Agenda packet — Santa Paula City Council, March 20, 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 REGULAR MEETING OF THE

SANTA PAULA CITY COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2024
6:30 PM - City Council Regular Meeting

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

JULIE LATSHAW, CITY CLERK

DAN SINGER, CITY MANAGER

MONICA CASTILLO, CITY ATTORNEY
City of Santa Paula - City Council - City Council Regular Meeting 1

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
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, when appropriate. Public comments are limited to 3 minutes.

1. Items Not on the Agenda: If you wish to discuss an item which is not scheduled on the Agenda, you may address the City Council during Public Comment. Please realize that due to the limitations placed on the City Council by provisions of the California Government Code, the City Council ordinarily cannot take action on any item that is not on the agenda. Because of these restrictions, expect that matters that you identify during public comment may be referred to staff or considered on a future agenda.

2. Agenda Items: Items being considered by the City Council may appear on the Consent Calendar, as an Action Item, or as a Public Hearing. Public comments on each type of item are handled differently, as explained below:
a. For items appearing on the Consent Calendar, please submit a Public Comment Form before the Council takes action on the Consent Calendar. Items that receive a Public Comment Form may be pulled from the Consent Calendar by the Mayor and discussed separately by the City Council.
b. For items appearing as an Action Item, the Mayor will announce the Agenda item and request the staff report, the staff member responsible will give a brief summary of the report; the City Council will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff; members of the public will be given an opportunity to comment on the item and ask additional questions (all members of the public should speak directly into the microphone at the speaker’s platform); and the City Council will discuss the item and then take appropriate action.
c. For items on which a Public Hearing is scheduled, the Mayor will open the public hearing and receive the staff report; members of the public will be given an opportunity to comment on the item and ask additional questions (all members of the public should speak directly into the microphone at the speaker’s platform); the City Council will discuss the item; and the Mayor will close the public hearing after City Council action.

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 3:00 p.m. (PT) on the meeting date will be provided to the legislative body before the meeting. Public Comments received after 3:00 p.m. 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.

City of Santa Paula - City Council - City Council Regular Meeting 2

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. INVOCATION

3. FLAG SALUTE

4. ROLL CALL

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda that is within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the City Council. A Public Comment Form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the beginning of the Public Comment period in order to be recognized to speak. Individuals submitting Public Comment Forms after the beginning of the Public Comment period will not be allowed to speak at this time, but may be recognized to speak by the Mayor at the conclusion of the meeting. Individual Councilmembers may briefly respond to Public Comments or ask questions for clarification. The City Council may direct staff to report to the City Council on the item at a later meeting. For items appearing on the Agenda, the public will be invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for City Council consideration. If a member of the public wishes to address a Consent Calendar item, please submit a Public Comment Form for that item. It may then be discussed separately by the Council, and the public will be invited to make comments at that time. At all times, please use the microphone and write your name and address on the Public Comment Form provided.

6. PRESENTATIONS

6.A 211 VENTURA COUNTY PRESENTATION

7. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

8. CITY MANAGER REPORTS

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
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.

HOW TO VIEW ON YOUR TELEVISION, COMPUTER, OR MOBILE DEVICE: Watch from home live on the local Channel 10, or view the live feed on the city website at the following link: https://www.spcity.org/523/Public-Meeting-Agendas NOTE: Special and Closed Sessions are not recorded and not available on Channel 10 or live feed on the city website.

REGULAR MATTERS - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
City of Santa Paula - City Council - City Council Regular Meeting 3 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 March 6, 2024
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends Council approve minutes.

9.B FEBRUARY 2024 WARRANTS AND CERTIFICATIONS
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Review and accept the "Certification of Accounts Payable" for the accounts payable payment cycles for February 2024, starting check number 336487 and ending check number 336734.

2. Review and accept the "Certification of Salaries" for the pay period ending dates January 26th, 2024, through February 9th, 2024.

9.C SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1335
AMENDING CHAPTER 16.35 “HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES OVERLAY
ZONE” OF THE SANTA PAULA MUNICIPAL CODE, UPDATING THE
CITY’S DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES PERTAINING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY’S COMMERCIAL/LIGHT

INDUSTRIAL ZONE
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council: Conduct the second reading of and adopt Ordinance No. 1335, amending Chapter 16.35 "Housing Opportunities Overlay Zone" of the Santa Paula Municipal Code, updating the City's Design Review procedures pertaining to Affordable Housing located within the City's Commercial/Light Industrial Zone.

9.D 6th STREET STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT (VIEW DRIVE TO

VIRGINIA TERRACE)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Award a Construction Contract to J & H Engineering General Contractors, Inc. for the construction of the 6
th Street Storm Drain
Replacement Project (View Drive to Virginia Terrace) in the amount of $123,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract in a form approved by the City Attorney;

2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to approve contract change orders to the Construction Contract as required and verified by staff in an amount not to cumulatively exceed $24,600 (20% construction contingency) for the 6
th Street Storm Drain Replacement Project (View
City of Santa Paula - City Council - City Council Regular Meeting 4 Drive to Virginia Terrace).

9.E MEASURE T FUND ALLOCATION AND EXCHANGE: COMMUNITY BIKE

TRAIL CONNECTIVITY PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Approve allocation of $390,000 of Measure T funds to provide local match for Community Bike Trail Connectivity Project (CIP 9378);

2. Accept replacement funding allocation (former Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA) funding) specified for City street rehabilitation.

9.F ASSIGNMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR TRACT NOS. 5989 AND 5991 (HARVEST AT LIMONEIRA)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council Adopt Resolution No. 7506 to do the following:

1. Approve Assignments of Subdivision Improvement Agreements for Tract Nos. 5989 and 5991 and delegate to the City Manager the authority to consent to the assignments.

2. Authorize the Public Works Director to exonerate the performance bond filed by Richmond American Homes of Maryland, Inc. for Tract No. 5991 conditioned on Lewis Limoneira Community Builders LLC filing a warranty bond.

3. Direct the City Clerk to process the recording of the individual Assignments of Subdivision Improvement Agreements.

10. PUBLIC HEARING
Verification of posting notice by City Clerk
Declaration of conflicts (if any)
Declaration of ex parte contacts (if any)
Open public hearing
Staff presentation
Public comments
Close public hearing
Discussion and action

10.A EIR ADDENDUM NO. 4 FOR THE EAST AREA 1 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 4 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (HARVEST AT

LIMONEIRA PROJECT)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 7505 approving Addendum No. 4 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 and a General Plan Amendment; and

2. Introduce and waive first reading of Ordinance No. 1336 titled: "An Ordinance Approving (1) Addendum No. 4 to the Final Supplemental City of Santa Paula - City Council - City Council Regular Meeting 5 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 and a General Plan Amendment, (2) East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4, and (3) a General Plan Amendment." Presented by: James Mason, Economic & Community Development Director

11. ACTION ITEMS

11.A DISCUSSION OF SENATE BILL 567 AMENDMENTS TO THE TENANT PROTECTION ACT OF 2019
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends City Council receive an update on recent tenant protection legislation, Senate Bill 567, and provide further direction to staff.

Presented by: Caesar Hernandez, Housing Management Analyst

11.B ESTABLISHMENT OF SEWER AND WATER RATE AD HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 7504 establishing the Ad-hoc Sewer and Water Rate Committee to evaluate and make recommendations regarding City’s sewer and water rates.

2. Appoint two councilmembers to the Sewer and Water Rate Committee.

Presented by: Clete Saunier, Public Works Director

12. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS

12.A FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends City Council review future agenda items.

13. ADJOURNMENT
State of California )-
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 Regular Meeting 6 City of Santa Paula - City Council - City Council Regular Meeting 7 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Julie Latshaw, City Clerk
Subject: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
City Council Regular Minutes March 6, 2024
Date: March 20, 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.

At the Planning Commission meeting on February 27, 2024, the Commission approved the Joint City Council and Planning Commission Minutes for January 29, 2024, and are now ready for City Council approval.

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:
8 ATTACHMENTS:
2024.03.06 City Council Regular Minutes.pdf
9 CITY OF SANTA PAULA
City Council Regular Meeting
March 6, 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
None.
3) FLAG SALUTE
Councilmember Juarez led the flag salute.
4) ROLL CALL
Members Present: Leslie Cornejo, Pedro A Chavez, Jenny Crosswhite, Carlos Juarez, and Andy Sobel
5) PUBLIC COMMENT
Pattie Braga, Executive Director of Ventura County Leadership Academy was called to speak, providing an update on issues throughout Ventura County.

Richard Abbott was called to speak on concerns of the rodent glue trap asking to consider banning these traps, as the City of Ojai has done. 6) PRESENTATIONS

6.A) LEAD FOR AMERICA AMERICAN CONNECTION CORPS WEEK 2024

PROCLAMATION
Mayor Cornejo presented Lead for America American Connection Corps Week 2024 Proclamation to many of the current and previous hometown Fellows.

6.B) POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORT
10 Police Chief Don Aguilar provided the Police Department Report, covering the period August 2023 through October 2023.
7) CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Sobel:

Attended presentation at Cal Lutheran; League of California Cities Channel Division; County Mental Health Services meeting; Center for Economic Research and Forecasting Annual Report; Ventura County Industry Council; Chef David Celebration of Life; Caltrans virtual meeting on Hwy 150; and Communication Ad Hoc.

Vice Mayor Chavez:

Attended Chef David Celebration of Life; also passing was Florence Elwell; present at the Bedell Elementary School Career Day; announced upcoming night at the Oscars fundraiser for Santa Paula Times; Saint Sebastian Fiesta Family Fun; and expressed concern that there was only a 21% turnout at elections.

Councilmember Crosswhite:

Attended Caltrans virtual meeting on Hwy 150; Southern California Association of Governments; Ventura County Transportation Commission; and Redtail Project Ad Hoc.

Councilmember Juarez:

Provided update on Cruise Night; Caltrans virtual meeting on Hwy 150; and Citizen Corp.

Mayor Cornejo:

Attended meeting with Caitlin Barringer and Gloria Martinez; League of California Cities Channel Division; spoke with residents on Clean Power Alliance; virtual meeting with Senator Limon; Redtail Project Ad Hoc; Celebration of Life for Glenn Deines; and meeting with County Supervisors regarding Hwy 150 closure;
8) CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Dan Singer:

Attended the Economic Forum; Senator Limon's office; Measure T Oversite Committee meeting; and reported on water meter reading issues; and announced 19 applicants have already been received for the Santa Paula Leadership Academy.

Vice Mayor Chavez requested update on the trucks on Harvard. Public Works Director Saunier provided information of noncompliance for street debris. 9) CONSENT CALENDAR

9.A) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Joint City Council and Planning Commission Minutes January 29, 2024 City Council Special Minutes February 13, 2024
City Council Special Regular Minutes February 13, 2024
11 City Council Special Minutes February 21, 2024
City Council Regular Minutes February 21, 2024

9.B) AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA) FUNDING AMENDMENT
Deputy City Manager Jonathan Royas answered questions for Council.

Mayor requested to add more of a brief description on the chart on page 44-45 of the staff report.

Motion: Approve amendment to the ARPA reallocations which took place on February 21, 2024; and Adopt Resolution No. 7503 memorializing an amendment to the ARPA allocations.

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

9.C) SENATE BILL 1 PROJECT FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
City Engineer Bob Woodward answered questions for council.

Motion: Approve budget adjustments and allocations for the Harvard Boulevard Project SB 1 Fund.

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

9.D) EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR THE FY 23/24 OFFICER WELLNESS AND

MENTAL HEALTH GRANT AWARD
Items 9.B and 9.C were pulled for separate discussion and vote.

Motion: Approve Consent Calendar items 9A and 9D.

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

10.A) 24-MISC-01: A REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1335 AMENDING CHAPTER 16.35 “HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES OVERLAY ZONE” OF THE SANTA PAULA
MUNICIPAL CODE, UPDATING THE CITY’S DESIGN REVIEW

PROCEDURES PERTAINING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOCATED
WITHIN THE CITY’S COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE, AND FIND THAT THE ORDINANCE IS NOT A “PROJECT” OR IS

OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
12 Motion: Approve Staff recommends the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1335 amending Chapter 16.35 "Housing Opportunities Overlay Zone" of the Santa Paula Municipal Code, updating the City's Design Review procedures pertaining to Affordable Housing located within the City's Commercial/Light Industrial Zone, and find that the Ordinance is not a "Project" or is otherwise exempt from CEQA. Presented by:

James Mason, Community Development Director
Moved by Andy Sobel, seconded by Pedro A Chavez
Vote: Motion carried 5-0
Yes: Leslie Cornejo, Pedro A Chavez, Jenny Crosswhite, Carlos Juarez, Andy Sobel
Mayor Cornejo opened the public hearing.

James Mason, Community & Economic Development Director presented a presentation on amending Chapter 16.36 "Housing Opportunities Overlay Zone".

Mayor Cornejo closed the public hearing following public comments.

Joseph Beerhalter was called to speak opposing the Ordinance. 11) ACTION ITEMS

11.A) STREETS CIP PROJECT PLANNING REPORT
This item was presented by City Engineer Bob Woodward and Deputy City Engineer Tatiana Arnaout.

Aaron Dunkel was called to speak providing ideas on the projects.

Council provided staff with guidance supporting priority of projects.

11.B) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH NBS FOR 2024

WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STUDY
Public Works Director Clete Saunier presented this item. Director Saunier explained the request to appoint two Councilmembers will come back on a different date, and announced changes to the Agreement, Section 3.3.11.3 (C) on the redline copy provided to Council.

Motion: Approve as amended to authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with NBS in an amount not to exceed $53,235 for professional consulting services related to the 2024 Water and Wastewater Rate Study in a form approved by the City Attorney.

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

12.A) FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
13 13) ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Cornejo adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m. in memory of John Lister, Glenn Deines, David Raigoza aka Chef David, and Florence Elwell.

Julie Latshaw, City Clerk
ATTEST:
14 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Beatriz Jimenez, Assistant Finance Director
Subject: FEBRUARY 2024 WARRANTS AND CERTIFICATIONS
Date: March 20, 2024
Agenda Item: 9.B

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

MEMORANDUM
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Review and accept the "Certification of Accounts Payable" for the accounts payable payment cycles for February 2024, starting check number 336487 and ending check number 336734.

2. Review and accept the "Certification of Salaries" for the pay period ending dates January 26th, 2024, through February 9th, 2024.

BACKGROUND:

This staff report certifies the separation of duties between the Preparer (Accounting and Payroll Specialist) and the Reviewer (Finance Director and Assistant Finance Director).

Presented in the attached documents:
a) CERTIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECKS by check number range and dates.

It also discloses any voided checks.
b) EXPENSE REPORTS showing the amount and funds accounts payable came from.

The "Check Report" depicts the following columns:
c) AP-ACCOUNTS PAYABLE for the vendors (non-City staff) by the vendor number, vendor name, payment date, payment amount and check number (entitled 'number'). d) PY-PAYROLL for benefit payments, insurance, retirement, etc. Benefits payable on behalf of City staff.
e) Bank Code Summary by payment type.
f) Fund Summary by fund the accounts payables utilized. 15 CERTIFICATION OF SALARIES
This is the certification (separation of duties between "preparer" and the "reviewer") of salaries and benefits (payroll checks) by fund. It lists salary (payroll) issued checks by beginning and ending check number, payroll ending dates January 26th, 2024, through February 9th, 2024.

ANALYSIS:

See the attachments for expense breakdown by respective fund.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

None.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

None.

OPTIONS:

1. Receive and file February 2024 Certifications of Accounts Payable Checks and Certifications of Salaries.

ATTACHMENTS:

February 2024 AP and PR Certifications.pdf
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: James Mason, Community & Economic Development Director Subject: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1335 AMENDING CHAPTER 16.35 “HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES OVERLAY
ZONE” OF THE SANTA PAULA MUNICIPAL CODE, UPDATING THE
CITY’S DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES PERTAINING TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY’S

COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE
Date: March 20, 2024
Agenda Item: 9.C

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

MEMORANDUM
RECOMMENDATION:

BACKGROUND:

Ordinance Process
At the March 6, 2024 City Council meeting the City Council waived the first reading and introduced Ordinance No. 1335, entitled: "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 16.35 "Housing Opportunities Overlay Zone" of the Santa Paula Municipal Code, updating the City's Design Review procedures pertaining to Affordable Housing located within the City's Commercial/Light Industrial Zone." Ordinance No. 1335 is returning to the City Council at this meeting for second reading and adoption.

Project Background
The City of Santa Paula (“City”) General Plan includes a Housing Element, which was updated for the 2021-2029 planning period pursuant to state law and adopted by the City Council on May 18, 2022 (Resolution No. 7401).

As required by state law, the City’s adopted Housing Element Update (“HEU”) was submitted for review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”). In its written comments dated August 19, 2022 and June 26, 2023, HCD found that the adopted HEU addressed most statutory requirements; however, additional revisions were necessary to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law.
52 Pursuant to Section 4.B of City Council Resolution No. 7401, subsequent clerical and technical revisions to the adopted HEU addressing HCD comments were prepared and submitted to HCD in April, June, July, November and December 2023.

On January 25, 2024 HCD notified the City that the revised HEU submitted on December 22, 2023 substantially complies with the requirements of state law and the City would be in full compliance with state housing element law when the City demonstrates conformance with Government Code section 65583.2 subdivisions (c) and (i) relating to by-right permit review for qualifying housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households on vacant parcels identified in two prior Housing Elements to accommodate a portion of the housing need for lower income households, as shown in Table B-5 of the 2021-2029 HEU.

On February 13, 2024, this Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1334, to immediately bring the City into the required conformance as detailed above. Ordinance No. 1335 mirrors the amendments to Chapter 16.35 contained in Urgency Ordinance No. 1334.

At their regular meeting on January 23, 2024, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 3856 recommending the City Council adopt a non-urgency Ordinance amending Chapter

16.35 "Housing Opportunities Overlay Zone" of the Santa Paula Municipal Code, updating the City's Design Review procedures pertaining to Affordable Housing located within the City's Commercial/Light Industrial Zone, and find that the ordinance is not a "Project" or is otherwise exempt from CEQA.

ANALYSIS:

Amendment & Conformity
Prior to adoption of the urgency ordinance, the City’s design review procedures pertaining to the development of affordable housing within the Commercial/Light Industrial zone, codified in Chapter 16.35 “Housing Opportunities Overlay Zone” of Title XVI “Development Code” of the Santa Paula Municipal Code, contained criteria that are discretionary, instead of “by-right” in violation of state law. Adopting the proposed non-urgency ordinance, Ordinance No. 1335 (Attachment A), would retain the same amendments as those enacted through the urgency ordinance, as required by state law for certification of the City's Housing Element.

The proposed code amendment was reviewed by the City’s Planning Division for, in part, consistency with the General Plan and conformity with the Santa Paula Municipal Code.

Those findings of consistency are incorporated in Section 2 General Plan and Development Objectives and Section 3 Development Code Amendments of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3856.

Environmental / CEQA
Staff has determined that the City’s amendment of its design review procedures pertaining to affordable housing within the Commercial/Light Industrial zone will not result in an indirect nor direct physical change to the environment, and that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15061(c)(3) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the 53 environment), 15060(c)(3) and 15378 (the activity is not a project under CEQA) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 4, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

The amendments herein are necessary to retain HCD certification of the City's 2021-2029 Housing Element. A certified Housing Element is critical to achieving the City Council's strategic goals of inclusivity and community vitality.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

No direct impacts; however, lack of a certified Housing Element may prevent the City and potential affordable housing developers from obtaining certain tax credits and participating in various funding programs.

OPTIONS:

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

1. Do not adopt Ordinance No. 1335 approving the Santa Paula West Business Park Specific Plan Amendment.

ATTACHMENTS:

A - Ordinance No. 1335 (03.20.2024 CC MTG).docx
54 65283.00001\41929648.2

ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. 1335
55 65283.00001\41929648.2

Page 2 of 8 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1335

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA PAULA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 16.35 “HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES OVERLAY ZONE” OF
THE SANTA PAULA MUNICIPAL CODE, UPDATING THE CITY’S

DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES PERTAINING TO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY’S COMMERCIAL/LIGHT

INDUSTRIAL ZONE, AND FIND THAT THE ORDINANCE IS NOT A
“PROJECT” OR IS OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
The City Council of the City of Santa Paula does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds as follows:

A. The City of Santa Paula’s (“City”) design review procedures pertaining to the development of affordable housing within the Commercial/Light Industrial zone is currently codified in Chapter 16.35 “Housing Opportunities Overlay Zone” of Title XVI “Development Code” of the City’s Municipal Code.

B. In its comments on the latest draft of the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element Update (“HEU”), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) directed the City to demonstrate that its permits procedures comply with the by–right requirements of Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c) and (i), in order to obtain Housing Element certification.

C. Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c) provides that the inventory of land suitable for residential development that is used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels, must : (i) specify for each site the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site; (ii) and whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower-income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing. As part of this requirement, any vacant sites listed in two previous consecutive Housing Element sites inventories shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate a portion of the housing need for lower-income households that must be accommodated in the current housing element planning period, unless residential development is allowed “by-right” for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households.

D. Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (i) defines “by right” to mean that the local government's review of the owner-occupied or multifamily residential use shall not require: a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, nor other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a 56 65283.00001\41929648.2

Page 3 of 8 ends

“project” for purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)(Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.)
E. Therefore, and in compliance with subdivisions (c) and (i) of Government Code section 65583.2, the City has updated Table B-5 of the HEU to include all vacant sites that have been used in two prior Housing Elements, and the City’s review of qualifying owner-occupied or multifamily residential uses in such sites must be ministerial (i.e. “by-right”).

F. The City’s current design review procedures pertaining to the development of affordable housing within the Commercial/Light Industrial zone, codified in Chapter

16.35 “Housing Opportunities Overlay Zone” of Title XVI “Development Code” of the Santa Paula Municipal Code, contain criteria that are discretionary, instead of “by-right” in violation of state law.

G. The proposed Development Code (“Code”) amendment would eliminate the discretionary criteria in the City’s site design review permit procedures.

H. At their March 6, 2024 regular meeting the City Council waived the first reading and introduced Ordinance No. 1335, entitled: "An Ordinance Amending Chapter

16.35 "Housing Opportunities Overlay Zone" of the Santa Paula Municipal Code, updating the City's Design Review procedures pertaining to Affordable Housing located within the City's Commercial/Light Industrial Zone." SECTION 2: General Plan and Development Objectives. Pursuant to SPMC §

16.208.030(C), the City Council has reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives of Title 16 of the SPMC, the General Plan, and development policies of the City as follows:

A. The purpose of Chapter 16.208 Development Code Amendments is to allow for amendment to the Code in recognition of the fact that physical, economic, and other conditions in the city may change over time. The City’s current design review procedures pertaining to the development of affordable housing within the Commercial/Light Industrial Zone, codified in Chapter 16.35 “Housing Opportunities Overlay Zone” of Title XVI “Development Code” of the Santa Paula Municipal Code, contain criteria that are discretionary, instead of “by-right” in violation of state law. The City must bring its permitting procedures in compliance with state law in order to obtain Housing Element certification from HCD. The proposed amendment is consistent with Title 16 of the SPMC because it brings the City’s design review procedures for in compliance with state law. 57 65283.00001\41929648.2

Page 4 of 8 ends

B. The proposed code amendment is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs of the Santa Paula General Plan (2040), as further described below in Section 3, particularly the following:
 Housing Element, Adequate Housing Sites: H3.1
 Housing Element, Removal of Government Constraints: H4.2 SECTION 3: Development Code Amendment Findings. Pursuant to SPMC §16.208.050, the City Council makes the following required findings:

A. The proposed code amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan. Consistent with Housing Element Policy 3.1 (Adequate Housing Sites), the proposed amendment will support housing development within the City by requiring that an up to date inventory of potential sites available for future housing development, including residential owneroccupied or multifamily developments be maintained by the City. The proposed amendment is also consistent with Housing Element Policy 4.2 (Removal of Government Constraints) because it updates the City’s current design review procedures pertaining to the development of affordable housing within the Commercial/Light Industrial Zone, codified in Chapter 16.35 “Housing Opportunities Overlay Zone” of Title XVI “Development Code” of the Santa Paula Municipal Code, to be ministerial rather than discretionary as required by State law.

B. The proposed code amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties.

The proposed amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties because the proposed amendment is administrative in nature, in that it updates specified provisions of the City’s Development Code pertaining to affordable housing design review procedures within the Commercial/Light Industrial Zone, to bring it into compliance with state law.

C. The proposed code amendment promotes public health, safety, and general welfare and serves the goals and purposes of Title 16. The public health, safety, and general welfare, and purposes of the City’s Development Code codified in Title 16 by ensuring that it’s provisions are in compliance with State law. Further, the proposed changes benefit the public welfare by allowing for ministerial review of qualifying affordable housing projects within the City. For the reasons described in paragraphs A. and B. of Section 2, the proposed amendment will serve the goals and purposes of Title 16 of the SPMC.

SECTION 4: Environmental Assessment. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15061(c)(3) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect 58 65283.00001\41929648.2

Page 5 of 8 ends

physical change in the environment), 15060(c)(3) and 15378 (the activity is not a project under CEQA) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 4, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Here it can be seen with certainty that the City’s amendment of its design review procedures pertaining to affordable housing within the Commercial/Light Industrial zone will not result in an indirect nor direct physical change to the environment.

SECTION 5: Text Amendments. The City Council hereby amends Chapter 16.35 “Housing Opportunities Overlay Zone” to read in full as follows:

Chapter 16.35: MINISTERIAL REVIEW FOR QUALIFYING HOUSING

PROJECTS
Section

16.35.01 Purpose and Intent.

16.35.02 Application.

16.35.03 Eligibility Criteria.

16.35.04 Relationship to State Density Bonus Law.

16.35.05 Procedure.

16.35.06 Site Development Permit.

16.35.07 Temporary Uses Permitted.

16.35.08 Accessory Used Permitted.

16.35.09 Site Development Standards for Residential Uses.

16.35.10 General Requirements.

16.35.11 Administration and Appeals.
§ 16.35.01 PURPOSE AND INTENT.

The purpose of this chapter is to ensure conformance with Government Code Section 65583.2(c) and (i) regarding by-right permit processing for qualifying housing developments on sites identified to accommodate lower-income units in Table B-5 of the Santa Paula Housing Element of the General Plan.
§ 16.35.02 APPLICATION.

This chapter applies only to qualifying housing projects that are located on parcels identified as accommodating lower-income units in Housing Element Table B-5. Any development that does not meet the eligibility criteria set forth in Section 16.35.03 shall comply with all applicable provisions of this Title.
§ 16.35.03 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA.

To be considered a qualified housing development under this chapter, the housing development must meet the following criteria:
59 65283.00001\41929648.2

Page 6 of 8 ends

A. The development is located on a parcel identified as accommodating lowerincome housing units in Housing Element Table B-5.

B. At least 20% of the units are affordable to lower-income households. § 16.35.04 RELATIONSHIP TO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW.

Qualifying developments shall be eligible for applicable incentives and concessions pursuant to §§ 16.13.310 et seq. consistent with State Density Bonus Law as it may be amended from time to time.
§ 16.35.05 PROCEDURE.

The Director will review an application received for a site development permit issued in accordance with this chapter and must issue a site development permit within 60 days of deeming the application complete if the Director finds all of the following:
(A) The application complies with all applicable law including, without limitation, this chapter; and
(B) The application complies with the applicable objective development and design requirements for the zoning district in which the project is located. § 16.35.06 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
(A) The qualified housing projects allowed by this chapter require a nondiscretionary site development permit. (B) Applications for a site development permit pursuant to this chapter are subject to an administrative review process. Pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code § 65583.2(i), such permits do not require discretionary local government review or approval that constitutes a project for purposes Cal. Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.
(C) The administrative review process shall not require a public hearing. § 16.35.07 TEMPORARY USES PERMITTED.

Temporary uses are allowed as provided in the applicable zoning district in which the project is located.
§ 16.35.08 ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED.

Accessory uses are allowed as provided in the applicable zoning district in which the project is located.
§ 16.35.09 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. 60 65283.00001\41929648.2

Page 7 of 8 ends

The site development and design standards for qualifying projects are the base site development standards of the zoning district in which the qualified housing development is located. Standards shall be applied in a manner consistent with Cal.

Government Code § 65583.2(i).
§ 16.35.10 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.

The following conditions apply to all qualified housing developments:
(A) Occupancy standards for each dwelling unit must meet the minimum standards of the California Uniform Housing Code or the California Employee Housing Act, or successor statutes, depending upon which is applicable. (B) Affordable dwelling units must comply with the applicable requirements of §§

16.13.310 et seq. of this title.
§ 16.35.11 ADMINISTRATION AND APPEALS.

The Director is authorized to administer this chapter. An applicant may appeal any decision of the Director to the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten calendar days after notice of the Director’s action has been communicated to the applicant.

SECTION 6: Effective Date. This ordinance takes effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION 7: Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, the provisions hereof shall supersede any inconsistent or conflicting provisions of the Santa Paula Municipal Code.

SECTION 8: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. //
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
61 65283.00001\41929648.2

Page 8 of 8 ends

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of March 2024. ____________________________
Leslie Cornejo, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Latshaw, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Monica Castillo, City Attorney
62 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Clete Saunier, Public Works Director
Subject: 6th STREET STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT (VIEW DRIVE

TO VIRGINIA TERRACE)
Date: March 20, 2024
Agenda Item: 9.D

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

MEMORANDUM
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Award a Construction Contract to J & H Engineering General Contractors, Inc. for the construction of the 6
th Street Storm Drain Replacement Project (View Drive to Virginia Terrace) in the amount of $123,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract in a form approved by the City Attorney;

2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to approve contract change orders to the Construction Contract as required and verified by staff in an amount not to cumulatively exceed $24,600 (20% construction contingency) for the 6 th Street Storm Drain
Replacement Project (View Drive to Virginia Terrace).

BACKGROUND:

The majority of underground storm drain conduits in the City consists of corrugated metal pipe (CMP), as well as reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), poly vinyl chloride (PVC), and redwood box (RDWD) systems. A significant portion of the City’s CMP storm drains have reached or exceeded the limits of their service life and require increasing frequency of repair or wholesale replacement to address continuation of their service for drainage conveyance and the mitigation of flood hazards to motorists, pedestrians and adjacent property. The deterioration of storm drain piping due to age, corrosion, and storm related debris accumulation poses the potential for pipe failure, including sinkholes, subsidence and other damage to City roadway and pavement infrastructure.

From a Citywide drainage perspective, the City’s street and drainage network are interconnected elements, in which streets convey storm water, which is in turn intercepted and conveyed by underground storm drains. Due to the minimal amount of storm drain facilities in many parts of the City, streets with their curbs and gutters are relied upon to convey storm water considerable distances prior to being transferred to underground storm drains. In many areas, due to lack of capacity or debris accumulation, streets continue to perform a parallel drainage function, which is critical to ensure effective conveyance of storm water runoff and limit flooding.
63 On October 23, 2023, staff investigated a sinkhole that appeared on Virginia Terrace near its intersection with 6th Street. City staff suspected the cause was due to a storm drain that had partially collapsed. Ventura Regional Sanitation District (VRSD) investigated the damaged storm drain and determined that approximately 350’ of storm drain from the intersection of 6 th
Street and View Drive proceeding south towards Virginia Terrace is completely impacted with tree roots, rock cobble and other debris and requires replacement. The deterioration of portions of the storm drain caused voids in the street subgrade, resulting in the appearance of a sinkhole with associated roadway failure. To address further failure of the roadway and related hazards to pedestrians and vehicles, staff recommends the immediate replacement of the storm drain line. This storm drain replacement would occur in conjunction with the subgrade excavation and repair necessary to restore the roadway.

On December 6, 2023 Council approved budget adjustments and allocations for the Storm Drain Replacement (View Drive to Virginia Terrace) Project. This allowed the design phase services for this project to start.

ANALYSIS:

Following City Council approval of the Project on December 6, 2023, the project was advertised for bid on Tuesday, February 20, 2024 and bids were opened on Thursday, March 7, 2024. Three (3) contractors submitted bids: J & H Engineering General Contractors, Inc., Toro Enterprises, Inc. and Sam Hill & Sons. Bids ranged in price from $123,000 to $204,610, and are summarized below.

No. Contractor Base Bid

1. J & H Engineering General Contractors, Inc. $123,000

2. Toro Enterprises, Inc. $204,610

3. Sam Hill & Sons $189,999
Staff reviewed the received bids relative to bid specifications and required qualifications.

Based on this review, staff finds that J & H Engineering General Contractors, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid of $123,000 and recommends City Council award the contract to J & H Engineering General Contractors, Inc. pursuant to Santa Paula Municipal Code §§ 56.04(1)(3) and 56.08(D), with an allowance for a 20% construction contingency of $24,600, for a total project budget of $147,600.

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:

Funding for the project is derived from both Citywide Street Preservation and Maintenance as well as Measure T as shown in Table 1 below:
64 Table 1: Funding Sources – Roadway Repair and Measure T Fund Source Account No. Budget
Measure T 104-5-9285-660 $75,000.00
Citywide Street Preservation and Maintenance 104-5-9359-660 $200,000.00 Total = $275,000.00
Table 2: Project Costs – 6
th Street Storm Drain Replacement
Fund Cost
Engineering / Construction Management (Budget) 104-9285 $44,000.00 Construction Contract 104-9359 $123,000.00
Contingency (20%) 104-9359 $24,600.00
Total = $191,600.00
OPTIONS:

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

1. Do not award a Construction Contract to J & H Engineering General Contractors, Inc. for the construction of the 6
th Street Storm Drain Replacement Project (View Drive to Virginia Terrace). This action would significantly delay critically needed infrastructure repair and replacement.

ATTACHMENTS:

EXHIBIT A - Project Location Map.pdf
EXHIBIT B - Bid Results.pdf
65 EXHIBIT A
Project Location Map
66 E V I R G I N I A T E R R A C E

E V I E W D R I V E

T E A G U E D R I V E
N 6 T H S T R E E T

DAMAGED STORM DRAIN

PIPE TO BE REPLACED
APPROXIMATELY 350'
6TH STREET STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA PAULA
DECEMBER 6, 2023
LOCATION MAP 1" = 50' -
1 in = ft 50
0 25 50 SHEET 1 OF 1
EH-1 67

EXHIBIT B
6th Street Storm Drain Replacement Bid Results
68 69
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Clete Saunier, Public Works Director
Subject: MEASURE T FUND ALLOCATION AND EXCHANGE: COMMUNITY BIKE

TRAIL CONNECTIVITY PROJECT
Date: March 20, 2024
Agenda Item: 9.E

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

MEMORANDUM
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Approve allocation of $390,000 of Measure T funds to provide local match for Community Bike Trail Connectivity Project (CIP 9378);

2. Accept replacement funding allocation (former Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA) funding) specified for City street rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND:

On September 26, 2022, the City of Santa Paula applied for a Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) Grant to construct up to 2.48 miles of new bike trail pathways in the City which would connect to the existing bike trail system.

On December 2, 2022, VCTC awarded the City of Santa Paula a Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 grant allocation in the amount of $1,482,878 for the Santa Paula Community Bike Trail Connectivity Project (See Attachment 1).

The Project required a local funding match, which was originally provided by CRRSAA funding in the amount of $390,000 (See Attachment 2).

On March 4, 2024, staff presented its recommendation and received concurrence from the Measure T Committee regarding the allocation of Measure T funds to replace the CRRSAA funds for the Community Bike Trail Connectivity Project, as further outlined below.

ANALYSIS:

The Community Bike Trail Connectivity Project will allow for the extension of the existing Class I bike trail from its easterly terminus at 12
th Street to Santa Paula Creek, then north along the
Ventura County Watershed Protection District levee road to its northerly limit. The northerly extension will allow for interconnection of the future Class II bike lanes at the western end of the Santa Paula Street Bridge over Santa Paula Creek. This connection will allow local 70 residents and bicycle commuters ready access to the Class I bike facility which in turn provides cross-town connectivity along the VCTC rail right of way. Additionally, the project provides for the extension of the current western terminus of the Class I bikeway at Peck Road to the City’s western boundary.

Recently, Caltrans announced their intention to substitute State gas tax funds to replace the federal CRRSAA funds. While these funds have a reduced administrative reporting burden compared to the federal CRRSAA funds, they are limited in their application to streets and highways projects and cannot be utilized for bike and pedestrian mobility projects similar to those improvements contemplated by the City’s Community Bike Trail Connectivity Project.

Providing Measure T funds to address the local match requirements for the Community Bike Trail Connectivity Project, while utilizing the newly increased Gas Tax funds for street rehabilitation projects will result in no net change to the effective funding of both of these projects. However, not providing Measure T funds to serve as local match funds will not allow the City’s Community Bike Trail Connectivity Project to proceed and risk loss of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 grant allocation in the amount of $1,482,878 due to lack of appropriate matching funds.

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:

Staff proposes to substitute Measure T funds for required local match funds previously provided by CRRSAA (now State gas tax funds). There will be no net change in funding to either the City’s Street Rehabilitation (9285) or Community Bike Trail Connectivity Project (9378).

Table 1: Decrease CRSAA Funds Revenue and Decrease allocation to Bike Trail Fund Source GL Account Number Before After
CRRSAA 413-5-9378-290 $200,000 $0
CRRSAA 413-5-9378-660 $189,790 $0
CRSSAA 413-4-7500-4277 $389,790 $0
Table 2: Increase Gas Tax Fund Revenue and allocation to Streets Fund Source GL Account Number Before After
Gas Tax 280-4-7500-4025 $306,119 $696,119
Gas Tax 280-5-9378-290 $0 $200,000
Gas Tax 280-5-9378-660 $0 $190,000
Table 3:

Decrease Measure T Fund allocation to Streets.

Increase Measure T Fund allocation to Bike Trail
71 Fund Source From Account To Account Total
Measure T 104-5-9285-660 104-5-9378-290 $200,000
Measure T 104-5-9285-660 104-5-9378-660 $190,000
Total Budget Allocated to 9378 $390,000
This reallocation of funds is for the matching funds needed for the Community Bike Trail Connectivity Project that will be provided by the Measure T funding previously allocated to the pavement management plan. Funding for the PMP will be provided through additional gas tax revenue, as told to staff by the Department of Transportation, Caltrans.

OPTIONS:

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

1. Do not approve adjustments and allocations as recommended by staff. Doing so may not allow the Community Bike Trail Connectivity Project to advance due to lack of funds for the design phase.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Bike Trail Map.pdf
Attachment 2 - CRRSAA Funding Excerpt.pdf
72 ATTACHMENT 1
Bike Trail Map
73 748
ATTACHMENT 2
CRRSAA Funding Excerpt
75 CRRSAA Project Listing
(as of December 8, 2023) Reference No.: 2.5k
January 25-26, 2024
Attachment A
*Gray Italics indicates project approved at previous meeting. *Project approved at previous meeting and removed by Local Agency is strikethrough *Approximately $5.2M in unobligated COVID STIP and Non-STIP funds were rescinded on 6/3/23. $1.154M in CRRSAA non-STIP funds were lost across 5 regions: Fresno (-$304,997), Kern (-$118,511), Los Angeles (-$196,235), Amador (-$39,826), and Stanislaus (-$494,431).

Page 9 of 25 ends

Project 9 7 Pavement Delineation City of Simi
Valley
Ventura VCTC SCAG $281,000 No Yes $281,000
Project 10 7 Street Rehabilitation Project City of Santa Paula
Ventura VCTC SCAG $390,000 Yes $2,000,000
TOTAL APPORTIONED $3,972,460 REMAINING APPORTIONMENT $0.00 CRRSAA FUNDING TOTAL $3,972,460 MPO/RTPA/COUNTY District Project Name Administering
Local Agency
County RTPA MPO CRRSAA
funding
State Exchange/
SOF Requested
(Yes/No)
Total Project
Cost
Imperial County
Project 1 11 Contribute toward the construction,
rehabilitation, and maintenance of roads and
ancillary infrastructure throughout the city
City of Brawley Imperial ICTC ICTC $93,633 Yes $93,633
Project 2 11 Fund personnel cost of Public Works staff to maintain public roads
City of Calexico Imperial ICTC ICTC $138,988 Yes $138,988 Project 3 11 Maintain public roads City of
Calipatria
Imperial ICTC ICTC $50,000 Yes $50,000
Project 4 11 Citywide streets maintenance and
Rehabilitation program
City of El
Centro
Imperial ICTC ICTC $154,138 Yes $154,138
Project 5 11 Construction Plans for New Fire Station and City Hall
City of Holtville Imperial ICTC ICTC $15,000 Yes $15,000 Project 6 11 Railroad Threshold Repair and Improvements Project
City of Holtville Imperial ICTC ICTC $35,000 Yes $35,000 Project 7 11 Purchasing two 2022 Ford F-150 crew cab
pickup trucks Purchase two vehicles
City of Imperial Imperial ICTC ICTC $69,255 Yes $69,255 Project 8 11 Personnel cost of staff for wages,
supplemental pay for loss of wages due to
Covid and Essential Workers/Hero pay
City of
Westmorland
Imperial ICTC ICTC $50,000 Yes $50,000
Project 9 11 Countywide Paving Program County of
Imperial
Imperial ICTC ICTC $236,168 Yes $236,168
TOTAL APPORTIONED $842,182 REMAINING APPORTIONMENT $0.00 CRRSAA FUNDING TOTAL $842,182 76 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Monica Castillo, City Attorney
Subject: ASSIGNMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR TRACT NOS. 5989 AND 5991 (HARVEST AT LIMONEIRA)
Date: March 20, 2024
Agenda Item: 9.F

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

MEMORANDUM
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council Adopt Resolution No. 7506 to do the following:

1. Approve Assignments of Subdivision Improvement Agreements for Tract Nos. 5989 and 5991 and delegate to the City Manager the authority to consent to the assignments.

3. Direct the City Clerk to process the recording of the individual Assignments of Subdivision Improvement Agreements.

BACKGROUND:

Pursuant to Title 16 of the Santa Paula Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code sections 66410 et seq.), Limoneira Lewis Community Builders, LLC (“LLCB”) and the City entered into subdivision improvement agreements for the completion of public improvements for Tracts 5989 and 5991 (“Subdivision Improvement Agreements”), recorded, respectively, July, 20, 2020 and November 24, 2020. The Subdivision Improvement Agreements require LLCB, as a condition of approval for each tract, to construct certain public improvements associated with the tract area, to furnish performance bonds to the City to secure their completion, and upon completion and acceptance to furnish 10% warranty bonds with the City valid for one year.

Since entering the Subdivision Improvement Agreements with the City, LLCB sold all or portions of the tracts to individual home builders Lennar Homes of California, Inc. (“Lennar”) and Richmond American Homes of Maryland, Inc. (“Richmond”) (Tract 5989 to Lennar and Tract 5991 to Richmond). By mistake, a duplicate Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 1991 between City and Richmond was recorded on November 4, 2021. Instead of recording a separate Subdivision Improvement Agreement, the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 5991 between LLCB and the City should have been assigned by LLCB to Richmond with City’s consent. As a result, Richmond filed a duplicate performance bond with the City on top of LLCB’s performance bond. The bond filed by Richmond should be released when a warranty bond is filed with the City. Such corrections will be made should Council 77 approve this item.

On January 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 7498 in which staff found the public improvements complete and ready for acceptance. City staff was also authorized to release remaining performance bond amounts, and directed to collect the warranty bonds for the completed improvements from LLCB and responsible home builders.

LLCB is requesting City’s consent to assign the Subdivision Improvement Agreements to the respective home builders
ANALYSIS:

The proposed Assignments of Subdivision Improvement Agreements have been reviewed by City staff, the City Attorney, LLCB, and prospective assignees. City staff is recommending that the City Council delegate to the City Manager authority on behalf of the City to approve the assignment of the Subdivision Improvement Agreements for Tracts 5989 and 5991 to the individual home builders as presented in this report.

As stated in Resolution 7498, the public improvements have been completed and performance bonds filed by LLCB. The assignments will transfer to the two home builders LLCB’s remaining obligation to file warranty bonds with the City, among other obligations.

LLCB intends to file the warranty bond for Tract 5991 improvements first, which Richmond will then replace when directed to do so by LLCB. The warranty bonds will be filed with the City of Santa Paula through the Public Works Director.

In addition, by approving this Resolution 7506, Council would authorize release of the duplicate performance bond filed by Richmond conditioned on LLCB filing a warranty bond for public improvements for Tract 5991.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

This item does not directly promote the two-year Strategic Plan.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

There are no fiscal or personnel impacts associated with this item.

OPTIONS:

As an alternative to staff's recommendation, the City Council may:

1. Decline staff's recommended action.

2. Request additional information from staff and continue the item to a future meeting.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attach A -Reso 7506 - SIA Assignments T5989 -5991 and Richmond Bond Release 78 1
RESOLUTION NO. 7506

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA PAULA

APPROVING ASSIGNMENTS OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT NOS. 5989 AND 5991 AND AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE BOND FOR TRACT NO. 5991 FILED BY RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES The City Council of the City of Santa Paula hereby resolves:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:

A. Limoneira Lewis Community Builders, LLC, (LLCB) entered into Subdivision Improvement Agreements with the City of Santa Paula for Tracts 5989 and 5991 recorded on July, 20, 2020 and November 24, 2020, respectively.

B. The Subdivision Improvement Agreements required LLCB to design and construct public improvements in accordance with the Santa Paula Municipal Code and the conditions of approval for the corresponding tentative map and to provide financial securities ensuring faithful performance, payment, monumentation, and warranty obligations of the agreements.

C. Since entering the Subdivision Improvement Agreements with the City, LLCB sold all or portions of the tracts to individual home builders Lennar Homes of California, Inc. (“Lennar”) and Richmond American Homes of Maryland, Inc. (“Richmond”) (Tract 5989 to Lennar and Tract 5991 to Richmond).

D. By mistake, a duplicate Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 1991 between City and Richmond was recorded on November 4, 2021 and, as a result, a duplicate performance bond was filed by Richmond.

E. On January 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 7498 in which staff found the public improvements complete and ready for acceptance. City staff was also authorized to release LLCB’s remaining performance bond amounts.

F. In order for the City to release the performance bonds, the Subdivision Improvement Agreements require LLCB to provide the City with warranty bonds for the completed improvements.

G. LLCB has requested the City’s consent to assign Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 5989 to Lennar (“Assignments”) and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 5991 to Richmond (together, the “Assignments of Subdivision Improvement Agreements” or “Assignments”).

H. Pursuant to the Assignments, Lennar and Richmond will each file warranty bonds to replace the warranty bonds LLCB has filed or will file with the City. 79 2
SECTION 2: The recitals set forth above are true and correct.

SECTION 3: Assignments of Subdivision Improvement Agreements. The City Council hereby consents to the assignment of Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 5989 to Lennar (“Assignments”), attached as Exhibit A, and the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 5991 to Richmond, attached as Exhibit B.

SECTION 4: Bond Exoneration. The Public Works Director is authorized to exonerate any remainder of the duplicate performance bond for Tract 5991 filed by Richmond in the original amount of $444,657.41 (Argonaut Insurance Company, Bond No. SUR0066985).

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santa Paula this 20th day of March, 2024.
_______________________________
Leslie Cornejo, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Julie Latshaw, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
Monica Castillo, City Attorney
80 3

EXHIBIT A
Assignment of Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 5989 [attached behind]
81 65283.00302\42088133.1

RECORDING AT THE REQUEST OF

AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO

CITY OF SANTA PAULA
970 Ventura Street
Santa Paula, California 93060
ATTN: City Clerk
(Exempt from Filing Fees – Gov’t Code §6103)
______________________________________________________________________ Space Above This Line Reserved For Recorder’s Use

ASSIGNMENT OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
TRACT NO. 5989
APN No.: 107-0-230-125
This Assignment of Subdivision Improvement Agreement (“Assignment of Agreement”) is entered into as of March 20, 2024 by and among Limoneira Lewis Community Builders, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignor”), Richmond American Homes of Maryland, Inc., a Maryland corporation (“Assignee”), and the City of Santa Paula, a California municipal corporation (“City”).

RECITALS
A. Pursuant to Title 16 of the Santa Paula Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code sections 66410 et seq.), Assignor and City entered into that certain Subdivision Improvement Agreement for the completion of public improvements (“Subdivision Improvement Agreement”), dated as of May 7, 2020, and recorded against the Property in the Official Records of the County of Ventura on July 20, 2020 as Instrument No. 20200720-00105091-0. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement requires Assignor, as a condition to the approval of Tract 5989, to construct certain public improvements, as set forth in Exhibit “A” to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and provide a warranty bond with the City upon City’s acceptance of the improvements.

B. The Assignor has posted performance bonds pursuant to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, completed the public improvements, and has or will provide City with a warranty bond prior to execution of this Assignment of Agreement.

C. This Assignment of Agreement is entered into pursuant to Section 29 of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, which does not prohibit Assignor from assigning any interest in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 82 65283.00302\42088133.1
D. Assignor now desires to assign to Assignee all of its remaining rights, duties and obligations under the Subdivision Improvement Agreement with respect to the Property, and Assignee desires to accept and assume such rights, duties and obligations, on the terms and conditions set forth below.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and for other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Effective Date. All terms and provisions of this Assignment of Agreement shall become effective upon the recordation of this Assignment of Agreement in the Official Records of the Ventura County Recorder (“Effective Date”).

2. Assignment of Rights and Assumption of Obligations. Assignor hereby sells, transfers, and assigns to Assignee, and Assignee hereby expressly and unconditionally assumes all the remaining rights, duties and obligations of Assignor under the Subdivision Improvement Agreement including, without limitation, all of the general rights, duties, and obligations of Assignor under the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and all covenants, warranties, waivers, and releases of the Assignor set forth in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Assignee agrees to observe and fully perform all of Assignor’s remaining obligations under the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and to be subject to all the terms and conditions thereof, it being the express intention of both Assignor and Assignee that, upon the Effective Date of this Assignment of Agreement, Assignee shall become substituted for Assignor as the “Developer” under the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.

3. Warranty Bond Obligations. Upon Assignor’s request, Assignee shall provide City with warranty bonds in the amounts, under the terms, and on forms set forth in or required by Sections 8 and 12 of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement to secure performance of Assignee’s warranty obligations under the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.

4. Release. Pursuant to Section 20.7 of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and provided that Assignor has provided the City with warranty bonds as forth in Sections 8 and 12 of the Subdivision Agreement, Assignor shall be free from any liabilities accruing on or after the Effective Date of this Assignment of Agreement with respect to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Thereafter, no breach or default under the Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall be attributed to Assignor.

5. Indemnity. Assignee agrees to protect and indemnify Assignor and City from and against any and all claims, losses, or expenses that arise from any failure by Assignee to comply with the terms and provisions of this Assignment of Agreement.

6. City’s Consent. Pursuant to Section 29 of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, the City hereby approves this Assignment of Agreement and acknowledges that Assignor shall be released from its obligations and liabilities under the Subdivision 83 65283.00302\42088133.1
Improvement Agreement which accrue after the Effective Date of this Assignment of Agreement, and provided that Assignor has provided the City with warranty bonds as forth in Sections 8 and 12 of the Subdivision Agreement.

7. Attorneys’ Fees. In any legal action or other proceeding brought by any party to enforce or interpret a provision of this Assignment of Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and any other costs, including actual fees and costs of experts, incurred in that proceeding in addition to any other relief to which it is entitled.

8. Notices. All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be considered given either: (i) when delivered in person to the recipient named below; or (ii) on the date of delivery shown on the return receipt, after deposit in the United States mail in a sealed envelope as either registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, and postage and postal charges prepaid, and addressed to the recipient named below. All notices shall be addressed as follows:

If to Assignor: LIMONEIRA LEWIS COMMUNITY BUILDERS, LLC 1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
Attn: David Lauletta
If to Assignee: Richmond American Homes of Maryland, Inc. ________________________
________________________
Attn: ____________________
If to City: CITY OF SANTA PAULA
970 Ventura Street
Santa Paula, California 93060
Attn: Director of Public Works
Either party may, by notice given at any time, require subsequent notices to be given to another person or entity, or to a different address, or both. Notices given before actual receipt of notice of change shall not be invalidated by the change.

9. Governing Law. This Assignment of Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the procedural and substantive law of the State of California., without regard to conflicts of laws principles

10. Binding Effect. This Assignment shall apply to, bind, and insure to the benefit of Assignor and Assignee, and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns.
84 65283.00302\42088133.1

11. Counterparts. This Assignment of Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Assignment of Agreement has been entered into by and between Assignor and Assignee as of the day and year first above written. [Signatures on following pages]
85 65283.00302\42088133.1

SIGNATURE PAGE
TO

ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT
ASSIGNOR:

LIMONEIRA LEWIS COMMUNITY BUILDERS, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
By: __________________________
David Lauletta
Authorized Agent
86 65283.00302\42088133.1

SIGNATURE PAGE
TO

ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT
ASSIGNEE:

Richmond American Homes of Maryland, Inc.
a Maryland corporation
By: _____________________________
Name: _____________________________
Its: _____________________________
87 65283.00302\42088133.1

SIGNATURE PAGE
TO

ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT

CITY OF SANTA PAULA
By: ____________________________
Daniel Singer
City Manager
ATTEST:

By: _____________________________
Julie Latshaw
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: _____________________________
Monica Castillo
City Attorney
88 65283.00302\42088133.1

EXHIBIT A
TO

ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT
Subdivision Improvement Agreement – Tract 5989
[Attached behind]
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
4 EXHIBIT B
Assignment of Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 5991 [attached behind]
106
65283.00302\42084748.2

RECORDING AT THE REQUEST OF

AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO

ASSIGNMENT OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
TRACT NO. 5991
APN Nos: 107-0-330-045, 107-0-330-065 & 107-0-330-085
This Assignment of Subdivision Improvement Agreement (“Assignment of Agreement”) is entered into as of March 20, 2024 by and among Limoneira Lewis Community Builders, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignor”), Lennar Homes of California, Inc., a California corporation (“Assignee”), and the City of Santa Paula, a California municipal corporation (“City”).

The Subdivision Improvement Agreement requires Assignor, as a condition to the approval of Tract 5991, to construct certain public improvements, as set forth in Exhibit “A” to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and provide a warranty bond with the City upon City’s acceptance of the improvements.

C. This Assignment of Agreement is entered into pursuant to Section 29 of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, which does not prohibit Assignor from assigning any interest in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 107
65283.00302\42084748.2
D. Assignor now desires to assign to Assignee all of its remaining rights, duties and obligations under the Subdivision Improvement Agreement with respect to the Property, and Assignee desires to accept and assume such rights, duties and obligations, on the terms and conditions set forth below.

6. City’s Consent. Pursuant to Section 29 of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, the City hereby approves this Assignment of Agreement and acknowledges that Assignor shall be released from its obligations and liabilities under the Subdivision 108
65283.00302\42084748.2
Improvement Agreement which accrue after the Effective Date of this Assignment of Agreement, and provided that Assignor has provided the City with warranty bonds as forth in Sections 8 and 12 of the Subdivision Agreement.

If to Assignor: LIMONEIRA LEWIS COMMUNITY BUILDERS, LLC 1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
Attn: David Lauletta
If to Assignee: Lennar Homes of California
15131 Alton Parkway, Suite 365
Irvine, CA 92618
If to City: CITY OF SANTA PAULA
970 Ventura Street
Santa Paula, California 93060
Attn: Director of Public Works
Either party may, by notice given at any time, require subsequent notices to be given to another person or entity, or to a different address, or both. Notices given before actual receipt of notice of change shall not be invalidated by the change.

SIGNATURE PAGE
TO

ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT
ASSIGNOR:

LIMONEIRA LEWIS COMMUNITY BUILDERS, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
By: __________________________
David Lauletta
Authorized Agent
111
65283.00302\42084748.2

SIGNATURE PAGE
TO

ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT
ASSIGNEE:

Lennar Homes of California, Inc.
a California corporation
By: _____________________________
Name: _____________________________
Its: _____________________________
112
65283.00302\42084748.2

SIGNATURE PAGE
TO

ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT

CITY OF SANTA PAULA
By: ____________________________
Daniel Singer
City Manager
ATTEST:

By: _____________________________
Julie Latshaw
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: _____________________________
Monica Castillo
City Attorney
113
65283.00302\42084748.2

EXHIBIT A
TO

ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT
Subdivision Improvement Agreement – Tract 5991
[Attached behind]
114
4 7-ECORDING REQUESTED BY/SYNRGO

LAWYERS TITLE COMPANY

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
20201114-00200936-0 1/16
Ventura County Clerk and Recorder
MARK A. LUNN
11/242020 08:00:00 AM
1719370 8.00 LE

SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
TRACT NO. 5991
THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") Is made and entered into this L day of OCkbice.-Y ,c20.20 , 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 ("SUBDIVIDER").

The Parties agree as follows:

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

A. SUBDIVIDER presented CITY with a final subdivision map on land identified as Tract No. 5991 ("Map").

B. SUBDIVIDER requested that CITY approve the Map before construction and completion of improvements including, without limitation, streets system (roads, parking lots, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, traffic control devices, street name signs, street lights, street trees, storm drains, and bridges); potable water system; wastewater (sewer) system; recycled water system; electric, natural gas, and communication utility facilities; grading and earth retaining structures; flood control facilities; and walls and fences ("Improvements") which are part of or appurtenant to the subdivision ("Subdivision") identified on the Map. The Improvements shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications on file with CITY.

C. This Agreement is entered into in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act ("Act") and applicable ordinances adopted by CITY including, without limitation, as codified in the Santa Paula Municipal Code ("SPMC").

Non-Order Search
Doc: VN:2020 00200936

Page 1 of 16 ends

115

2. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS. At its sole cost and expense, SUBDIVIDER agrees to furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all the work necessary to complete the Improvements on the Map set forth in the approved plans and specifications and in conformance with the Map's conditions of approval, CITY standards, and federal and state requirements.

3. ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS.

A. The estimated cost of Improvements is $377,694.53.

B. A copy of the cost estimate is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference.

4. COMPLETION. SUBDIVIDER shall complete the Improvements within thirty-six (36) months after recording the Map or within such further time as may be granted by the City Council.

5. COMPLETION BY CITY. Should SUBDIVIDER fail to complete the Improvements within the time for completion, CITY, at its option, may enter onto SUBDIVIDER's property to complete the Improvements at SUBDIVIDER's cost.

6. WARRANTY OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS. SUBDIVIDER warrants that the plans and specifications for the Improvements shall conform to the approved tentative map and the specific plan for the Subdivision previously approved by C1TY's Planning Commission and the City Council, together with all conditions made a part of such approval(s).

SUBDIVIDER 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, SUBDIVIDER agrees to make such changes deemed necessary by CITY to accomplish improvement work in a good, workmanlike manner and in accordance with accepted construction practices. SUBDIVIDER further agrees to make or cause to be made such engineering, soils and other reports as may be required by CITY.

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

8. WARRANTY OF WORK. SUBDIVIDER warrants that the Improvements will be constructed in conformance with the plans and specifications, CITY standards, and the highest industry standards. Should any Improvement fail to comply with this warranty or Non-Order Search
Doc: VN:2020 00200936

Page 2 of 16 ends

116
any other provision of this Agreement within one (1) year after CITY's final acceptance, SUBDIVIDER shall, without delay and without cost to CITY, repair, replace or reconstruct any defective or otherwise unsatisfactory part or parts of the Improvements. Should SUBDIVIDER 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 SUBDIVIDER can be notified, CITY will, at its option, make the necessary repairs, replacements, or reconstruction, as determined by CITY. SUBDIVIDER 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.

9. REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENTS. SUBDIVIDER shall repair or replace, as determined by CITY, Improvements and monuments destroyed or damaged by SUBDIVIDER's actions and to repair or replace, as determined by CITY, any property damaged or destroyed by SUBDIVIDER. Any such repair or replacement shall be completed to CITY's satisfaction and approval, and at no cost to CITY.

10. CITY'S RIGHT OF ENTRY. SUBDIVIDER grants CITY right of entry to SUBDIVIDER's property to inspect the Improvements constructed by SUBDIVIDER and to ensure compliance with this Agreement.

11. CONTRACT SECURITY.

A. Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, SUBDIVIDER shall furnish:
i. A surety bond in an amount equal to at least one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost of improvements as security for the faithful performance of this Agreement;
A surety bond in an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the estimated cost of the grading activities as security for the faithful performance of the grading activities;
iii. A separate surety bond in an amount equal to at least one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price for said improvements as security for the payment of all persons performing labor and furnishing materials in connection with this Agreement.

B. SUBDIVIDER agrees that the form of the bonds provided by CITY are substantially similar. to Government Code §§ 66499.1 and 66499.2.

C. The surety bonds shall be paid and in effect for one year after CITY's final acceptance of the Improvements in accordance with the warranty required by Section 8.

Non-Order Search
Doc: VN:2020 00200936

Page 3 of 16 ends

117 1

12. MAINTENANCE BONDS. The bonds referred to in Section 11 will not be released until a surety bond guaranteeing the warranty requirements of Section 8 in the amount of at least ten percent (10%) of the sum shown in Section 3 is filed with CITY. The maintenance bond will be released one (1) year from the date of final acceptance of the Improvements.

13. PERFORMANCE BY CITY OR SURETY.

A. Should SUBDIVIDER fail to construct the improvements in the manner and at such locations as specified within the time requirements of this Agreement, or if SUBDIVIDER is not carrying out the intent of this Agreement, CITY may serve written notice upon SUBDIVIDER and the surety on SUBDIVIDER'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 SUBDIVIDER's successor;
ii. CITY may construct the improvements itself, or by contract, at SUBDIVIDER's expense on a time a materials basis. In such event, CITY may take possession of and utilize in completing improvement construction, materials, appliances, and other property belonging to SUBDIVIDER as may be on the site of the work without liability to CITY. SUBDIVIDER's surety will be liable to CITY for any excess cost of damages incurred by CITY.

C. Nothing in this section waives, or serves as a limitation upon, any additional remedy CITY may have under this Agreement or applicable law.

14. 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.

15. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. SUBDIVIDER 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. SUBDIVIDER's failure to comply with the terms of this Section constitutes a material breach of this Agreement.

Non-Order Search
Doc: VN:2020 00200936

Page 4 of 16 ends

118

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

17. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CITY and SUBDIVIDER agree that SUBDIVIDER will act as an independent contractor and will have control of all work and the manner in which it is performed. SUBDIVIDER will be free to contract for similar service to be performed for other employers while under contract with CITY. SUBDIVIDER 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 SUBDIVIDER 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.

18.CASH CHARGES. SUBDIVIDER must pay to CITY in cash such subdivision fees that are established by ordinance or by the City Council in conferring approval or extension of time to the Subdivision.

19. INDEMNIFICATION.

A. SUBDIVIDER indemnifies and holds CITY harmless from and against any claim, action, damages, costs (including, without limitation, attorney's fees), 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, SUBDIVIDER 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 SUBDIVIDER, 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 SUBIDIVIDER pursuant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, to the provisions concerning indemnification.

Non -Order Search
Doc: VN:2020 00200936

Page 5 of 16 ends

119

20. INSURANCE.

A. Before commencing performance under this Agreement, and at all other times this Agreement is effective, SUBDIVIDER must 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 (combined single)
Commercial General Liability $2,000,000 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)
Pollution Liability $2,000,000 Per Claim, Or
occurrence $4,000,000
aggregate
B. Commercial general liability insurance must meet or exceed the requirements of ISO-CGL Form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. The amount of insurance set forth above will be a combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage for the policy coverage.

Liability policies must be endorsed to name CITY, its officials, and employees 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 endorsement must be reflected on ISO Form No. CG 20 10 11 85 or 88.

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. SUBDIVIDER must 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. SUBDIVIDER Non-Order Search
Doc: VN:2020 00200936

Page 6 of 16 ends

120
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.

21. NOTICES.

A. 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 Subdivider
Limoneira Lewis Community Builders LLC
do Lewis Management Corporation
Attn: Tim Jones
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.

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.

22.COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. SUBDIVIDER 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 SUBDIVIDER's own cost.

23. 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.

24.SEVEFtABLE. 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.

Non -Order Search
Doc: VN:2020 00200936

Page 7 of 16 ends

121

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

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. AUTHORITYIMODIFICATION. 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.

29. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS. The terms ofthis Agreement constitute a burden and benefit upon the Property. Accordingly, this Agreement will be recorded and the term will run with the Property and become binding upon SUBDIVIDER's heirs, successors and assigns.

30. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement constitutes the sole agreement between SUBDIVIDER and CITY respecting the maintenance of the Property's common areas and correctly sets forth the obligations of SUBDIVIDER and CITY. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written.

Non-Order Search
Doc: VN:2020 00200936

Page 8 of 16 ends

122
CALIFORNIA ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189
ifigiefie§f~iMieeffliegiegieteeffleeffletezeffletetiefleiteffleigefflefegetiefeaeffletteetieeitefflegetetieseefflereeiteegegteffli»314 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California
County of VP,(1-\-UrrA 1
On 0(,--0\z‘e.4- (9,ak.)-0 before me, Ä e.)( Ak(Lcif/1)0kj Rd(jk)(,'(,, Date Here Insert Name an/d Title of the Officer personally appeared 17.)A-ev,5
Name(s) of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

ALEX MCCARTY
Notary Public - California
Ventura County Commission • 2178139 — M Comm. Ex ires Jan 1,2021 Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp Above
certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature

OPTIONAL
S/giftature of Notary Public
Completing this information con deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document.

Description of Attached Document
Title
Document
or Type
Date:
of Document:

Number of Pages:

Signer's
Signer(s)
Capacity(les)
Name:

Other
Claimed

Than Named
by Signer(s)
Above:

O Corporate Officer — Title(s):

D Partner Limited 0 General
D Individual 0 Attorney In Fact
D Trustee o Guardian or Conservator
Signer
Other:
is

Representing: Signer is Representing:

Signer's
D Corporate
Name:

Officer

— Title(s):
0 Partner — 0 Limited D General
0 Individual 0 Attorney in Fact
D Trustee D Guardian or Conservator
0 Other:
ikeugmaimennewien
©2018 National Notary Association
iefieR010030**9:99egefeeceefecee
Non -Order Search
Doc: VN:2020 00200936

Page 9 of 16 ends

123
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this contract the day and year first hereinabove written.

CITY OF SANTA PAULA,
a municipal corporation.

ATTEST:

Gra
Clerk
014,1-13
b44-t1 e.,310...)erk, Tim Jones,
nOSe. Cho, pc% Nyo Authorized Agent
L1MONEIRA LEWIS COMMUNITY

BUILDERS, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company.

APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

Daniel Singer,
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Z ear
John cx Cotti,
City Attorney
Non-Order Search
Doc: VN:2020 00200936

Page 10 of 16 ends

124
CALIFORNIA ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity ofthe individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California
County of V Q•11-RtrOt 1
On oc,f3060, a212010 before me, idaexI4 CLIp AIoilAr tic, Date Here Insert Name and Title of the dfficer
personally appeared --- itni Sr _--------------
Nam*) ofSigner(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument

ALEX MCCARTY
Notary Public - California
Ventura County
Commission * 2178139 - M Comm. Ex Ares Jan 1, 2021
Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp Above
certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature

OPTIONAL
Si ature of Notary Public
Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment ofthis form to an unintended document Description of Attached Document
Title
Document
or Type
Date:
of Document
Number ofPages:

Signer(s)
Capacity(les)
Other
Claimed
Than Named
by Signer(s)
Above:

Signer's
0 Corporate
Name:

Officer

- Title(s):

O Partner 0 Limited 0 General
O Individual 0 Attorney in Fact
o Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator
0 Signer
Other:

Representing:

Signer's Name:
0 Corporate Officer Title(s):

O Partner 0 Limited 0 General
O Individual 0 Attorney in Fact
O Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator
0 Signer
Other:

Representing:
:• T TT- .......... 4.4 4.-• / • r 4
©2018 National Notary Association
Non-Order Search
Doc: VN:2020 00200936

Page 11 of 16 ends

125

EXHIBIT A
Non-Order Search
Doc: VN:2020 00200936

Page 12 of 16 ends

126
•

OFFSITE (PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS)

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ESTIMATE OF COST %I
TRACT 5991
Project No:

I ild:i Map
,.311()
inipt (,.t1%,••10,

SUMMARY SHEET
Instructions: Orange Color Box User Input Required
ITEM
Street/General Improvements
Removal and Adjustments
Drainage Improvements
Potable Water Improvements
Reclaimed Water Improvements
Sewer Improvements
Monuments
Misc. Water & Sewer Improv.

Grading
PROVED
CITY OF SANTA PAULA THE APPRoVAL OF PLANS ANO SPEOWICATIonD SHALL NOT DE 061010 on CONENTniao To DE AN APPROVAL. FORVIOLATION OF "ToP intovmK048 OF THE CITY OF MUNICIPAL COOS. STATE rdik• tv :3Fs DATE
Cost Estimate Prepared By:
-*--ignature Develo ' gineer
Cost Estimate Approved By:
(Total from Sheet 3)
(Total from Sheet 4)
(Total from Sheet 6)
(Total from Sheet 8)
(Total from Sheet 13)
(Total from Sheet 10)
(Total from Sheet 11)
(Total from Sheet 14)
Total City of Santa Paula
Improvements
(Total from Sheet 9)
Total City of Santa Paula
Grading
*2')

CITY FS HA PAULA
MAY 9 2018
F3-1
cVt/4
Date
Signature - City Representative Date
AMOUNT

0.00 0.00

0.00 215,358.55

0.00 162,335.98

0.00 0.00
377,694.53

0.00 0.00
Engineer's Seal
(Include R.L..t # and expiration mate)
Non-Order Search
Doc: VN:2020 00200936

Page 13 of 16 ends

127

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

ESTIMATE OF COST
OFFSITE (PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS) Project No:
(tern Quantity Unit Thick. (In) Unit Cost ($) item Cost Potable Water Improvements
1 6" PVC C-900, CL 150 0 LF NA 29.00 0.00
2 8" PVC C-900, CL 150 0 LF NA 35.00 0.00
3 10" PVC C-900, CL 150 0 LF NA 46,00 0.00
4 12" PVC C-900, CL 150 0 LF NA 68.00 0.00
5 6" PVC C-900, CL 200 0 LF NA 33.00 0.00
6 8" PVC C-900, CL 200 0 LF NA 41.00 0.00
7 10" PVC C-900, CL 200 0 LF NA 52.00 0.00
8 12" PVC C-900, CL 200 0 LF NA 72.00 0.00
9 14" DIP 0 LF NA 73.00 0.00
10 16" DIP 0 LF NA 82.00 0.00
11 20" DIP 0 LF NA 131.00 0.00
12 6" Tee, In Place 0 EA NA 452.00 0.00
13 8" x 6" Tee, In Place 0 EA NA 655.00 0.00
,14 8" Tee, In Place 4 EA i NA 685.00 2,740.00
15 10" x 6" Tee or 10" x 8" Tee, In Place 0 EA NA 950.00 0.00 16 10" Tee, in Place 0 EA ' NA 1,015.00 0.00
17 12" Tee, In Place 0 EA NA 1,210.00 0.00
18 16" Tee, ln Place 0 EA NA 3,140.00 0.00
19 16" x 6" Tee or 20" x 8" Tee, In Place 0 EA NA 3,140.00 1 0.00 20 20" Tee, In Place 0 EA NA 3,740.00 0.00
21 20" x 6" Tee or 20" x 8" Tee, In Place 0 EA NA 4,100.00 0.00 22 8" Cross, In Place 1 EA NA 1,000.00 1,000.00
23 10" Cross, in Place 0 EA NA 1,300.00 0.00
24 12" Cross, In Place 0 EA NA 1,500.00 0.00
25 16" Cross, In Place 0 EA NA 4,100.00 0.00
26 20" Cross, In Place 0 EA NA 5,500.00 0.00
27 8" x 6" Reducer, In Place 0 EA NA 453.00 0.00
28 10" x 8" Reduced, In Place 0 EA NA 640.00 0.00
29 12" x 8" or 12" x 10" Reducer, In Place 0 EA NA 890.00 0.00 30 16" x 8" or 16" x 10" Reducer, In Place 0 EA NA 2,370.00 0.00 31 20" x 8" or 20" x 10" Reducer, In Place 0 EA NA 3,500.00 0.00 32 2" Blow-Off, In Place 0 EA NA 1,800.00 0.00
33 6" Blow-Off, In Place 0 EA NA 4,570.00 0.00
34 Fire Hydrant - Complete, In Place 5 EA NA 4,690.00 23,450.00 35 6" Elbow 90° or 45°, In Place 0 EA NA 465,00 0.00
36 8" Elbow 90° or 45°, In Place 2 EA NA 640.00 1,280.00 -
37 10" Elbow 90° or 45°, In Place _ _ 0 EA NA 780.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL ($) 28,470.00--- '
Non -Order Search
Doc: VN:2020 00200936

Page 14 of 16 ends

128

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
OFFSITE (PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS) ESTIMATE OF COST Project No:

Itern Quantity 1Jiit -1-111a. On) Unit Cost ($) Itern Cost Potable Waterimprovements Cont.
38 12" Elbow 900 or 45°, In Place 0 EA NA 910.00 0.00
39 16" Elbow 900 or 45°, In Place 0 EA NA 2,310.00 0.00 40 20" Elbow 900 or 45°, In Place 0 EA NA 3,220.00 0.00 41 6" Valve, In Place 0- EA NA 1,040.00 0,00
42 8" Valve, In Place 16 EA NA 1,270.00 20,320.00
43 10" Valve, In Place 4
•ar
EA NA 1,790.00 0.00
44 12" Valve, In Place EA NA 2,120.00 , 0.00
45 16" Valve, In Place
a,
EA NA 4,480.00 0.00
46 20" Valve, In Place 0° EA NA 6,420.00 0.00
47 1" Air Release 0 EA NA 2,500.00 0.00
48 2" Air Release :1 EA NA 3,740.00 3,740,00
49 12" Mortar Lined & Coated Steel Pipe, In Place , LF NA 87.00 0.00 i 50 14" Mortar Lined & Coated Steel Pipe, In Place 0 IF NA 87.00 0.00 51 16" Mortar Lined & Coated Steel Pipe, In Place 0 IF NA 97.00 0.00 52 20" Mortar Lined & Coated Steel Pipe, In Place 0 IF NA 145.00 0.00 53 Backflow Prevention Device - Fire Line 0 EA NA 3,900.00 0.00 54 6" Double Detector Check 0 EA NA 1 11,000.00 0.00
55 8" Double Detector Check 0 EA NA 1 15,270.00 0.00
56 10" Double Detector Check 0 EA NA 16,900.00 0.00
57 1" RP Backflow Device 0 EA NA 725.00 0.00
58 1-1/2" RP Backflow Device 0 EA NA 1,000.00 0.00
59 2" RP Backflow Device 0 EA NA 1,300.00 0.00
60 6" RP Backflow Device EA NA 11,900.00 0.00
61 8" RP Backflow Device 01 EA NA 16,600.00 0.00
62 Slope Anchor Blocks .0\ EA NA 400.00 0,00
63 Slope Erosion Control 0 IS NA 0.00
64 1" Service, Complete 60 EA NA 1,000.00 60,000.00
65 2" Service, Complete 0 EA NA 2,130.00 0.00
66 3" Service, Complete 0 EA NA 5,300.00 0,00
67 , Encasements 0 LE NA 30.00 0.00
68 8" Tapping Sleeve 0 EA 1 NA 2,900.00 0.00
69 10" Tapping Sleeve 0 EA NA 3,200.00 0.00
70 12" Tapping Sleeve d EA NA 3,650.00 0.00
8" PVC C-900 CL 305 DR 14 2030.5 EA NA 41.00 83,250.50
1 0.00 '

0.00 0.00 -
SUBTOTAL (SHEET 8) 167,310.50
TOTAL (SHEET 7 & 8) 195,780.50
ADD 10% 19,578.05
TOTAL 215,358.55
Non -Order Search
Doc: VN:2020 00200936

Page 15 of 16 ends

129

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

ESTIMATE OF COST
OFFSITE (PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS) Project No:

Item Quantity Unit Thick. (in) Unit Cost ($) Item Cost
kiiiieriniplirietiletits
1 AC Pacement, Remove & Repl For Trenching 0 SF NA 22.00 0.00 2 Backflow Prevention Device 0 EA NA 318.00 0.00
3 Cleanout 19 EA NA 72.00 1,368.00
4 Interceptor (Grease, Oil, Sand) 0 EA NA 4,026.00 0.00 Manhole, 5' Dia., Precast, w/ T-Lock Coating:
5 6' Deep 0 EA
r
NA 10,594.00 0.00
6 8' Deep EA NA 11,654.00 0.00
7 10 Deep EA NA 12,713.00 0.00
8 PVC, SDR 35, 6" IF NA 25.00 0.00
9 PVC, SDR 35, 8" 1458.06 IF NA 36.00 52,490.16
10 PVC, SDR 35, 12" IF NA 48.00 0.00
11 Sewer Manhole Ring & Cover (Cast Iron) EA NA 535.00 0.00 12 VCP, 6" IF NA 16.00 0.00
13 -4
VCP, 8" IF NA 17.00 0.00
14 Sewer Lateral Complete 24 EA NA 1,100.00 26,400.00
15 PVC, SDR 35, 10" LF NA i 42.00 0.00
16 60" Manhole - 10' Depth 8 EA NA 8,415.00 67,320.00
17 60" Manhole - 15' Depth 0 EA NA 10,305.00 0.00
18 60" Manhole - 20' Depth EA NA 12,295.00 0.00
.4 0.00
it 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Y 0.00 .i

0.00 0.00
= 0.00
SUBTOTAL 147 578.16
ADD 10% 14,757.82
TOTAL 162,335.98
Non-Order Search
Doc: VN:2020 00200936

Page 16 of 16 ends

130
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Monica Castillo, City Attorney
Subject: EIR ADDENDUM NO. 4 FOR THE EAST AREA 1 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 4 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (HARVEST AT

LIMONEIRA PROJECT)
Date: March 20, 2024
Agenda Item: 10.A

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

MEMORANDUM
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 7505 approving Addendum No. 4 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 and a General Plan Amendment; and

2. Introduce and waive first reading of Ordinance No. 1336 titled: "An Ordinance Approving (1) Addendum No. 4 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 and a General Plan Amendment, (2) East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4, and (3) a General Plan Amendment." Presented by: James Mason, Economic & Community Development Director 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”).

Amendments to text in the General Plan referring to the current EA1 Specific Plan are also required to ensure the proposed EA1 SPA is consistent with the General Plan (“General Plan Amendment” or “GPA”).

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 to Council approval of EA1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4. On February 13, 2024, the City Council, after a noticed public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 7500 approving EIR 131
Addendum No. 3, and introduced and waived first reading of Ordinance No. 1333 approving the DA Amendment subject to Council approval of EA1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4. On February 21, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1333.

On February 27, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3859 recommending that the City Council (1) approve Addendum No. 4 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 and a General Plan Amendment, and (ii) adopt an ordinance to approve East 1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 and the General Plan Amendment.

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 in February 2015, November 2015, and June 2021. 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 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 an approximate 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 on June 16, 2021.

Proposed East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment (EA1 SPA)
132
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”). (See Exhibit B to Attachment D [Proposed Ordinance]). The plan amendment is in response to the increased need for additional housing in Santa Paula and Ventura County. 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.

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 86.2 707 du
c 8.2 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 6.4 252.1 2,050 du 8.1 550 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
- 0.2 10,000 sf - -205,000 sf
Subtotal 17.9
240,000
sf
- 0.2 10,000 sf - -230,000 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 2024 Draft Proposed East Area Specific Plan SP-3 133
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 include 1,750 single-family units and potentially 300 apartment units (150 duplexes). Assisted living units would no longer be developed.

It should be noted that the proposed EA1 SPA restates land use changes to the Specific Plan approved in June 2021; namely, the reduction of 19.2 acres reserved for development of school facilities by the Santa Paula Unified School District (SPUSD) to a 8.3-acre site. This reduction was due to the SPUSD decision not to use the site for a school, and not that of the City or Applicant. Except for up to 10,000 square feet of commercial uses, all commercial, industrial, and institutional uses in the Hallock Center District are proposed for elimination. No changes to the approximately 225 acres of park and open space areas are proposed. The number of acres provided for the Community Park (Sports Park) and neighborhood parks would also remain the same.

Proposed General Plan Amendment
The 2040 General Plan contains references to the approved EA1 SPA. To make the general plan consistency finding needed for approval of the proposed EA1 SPA, these references in the 2040 General Plan must be updated to conform to the proposed EA1 SPA.

The proposed amendments to the General Plan (See Exhibit C to Attachment D [Proposed Ordinance]) would change the description of the EA1 Specific Plan in the Land Use Element.

The new description would reflect the permitted increase in residential units from 1500 to 2050, the reduction of acres reserved for SPUSD school facilities, the elimination of light industrial uses, and the reduction of permitted commercial uses to 10,000 square feet.

The amendments would also revise the Public Services and Utilities Element to remove references to the K-8 elementary school site that the SPUSD decided not to use.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The 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.
134
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

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. 4 (Addendum No. 6 to the 2008 EIR and Addendum No. 4 to the 2015 SEIR) evaluating the proposed fourth amendment to the approved Specific Plan (See Exhibit A to Attachment C [Resolution] ). Based on the information contained in this Addendum, the proposed changes to the Project allowed by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, if 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 amended 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, mailed to persons within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property, and posted in a conspicuous place on the property affected in compliance with state law and SPMC § 16.204.010(C). 135
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:

LLCB has submitted a Harvest at Limoneira Projected Fiscal Impacts and Assumptions memorandum dated June 30, 2023 and prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates. (See Attachment E.) This memorandum updates the prior analysis with the proposed 2,050 units in East Area 1. The memorandum assesses East Area 1 and the Santa Paula Gateway Project (East Area 2) combined and is based on a seven-year fiscal forecast (2023-2029) for these areas. The memorandum concludes that when East Area 1 and 2's revenue surplus is matched against the City obligations, net City benefits (annual positive cash flow) are projected throughout the forecasted development-period and at buildout.

The City and its financial consultants have not had sufficient opportunity to peer review the fiscal impact analysis in detail and is not prepared to opine on its validity at this time.

OPTIONS:

In addition to the recommended action, the Planning Commission has the following available alternative options:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 3859 with specified revisions to EIR Addendum No. 4; and/or

2. Adopt Ordinance No. 3859 with specified minor revisions to East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 or the General Plan Amendment; or

3. Refer the East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 or the General Plan Amendment back to the Planning Commission to consider substantial modifications not previously considered by the commission; or

4. Continue the hearing in order to obtain further information; or

5. 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 - Development Plan
Att C - Resolution 7505 - EIR Addendum 4
Att D - Ordinance 1336 - EA1 SPA No. 4 and GPA
Att E - Harvest at Limoneira Fiscal Impacts & Assumptions 136
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
137

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 -
138
65283.00005\42105322.1

ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION NO. 7505
Draft Only
139
65283.00005\42105322.1
RESOLUTION NO. 7505

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
PAULA APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE FINAL

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR
EAST AREA 1 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 4 AND GENERAL

PLAN AMENDMENT
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 (“Harvest”) or “East Area 1”, a master-planned residential development in Santa Paula, California.

E. In 2010 and 2013, the City prepared Addendum Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, to the 2008 EIR evaluating minor changes to the project.

F. In February 2015, the City certified a Supplemental EIR (“2015 EIR”) that analyzed an amendment to the Specific Plan (“Specific Plan Amendment No. 1”) to revise the land use plan and regulating plan as defined in the Specific Plan, a Master Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide the Specific Plan Area to facilitate the development allowed by the approved Specific Plan, and an Amended and Restated Development Agreement.

G. On or about September 21, 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.

H. In November 2015, the City approved a second amendment to the Specific Plan (“Specific Plan Amendment No. 2”) to adjust setback and landscaping requirements and to authorize the Planning Director to make administrative adjustments to setback requirements.

Draft Only
140
65283.00005\42105322.1
I. In June 2021, the City approved a third amendment to the approved Specific Plan (“Specific Plan Amendment No. 3”) which expanded the range of residential land uses allowed in the Civic District and Hallock Center Zones to include single-family residential uses and reflected that Santa Paula Unified School District no longer planned development of an elementary school on a 10.9-acre site in the Civic District.

A second 8.2 acre site for school facilities was unaffected.

J. The Applicant has applied for a fourth amendment to the approved Specific Plan (“Specific Plan Amendment No. 4”) and a General Plan Amendment (“GPA”), and a third amendment to the Development Agreement (“DA Amendment No. 3”) to increase the number of units in the Specific Plan area by 550 units from 1500 units to 2050 units, among other changes.

K. On February 13, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 7500 approving Addendum No. 3 to the EIR (“Addendum No. 3”) for DA Amendment No. 3 and introduced and waived first reading of Ordinance No. 1333 approving DA Amendment No. 3 subject to Council approval of Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 (“DA Ordinance”).

L. On February 21, 2024, the City Council adopted the DA Ordinance.

M. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 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 205,000 square feet of commercial development currently allowed by the Specific Plan in the Hallock Center District. This amendment is a reduction from 215,000 square feet commercial uses and would leave 10,000 square feet for commercial uses in the District.

N. The proposed GPA would amend the 2040 General Plan to conform to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 4.

O. The City has prepared a fourth Addendum to the EIR (“Addendum No. 4”) to evaluate Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 and the GPA (together, “Amended Project”). Based on the analysis and findings in Addendum No. 4, which are incorporated by reference into this Resolution, Staff has determined no new significant impacts are likely to result from the proposed Amended Project.

P. On February 27, 2024, the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing adopted Resolution No. 3859 recommending that City Council approve Addendum No. 4 to the EIR (“EIR Addendum”) and adopt an ordinance approving Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 and the GPA .

Q. On March 20, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing regarding the EIR Addendum. This Resolution and its findings are adopted based upon the evidence Draft Only
141
65283.00005\42105322.1
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 in this Section as the “Final EIR”).

B. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) authorizes an addendum to a previously certified EIR if, as a result of changes to the project at issue in the EIR, changes or additions to the EIR are needed, 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. 4 to the 2015 SEIR (“EIR Addendum No. 4”) attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.

D. EIR Addendum No. 4 is appropriate because the Amended Project demonstrates the following:

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

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 Draft Only
142
65283.00005\42105322.1
significant effects on the environment, and that the Amended Project proponents decline to adopt, are recommended.

SECTION 3: Approval. Subject to any conditions set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 3859, 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.

SECTION 10: This Resolution is the City Council’s final decision and will take effect immediately upon adoption.
//
//
//
//
Draft Only
143
65283.00005\42105322.1
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of March 2024.
__________________________
Leslie Cornejo, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Julie Latshaw, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Monica Castillo, City Attorney
Draft Only
144
65283.00005\42105322.1

EXHIBIT A
EIR Addendum No. 4
[attached behind]
Draft Only
145
EAST AREA 1 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 4
ADDENDUM NO. 4 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
MARCH 2024
Draft Only
146
Meridian Consultants i East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

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

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

1.2 Applicable Review Standards ..................................................................1.0-3

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 ................................................................ 3.0-28

3.7 Aesthetics....................................................................................... 3.0-32

3.8 Population and Housing....................................................................... 3.0-34

3.9 Public Services ................................................................................. 3.0-37

3.9.1 Fire and Police ....................................................................... 3.0-37

3.9.2 Schools ................................................................................ 3.0-38

3.9.3 Libraries............................................................................... 3.0-39

3.10 Recreation ...................................................................................... 3.0-41

3.11 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................ 3.0-43

3.11.1 Water.................................................................................. 3.0-43

3.11.2 Wastewater........................................................................... 3.0-46

3.11.3 Solid Waste ........................................................................... 3.0-49

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
Draft Only
147
Meridian Consultants ii East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 ........................................................................................... 3.0-10

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 ................................................................................. 3.0-44

3.11-2 Projected Water Demands ............................................................................. 3.0-44

3.11-3 Approved Project − Domestic Water Land Uses and Demands ................................... 3.0-45

3.11-4 Proposed Project − Domestic Water Land Uses and Demands ................................... 3.0-46

3.11-5 Approved Project – Wastewater Generation ........................................................ 3.0-47

3.11-6 Proposed Project – Wastewater Generation ........................................................ 3.0-48

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
Draft Only
................................................. 3.0-58 148
Meridian Consultants 1.0-1 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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.

In February 2010, the City prepared Addendum No. 1 to the East Area 1 Specific Plan FEIR1 (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 November 2013, the City prepared Addendum No. 2 to the East Area 1 Specific Plan FEIR2 (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 (Amendment No. 1) 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 commercial uses, the Civic District to 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.

Draft Only
149

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 1.0-2 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
accommodate 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.

In October 2016, the City prepared Addendum No. 3 to the East Area 1 SP FEIR and Addendum No. 1 to the East Area 1 SP SEIR, to address minor revisions to the timing of completion of Mitigation Measure C10 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.

In November 2015, the Specific Plan was amended (Amendment No. 2) to adjust setback and landscaping requirements and to authorize the Planning Director to make administrative adjustments to setback requirements. The City determined no further environmental review was necessary for this amendment.

In May 2021, the City prepared Addendum No. 4 to the East Area 1 SP FEIR and Addendum No. 2 to the East Area 1 SP SEIR, to evaluate 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.

Addendum No. 5 to the East Area 1 SP FEIR and Addendum No. 3 to the East Area 1 SP SEIR, prepared by the City in February 2024, evaluated a proposed amendment to the Development Agreement associated with a proposed amendment to the Specific Plan, 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.

The Final EIR, certified in 2008, its Addendums Nos. 1 through 5, and the East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment Final SEIR, certified in 2015, its Addendums Nos. 1 through 3 collectively comprise and are referred to herein as the “FEIR,” “previous EIR,” or “SEIR” for purposes of this Addendum.

This Addendum, Addendum No. 6 to the East Area 1 SP FEIR and Addendum No. 4 to the East Area 1 SP SEIR, evaluates a proposed amendment to the Specific Plan, Amendment No. 4, that would increase the Draft Only
150

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 1.0-3 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
number of residential units allowed by 550 units from 1,500 to 2,050 units, remove the 25,000 square feet of light industrial and 205,000 square feet of commercial development currently allowed by the Specific Plan in the Hallock Center District. The proposed amendment would allow development of up to 10,000 square feet of commercial uses 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 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 Draft Only
151

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 1.0-4 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
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.

Draft Only
152
Meridian Consultants 2.0-1 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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.

Draft Only
153
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
Draft Only
154

2.0 Project Description
Meridian Consultants 2.0-3 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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. In addition, since approval of the 2015 Specific Plan Amendment, the Ventura County Fire District determined the 1- acre site reserved for development of a new fire station was no longer required.

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. A 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 and, for this reason, the proposed amendment would eliminate business park uses and reduce the amount of commercial development allowed from 240,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet to facilitate the development of neighborhoodserving retail commercial uses in the Hallock Center District 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.

Draft Only
155

2.0 Project Description
Meridian Consultants 2.0-4 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 98.1 707 duc 7.2 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 6.4 264.0 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 10,000 sf - -205,000 sf Subtotal 17.9 240,000 sf - 0 10,000 sf - -230,000 sf
Civic/Institutional
Schools – Civic Districtd 19.2 - - 8.3 - - -10.9 ac
Fire – Hallock Center Districte 1.0 - - 0.0 - - -1.5 ac Subtotal 20.2 - - 8.3 - - -11.4 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 approved for development of 121 residential units and the 1-acre site previously reserved for development of a new fire station.

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.

E – Reflects Ventura County Fire District previously determining a site for a new fire station was not needed in East Area 1. A 1.5-acre parcel located south of the Specific Plan Area and south of Telegraph Road at Padre Lane was conveyed to the Ventura County Fire District in lieu of the site within the Specific Plan Area.

Draft Only
156
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
Draft Only
157
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)
Draft Only
158

2.0 Project Description
Meridian Consultants 2.0-7 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 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, is currently proposed for development 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.

Draft Only
159
Development Plan
FIGURE 2-4
SOURCE: Google Earth - July 2023
114-001-16
Draft Only
160
Meridian Consultants 3.0-1 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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.

Draft Only
161

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-2 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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.

Draft Only
162

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-3 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 Draft Only
163

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-4 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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, however, allow the development of up to 10,000 square feet of commercial space in the Hallock Center District to facilitate the provision of neighborhood-oriented retail commercial uses for residents and visitors to the Sports Park in the Civic District. This amount of commercial development could be accommodated on approximately 1 acre of land. The proposed amendment would be consistent with Policy LU 3.1 by ensuring adequate land for both residential and commercial development within the 3 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Connect SoCal: 2020 Demographics and Growth Forecast.

September 3, 2020. Accessed January 2024. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf.

Draft Only
164

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-5 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
Specific Plan Area that would balance with the amount of land designated for commercial and other nonresidential development in the eastern portion of the City.

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 and remaining commercial 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 would consist of approximately 300 rental duplex units planned in the Hallock Center District west of Hallock Drive and south of Santa Paula Street, and would expand the range of housing opportunities available in the City.

Draft Only
165

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-6 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
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 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.

Draft Only
166

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

Draft Only
167

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-8 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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). This assessment evaluated the Specific Plan Amendment as originally proposed, which involved the proposed elimination of all commercial uses within the Specific Plan Area. The changes in the land uses allowed in the Specific Plan area with the amendment as originally proposed 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. The amendment as currently proposed would allow the development of up to 10,000 square feet of commercial uses in the Hallock Center District to facilitate the provision of neighborhood-oriented retail commercial uses for residents and visitors to the Sports Park in the Civic District. Based on technical guidance provided by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research on evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA, adding local-serving retail development improves retail destination proximity, which shortens trips and reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT). For this reason, adding local-serving retail commercial development creates a less-than-significant transportation impact.4 Accordingly, development of up to 10,000 square feet of local-serving retail commercial uses would result in a further reduction in the amount of traffic generated in comparison to the results of the February 2023 transportation assessment. 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 4 State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018.

Draft Only
168

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-9 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
amount of traffic generated by the East Area 1 Specific Plan.5 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.

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,6 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.7 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 amendment as originally proposed, which did not include any commercial uses, would result in a small reduction in VMT per service population (residents and employees) of 0.4 percent. As discussed previously, the amendment as currently proposed would allow the development of up to 10,000 square feet of local-serving retail commercial uses, which would further reduce VMT. 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. 5 City of Santa Paula. “Circulation and Mobility Element.” General Plan. 2020. Accessed July 2023. https://www.spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/1710/2040-General-Plan-Section-3---Circulation-and-Mobility-Element. 6 California Code of Regulations. 14, sec. 15064.3. CEQA Guidelines. 7 Ventura County Transportation Commission. “Ventura county Transportation Model.” Accessed July 2023. https://www.goventura.org/work-withvctc/trafficmodel/#:~:text= The%20Ventura%20County%20Transportation%20Model,in%20relationship%20to%20land%20use.

Draft Only
169

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-10 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
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.

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 Ventura County Fire District. 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.

Draft Only
170

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-11 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 Draft Only
171

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-12 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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.

Draft Only
172

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-13 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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.

Draft Only
173

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-14 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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.

Draft Only
174

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-15 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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.

Draft Only
175

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-16 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 65.9 136.0 0.1 28.6 10.5 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 32.2 99.3 <0.1 19.3 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 23.5 83.7 <0.1 18.7 4.7 Threshold exceeded? No No - - - -
Draft Only
176

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-17 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 5.9 22.1 79.6 <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 21.3 75.4 <0.1 18.6 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 20.1 71.8 <0.1 18.6 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 19.0 67.5 <0.1 18.6 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 17.9 67.6 <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 38.9 18.7 71.9 <0.1 21.8 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 38.7 17.7 69.0 <0.1 21.8 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? - - - - - -
Draft Only
177

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-18 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 34.4 1.3 9.4 <0.1 3.3 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 Specific Plan Amendment 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 134 54 536 1 133 35
Difference -133 -33 46 0 30 5
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 133 and 33 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. As discussed previously, the amendment as currently proposed would allow the development of up to 10,000 Draft Only
178

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-19 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
square feet of local-serving retail commercial uses, which would further reduce vehicle trips and VMT and related air emissions in comparison to the amendment as originally proposed.

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 Plan8 (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 2045.9 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.
8 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. Air Quality Management Plan. 2022. Accessed January 2024. http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/AQMP/2022/Final-2022-AQMP-without-appendices.pdf. 9 SCAG. Connect SoCal: 2020 Demographics and Growth Forecast. September 3, 2020.

Draft Only
179

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-20 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 Draft Only
180

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-21 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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;
Draft Only
181

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-22 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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:

Draft Only
182

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-23 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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.

Draft Only
183

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-24 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 Draft Only
184

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-25 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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.10 As all development within the Specific Plan Area is required to comply with the Santa Paula Municipal Code11 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. 10 City of Santa Paula. “Noise Element.” General Plan. Accessed January 2024. https://spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/278/General-Plan---Noise-ElementPDF?bidId=#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20the%20Noise,or%20disruptive%20sources%20of%20noise. 11 City of Santa Paula. Municipal Code. Chapter 93: Noise. Accessed July 2023. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/santapaula/latest/santapaula_ca/0-0-0-53371.

Draft Only
185

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

Draft Only
186

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-27 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 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.

Draft Only
187

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-28 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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
Draft Only
188

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

Draft Only
189

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-30 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 Draft Only
190

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-31 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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.

Draft Only
191

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-32 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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.

Draft Only
192

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-33 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 business park uses and substantially reduce the amount of commercial development allowed to 10,000 square feet. The additional homes that would be allowed by the proposed amendment would occur in the lower portions of the site where commercial and business park 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.

Draft Only
193

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-34 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 2045.12 The population of the City of Santa Paula in 2020 was 30,389.13 The City’s projected housing needs are based on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) as developed by the SCAG.14 The RHNA is a key tool for local governments to plan for anticipated growth. 12 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Connect SoCal: 2020 Demographics and Growth Forecast.

September 3, 2020.
13 City of Santa Paula. “2029 Housing Element.” General Plan. Accessed January 2024. 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. 14 SCAG. Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Accessed January 2024. https://scag.ca.gov/rhna.

Draft Only
194

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-35 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
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.15 Santa Paula has a total of approximately 9,050 housing units, with single-family detached being the most prevalent housing type.16 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.17 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,18 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 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.
15 SCAG. Final RHNA Allocation Plan. 2021. Accessed January 2024. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121.pdf?1646938785. 16 City of Santa Paula. “2029 Housing Element.” General Plan. 17 City of Santa Paula. “2029 Housing Element.” General Plan. 18 City of Santa Paula. “2029 Housing Element.” General Plan.

Draft Only
195

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-36 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
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.

Draft Only
196

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-37 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 District (VCFD) and Santa Paula Police Department (SPPD).

The Ventura County Fire District 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:

Draft Only
197

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-38 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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. The amendment would also eliminate business park uses and substantially reduce the amount of commercial development allowed to 10,000 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 Draft Only
198

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-39 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
Justification Study, the District’s current State calculated capacity for K-8 facilities is 4,010 seats.19 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.20 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 19 Santa Paula Unified School District. 2022 Developer Fee Justification Study. November 2022. Accessed January 2024. https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1695072802/santapaulaunifiedorg/evr5tqo4bkgenpom5fxn/SPUSD2022DeveloperFee JustificationStudy.pdf.
20 Santa Paula Unified School District’s K-8 Student Generation Factor is 0.4061 students per household; 550 residential units x

0.4061 = 223 students generated.

Draft Only
199

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-40 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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.21
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.
21 City of Santa Paula. East Area 1 Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. 2008. Accessed January 2023. https://www.spcity.org/325/Environmental-Impact-Report.

Draft Only
200

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-41 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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.22
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.23 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.
22 City of Santa Paula. East Area 1 Specific Plan SP-3, Santa Paula, California. As amended November 2015. Accessed January 2024. https://spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/576/East-Area-One-Specific-Plan-2017-PDF. 23 City of Santa Paula. East Area 1 Specific Plan SP-3, Santa Paula, California. As amended November 2015.

Draft Only
201

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-42 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
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 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.24 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.
24 City of Santa Paula. “Public Services and Utilities.” General Plan. Accessed July 2023. https://www.spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/1713/2040-General-Plan-Section-6---Public-Services-and-Utilities-Element.

Draft Only
202

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-43 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 Draft Only
203

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-44 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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.25 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.

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 25 City of Santa Paula. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. (2021), https://spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/2017/UrbanWater-Management-Plan---2020-Update-?bidId=. Accessed July 2023.

Draft Only
204

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-45 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
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.26 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.

TABLE 3.11-3
APPROVED PROJECT – DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND
Land Use Amount Area (Acres)
Demand Rates
(gpdp) Annual Demand (AF)
Residential 1,500 Units
Single Family 1,100 Units 163 713.8
Multi Family 400 Units 163 255.6
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
School Facilities 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 0.0 TOTAL 1,331.8
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.

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.27 To ensure a conservative analysis, the daily use 26 City of Santa Paula. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. July 2021. Accessed July 2023. https://spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/2017/Urban-Water-Management-Plan---2020-Update-?bidId=. 27 Jenson Design & Survey, Inc. Potable Water System Master Plan Amendment – Harvest at Limoneira. March 10, 2023.

Accessed January 2024. https://www.spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/4014/EA1-Addendum-No-3-Appendix-C.

Draft Only
205

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-46 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
rate was increased by 25 percent to 64 gallons per person per day,28 as shown in Table 3.11-4: Proposed Project—Domestic Water Land Uses and Demands.

TABLE 3.11-4
PROPOSED PROJECT – DOMESTIC WATER DEMANDS
Proposed Land Use Amount
Area
(Acres)
Demand Rates
(gpdp)
Annual Demand
(AF)
Residential 2,050 Units
Santa Paula Creek Neighborhood 489 Units 64 122.7
Foothill Neighborhood 554 Units 64 139.0
Haun Creek Neighborhood 707 Units 64 177.4
Hallock Center 300 Units 64 75.3
Civic/Institutional
School & Private Recreation Facilities 10.94 1.81 AFY/Acre 19.8 Commercial 10,000 Sq. Ft. 0.5
Other Water Consumption
Santa Paula Sports Park 37.8 2.22 AFY/Acre 83.9
Parks/Greenways 55.2 2.22 AFY/Acre 122.5
Agricultural Preserve (irrigated) 55.0 No water use 0.0 Open Space Preserve (not irrigated) 77.3 No water use 00.0 TOTAL 741.1
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.

Estimate of water demand for agricultural preserve based on use over past five years.

Agricultural Preserve will be irrigated from an agricultural well on Pump House Lane privately operated and not part of the City’s domestic system.

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 from approximately 1,332 AFY to 741 AFY. 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 28 Jenson Design & Survey, Inc. Potable Water System Master Plan Amendment – Harvest at Limoneira. March 10, 2023.

Draft Only
206

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-47 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
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 Plan29 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 Amount
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 1,500 Units
Santa Paula Creek
Neighborhood 489 Units 85 77.7 233.0 155.4
Foothill
Neighborhood 554 Units 85 101.6 304.9 203.3
Haun Creek
Neighborhood 632 Units 85 130.6 391.7 261.1
Light Industrial 25,000 Sq. Ft.

2.49 Gal/SF/Yr 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2
Commercial 215,000 Sq. Ft.

15.1 Gal/SF/Yr 6.2 4.6 13.9 9.3
Civic/Institutional 20.2

1.81 AF/Yr/Acre 22.7 17.0 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). 29 City of Santa Paula. Wastewater System Master Plan. 2012. Accessed July 2023. https://spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/637/East-Gateway-Project-Final-Environmental-Impact-Report---Appendix-2bWastewater-Master-Plan-PDF#:~:text=The%20City%20of%20Santa%20Paula,City's%20sanitary%20sewer%20collection% 20system.

Draft Only
207

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-48 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
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 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.30
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 249 GPM.

TABLE 3.11-6
PROPOSED PROJECT − WASTEWATER GENERATION
Land Use Amount
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 Units
Santa Paula Creek
Neighborhood 489 Units 48 57.1 171.2 114.1
Foothill
Neighborhood 554 Units 48 64.6 193.9 129.3
Haun Creek
Neighborhood 707 Units 48 82.5 247.5 165.0
Hallock Center 300 Units 48 35.0 105.0 70.0
Civic/Institutional
School & Private
Recreational
Facilities 10.94

1.81 AFY/Acre 12.3 9.0 27.6 18.4
Commercial 10,000 Sq. Ft.

15.1 Gal/
Sq. Ft./Yr. 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.4
TOTAL 12.6 248.6 745.8 497.2
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 30 City of Santa Paula. Wastewater System Master Plan. 2012.

Draft Only
208

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-49 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
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 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 2028.31 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 2047.32 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, would eliminate business park uses and substantially reduce the amount of commercial uses allowed to 10,000 square feet. 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 10,000 108
tons/sq. ft./yr
TOTAL 5,417.1 tons/yr 3,188.58 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.
31 City of Santa Paula. “Public Services and Utilities.” General Plan. Accessed January 2024. https://www.spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/1713/2040-General-Plan-Section-6---Public-Services-and-Utilities-Element. 32 City of Santa Paula. “Public Services and Utilities.” General Plan.

Draft Only
209

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-50 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
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.

Draft Only
210

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-51 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 Act33 and the California Clean Air Act.34 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.35 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.36 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:
33 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). “Summary of the Clean Air Act.” Accessed July 2023. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act. 34 State of California, Department of Justice. “Clean Air Act.” Accessed January 2024. https://oag.ca.gov/environment/cleanair. 35 State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory – CEQA and Climate change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act. December 2018. Accessed January 2024. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20181228-Discussion_Draft_Climate_Change_Adivsory.pdf. 36 State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory – CEQA and Climate change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act. December 2018.

Draft Only
211

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-52 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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]).37 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.38 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.
37 California Code of Regulations. Sec. 15064.4. “Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” 38 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.

Draft Only
212

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-53 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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.39 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 business park land uses with residential uses and increase the allowable residential units within the Specific Plan area from 1,500 to 2,050 and reduce the amount of commercial development allowed from 240,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet.

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 35,768 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. 39 United States International Energy Agency (IEA). Energy Efficiency Requirements in Building Codes, Energy Efficiency Policies for New Buildings, IEA Information Paper. 2008. Accessed July 2023. https://www.iea.org/reports/energyefficiency-requirements-in-building-codes-policies-for-new-buildings.

Draft Only
213

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-54 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
TABLE 3.12-1

CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSION COMPARISONS
Construction Year Adopted Specific Plan Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Difference
First Year 7,317.4 3,911.0 3,406.4
Second Year 9,247.7 3,191.0 6,056.7
Third Year 8,803.9 3,005.0 5,798.9
Fourth Year 6,692.9 2,957.0 3,735.9
Fifth Year 5,730.2 2,895.0 2,835.2
Sixth Year 5,579.7 2,786.0 2,793.7
Seventh Year 5,528.0 2,839.0 2,689.0
Eighth Year 5,463.0 2,741.0 2,722.0
Ninth Year 5,768.9 2,904.0 2,864.9
Tenth Year 5,954.3 2,948.0 3,006.3
Eleventh Year — 141.0 —
Total Emissions 66,086.0 30,318.0 35,768.0
Annualized over
Project Lifetime 2,202.9 1,010.6 1,192.3
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 1,192 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 amendment as currently proposed would allow the development of up to 10,000 square feet of commercial uses in the Hallock Center District to facilitate the provision of neighborhood-oriented retail commercial uses for residents and visitors to the Sports Park in the Civic District. Based on technical guidance provided by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research on evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA, adding local-serving retail development improves retail destination proximity, which shortens trips and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). For this reason, adding local-serving retail commercial development would further reduce GHG emissions.

The Specific Plan Amendment as originally proposed would result in a decrease of approximately 1,351 MTCO2e per year as shown in Table 3.12-2: Operational GHG Emissions. This represents a decrease of approximately 4.8% in GHG emissions due to the changes in land use. Additionally, a 4.6-metric tons of CO2e per year per service population threshold was used to determine significance of GHG emissions in the SEIR. The proposed Project is estimated to result in an increase in population of 6,786, resulting in a ratio 4.0 of CO2e per year, which is below the 4.6 CO2e per year threshold.

Draft Only
214

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-55 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
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 4.8% 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.

TABLE 3.12-2
OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS (MTCO2E/YEAR)
Source Adopted Specific Plan Proposed Specific Plan
Amendment Difference
Construction (amortized) 2,202.9 1,010.6 -1,192.3
Mobile 15,045.3 18,414.0 3,368.7
Energy 8,130.0 6,438.0 -1,692.0
Area 19.8 27.2 7.4
Water 1,626.4 433.0 -1,193.4
Waste 1,193.5 544.0 -649.5
Total 28,217.9 26,866.8 -1,351.1
Refer to Appendix B for Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas CalEEMod Output Sheets.

Abbreviation: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Draft Only
215

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-56 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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 2018.40 CEQA guidelines were finalized and updated to require additional analysis across multiple topics, including for energy impacts, effective December 28, 2018.41 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.
40 State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. “2018 CEQA Guidelines Update.” Accessed July 2023. “https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/updates.html.
41 State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. “2018 CEQA Guidelines Update.” Draft Only
216

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-57 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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, 3,128,299 gallons of diesel fuel, and 2,233,824 gallons of gasoline are 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 2,775,299 gallons
Total 3,128,375 gallons
Gasoline
Off-Road Construction Equipment 0 gallons
On-Road Motor Vehicles 2,233,824 gallons
Total 2,233,824 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).42 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 42 California Energy Commission (CEC). “California Energy Consumption Database.” Accessed January 2024, https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/.

Draft Only
217

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-58 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
by approximately 23,000 GWh between 2019 and 2035.43 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 5,362,199 gallons of petroleum (3,128,375 gallons of diesel and 2,233,824 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.44 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 13,789,872 kWh of electricity per year, 70,416,116 kBTU of natural gas per year, and 2,045,189 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
Commercial kWh/yr 97,703
School Facilities kWh/yr 657,845
Water Conveyance kWh/yr 2,669,623
Total Electricity kWh/yr 13,789,872
43 CEC. “Figure 49: Historical and Projected Baseline Consumption, SCE Planning Area.” California Energy Demand 2018 – 2030 Revised Forecast. Accessed January 2024. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244. 44 IEA. “Annual Energy Outlook 2020: Table 11. Petroleum and Other Liquids Supply and Disposition.” Accessed January 2024. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=11-AEO2020&cases=ref2020&sourcekey=0.

Draft Only
218

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-59 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 2024
TABLE 3.13-2

SUMMARY OF ANNUAL ENERGY USE DURING OPERATION
Source Units Quantity
Natural Gas
Single Family Housing kBTU/yr 34,045,809
Condo/Townhouse kBTU/yr 28,578,989
Apartments Low Rise kBTU/yr 5,451,539
Commercial kBTU/yr 59,798
School Facilities kBTU/yr 2,279,981
Total Natural gas kBTU/yr 70,416,116
Transportation Energy
Diesel Gallons/yr 290,217
Gasoline Gallons/yr 1,754,972
Total Fuel Gallons/yr 2,045,189
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 13,789,872 kWh (13.8 GWh) per year. SCE estimates that electricity consumption within its planning area will be approximately 127,000 GWh annually by 2030.45 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 70,416,116 kBTU or 70.4 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 2035.46 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.
45 CEC. Demand Analysis Office. California Energy Demand 2018-2030 Revised Forecast. February 2018. Accessed January 2024. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244. 46 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2022 California Gas Report. Accessed November 2023. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_California_Gas_Report_2022.pdf.

Draft Only
219

3.0 Environmental Analysis
Meridian Consultants 3.0-60 East Area 1 Specific Plan Final EIR Addendum No. 4 March 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).47 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 SEIR48 would result from the proposed amendment. 47 CEC. "2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Accessed July 2023. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-andtopics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency. 48 City of Santa Paula. East Area 1 Specific Plan Amendment Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. October 2014.

Accessed July 2023. https://www.spcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/575/Draft-Supplemental-Environmental-Impact-ReportPDF.

Draft Only
220

APPENDIX A
Draft Only
Traffic Study
221
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.

Draft Only
222
David Lauletta and Tony Locacciato
June 15, 2023

Page 2 of 10 ends

Santa Paula City CouncilMarch 20, 2024

Santa Paula City Council
March 20, 2024