication operations begin to wind down, we will be able to reduce inspection as necessary in order to control costs.

In-Plant Inspector Support:

QUANITY EQUIPMENT

DESCRIPTION

EQUIPMENT

MANUFACTURER TOTAL MAN HOURS TOTAL COST
1 Tank/Fittings Paso Robles TankHemet
QA Inspection ST 112 hrs fabrication 120 hrs x $145.00 =$17,400.00 Daily RT Travel-2hs ST 160 miles 30hrs x $145.00 + $1,572 milage= $15,922.00 Total Est. 3-week duration 8hr day, 2hrs RT travel daily-5 days a week = $33,322.00 This is a very rough estimate as we do not have control over the production schedule or efficiency in fabrication or technical challenges. Inspection costs will be reduced as fabrication operations wind down.

We trust this provides the information required. If you would like further information on how our company resources can be beneficial, kindly contact me at 714.903.3990.

Respectfully Submitted,
ON-SITE TECHNICAL SERVICES INC.

Ron Coleman
Operations Manager-CWI/NACE III
45 Client: Phoenix Civil Proposal Reference: 5282 Rev.1 Delivering Worldwide Inspection Solutions
12842 Valley View, Suite 108 Garden Grove CA. 92845
714.903.3990
Standard Terms and Conditions
Basis of Charges

1. All services including specification and supplier contract review, preparation, travel and reporting time are chargeable.

4. Minimum hourly charges are as follows:
a. Services under 4 hours-4 hour minimum
b. Services over 4 hours, up to 8 hours-8 hour minimum
Terms and Conditions

1. This proposal is valid for a period of forty-five (45) days from date of the proposal letter.

2. Invoices will be issued periodically in standard ON-SITE format and payable within thirty (30) days of its receipt.

8. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Client agrees to limit the Consultant's liability for the Client's damages to the sum of $50,000 or the Consultant's fee, whichever is less. This limitation shall apply regardless of the cause of action or legal theory pled or asserted. 46 Project: Phoenix - Mesa Tank Replacement - Amendment No 1 Phoenix Civil
535 E. Main Street
Santa Paula CA 93060
Jon Turner
Principal Civil Engineer
2/7/2024
PH: 805-658-6800
Union Materials Testing, Inc. (UMT) appreciates the opportunity to provide you with Amendment No 1 to increase the budget to complete the testing on the City of Santa Paula Mesa Tank Replacement Project.

The requested services will be performed by UMT in accordance with the and the list of services per the MSAP20-13 subconsultant contract. The previously estimated budget has been depleted due to unforeseen construction delays during water line installation. UMT consulted with Phoenix Civil to assume the remaining shifts required to complete the testing for the project. Please see attached, Exhibit A, for the cost breakdown to complete the recommended scope of testing services. UMT reserves the right to modify this contract if our understanding of the project changes or if Phoenix Civil deems alterations to the scope or frequency of services to be necessary.

Original Estimated Fee: $70,035.00 - Amendment No 1: $5029.50 - Total Estimated Fee: $75,064.50 Respectfully submitted,
Evan Folk
Dear Jon Turner
President
Union Materials Testing, Inc.

CC
Exhibit A - Scope of Services
Budget Summary for - Phoenix - Mesa Tank Replacement - Amendment No 1 Task Name Cost
SOILS / AGGREGATE LAB $4,122.00
PROJECT MANAGEMENT $907.50
Project total: $5,029.50
** All field inspections are per the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union 12; Inspection Master Agreement. All field technicians have a 4-hour minimum charge on a portal-to-portal basis. Time over the 4-hour minimum will be rounded up to the nearest whole 8-hour shift on a portal-to-portal basis. Overtime billed at the standard rate shown on the cost breakdown per the testing and inspection labor agreement with will be charged after 8-hours, any shift starting before 5:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m., any shift starting after 9:00am, and on Saturdays. Double time is billed after 12 hours worked on any shift, on Sundays or Holidays. If an inspector is dispatched on two or more jobsites in one shift a minimum of 8 Hours will be billed. Show up cancelations are billed at a rate of 2 hours or regular time.

Project Location: Santa Paula CA
UMT Project No.- 0172-CO01
2/7/2024 2247 Statham Blvd. Oxnard CA 93033 PH: 805-436-0270 1 47 EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services
A technician with a nuclear gauge will perform density and moisture testing in the field during grading, utility trench backfilling, and pavement operations utilizing the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D2922, D3017, and D1556 methods. Laboratory maximum density and optimum moisture determination will be performed in accordance with ASTM D1557 or D698. We will provide:
• Preparation of daily field reports;
• Observation and verification during site clearing and mass grading; • Observation and testing during backfilling of utility trenches; • Observation and testing during backfilling around retaining walls; Observation and testing during subgrade preparation and baserock placement in asphalt and concrete paved areas;
•
• Observation and testing during asphalt and concrete placement.

Observation and testing will consist of visual observation of earthwork activities and taking field density and moisture tests for the purpose of ascertaining that the work is in substantial conformance with the contract documents. Such observation and testing shall not be relied upon by others as acceptance of the work nor shall it be construed to relieve the contractor in any way from his obligation and responsibilities under the construction contract. Specifically, but without limitations, observation and testing shall not require the technician and engineer to assume responsibilities for the means and methods of construction nor for safety on the job site.

SOILS / AGGREGATE LAB
Cost Estimate for - SOILS / AGGREGATE LAB
Description Qty Rate Units Total
Soils Field Technician 24.00 $119.00 RtHr $2,856.00
Pick-up Truck 24.00 $34.00 HR $816.00
Soil Density Gauge - Nuke 6.00 $75.00 DAY $450.00
Total for SOILS / AGGREGATE LAB $4,122.00
Assumptions: 6 - 4 hour site visits
A project manager will develop protocols to assist clients in completing their work while minimizing risk. Review of all field and laboratory testing data from the assigned projects. Monitor the performance and technical skills of our field and laboratory technicians.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Cost Estimate for - PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Description Qty Rate Units Total
Project Manager 5.50 $165.00 RtHr $907.50
Total for PROJECT MANAGEMENT $907.50
UMT Project No.- 0172-CO01
2/7/2024 2247 Statham Blvd. Oxnard CA 93033 PH: 805-436-0270 2 48 Thank you for the opportunity to submit a proposal for this project, we appriciate your consideration. We will be awaiting your response to proceed and look forward to working with you. We believe we have covered all required items. Please give us a call if you have any questions.

UMT Project No.- 0172-CO01
2/7/2024 2247 Statham Blvd. Oxnard CA 93033 PH: 805-436-0270 3 49 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Clete Saunier, Public Works Director
Subject: TELEGRAPH ROAD WIDENING AND MAIN STREET/HARVARD

BOULEVARD/TELEGRAPH ROAD ROUNDABOUT PROJECT
Date: February 13, 2024
Agenda Item: 9.D

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

MEMORANDUM
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Approve budget adjustments and allocations as recommended by staff for the Telegraph Road Widening Project.

2. Approve budget adjustments and allocations as recommended by staff for the Main Street/Harvard Boulevard/Telegraph Road Roundabout Project.

BACKGROUND:

The Public Works Department has oversight over public streets, traffic signals, intersection controls, and related traffic safety and circulation City-wide. Population growth, development projects, and trends in traffic safety and technology require on-going innovation in the management of public right of way and related planning for capacity improvements. In addition, the City’s 2040 General Plan sets goals for improving traffic circulation and pedestrian safety, reducing greenhouse gases, and improving air quality. The eastern portion of the City has experienced rapid development in recent years, in a trend that is expected to continue. Development patterns along Telegraph Road are consistent with this trend, with multi-family housing and commercial projects currently proposed along this corridor. A comprehensive corridor design solution that addresses ultimate roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements is desirable to address this important eastern gateway to the City.

ANALYSIS:

Telegraph Road functions as a primary entrance corridor to the City from the east, connecting new development at East Area 1, as well as inbound traffic from Hallock and State Route 126, to central portions of the City. Despite current development trends and urbanization of eastern portions of the City, Telegraph Road remains a 2-lane road without formalized curb, gutter, sidewalk or drainage features. The 2-lane road transitions to a 4-lane road as Telegraph widens prior to its crossing of Santa Paula Creek, with westbound traffic lanes diverging to Main Street and Harvard Boulevard west of the Creek. A lack of traffic controls for westbound traffic from Hallock/SR 126 and East Area 1 encourages higher rates of speed for vehicles, which conflicts with pedestrians attempting to cross the road near Main Street. Additionally, 50 the intersection geometry of Harvard, Main and Telegraph is non-standard, and crosswalks and other pedestrian safety improvements have been limited due to sight-distance considerations. The City’s General Plan provides guidance on the ultimate widening conditions for Telegraph Road, and the City Council has considered the Harvard/Main/Telegraph intersection as a candidate for a roundabout in past meeting presentations and discussion. Additionally, as development is proposed and approved along Telegraph Road, there is a desire to complete coordinated planning and design efforts to ensure that improvements to this vital eastern corridor are consistent, safe and welcoming for this eastern City gateway.

Telegraph Road Widening
Currently, Telegraph Road consists of a 4-lane arterial between Main Street / Harvard Boulevard to 850 feet east of the intersection narrowing down to a 2-lane arterial to Hallock Drive. The City’s 2040 General Plan planned classification for Telegraph Road from Harvard/Main intersection to Hallock is a 4-lane boulevard. The implementation requirements for this section of Telegraph Road according to the General Plan include widening the street to 68 feet and restriping it as a 4-lane roadway with a center left-turn lane and buffered Class II bike lanes, as well as curb, gutter, sidewalk and drainage facilities. No parking is recommended along this stretch, as the primary focus is cyclist safety and priority. Multiple development projects along or adjacent to Telegraph are either proposed or underway, and projects abutting the road are required to complete localized widening along their respective road frontage. While the long-term vision contemplates this localized development to gradually and completely widen Telegraph to the General Plan geometry, the near-term conditions will result in piecemeal widening with incomplete vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle improvements.

The proposed project will address complete roadway design and construction with available development impact funds to insure safety, consistency and continuity for the Telegraph Road corridor in the near term.

Main Street / Harvard Boulevard / Telegraph Road Roundabout On November 16, 2022, staff provided a roundabout presentation which addressed a number of potential intersection locations for roundabouts within the City. Among those considered was the intersection of Main Street, Harvard Boulevard, and Telegraph Road. There are several reasons why this intersection was evaluated and deemed viable including:

There is enough existing right-of-way to accommodate a standard 1-lane roundabout; This is a gateway location in the City and a segway onto Main Street leading into the City’s downtown business district;
The City recently acquired a property at the western side of the intersection, providing additional flexibility for design, and;
The intersection in its current configuration is difficult for pedestrians to navigate safely.

This project would support the adopted 2040 General Plan Circulation Element and is a good opportunity to advance the goals for improving traffic circulation and pedestrian safety, reducing greenhouse gases, and improving air quality while providing a more aesthetically pleasing gateway entry into the city.

STRATEGIC PLAN:
51 The Project supports the currently adopted Strategic Plan in achieving the following goals:

Infrastructure, Transportation & Mobility
Goal: Maintain and develop the City’s infrastructure to be safe, sustainable, innovative and cost-efficient.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

Staff proposes to fund this project by allocating available fund balance in the Traffic Impact Fee Fund to new CIP account numbers. The estimated project cost summary includes costs related to design services only.

Project Amount CIP Account No.

Telegraph Road Widening $300,000 229-5-9384-290
Roundabout $250,000 229-5-9385-290
Construction costs are difficult to project at this time without completing the above design phases. Staff will return to Council with a formalized Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost for construction at the conclusion of the design phase.

OPTIONS:

The Council has the following available alternative options to staff’s recommendations:

1. Do not approve a budget adjustment and allocations to fund new CIP projects to widen Telegraph Road or to construct a new roundabout. This action would delay the advancement of the 2040 General Plan Circulation Element goals and limit staff’s ability to coordinate needed street improvements with currently proposed multi-family housing and commercial projects along the Telegraph Road corridor.

ATTACHMENTS:
52 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Monica Castillo, City Attorney
Subject: SANTA PAULA CREEK BRIDGE OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT

AGREEMENT (HARVEST AT LIMONEIRA PROJECT)
Date: February 13, 2024
Agenda Item: 9.E

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

MEMORANDUM
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute the proposed Offsite Improvement Agreement with Limoneira Lewis Community Builders LLC for construction of the Santa Paula Creek Bridge; and

2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to make technical corrections to the proposed Offsite Improvement Agreement subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

Presented by: City Attorney Monica Castillo
BACKGROUND:

On February 26, 2015, the City and Limoneira Company entered into an Amended and Restated Development Agreement to govern development of Harvest (“Development Agreement”). The development would include up to 1,500 residential units (including potential apartment units) approximately 240,000 square feet of office, retail, light industrial and assisted living facilities, approximately 19 acres for educational and other civil facilities, and approximately 223 acres of undeveloped land, including open space and agricultural preserves, parks and greenways. On September 21, 2015, Limoneira Lewis Community Builders LLC (“Developer”) became the successor in interest to the rights, duties and obligations of the Limoneira Company pertaining to the Development Agreement.

The Development Agreement has been amended twice since and a third amendment is pending Council’s consideration. The Development Agreement has been further clarified and supplemented by Operating Memoranda. The current Development Agreement requires the Developer to construct, among other public improvements, the Santa Paula Creek Bridge (“Bridge”) and to provide improvement security for the Bridge.

Staff requests Council approval of the proposed Offsite Improvement Agreement which would obligate the Developer to furnish improvement security for the Bridge (hereafter, the “Bridge OIA”) (Attachment A).
53 ANALYSIS:

The pending Third Amendment to the Development Agreement (“Third Amendment”) provides that the parties will enter into the Bridge OIA. Both the terms of the Third Amendment relating to the Bridge and the Bridge OIA itself have been extensively negotiated. The goal of the Bridge OIA is to ensure that the completion of the Bridge is adequately financed by way of improvement bonds and that the Bridge will be timely constructed.

Developer Financing
The Developer has agreed to post improvement bonds in the amount of $11,544,270. This amount is based on an engineer’s estimate of costs (See Exhibit B to Attachment A [Bridge OIA]). If the $11,544,270 bond amount is inadequate to cover actual completion costs as construction progresses, the Developer will increase the bond coverage in an amount equal to the increase.

The bonds will be in effect until the earlier of (1) City acceptance of the Bridge and receipt of 1- year warranty bonds; or (2) receipt in the City’s account of bond sale proceeds from Harvest Community Facilities District No. 1 (“CFD No. 1”) sufficient to fund the Bridge. Because the Bridge is being financed by CFD No. 1, state law allows the Developer to reduce the bond amount by an amount equal to a bond amount furnished by a contractor. To do this, the Developer must request the reduction from City Council pursuant to Santa Paula Municipal Code § 16.80.950.

The bond amount must also be reduced in an amount the City determines is appropriate upon receipt of bond sale proceeds.

Finally, in the event there are insufficient bond sale proceeds from CFD No. 1, the City will not be responsible for reimbursing the Developer for costs to complete the Bridge.

Time for Completion
The parties have agreed to the below construction timeline.

Action Date
Developer has submitted to the City plans,
specifications, reports, cost estimates and
schedules (“Plan Submittal”) to City.

Plan Submittal made to City on December 12,
2023.

City to submit comments and/or notice of
deficiency to Developer with $139,000 fee
deposit request.

No later than 45 working days from Plan
Submittal.

Developer to submit $139,000 fee deposit and
responses and/or corrections to City
comments and/or notice of deficiency (“Plan
Re-Submittal”).

No later than 45 working days from receipt of
City comments and/or notice of deficiency.

City to approve Plan Re-Submittal, provided
requested plan corrections have been made to
City’s reasonable satisfaction.

No later than 45 working days from receipt of
Plan Re-Submittal and $139,000 fee deposit.

Developer to commence construction. No later than 12 months after receiving all required permits and approvals.
54 Developer to complete construction. No later than 24 months from when construction commences.

The above time limits may be extended by the City Manager in his reasonable discretion.

Developer’s time for commencement and completion of the Bridge may be extended if delays are caused by events beyond the Developer’s control. These events include acts or failures to act by a public agency such as delays in the Army Corps of Engineers issuance of a 408 Permit. An extension on the time to complete the Bridge must be approved by the Ventura County Fire Department.

Relatedly, there is a possibility the City may need to acquire right-of-ways so that the Developer may complete construction according to schedule. Should the City use its best efforts to such acquire right-of-ways and encounter delays beyond its control, the Developer will hold the City free and harmless from liability arising from these delays.

Other Terms
In addition to the Developer improvement bond requirements and the Bridge completion schedule, the Bridge OIA contains the following material terms:

1. The completion of the Bridge will be subject to a process for inspection, construction, and final acceptance.

2. Prior to City’s acceptance of the Bridge, the Developer will file with the City a one-year warranty bond equal to 10% of hard costs, or $974,200.

3. Developer must indemnify and hold the City harmless from liabilities arising from the performance of the agreement.

4. Developer must procure and maintain, and also require its contractors and subcontractors to procure and maintain, insurance coverage for Bridge construction.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Though this item does not promote a specific objective in the City's 2-Year Strategic Plan, it furthers the following general goal: "Create an environment within the City in which our residents feel safe and which promotes the City as a location of choice for living, working, visiting and recreating."
FISCAL IMPACTS:

No fiscal impacts are anticipated. The Developer is required to reimburse the City for costs and the City is not responsible for Bridge construction costs. Instead, the Developer will be reimbursed from CFD No. 1 bond sale proceeds. Should there be inadequate CFD bond sale proceeds to finance the Bridge, the City will not be responsible for reimbursing the Developer for any unpaid costs.

OPTIONS:

In addition to the recommended action, the City Council has the following available alternative options:
55 1. Approve staff’s recommendation with amendments to the Bridge OIA.

2. Reject staff’s recommendation.

3. Continue the item in order to obtain further information.

ATTACHMENTS:

Att A - Bridge Offsite Improvement Agreement
56 65283.00302\42001986.4

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City Clerk
City of Santa Paula
970 Ventura Street
Santa Paula, CA 93060
No fee per Government Code § 6103
APNs 107-0-220-055, -065, -025, -035

HARVEST AT LIMONEIRA

OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT

SANTA PAULA STREET BRIDGE
THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ___ day of February, 2024 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF SANTA PAULA, a general law city and municipal corporation (“CITY”) and LIMONEIRA LEWIS COMMUNITY BUILDERS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (“DEVELOPER”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Agreement will have the meanings attributed to them in the Development Agreement.

The Parties agree as follows:

1. RECITALS. This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts and objectives:

A. On or about February 26, 2015, the City and Limoneira Company entered into an Amended and Restated Development Agreement (“Original Development Agreement”) for developing the area commonly known as “East Area 1” for a mixed-use planned community (“Project”) on real property shown in Tract Map No. 5854 recorded in the Official Records of Ventura County (“Official Records”) on December 28, 2017, as Document No. 20171220-00164292-0 (“Property”).

B. The Original Development Agreement was recorded in the Official Records on April 27, 2015, as Document No. 20150427-00062760-0. On or about September 21, 2015, DEVELOPER became the successor in interest to the rights and obligations of Limoneira Company pertaining to the Original Development Agreement.

C. The Original Development Agreement was amended by the First 57 65283.00302\42001986.4
Amendment to the Development Agreement, dated March 18, 2020 (“Amendment No. 1”), and by the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement, dated April 21, 2021 (“Amendment No. 2”). The Parties also intend to enter a Third Amendment to the Development Agreement (“Amendment No. 3”) in March 2024.

D. The Original Development Agreement has been further clarified and supplemented by Operating Memoranda Nos. 1 - 8 (collectively, the “Operating Memoranda”) on file with the City. The Original Development Agreement, as amended by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the Operating Memoranda are collectively referred to herein as the “Development Agreement.”
E. Pursuant to the Development Agreement, DEVELOPER must construct certain public improvements known as the Santa Paula Street Bridge improvements (“Improvements”). The Improvements will be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications on file with CITY known as City Drawing No. 40.35.112 and generally described in the attached Exhibit A.

Section 7.1.2 of the Development Agreement requires DEVELOPER to provide improvement security for the Improvements to the extent they are not financed by a Financing Mechanism.

F. The Acquisition Agreement defined in Section 14, below, together with the CFD No. 1 formation documents, is a Financing Mechanism.

G. Section 14 of the Acquisition Agreement provides that DEVELOPER must secure construction of the Improvements with a bond or other security, but that such bond amount must be reduced by amounts of CFD proceeds dedicated for the Improvements as the City “determine[s] is appropriate.”

2. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS. At its sole cost and expense, DEVELOPER agrees to furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all the work necessary to complete the Improvements set forth in the approved plans and specifications and in conformance with the Approvals (as that term is defined in the Development Agreement), CITY standards, and federal and state requirements.

3. ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS.

A. The estimated hard costs of the Improvements is $9,742,000, inclusive of a 15% contingency (“Estimated Hard Costs”).

B. A copy of the Estimated Hard Costs is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by this reference.

C. The estimated soft costs to complete the Improvements include final design of 1.5%, right-of-way acquisition/eminent domain of 4.5%, permits 58 65283.00302\42001986.4
of 1.5%, 5% for future price inflation, and construction management and project management and inspections of 6% for an estimated cost of $1,802,270 (“Estimated Soft Costs”).

D. The combined total of Estimated Hard Costs and Estimated Soft Costs is $11,544,270 (hereafter, the “Total Estimated Costs”).

4. MODIFICATIONS TO TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS.

A. The Estimated Hard Costs in Exhibit B shall not be increased by more than five percent (5%) without DEVELOPER delivering written notice to the City Engineer. If during the course of construction of the Improvements, DEVELOPER is presented with a change order or set of change orders that would increase the Estimated Hard Costs secured by a bond by more than 15%, DEVELOPER must receive the approval of City Engineer before approving the change order(s), which shall not be unreasonably withheld or conditioned, subject only to the City Engineer’s right to require, pursuant to Subsection B below, a corresponding increase in the amount of the bonds for such Improvements.

B. Should the Total Estimated Costs bonded for be inadequate to cover increased costs to complete the Improvements, the City Engineer may require, and Developer will comply with, an increase in the bond coverage to reflect the increased costs for constructing the Improvements to ensure adequate bonds are in place. To the extent such costs exceed the Total Estimated Costs, the bonds applicable to such Improvements shall be increased by the difference.

5. TIME FOR COMPLETION. DEVELOPER shall complete the Improvements in accordance with the timing requirements and thresholds set forth in the Development Agreement. Improvements will be deemed “complete” when they may be safely used by pedestrians and motorists for their intended purpose as reasonably determined by the City Engineer. Pursuant to Section 7.2.1 of the Development Agreement, CITY must cooperate with Developer and take all actions necessary and appropriate to facilitate timely completion of the Improvements. Such cooperation includes, without limitation, (i) the diligent and timely exercise by CITY of its power of eminent domain in a manner consistent with California law (and subject to CITY making all necessary findings and determinations required to exercise such power, to acquire any rights of way or other real property interests identified by DEVELOPER to be necessary or appropriate for the Improvements; and (ii) CITY’s diligent efforts to work with other landowners and governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to ensure timely approval and construction of the Improvements. DEVELOPER must notify CITY as to when a right of way will be required to meet DEVELOPER’s construction schedule. Upon DEVELOPER’s notice and to the extent permitted by law, CITY agrees to use its best efforts to timely acquire any and all necessary right of ways. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it shall remain the DEVELOPER’s responsibility to complete the Improvements 59 65283.00302\42001986.4
as set forth in this Section and the Development Agreement, and DEVELOPER will hold CITY free and harmless from any liability arising from any delays in acquiring needed property caused by factors beyond CITY’s control. DEVELOPER and CITY shall comply with the following additional schedule and time limits for completion of the Improvements:

Action Date
Developer has submitted to the City
plans, specifications, reports, cost
estimates and schedules (“Plan
Submittal”) to City
Plan Submittal made to City on December
12, 2023.

City to submit comments and/or notice of
deficiency to Developer with $139,000 fee
deposit request
No later than 45 working days from Plan
Submittal
Developer to submit $139,000 fee deposit
and responses and/or corrections to City
comments and/or notice of deficiency
(“Plan Re-Submittal”)
No later than 45 working days from receipt
of City comments and/or notice of
deficiency
City to approve Plan Re-Submittal,
provided requested plan corrections have
been made to City’s reasonable
satisfaction
No later than 45 working days from receipt
of Plan Re-Submittal and $139,000 fee
deposit
Developer to commence construction No later than 12 months after receiving all required permits and approvals.

Developer to complete construction No later than 24 months from when construction commences
CITY’s City Manager, in his/her reasonable discretion, may approve extensions of time upon submittal of a written request from DEVELOPER. If DEVELOPER seeks an extension of time to complete the Improvements more than twenty-four (24) months after receipt of all required permits and approvals, DEVELOPER agrees it must obtain the written approval of the Ventura County Fire Department and will provide a copy of said approval to CITY upon receipt.

6. COMPLETION BY CITY. Should DEVELOPER fail to complete the Improvements within the time for completion in breach of the terms of this Agreement, CITY, at its option, may enter onto DEVELOPER’s property to complete the Improvement and satisfy Section 4, above, at DEVELOPER’s cost. This option is in addition to any other remedies available to CITY.

7. INSPECTION; CONSTRUCTION; FINAL ACCEPTANCE.

A. DEVELOPER will provide on-site construction management to supervise construction and ensure the Improvements are completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City Engineer. The DEVELOPER shall have responsibility to ensure that the construction is accomplished in accordance 60 65283.00302\42001986.4
with the approved plans and specifications. The DEVELOPER’s construction manager shall submit timely requests for inspection by City and/or other required public agencies as needed throughout project construction.

B. The City Engineer shall have the right to inspect the construction of the Improvements to confirm that the construction is accomplished in accordance with the approved plans. City personnel shall have access to the construction at all reasonable times for the purpose of accomplishing such inspection.

C. After DEVELOPER’s contractor has completed the Improvements, DEVELOPER shall request a final inspection of such work, and the work shall be inspected, approved and accepted in strict compliance with the terms of Government Code section 66499.7.

D. No inspection or acceptance pertaining to specific parts of the Improvements shall be construed as final acceptance of any part until the overall final acceptance of the Improvements is made by the CITY in accordance with Government Code section 66499.7 and the Development Agreement. Final acceptance shall not constitute a waiver by CITY of defective work subsequently discovered.

E. DEVELOPER will contract with Psomas as engineer of record to provide construction support services and provide certified as-built plans to the CITY prior to final acceptance of the Improvements.

F. DEVELOPER will contract with a consultant experienced in right-of-way acquisition services for completion of the Improvements.

G. Upon completion of the Improvements and final acceptance by the CITY, DEVELOPER shall promptly file a Notice of Completion with the City Clerk for recordation at the Ventura County Recorder’s Office.

8. CONTINUOUS WORK ON THE IMPROVEMENTS. After commencement of construction of the Improvements, which will commence within twelve (12) months after receiving all required permits and plan approvals and acquisition of all necessary rightof-way, DEVELOPER shall cause such work to be diligently pursued to completion, and shall not abandon the work for a consecutive period or more than sixty (60) days, events of Force Majeure excepted. For the avoidance of doubt, restrictions imposed by a 408 ACOE permit or any other permit or approval, as well as any delays relating thereto, are a Force Majeure event. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Improvements shall be completed by Developer within twenty – four (24 months) after commencement of construction of the Improvements and accepted by the City in accordance with subsections C. and D. of Section 7, above.
61 65283.00302\42001986.4

9. WARRANTY OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS. DEVELOPER warrants that the plans and specifications for the Improvements shall conform to the Approvals (as the term is defined in the Development Agreement), together with all conditions made a part of such Approvals. Except as directed by CITY, DEVELOPER further warrants that the plans and specifications can be relied upon to accomplish the Improvement work covered by this Agreement in a good, workmanlike manner and in accordance with accepted construction practices. Should the plans and specifications at any time before final acceptance of the Improvements prove to be inadequate in any respect except to the extent said plans and specifications were directed by the CITY, DEVELOPER agrees to make such changes reasonably deemed necessary by CITY to complete the Improvements in a good, workmanlike manner and in accordance with accepted construction practices.

DEVELOPER further agrees to make or cause to be made such engineering, soils and other reports as may be required by CITY.

10.CITY NOT LIABLE FOR PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. CITY is not an insurer or surety for the design or construction of the Project. And CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, representatives, and certified volunteers are not liable or responsible for any claim arising during construction of the Project or Improvements, unless it can be shown that such person directed that the Project or Improvements be designed or constructed in a manner contrary to the wishes and desires of DEVELOPER, and DEVELOPER filed a written objection or equivalent notice with the City Engineer before commencing such work or Improvement. .

11.WARRANTY OF WORK. DEVELOPER warrants that the Improvements will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and specifications, CITY standards, and the highest industry standards. Should any Improvement fail to comply with this warranty or any other provision of this Agreement within one (1) year after CITY’s final acceptance, DEVELOPER shall, without delay and without cost to CITY, repair, replace or reconstruct any defective or otherwise unsatisfactory part or parts of the Improvements.

Should DEVELOPER fail to act promptly or in accordance with this requirement or should the exigencies of the case require repairs or replacements to be made before DEVELOPER can be notified, CITY will, at its option, make the necessary repairs, replacements, or reconstruction, as determined by CITY. DEVELOPER shall pay to CITY the actual cost of such repairs, replacements, or reconstruction plus CITY’s administrative costs. This section is not a waiver of any other right CITY may have for correcting faulty workmanship or defective materials.

12.REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENTS. DEVELOPER shall repair or replace, as reasonably determined by CITY, Improvements and monuments destroyed or damaged by DEVELOPER’s actions and to repair or replace, as reasonably determined by CITY, any property damaged or destroyed by DEVELOPER. Any such repair or replacement shall be completed to CITY’s reasonable satisfaction and approval, and at no cost to CITY and not limited by any surety bond required in this Agreement. 62 65283.00302\42001986.4

13.CITY’S RIGHT OF ENTRY. DEVELOPER grants CITY right of entry to DEVELOPER’s property, to the extent applicable, to inspect the Improvements constructed by DEVELOPER and to ensure compliance with this Agreement.

14.CONTRACT SECURITY.

A. Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall furnish:
i. A surety bond in an amount equal to at least one hundred percent (100%) of the Total Estimated Costs as security for the faithful performance of this Agreement, in the amount of $11,544,270. ii. A separate surety bond in an amount equal to at least one hundred percent (100%) of the Estimated Hard Costs for said Improvements as security for the payment of all persons performing labor and furnishing materials in connection with this Agreement.

B. The surety bonds in Subsection A. shall be paid and in effect until the earlier to occur of (i) CITY’s final acceptance of the Improvements and receipt of warranty bonds in accordance with the warranty required by Section 11 and 14, or (ii) receipt in CITY’s account of CFD bond sale proceeds from Harvest Community Facilities District No. 1 sufficient to fund the Improvements and designated for that purpose. Should another jurisdiction with authority over the Improvements project require security for the Improvements that are duplicative of the amounts set forth in this Agreement, the parties will cooperate in good faith to ensure that Developer is not required to incur the cost of bonding twice for the Improvements and to ensure that City and any other agency requiring bonding are adequately secured, such as adding one or more of the agencies as an obligee to the surety in an appropriate rider to the bonds furnished to the lead agency for the Improvements.

Additionally, pursuant to Government Code 66499.5, CITY acknowledges the Improvements contemplated herein are financed and installed pursuant to special assessment proceedings and, in accordance with Santa Paula Municipal Code § 16.80.950 and DEVELOPER’s satisfaction of same, agrees that, upon furnishing by the contractor of the faithful performance and labor and material bonds required by the special assessment act being used, the improvement security of the DEVELOPER shall be reduced by an amount corresponding to the amount of such bonds so furnished by the contractor.

C. CFD bond sale proceeds will be paid to DEVELOPER upon completion of the Improvements by DEVELOPER and acquisition of the Improvements by CITY pursuant to this Agreement and the terms of the Funding, Construction and Acquisition Agreement for Harvest Community Facilities District No.1 dated as of March 1, 2017, as may be amended (“Acquisition 63 65283.00302\42001986.4
Agreement”). In the event there are insufficient CFD bond proceeds, the CITY will not be responsible for reimbursing DEVELOPER for the Improvements, and pursuant to Section 15 of the Acquisition Agreement, the CITY is only required to reimburse DEVELOPER for those Public Facilities (as the term is defined in the Acquisition Agreement) which can be reimbursed with the total of the amount of available bond sale proceeds.

Nothing herein shall relieve DEVELOPER from its obligation to complete the Public Facilities pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the Development Agreement.

D. In accordance with Section 14 of the Acquisition Agreement, the CITY will reduce the aggregate principal amount of the surety bonds by such amount as it determines is appropriate to allocate to the Improvements, upon receipt of the bond sale proceeds.

15.WARRANTY BONDS. Prior to CITY’s final acceptance of the Improvements, DEVELOPER shall file with the CITY a bond guaranteeing the warranty requirements of Section 11 in the amount of at least ten percent (10%) of the Total Estimated Costs. This warranty bond will be released one year after final acceptance of the Improvements, subject to CITY’s timely inspection of the Improvements and determination that the Improvements are free of defects.

16.PERFORMANCE BY CITY OR SURETY.

A. Should DEVELOPER fail to construct the Improvements in the manner and at such locations as specified within the time requirements of this Agreement, or if DEVELOPER is not carrying out the intent of this Agreement, CITY may serve written notice upon DEVELOPER and the surety on DEVELOPER’s faithful performance bond demanding satisfactory compliance with this Agreement.

B. Should CITY serve such written notice, CITY may do any one, or combination of, the following:
i. Serve written notice upon the surety on its faithful performance bond demanding satisfactory compliance with this Agreement. In such event the surety must, within five (5) days, assume control and construct the Improvements as DEVELOPER’S successor.
ii. CITY may construct the improvements itself, or by contract, at DEVELOPER’s expense on a time and materials basis. In such event, CITY may take possession of and utilize in completing the Improvements’ construction, materials, appliances, and other property belonging to DEVELOPER as may be on the site of the work without liability to CITY. DEVELOPER’s surety will be liable to CITY for any excess cost of damages incurred by CITY.
64 65283.00302\42001986.4
C. Nothing in this section waives, or serves as a limitation upon, any additional remedy CITY may have under this Agreement or applicable law.

17.SURETY BOND TO INCLUDE LETTER OF CREDIT. The term “surety bond” also includes such other acceptable security, such as letters of credit or cash deposit agreements issued by responsible financial institutions, which are approved by the City Attorney. The term “surety” includes the issuer of any letter of credit or cash deposit agreement, which is acceptable to CITY as security for the performance of this Agreement. Sureties must be admitted to do business in the State of California.

18.BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. DEVELOPER agrees to use best management practices (“BMPs”), as that term is defined under applicable law including, without limitation, the Santa Paula Municipal Code, in constructing the improvements anticipated by this Agreement. DEVELOPER’s failure to comply with the terms of this Section constitutes a material breach of this Agreement.

19.OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports specific to the improvements identified herein prepared by DEVELOPER under this Agreement are CITY’s property. DEVELOPER may retain copies of said documents and materials as desired, but must deliver all original materials to CITY upon CITY’s written notice.

20. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CITY and DEVELOPER agree that DEVELOPER will act as an independent contractor and will have control of all work and the manner in which it is performed. DEVELOPER will be free to contract for similar service to be performed for other employers while under contract with CITY. DEVELOPER is not an agent or employee of CITY and is not entitled to participate in any pension plan, insurance, bonus or similar benefits CITY provides for its employees. Any provision in this Agreement that may appear to give CITY the right to direct DEVELOPER as to the details of doing the work or to exercise a measure of control over the work means that SUBDIVIDER will follow the direction of CITY as to end results of the work only.

21.PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to Section 7.2.5 of the Development Agreement, DEVELOPER agrees, covenants, and warrants that the development of the Improvements shall comply with all applicable federal and state labor laws (including, without limitation, the requirement under California law to pay prevailing wages and hire apprentices), and all obligations as set forth herein. CITY makes no representations concerning prevailing wages in compliance with California Labor Code Section 1770 et seq.

22.INDEMNIFICATION.

A. DEVELOPER indemnifies and holds CITY harmless from and against any claim, action, damages, costs (including, without limitation, attorney’s fees), 65 65283.00302\42001986.4
injuries, or liability, arising out of this Agreement, or its performance. Should CITY be named in any suit, or should any claim be brought against it by suit or otherwise, whether the same be groundless or not, arising out of this Agreement, or its performance, DEVELOPER must defend CITY (at CITY’s request and with counsel satisfactory to CITY) and indemnify CITY for any judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise.

B. For purposes of this section “CITY” includes CITY’s officers, officials, employees, agents, representatives, and certified volunteers.

C. The Parties agree that this section will remain in full force and effect until the Improvements have been formally accepted by CITY.

D. The requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by DEVELOPER, and any approval of such insurance by CITY, are not intended to and will not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by DEVELOPER pursuant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, to the provisions concerning indemnification.

23.INSURANCE.

A. Before commencing performance under this Agreement, and at all other times this Agreement is effective, Developer shall procure and maintain, and shall require its contractors and subcontractors to procure and maintain, the following types of insurance with coverage limits complying, at a minimum, with the limits set forth below:

Type of Insurance Limits
Commercial General Liability $5,000,000 Occurrence
(Bodily Injury, Personal Injury, and
Property Damage)
Commercial Automobile Liability $2,000,000 Per Accident (Any Auto Hired and Non-Owned
Liability)
Worker’s Compensation Statutory
Employers Liability (Bodily Injury by $1,000,000 Each Accident Accident)
66 65283.00302\42001986.4
B. The amount of insurance set forth above will be a per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage for the policy coverage.

Liability policies must be endorsed to name CITY, its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers as “additional insureds” under said insurance coverage and to state that such insurance will be deemed “primary” such that any other insurance that may be carried by CITY will be excess thereto. Such insurance will be on an “occurrence,” not a “claims made,” basis and will not be cancelable or subject to reduction except upon thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to CITY.

C. DEVELOPER must furnish and require its contractors and subcontractors to furnish to CITY duly authenticated Certificates of Insurance evidencing maintenance of the insurance required under this Agreement and such other evidence of insurance or copies of policies as may be reasonably required by CITY from time to time. Insurance must be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best Company Rating equivalent to at least a Rating of “A:VII.” Certificate(s) must reflect that the insurer will provide thirty (30) day notice of any cancellation of coverage. DEVELOPER will require its insurer to modify such certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, and to delete the word “endeavor” with regard to any notice provisions.

24.NOTICES.

A. Unless expressly stated otherwise, all notices given or required to be given pursuant to this Agreement will be in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by mail. Notice sent by mail will be addressed as follows:

If to the City
City of Santa Paula
Public Works Department
Attn: Clete J. Saunier, P.E., Public Works Director
P.O. Box 569
Santa Paula, CA 93061-0569
If to the Developer
Limoneira Lewis Community Builders LLC
c/o Lewis Management Corporation
Attn: David Lauletta
133 N. 10th Street
Santa Paula, CA 93060
B. When addressed in accordance with this paragraph, notices will be deemed given upon deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. In all other instances, notices will be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. 67 65283.00302\42001986.4
C. Changes may be made in the names or addresses of persons to whom notices are to be given by giving notice in the manner prescribed in this paragraph.

25.COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. DEVELOPER will comply with all laws applicable to this Agreement including, without limitation, federal, state, and local laws requiring permitting and licenses. All such compliance will be at DEVELOPER’s own cost.

26.FORCE MAJEURE. Developer's time for commencement and completion of the Improvements shall be extended for the period of any delay due to one more of the following circumstances beyond the control and without the fault of DEVELOPER (“Force Majeure”): adverse weather conditions; flood; earthquakes; strikes; lockouts; acts of God; enemy action; civil commotion; acts or failures to act of a public agency (including, without limitation, delay in the issuance of permits or approvals by governmental authorities that are required for the work); fire or other casualty; failure or inability to secure materials or labor; changes in local, state or federal laws or regulations; pandemics; epidemics; lack of financing due to generally applicable economic conditions affecting the capital markets generally; and strikes and other organized labor action occurring at the project site and the effects thereof on the work, only to the extent such strikes and other organized labor action are beyond the control of DEVELOPER, its contractors, and its subcontractors, of every tier, and to the extent the effects thereof cannot be avoided by use of replacement workers. DEVELOPER shall be required to provide CITY with timely notice of the facts and circumstances constituting or giving rise to the Force Majeure event and to keep the CITY fully apprised with respect thereto. The parties shall meet as early as reasonably practicable, in no event later than one (1) month of the Force Majeure event, to discuss the event, agree on any additional actions to be taken by either party, and document the agreed length of delay caused by the Force Majeure event. Should the Force Majeure event be further delays in ACOE issuance of a 408 Permit, “commencement of the grounds” for an extension shall be the date that the ACOE next notifies DEVELOPER of additional requests for information or corrections to its permit application, and notice to the City of the additional requests via email to the Public Works Director and City Engineer shall constitute adequate written notice of the Force Majeure event to the City. The City Manager shall evaluate and approve or deny all claims to Force Majeure made by the DEVELOPER and the decision of the City Manager shall be the final determination of the City, subject only to judicial review.

27.CONSTRUCTION. The language of each part of this Agreement will be construed simply and according to its fair meaning, and this Agreement will never be construed either for or against either party.

28.SEVERABLE. If any portion of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then such portion will be deemed modified to the extent necessary in the opinion of the court to render such portion enforceable and, 68 65283.00302\42001986.4
as so modified, such portion and the balance of this Agreement will continue in full force and effect.

29.CAPTIONS. The captions of the paragraphs of this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and will not affect the interpretation of this Agreement.

30.WAIVER. Waiver of any provision of this Agreement will not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor will such waiver constitute a continuing waiver.

31.GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement has been made in and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and exclusive venue for any action involving this Agreement will be in the County of Ventura.

32.AUTHORITY/MODIFICATION. This Agreement is subject to and conditioned upon approval and ratification by the Santa Paula City Council. This Agreement is not binding upon CITY until executed by the City Manager. The Parties represent and warrant that all necessary action has been taken by the Parties to authorize the undersigned to execute this Agreement and to engage in the actions described herein. This Agreement may be modified by written agreement. CITY’s City Manager may execute any such amendment on behalf of CITY.

33.BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS. The terms of this Agreement constitute a burden and benefit upon the Property. Accordingly, this Agreement will be recorded and the terms will run with the Property and become binding upon DEVELOPER’s heirs, successors and assigns.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
69 65283.00302\42001986.4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first hereinabove written.

CITY OF SANTA PAULA,
a municipal corporation LIMONEIRA LEWIS COMMUNITY

BUILDERS, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Dan Singer, David Lauletta,
City Manager Authorized Agent
ATTEST:

Julie Latshaw,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Monica Castillo,
City Attorney
70 65283.00302\42001986.4

EXHIBIT A

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
The bridge construction consists of the construction of an approximate 232-foot long single-span bridge over Santa Paula Creek as part of the extension of Santa Paula Street from Grant Line Street to Hallock Drive. The span bridge will be supported by two abutments, wing walls, and will accommodate two 12-foot wide traffic lanes, two 6-foot wide sidewalks, two 5-foot wide bike lanes for a total width of 48-feet. The superstructure of the bridge will be a 232-ft long, 48-ft wide, reinforced concrete, post- tensioned box girder carrying two lanes of traffic, two bike lanes, and two sidewalks. The bridge has been designed as a free-span bridge, with no permanent pier support (substructure) placed in the creek bed. Two abutments will support the superstructure on each side of the creek above the 100-year flood elevation. The plans and specifications for the bridge, known as City Drawing No. 40.35-112, are on file with the City. 71 65283.00302\42001986.4

EXHIBIT B

ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
(Attached behind)
72 CALTRANS
BEES No.

Item
No. ITEM
Unit of
Measure
Estimated
Quantity Unit Price Item Total
1 MOBILIZATION 10% LS 1 $847,083.74 $847,084
192003 2 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 649 $150.00 $97,315 193003 3 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 598 $250.00 $149,528 260203 4 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE CY 69 $300.00 $20,622
500001 5 PRESTRESSING CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE LB 83749 $5.00 $418,746 510051 6 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE FOOTING CY 174 $1,000.00 $174,222 510053 7 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE CY 1242 $2,000.00 $2,484,682 510086 8 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, APPROACH SLAB (TYPE N) CY 128 $1,300.00 $166,111 511035 9 ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT SF 1650 $25.00 $41,247 519100 10 JOINT SEAL (MR 3") LF 95 $300.00 $28,400
520102 11 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 284514 $2.50 $711,285 xxxxx 12 WATER PIPE SUPPORTS LS 1 $54,000.00 $54,000
839719 13 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 732SW) LF 506 $400.00 $202,267 833090 14 TUBULAR HANDRAILING (MODIFIED) LF 506 $175.00 $88,492 Other
192025 15 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (CULVERT) CY 830 $150.00 $124,536 193004 16 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (CULVERT) CY 325 $180.00 $58,486 260203 17 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE CY 54 $300.00 $16,100
510090 18 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BOX CULVERT CY 242 $2,000.00 $484,220 520101 19 BAR REINFORCING STEEL LB 46565 $2.50 $116,413 740550 20 PUMPING PLANT EQUIPMENT LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000 190101 21 ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 182 $150.00 $27,320
192037 22 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (RETAINING WALL) CY 2056 $150.00 $308,384 193003 23 STRUCTURE BACKFILL CY 71 $180.00 $12,700
260203 24 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE CY 309 $300.00 $92,556 510060 25 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, RETAINING WALL CY 643 $850.00 $546,628 26 6" CONCRETE ASPHALT PAVEMENT SF 1320 $10.00 $13,200
520101 27 BAR REINFORCING STEEL LB 121221 $2.50 $303,052 833033 28 CHAIN LINK RAILING (TYPE 7 MODIFIED) LF 407 $130.00 $52,910 477020 29 MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EMBANKMENT SF 7186 $120.00 $862,267 833090 30 TUBULAR HANDRAILING (MODIFIED) LF 722 $175.00 $126,350 839719 31 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 732SW) LF 722 $400.00 $288,800 32 WATERLINE LS 1 $200,000.00 $200,000
33 APPROACH ROADWAY SURFACE, STRIPING, ETC LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000 34 ROADWAY LIGHTING LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000
8,470,837
Contingency 15.0% 1,270,626
TOTAL HARD COSTS $9,742,000
Inflation 5.0% 487,100
Final Design 1.5% 146,130
Permits 1.5% 146,130
CM/CPM and Inspections 6.0% 584,520
Right of Way 4.5% 438,390
TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS - BRIDGE 11,544,270
Cost Estiamted Approved by:

Signature - Developer's Engineer

OTHER ITEMS

SOFT COSTS

CITY OF SANTA PAULA LEWIS LIMONEIRA
PROJECT: SANTA PAULA CREEK BRIDGE, UNDERCROSSING, AND APPROACH WALLS DATE: 02/07/2024

ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

SANTA PAULA CREEK BRIDGE

UNDERCROSSING

APPROACH MSE WALLS
Douglas Fredericks/Psomas 73
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Monica Castillo, City Attorney
Subject: EIR ADDENDUM FOR THE EAST AREA 1 PROJECT AND AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (HARVEST AT

LIMONEIRA PROJECT)
Date: February 13, 2024
Agenda Item: 10.A

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

MEMORANDUM
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

2. Introduce and waive first reading of Ordinance No. 1333 entitled "An Ordinance Approving (1) Addendum No. 3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Associated with East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 and Amendment No. 3 to the Development Agreement and (2) Amendment No. 3 to the Development Agreement Subject to City Council Approval of East 1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4." Staff intends to present the proposed East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council in February 2024, which would then be brought to the City Council for first reading in March 2024 and later for second reading and adoption in April 2024. These dates will depend on each decision-making body's actions.

PRESENTED BY: Various Presenters
BACKGROUND:

PROCEDURAL FACTS:

Limoneira Lewis Community Builders, LLC (“Developer” or “Applicant”) has applied for a fourth amendment to the East Area 1 Specific Plan (hereafter, “EA1 SPA”) and a third amendment to the current Development Agreement (“DA Amendment”) for the planned community development known as the Harvest at Limoneira (hereafter, “Harvest”). On January 29, 2024, the Planning Commission and City Council held a joint study session regarding the DA Amendment. At a special meeting that same evening, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 3858, recommending City Council (i) approve Addendum No. 3 to Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the EA1 Specific Plan Amendment and (ii) adopt an ordinance approving the DA Amendment subject 74 to Council approval of EA1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 (Attachment D). Tonight, the City Council is asked to consider the Planning Commission's recommendations. The EA1 SPA is not before the City Council this evening and will be presented for Planning Commission consideration at its regular meeting in February. It is being discussed for a fuller picture of the Harvest Project.

Since the first model opening in June 2019, Harvest has experienced a strong and steady demand for residential housing with 586 homes completed and occupied, and another 121 homes under construction to date. Throughout Ventura County, there is a lack of housing supply, including affordable new single family residential and multi-family. In contrast, commercial office and retail in Ventura County continue to experience insufficient demand due to increasing vacancy and rent concessions with no recovery forecasted in the near future. Within East Area 1 certain commercial and civic use areas have existing overlay zoning for residential and multi-family uses.

Due to the elementary school 10.3-acre site not being feasible for the school district and a lack of commercial use demand, the Developer is proposing to add 550 residential units consisting of 300 for rent multifamily units, and 250 for sale residential units across Phase I (Haun Creek Neighborhood) and II (Foothill Neighborhood). In August of 2022, Developer requested the additional 550 units and asked for the City Council’s preliminary approval to move the process forward with the appointment of an Ad Hoc committee to assist staff in negotiations. On December 21, 2022, then-Mayor Sobel appointed then-Councilmembers Cornejo and Crosswhite to the new Development Agreement Negotiation Team Ad Hoc Committee.

The infrastructure to service East Area 1 has been oversized based on City requirements and has sufficient capacity to service the proposed 550 residential units. East Area 1 future development provides the residential housing in conformance with the land use zoning of the 2040 General Plan and is a critical source of future residential housing for the City of Santa Paula to meet the State- mandated future Housing Element requirements identified within the regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Furthermore, if the proposed third amendment to the development agreement is approved, the Developer would pay $5.5 Million toward the offsite affordable housing project known as Arrive Santa Paula, generating units that will provide 45% (298 units) of the City's total unit requirement, 39% (40 units) of the City's VeryLow Income requirement, and 103% (122 units) of the City's Low-Income requirement, for the current RHNA cycle.

ANALYSIS:

PROJECT OVERVIEW
East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment
Approved East Area 1 Specific Plan (EA1 SP-3)
The East Area 1 Specific Plan (EA1 SP-3) was first approved by the City Council in 2008, and was later amended on January 2015 and November 2015. A land use map of the approved plan is attached as Attachment A.

As currently approved, the East Area 1 Specific Plan reserves approximately 80 acres in the northern portion of the Specific Plan area as open space; allows development of up to 1,500 residential units complemented by parks, schools, and other public facilities; and allows for a 75 small amount of neighborhood commercial and business park uses. Primary access to the Specific Plan area is currently provided by Hallock Drive. Santa Paula Street will be extended from the west by a new bridge that will go over Santa Paula Creek to provide additional access in accordance with the approved Specific Plan.

The existing East Area 1 Specific Plan is organized by districts and neighborhoods. The Open Space District includes the open space and agricultural preserve areas in the northern portion of the Specific Plan area and open space buffer areas along Santa Paula Creek and Haun Creek on the western and eastern edges of the Specific Plan area, respectively. The Haun Creek and Foothill Residential Neighborhoods are located in the eastern portion of the Specific Plan area. The Santa Paula Creek Residential Neighborhood is located in the western portion of the Specific Plan area. In addition to these residential neighborhoods, the Specific Plan established a Civic District in the southwestern portion of the Specific Plan area that includes a 35-acre community park (Sports Park) and sites for school facilities, and the Hallock Center District along the southern edge of the Specific Plan area, where development of residential, commercial and business park uses are allowed.

To date, approximately 600 homes have been built in the Haun Creek Neighborhood and Hallock Center District. The first phase of the Sports Park located in the western portion of the Specific Plan area is currently under development. Since approval of the November 2015 Specific Plan Amendment, Santa Paula Unified School District determined the northern site in the Civic District reserved for development of an elementary school was no longer needed and residential development of this site with 121 of the previously approved 1,500 residential units was approved by the City.

Proposed East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment (EA1 SPA)
The proposed EA1 SPA would amend the current East Area 1 Specific Plan and is referred to as the East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment (“EA1 SPA”). The plan amendment is in response to the increased need for additional housing in Santa Paula and Ventura County. An associated amendment to the approved Development Agreement, which amendment is described further below, is also proposed. In addition, recent plans for commercial and business park development within the City’s 95-acre East Gateway planning area, located immediately south of the East Area 1 Specific Plan area has reduced the demand for commercial and business park uses in the East Area 1 Specific Plan area. The below table shows the proposed EA1 SPA land uses in comparison to the approved land uses.

EAST AREA 1 LAND USE SUMMARY
Land Use
Approved
a Proposedb
Change
acres units/size du/ac acres units/size du/ac
Residential
Haun Creek Neighborhood/Hallock
Center East (Phase I)

86.2 632 du 7.3 96.6 707 du
c 7.3 75 du
Foothill Neighborhood (Phase II) 98.0 492 du 5.0 98.0 554 du 5.7 62 du Santa Paula Creek Neighborhood
(Phase III)

50.0 376 du 7.5 50.0 489 du 12.2 113 du
Hallock Center West (Phase I) 0 0 du 0 17.9 300 du 16.8 300 du Subtotal 234.2 1,500 du 6.4 262.5 2,050 du 7.8 550 du
Commercial/Industrial
Light Industrial – Hallock Center West 13.5 25,000 sf - 0 0 sf - -25,000 sf 76 Commercial – Hallock Center West 4.4 215,000 sf - 0 0 sf - -215,000 sf Subtotal 17.9 240,000 sf - 0 0 sf - -240,000 sf
Civic/Institutional
Schools – Civic District
d 19.2 - - 8.3 - - -10.9 ac
Fire – Hallock Center District 1.0 - - 1.5 - - 0.5 ac
Subtotal 20.2 - - 9.8 - - -10.4 ac
Open Space, Parks, and Agriculture
Public Athletic Fields (OS-3) 37.8 - - 37.8 - - 0 ac
Parks/Greenways (OS-2) 55.2 - - 55.2 - - 0 ac
Open Space Preserve (OS-1) 77.3 - - 77.3 - - 0 ac
Agricultural Preserve (AG) 55.0 - - 55.0 - - 0 ac
Subtotal 225.3 - - 225.3 - - 0 ac
TOTAL 497.6 497.6 0 ac
Notes:
a – Approved land uses as defined in 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR b – Proposed land uses as defined in the 2024 Draft Proposed East Area Specific Plan SP-3 c – The Haun Creek West Neighborhood includes the 10.4 acre site previously reserved for development of an elementary school and approved for development of 121 residential units d – Reflects Santa Paula Unified School District previously declining use of one of two available school sites and prior City approval of residential units on this site
Attachment B identifies the approved tentative tract maps and shows existing and planned development within the Specific Plan Area. The proposed amendment to the East Area 1 Specific Plan would increase the number of housing units allowed within the Haun Creek, Foothill and Santa Paula Creek Neighborhoods and Hallock Center District by 550 units from 1,500 to 2,050 units, as shown in Attachment B. The 2,050 units includes 1,750 single family units and potentially 300 rental units (150 duplexes).

Assisted living units would no longer be developed. The 19.2 acres reserved for development of school facilities by the Santa Paula Unified School District (SPUSD) would be reduced to a

8.3-acre site due to the SPUSD decision not to use the site for a school. No changes to the approximately 225 acres of park and open space areas defined in the Approved Specific Plan are proposed. The number of acres provided for the Community Park (Sports Park) and neighborhood parks would also remain the same.

Development Agreement Amendment No. 3
Approved Development Agreement
On February 26, 2015, the City and Limoneira Company entered into an Amended and Restated Development Agreement to govern development of Harvest (“Development Agreement”). The Development Agreement would allow up to 1,500 residential units (including apartment units), approximately 240,000 square feet of office, retail, light industrial and assisted living facilities, approximately 19 acres for educational and other civil facilities, and approximately 223 acres of undeveloped land, including open space and agricultural preserves, parks and greenways. On September 21, 2015, Developer became the successor in interest to the rights, duties and obligations of the Limoneira Company pertaining to the Development Agreement.
77 On March 18, 2020, the City and the Developer entered Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement (“Amendment No. 1”) amending Section 3.1.1(a) of the Development Agreement to provide for an extension of the timeframe within which to complete construction of the Santa Paula Creek Sports Park.

On April 21, 2021, the City and Developer again amended the Development Agreement (“Amendment No. 2”) to, among other things, modify Section 3.3.2 to require that certain traffic improvements be completed prior to issuance of the 750th certificate of occupancy within the Project, including the improvements to the intersection of State Route 126 and Hallock Drive specified in Mitigation Measure T- 1 (the “SR 126/Hallock Improvements”), and to modify the parties obligations with respect to Public Benefit Housing.

Addenda and operating memoranda have also been executed throughout the years to clarify and interpret the Development Agreement terms, as permitted by the Development Agreement.

Proposed Amendment No. 3 to Development Agreement (Amendment No. 3) The proposed Amendment No. 3 to the Development Agreement (“Amendment No. 3”) is necessary to implement the East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment’s addition of 550 residential units. (See Attachment C.) Proposed Amendment No. 3 was the result of extension negotiations between the City and Developer, including input from an ad hoc committee of the City Council, comprised of then-Councilmembers Cornejo and Crosswhite. Considerable credit was granted for public infrastructure and utilities constructed by the Developer as part of the original 1500-home project. Instead, the focus of negotiations was placed on completion of the regional sports park and on affordable housing.

As a result of those negotiations, the parties agreed to the following key terms in exchange for the 550-unit increase:

Santa Paula Creek Sports Park
Except for turf and irrigation features, Phase 1 of the Sports Park would be completed and accepted by the City no later than March 15, 2024. The turf and associated irrigation for Phase 1 is currently inadequate and will likely not be ready for acceptance until after March 2024.

Developer would pay up to $200,000 toward Phase 1 turf and irrigation and would continue to work alongside City to establish turf and irrigation satisfactory to the City. In addition, Developer has agreed to waive City’s reimbursement of up to $850,000 that Developer incurred in the construction of Phase 1 in excess of Developer’s agreed contribution to the Sports Park of $6,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation) plus Developer’s payment of the additional Joint Civic Facilities in Lieu Fee of $5,000.000 that was allocated to the Sports Park.

In addition to the contributions described above, Developer would pay up to $4,000,000 for supplemental sports park improvements. Phase 1 supplemental improvements include, for example, overhead lighting, a pickle ball court, and a restroom/concession building.

Construction of the supplemental improvements would begin 120 days after the effective date of Amendment No. 3 or the City’s approval of plans for the supplemental improvements, whichever occurs later.

In addition, the City would use Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 1 bond proceeds to 78 reimburse the Developer for the roughly 37 acres of sports park land that had been dedicated to the City under the original Development Agreement. The land is to be valued at $300,000/acre, which is the cost specified in the City’s 2016 Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study. If there are insufficient funds in CFD bond proceeds to fully reimburse the Developer for the park land dedication and other eligible Public Facilities (as defined in the amendment), the City will not be responsible for the unreimbursed amount.

Water Rights
For final tract maps recorded this year and after, the amendment would require Developer to transfer groundwater production rights equivalent to demand rates set forth in the current East Area One Potable Water System Master Plan (PWMP). The Developer must perform a water use study and monitoring program one year after the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy for each final map to determine the actual per capita water use for the residential users within Harvest. Depending on the actual per capita residential water use rate, Developer must transfer additional rights to the City if actual use exceeds the 64 gpd rate or the City must credit water rights to the next final tract map if the actual per capita use rate is below 64 pgd. A maximum amount of water rights will be determined based on an updated PWMP.

Traffic Circulation Infrastructure
The Developer must complete the following traffic improvements according to the specifications and milestones indicated:

1. Santa Paula Creek Bridge will be completed as required by the Ventura County Fire District (VCFD).
a. Start construction within 12 months after receiving all required permits and plan approvals, and subject to the Army Corps of Engineers 408 permit restrictions which allow work in the Santa Paula Creek only during the dry season (May – September).
b. Complete. No building permits or certificates of approval will be issued beyond the first 1,261 units approved through Phase II (Foothill Neighborhood) until the bridge is substantially completed and available for emergency access use. c. Before starting construction and issuance of the first building permit in the Foothill Neighborhood, enter into an offsite improvement agreement with the City to secure timely completion of the bridge and provide a performance bond in the approximate amount of $11,000,000. A draft form of the improvement agreement is attached as Exhibit K to the proposed Amendment No. 3. The final improvement agreement will go before the City Council for approval in February, and it should be noted that certain terms in the form improvement agreement attached as Exhibit K continue to be negotiated (e.g. bond amount, liquidated damages, and use of eminent domain).
d. Developer will use good faith and commercially reasonable efforts to construct an additional temporary emergency access connecting the Harvest project to E.

Telegraph using Dike Road and/or Texas Lane. When this access road is complete, an emergency access easement will be granted to VCFD, City, and Ventura County Watershed Protection District.

2. Before or concurrent with the Santa Paula Creek Bridge completion:
a. Install a traffic signal and reconfigure the intersection of 12th S treet and Santa Paula Street.
79 b. Reconfigure and widen intersection of Ojai Road (SR-150)/10th Street and Santa Paula Street.
c. Reconfigure the intersection of Palm Avenue and Santa Paula Street. d. Before the 1000th Certificate of Occupancy, widen and reconfigure the intersection at SR-126 and Hallock Drive.

Development Impact Fees
For each unit in excess of the first 1500 units in the East Area 1 project site, Developer will pay the following development impact fees.

Police Facilities
A fee of $1,818 per unit (or $1,000,000 total) toward the completion of the Police Station upgrade and expansion.

Civic Facilities
A fee of $636 per unit (or $350,000 total) to help fund City Hall and Corporate Yard renovations.

Library Facilities
A fee of $2,180 per unit (or $1,200,000 total) for the expansion of City library facilities.

Traffic and Circulation Improvements
A fee of $2,000 per unit to fund circulation and beautification improvements on Telegraph Road between Hallock Drive and 12
th Street.

Bike Trail Extension Project
A fee of $1,000 per unit (or $550,000 total) to fund the proposed extension of the existing bike trail adjacent to the railroad tracks out to the Sports Park. This is a new term in the Development Agreement.

Wastewater Facilities
A sewer connection fee of $780 per unit (or $429,000 total) and a wastewater facilities fee of $4,127.34 per unit for the 1501st through 1750th unit. Developer will be exempt from the wastewater facilities fee for the last 300 units (the 1751st through 2050th unit) based on credit for wastewater facilities fees already paid/required under the existing Development Agreement terms.

Public Benefit Housing
For each unit in excess of the first 1500 units in the East Area 1 project site, Developer would pay $500 per unit (or $275,000 total) into the Down Payment Assistance Fund. The Down Payment Assistance Fund is intended to offset the down payment on a home either within the Harvest project or outside the project but within the city limits. Homebuyers must apply to the City’s Public Housing Program to receive funds. The program gives priority in the following order (i) public safety employees employed by the City, (ii) other employees of the City whose 80 tenancy furthers the inclusionary housing goals of the City, (iii) public school teachers, (iv) other governmental employees whose employment necessitates residence in the City, (v) employees of hospitals located within the City, and (vi) any other qualified participants.

Recipients must earn a gross annual income that does not exceed one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the Ventura County median household income. Funds are available until exhausted.

Inclusionary Housing
Instead of providing affordable housing units within the Harvest, Developer would make the following contributions to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) to construct affordable housing. For the first 1500 units, Developer would pay $6,500.000 into the AHTF for each market rate unit pursuant to the terms of the existing Development Agreement. For the additional 550 units, Developer would pay $5.5 Million into the AHTF to help finance Rise Santa Paula, a pending affordable housing project to be located at 18004 E. Telegraph Road.

Should the City not finance Rise Santa Paula for any reason, Developer would (i) contribute a total of $5,500,000 plus an annual increase of $ 400,000 per year commencing on January 1, 2025, up to a maximum payment of $ 8,250,000 to the AHTF to be used for an alternative offsite rental housing development of at least 50 very-low and low-income units, as determined by City (a “Replacement Project Contribution”). If no Replacement Project Contribution has been made prior to issuance of the 1,501st certificate of occupancy, Developer would pay an in lieu fee to the AHTF of $15,000 per unit prior to issuance of each certificate of occupancy.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The Harvest Project has been the subject of comprehensive environmental review since 2008 conducted in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing the impacts of the East Area 1 Specific Plan as originally proposed and approved was certified in 2008 (2008 EIR). The City prepared two addendums to the 2008 EIR evaluating minor changes to the approved project.

In 2015, the City prepared a Supplemental EIR (2015 SEIR) to analyze an amendment to the approved Specific Plan involving reconfiguration of the approved uses. Since 2015, the City has also prepared two additional Addendums to the 2015 SEIR and 2008 EIR evaluating minor changes to the approved Specific Plan.

CEQA authorizes the preparation of an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if the proposed changes to a project can be addressed by changes or additions to the EIR, but none of the conditions requiring preparation of a Subsequent EIR set forth in State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 have occurred. An addendum to an EIR is appropriate where:

1. No substantial changes are proposed in the Project that would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the occurrence of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impact;

2. No substantial changes in circumstances under which the Project is undertaken would occur that would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the occurrence of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; and

3. No new information of substantial importance has been discovered that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 81 previous EIR was prepared.

Here, an Addendum to the previously certified EIR for the Project is appropriate because a review of current conditions and the amended Project demonstrates the following:

1. The amended Project would not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;

2. Significant effects previously examined would not be substantially more severe than shown in the Final EIR;

3. There are no new mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible that would now in fact be feasible that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the amended Project, and that the amended Project proponents decline to adopt; and

4. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, and that the amended Project proponents decline to adopt, are recommended.
(State CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(a).)
The City has prepared EIR Addendum No. 3 (Addendum No. 5 to the 2008 EIR and Addendum 3 to the 2015 SEIR) evaluating the proposed amendment to the approved Development Agreement and Specific Plan (See Exhibit "A" to Attachment C [Resolution No. 7500]). Based on the information contained in this Addendum, the proposed changes to the Project allowed by the Development Agreement as currently approved would not result in any new significant impacts or any substantial increase in severity of the significant impacts identified in the 2008 EIR and 2015 SEIR as updated by the previously prepared Addendums.

Additionally, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that indicates the Project would result in any new significant impacts or any substantial increase in the severity of the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Santa Paula Times in compliance with state law.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

OPTIONS:

In addition to staff's recommended action, the City Council has the following available alternative options:

1. Refer any Council-requested substantive changes to Amendment No. 3 to the 82 Development Agreement back to the Planning Commission if not previously considered by the Commission.

2. Continue the hearing in order to obtain further information.

3. Deny the applicant’s request and direct staff to prepare a determination of denial.

ATTACHMENTS:

Att A - Approved EA1 Land Use Map.pdf
Att B - Proposed Add'l Units Layout
Att C - CC RESO 7500 (EA1 EIR Addendum No. 3)
Att D - Ordinance 1333 re Limoneira DA 3rd Amendment
83 Santa Paula Creek
Haun Creek
Palm Lane
Park Blocks
Hallock Entry
Telegraph Road
V.C.T.C.

Hwy 126
Santa Paula Creek
Neighborhood Haun Creek
Neighborhood
Haun Creek Drive
Park Loop Rd. Santa Paula St.

Santa Paula
St
Sant
.
a Paula Cr
eek Edge
Drive
Foothill
Neighborhood
Legend
Civic District
Hallock Center
Neighborhood
Neighborhood Subarea
Agricultural Preserve
Open Space Preserve
Parks/Greenways
School Athletic Fields
Foothill Collector
N
Approved Land Use Plan
FIGURE 2-1

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
0 400 800 1600
114-001-16
84 LAND USE DA TA
- HALLOCK CENTER
- NEIGHBORH 00D RESIDENllAL
- COMMERCIAL
- C/'IIC - SCHOOL
- OPEN SP!CE "' - AC
- OPEN SPACE - PARK
200�� · ,oo· o· 200�· iiiiiiiiii� 400'
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1•�200'

OPEN SPACE
• I
I
I •
I
I
I
- AT LIMONEIRA -
85 65283.00005\42014616.2

Page 1 of 7 ends

ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION NO. 7500
86 65283.00005\42014616.2

Page 2 of 7 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 7500
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO

THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ASSOCIATED WITH EAST AREA 1 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 4 AND AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(PROJECT NO. 23-ADD-01)
The City Council of the City of Santa Paula does resolve as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:

A. On February 26, 2008, the City Council certified the East Area 1 Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2006071134) (the “2008 EIR”).

B. On March 3, 2008, the City Council approved the East Area 1 Specific Plan in accordance with Government Code § 65450, et seq. (the “Specific Plan”). The City Council also approved a Pre-Annexation Agreement and Development Agreement.

C. Following a special election in June 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6508 on July 7, 2008 finding that voters approved Measure G amending Section III (F) of the Land Use Element of the Santa Paula General Plan and Section III (G) of the Land Use Element to the General Plan (the “2008 General Plan Amendment”).

D. Together, the 2008 General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, and Pre-Annexation Agreement and Development Agreement allowed development of what is commonly known as Harvest at Limoneira, a master-planned residential development in Santa Paula, California.

E. Between 2008 and 2015, the City prepared two addendums to the 2008 EIR evaluating minor changes to the project.

F. In 2015, the City prepared a Supplemental EIR (“2015 EIR”) to analyze an amendment to the approved Specific Plan (“Specific Plan Amendment No. 1”) to address the addition of three parcels to the proposed East Area 1 annexation.

G. In February 2015, the City approved a second amendment to the approved Specific Plan (“Specific Plan Amendment No. 2”) which revised the land use plan and regulating plan as defined in the Specific Plan and a Master Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide the Specific Plan Area to facilitate the development allowed by the approved Specific Plan.

H. On February 26, 2015, the City entered into that certain First Amended and Restated Development Agreement, recorded on April 27, 2015 as Instrument No. 20150427 with Limoneira Company (“Development Agreement”). The Development Agreement provides for up to 1,500 residential units, an estimated 240,000 square feet of office, retail, light industrial and assisted living facilities, 19 acres for educational and other 87 65283.00005\42014616.2

Page 3 of 7 ends

civic facilities and approximately 223 acres of undeveloped land including open space and agricultural preserves, parks and greenways.

I. In September 2015, Limoneira Lewis Community Builders, LLC (“Developer” or “Applicant”) became the successor in interest to the rights and obligations of Limoneira Company pertaining to the Development Agreement
J. In November 2015, the City approved a third amendment to the Specific Plan (“Specific Plan Amendment No. 3”) to adjust setback and landscaping requirements and to authorize the Planning Director to make administrative adjustments to setback requirements.

K. Since 2015, the City has prepared two additional Addendums to the 2015 SEIR and 2008 EIR evaluating minor changes to the approved Specific Plan.

L. On or about March 18, 2020, the City and Developer entered Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement (“Amendment No. 1”) amending Section 3.1.1(a) of the Development Agreement to provide for an extension of the timeframe within which to complete construction of the Santa Paula Creek Sports Park.

M. On April 21, 2021, the City and Developer again amended the Development Agreement (“Amendment No. 2”) to, among other things, modify Section 3.3.2 to require that certain traffic improvements be completed prior to issuance of the 750th certificate of occupancy within the Project, including the improvements to the intersection of State Route 126 and Hallock Drive specified in Mitigation Measure T-1 (the “SR 126/Hallock Improvements”), and to modify the parties obligations with respect to Public Benefit Housing.

N. Addenda and operating memoranda have also been executed throughout the years to clarify and interpret terms of the Development Agreement. Specific Plan Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 2, and prior project entitlements are collectively referred to herein as the “Original Project”.

O. The Developer has now applied for a fourth amendment to the Specific Plan (“Specific Plan Amendment No. 4”) and a third amendment to the Development Agreement (“Amendment No. 3”). A General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) is also in process for consistency with Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 (together with Specific Plan Amendment No. 4, and Amendment No. 3, the “Amended Project”).

P. Amendment No. 3 would among other things (i) vest the Applicant’s right to construct the project with up to 550 additional units consistent with the pending Specific Plan Amendment, (ii) secure certain additional public benefits to the City, including additional funding for the sports park and affordable housing, (iii) require Developer to enter into an offsite improvement agreement and post bonds to ensure the timely completion of the Santa Paula Creek Bridge, and (iv) require Developer to continue to ensure adequate emergency access to the project, including using good faith efforts to construct an additional emergency access between the project site and E. Telegraph Road along Dike Road and/or Texas Lane, as approved by the City and the Ventura 88 65283.00005\42014616.2

Page 4 of 7 ends

County Fire Department.

Q. The City reviewed the Amended Project’s environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”), and prepared Addendum No. 3 to the 2015 SEIR (“EIR Addendum”).

R. On January 29, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3858, recommending City Council (i) approve Addendum No. 3 to the 2015 SEIR and (ii) adopt an ordinance approving Amendment No. 3 subject to Council approval of Specific Plan Amendment No. 4. Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 and the GPA will be considered by the Planning Commission at its regular February meeting and by the City Council at a regular meeting in March.

S. On February 13, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing regarding Addendum No. 3 to the 2015 EIR and Amendment No. 3. This Resolution and its findings are adopted based upon the evidence set forth in the entire record including, without limitation, documentary and testimonial evidence; the staff report; and such additional information set forth in the entire administrative record that is too voluminous to reference, but is located at the Planning Division, City of Santa Paula, 970 E. Ventura Street. The custodian of records is the Community and Economic Development Director.

SECTION 2: Based on Planning Commission recommendations, the City Council makes the following findings with respect to the EIR Addendum:

A. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing the impacts of the EA1 Specific Plan as originally proposed and approved was certified in 2008 (2008 EIR). The City prepared two addendums to the 2008 EIR evaluating minor changes to the approved project. In 2015, the City prepared a Supplemental EIR (2015 SEIR) to analyze an amendment to the approved Specific Plan involving reconfiguration of the approved uses. Since 2015, the City has also prepared two additional Addendums to the 2015 SEIR and 2008 EIR evaluating minor changes to the approved Specific Plan (these documents are collectively referenced herein as the “Final EIR”).

B. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) authorizes the preparation of an addendum to a previously certified EIR if changes to a project, or the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, require changes or additions to a previously certified EIR but none of the conditions permitting preparation of a Subsequent EIR set forth in State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 have occurred.

C. The City has prepared EIR Addendum No. 3 to the 2015 SEIR (“EIR Addendum).

D. The Addendum to the previously certified EIR is appropriate because the changes to the Project would not result in the following conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines section 15162:
89 65283.00005\42014616.2

Page 5 of 7 ends

1. The Amended Project would not result in one or more significant effects not discussed in the Final EIR;

2. Significant effects previously identified in the Final EIR would not be substantially more severe;

3. There are no new mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible that would now in fact be feasible and that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Amended Project; and there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives that the Amended Project proponents decline to adopt; and

SECTION 3: Approval. Subject to the conditions set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 3858, which is incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth, and based on the findings herein, the City Council approves the EIR Addendum attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 4: Reliance on the Record. Each and all of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

SECTION 5: Limitations. The City Council’s analysis and evaluation of the Amended Project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the Amended Project is that City Council lacks of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts were made to form accurate assumptions.

SECTION 6: Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

SECTION 7: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent resolution.

SECTION 8: The City Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to Applicant and Applicant’s Representative and to any other person requesting a copy.

SECTION 9: This Resolution may be appealed within ten (10) calendar days after its adoption.

All appeals must be in writing and filed with the City Clerk within this time period. Failure to file a timely written appeal will constitute a waiver of any right of appeal. 90 65283.00005\42014616.2

Page 6 of 7 ends

SECTION 10: This Resolution is the City Council’s final decision and will take effect immediately upon adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of February 2024.
__________________________
Leslie Cornejo, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Julie Latshaw, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Monica Castillo, City Attorney
91 65283.00005\42014616.2

Page 7 of 7 ends

EXHIBIT A
EIR Addendum
[Attached behind]
92 EAST AREA 1 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 4
ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO THE

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

CITY OF SANTA PAULA
State Clearinghouse No. 2006071134
PREPARED FOR:

City of Santa Paula
Community Development Department
Planning Division
200 S. 10th St. / P.O. Box 569
Santa Paula, CA 93060
PREPARED BY:

Westlake Village Office
860 Hampshire Road, Suite P
Westlake Village, CA 91361
JANUARY 2024
93 Meridian Consultants i East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................. 1.0-1

1.1 Project Background ........................................................................... 1.0-1

1.2 Applicable Review Standards ................................................................ 1.0-2

2.0 Project Description ..................................................................................... 2.0-1

2.1 Approved Specific Plan ....................................................................... 2.0-1

2.2 Proposed Specific Plan Amendment ........................................................ 2.0-3

3.0 Environmental Analysis ................................................................................. 3.0-1

3.1 Land Use and Planning........................................................................ 3.0-3

3.2 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................... 3.0-7

3.3 Air Quality ..................................................................................... 3.0-11

3.4 Noise ........................................................................................... 3.0-20

3.5 Geology and Soils ............................................................................. 3.0-26

3.6 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................... 3.0-29

3.7 Aesthetics ..................................................................................... 3.0-33

3.8 Population and Housing...................................................................... 3.0-35

3.9 Public Services ................................................................................ 3.0-38

3.9.1 Fire and Police ...................................................................... 3.0-38

3.9.2 Schools ............................................................................... 3.0-39

3.9.3 Libraries.............................................................................. 3.0-40

3.10 Recreation..................................................................................... 3.0-42

3.11 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................... 3.0-44

3.11.1 Water................................................................................. 3.0-44

3.11.2 Wastewater.......................................................................... 3.0-47

3.11.3 Solid Waste .......................................................................... 3.0-50

3.12 Greenhouse Gas .............................................................................. 3.0-51

3.13 Energy.......................................................................................... 3.0-56 Appendices
A Transportation Studies
B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas CalEEMod Output Sheets C Water and Sewer Master Plan Reports
D Energy Calculations
94 Meridian Consultants ii East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
List of Figures
Figure Page

2.1 Approved Land Use Plan ............................................................................... 2.0-2

2.2 East Area 1 − May 2023................................................................................. 2.0-5

2.3 Proposed Land Use Plan ................................................................................ 2.0-6

2.4 Development Plan....................................................................................... 2.0-8 List of Tables
Table Page

2.2-1 East Area 1 Land Use Summary ....................................................................... 2.0-4

3.2-1 Change in Trip Generation............................................................................. 3.0-9

3.2-2 Change in VMT........................................................................................... 3.0-9

3.3-1 Maximum Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions ............................................. 3.0-16

3.3-2 Maximum Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions............................................... 3.0-18

3.11-1 Historical Water Usage ................................................................................ 3.0-45

3.11-2 Projected Water Demands ............................................................................ 3.0-45

3.11-3 Approved Project − Domestic Water Land Uses and Demands................................... 3.0-46

3.11-4 Proposed Project − Domestic Water Land Uses and Demands ................................... 3.0-47

3.11-5 Approved Project − Wastewater Generation....................................................... 3.0-48

3.11-6 Proposed Project − Wastewater Generation ....................................................... 3.0-49

3.11-7 Solid Waste Generation ............................................................................... 3.0-50

3.12-1 Construction GHG Emission Comparisons ........................................................... 3.0-54

3.12-2 Operational GHG Emissions ........................................................................... 3.0-55

3.13-1 Summary of Energy Use During Construction....................................................... 3.0-57

3.13-2 Summary of Annual Energy Use During Operation ................................................. 3.0-58 95 Meridian Consultants 1.0-1 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
When an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified for a project, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides for the update of the information in the EIR to address changes to a project or changes to the circumstances under which a project will occur. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to an EIR may be prepared if changes or additions to the EIR are needed, but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for a subsequent EIR have occurred.

In February 2008, the City of Santa Paula (City) certified the Final EIR for the East Area 1 Specific Plan Project (2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR), which allowed for the development of a mixed use-community of up to 1,500 total residential units and 810,000 square feet of office, retail, light industrial and civic facilities. The Project entitlements included approval of the East Area 1 Specific Plan (EA1 SP-3 or “Specific Plan”). As required by the CEQA, the City adopted findings of fact for the significant impacts identified in the 2008 East Area 1 Specific Plan FEIR and a statement of overriding considerations for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable after the incorporation of all feasible mitigation.

The City prepared Addendum No. 1 to the East Area 1 Specific Plan FEIR1 in February 2010 (Addendum No. 1 to the SP FEIR) to address the addition of three parcels to the proposed East Area 1 annexation to allow for the implementation of the improvements to the intersection of Telegraph Road and Hallock Drive identified in Mitigation Measure T-2 of the East Area 1 Specific Plan FEIR. After completion of the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR, additional geotechnical investigations were conducted that determined the Specific Plan area contained more large rock than could be processed and used on the site in accordance with the applicable geotechnical design standards. For this reason, surplus rock material was proposed to be exported from approximately 150 acres of the site. In March 2014, the City prepared Addendum No. 2 to the East Area 1 Specific Plan FEIR2 (2014 Addendum No. 2 to the SP FEIR) to address the handling of oversize rock in the Specific Plan area during construction.

In February 2015, the City certified the East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment Final Supplemental EIR (2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR) in connection with its approval of (1) an amendment to the adopted East Area 1 Specific Plan which revised the land use plan and regulating plan as defined in the Specific Plan, (2) a First Amended and Restated Development Agreement, and (3) a Master Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide the East Area 1 Specific Plan Area to facilitate the development allowed by the approved Specific Plan. Revisions included the reconfiguration of the planning areas and the reduction of the amount of light industrial and commercial uses allowed. The modifications allowed for the Hallock Center to accommodate predominantly light industrial and commercial uses, the Civic District to accommodate 1 City of Santa Paula, Addendum No. 1 to the East Area 1 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, February 2010. 2 City of Santa Paula, Addendum No. 2 to the East Area 1 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, March 2014. 96 1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 1.0-2 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
schools, and Neighborhood Planning Areas to accommodate residential uses. Additionally, the amendment also defined open space and agricultural preserve areas as well as utilities and services consistent with the Master Vesting Tentative Map included in the Project and authorized the Planning Director to make administrative adjustments to setback requirements.

The 2016 Addendum No. 3 to the East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2016 Addendum No. 1 to the East Area 1 SP SEIR, prepared by the City in October 2016, addressed minor revisions to the timing of completion of Mitigation Measure C-10 adopted by the City in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR in order to minimize the impact of the project on historical resources. Mitigation Measure C-10 required the preparation of a historical interpretation plan for the Teague-McKevett Ranch to be displayed on-site and a Documentation Report produced in consultation with a qualified historic preservation professional to archive photographs and site plans of the buildings to be demolished or relocated. Additionally, a rehabilitation and adaptive reuse plan for all eligible buildings which will be preserved was required to be developed. The Mitigation Measure C-10 also required that the new construction be screened from the historic district in such a manner as to minimize its visual impact upon the district.

Addendum No. 4 to the East Area 1 SP FEIR and Addendum No. 2 to the East Area 1 SP SEIR, prepared by the City in May 2021, evaluated an amendment (Amendment No. 3) to the Specific Plan approved by the City expanding the range of residential land uses allowed in the Civic District and Hallock Center Zones as defined in the Specific Plan. The expanded range of uses allows Live/Work Dwellings, Single Family Dwellings, and Home Occupation uses in the Civic District Zone and Second Unit – Carriage Unit uses permitted in both the Civic District and Hallock Center Zones. Development of the building types in these Zones would remain subject to the development and design standards in the Specific Plan. The total number of residential units allowed by the Specific Plan remained unchanged at 1,500.

The Final EIR, certified in 2008, its Addendums Nos. 1 through 4, and the East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment Final SEIR, certified in 2015, its Addendums Nos. 1 through 2 collectively comprise and are referred to herein as the “FEIR,” “previous EIR,” or “SEIR” for purposes of this Addendum.

This Addendum, Addendum No. 5 to the East Area 1 SP FEIR and Addendum No. 3 to the East Area 1 SP SEIR, evaluates a proposed amendment to the Specific Plan, Amendment No. 4, to increase the number of residential units allowed by 550 units from 1,500 to 2,050 units and remove the 25,000 square feet of light industrial and 215,000 square feet of commercial development currently allowed by the Specific Plan in the Hallock Center District.

1.2 APPLICABLE REVIEW STANDARDS
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162–15164 define the standards for determining the level of additional environmental review required when an EIR has been certified for a project. When it can be determined, based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that changes to a project or changes in the circumstances under which a project would be undertaken constitute new information that would not result in the identification of new significant impacts, or a substantial increase in the severity of 97 1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 1.0-3 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
significant impacts identified in the certified EIR, an addendum to an EIR may be prepared. Public review of an addendum is not required by CEQA. Instead, the information in an addendum is to be considered with the previously certified EIR prior to a decision being made on the action being considered. If new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR would occur, then preparation and circulation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required.

Based on review of the whole record, including the approved Specific Plan and the certified EIR, this Addendum concludes that no new significant impacts are likely to result from the proposed Specific Plan Amendment No 4. This conclusion is drawn from the following findings pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines:

1. No substantial changes to the East Area 1 Project are proposed that would require major revisions of the previous EIR as there are no new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

2. No substantial changes in the circumstances under which the East Area 1 Project will be undertaken have occurred that would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

3. No new information of substantial importance has been discovered that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was prepared. Specifically, a review of current conditions and the East Area 1 Project demonstrates the following:
a. The East Area 1 Project would not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;
b. Significant effects previously examined would not be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. There are no new mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible that would now in fact be feasible that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, and that the Project proponents decline to adopt; and d. No new mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, and that the Project proponents decline to adopt, are recommended.

Based on the information contained in this Addendum, the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan to expand the range of residential land uses allowed in the Civic District and Hallock Center Zones and the plan to no longer build an elementary school will not result in any new significant impacts or any substantial increase in severity of the significant impacts identified in the FEIR. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that indicates the changes in land use would result in any new significant impacts or any substantial increase in the severity of the significant impacts identified in the FEIR.
98 Meridian Consultants 2.0-1 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN
In 2008 the City of Santa Paula approved the East Area 1 Specific Plan to guide the development of approximately 501 acres located on the eastern edge of the City of Santa Paula, north of State Highway 126 and Telegraph Road and east of Santa Paula Creek.

The City of Santa Paula adopted the East Area 1 Specific Plan in February 2008 to regulate development of Specific Plan area. The City also approved a series of related actions to implement the Specific Plan, including a Development Agreement. In June 2008, voters in the City of Santa Paula approved Measure G, which amended the City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB), as defined in the City’s General Plan, to include the East Area 1 Specific Plan area. In March 2011, the Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission approved annexation of the East Area 1 Specific Plan area to the City of Santa Paula and this annexation was recorded in February 2013. The Specific Plan was amended in 2015, 2016 and 2021, as discussed in Section 1.1, Project Background.

As currently approved, the East Area 1 Specific Plan preserves approximately 80 acres in the northern portion of the Specific Plan area as open space; allows development of up to 1,500 residential units complemented by parks, schools, and other public facilities; and a small amount of neighborhood commercial and business park uses. Access to the Specific Plan area is currently provided by Hallock Drive. Santa Paula Street will be extended from the west across Santa Paula Creek to provide additional access in accordance with the approved Specific Plan.

Figure 2.1: Approved Land Use Plan, shows the districts and neighborhoods defined by the East Area 1 Specific Plan. The Open Space District includes the open space and agricultural preserve areas in the northern portion of the Specific Plan area and open space buffer areas along Santa Paula Creek and Haun Creek on the western and eastern edges of the Specific Plan area, respectively. The Haun Creek and Foothill Residential Neighborhoods are located in the eastern portion of the Specific Plan area. The Santa Paula Creek Residential Neighborhood is located in the western portion of the Specific Plan area. In addition to these residential neighborhoods, the Specific Plan established a Civic District in the southwestern portion of the Specific Plan area that includes a 35-acre community park (Sports Park) and sites for school facilities, and the Hallock Center District along the southern edge of the Specific Plan area, where development of residential, commercial and business park uses are allowed.

The East Area 1 Specific Plan currently allows the development of 1,500 residential units, 150 assisted living units, 25,000 square feet of light industrial and 215,000 square feet of commercial development along with a sports park, neighborhood parks, elementary school and secondary school facilities and supporting infrastructure as shown in Table 2.2-1: East Area 1 Land Use Summary.

99 Santa Paula Creek
Haun Creek
Palm Lane
Park Blocks
Hallock Entry
Telegraph Road
V.C.T.C.

Hwy 126
Santa Paula Creek
Neighborhood Haun Creek
Neighborhood
Haun Creek Drive
Park Loop Rd. Santa Paula St.

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
0 400 800 1600
114-001-16
100

2.0 Project Description
Meridian Consultants 2.0-3 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
Development in the East Area 1 Specific Plan area began in 2017 with mass grading of the Specific Plan area that was completed in 2018. Figure 2-2: East Area 1 − May 2023, shows the current status of development in the Specific Plan area. To date, approximately 600 homes have been built in the Haun Creek Neighborhood and Hallock Center District. The first phase of the Sports Park located in the western portion of the Specific Plan area is currently under development. Since approval of the 2015 Specific Plan Amendment, Santa Paula Unified School District determined the northern site in the Civic District reserved for development of an elementary school was no longer needed and residential development of this site with 121 of the previously approved 1,500 residential units was approved by the City.

2.2 PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
An amendment (proposed amendment) to the approved East Area 1 Specific Plan is proposed in response to the increased need for additional housing in Santa Paula and Ventura County. An associated amendment to the approved Development Agreement is also proposed. In addition, recent plans for commercial and business park development within the City’s 95-acre East Gateway planning area, located immediately south of the East Area 1 Specific Plan area has reduced the demand for commercial and business park uses in the East Area 1 Specific Plan area. The proposed land use plan is presented in Figure

2.3: Proposed Land Use Plan and Table 2.2-1 shows the East Area 1 Land Use Summary in comparison to the approved land uses.

The proposed amendment to the East Area 1 Specific Plan would increase the number of housing units allowed within the Haun Creek, Foothill and Santa Paula Creek Neighborhoods and Hallock Center District by 550 units from 1,500 to 2,050 units. The 2,050 units includes 784 single family units, 966 condominium units, and 300 apartment units. The total number of previously approved single-family units would decrease by 316 units, and the total number of multi-family developments including condominium and apartment units would increase by 866 units. No assisted living units would be developed. An 8.3 acre site would be reserved for development of school facilities by the Santa Paula Unified School District. No changes to the approximately 225 acres of park and open space areas defined in the Approved Specific Plan are proposed. The number of acres provided for the Community Park (Sports Park) and neighborhood parks would remain the same.

The proposed Third Amendment to the approved Development Agreement would (i) vest the developer’s right to construct the project consistent with the proposed Specific Plan amendment, (ii) secure certain additional public benefits to the City, including additional funding for the sports park and affordable housing, (iii) require developer to enter into an offsite improvement agreement and post bonds to ensure the timely completion of the Santa Paula Creek bridge, and (iv) require developer to continue to ensure adequate emergency access to the project, including using good faith efforts to construct an additional emergency access between the project site and E. Telegraph Road along Dike Road and/or Texas Lane, as approved by the City and the Ventura County Fire Department. 101

2.0 Project Description
Meridian Consultants 2.0-4 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
TABLE 2.2-1
EAST AREA 1 LAND USE SUMMARY
Land Use
Approveda Proposedb
Change
acres units/size du/ac acres units/size du/ac
Residential
Haun Creek Neighborhood/Hallock Center East (Phase I) 86.2 632 du 7.3 96.6 707 duc 7.3 75 du Foothill Neighborhood (Phase II) 98.0 492 du 5.0 98.0 554 du 5.7 62 du Santa Paula Creek Neighborhood (Phase III) 50.0 376 du 7.5 50.0 489 du 12.2 113 du Hallock Center West (Phase I) 0 0 du 0 17.9 300 du 16.8 300 du Subtotal 234.2 1,500 du 6.4 262.5 2,050 du 7.8 550 du
Commercial/Industrial
Light Industrial – Hallock Center West 13.5 25,000 sf - 0 0 sf - -25,000 sf Commercial – Hallock Center West 4.4 215,000 sf - 0 0 sf - -215,000 sf Subtotal 17.9 240,000 sf - 0 0 sf - -240,000 sf
Civic/Institutional
Schools – Civic Districtd 19.2 - - 8.3 - - -10.9 ac
Fire – Hallock Center District 1.0 - - 1.5 - - 0.5 ac
Subtotal 20.2 - - 9.8 - - -10.4 ac
Open Space, Parks, and Agriculture
Public Athletic Fields (OS-3) 37.8 - - 37.8 - - 0 ac
Parks/Greenways (OS-2) 55.2 - - 55.2 - - 0 ac
Open Space Preserve (OS-1) 77.3 - - 77.3 - - 0 ac
Agricultural Preserve (AG) 55.0 - - 55.0 - - 0 ac
Subtotal 225.3 - - 225.3 - - 0 ac
TOTAL 497.6 497.6 0 ac
Notes:
a – Approved land uses as defined in 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR b – Proposed land uses as defined in the May 2023 Draft Proposed East Area Specific Plan SP-3 c – The Haun Creek West Neighborhood includes the 10.4 acre site previously reserved for development of an elementary school and approved for development of 121 residential units
d - Reflects Santa Paula Unified School District previously declining use of one of two available school sites and prior City approval of residential units on this site. 102
East Area 1 - May 2023
FIGURE 2-2
SOURCE: Google Earth - July 2023
114-001-16

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
4000 800 1600
N
Project Boundary
Legend
103
Santa Paula Creek
keerC nuaH
Santa Paula St.

Foothill Collector
Palm Lane
Park Blocks
Hallock Entry
Santa Paula St.

Haun Creek Drive
Santa Paula Cr
eek Edge
Drive
Park Loop Rd.

Telegraph Road
V.C.T.C.

Hwy 126
AG
AG
AG
N
N
N
OS-3
OS-2
OS-2
OS-2
OS-2 HC
CD
OS-2
OS-1
OS-2
OS-2
OS-2
(Santa Paula Creek
Neighborhood)
(Haun Creek
Neighborhood)
(Foothill
Neighborhood)
OS-1
OS-1
HC
ECO
N
Proposed Land Use Plan
FIGURE 2-3
114-001-16

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
0 400 800 1600
N
SOURCE: East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment 3, July 2023 Pedestrian Priority Overlay
Civic District (CD)
Hallock Center (HC)
Neighborhood (N)
Agricultural Preserve (AG)
Open Space 1 (OS-1)
Open Space 2 (OS-2)
Open Space 3 (OS-3)
Legend
East Center Overlay (ECO)
104

2.0 Project Description
Meridian Consultants 2.0-7 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
Figure 2.4: Development Plan identifies the approved tentative tract maps and shows existing and planned development within the Specific Plan Area. Table 2.2-1, above, shows the number of units previously planned and proposed in the residential neighborhoods and Hallock Center District. As shown in Table 2.2-1, the number of residential units in the Haun Creek Neighborhood and the portion of the Hallock Center District located east of Hallock Drive would be reduced from 632 to 586 units As described above, the City previously approved the development of the northern 10.4 acre site in the Civic District reserved for development of an elementary school with 121 residential units after the Santa Paula Unified School District determined this site was no longer needed. With the addition of this site to the Haun Creek neighborhood, the total number of units proposed in Haun Creek Neighborhood/Hallock Center East is 707 units, as shown in Table 2.2-1. The number of units in the Foothill Neighborhood would increase from 492 to 554 and the number of units in the Santa Paula Creek Neighborhood would increase from 376 to 489 units. The portion of the Hallock Center District located west of Hallock Drive, where Business Park and Commercial uses were previously planned, would be developed with 300 residential units, planned as duplex rental units. No change in use defined in the Approved Specific Plan are proposed to the Farmhouse, an existing community center with recreational amenities for residents maintained by the project homeowner’s association. As previously discussed, no changes to the park and open space areas defined in the Approved Specific Plan are proposed.

105
Development Plan
FIGURE 2-4
SOURCE: Google Earth - July 2023
114-001-16 106
Meridian Consultants 3.0-1 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR analyzed the following topics:
• 4.1: Land Use and Planning
• 4.2: Agricultural Resources
• 4.3: Mineral Resources
• 4.4: Transportation and Traffic
• 4.5: Air Quality
• 4.6: Noise
• 4.7: Biological Resources
• 4.8: Geology and Soils
• 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality
• 4.10: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• 4.11: Aesthetics
• 4.12: Cultural and Historic Resources
• 4.13: Public Services
• 4.14: Recreation
• 4.15: Utilities and Services Systems
• 4.16: Population and Housing
• 4.17: Greenhouse Gas
Impacts to agricultural resources from conversion of the Project Site to non-agricultural uses was determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR. The City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations with the original approval of the Specific Plan in 2008. Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 only involves changing the type and intensity of land uses in areas already identified for development in the Specific Plan as currently approved. No additional agricultural land within or adjacent to the Specific Plan area would be affected. All of the adopted mitigation measures addressing the impact of the East Area 1 Specific Plan Project on agricultural resources have been implemented. For these reasons, no new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of the impacts to agricultural resources identified in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR or 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR would result from the proposed amendment.

Impacts to mineral resources were determined to be less than significant in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR. Conditions related to mineral resources have not changed since certification of the 2015 SEIR. Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 will only affect the uses allowed in areas already approved for development. For these reasons, no new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of the impacts to mineral resources identified in the 2015 SEIR would result from the proposed amendment.

Impacts to biological resources were determined to be less than significant with mitigation in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR. As Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 would change the land uses allowed on portions of the Specific Plan Area already graded and improved for development, no additional impacts to biological resources would result from the proposed amendment. No new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of the impacts to biological resources identified in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR or 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR would result from the proposed amendment. 107

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-2 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were determined to be less than significant with mitigation in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR. All of the adopted mitigation measures for the impacts related to soil contamination on the site with hazardous materials have been implemented. No new information indicating any additional contamination within the Specific Plan area that could result in significant impacts has become available since certification of the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR. Further, the proposed amendment would allow additional residential units within the approved Specific Plan Area but would not introduce any new allowed uses that could introduce the storage or use of hazardous materials not already evaluated in the previously certified East Area 1 Specific Plan Project documents. For these reasons, no new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of the impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would result from the proposed amendment.

Impacts to cultural resources were determined to be less than significant with mitigation 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR. The impact on the historic agricultural character of the site was determined to be significant and unavoidable in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to this impact with the original approval of the Specific Plan in 2008. The impact of the East Area 1 Specific Plan Project on individual historic resources within the Specific Plan Area was determined to be less than significant with mitigation. Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 only involves changing the type and intensity of land uses in areas already allowed by the Specific Plan as currently approved. No additional land within or adjacent to the Specific Plan area would be affected. All of the adopted mitigation measures for the impacts of the East Area 1 Specific Plan Project on cultural and historic resources have been implemented.

Impacts associated with these topics were directly related to the initial development of the site. As mass grading to facilitate development of the Specific Plan area was completed in 2018, the proposed amendment, which involves changes to the uses allowed within the Specific Plan area already graded and improved for development, would not result in any changes to the impacts identified for these topics in the with the original approval of the Specific Plan in 2008.

Updated analysis is provided in this section for the other topics evaluated in the with the original approval of the Specific Plan in 2008. In addition, analysis of potential Energy impacts is also provided as this topic was not evaluated in the 2008 FEIR or 2015 SEIR, as Energy impacts were identified for analysis under CEQA after 2015.

108

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-3 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Certified
EIR Impact
Conclusion
Proposed
Project
Impact
Conclusion
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New or
Changed
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a) Physically divide an established
community.

Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant No No No
b) Conflict with any applicable
land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect.

Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant No No No
c) Conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or
natural community
conservation plan.

Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant No No No
As concluded in both the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR, the Specific Plan would not involve substantial physical alterations to the existing community structure that would physically divide the established community pattern of the City of Santa Paula. The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR determined the minor reconfigurations of the allowed land uses proposed at that time would not affect the overall compatibility of the planned development with surrounding uses. Additionally, the Specific Plan was determined to be compatible with existing and planned land uses to the south of the Project Site along Telegraph Road and to the west along Santa Paula Street. Impacts were determined to be less than significant in both the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR.

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR concluded the Specific Plan would remain consistent with applicable land use plans and policies and no significant impacts were identified. The 2015 Specific Plan Amendment revised development standards, and revisions to the regulating, thoroughfare, and utility plans to regulate future development within the Specific Plan Area and ensure the provision of adequate public services for the allowed land uses. The Specific Plan was determined to be consistent with applicable goals, objectives and policies in the Santa Paula General Plan. The Specific Plan as amended in 2015 was determined to be consistent with the goals of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR concluded the Specific Plan would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The Specific Plan Area is not located within 109

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-4 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
any adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan area and impacts were determined to be less than significant.

The City of Santa Paula adopted the 2040 General Plan in March 2020. The 2040 General Plan accommodated growth for the City projected by the SCAG, which projected the City’s population would grow to approximately 39,600 by 2040. The SCAG 2020 population projections for Santa Paula include a population of 30,700 residents in 2016, and a projection of 35,400 residents in 2045.3 At the time, the 2040 General Plan was prepared, the State Department of Finance projected the population of Ventura County would grow by approximately 141,000 to approximately 966,000 by 2040.

The 2040 General Plan incorporates the East Area 1 Specific Plan as approved in 2015.

The proposed amendment would allow for 550 additional residential units to be developed within the Specific Plan Area. The development of 550 additional residential units would result in an estimated population increase of 1,925 residents in the Specific Plan Area based on an average household size of

3.5 persons per household. When this additional population growth of 1,925 persons is added to the 2020 population for the City of Santa Paula of 30,389, the City’s population would increase to 32,314, which is 3,086 lower than the population projected by SCAG for the City for 2045. The anticipated growth would be 7,286 people less than estimated in the City’s 2040 General Plan.

The proposed amendment would allow additional residential development in accordance with the development and design standards in the approved Specific Plan in areas already approved and improved for development. The proposed amendment would be consistent with applicable policies in the 2040 General Plan, including Policies LU 3.1, Balanced Land Uses, LU 3.3, Diverse Housing Supply and LU 1.8, Quality Development.

Policy LU 3.1, Balanced Land Uses calls for the designation of adequate land for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, cultural, recreational, open space and other needs of the community in the General Plan Land Use Plan. As discussed above, the amendment is proposed in response to the increased need for additional housing in Santa Paula and Ventura County and plans for commercial and business park development in the City’s 95-acre East Gateway planning area, which reduce the demand for commercial and business park land uses in the East Area 1 Specific Plan area. The proposed amendment would be consistent with this Policy LU 3.1 by ensuring adequate land for residential development in the City that would balance with the amount of land designated for commercial and other non-residential development in the eastern portion of the City.
3 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2020 Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdfAccessed January 2024.
110

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-5 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
Policy LU 3.3, Diverse Housing Supply, calls for the provision of a full range of housing types, locations and densities to accommodate the city’s share of regional housing needs for all income levels in a manner that:
• Retains the scale and character of existing neighborhoods; • Facilitates upgrading and infill of underutilized land in existing neighborhoods; • Allows expansion into vacant and underdeveloped lands consistent with infrastructure and environmental constraints;
• Provides safe and sanitary housing for all residents; and • Encourages development of high-quality estate homes in designated Expansion Areas.

The proposed Amendment would include an additional 550 housing units for a total of 2,050. This includes 784 single family units, 966 condominium units, and 300 apartment units. The total number of previously approved single-family units would decrease by 316 units, and the total number of multi-family developments including condominium and apartment units would increase by 866 units. The proposed amendment would be consistent with Policy LU 3.3 by providing a full range of housing types and densities to accommodate the increased need for additional housing in Santa Paula and Ventura County.

Policy LU 1.8, Quality Development, encourages quality development that:
• Contributes significant social, economic and aesthetic benefits to Santa Paula and its citizens; • Provides compatible, appealing architectural design and site planning, which may include alternative development standards established through the Planned Development Overlay Zone process; and • Incorporates streetscape and other public urban design amenities that enhance the community image.

The additional residential development that would be allowed by the proposed amendment would be developed in conformance with the development and design standards in the approved Specific Plan, which would ensure the character of the existing neighborhoods in the East Area 1 Specific Plan Area is retained in a manner that results in quality development, consistent with LU Policy 1.8.

The additional residential units would be accommodated in areas improved for development and the existing infrastructure serving East Area 1 has the capacity to accommodate the additional units proposed, as discussed in Section 3.11: Utilities and Service Systems, of this Addendum. In addition, the majority of the additional units proposed, 300 units planned in the Hallock Center District west of Hallock Drive and south of Santa Paula Street, would be rental duplex units, would expand the range of housing opportunities available in the City.

The proposed amendment would not involve substantial physical alterations to the existing community structure that would physically divide the established community pattern of the City of Santa Paula. The proposed amendment would result in minor reconfigurations of the land uses and will not change the overall compatibility of the planned development with surrounding uses and would be compatible with 111

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-6 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
existing and planned land uses. Impacts would be less than significant; no new significant land use impacts would result from the proposed amendment.

The proposed amendment would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed amendment is consistent with the City’s 2040 General Plan and the SCAG RTP/SCS. Impacts would be less than significant and no new significant land use impacts would result from the proposed amendment.

The proposed amendment would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The Project Site is not located within any adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan area. Impacts would be less than significant and no new significant land use impacts would result from the proposed amendment.

For these reasons, no new significant land use impacts would result from the proposed amendment.

112

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-7 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

3.2 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Certified
EIR Impact
Conclusion
Proposed
Project
Impact
Conclusion
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New or
Changed
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
d) Conflict with an applicable
plan, ordinance, or policy
establishing measures of
effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all
modes of transportation
including mass transit and nonmotorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not
limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and mass transit.

Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant No No No
e) Conflict with an applicable
congestion management
program, including, but not
limited to level of standards
and travel demand measures,
or other standards established
by the county congestion
management agency for
designated roads or highways.

Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant No No No
f) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results
in substantial safety risks.

Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant No No No
g) Substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment).

Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant No No No
h) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant No No No
i) Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or program regarding
public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such
facilities.

Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant No No No
The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR concluded the traffic impacts of the East Area 1 project would be less than significant with mitigation for all affected streets and intersections with the exception of the intersections of Ojai Road (SR 150)/10th Street and Santa Paula Street/10th Street and Harvard Boulevard. 113

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-8 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with approval of the 2015 East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment with regard to the impacts to these two intersections.

SB 743, signed into law in 2013, initiated an update to the CEQA Guidelines to change how lead agencies evaluate transportation impacts under CEQA, with the goal of better measuring the actual transportationrelated environmental impacts of any given project.

Starting on July 1, 2020, analysis of transportation impacts for purposes of environmental review under CEQA is required to be based on the amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by proposed project instead of the operating conditions of streets and intersections. VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create. VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.

An assessment of the changes in traffic was completed in February 2023 (see Appendix A: Transportation Studies). The changes in the land uses allowed in the Specific Plan area with the proposed amendment would result in a small reduction in the amount of Daily, AM and PM Peak Hour traffic generated by the Project as shown in Table 3.2-1: Change in Trip Generation. Relative to the Approved Specific Plan, the mix of land uses that would be allowed by the proposed amendment to the Approved Specific Plan would reduce daily trips by 4 percent, AM peak hour trips by 15 percent and PM peak hour trips by 10 percent.

While VMT is the required measure of transportation impacts for projects subject to CEQA, the use of Level of Service (LOS) as a measure of transportation impacts applies if it is a requirement of an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The City’s 2040 General Plan includes Policy CM 1.1, which established LOS D as the City’s desired performance standard for streets and intersections. The Specific Plan would be consistent with this policy as the proposed amendment would result in a reduction in the amount of traffic generated by the East Area 1 Specific Plan.4 As the proposed amendment would result in a reduction in the amount of traffic generated by the East Area 1 Specific Plan, no new or substantially more severe traffic impacts to the intersections analyzed in the 2015 SEIR would result from the proposed amendment. The significant and unavoidable impact to the intersections of Ojai Road (SR 150)/10th Street and Santa Paula Street/10th Street and Harvard Boulevard would not be reduced to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures identified in the 2015 SEIR would apply to the proposed amendment. 4 City of Santa Paula, General Plan, Circulation and Mobility Element (2020), https://www.spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/1710/2040-General-Plan-Section-3---Circulation-and-Mobility-Element.

Accessed July 2023.
114

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-9 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
TABLE 3.2-1

CHANGE IN TRIP GENERATION
Daily Trips
Weekday Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Total External Trips –
Proposed SPA 16,574 485 1,059 1,544 1,035 610 1,645
Total External Trips –
Approved SPA 17,204 770 1,044 1,814 1,031 796 1,827
Reduction in Trips -630 -285 15 -270 4 -186 -182
Percent Reduction in
Trips -4% -37% 1% -15% -0% -23% -10%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023 (Appendix A).

In accordance with Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines,5 which was adopted to implement SB 743 after certification of the 2015 SEIR, analysis of changes in VMT that would result from the proposed amendment was completed using the Ventura County Transportation Commission’s Transportation Model.6 The purpose of a VMT estimates for the approved Specific Plan and the proposed Specific Plan Amendment were prepared to identify the change in VMT that would result from the proposed amendment. As shown below in Table 3.2-2: Change in VMT, the proposed amendment would result in a small reduction in VMT per service population (residents and employees) of 0.4 percent. As the amount of VMT generated by the East Area 1 Specific Plan would be reduced with the proposed amendment, impacts would be less than significant. The proposed amendment would not result in a new or substantially more severe transportation impact.

TABLE 3.2-2

CHANGE IN VMT
Metric Existing (2023)
2040 with
Approved Project
2040 with
Proposed Project Difference
Population 1,574 3,875 4,983 1,108
Employees 13 218 42 -176
Residential Home-Based VMT 32,414 65,343 92,527 27,184
Employment VMT (excluding WBO) 179 2,600 370 -2,230
Total VMT 38,042 90,842 109,664 18,822
Residential VMT per Resident 20.6 16.9 18.6 1.7
Work VMT per Employee 13.5 11.9 8.8 -3.1
Total VMT per Service Population 24.0 22.2 21.8 -0.4
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023 (Appendix A). * WBO = work-based other productions. 5 CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, sec. 15064.3 6 Ventura County Transportation Commissions, Ventura county Transportation Model, https://www.goventura.org/work-withvctc/traffic model/#:~:text=The%20Ventura%20County%20Transportation%20Model,in%20relationship%20to%20land%20use.

Accessed July 2023.
115

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-10 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
The proposed amendment would make no changes to the circulation network. The occasional use of some farm equipment will occur associated with the 55-acre Agricultural Preserve in the northern portion of the Specific Plan area. These vehicles would be subject to standard roadway use and operation requirements. Impacts related to roadway design features and incompatible uses would be less than significant, no new significant land use impacts would result from the proposed amendment.

Further, the proposed amendment does not include changes that would impact emergency access. The Approved Specific Plan identifies Hallock Drive as the primary access route to the Specific Plan Area with the extension of Santa Paula Street across Santa Paula Creek providing secondary access. This extension will be known as the Santa Paula Creek Bridge. As the bridge has not yet been constructed, a temporary secondary access route from Santa Paula Street within the Specific Plan Area to Telegraph Road via Texas Lane and Dike Road has been approved by the County of Ventura Fire Department that. This approved secondary access route extends from Santa Paula Street in the southwest corner of the Specific Plan area south to Texas Lane, west to Dike Road and south to Telegraph Road.

The standards in the Approved Specific Plan require setbacks to be maintained between buildings to accommodate fire protection access from all sides of each separate structure and roads will be required to meet standards for emergency access regarding roadway widths, length of roadway, secondary access, and turnarounds. Impacts related to fire access would be less than significant, and no new significant impacts would result from the proposed amendment.

The City’s General Plan includes goals to ensure that City residents have alternative transportation opportunities such as transit, bikeways, and pedestrian routes. The proposed amendment would make no changes to the circulation network. The proposed amendment would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no new significant impacts would result from the proposed amendment.

Therefore, the proposed amendment would not result in any new or substantially more severe transportation and traffic impacts.
116

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-11 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Certified EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Proposed
Project
Impact
Conclusion
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New or
Changed
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Less than
significant
Less than
significant No No No
b) Violate any air quality
standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality
violation?
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Significant
and
Unavoidable
No No No
c) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
nonattainment under an
applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standard?
(including releasing emissions
that exceed quantitative
threshold for ozone
precursors)?
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Significant
and
Unavoidable
No No No
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less than
significant
Less than
significant No No No
e) Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial
number of people?
Less than
significant
Less than
significant No No No
The analysis of air quality impacts for the East Area 1 Specific Plan Project was updated in the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR. Impacts from air quality emissions for both construction and operation were determined to be less than previously identified in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR. Total emissions, however, still exceeded the applicable Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) thresholds of significance and air quality impacts remained significant and unavoidable.

VCAPCD considers construction-related emissions to be temporary and does not recommend quantitative analysis of these impacts for this reason. However, VCAPCD recommends that construction emissions be mitigated if the construction emissions are likely to exceed the significance thresholds for operational emissions. The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR evaluated emissions that would be generated by both stationary and mobile sources on a regular, day-to-day basis from the proposed residential, recreational, and educational uses. Based on the threshold of significance recommended by the VCAPCD, a project is considered to have a significant impact on air quality if it would generate more than 25 pounds per day of either reactive organic compounds (ROCs) or oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Emission modeling completed for the East Area 1 Project in the SEIR showed emissions of NOx and ROCs would exceed the thresholds 117

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-12 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
for both pollutants throughout the construction period and during the operation of the East Area 1 Project. The City adopted Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-14 to reduce air quality impacts to the fullest extent feasible:

AQ-1: Before issuance of a permit to conduct site clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation, a comprehensive Fugitive Dust control Plan must be submitted to the City Planning Director for review and approval. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan must be approved in consultation with the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. • Identification of all fugitive dust sources, the means by which fugitive dust from each identified source will be minimized, and the schedule of frequency that each dust control method will be applied for each identified source. • Dust control measures that will achieve compliance with VCAPCD Rule 50 (Opacity) and Rule 51 (Nuisance).
• On-site vehicle speed shall not exceed 15 miles per hour (the Project Site will contain posted signs with the speed limit).
• All on-site construction roads with vehicle traffic shall be watered periodically; • Streets adjacent to the project reach shall be swept as needed to remove silt that may have accumulated from construction activities so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. • All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 25 miles per hour averaged over one hour) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust (contact the VCAPCD meteorologist for current information about average wind speeds).
• All material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

These control techniques shall be included in Project grading plans. The Applicant and/or its contractor shall be responsible for implementing these measures and compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. 118

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-13 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
AQ-2: Before issuance of a grading permit and building permit, the Applicant and/or contractor must implement measures to reduce the emissions of pollutants generated by heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment throughout the project construction phases. All construction contracts must include control measures required and recommended by the VCAPCD at the time of development. Copies of the construction contracts must be submitted to the City Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit to verify these conditions.

Examples of the types of measures include the following:
• Maintain all construction equipment in good condition and in proper tune in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
• Limit truck and equipment idling time to five minutes or less. • Minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time during the smog season (May through October).
• Use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric, to the extent feasible.

Grading plans and building plans must show these emissions reduction measures for the duration of construction. Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic inspections of construction equipment and vehicles by the City Public Works Department.

AQ-3: [Legal requirement; Mitigation Measure AQ-3 is no longer required as mitigation] AQ-4: [Mitigation consolidated into Mitigation Measure AQ-1] AQ-5: [Legal requirement; Mitigation Measure AQ-5 is no longer required as mitigation] AQ-6: Before occupancy of new structures within the Project Site, the Applicant and/or contractor must provide to the City Planning Director evidence of the following:
• Use of low-emission technology water heaters including solar, air-source heat pump, natural gas, or gas boosted solar. Mobile Source Emissions AQ-7: Before issuance of a building permit, the Applicant and/or contractor must submit for review and approval by the City Planning Director a roadway plan that includes pedestrian and transit friendly facilities such as wider than standard sidewalks, bus stops with passenger benches and shelters, and bikeways or bike lanes. In addition, all landscape plans for the Project must be submitted to the City Planning Director for review and approval to provide landscape shade trees along sidewalks and bikeways. The pedestrian and transit friendly facilities, and landscape features are subject to compliance review throughout the life of the Project.
119

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-14 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
AQ-8: Before City issuance of an occupancy permit, the Applicant and/or contractor must coordinate with the City and provide plans to the City Planning Director for review and approval of a shuttle/minibus service between Project residential and Project retail areas and the Santa Paula downtown area. The shuttle and minibus service plan shall include a date upon which the service will commence that is commensurate with the build-out of the East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment, such that the population within the Project reaches a point that can support and warrant this service.

AQ-9: Before City issuance of an occupancy permit within the Hallock Center, the Applicant and/or contractor must arrange for shuttle/minibus service between the Project commercial and industrial land uses and the Project retail land uses and the Santa Paula downtown area during the lunchtime period (11:00 AM to 2:00 PM). The use of this service shall be monitored throughout the life of the Project by the Applicant and/or contractor or building occupants to ensure that the service operates in accordance with the needs of the occupants of the Center.

AQ-10: [Not a significant impact; No mitigation is required] AQ-11: [Not a significant impact; No mitigation is required] AQ-12: [Not a significant impact; No mitigation is required] AQ-13: The Applicant and/or its contractor must submit for review and approval to the City Planning Director a landscape plan that provides for shade trees to be placed near buildings to reduce heat build-up on structures. The landscaping maintenance will be subject to compliance review throughout the life of the Project.

AQ-14: The Applicant and/or its contractor shall prepare a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) for review and approval by the City and VCAPCD, before the City issues building permits. The plan shall incorporate reasonable and feasible measures to reduce Project-related traffic and vehicle miles traveled. At minimum, the TDM Program shall include the following measures:
• Provision of connections to identified adjacent City or regional trails. • Provision of adequate wayfinding features to direct pedestrians and bicyclists to nearby Project and City destinations, such as school, retail, and civic facilities. • Provision of homeowner information packets prior to close of escrow, identifying local and regional nonvehicular transportation options, and providing homeowners with basic information regarding telecommuting options. 120

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-15 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
• Provision of adequate setbacks and design features such that the proposed future enhancement of commuter rail opportunities is not hindered by Project design. • Construction of pedestrian- and transit-friendly facilities such as wider sidewalks, bus stops with passenger benches and shelters, bikeways, or lanes. Sidewalks and bikeways should be landscaped with trees.
• Perform a traffic light synchronization study on streets impacted by Project development to reduce vehicle queuing time.

However, even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the Project, daily emissions generated were projected to exceed the 25 pounds per day significance threshold. After mitigation, the impacts from the total emissions of VOC and NOx would still exceed the regional construction emissions thresholds and remained significant and unavoidable. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding considerations with approval of the 2008 Specific Plan and 2015 Amended Specific Plan with regard to these air quality impacts.

Impacts related to the consistency with regional plans, such as the Air Quality Management Plan, as evaluated in the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR were found to be less than significant as the population increase associated with the Project would not exceed the City’s population growth forecast or SCAG’s population growth forecasts for the City.

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR determined potential impacts to sensitive receptors to be less than significant. No local carbon monoxide hotspots were found to be located within close proximity to sensitive receptors, and a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was performed that found that toxic air emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to unacceptable levels of hazardous emissions. Additionally, the Project site has been previously disturbed, and construction activities would conform to Rule 403 to control fugitive dust. As such, impacts related to exposure of valley fever were found to be less than significant.

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR noted that odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes. As the type of industrial activities were to be evaluated further at the time that permits to construct and operate the industrial uses were applied for. As such, potential impacts associated with odors were determined to be less than significant.

The proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 would replace the commercial and business park uses currently allowed by the Approved Specific Plan with additional residential units. The proposed amendment would increase the number of residential units allowed by 550 units, from 1,500 to 2,050 units and remove the 25,000 square feet of light industrial and 215,000 square feet of commercial development currently allowed.
121

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-16 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
The most current CARB-approved, air quality modeling software, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod version 2022 1.1.13), was used to estimate air quality construction and operational emissions (see Appendix B: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas CalEEMod Output Sheets).

Construction
The FEIR and SEIR both accounted for grading activities during construction. As grading has now occurred, grading activities are not included in air quality emissions for the proposed Project. Table 3.3-1:

Maximum Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions shows the construction emissions per year associated with the proposed changes to the Specific Plan in comparison with the Approved Specific Plan.

As shown, construction emissions would decrease for VOC and NOx during every year of construction.

However, the proposed changes to the Specific Plan would still exceed regional thresholds at various stages for VOC and NOx without mitigation. All construction would implement the previously identified mitigation measures to reduce emissions of reactive organic compounds and nitrogen dioxides as included in the Final SEIR. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Some population groups, such as children, the elderly, and acutely ill and chronically ill persons, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases, are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others. Sensitive receptors within a 1-mile radius of the Project Site include schools, daycare facilities, hospitals and nursing homes, places of worship, and recreational parks. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is replacing commercial and industrial uses with residential uses but would not involve any change to the location or configuration of the areas identified for development in the Specific Plan and impacts to sensitive receptors would remain less than significant for this reason.

TABLE 3.3-1

MAXIMUM DAILY UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Source
VOC NOx CO Sox PM10 PM2.5
pounds/day
First Year – Approved Project 220.0 168.4 118.7 0.1 32.3 19.9 VCAPCD Threshold 25 25 - - - -
Threshold exceeded? Yes Yes - - - -
First Year (2025) – Proposed Project 10.9 65.8 136.0 0.1 26.0 9.2 Threshold exceeded? No Yes - - - -
Difference -207.9 -97.6 26.3 0 -6.0 -10.4
Second Year – Approved Project 220.8 161.6 118.3 0.2 32.3 19.6 VCAPCD Threshold 25 25 - - - -
Threshold exceeded? Yes Yes - - - -
Second Year (2026) – Proposed Project 7.1 32.1 99.1 <0.1 19.2 5.1 Threshold exceeded? No Yes - - - -
Difference -213.3 -13.3 0 -13.0 -14.4
Third Year – Approved Project 541.2 150.3 111.9 0.1 35.5 21.1 VCAPCD Threshold 25 25 - - - -
Threshold exceeded? Yes Yes - - - -
Third Year (2027) – Proposed Project 6.1 23.4 83.5 <0.1 18.7 4.7 Threshold exceeded? No No - - - -
122

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-17 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
TABLE 3.3-1

MAXIMUM DAILY UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Source
VOC NOx CO Sox PM10 PM2.5
pounds/day
Difference -507.9 -125.4 -23.6 0 -16.8 -16.3
Fourth Year – Approved Project 23.3 118.0 96.0 0.1 28.9 18.1 VCAPCD Threshold 25 25 - - - -
Threshold exceeded? No Yes - - - -
Fourth Year (2028) – Proposed Project 5.8 22.0 79.4 <0.1 18.6 4.7 Threshold exceeded? No No - - - -
Difference -16.6 0 -13.4
Fifth Year – Approved Project 51.3 91.3 76.1 0.1 20.1 12.4 VCAPCD Threshold 25 25 - - - -
Threshold exceeded? Yes Yes - - - -
Fifth Year (2029) – Proposed Project 5.7 21.2 75.2 <0.1 18.5 4.7 Threshold exceeded? No No - - - -
Difference -45.4 69.3 -0.9 0 -1.5 -7.7
Sixth Year – Approved Project 120.0 109.2 94.3 0.1 28.9 16.5 VCAPCD Threshold 25 25 - - - -
Threshold exceeded? Yes Yes - - - -
Sixth Year (2030) – Proposed Project 5.0 20.0 71.6 <0.1 18.5 4.7 Threshold exceeded? No No - - - -
Difference 0 -10.4 -11.8
Seventh Year – Approved Project 174.2 65.8 89.2 0.1 28.1 15.9 VCAPCD Threshold 25 25 - - - -
Threshold exceeded? Yes Yes - - - -
Seventh Year (2031) – Proposed Project 4.8 18.9 67.5 <0.1 18.5 4.6 Threshold exceeded? No No - - - -
Difference 169.2 -45.8 -17.6 0 -9.6 -11.3
Eighth Year – Approved Project 208.2 87.6 85.6 0.1 27.3 15.3 VCAPCD Threshold 25 25 - - - -
Threshold exceeded? Yes Yes - - - -
Eighth Year (2032) – Proposed Project 4.6 17.8 64.4 <0.1 18.5 4.6 Threshold exceeded? No No - - - -
Difference -203.2 -67.6 -14.0 0 -8.8 -10.6
Eighth Year – Approved Project 51.3 80.1 83.2 0.1 30.9 17.1 VCAPCD Threshold 25 25 - - - -
Threshold exceeded? Yes Yes - - - -
Eighth Year (2033) – Proposed Project 38.8 18.7 71.8 <0.1 21.7 5.4 Threshold exceeded? Yes No - - - -
Difference -12.4 -60.9 -7.8 0 -9.2 -11.7
Ninth Year – Approved Project 43.3 73.7 80.1 0.1 27.1 14.9 VCAPCD Threshold 25 25 - - - -
Threshold exceeded? Yes Yes - - - -
Ninth Year (2034) – Proposed Project 38.6 17.7 68.8 <0.1 21.7 5.4 Threshold exceeded? Yes No - - - -
Difference -4.5 -55.0 -8.3 0 -5.4 9.5
Tenth Year – Approved Project - - - - - -
VCAPCD Threshold 25 25 - - - -
Threshold exceeded? - - - - - -
123

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-18 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
TABLE 3.3-1

MAXIMUM DAILY UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Source
VOC NOx CO Sox PM10 PM2.5
pounds/day
Tenth Year (2035) – Proposed Project 34.3 1.3 9.4 <0.1 3.2 0.8 Threshold exceeded? Yes No - - - -
Difference - - - - - -
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; Nox = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxides; VOC = volatile organic compounds.

Refer to Appendix B of this Addendum for the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas CalEEMod Output Sheets.

Operation
Mobile source emissions for the daily vehicle trips were calculated based on the updated trip generation estimate for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 4. CalEEMod was used to estimate area source emissions from within the proposed land uses. Area source emissions would be generated primarily by natural gas consumption by the various land uses of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 4. The primary use of natural gas by the proposed land uses would be to produce space heating, water heating, and other miscellaneous heating, or air conditioning. The area source emissions also account for the use of gasoline-powered gardening and landscaping equipment for the Project and the use of consumer products by Project residents.

The estimated operational emissions, with the additional 550 residential units proposed in the Specific Plan Amendment are presented in Table 3.3-2: Maximum Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions.

TABLE 3.3-2

MAXIMUM DAILY UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
VOC NOx CO Sox PM10 PM2.5
pounds/day
Maximum Adopted Specific Plan 267 87 490 1 103 30
Maximum Proposed Specific Plan
Amendment 136 56 554 1 136 36
Difference -131 -31 64 0 33 6
VCAPCD Threshold 25 25 - - - -
Threshold exceeded? Yes Yes - - - -
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; Nox = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns; Sox = sulfur oxides; VOC = volatile organic compounds.

Refer to Appendix B of this Addendum for the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas CalEEMod Output Sheets.

As shown in Table 3.3-2 the estimated maximum daily unmitigated operational emissions for VOC and Nox from the East Area 1 Specific Plan would be reduced by approximately 131 and 31 pounds per day (lbs./day), respectively with approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment when compared to emissions that would be generated by the Approved Specific Plan. The decrease in emissions results from the reduction in the number of daily vehicle trips generated by the Specific Plan Amendment. 124

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-19 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
The mitigation measures included in the SEIR for the Specific Plan include measures to reduce these significant impacts to the fullest extent feasible with payment of TDM fees required to mitigate the remaining impacts. No change to the mitigation program is proposed or required as these measures apply to the additional residential uses that would be permitted by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment No.

4. As such, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in pollutant emissions.

The proposed Project would include an additional 550 dwelling units resulting in an estimated increase in population of 1,925, as discussed further in Section 3.8: Population and Housing. According to the VCAPCD Guidelines, to be consistent with the AQMP, a project must conform to the local general plan and must not result in or contribute to an exceedance of the City’s projected population growth forecast.

The VCAPCD’s 2022 Air Quality Management Plan7 (AQMP) considers regional population forecasts by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which was most recently adopted in 2020. When the additional population growth of 1,925 persons is added to the 2020 population for the City of Santa Paula of 30,389, the City’s population would increase to 32,314, which is 3,086 lower than the population projected by SCAG for the City for 2045.8 As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the 2022 VCAPCD AQMP.

Operational odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes, as well as sewage treatment facilities and landfills. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes the addition of 550 residential units and removes the previously approved commercial and industrial uses. As such, there are no land uses associated with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment with the potential to emit odors and impacts would be less than significant for this reason.

The proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 would not result in any new significant impacts or any substantial increase in the significance of the air quality impacts identified in the SEIR for the East Area 1 Specific Plan Project.

7 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Air Quality Management Plan, 2022, http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/AQMP/2022/Final-2022-AQMP-without-appendices.pdf. Accessed January 2024. 8 Southern California Association of Governments, Demographics and Growth Forecast, September 3, 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf. Accessed January 2024.
125

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-20 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

3.4 NOISE
Certified EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Proposed
Project
Impact
Conclusion
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New or
Changed
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a) Expose people to or
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Potentially
significant
Potentially
significant No No No
b) Expose people to or
generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Potentially
significant
Potentially
significant No No No
c) Create a substantial
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
No No No
d) Create a substantial
temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without
the project?
Less than
significant
Less than
significant No No No
e) If located within an airport
land use plan or, if such a
plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public
airport or public use airport,
expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise?
Less than
significant
Less than
significant No No No
f) If located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, expose
people residing or working in
the project area to excessive
noise levels?
Less than
significant
Less than
significant No No No
Noise impacts were initially analyzed in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and potentially significant impacts were identified for sensitive receptors during the operation of East Area 1 that may result from exterior noises from increased roadway noise. There was also potential for residential uses located over commercial uses to experience increased interior noise. The EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce overall noise level and to reduce operational impacts to a less than significant level.

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR concluded the noise impacts of the approved Specific Plan Amendment would be potentially significant. With regards to exposure of noise levels in excess of established 126

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-21 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
standards due to the proximity of the Specific Plan area to the Santa Paula Branch Rail Line bordering the southern boundary of the Specific Plan Area.

The SEIR determined that the construction of the approved Project includes the generation of varying levels of vibration based on the construction equipment used. Impacts from vibration are potentially significant as construction will take place over a ten year period during which uses the are occupied during this time could be subject to vibration that exceeds 80 VbB.

Noise from long term operations resulting from the Project and associated traffic would not substantially increase ambient noise conditions. Roadway noise would increase as a result of the increase traffic volumes; however, the identified mitigation measures would reduce the increase to less than 3 dB(A). As such, the impacts were found to be less than significant.

Temporary noise increases in noise levels would occur during the construction of the Project, as identified in the SEIR. The development of the Project would comply with the Santa Paula Municipal Code (SPMC). Therefore, no violations of noise regulations would occur. Any increases in ambient noise would be short-term and not constant in duration. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

The Specific Plan Area is located within two miles of Santa Paula Airport. The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR determined that noise levels from the airport are below 60 dB(a) within the Specific Plan Area and people residing, attending school, or working within the Specific Plan area would not be exposed to excessive noise due to the airport. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR included compliance with the Santa Paula Municipal Code and implementation of the following mitigation measures adopted in 2008 and the two additional mitigation measures below to reduce potential impacts:

N-1: The following measures must be incorporated into grading and building plan specifications to reduce the impact of construction noise:
a. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, must be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. Noise attenuation barriers and mufflers of grading equipment must be required for construction equipment generating noise that exceeds levels above 95 dB at 50 feet from the source. b. Construction noise reduction methods such as but not limited to shutting off idling equipment, installing acoustic barriers around significant sources of stationary construction noise sources, maximizing the distance between equipment and staging areas occupied residential areas, and use of electric air compressors and similar power tools (rather than diesel equipment) must be used when feasible; c. During construction, stationary construction equipment must be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers, such as residences and schools;
127

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-22 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
d. During construction, stockpiling and vehicle staging activities areas must be located as far as practicable from residences or schools;
e. Earthmoving equipment operating on the construction site, must be as far away from vibration-sensitive uses as possible; and
f. Construction hours, allowable workdays, the telephone number of the job superintendent and the telephone number of City staff contact(s) must be clearly posted at all construction entrances to enable surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent directly. If the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent must notify the Planning Director, or designee, and investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party and the Planning Director, or designee.

N-3: Before the City issues a permit to conduct site clearing, grading, excavation, or construction for any aspect of the Project, the Applicant and/or contractor must submit to the Planning Director (or designee) a construction traffic (including material deliveries) haul route plan for review and approval. The haul route plan must avoid sensitive receivers to the extent feasible. The Planning Director (or designee) must approve the haul route plan before initiation of any site clearing, grading, construction or materials delivery. Should the haul route use County of Ventura roads, the haul route shall be approved in consultation with the County of Ventura Planning Division. The Applicant and/or contractor shall ensure that the approved haul route is included on grading and building plans.

N-4: At least 10 days in advance, the Applicant and/or contractor must provide notification to all occupied uses within 200 feet of an area where construction activities are anticipated to result in ground-borne vibration of more than 80 VdB, N-8: Before the City issues a building permit for residential units (including live/work and assisted living units), in the Hallock Center, the Applicant and/or contractor must provide evidence to the Planning Director, or designee, that demonstrates noise is mitigated within the exterior and interior living space. Measures to ensure noise standards are achieved must include:
• Designs that meet interior noise levels, do not exceed City interior noise standard (45 dB(A) CNEL).
• Planning Director approval of an acoustical analysis of the effectiveness of noise insulation of proposed construction.
• Design specifications may include, without limitation:
128

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-23 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
− Exterior livable space, such as balconies, shall be oriented northward; − South-facing windows and sliding glass doors shall be double-paned, mounted in frames with low rates of air filtration (0.5 cubic foot per minute or less, per American National Standard Institute specifications) and a sound transmission coefficient rating of 30 or greater;
− Solid-core exterior doors shall be constructed with perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals; and South-facing roof or attic vents must be baffled. • Written disclosure of maximum exterior and interior noise levels expected at live/work and residential units, and at light industrial, office, and retail uses must be provided to those purchasing or leasing such uses. Copies of these written materials must also be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. • Building plans must show that appropriate setbacks from the railroad tracks is incorporated into the site design for buildings in conjunction with the design parameters outlined above.

N-11: For paving and repaving associated with road improvements on Hallock Drive between the SR 126 and Hallock Drive intersection and the Hallock Drive and Santa Paula Street intersection with the Project, the Applicant and/or contractor must use asphalt-rubber paving material consisting of 20 percent recycled rubber or more and 80 percent paving grade asphalt. Studies have demonstrated that such paving material will reduce traffic noise by 3 to 5 dB(A). Before construction of roadway improvements within this road segment, plans that include these specifications must be submitted to the Planning Director, or designee, for approval. Evidence of installation must be submitted to the Planning Director for approval following completion of the roadway improvements.

N-12: In combination with rubberized- asphalt paving, the speed limits on the three roadway segment experiencing significant noise impacts off-site (Hallock Drive north of the Santa Paula Freeway, Hallock Drive north of Telegraph Road, and Hallock Drive south of Telegraph Road) must be reduced from existing speed limits, where determined feasible and consistent with the SPMC. Feasibility must be determined by the Public Works Director, or designee. Each 5- mile- per- hour reduction in the speed limit can decrease the CNEL level by about 1 dB(A). Written documentation from the Public Works Director must be submitted to the Planning Director for approval before the City issues a building permit. Speed limit signs must be posted along the roadway in accordance with standards set forth by the Public Works Director, or designee.
129

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-24 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
Construction
Temporary noise impacts during construction would remain the same as identified in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 would replace commercial and business park uses with residential uses and would result in the addition of 550 residential units in the Specific Plan area. The majority of these additional units would be developed in the Hallock Center District. The proposed amendment would not introduce new land uses or noise sources that were not previously analyzed in the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR.

Construction site will require site preparation, building construction, paving and architectural coatings.

As mass grading of the Specific Plan Area has been completed, substantial grading activities will not be associated with the development of additional homes in areas already graded and improved for development. As described in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR, when construction equipment is operating, noise levels can range from 73 to 95 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet from individual pieces of equipment. Following site preparation, activities associated with project development include utility infrastructure installation, pouring foundations, interior construction, and site cleanup. Primary noise sources associated with this stage of construction include hammering, diesel generators, compressors, and heavy-duty truck traffic. Noise levels are typically in the 60 to 80 dB(A) range at a distance of 50 feet. Introduction of landscaping is generally the final activity, which involves the use of trucks, landscape rollers, and compactors, with noise levels in the 65 to 75 dB(A) range. The maximum noise level generated by construction equipment would be 95 dB(A) associated with a tractor used for earthmoving.

Vibration impacts from construction equipment would remain similar to those identified in the SEIR as the construction of the proposed Project would use similar construction equipment identified previously.

Construction-related groundborne vibration impacts were evaluated previously using the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance document. The impacts from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. The primary and most intensive vibration source associated with the development of the Project would be the use of earth-moving equipment during construction. Uses that have been occupied while construction is ongoing in adjacent areas could be subject to vibration that exceeds 80 VdB. Therefore, as determined in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR, temporary vibration impacts during construction are considered potentially significant. The proposed amendment, which would allow the development of additional residential units would not result in any increase in the severity of temporary vibration impacts during construction.

Operation
Roadway noise is the predominant source of noise for the general vicinity of the Specific Plan area. As the amount of traffic generated by the proposed amendment would be slightly reduced, as discussed in Section 4.5: Transportation and Circulation, roadway noise impacts during operation would also be reduced. Additionally, the primary sources of vibration from operations for the East Area 1 Specific Plan 130

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-25 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
Area were previously identified as passenger vehicles, delivery trucks for light-industrial and commercial uses, and school buses. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would replace the previously approved commercial and industrial uses with residential uses, which would result in a reduction in truck traffic and associated vibration effects within the Specific Plan Area and impacts would remain less than significant.

The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would also not expose people working or residing in the Specific Plan area to excessive noise levels due to a private airstrip or public area as noise levels from the Santa Paula Airport remain below 60 dB(A) on the Project Site. 9 As all development within the Specific Plan Area is required to comply with the Santa Paula Municipal Code10 and all previously adopted mitigation measures, the change in uses associated with the proposed amendment would not result in any new significant noise impacts or substantial increase in the severity of the noise impacts identified in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR. 9 City of Santa Paula, General Plan, Noise Element, https://spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/278/General-Plan---NoiseElement-PDF?bidId=#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20the%20Noise,or%20disruptive%20sources%20of%20noise.. Accessed January 2024.
10 City of Santa Paula, Municipal Code, Chapter 93: Noise, https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/santapaula/latest/santapaula_ca/0-0-0-53371. Accessed July 2023. 131

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-26 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

3.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Certified EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Proposed
Project
Impact
Conclusion
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New or
Changed
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a) Expose people or structures
to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
i. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
map, issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault:

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
ii. Strong seismic ground
shaking?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
iii. Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
iv. Landslides? Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
c) Is located on a geologic unit
or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
d) Is located on expansive soil as
defined in the Uniform
Building Code creating
substantial risk to life or
property.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
The 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR concluded that the location of the Specific Plan area is not within an established Alquist-Priolo fault zone, nor is it crossed by or within any known active faults. Development would comply with the California Building Code (CBC), requiring structures be built to address the seismic nature of the region. As such, the risk of loss, injury, or death associated with a known earthquake fault is very low and impacts were found to be less than significant. 132

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-27 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
Impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking were found to be less than significant. While the Specific Plan Area could be subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake originating along on the faults in the region, construction of structures would comply with the CBC seismic design standards.

Additionally, a Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared previously found that the geologic formations and soils within the Specific Plan Area are suitable to support development. Impacts would be less than significant.

The 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR concluded that the Specific Plan area is not located within an identified liquefaction zone and groundwater is deep enough that strong earthquake shaking would not be likely to cause sediments to lose bearing capacity. Impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant.

As determined in the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR, some portions of the Specific Plan Area are susceptible to landslides. These areas are designated as OS-1 (Open Space) and Agricultural Preserve. Portions of the Specific Plan area designed for structural development are relatively flat and not susceptible to landslides. For these reasons, impacts are less than significant.

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR found that the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the Best Management Practices (BMPs), identified in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of the SEIR, would mitigate short term impacts to topsoil. Additionally, during operations, on-site drainage and landscape improvements would control erosion. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR included the result of a Geotechnical investigation that included design specifications to minimize the effects of lateral spreading. Through compliance with the CBC and these design specifications, impacts were found to be less than significant.

The Geotechnical Investigation included in the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR also included testing for expansive soils within the Project site. The results concluded that the expected expansion potential of soils on site range from very low to low. Impacts are less than significant.

Mass grading within the Specific Plan area was completed in 2018 in accordance with the adopted mitigation measure addressing potential impacts related to geologic and soils conditions within the Specific Plan Area. The proposed amendment would change the uses allowed in areas already graded and improved for development. No development is proposed in areas previously not approved for development. No new information indicating any change in the geologic and soils conditions within the Specific Plan area has become available since certification of the 2015 SEIR, and the adopted mitigation measures will apply to the additional residential development allowed by the proposed amendment.

A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program will be prepared in accordance with the NPDES Program General permit authorized under the Clean Water Act for Construction Activities, and the Project will comply with all standards in the California Building Code requiring lateral force resisting systems that meet seismic detailing requirements. For these reasons, no new significant impacts or substantial 133

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-28 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
increase in the severity of the geology and soils impacts identified in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR would result from the proposed amendment. 134

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-29 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Certified EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Proposed
Project
Impact
Conclusion
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New or
Changed
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Less than
significant
Less than
significant No No No
b) Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local
groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which
would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been
granted)?
Less than
significant
Less than
significant No No No
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in
a manner which would result
in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
Less than
significant
Less than
significant No No No
d) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding onor off-site?
Less than
significant
Less than
significant No No No
e) Create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted
runoff?
No impact No impact No No No
f) Otherwise substantially
degrade water quality?
Less than
significant
Less than
significant No No No
135

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-30 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
Certified EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Proposed
Project
Impact
Conclusion
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New or
Changed
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
g) Place housing within a 100-
year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
Less than
significant
Less than
significant No No No
h) Place within a 100-year flood
hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect
flood flows?
Less than
significant
Less than
significant No No No
i) Expose people or structures
to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving
flooding including flooding as
a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
Less than
significant
Less than
significant No No No
j) Inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow?
Less than
significant
Less than
significant No No No
As concluded in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR, the construction and operation of the approved Project would not result in significant impacts to water quality as the discharge of pollutants would be controlled by a site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) in accordance with the NPDES Program General permit authorized under the Clean Water Act for Construction Activities. Additionally, best management practices (BMPs) and project design features included in the approved Project would address the anticipated and expected pollutants of concern from the operation of the Project.

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR determined the Approved Project would incorporate retention basins and dedicate open space areas that would allow runoff to infiltrate into the groundwater table. The planned water wells would provide enough water to the Project to meet demand throughout construction. During operations, the City will supply the portions of the project overlying the respective groundwater basins with water from those basins. Thus, the Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge and would not deplete water supplies, impacts would be less than significant.

Existing drainage patterns would not result in substantial erosion or siltation based on findings in the SEIR. Adherence to the SWPPP in accordance with the NPDES General permits would reduce potential erosion and siltation during construction. During operations, numerous features included in the Project would limit the amount and rate of surface flow with the collect and filter water runoff. Therefore, potential impacts to erosion and siltation were found to be less than significant. 136

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-31 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR concluded that the included drainage plan would reconfigure the four drainage areas on site to direct the majority of flows to the on-site detention basin planned at the southeast corner of the Specific Plan area. The drainage improvements would reduce flows and existing flooding. As such, impacts to drainage patterns would be less than significant.

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR states that the incorporation of detention basins would treat all flows from the development in East Area 1. The small portion of the Project Site that will drain to Santa Paula Creek would not include any developed or impervious surface areas. Runoff tributary to Santa Paula Creek will be treated by the westernmost detention basin and the vegetation in the landscape buffer area along Santa Paula Creek. There would not be additional runoff contributed by the Project which would exceed the capacity of the planned storm water drainage systems. No impacts to surface water quality would occur.

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR determined that since the Drainage Master Plan for the Project will be sized to treat 10 percent of the Q50 (i.e., flood flow having a recurrence interval of 50 years or a 2% chance of occurring or being exceeded in any given year) from the storm drain system consistent with the SWPPP guidelines and BMPs will be utilized in the Project which includes bioswales, detention basins, and storm drain systems, no significant impacts to water quality would occur.

No housing would be placed in the 100-year flood zone according to the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR because a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) would be prepared and process through FEMA reflecting current hydrology conditions in eastern Santa Paula, demonstrating that the Santa Paula Flood Control Project reduces flood risk in portions of Santa Paula that were previously subject to flood risk from Santa Paul Creek. For these reasons, impacts were determined to be less than significant.

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR found that the Santa Paula Flood Control Project includes improvements which reduce flood risks in portions of Santa Paula that were previously subject to flood risk from Santa Paula Creek. Structures within the Specific Plan area would not impede or redirect 100-year flood flows.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR concluded that at least four dams northeast of the Santa Paula area have the potential to result in dam inundation. However, the Project Site is not located in any inundation areas. Impacts would be less than significant.

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR notes the Specific Plan area’s location approximately 14 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and 250 to 300 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, the proposed detention basins and series of weir diversions reduce the potential of mudflows occurring on-site. As such, the risk that induction by a seiche, tsunami or mudflow is less than significant.

The proposed amendment would change the uses allowed on land within the Specific Plan area already approved for development. Residential development instead of commercial and industrial uses would be 137

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-32 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
developed in the remaining portion of the Hallock Center District, which is not located in a flood risk area. The acreage of parks and open space would remain unchanged.

The drainage system for the Specific Plan is designed to meet or exceed the storm drainage requirements of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (Orcutt Creek/Orcutt Creek), and the City of Santa Paula on-site drainage systems. A SWPPP would be prepared in accordance with the NPDES Program General permit authorized under the Clean Water Act for Construction Activities. Additionally, the best management practices (BMPs) and project design features included in the SEIR would apply to the proposed Project. Impacts to water quality would remain less than significant.

The proposed change in land uses would not result in any substantial changes in the amount of impervious surfaces or runoff in the Specific Plan area, changes in the location of development, or to the drainage plan and, for this reason, no new or substantially more severe impacts related to hydrology would result from the proposed amendment.

138

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-33 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

3.7 AESTHETICS
Certified EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Proposed
Project
Impact
Conclusion
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New or
Changed
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
Significant
impact
Less than
significant No No No
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway.

Significant
and
unavoidable
impact
Less than
significant No No No
c) Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of the site and its
surroundings.

Significant
and
unavoidable
impact
Less than
significant No No No
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the
area?
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant No No No
The East Area 1 Specific Plan Project has been under development since 2017, with mass grading completed in 2018. Homes have been developed in the Haun Creek Residential Neighborhood and Hallock Center District and the first phase of the community Sports Park is currently underway.

As described in the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR, design features implemented with the East Area 1 Specific Plan Project preserve existing scenic views of the surrounding foothills and views along portions of Santa Paula Creek and Haun Creek. Panoramic vistas that take in a sweeping breadth of the mountains and foothills forming the river valley and vistas overlooking the lower man-made and natural horizon features of the area would not be blocked through development of the Specific Plan area. However, foreground and middle distant open views across the now-open Specific Plan area would be replaced with residential, commercial, light industrial, and civic structures, in addition to a circulation system and supporting infrastructure, resulting in significant impacts to scenic vistas.

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR determined that development of the Specific Plan area would incorporate the existing historic structures into its design features. Although the hillsides and bluffs in the north part of the Specific Plan area would be preserved, along with many of the mature trees, orchards, and row crops, various areas within the Specific Plan area would be removed and replaced with urban development. Therefore, the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR determined scenic views from surrounding areas would be impacted resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts to visual resources. 139

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-34 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
The East Area 1 Specific Plan Project includes development standards for frontage, building types, architecture, thoroughfares, and landscape to ensure the implementation of an attractive, pedestrianoriented community that is harmonious with the scale of existing buildings in the City of Santa Paula.

Although these development standards will be required to ensure a consistent and compatible aesthetic character, the existing open space and agricultural character of the Specific Plan area would substantially change with development. The 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR determined this impact on the visual character of the Specific Plan Area would be significant and unavoidable.

The East Area 1 Specific Plan Project development standards prohibit reflective, glare-producing building materials. Daytime glare produced from the sun reflecting off glass windows would be brief and intermittent. Impacts related to nighttime light and glare were identified as potentially significant in the certified 2015 SEIR.

The impacts of converting the Specific Plan area from an agricultural site to urban development was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact on views of scenic vistas, visual resources, and the visual character of the Specific Plan area, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures in the 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR and 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to these impacts with approval of the Specific Plan in 2008 and the Amended Specific Plan in 2015.

The proposed amendment would change the land uses allowed within the Specific Plan area to allow the development of additional homes in areas already graded and improved for development in conformance with the development and design standards in the Approved Specific Plan for residential development.

Specifically, the proposed amendment would increase residential development by 550 units and eliminate 240,000 square feet of commercial/industrial development. The additional homes that would be allowed by the proposed amendment would occur in the lower portions of the site where commercial and light industrial development is currently allowed by the approved Specific Plan, and the structures would be no taller than 3 stories for multifamily buildings or 2 stories for single-family residences.

Therefore, the proposed amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resources in or around the Specific Plan area. Additionally, the development standards outlined in Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 ensure that the proposed amendment will not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the Specific Plan area or create a new source of substantial light or glare.

For these reasons, no new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of the impacts to aesthetics identified in the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR would result from the proposed amendment. 140

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-35 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

3.8 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Certified EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Proposed
Project
Impact
Conclusion
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New or
Changed
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension
of roads or other
infrastructure).

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing housing, especially
affordable housing,
necessitating the construction
of replacement housing
elsewhere.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
c) Displace substantial numbers
of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR concluded the population and housing impacts were less than significant.

The increase in population from the Approved Specific Plan was found to not exceed population estimates provided by SCAG, as such impacts were found to be less than significant.

Additionally, the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR found that while the development of the Project would include the removal of nine existing housing units, the displacement would be offset by the additional housing units included in the development. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

The proposed amendment includes the addition of 550 housing units. The SCAG 2020 population projections for Santa Paula include a population of 30,700 residents in 2016, and a projection of 35,400 residents in 2045.
11 The population of the City of Santa Paula in 2020 was 30,389.12 11 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2020 Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdfAccessed January 2024.
12 City of Santa Paula, General Plan, 2029 Housing Element, http://www.mysantapaula.com/uploads/1/1/9/8/119843127/santa_paula_6th_housing_element_2023-04- 28_adopted_revised_tracked_hcd.pdf. Accessed January 2024. 141

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-36 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
The City’s projected housing needs are based on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) as developed by the SCAG.13 The RHNA is a key tool for local governments to plan for anticipated growth.

The latest RHNA was adopted by SCAG in March 2021 and covers the projection period of June 30, 2021, to October 15, 2029. The future need for housing is determined by the forecasted growth in households in a community, a vacancy adjustment to promote housing choice and mobility, an adjustment to account for units expected to be lost due to demolition, natural disaster, or conversion to non-housing uses, and existing need due to current overcrowding and overpayment. The total projected need for housing in the City of Santa Paula during the 2021-2029 period is 657 units.14 Santa Paula has a total of approximately 9,050 housing units, with single-family detached being the most prevalent housing type.15 The share of all single-family units in Santa Paula is 66 percent, or 5,973 total units, and the share of multi-family units is 25 percent, or 2,263 total units, with the remaining units being mobile homes.
16 The proposed amendment would result in changes to the housing mix within the Specific Plan area. The total number of previously approved single-family units would decrease by 316 units, and the total number of multi-family units including condominium and apartment units would increase by 866 units.

According to the City of Santa Paula 2021-2029 Housing Element,17 the land inventory summary identifies the capacity for 1,871 additional units of housing, without East Area 1. With the 1,500 units allowed by the Approved Specific Plan, the residential capacity of the City’s land inventory is 3,371 units. The proposed amendment would increase the capacity of the City’s residential land use inventory by 550 units to 3,921 housing units.

The 550 additional units proposed would result in an estimated population increase of 1,925 residents in the Specific Plan area based on an average household size of 3.5 persons per household. When this additional population growth of 1,925 persons is added to the 2020 population for the City of Santa Paula of 30,389, the City’s population would increase to 32,314, which is 3,086 lower than the population 13 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Regional Housing Needs Assessment, https://scag.ca.gov/rhna .

Accessed January 2024.
14 Southern California Association of Governments, Final RHNA Allocation Plan (2021), https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121.pdf?1646938785.

Accessed January 2024.
15 City of Santa Paula, General Plan, 2029 Housing Element, http://www.mysantapaula.com/uploads/1/1/9/8/119843127/santa_paula_6th_housing_element_2023-04- 28_adopted_revised_tracked_hcd.pdf. Accessed January 2024. 16 City of Santa Paula, General Plan, 2029 Housing Element, http://www.mysantapaula.com/uploads/1/1/9/8/119843127/santa_paula_6th_housing_element_2023-04- 28_adopted_revised_tracked_hcd.pdf. Accessed January 2024. 17 City of Santa Paula, General Plan, 2029 Housing Element, http://www.mysantapaula.com/uploads/1/1/9/8/119843127/santa_paula_6th_housing_element_2023-04- 28_adopted_revised_tracked_hcd.pdf. Accessed January 2024 142

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-37 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
projected by SCAG for the City for 2045. The anticipated growth would be 7,286 less than estimated in the City’s 2040 General Plan.

As discussed in the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR, the development under the proposed Project would include the removal of nine existing farmworker housing units. While these residential units will be displaced, the displacement will be offset by the overall addition of 2,050 residential units that will be constructed within the EA1 SP Area. In addition, there are vacancies in existing housing stocks within the City of Santa Paula and County of Ventura in general that will offer housing options for any displaced residents of the onsite farmworker units.

The additional growth in population and housing that would result from the proposed amendment would be consistent with current growth projections and the City’s Housing Element and for this reason, no new significant population and housing impacts would result from the proposed amendment.

143

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-38 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES
Certified EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Proposed
Project
Impact
Conclusion
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New or
Changed
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which would cause
significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service rations,
response times or other
performance objectives of public
services including:
a) Fire protection? Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
b) Police protection? Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
c) Schools? Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
d) Parks? Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
e) Other public facilities? Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
Analysis of impacts related to Threshold D (Parks) is addressed in the following section, Recreation. The proposed amendment would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks facilities.

3.9.1 Fire and Police
Fire and Police Protection Services are provided in the City of Santa Paula by the Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD) and Santa Paula Police Department (SPPD).

The Ventura County Fire Department has two fire stations located on the East and West sides of Santa Paula. VCFD Station 29 is located on the Eastside at 114 South 10th Street. VCFD Station 26 is located on the Westside at 536 West Main Street. The Santa Paula Police Department (SPPD) currently operates out of a facility at 214 South 10th Street and the Las Piedras Park Community Policing Building at 431 North 13th Street. Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 outlines goals, policies, and programs related to infrastructure and public services. The following specifically relate to police and fire protection:
144

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-39 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

3.14.2 Policy D – Police Protection

4. Public safety issues must be considered in all aspects of project design, including crime prevention through design.

3.14.2 Policy E – Fire Protection

1. Development must incorporate designs, systems and practices for fire safety, prevention and suppression.

2. All proposed developments must be reviewed for compliance with fire safety standards in accordance with the Santa Paula Municipal Code.

3.14.3 Program 6

3. Submit development plans to the police department and fire department to ensure to the extent practical that design of the project facilitates public safety.

Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 would change the land uses allowed within the Specific Plan area.

Allowed residential development would increase by 550 units, resulting in an increase in the service population for police and fire of 1,925 residents. Allowed commercial/industrial development would decrease by 240,000 square feet. Impacts of the proposed amendment related to police protection, schools, and libraries would be less than significant with payment of applicable development impact fees and the provision of land and funding for a Fire/Police station in the Hallock Center District. Development of new public safety facilities would be subject to additional independent review under CEQA and, for this reason, the proposed amendment would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities.

For this reason, no new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of the impacts on police and fire services would result from the proposed amendment.

3.9.2 Schools
The Santa Paula Creek Civic District as shown in Figure 2.1: Approved Land Use Plan included sites for the development of primary and secondary school facilities by the Santa Paula Unified School District (SPUSD). The 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR analyzed the development and operation of a K–8 school with a capacity of 800 students on a 10.9-acre site in the Civic District and secondary (high school) facilities on an 8.3-acre site in the Civic District. Since 2015, the SPUSD determined the K-8 school was not needed and residential uses were approved by the City for the 10.9-acre elementary school site.

Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 would permit an additional 550 residential units to be developed within the Specific Plan area for a total of 2,050 residential units. According to the SPUSD 2022 Developer Fee 145

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-40 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
Justification Study, the District’s current State calculated capacity for K-8 facilities is 4,010 seats.18 Projected K-8 enrollment over the next 5 years, accounting for new residential development, is 3,624 students. This projection would result in 386 available seats within existing K-8 facilities.

Because the District’s 5-year projection accounted for the 1,500 residential units approved in the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR, it is estimated that the proposed 550 additional residential units would generate 223 students, based on the District’s K-8 student generation factors.19 Therefore, the additional 223 students associated with the proposed amendment would not exceed the projected 386 available seats within existing K-8 facilities over the next 5 years.

School impact fees will be paid for each of the 2,050 total residential units permitted in the Specific Plan area upon approval of the proposed amendment. According to the SPUSD 2022 Developer Fee Justification Study, these developer fees will be used for the provision of additional and reconstructed or modernized school facilities. Payment of these fees constitutes full mitigation under CEQA for impacts to school facilities. The 8.3-acre school site in the Civic District remains available for the development of additional school facilities as determined necessary by SPUSD.

The existing K-8 capacity of the SPUSD can accommodate the generation of students associated with the proposed additional housing units, therefore, the proposed amendment would not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities. The collection of school impact fees and the allocation of an

8.3-acre school site in the Civic District of the Specific Plan area ensures that additional, reconstructed, or modernized school facilities can be provided in the future if they become necessary.

For these reasons, no new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of the impacts on school facilities would result from the proposed amendment.

3.9.3 Libraries
The Blanchard/Santa Paula Public Library District (Blanchard Community Library), located at 119 N. 8th Street, provides library services to both the greater Santa Paula community as well as the residents of the East Area 1 neighborhoods. The 2015 SEIR determined that the potential increase in service demand associated with the development of 1,500 new homes and an increase in population of 5,275 would be met through a combination of existing facilities and digital services. Additionally, new development in 18 Santa Paula Unified School District, 2022 Developer Fee Justification Study (2022), https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1695072802/santapaulaunifiedorg/evr5tqo4bkgenpom5fxn/SPUSD2022DeveloperFee JustificationStudy.pdf. Accessed July 2023.
19 SPUSD K-8 Student Generation Factor is 0.4061 students per household; 550 residential units x 0.4061 = 223 students generated.
146

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-41 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
the Specific Plan area is required to pay a per parcel tax of $40, paid to the County tax collector, which will go directly to the library.20
The development of 550 additional residential units would result in an estimated population increase of 1,925 residents in the Specific Plan Area based on an average household size of 3.5 persons per household.

The potential increase in service demand associated with an increase in population of 1,925 residents associated with the proposed amendment would also be met through a combination of existing facilities and digital services, and the increase of 550 residential units would result in an increase in the potential to collect development impact fees per parcel. Payment of these developer fees constitutes full mitigation under CEQA for impacts to library facilities. Therefore, the proposed amendment would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities.

For this reason, no new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of the impacts on library facilities would result from the proposed amendment.
20 City of Santa Paula, East Area 1 Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (2008), https://www.spcity.org/325/Environmental-Impact-Report. Accessed January 2023. 147

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-42 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

3.10 RECREATION
Certified EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Proposed
Project
Impact
Conclusion
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New or
Changed
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
b) Include recreational facilities
or require the construction of
recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse
physical effect on the
environment.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
Approximately 225 acres (45%) of the Specific Plan area will consist of undeveloped land, consisting of open space uses (including parks and greenways, shared athletic fields, and open space preserve) and agricultural preserve. A total of approximately 88.0 acres will be parkland that includes the following:
approximately 55.2 acres of neighborhood parks and greenways in the three Neighborhoods and Civic District; and approximately 37.8 acres of shared use athletic fields in the Community Park, available for school and community use. Each park will be fully accessible via an integral system of sidewalks and multi-use paths, all of which meet current accessibility standards. Approximately 77.3 acres will remain open space preserve. Approximately 55.0 acres will remain in active agricultural operations and will not be open to the public.21
The City’s goal is to provide 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Based on Santa Paula’s projected 2040 population of approximately 39,600, a total of 198 acres of parkland would be required to achieve this desired standard. Existing and approved parks plus future parks identified in the City’s 2040 General Plan would yield a total of approximately 440 acres of parkland, which would exceed the City’s goal.22 Therefore, the proposed amendment would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

The land use changes included in Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 would not result in any changes to the approximately 225 acres of park or open space areas defined in the 2015 SEIR. Park and recreation 21 City of Santa Paula, East Area 1 Specific Plan SP-3 (2023) 22 City of Santa Paula, East Area 1 Specific Plan SP-3 (2023). 148

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-43 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
facilities and the amount of park space in the Specific Plan area would continue to meet and exceed the City’s park standards as outlined in the General Plan with the 550 additional residential units proposed.23 The proposed amendment does not require the construction of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

For these reasons, no new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of the impacts on recreation would result from the proposed amendment.
23 City of Santa Paula, General Plan, Public Services and Utilities, https://www.spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/1713/2040- General-Plan-Section-6---Public-Services-and-Utilities-Element. Accessed July 2023. 149

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-44 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

3.11 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Certified EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Proposed
Project
Impact
Conclusion
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New or
Changed
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a) Exceed wastewater
treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
b) Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant
environmental effects.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
c) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project
from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlement is
needed.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
d) Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
e) Not be served by a landfill
with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal
needs.

Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant No No No
f) Not comply with federal,
State, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste.

Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant No No No
Updated water and sewer master plan reports for the proposed specific plan amendment are provided in Appendix C: Water and Sewer Master Plan Reports.

3.11.1 Water
In the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR, it was determined that the Project would result in an estimated water demand within the range previously considered. Additionally, the water demand was within the total groundwater availability. The City of Santa Paula would have sufficient water rights to extract the 150

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-45 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
amount of water from groundwater supplies to meet the needs of the Specific Plan area, and impacts were found to be less than significant.

For the past 10 years (2013 to 2022), residential water usage has comprised approximately 76 percent of the City’s water usage; commercial/institutional is the next largest user at approximately 14 percent.

The remaining uses are all under 10 percent.
24 While the percentage breakdown of usage has remained relatively the same throughout the years in the City, the actual quantities of water usage have decreased.

As shown in Table 3.11-1: Historical Water Usage, the percentage of Residential and Commercial/Institutional water usage in the Specific Plan area is slightly lower than average city use, and other water usage is slightly higher than average city use. The percentage of water usage by land use in the City is projected to remain consistent through the year 2040, as shown in Table 3.11-2:

Projected Water Demands.

TABLE 3.11-1

HISTORICAL WATER USAGE
Use Type
City Water Use (AF)a
% of
Total
EA1 Water
Use (AF)b
% of
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2036
Residential 2967 3170 3245 3074 2822 76 514 69
Commercial/Institutional 492 778 539 532 523 14 19.8 3
Other 448 176 320 471 583 10 206.9 28
Notes:
a – City of Santa Paula 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2021 b- East Area 1 Specific Plan SP-3, May 2023
TABLE 3.11-2

PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS
Use Type
EA1 Water Use (AF)b
% of
Total City Water Use (AF)b
% of
Total
2036 2025 2030 2035 2040
Residential 514 69 3478 3730 3983 4235 78
Commercial/Institutional 19.8 3 560 594 628 662 12
Other 206.9 28 473 489 504 521 10
Notes:
a – City of Santa Paula 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2021 b- East Area 1 Specific Plan SP-3, May 2023
24 City of Santa Paula, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2021), https://spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/2017/Urban-Water-Management-Plan---2020-Update-?bidId=.

Accessed July 2023.
151

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-46 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
As shown in Table 3.11-3: Approved Project – Domestic Water Land Uses and Demands, the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR estimated that the total water demand for all uses permitted by the Approved Specific Plan was approximately 1,332 acre feet per year (AFY) based on assumed demand for residential uses of 163 per person per day, the demand factor identified in the City’s 2005 Potable Water Master Plan Since the certification of the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR, the residential demand rate for the Specific Plan area has been reduced to reflect water conservation requirements adopted by the City in 2015 in response to State requirements.
25 In 2018, two laws were passed imposing new water conservation standards, establishing an indoor water use standard of 55 gallons per person per day until January 2025, and then to 50 gallons per person per day in 2030. For this reason, the amount of water used by each home will be less than was assumed in 2015.

Based on meter readings taken in 2022 for the developed units in the Specific Plan, the calculated average daily use was determined to be 51 gallons per person per day, slightly lower than the current indoor state standard of 55 gallons per person per day. 26 To ensure a conservative analysis, the daily use
rate was increased by 25 percent to 64 gallons per person per day, 27 as shown in Table 3.11-4: Proposed
Project—Domestic Water Land Uses and Demands.

TABLE 3.11-3
APPROVED PROJECT – DOMESTIC WATER LAND USES AND DEMANDS Land Use Total Units Area (Acres) Demand Rates
(gpdp) Annual Demand (AF)
Residential 1,500
Single Family 1,100 163 713.8
Multi Family 400 163 255.62
Light Industrial 25,000 sq. ft. 2.49 g/sq. ft./yr 0.2
Commercial 215,000 sq. ft. 15.10 g/sq. ft./yr 10.0
Civic/Institutional
Elementary School 10.8 1.81 AFY/acre 19.7
High School 8.3 1.81 AFY/acre 15.0
Police/Fire 35,197 sq. ft. 15.10 g/sq. ft./yr 1.6
Other Water Consumption
Shared Athletic Fields 37.79 2.22 AFY/acre 83.9
Parks/Greenways 54.51 2.22 AFY/acre 121.0
Agricultural Preserve (irrigated) 55.0 2.02 AFY/acre 111.1 Open Space Preserve (not irrigated) 79.4 No water use 0 25 City of Santa Paula, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2021), https://spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/2017/Urban-Water-Management-Plan---2020-Update-?bidId=.

Accessed July 2023.
26 Jenson Design & Survey, Inc., Potable Water System Master Plan Amendment – Harvest at Limoneira (2023), Accessed January 2024.
27 Jenson Design & Survey, Inc., Potable Water System Master Plan Amendment – Harvest at Limoneira (2023) Accessed January 2024.
152

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-47 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
TABLE 3.11-3
APPROVED PROJECT – DOMESTIC WATER LAND USES AND DEMANDS Land Use Total Units Area (Acres) Demand Rates
(gpdp) Annual Demand (AF)
TOTAL 1,331.9
Notes; gpdp = gallons per day per person
Demand is estimated at 3.75 residents per dwelling for single family units and 3.5 residents per dwelling for multifamily units.

Source: East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment 2, November 2015.

TABLE 3.11-4
PROPOSED PROJECT – DOMESTIC WATER LAND USES AND DEMANDS Proposed Land Use Total Units Area (Acres)
Demand Rates
(gpdp) Annual Demand (AF)
Residential 2050
Santa Paula Creek
Neighborhood
489 64 123
Foothill Neighborhood 554 64 139
Haun Creek
Neighborhood
586 64 147
Parcel C 121 64 30
Parcel A Lots 1-3 300 64 75
Civic/Institutional
School Parcel C1 and
Rec Center

10.94 1.81 AFY/acre 19.8
Other Water Consumption
Shared Athletic Fields 37.8 2.22 AFY/acre 83.9
Parks/Greenways 55.2 2.22 AFY/acre 123
Agricultural Preserve (irrigated) 55.0 No water use 0
Open Space Preserve (not irrigated) 77.3 No water use 0 TOTAL 741
Notes; gpdp = gallons per day per person
Demand is estimated at 3.5 residents per dwelling for all proposed dwellings per the City of Santa Paula Water Master Plan (single family attached, single family detached, and multifamily). Actual Tract Usage was measured for the year 2022 and averaged per house at 51 gpdp with a 25 percent reserve added on equates to 64 gpdp.

Source: Jensen Design and Survey, Inc., 2023 (Appendix C of this Addendum).

As the total water demand for East Area 1 as a whole would be reduced with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, no additional water facilities would need to be constructed and no new impacts from the construction of water facilities would result from the proposed amendment.

3.11.2 Wastewater
The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR concluded the Specific Plan would not generate wastewater that would exceed water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Los Angeles RWQCB. Uses within the Specific Plan Area will generate wastewater that will be 153

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-48 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
collected by the City’s sewer system and conveyed to the City Water Recycling Facility for treatment.

Effluent from the treatment plant must comply with the Santa Paula Municipal Code to meet the requirements of the Waste Discharge Requirements permit issued to the City by the Los Angeles RWQCB.

As a result, the treated effluent will not exceed applicable requirements, potential impacts related to wastewater treatment are less than significant.

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR concluded the Specific Plan would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The Water Recycling Facility has a normal operating capacity of 3.15 mgd, with a final build-out capacity of 4.2 mgd and a peak operating capacity of 7.0 mgd. The City was generating approximately 2 mgd. This provides unused capacity at the facility to accept the incremental addition of 0.53 mgd from occupancy of the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR, and as such, would result in a less than significant impact to wastewater treatment capacity.

The City’s Wastewater System Master Plan28 addresses the wastewater collection facilities planned to serve the Specific Plan area. Table 3.11-5: Approved Project – Wastewater Generation shows that the average daily wastewater flow was estimated at approximately 332 gallons per minute (GPM) for the Approved Specific Plan.

TABLE 3.11-5
APPROVED PROJECT – WASTEWATER GENERATION
Land Use Total
Units
Area
(Acres)
Water Demand
Rates (gpcd)
Average
Daily
Water Flow
(GPM)
Average
Daily
Wastewater
Flow (GPM)
Peak Daily
Wet
Wastewater
Flow (GPM)
Peak Hour
Flow (GPM)
Residential 1500
Santa Paula Creek
Neighborhood 489 85 77.7 233.0 155.4
Foothill
Neighborhood 554 85 101.6 304.9 203.3
Haun Creek
Neighborhood 632 85 130.6 391.7 261.1
Light Industrial 25,000 2.49 gal/SF/YR 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2
Commercial 215,000 15.1 gal/SF/YR 6.2 4.6 13.9 9.3
Civic/Institutional 20.2 1.81 AF/YR/acre 22.7 17 51.0 34.0 TOTAL 29.0 331.6 994.9 663.2
Source: Jensen Design and Survey, Inc., 2023 (Appendix C of this Addendum).

Existing site improvements include all of the backbone infrastructure needed to serve the project area.

All sewer piping is PVC and ranges in size from 8” to 15,” with 4” and 6” laterals serving individual lots.

The entirety of the Project Site is currently serviced by a 15” diameter sewer main in Telegraph Road 28 City of Santa Paula, Wastewater System Master Plan (2012). https://spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/637/East-GatewayProject-Final-Environmental-Impact-Report---Appendix-2b-Wastewater-Master-PlanPDF#:~:text=The%20City%20of%20Santa%20Paula,City's%20sanitary%20sewer%20collection%20system. Accessed July 2023. 154

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-49 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
installed with the Project Site improvements. This sewer main is connected to the new sewer lift station also constructed with the Project Site improvements. This lift station is sized to handle the approved Project as well as the buildout of East Gateway Project Area, as described in the City’s Wastewater System Master Plan.
29 Wastewater generation for all residential land uses within the Specific Plan Area and offsite areas was previously calculated based on a wastewater flow of 85 gallons per capita day (gpcd). Since 2017, the project has completed sewer flow monitoring and collected water meter readings. The water demand rate equates to 64 gpcd. Assuming 25% of the water use is for irrigation, a sewer discharge rate of 75% of water demand would equate to 48 gpcd. As shown in Table 3.11-6: Proposed Project − Wastewater Generation the average daily wastewater flow would be reduced from approximately 332 GPM to 248 GPM.

TABLE 3.11-6
PROPOSED PROJECT − WASTEWATER GENERATION
Land Use Total
Units
Area
(Acres)
Sewer
Generation
Rates
(gpcd)
Average
Daily Water
Flow (GPM)
Average
Daily
Wastewater
Flow (GPM)
Peak Daily
Wet
Wastewater
Flow (GPM)
Peak
Hour
Flow
(GPM)
Residential 2050
Santa Paula Creek
Neighborhood 489 48 57.1 171.2 114.1
Foothill
Neighborhood 554 48 64.6 193.9 129.3
Haun Creek
Neighborhood 586 48 68.4 205.1 136.7
Parcel C (pm
6065) 121 48 14.1 42.4 28.2
Parcel A Lots 1-3 300 48 35.0 105.0 70.0
Civic/Institutional
School Parcel C1
& Rec Center 10.94 1.81 AFY/acre 12.3 9 27.6 18.4
TOTAL 12.3 248.4 745.1 496.7
Source: Jensen Design and Survey, Inc., 2023 (Appendix C of this Addendum).

The existing wastewater infrastructure constructed to date has been designed in accordance with City approved plans and reports and the system can handle the increase in unit count from the project. No new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of the impacts identified in the 2015 Supplemental EIR would result from the proposed amendment as the proposed amendment would reduce the average daily wastewater flow by approximately 84 GPM. The proposed changes to the Specific Plan would not result in the need for upgrades to existing wastewater collection facilities. As the total amount 29 City of Santa Paula, Wastewater System Master Plan (2012). https://spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/637/East-GatewayProject-Final-Environmental-Impact-Report---Appendix-2b-Wastewater-Master-PlanPDF#:~:text=The%20City%20of%20Santa%20Paula,City's%20sanitary%20sewer%20collection%20system. Accessed January 2024. 155

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-50 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
of wastewater generated by East Area 1 as a whole would be reduced with the proposed specific plan amendment, no additional wastewater collection facilities would need to be constructed and no new impacts from the construction of wastewater facilities would result from the proposed amendment.

3.11.3 Solid Waste
Solid waste collection services are provided in the City of Santa Paula by a private solid waste collection company and disposed of at the Toland Road Landfill (operated by the Ventura Regional Sanitation District), Chicquita Canyon Landfill (operated by Chicquita Canyon, Inc.), and Del Norte Regional Recycling and Transfer Station (operated by the City of Oxnard). The Toland Road landfill has a total capacity of 30 million cubic yards, with a remaining capacity of 10.4 million cubic yards as of 2016. The County has estimated that the landfill will reach capacity in approximately 2028.30 In 2017 Los Angeles County approved a permit for the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, allowing the landfill to accept an average of 8,974 tons per day through 2024 and an average of 5,769 from 2025 through 2047.31 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 includes policies that support recycling to reduce the amount of solid waste sent to the landfill.

The proposed amendment to the East Area 1 Specific Plan would increase the number of housing units allowed within the Specific Plan area from 1,500 to 2,050 units and would eliminate commercial and industrial uses. As shown in Table 3.11-7: Solid Waste Generation, the proposed land use changes would result in a net decrease in solid waste generation for the Specific Plan area from the land uses analyzed in the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR. For these reasons, no new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of the impacts on solid waste would result from the proposed amendment.

TABLE 3.11-7

SOLID WASTE GENERATION
2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR 2023 East Area Specific Plan SP-3 Land Use Total
Units
Area
(sq. ft.)
Solid Waste
Generation Total Units Area (sq. ft.)
Solid Waste
Generation
Residential 1,500 2,825.1
tons/unit/yra 2,050 3,080.58 tons/unit/yra
Commercial/
Industrial 240,000 2,592 tons/sq.
ft./yrb 0 0 tons/sq. ft./yr
TOTAL 5,417.1 tons/yr 3,080.58 tons/yr
a. Single-family residential solid waste generation rate is 2.04 tons/unit/yr, multifamily residential solid waste generation rate is 1.17 tons/unit/yr.
b. Commercial/Industrial solid waste generation rate is 0.0108 tons/sq. ft./yr.

Source: Ventura County Solid Waste Management Department. Guidelines of Preparation of Environmental Assessments for Solid Waste Impacts. May 1998.
30 City of Santa Paula, General Plan, Public Services and Utilities, https://www.spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/1713/2040- General-Plan-Section-6---Public-Services-and-Utilities-Element. Accessed January 2024. 31 City of Santa Paula, General Plan, Public Services and Utilities, https://www.spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/1713/2040- General-Plan-Section-6---Public-Services-and-Utilities-Element. Accessed January 2024. 156

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-51 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

3.12 GREENHOUSE GAS
Certified EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Proposed
Project
Impact
Conclusion
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New or
Changed
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
b) Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
The 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR did not evaluate the impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At the time the document was certified, analysis of emissions of GHG and associated global climate change impacts was not required under CEQA.

In addition, GHGs were not identified as air pollutants under the Federal Clean Air Act32 and the California Clean Air Act.33 On June 19, 2008, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued a technical advisory as interim guidance regarding the analysis of GHG emissions in CEQA documents.34 The advisory indicated that a project’s GHG emissions, including those associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities, should be identified and estimated. The advisory further recommended that the lead agency determine significance of the impacts and impose all mitigation measures necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant level.

OPR adopted CEQA guidelines that became effective on March 18, 2010, however neither a threshold of significance or any mitigation measures are included in the provided guidelines.35 The guidelines require a lead agency to make a good-faith effort, based on the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project. Discretion is given to the lead agency whether to:
32 Environmental Protection Agency, Summary of the Clean Air Act, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-cleanair-act. Accessed July 2023. 33 State of California Department of Justice, Clean Air Act, https://oag.ca.gov/environment/clean-air. Accessed January 2024. 34 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory – CEQA and Climate change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act, https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/ceqa-climate-change.html. Accessed January 2024. 35 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory – CEQA and Climate change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act, https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/ceqa-climate-change.html. Accessed January 2024. 157

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-52 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
1) use a model or methodology to quantify GHG emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use; or
2) rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. Section 15064.4(b) states that the lead agency should focus on the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change.

The analysis should consider a timeframe appropriate for the project and must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes (14 CCR 15064.4[b]).36 Furthermore, three factors are identified that should be considered in the evaluation of the significance of GHG emissions:

1. The extent to which a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting;

2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and

3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

Furthermore, while project- and cumulative level- significance determinations are provided below, it is generally recognized that global climate change and a project’s GHG emissions are inherently cumulative issues, based on the science of global climate change.37 The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR evaluated GHG emissions based on the methodology and thresholds of the VCAPCD as relied upon by the city of Santa Paula. However, neither VCAPCD nor the City of Santa Paula has adopted GHG emissions thresholds, and no GHG emissions reduction plan with established GHG emissions reduction strategies has yet been adopted.

The VCAPCD has issued guidance on the use of GHG thresholds for CEQA documents. Among the approaches, VCAPCD supports the use of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) quantitative GHG emissions thresholds which have established a maximum allowable quantity of emissions per capita or “service population.” One threshold – 6.6 metric tons CO2E/year per service population (defined to include both residents and employees) – applies to General Plans. A second and lower threshold – 4.6 metric tons CO2E/year per service population – applies to all other land use projects. The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR analysis utilized the 4.6 metric tons CO2E/year per service population threshold.
36 California Code of Regulations (CCR), sec. 15064.4, Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 37 See, for example, Letter from Cynthia Bryant, Director of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to Mike Chrisman, California Secretary for Natural Resources, dated April 13, 2009. 158

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-53 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR concluded that potential impacts of the generation GHG emissions on the environment would be less than significant since construction and operational GHG emissions would not exceed business as usual methodologies.

The 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR also found that the Project would incorporate energy and water efficiency design features to enhance efficiency in all aspects of a building’s life cycle. These designs would increase the energy efficiency, water efficiency, and overall sustainability of all buildings constructed within the Specific Plan Area. The Project would meet or exceed Title 24 energy requirements by 15 percent consistent with the Voluntary Green Building Program. For these reasons, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation. Impacts would be less than significant.

Construction
One-time, short-term emissions associated with construction activities are converted to average annual emissions by amortizing them over the service life of a building. For buildings in general, it is reasonable to look at a 30-year timeframe because this is a typical interval before a new building requires its first major renovation.38 This is done in order to include these emissions as part of the annual total operational emissions. Therefore, construction related GHG emissions resulting from continued construction in the Specific Plan area with the proposed amendment are annualized over a 30-year period.

The proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 would replace the approved commercial and business park land uses with residential uses and increase the allowable residential units within the Specific Plan area from 1,500 to 2,050.

Construction GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Comparisons of emissions for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 are presented in Table 3.12-1: Construction GHG Emission Comparisons.

As shown in Table 3.12-1, GHG emissions would decrease approximately 35,867 MTCO2e. This is due to the increasingly efficient equipment and the implementation of more stringent GHG reducing plans, such as California Air Resources Board's (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan Update, which outlines a path to reducing GHG emissions.

As the proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 would not increase construction emissions and, for this reason, no new or substantially more significant impacts would result from the proposed amendment. 38 International Energy Agency (IEA), Energy Efficiency Requirements in Building Codes, Energy Efficiency Policies for New Buildings, IEA Information Paper (2008), https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-efficiency-requirements-in-building-codespolicies-for-new-buildings. Accessed July 2023. 159

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-54 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
TABLE 3.12-1

CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS COMPARISONS
Construction Year Adopted Specific Plan Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Difference
First Year 7,317.4 3,900.0 -3,417.4
Second Year 9,247.7 3,181.0 -6,066.7
Third Year 8,803.9 2,995.0 -5,808.9
Fourth Year 6,692.9 2,947.0 -3,745.9
Fifth Year 5,730.2 2,885.0 -2,845.2
Sixth Year 5,579.7 2,829.0 -2,750.7
Seventh Year 5,528.0 2,776.0 -2,752.0
Eighth Year 5,463.0 2,732.0 -2,731.0
Ninth Year 5,768.9 2,894.0 -2,874.9
Tenth Year 5,954.3 2,938.0 -3,016.3
Eleventh Year - 1,42.0 -
Total Emissions 66,086.0 30,219.0 -35,867.0
Annualized over
Project Lifetime 2,202.9 1,007.3 -1,195.6
Refer to Appendix B of this Addendum for Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas CalEEMod Output Sheets.

Abbreviation: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions As shown in Table 3.12-1, construction emissions resulting for the proposed changes in the Specific Plan would decrease by approximately 1,196 MTCO2e per year when compared to the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR. The resulting construction emissions would be less than those identified previously in the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR. Impacts from construction emissions were previously found to be less than significant without mitigation.

Operation
The changes proposed to the Specific Plan Amendment would result in a decrease of approximately 1,773.9 MTCO2e per year as shown in Table 3.12-2: Operational GHG Emissions. This represents a decrease of approximately 6.3% in GHG emissions due to the changes in land use. Additionally, a 4.6 metric tons CO2E/year per service population threshold was used to determine significance of GHG emission in the SEIR. As the proposed Project is estimated result in a 6,786 increase in population, resulting in a ratio 3.9 of CO2E per year which is below the 4.6 CO2E per year threshold. 160

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-55 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
TABLE 3.12-2
OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS (MTCO2E/YEAR)
Source Adopted Specific Plan Proposed Specific Plan
Amendment Difference
Construction (amortized) 2,202.9 1,007.3 -1,195.6
Mobile 15,045.3 18,027.0 2,981.7
Energy 8,130.0 6,411.0 -1,719.0
Area 19.8 27.0 7.2
Water 1,626.4 431.0 -1,195.4
Waste 1,193.5 541.0 -652.5
Total 28,217.9 26,444.3 -1,773.6
Refer to Appendix B for Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas CalEEMod Output Sheets.

Abbreviation: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

Adopted Mitigation Measure AQ-14 would be implemented, as discussed above. TDM fees will be paid to the City as compensation for exceeding the air quality emissions thresholds of significance, with the City investing in emission-reducing technologies and programs that would reduce air quality emissions in the region. In order to offset the increase in emissions, the amount of the financial contribution would also increase. Generally, a reduction in air quality emissions would have the co-benefit of also reducing GHG emissions. The City would implement additional trip reduction measures to help further reduce vehiclerelated emissions.

As the proposed 6.3% decrease in GHG emissions that would result from the proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 is less than the GHG emissions identified in the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR, the proposed amendment would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of GHG impacts identified for the East Area 1 Specific Plan Project in the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR. .
161

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-56 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024

3.13 ENERGY
Certified EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Proposed
Project
Impact
Conclusion
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New or
Changed
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a) Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
b) Conflict with or obstruct a
State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant No No No
The 2008 East Area 1 SP FEIR did not evaluate the potential energy impacts of the project as energy was not identified as an environmental topic at that time.

Energy impacts related to electricity were evaluated in the Utilities/Service Systems section in the 2015 East Area 1 SP SEIR. The development of the Specific Plan would result in an increased demand for electrical services. Changes to electrical infrastructure would be needed as development increased.

Upgrades and relocation of the on-site transmission’s lines would involve the removal of wooden poles and trenching to install the underground lines. These construction activities are marginal and were included in the overall construction of the East Area 1 Project. Therefore, provision of electrical service to the Specific Plan Area was determined to result in less than significant impacts at that time.

OPR proposed comprehensive updates of the CEQA Guidelines to the California Natural Resources Agency in January 2018.39 CEQA guidelines were finalized and updated to require additional analysis across multiple topics, including for energy impacts, effective December 28, 2018.40 The guidelines require that energy consumption from projects be analyzed based on their usage being considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary during the construction or operation. Additionally, analysis must consider a project’s ability to conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
39 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2018 CEQA Guidelines Update. https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/updates.html. Accessed July 2023. 40 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2018 CEQA Guidelines Update. https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/updates.html. Accessed July 2023. 162

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-57 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
Construction
During construction, energy would be consumed in the form of electricity associated with the conveyance of water used for dust control, and on a limited basis, powering lights, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Construction activities typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas. Construction would also consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the use of off-road construction vehicles and equipment within the Project site, construction worker travel, haul trips, and delivery trips.

Energy use during construction was estimated in Appendix D: Energy Calculations. As shown in Table

3.13-1: Summary of Energy Use During Construction and additionally discussed below, a total of approximately 14,614 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, 3,118,693 gallons of diesel fuel, and 2,226,942 gallons of gasoline is estimated to be consumed during construction.

TABLE 3.13-1

SUMMARY OF ENERGY USE DURING CONSTRUCTION
Fuel Type Quantity
Electricity
Water Conveyance 14,614 kWh
Diesel
Off-Road Construction Equipment 353,076 gallons
On-Road Motor Vehicles 2,765,616 gallons
Total 3,118,693 gallons
Gasoline
Off-Road Construction Equipment 0 gallons
On-Road Motor Vehicles 2,226,942 gallons
Total 2,226,942 gallons
Source: Refer to Appendix D: Energy Calculations.

Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the Project area, including residential, commercial, and industrial uses. As shown in Table 3.13-1, a total of approximately 14,614 kWh of electricity is anticipated to be consumed during construction. The electricity demand at any given time would vary throughout the construction period based on the construction activities being performed and would cease upon completion of construction. In 2022, the County consumed 5,559 GWh and SCE consumed 31,104 Gigawatt hours (GWh).41 The Project’s increased demand will be adequately served by the existing SCE electrical facilities. Total electricity demand in SCE’s service areas is forecast to increase 41 California Energy Commission, California Energy Consumption Database, accessed January 2024, https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/
163

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-58 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
by approximately 23,000 GWh between 2019 and 2035.42 The increase in electricity demand from the Project would represent an insignificant percent increase (i.e., less than a fraction of one percent) compared to overall demand in SCE’s service area.

Transportation Energy
The petroleum-based fuel use summary provided in Table 3.13-1 represents the amount of transportation energy that could potentially be consumed during construction based on a conservative set of assumptions. As shown, on- and off-road vehicles would consume an estimated 5,345,634 gallons of petroleum (3,118,693 gallons of diesel and 2,226,942 gallons of gasoline fuel) throughout the Project’s construction period For purposes of comparison, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts a national oil supply of 17.8 million barrels (mb) per day in 2025, which is the first year of construction for the Project.43 This equates to approximately 272,874 million gallons (mg) per year. Construction of the Project would account for less than 0.01 percent of the projected annual oil supply in 2025.

Operation
During operation of the Project, energy would be consumed for multiple purposes associated with the proposed uses, including, but not limited to, heating/ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC); refrigeration; lighting; and the use of electronics, equipment, and machinery. Energy would also be consumed during operation of the Project in the form of water usage, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips, among others.

As shown in Table 3.13-2: Summary of Annual Energy Use During Operation, the Project’s energy demand would be approximately 13,682,524 kWh of electricity per year, 70,356,318 kBTU of natural gas per year, and 1,972,536 gallons of transportation fuel per year.

TABLE 3.13-2

SUMMARY OF ANNUAL ENERGY USE DURING OPERATION
Source Units Quantity
Electricity
Single Family Housing kWh/yr 4,970,782
Condo/Townhouse kWh/yr 4,208,763
Apartments Low Rise kWh/yr 1,175,511
High School kWh/yr 657,845
City Park kWh/yr -
Water Conveyance kWh/yr 2,669,623
Total Electricity kWh/yr 13,682,524
Natural Gas
42 California Energy Commission, California Energy Demand 2018 – 2030 Revised Forecast – Figure 49: Historical and Projected Baseline Consumption, SCE Planning Area, accessed January 2024, https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/ 43 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2020: Table 11. Petroleum and Other Liquids Supply and Disposition, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=11-AEO2020&cases=ref2020&sourcekey=0, accessed January 2024.
164

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-59 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
TABLE 3.13-2

SUMMARY OF ANNUAL ENERGY USE DURING OPERATION
Source Units Quantity
Single Family Housing kBTU/yr 34,045,809
Condo/Townhouse kBTU/yr 28,578,989
Apartments Low Rise kBTU/yr 5,451,539
High School kBTU/yr 2,279,981
City Park kBTU/yr 0
Total Natural gas kBTU/yr 70,356,318
Transportation Energy
Diesel Gallons/yr 279,907
Gasoline Gallons/yr 1,692,629
Total Fuel Gallons/yr 1,972,536
Notes: kWh/yr = kilowatt-hours per year; kBtu/yr = thousand British Thermal Units per year.

Electricity and Natural Gas for the Project is total yearly operational usage. Mobile gasoline and diesel usage were calculated using CalEEMod output data
Source: Refer to Appendix D: Energy Calculations.

Electricity
As shown in Table 3.13-2, the Project would result in a demand for electricity totaling 13,682,524 kWh (13.7 GWh) per year. SCE estimates that electricity consumption within its planning area will be approximately 127,000 GWh annually by 2030.
44 The Project would account for less than 0.01 percent of the 2030 annual consumption in SCE’s planning area. As such, the Project would account for a negligible portion of the projected annual consumption in SCE’s planning area.

Natural Gas
Natural gas service would be provided to the Project site by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas).

As shown in Table 3.13-2 above, development of the Project is projected to generate an on-site demand for natural gas totaling 70,356,318 kBTU or 70.3 million cubic feet (MMcf) per year. Based on the 2022 California Gas Report, the California Energy and Electric Utilities estimates natural gas supply within SoCalGas’ planning area will be approximately 1,377,875 million cubic feet (MMcf) per year in 2035. 45 The proposed Project would account for less than 0.01 percent of the 2035 annual forecasted supply in SoCalGas’ planning area. Accordingly, natural gas demand during operation would be less than significant.
44 CEC, Demand Analysis Office, California Energy Demand 2018-2030 Revised Forecast, https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244. Accessed January 2024. 45 California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2022 California Gas Report https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_California_Gas_Report_2022.pdf.

Accessed November 2023.
165

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-60 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 January 2024
Transportation Energy
The proposed changes to the Specific Plan would replace the commercial and business park uses currently allowed by the Approved Specific Plan with additional residential uses. As the proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 includes revisions to the already Approved Specific Plan that would increase the number of residential units while removing commercial and industrial uses, the changes in land use would not substantially impact energy demands.

Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 would meet all currently applicable energy conservation standards including the Building Energy Efficiency Standards adopted by the California Energy Commission (Title 24 of the California Administrative Code).46 Building development would be required to comply with the most recently adopted Title 24 Standards. As such, it would not conflict with any state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Based on the analysis above, no new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of the impacts relating to energy identified in the SEIR47 would result from the proposed amendment. 46 California Energy Commission, 2022 Building energy Efficiency Standards, https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-andtopics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency. Accessed July 2023. 47 City of Santa Paula, East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2014), https://www.spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/575/Draft-Supplemental-Environmental-Impact-Report-PDF. Accessed July 2023.
166

APPENDIX A
Transportation Studies
167
600 Wilshire Boulevard | Suite 1050 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 261-3050 | Fax (310) 394-7663 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: June 15, 2023
To: David Lauletta, Lewis Management Corp.

Tony Locacciato, Meridian Consultants
From: Netai Basu, John Muggridge and Yunjie Luo
Subject: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Proposed Changes to Harvest at Limoneira Project
Ref. LA21-3280
Introduction
This memorandum summarizes a VMT assessment and transportation impact analysis completed for proposed changes to the approved East Area 1 Specific Plan in the City of Santa Paula, California. The analysis identifies the changes between the VMT that would be generated by the uses currently allowed by the East Area 1 Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and the uses that would be allowed with the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan.

Project Background
In 2008 the City of Santa Paula approved the East Area 1 Specific Plan to guide the development of approximately 500 acres located east of Santa Paula Creek and north of Telegraph Road with new residential neighborhoods, public facilities, commercial and business park uses. The City approved a specific plan amendment in 2015 that reconfigured the planning areas within the Specific Plan area, maintained the amount of residential allowed and reduced the intensity of commercial and business park development. The East Area 1 Specific Plan also includes sites for the development of new public facilities which include schools, parks, and a fire station.

An amendment to the Specific Plan is proposed that would increase the number of housing units. The acreage of parks and open space would remain unchanged, and 8.3 acres of land would continue to be reserved for the development of a new high school. With the proposed amendment, development of new office, light industrial and retail space would no longer be allowed. Since approval of the 2015 Specific Plan amendment, Santa Paula Unified School District determined the property reserved for development of an elementary school was no longer needed and residential development of this site was approved. The proposed amendment reflects this change.

Table 1 presents detailed information on the uses allowed by the approved Specific Plan as defined and analyzed in the transportation study in the 2015 Supplemental EIR and the uses that would be allowed by the proposed amendment.
168
David Lauletta and Tony Locacciato
June 15, 2023

Page 2 of 10 ends

Santa Paula City CouncilFebruary 13, 2024

Santa Paula City Council
February 13, 2024