agenda - california · 7/19/2006 · santa paula sphere of influence. the area is also within the...

COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF

COUNTY: CITY: SPECIAL DISTRICT: PUBLIC:

Linda Parks, Chair Don Waunch Ted Grandsen Kenneth M. Hess, Vice Chair Kathy Long John Zaragoza Dick Richardson Alternate: Alternate: Alternate: Alternate: Steve Bennett Janice Parvin George Lange Louis Cunningham EXECUTIVE OFFICER: DEPUTY EXEC OFFICER OFFICE MGR/CLERK: LEGAL COUNSEL:

Everett Millais Kim Uhlich Debbie Schubert Leroy Smith

AGENDA

VENTURA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Hall of Administration, Board of Supervisors’ Hearing Room

800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-1850 9:00 A.M. Wednesday, July 19, 2006

1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. Commission Presentations and Announcements COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC 5. Public Comment

This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on items not on the agenda. (The Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission encourages all interested parties to speak on any issue on this agenda in which they have an interest, or on any matter subject to LAFCO jurisdiction. It is the desire of LAFCO that its business be conducted in an orderly and efficient manner. All speakers are requested to fill out a Speakers Card and submit it to the Clerk before the item is taken up for consideration. All speakers are requested to present their information to LAFCO as succinctly as possible with a five (5) minute time limit. Allowing an individual to speak more than five minutes is at the discretion of the Chair of the Commission. Speakers are encouraged to refrain from restating previous testimony).

VENTURA LAFCO AGENDA July 19, 2006 of 3

CONSENT ITEMS 6. Minutes of the Ventura LAFCO June 21, 2006 Special Meeting

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval ACTION ITEMS 7. LAFCO 06-06 City of Santa Paula Reorganization – Water Recycling Facility

To annex six parcels (APN 099-0-030-645; 099-0-030-635; 099-0-030-345; 099-0-080-215 (portion); 099-0-080-235 (portion) and 099-0-080-035 (portion) plus a portion of State Route 126 to the City of Santa Paula to allow for construction of a public facility that would provide wastewater services to the City, and to detach the same area from the Ventura County Fire Protection District and the Ventura County Resource Conservation District

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval (A & B)

8. Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Work Plan Update

Adopt the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Work Plan Update

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval

9. Conflict of Interest Code Amendment Adopt the Resolution amending the conflict of interest code RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval

10. CALAFCO Achievement Awards Nominations Recommendation that Commissioner Ted Grandsen be nominated for the CALAFCO Distinguished Service Award

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval

VENTURA LAFCO AGENDA July 19, 2006

of 3

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 11. Agricultural Mitigation Policies Workshop: Status Report

Information regarding the Ventura LAFCO-sponsored workshop concerning LAFCO policies

EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT A. Legislative Report B. Next Regular LAFCO Meeting September 20, 2006

COMMISSIONERS’ COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT

Americans with Disabilities Act - In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the LAFCO office (805) 654-2576. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable LAFCO to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Disclosure of Campaign Contributions - LAFCO Commissioners are disqualified and are not able to participate in any proceeding involving an "entitlement for use" if, within the 12 months preceding the LAFCO decision, the Commissioner received more than $250 in campaign contributions from the applicant, an agency of the applicant, or any financially interested person who actively supports or opposes the LAFCO decision on the matter. Applicants or agents of applicants who have made campaign contributions totaling more than $250 to any LAFCO Commissioner in the past 12 months are required to disclose that fact for the official record of the proceeding. Disclosures must include the amount of the contribution and the recipient Commissioner and may be made either in writing to the Clerk of the Commission prior to the hearing or by an oral declaration at the time of the hearing. The foregoing requirements are set forth in the Political Reform Act of 1974, specifically Government Code, section 84308.



Linda Parks, Chair Don Waunch Dick Richardson Kenneth M. Hess, Vice Chair Kathy Long John Zaragoza Ted Grandsen Alternate: Alternate: Alternate: Alternate: Steve Bennett Janice Parvin George Lange Louis Cunningham EXECUTIVE OFFICER: LAFCO ANALYST: OFFICE MANAGER/CLERK: LEGAL COUNSEL:


MINUTES

LAFCO SPECIAL MEETING

Wednesday June 21, 2006, 9:00 A.M. Board of Supervisors’ Hearing Room, Hall of Administration

800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, Ca 93009-1850

1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Parks called the June 21, 2006 Special Meeting to order at 9:00 A.M.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Long led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL

The Clerk called the roll. The following commissioners and alternates were present: Commissioner Grandsen Commissioner Hess Commissioner Long Commissioner Parks Commissioner Richardson Commissioner Waunch Commissioner Zaragoza Alternate Commissioner Cunningham Alternate Commissioner Lange Alternate Commissioner Parvin

ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. Commission Presentations and Announcements

There were no Commission Presentations or Announcements. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC 5. Public Comment

Chair Parks requested public comment on any item not on the agenda. Receiving no comments from the public, she closed the public comment period for items not on the agenda.

VENTURA LAFCO MINUTES June 21, 2006 Page 2 of 4

CONSENT ITEMS 6. Minutes of the Ventura LAFCO regular meeting held May 17, 2006

MOTION: Approval as recommended: Waunch SECOND: Zaragoza FOR: Grandsen, Hess, Long, Parks, Richardson, Waunch, Zaragoza AGAINST: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED 7/0/0

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 7. Sphere of Influence Review and Update

A. Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 B. Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 Everett Millais presented the staff report. Chair Parks opened the public hearing. Receiving no comments from the public, she closed the public hearing.

MOTION: Approval as recommended: Zaragoza SECOND: Waunch FOR: Grandsen, Hess, Long, Parks, Richardson, Waunch, Zaragoza AGAINST: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED 7/0/0

ACTION ITEMS 8. Agricultural Mitigation Policies Workshop: Status Report

Kim Uhlich presented the staff report. Several Commissioners expressed an interest in designing a Workshop program that allows for audience interaction and feedback. There was also consensus on video taping the Workshop in order to broadcast it on local public access channels and to distribute in DVD format to those who cannot attend. A suggestion was made to consider the use of sponsors such as Adelphia Cable.

In response to the draft invitation list, the Commission asked that County of Ventura staff, Earl McPhail and Rob Roy be included.

VENTURA LAFCO MINUTES June 21, 2006

Page 3 of 4

8. Agricultural Mitigation Policies Workshop: Status Report (continued) Commissioners suggested potential Workshop venues including: the Faulkner House or other agriculturally-themed venue; Pacifica High School auditorium (on a non-school day); the Oxnard Union High School District Board Room; City of Oxnard HR Room; Council Chambers or the Ventura Room at the Oxnard Performing Arts and Convention Center; CSUCI; and the Santa Paula Community Center. Further deliberations on the venue revealed a preference for a public facility. The Commission discussed several possible dates and times, including the option of holding the event around lunchtime or breakfast-time. Potential dates were identified as either September 21, the third Thursday in September, or the fourth Thursday in October. Staff agreed to check further regarding possible conflicts with these dates and report back. Based on a straw vote, the 7:30 –11:30 am timeframe prevailed. The Commission concluded that the Santa Paula Community Center is the first-choice venue and the Oxnard Performing Arts and Convention Center is second-choice. Commissioners Long and Cunningham were appointed to the ad hoc Workshop Planning Committee.

9. Nominations for CALAFCO Executive Board

Everett Millais presented the staff report.

MOTION: Authorize the Chair to submit nominations to the CALAFCO Board of Directors and to nominate Kathy Long to the CALAFCO Board of Directors: Richardson

SECOND: Zaragoza FOR: Grandsen, Hess, Long, Parks, Richardson, Waunch, Zaragoza AGAINST: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED 7/0/0

INFORMATION ONLY

10. 2006 CALAFCO Achievement Award Nominations – INFORMATION ONLY Everett Millais explained the nomination process, offered staff’s assistance and noted that all nomination must be submitted no later that Friday, July 28, 2006. Awards are to be presented at the CALAFCO Conference in San Diego September 6.

VENTURA LAFCO MINUTES June 21, 2006 Page 4 of 4

11. Inventory of Unincorporated Islands Subject to the Island Annexation

Provision of LAFCO Law Staff prepared and distributed as part of the agenda packet, an inventory of islands in the cities of Camarillo, Oxnard, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks and Ventura. Everett Millais told the commission that letters had been sent to the cities of Ventura and Camarillo and that the city of Ventura should have information on their July regarding the annexation of the Montalvo Islands.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT Everett Millais reminded the commission that it’s next regular LAFCO meeting was scheduled for July 19, 2006 COMMISSIONERS’ COMMENT There were no Commissioner comments ADJOURNMENT Chair Parks adjourned the meeting at 10:15 AM





STAFF REPORT

Meeting Date: July 19, 2006 LAFCO CASE NAME & NO: LAFCO 06-06 City of Santa Paula Reorganization – Water

Recycling

PROPOSAL: To annex three (3) parcels, portions of three (3) additional parcels and a portion of the State Route 126 right of way to the City of Santa Paula and to detach the same area from the Ventura County Fire Protection District and the Ventura County Resource Conservation District for the purpose of constructing a public wastewater treatment facility.

SIZE: Approximately 76.36 Acres. LOCATION: Immediately east of Todd Lane and south of State Route 126 in the

Santa Paula sphere of influence. The area is also within the boundaries of the United Water Conservation District.

ASSESSOR’S PARCEL INFORMATION:

APN Owner

099-0-030-645 Bender Realty Ltd.

099-0-030-635 Escalante, Angela Trust

099-0-030-345 Bender Realty Ltd.

099-0-080-215 (portion) Bender Realty Ltd.

099-0-080-235 (portion) Bender Realty Ltd.

099-0-080-035 (portion) McConica, John R. II et al

PROPONENT: City of Santa Paula by resolution. NOTICE: This matter has been noticed as prescribed by law.

LAFCO 06-06 City of Santa Paula Reorganization – Water Recycling July 19, 2006 Page 2 of 15

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Certify that the Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the 2005 Final Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the portion of the Santa Paula General Plan Update EIR concerning Aesthetics and Community Design, the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Part II of the Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility Project prepared by the City of Santa Paula as lead agency, and adopt the lead agency’s Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statements of Overriding Considerations for the reorganization proposal.

B. Adopt the attached resolution (LAFCO 06-06) making determinations and

approving the City of Santa Paula Reorganization – Water Recycling. GENERAL ANALYSIS

1. Land Use

Site Information

Land Use

Zone District Classification

General Plan Designation

Existing

Agriculture

County: AE-40ac (Agricultural Exclusive, 40 acre minimum); AE-40ac/MRP(Agricultural Exclusive, 40 acre minimum/Mineral Resource Protection Overlay) City: NA

County: A: Gen. Plan: Agriculture City: Institutional and Civic; Open Space Agriculture

Proposed The City of Santa Paula has prezoned the proposal area to allow a portion to be used for agriculture and another portion for development of a wastewater recycling facility.

County: NA City: Prezoned to IN (Institutional/Civic); A-1 (Agricultural)

County: NA City: Institutional and Civic; Open Space Agriculture

LAFCO 06-06

City of Santa Paula Reorganization – Water Recycling July 19, 2006 Page 3 of 15

Conformity with Plans

The proposal area is within the sphere of influence of the City of Santa Paula, therefore the City’s General Plan takes precedence according to LAFCO policies. For reasons detailed in Section 5, the proposal area consists of two distinct land use components: a publicly owned wastewater treatment plant, which the City has prezoned Institutional/Civic and designated Institutional and Civic in the Santa Paula General Plan; and agricultural land, which has been prezoned Agricultural and has a City General Plan designation of Open Space Agriculture. The Ventura County General Plan land use designation for the proposal area is ‘Agriculture’. As such, the site is subject to the County’s SOAR Ordinance only as long as it remains under County jurisdiction. In October 2005, the City approved an adjustment to their City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) to include the approved water recycling facility site based on the determination that the development of a municipal wastewater treatment facility is exempt from the requirement for voter approval pursuant to the City’s SOAR ordinance. However, the balance of the agricultural land included in the proposal area is outside of the City CURB and would thus be subject to a public vote, pursuant to the City’s SOAR Ordinance, prior to approval of any future urban development. The proposed uses of the proposal area are consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning designations. According to the City’s zoning ordinance, wastewater treatment facilities are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit in the Institutional/Civic zone district. In September 2005, the City approved a Conditional Use Permit for development of the water recycling facility. As indicated above, the City has prezoned the portion of the proposal area intended to remain in agricultural uses as ‘A-1’ (Agricultural) and has approved a General Plan amendment to designate this area as ‘Open Space Agriculture’.

The City has not indicated any plans to rezone the agriculturally zoned portion of the proposal area for urban use subsequent to annexation although this may occur at some future date provided that the provisions of the City’s SOAR Ordinance are met. For a period of two years following annexation, LAFCO law precludes cities from making any changes to the general plan or zoning for annexed territory that would be inconsistent with the prezoning designation unless the City makes specific findings pertaining to substantially changed circumstances.


Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning and General Plan Designations

Except for the areas northerly and northeasterly of the proposal area, much of the territory surrounding the proposal area is outside of the City. All surrounding parcels in the unincorporated area are zoned ‘Agricultural’ and designated ‘Agriculture’ in the General Plan. Land uses to the north and northeast include the City’s existing wastewater treatment plant, a privately owned fencing company, a pipe supply company, and State Route 126. According to the EIR, the existing wastewater treatment plant will be demolished following construction of the new facility although it is unknown at this point what specific uses might be developed.

Topography, Natural Features and Drainage

The proposal area is relatively flat and drains southerly and southwesterly via surface flow into the Santa Clara River. The entirety of the proposal area is planted with orchards or row crops. There are no natural features within the proposal area.

2. Impact on Prime Agricultural Land, Agriculture, and Open Space

Agricultural Land and Agriculture Of the approximately 76-acre reorganization proposal, approximately 73 acres are designated as ‘Prime’ farmland by the Important Farmlands Inventory system. Of the 73 acres, approximately 22.5 acres will remain as undeveloped agricultural land pursuant to the City’s General Plan designation of this sub-area as ‘Agriculture Open Space’ and pre-zoning for agricultural uses. The remaining area of approximately 50 acres of prime farmland will be used to develop the water recycling facility.

Contrary to the statements in the EIR, the proposal area is not within a greenbelt, and no impacts to land within a greenbelt are anticipated. The Commissioner’s Handbook contains policies that set forth findings and criteria applicable to boundary change proposals involving conversion of prime agricultural land.

Section 3.1.5.1 of the Commissioner’s Handbook states:

“Findings and criteria for prime agricultural and open space land conversion: LAFCO will approve a proposal for a change of organization or

LAFCO 06-06


reorganization which is likely to result in the conversion of prime agricultural or open space land use to other uses only if the Commission finds that the proposal will lead to planned, orderly, and efficient development. For the purposes of this policy, a proposal for a change of organization or reorganization leads to planned, orderly, and efficient development only if all of the following criteria are met:

i. The territory involved is contiguous to either lands developed with an urban use or lands which have received all discretionary approvals for urban development.

ii. The territory is likely to be developed within 5 years and has been pre-zoned for non-agricultural or open space use. In the case of very large developments, annexation should be phased wherever possible.

iii. Insufficient non-prime agricultural or vacant land exists within the existing boundaries of the agency that is planned and developable for the same general type of use.

iv. The territory involved is not subject to voter approval for the extension of services or for changing general plan land use designations. Where such voter approval is required by local ordinance, such voter approval must be obtained prior to LAFCO action on any proposal unless exceptional circumstances are shown to exist.

v. The proposal will have no significant adverse effects on the physical and economic integrity of other prime agricultural or open space lands.”

The proposal is consistent with Subsections i. and ii. The proposal area is contiguous to land developed with urban uses and the territory is likely to be developed within five years. As detailed in Section 5, a portion of the proposal includes annexation of agriculturally zoned land. However, in order to better align annexation boundaries with parcel boundaries, there was a need to include a small area of agricultural land.

With respect to Subsection iii., Section 3.1.5.2 of the Commissioner’s Handbook states:

“Findings that insufficient non-prime agricultural or vacant land exists: The Commission will not make affirmative findings that insufficient non-prime agricultural or vacant land exists within the boundaries of the agency unless the applicable jurisdiction has prepared a detailed alternative site analysis which at a minimum includes: i. An evaluation of all vacant, non-prime agricultural lands within the

boundaries of the jurisdiction that could be developed for the same or similar uses.

ii. An evaluation of the re-use and redevelopment potential of developed areas within the boundaries of the jurisdiction for the same or similar uses.


iii. Determinations as to why vacant, non-prime agricultural lands and potential re-use and redevelopment sites are unavailable or undesirable for the same or similar uses, and why conversion of prime agricultural or open space lands are necessary for the planned, orderly, and efficient development of the jurisdiction.”

As part of the reorganization application, the City submitted an Alternative Site Analysis (Attachment 3), which indicates that the City conducted an initial screening of alternative locations for the water recycling facility. According to the Site Analysis, there is no other available vacant land of sufficient size within the existing City boundary or sphere of influence to meet project feasibility and budget constraints.

vi. With regard to Subsections iv., most of the land within the proposal area

is not subject to voter approval for the extension of services or for changing general plan land use designations (Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). For the portion of the proposal area that is subject to the City’s CURB Ordinance, there are no plans at this time to change the existing agricultural zoning and general plan designations. Based on the EIR conclusion that the proposal would have no residual adverse impacts on adjacent agricultural lands, the proposal is consistent with Subsection v.

Section 3.1.5.3 of the Commissioner’s Handbook states:

“Impacts on adjoining prime agricultural or open space lands: In making the determination whether conversion will adversely impact adjoining prime agricultural or open space lands, the Commission will consider the following factors: i. The prime agricultural and open space significance of the territory and

adjacent areas relative to other agricultural and open space lands in the region.

ii. The economic viability of the prime agricultural lands to be converted. iii. The health and well being of any urban residents adjacent to the prime

agricultural lands to be converted. iv. The use of the territory and the adjacent areas. v. Whether public facilities related to the proposal would be sized or

situated so as to facilitate the conversion of prime agricultural or open space land outside of the agency’s sphere of influence, or will be extended through prime agricultural or open space lands outside the agency’s sphere of influence.

vi. Whether natural or man-made barriers serve to buffer prime agricultural or open space lands outside of the agency’s sphere of influence from the effects of the proposal.

vii. Applicable provisions of local general plans, applicable ordinances that require voter approval prior to the extension of urban services or

LAFCO 06-06


changes to general plan designations, Greenbelt Agreements, applicable growth-management policies, and statutory provisions designed to protect agriculture or open space.

viii. Comments and recommendations by the Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner.”

With respect to Subsections i. and ii., there does not appear to be anything unusually significant about the land within proposal area or surrounding it relative to agricultural and open space lands in the region. Like most Prime agricultural land in Ventura County, the land to be converted is considered to be highly viable from an economic perspective. Based on the analysis and mitigation measures contained in the EIR, annexation of the proposal area is not expected to create significant adverse impacts to the health and well being of any adjacent residents and no significant conflicts are anticipated with respect to existing and proposed land uses in the overall vicinity. Therefore, the proposal complies with Subsections iii. and iv. The proposal is substantially consistent with Subsection v., above. The purpose of the facility is to replace the City’s existing outdated wastewater treatment plant and will be sized to serve the City’s existing population and the City’s forecasted 2020 population growth as reflected in their 1998 General Plan. The General Plan does designate limited areas of agricultural land outside of the existing sphere of influence for urban development, although the large majority of the treatment plant capacity will serve existing development and future development within the sphere. The water recycling facility is located near the southwesterly boundary of Santa Paula sphere of influence. However, giving existing County and City land use designations, zoning and other restrictions, the proposal is not expected to create any need to extend infrastructure through prime agricultural or open space lands outside of the City’s sphere of influence. Subsection vi. relates to the need for buffers to reduce impacts from the water recycling facility on prime agricultural or open space lands outside of the City’s sphere of influence. The EIR determined that the construction and operation of the water recycling facility would not result in any impacts outside of the sphere. Subsection vii. requires consideration of applicable provisions of local plans, ordinances, policies, Greenbelt Agreements and statutes designed to protect agriculture and open space when determining whether conversion of agricultural land will impact adjoining prime agricultural or open space lands. The EIR determined that the construction and operation of the water recycling facility would not result in any impacts outside of the sphere and the relationship of the


proposal with local plans and policies. Please refer to Section 1 (Conformity with Plans) for more information.

Comments on both the Draft EIR and the reorganization proposal were submitted by the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. With regard to the inclusion of 22.5 acres of land prezoned as Agricultural and designated Open Space Agriculture in the General Plan, they indicated that they do not have any objections. One of the parcels, a portion of which is part of the proposal area, is currently under an active Land Conservation Act (LCA) contract between the landowner and the County. (Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). The proposed wastewater treatment facility will be located, in part, on the land subject to the LCA contract. The City intends to acquire the land by purchase in lieu of condemnation, but could file an eminent domain action if a voluntary purchase is not consummated.

Pursuant to State law, at the time the land is actually acquired by the City for the public improvement, the LCA contract will automatically become null and void with respect to the portion of the parcel to be used for the wastewater treatment facility. (Gov. Code, § 51295.) The portion of the parcel outside the proposal area (i.e., not to be annexed) will remain subject to the LCA contract. However, to the extent that ownership of the land included in the proposal will remain in private hands between the date of annexation and the date title is acquired by the City, provisions must be adopted for administration of the LCA contract by the City. In such situations, LAFCO law requires that LAFCO determine whether the City shall succeed to the County’s rights, duties and powers under the LCA contract, or instead may opt not to succeed to the County’s rights, duties and powers. (Gov. Code, § 56754.) Government Code section 51243.5 sets forth the criteria for permitting cities to opt out of LCA contracts. A necessary element is that the annexing city must have protested the execution of the initial LCA contract. There is no evidence in the record that the City protested the LCA contract in question, and, in any event, according to City of Santa Paula Resolution No. 6277, the City intends to become successor to the contract. Thus, any LAFCO resolution approving the annexation should include a determination that the City will succeed to the County’s rights, duties and powers under the LCA contract.

Because the land will not be acquired by the City before the annexation, the usual Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act rules applicable to the annexation of land subject to LCA contracts must be considered. Government Code section 56856.5 provides that organizations or reorganizations that would result in annexation to a city of land subject to an LCA contract shall not be approved if the city would provide services to the land for uses other than those allowed under the contract, unless one of three circumstances are present. Also, an

LAFCO 06-06


annexation may be approved if the landowner has served notice of nonrenewal, or a tentative cancellation has been approved.

One circumstance permitting annexation is where the city that would administer the contract after annexation has adopted policies and feasible implementation measures applicable to the subject territory ensuring the continuation of agricultural and other allowable uses under the contract on a long term basis. (Gov. Code, § 56856.5, subd. (c)(1).) The City has adopted policies for administration of LCA contracts ensuring that land subject to LCA contracts will continue in agriculture and other allowable uses for the duration of the contracts. Thus, the land will continue to be subject to LCA controls until the City acquires it for the public improvement.

Open Space

No parcels within the proposal area are considered open space pursuant to Government Code Sections 56059 and 65560. Thus, the proposal will not impact open space lands.

3. Population

According to the County Registrar of Voters, there are no registered voters in the proposal area. As such, the annexation proposal area is considered to be uninhabited under the provisions of LAFCO law relating to protest proceedings.

4. Services and Controls – Need, Cost, Adequacy and Availability

The proposal involves the annexation of territory into the City of Santa Paula and the detachment of the same area from the Ventura County Resource Conservation District and the Ventura County Fire Protection District.

According to the City, there is sufficient capacity and ability to provide all City services upon annexation.

5. Boundaries and Lines of Assessment

County Surveyor review and certification of the map and legal description as being accurate and sufficient for the preparation of a Certificate of Completion pursuant to Government Code Section 57201 and for filing with the State Board of Equalization is in progress but has not been completed as of the date this report was finalized. The attached Resolution includes a condition that


predicates recordation of the proposal upon the approval of an acceptable map and legal description. Originally, the City intended to initiate the reorganization proposal for only the area necessary for the water recycling facility. However, LAFCO staff and the County Planning Division determined that this request would result in the splitting of six parcels and the creation of a small urban corridor/peninsula. To address this issue, the City submitted the application described in this Report. This proposal thus includes the annexation of approximately 22.5 acres of additional agricultural land located between State Route 126 and the recycling facility site (Attachment 1). As indicated in Section 2, LAFCO has received a comment from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office indicating that they do not object to the inclusion of the 22.5 acres of agricultural land as part of the Reorganization proposal. Although the subject proposal does not entirely eliminate the splitting of parcels, as explained further below, staff determined that the configuration of the subject proposal area is the most logical and orderly relative to other potential configurations. The proposal is not coterminous with parcel boundaries. The southern portion of the proposal area boundary bisects three parcels and will therefore require re-parceling by the County Assessor (Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). Moreover, the annexation line would result in the creation of substandard remainder parcels with respect to the County Zoning Ordinance because they will be smaller than the 40-acre minimum size requirement. However, Section 66424.6(d) of the Subdivision Map Act provides that a remainder parcel may subsequently be sold without any further requirement of the filing of a parcel map, but the local agency (the County) may require a certificate of compliance or a conditional certificate of compliance. The City has represented that it will take subsequent actions, after recordation of the Reorganization and after acquisition, to ensure that new property lines are established consistent with the new City/County boundary line.

An alternative to splitting parcel lines would be to include the entirety of the affected parcels in the reorganization proposal. However, because the City’s sphere of influence boundary bisects the parcels (Attachment 1, Vicinity Map), annexing the entire area would require an amendment to the sphere. An additional factor that potentially mitigates concerns regarding the creation of undersize parcels is the fact that approximately one-third of the southernmost portions of the affected parcels are within the channel of the Santa Clara River. Hence, even in their current configuration, these 40-50 acres parcels are not fully usable for anything other than open space uses.

LAFCO 06-06

City of Santa Paula Reorganization – Water Recycling July 19, 2006

Page 11 of 15

6. Assessed Value, Tax Rates and Indebtedness

According to the County Assessor, the proposal area is in tax rate area 55002 and will be assigned to tax rate area 04025 upon completion of proceedings. However the current tax rate of $1.097797 per $100 of assessed valuation will remain the same upon annexation.

7. Environmental Impact of the Proposal The City of Santa Paula is the lead agency for this proposal under CEQA and certified a Final EIR and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that address impacts associated with different portions of the proposal area. The City Council certified a final EIR for the Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility (State Clearinghouse No. 2004071038) on April 25, 2005, and the Planning Commission approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Part II of the Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility Project on January 10, 2006. The EIR and MND documents were previously distributed to the Commission. The City’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are included in the Final EIR document.

The EIR determined that the following significant impacts would be less than significant with the imposition of mitigation measures:

Short term impacts to on-site and/or surrounding agricultural operations due to dust generation by construction activities

Short term impacts to on-site and/or surrounding agricultural operations due to impaired local surface quality or groundwater quality resulting from possible hazardous waste spills

Access to mineral resource extraction areas

Short term transportation/circulation impacts associated with LOS reduction at the intersection of Peck Road and SR 126 during construction phase

Short term air quality impacts during construction phase and odor impacts associated with facility operation

Noise impacts associated with facility operation

Biological resources impacts associated with wetlands, sensitive species

Ground shaking and liquefaction

Impacts to archeological and/or paleontological resources

Short term impacts associated with provision of fire suppression and emergency medical services

The EIR determined that the following significant impacts would not be mitigated to less-than-significant levels:


The permanent loss of up to 53 acres of prime farmland and conversion of this land from an agricultural use to an industrial use

The loss (cancellation) of an active Land Conservation Act contract

Short term noise impacts associated with construction activity

Biological resources impacts to 9.4 acres of southern willow scrub community as well as impact to least Bell’s vireo and southwestern pond turtle populations

Hydrology and water quality related to discharge of chlorides and total dissolved solids in violation of State standards

Historic resources associated with demolition of the existing wastewater treatment plant

The City adopted a mitigation monitoring plan for a number of significant environmental impacts and adopted Statements of Overriding Considerations for the unavoidable significant impacts relating to the conversion of prime farmland, noise, biological resources, noise, hydrology/water quality and cultural/scientific resources. It should also be noted that the City’s Resolution initiating the Reorganization request and approving prezoning for the proposal area referenced the EIR and MND.

With regard to mitigation measures identified for operational-related impacts to agricultural resources, the Final EIR for the water recycling facility references mitigation measures found on pages F-4.1-10 through F-4.1-18 of the City’s 1998 General Plan Final EIR and requires these measures to be implemented as appropriate. Pages F-4.1-10 through F-4.1-18 of the City’s 1998 General Plan Final EIR are included as Attachment 4. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the General Plan EIR is included as Attachment 5). A number of the mitigation/implementation measures relate to the use of transfer of development rights, purchase of agricultural conservation easements and creation of a City open space district in order to protect agricultural lands, prime soils and viable agricultural operations in various designated expansion areas, including “West Area 2”, the area within which the proposal is located. The City’s adopted MMRP for the water recycling facility incorporates the same General Plan mitigation measures by reference and describes them as “applicable”. However, there is no specific information in the MMRP to suggest that the City intends to implement any of these measures with respect to the development of the water recycling facility project. The MND for Part II of the Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility Project makes reference to the General Plan EIR analysis with respect to aesthetic effects associated with development of industrial land uses in West Area 2 (within which the proposal area is located). More specifically, the General Plan EIR indicated that industrial development would alter the agricultural character of the area and thus resultant impacts to scenic vistas would be significant and unavoidable. As

LAFCO 06-06


Page 13 of 15

such, LAFCO must certify that it has reviewed and considered the pertinent information in the General Plan EIR and adopt the associated Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings and Statements of Overriding Consideration as part of its action on the proposal. The 1998 General Plan Update EIR Section pertaining to Aesthetics and Community Design is included as Attachment 6 and the City’s Statements of Overriding Consideration are included as Attachment 7. According to Subsection (2) of Section 15096(g) of the CEQA Guidelines concerning the Responsible Agency process:

“When an EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment…”

In the Chapter pertaining to alternatives to the proposed water recycling facility, the EIR identified an alternative (Alternative 2) that would result in a reduction of significant impacts associated with agricultural resources, biological resources and historic resources while still achieving all of the same project objectives as the preferred project. Alternative 2 involves the reuse/rehabilitation of the existing wastewater treatment plant located immediately northeast of the proposal area and would be developed in essentially the same general area as the preferred project within the subject proposal area. Under both the Alternative 2 and preferred project scenarios, the existing wastewater treatment plant and corporation yard would be demolished, however it would occur sooner under the Alternative 2 scenario. However, by reusing the existing wastewater treatment plant site, the number of acres of prime farmland necessary for development of the water recycling facility would be reduced from 48 to 35.5 acres and less area identified as “Waters of the State” and “Waters of the U.S.” would be impacted. Due to demolition of the existing wastewater treatment plant and corporation yard, the EIR indicates that some impacts such as noise and certain air pollutant emissions would be slightly higher under Alternative 2. However, the EIR indicates that the existing wastewater treatment plant and corporation yard would ultimately be demolished under the preferred project scenario. This fact, in combination with the information summarized above, suggests that Alternative 2 would result in fewer impacts overall. Based on LAFCO staff follow up with the City, the City provided additional information to clarify the alternatives analysis in the EIR. According to this information, the City determined that Alternative 2 is not feasible because it would require that the existing wastewater treatment plant be taken off line for a period of time while the new plant is constructed. While off line, there would be


no way for the City to provide wastewater treatment service for their existing residents.

The portion of the proposal area that is to remain in agricultural use was addressed in the MND. According to the MND, no significant environmental impacts would result from the annexation of an additional 22.5 acres of Prime farmland in conjunction with the area necessary for development of the water recycling facility.

It is recommended that the Commission adopt the following as part of the proposal:

The City’s mitigation measures, mitigation monitoring and reporting program and statement of overriding considerations for the Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility EIR (included in the EIR document)

The City’s Mitigated Negative Declaration for Part II of the Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility Project

8. Regional Housing Needs

According to the California Housing and Community Development Department the City of Santa Paula adopted an updated General Plan Housing Element on August 19, 2002 and completed State review for compliance on September 20, 2002.

9. Landowner and Annexing Agency Consent

The City has provided written consent from all property owners. Any subject agency that wishes to reserve its right to protest a LAFCO decision (for those decisions subject to protest proceedings) must submit written opposition to the waiver (GC § 56663). The subject agencies associated with the subject proposal are the City of Santa Paula, the Ventura County Fire Protection District and the Ventura County Resource Conservation District. LAFCO has received no written opposition to a waiver of protest proceedings from these agencies as of the date of this Staff Report.

LAFCO 06-06


Page 15 of 15

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS AVAILABLE:

A. If the Commission, following public testimony and review of the materials submitted, determines that further information is necessary, a motion to continue the proposal should state specifically the type of information desired and specify a date certain for further consideration.

B. If the Commission, following public testimony and review of materials submitted,

wishes to deny or modify this proposal, a motion to deny should include adoption of this Report and all referenced materials as part of the public record.

BY: _____________________________ Kim Uhlich, Deputy Executive Officer Attachments: (1) Vicinity Map

(2) LAFCO 06-06 Resolution (3) Alternative Site Analysis (4) Excerpt from Santa Paula General Plan Update EIR (5) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) associated

with the General Plan EIR (6) 1998 General Plan Update EIR Section pertaining to Aesthetics

and Community Design (7) Statements of Overriding Consideration associated with 1998

General Plan Update EIR (8)

* Copies of Attachments 3 through 7 are available by request from the LAFCO

Office

* * LAFCO makes every effort to offer legible map files with the online- and printed versions of our reports, however sometimes the need to reduce oversize original maps and/or other technological/software factors can compromise readability. Original maps are available for viewing at the LAFCO office by request.

LAFCO 06-06

RESOLUTION OF THE VENTURA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING THE CITY OF SANTA PAULA REORGANIZATION – WATER RECYCLING; ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SANTA PAULA, DETACHMENT FROM THE VENTURA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND THE VENTURA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

WHEREAS, the above-referenced proposal has been filed with the Executive

Officer of the Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to the Cortese-

Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Section 56000 of the

California Government Code); and

WHEREAS, at the times and in the manner required by law, the Executive Officer

gave notice of the consideration by the Commission on the proposal;

WHEREAS, the proposal was duly considered on July 19, 2006; and

WHEREAS, the Commission heard, discussed and considered all oral and

written testimony for and against the proposal including, but not limited to, the LAFCO

Executive Officer's Staff Report and recommendation, the environmental documents

and determinations, and applicable local plans and policies; and

WHEREAS, proof has been given to the Commission that the affected territory is

considered uninhabited pursuant to Government Code §56046; and

WHEREAS, proof has been given to the Commission that all property owners in

the affected territory have consented to the proposal; and

WHEREAS, information satisfactory to the Commission has been presented that

all agencies having land detached within the affected territory have not submitted

written opposition to the proposal; and

WHEREAS, the Commission finds the proposal to be in the best interest of the

affected area and the organization of local governmental agencies within Ventura

County.

WHEREAS, the Commission certifies that it has reviewed and considered the

Final EIRs and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by the Lead Agency; and

WHEREAS the Commission has found that the Final EIRs and Mitigated

Negative Declaration disclose impacts that are not significant or are mitigated to a level

of insignificance as set forth in Exhibit “B”; and

LAFCO 06-06 Resolution of Approval City of Santa Paula Reorganization – Water Recycling July 19, 2006 Page 2 of 4

WHEREAS, the Commission has found that there remains a significant and

unavoidable impact that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance and that this

impact finding be made, in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, as

set forth in Exhibit “B”;

WHEREAS, the Commission makes a statement of overriding considerations that

based on substantial evidence in the record the benefits of the project outweigh the

unavoidable adverse environmental effects, as set forth in Exhibit “B”; and

WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission finds that the City of Santa

Paula has adopted policies and feasible implementation measures applicable to

territory subject to contracts executed under the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Gov.

Code § 51200 et seq.) ensuring the continuation of agricultural use and other uses

allowable under the contracts on a long-term basis;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the

Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission as follows:

(1) The LAFCO Executive Officer's Staff Report and Recommendation for

approval of the proposal dated July 19, 2006 is adopted.

(2) The Reorganization, consisting of an annexation to the City of Santa Paula

and a detachment from the Ventura County Resource Conservation District

and Ventura County Fire Protection District, is hereby approved and the

boundaries are established generally as set forth in the attached Exhibit A.

(3) The territory is uninhabited as defined by Government Code §56046.

(4) The subject proposal is assigned the following distinctive short form

designation: LAFCO 06-06 – CITY OF SANTA PAULA REORGANIZATION – WATER RECYCLING

(5) The Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in

the 1998 Santa Paula General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report,

the 2005 Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility Final Environmental Impact

LAFCO 06-06 Resolution of Approval City of Santa Paula Reorganization – Water Recycling

July 19, 2006 Page 3 of 4

Report and Mitigation Negative Declaration for Phase II of the Santa Paula

Water Recycling Facility Project prepared by the City of Santa Paula as lead

agency, and adopts the Findings and Statements of Overriding

Considerations as set forth in Exhibit “B”, and the lead agency’s Mitigation

Measures, and Mitigation Monitoring Programs [CEQA Guidelines §15090,

§15091, §15093, and §15096 (f)(g)(h)].

(6) The Commission determines that there are not any feasible mitigation

measures or feasible alternatives, within the powers and authorities of

LAFCO, which would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect on

the environment [CEQA Guidelines §15096(g)].

(7) The Commission directs staff to file a Notice of Determination in the same

manner as a lead agency under CEQA Guidelines §15094 and §15096(i).

(8) The Commission determines that the project is in compliance with

Government Code § 56741 as the territory to be annexed is located within

one county and is contiguous with the boundaries of the City of Santa

Paula.

(9) The Commission determines that the City of Santa Paula shall succeed to

the rights, duties, and powers of the County of Ventura pursuant to

Government Code § 51423 with respect to any land in the territory to be

annexed that is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Land

Conservation Act of 1965;

(10) The Commission waives conducting authority proceedings, since

satisfactory proof has been given that the subject property is uninhabited,

that all landowners within the affected territory have given their written

consent to the proposal, and that all affected agencies that will gain or lose

territory as a result of the proposal have not submitted written opposition to

the waiver of conducting authority proceedings [Government Code §56663].

(11) This annexation shall not be recorded until a map and legal

description consistent with this approval and suitable for filing with

the State Board of Equalization have been approved by the LAFCO

Executive Officer.

LAFCO 06-06 Resolution of Approval City of Santa Paula Reorganization – Water Recycling July 19, 2006 Page 4 of 4

(12) This reorganization shall not be recorded until all LAFCO fees have

been paid and until fees necessary for filing with the State Board of

Equalization have been submitted to the Executive Officer.

(13) This reorganization shall not be recorded until the City provides

evidence that it has adopted rules and procedures governing the

administration of agricultural preserves as required by the Williamson

Act, including but not limited to the rules and procedures required by

Cal. Government Code Sections 51231, 51237, and 51237.5.

This resolution was adopted on July 19, 2006.

AYES: NOES: ABSTAINS: Dated: ________ ___________________________________________ Chair, Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission Attachment: Exhibit A Exhibit B Copies: City of Santa Paula Ventura Co. Fire Protection District Ventura Co. Resource Conservation District Ventura Co. Watershed Protection District Ventura Co. Agricultural Commissioner Ventura Co. Assessor Ventura Co. Auditor Ventura Co. Surveyor Ventura Co. Planning Ventura Co. Elections United Water Conservation District

of 10

Exhibit B

STATEMENT OF FACT AND FINDINGS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS for

LAFCO 06-06 City of Santa Paula Reorganization – Water Recycling

I. CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

The Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission (the Commission), acting in its capacity as a CEQA Responsible Agency, certifies, in conjunction with the Commission’s approval of City of Santa Paula Reorganization – Water Recycling, that it has considered the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility for the construction of a public wastewater treatment facility. The City acted as Lead Agency for approval of the project. The Commission has received, and has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to approving the Reorganization proposal. The Commission finds that its approval of the Reorganization reflects the independent judgment of the Commission. The proposed project involves the annexation of three (3) parcels, portions of three (3) additional parcels and a portion of the State Route 126 right of way to the City of Santa Paula and to detach the same area from the Ventura County Fire Protection District and the Ventura County Resource Conservation District for the purpose of constructing a public wastewater treatment facility.

II. FINDINGS

A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

The City of Santa Paula certified a Final EIR for its General Plan Update, made Findings of Facts and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations on April 13, 1998. The General Plan identified six new expansion areas to accommodate future urban development, including West Area 2, which is comprised of 193 acres of land located between Adams Barranca and Peck Road. This expansion area originally contemplated a total of 1,905,750 square feet of light industrial and/or research and development uses. The EIR analyzed the overall project potential for significant environmental impacts and found that development within the expansion areas could have adverse impacts. Mitigation measures were incorporated into the project approval.

of 10

On April 25, 2005, the City certified a Final EIR for the Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility project, made Findings of Facts and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The EIR analyzed the overall project potential for significant environmental impacts and found that development of the water recycling facility could have adverse impacts. Mitigation measures were incorporated into the project approval.

On January 10, 2006 the City adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Part II of the Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility. Under Part II, the following actions were considered: Reorganization of 22.5 acres of land affecting specified Assessor Parcel Numbers; a General Plan amendment for parcels proposed for reorganization from their current City designation of Mixed Use-Commercial/Light Industrial to Open Space Agriculture; a General Plan amendment for specified Assessor Parcel Numbers from their current City designation of Industrial and Open Space-Passive and Golf Course to Open Space Agriculture; and prezoning for parcels proposed for reorganization as Open Space Agriculture. It was determined that the activities associated with the Part II project would not have a significant effect on the environment.

B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The environmental documents referred to herein have been prepared by the City of Santa Paula as Lead Agency. The document evaluates the project and identifies significant potential adverse impacts in the following environmental categories: agricultural resources, mineral resources, transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, biological resources, geology and soils, cultural resources and public services. The EIR recommends mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce some of the identified significant effects to less-than-significant levels. These measures are incorporated as conditions of approval. The following impacts cannot be mitigated to less-than-significant levels: agricultural resources, aesthetics, noise, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, and historic resources, thereby requiring adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the consideration by the Commission.

C. SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS REDUCED TO LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVELS THROUGH MITIGATION MEASURES

Agricultural Resources Project Impact: Short-term impacts to on-site and/or surrounding agricultural

operations due to dust generation by construction activities.

of 10

Finding: LAFCO does not have the legal authority to require mitigation for dust impacts on agricultural properties. The City maintains sole responsibility for imposition of, and compliance with, mitigation related to dust impacts.

Project Impact: Short-term impacts to on-site and/or surrounding agricultural

operations due to impaired local surface quality or groundwater quality resulting from possible hazardous waste spills during construction.

Finding: LAFCO does not have the legal authority to require mitigation for hazardous waste spills on agricultural properties. The City maintains sole responsibility for imposition of, and compliance with, mitigation related to hazardous waste impacts on water quality.

Mineral Resources Project Impact: Construction of a parking lot for the project would preclude

access to mineral resource extraction areas in the Santa Clara River.

Finding: LAFCO does not have the legal authority to require mitigation for access to mineral resource extraction areas. The City maintains sole responsibility for imposition of, and compliance with, mitigation regarding impacts to mineral resources.

Transportation and Circulation Project Impact: The Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection of Peck Road

and SR 126 will decrease during the PM peak hours during the construction phase.

Finding: LAFCO does not have the legal authority to require mitigation for transportation and circulation impacts. The City maintains sole responsibility for imposition of, and compliance with, mitigation regarding impacts to transportation and circulation.

Air Quality Project Impact: Construction activities will result in significant increases in

fugitive dust levels and emission of air pollutants. Finding: LAFCO does not have the legal authority to require

mitigation for air quality impacts. The City maintains sole responsibility for imposition of, and compliance with, mitigation regarding impacts to air quality.

of 10

Project Impact: Operation of the water treatment facility will result in significant odor impacts.

Finding: LAFCO does not have the legal authority to require mitigation for air quality impacts. The City maintains sole responsibility for imposition of, and compliance with, mitigation regarding impacts to air quality.

Noise Project Impact: Operation of the water treatment facility will exceed the

Ventura County exterior noise level limits at the nearest residence.

Finding: LAFCO does not have the legal authority to require mitigation for noise impacts. The City maintains sole responsibility for imposition of, and compliance with, mitigation regarding impacts regarding noise.

Biological Resources Project Impact: The water treatment facility project has the potential to

impact wetland function and values. Finding: LAFCO does not have the legal authority to require

mitigation for biological resources impacts. The City maintains sole responsibility for imposition of, and compliance with, mitigation regarding impacts regarding biological resources.

Project Impact: The water treatment facility project has the potential to

impact sensitive biological species. Finding: LAFCO does not have the legal authority to require



impact bird species, which use orchards for nesting habitat. Finding: LAFCO does not have the legal authority to require


Geology and Soils

of 10

Project Impact: Shallow groundwater may impact project design, construction, and effectiveness of percolation facilities.

Finding: LAFCO does not have the legal authority to require mitigation for geology/soils impacts. The City maintains sole responsibility for imposition of, and compliance with, mitigation regarding impacts regarding geology and soils.

Project Impact: Strong ground motion and/or liquefaction as a result of a

seismic event may damage water treatment plant facilities. Finding: LAFCO does not have the legal authority to require

mitigation for geology/soils impacts. The City maintains sole responsibility for imposition of, and compliance with, mitigation regarding impacts regarding geology and soils.

Cultural Resources Project Impact: Construction activities associated with the water treatment

facility project has the potential to impact prehistoric and historic archeological resources as well as paleontological resources.

Finding: LAFCO does not have the legal authority to require mitigation for cultural resources impacts. The City maintains sole responsibility for imposition of, and compliance with, mitigation regarding impacts regarding cultural resources.

Project Impact: Development of the water treatment facility project will

impact the Western Santa Clara Valley Historic District by not integrating the project design into the agricultural landscape.

Finding: LAFCO does not have the legal authority to require mitigation for cultural resources impacts. The City maintains sole responsibility for imposition of, and compliance with, mitigation regarding impacts regarding cultural resources.

Public Services Project Impact: Impacts to fire suppression and emergency services will

occur during the construction phase. Finding: LAFCO does not have the legal authority to require

mitigation for public services impacts. The City maintains sole responsibility for imposition of, and compliance with, mitigation regarding impacts regarding public services.

of 10

D. SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE REDUCED TO LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVELS (UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS)

Agricultural Resources Project Impact: The permanent loss of up to 53 acres of prime agricultural

land and conversion of this land from an agricultural use to an industrial use

Finding: Significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation exists that would reduce impacts associated with the permanent conversion of farmland to a level less than significant. Impacts on important farmland cannot be mitigated. This impact will require a Statement of Overriding Consideration.

Project Impact: The loss (cancellation) of an active Land Conservation Act

contract Finding: Significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation exists

that would reduce impacts associated with the loss of an active Land Conservation Act contract to a level of less than significant. This impact will require a Statement of Overriding Consideration.

Aesthetics

Project Impact: Development of industrial uses will alter the agricultural character of the area by significantly impairing scenic vistas.

Finding: Significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation exists that would reduce impacts associated with the impairment of scenic vistas that alter the agricultural character of the area to a level less than significant. This impact will require a Statement of Overriding Consideration.

Noise Project Impact: Short-term noise impacts associated with construction

activity. Finding: Significant and unavoidable. Impacts associated with

exceedance of noise thresholds cannot be feasibly mitigated. This impact will require a Statement of Overriding Consideration.

of 10

Biological Resources Project Impact: The water treatment facility project has the potential to

impact 9.4 acres of southern willow scrub plant community, which is used by the federally and state endangered least Bell’s vireo.

Finding: Significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation exists that would reduce impacts to southern willow scrub plant communities to a level less than significant. This impact will require a Statement of Overriding Consideration.


impact southwestern pond turtles, which are a state species of special concern.

Finding: Significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation exists that would reduce impacts to southwestern pond turtles to a level less than significant. This impact will require a Statement of Overriding Consideration.

Hydrology and Water Quality

Project Impact: Operation of the water recycling facility will result in

hydrology and water quality impacts related to discharge of chlorides and total dissolved solids in violation of State standards.

Finding: Significant and unavoidable. Impacts associated with exceedance of water quality standards cannot be feasibly mitigated. This impact will require a Statement of Overriding Consideration.

Historic Resources

Project Impact: The project will entail demolition of the City’s existing

wastewater treatment plant, which meets the definition of a CEQA historic resource and Section 106.

Finding: Significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation exists that would reduce the historic resources impacts to a level less than significant. This impact will require a Statement of Overriding Consideration.

of 10

E. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative considered the impacts if the City of Santa Paula did not construct and operate a water recycling facility. Under this alternative, there would be no action by the City of Santa Paula to replace or update the existing Santa Paula Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) or construct a new Corporation Yard. The Corporation Yard would remain in its current location and no changes to this facility would be made.

Potential Significant Impacts: Impacts would be less severe under the No Project Alternative than those identified under the Proposed Project.

Findings: Infeasible. Under this Alternative, no new treatment plant capable of meeting the City’s existing Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements would be built. Under this Alternative, the existing WTP would operate in non-compliance of the permits issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) – Los Angeles and fines of $3,000 per violation and up to $21,000 or more per day could be levied against the City by the RWQCB. Recycled wastewater disposal options, influent and effluent conveyance facilities would not be implemented and wastewater would continue to be discharge to the Santa Clara River. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not meet the City of Santa Paula’s objectives to meet the short and long term needs of Santa Paula residents through 2020, develop a wastewater treatment plant that would be protected from 100-year floods, produce treated effluent that meets Title 22 water quality standards and that has negligible effects on the water quality and/or quantity of the Santa Paula Groundwater Basin, minimize environmental effects associated with operation of a wastewater treatment facility, and construct and operate a Corporation Yard that is capable of meeting the City’s current and future infrastructure maintenance needs.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would entail the reuse/rehabilitation of the existing WTP and Corporation Yard sites for a new WRF and Corporation Yard. All existing WTP and Corporation Yard structures would be demolished under the Alternative, once the new WRF and Corporation Yard are constructed and operational.

Potential Significant Impacts: Impacts would be less severe under the No Project Alternative than those identified under the Proposed Project.

Findings: Infeasible. Although Alternative 2 would meet all of the project objectives, it would require that the existing wastewater treatment plant to be taken off line for a period of time while the new plant is constructed. While off

of 10

line, there would be no way for the City to provide wastewater treatment service for those residents currently receiving services.

F. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Part II of the Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility are hereby incorporated into these findings in their entirety. The following parts of the February 1998 Santa Paula General Plan Update EIR is hereby incorporated into these findings: Pages F-4.1-10 through F-4.1-18, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Section 4.2 (Aesthetics and Community Design), and the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. This incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, and the reasons for approving the project.

III. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Significant Unavoidable Project Impacts

The permanent loss of up to 53 acres of prime agricultural land and conversion of this land from an agricultural use to an industrial use

The loss (cancellation) of an active Land Conservation Act contract

Short term noise impacts associated with construction activity

Biological resources impacts to 9.4 acres of southern willow scrub community as well as impact to least Bell’s vireo and southwestern pond turtle populations

Hydrology and water quality related to discharge of chlorides and total dissolved solids in violation of State standards

Historic resources associated with demolition of the existing wastewater treatment plant

Development of industrial uses will alter the agricultural character of the area by significantly impairing scenic vistas (Aesthetics)

Statement of Project Benefits The Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission has determined that the Reorganization Proposal complies with requirements of Government Code Sections 56000 et seq. The Commission hereby defers to decisions made by the City of Santa Paula as to the extent the water recycling meets their requirements. The Commission hereby finds that, for the reasons set forth below, the economic, social, and other considerations of the proposal outweigh the unavoidable

of 10

impacts relating to agricultural resources, biological resources, noise, hydrology and water quality, historic resources, and aesthetics identified in the findings. First, the proposal will allow for the provision of adequate, timely and reliable wastewater treatment services to residents within the City of Santa Paula General Plan planning area. Second, the proposal will accommodate the development of a facility that will minimize the cost of wastewater treatment services relative to other potential treatment options. Third, the proposal is consistent with the City’s existing sphere of influence and will allow for the preservation of local governmental structure within the County.

Overall Conclusions

For all the foregoing specific economic, social and other considerations, it is the Commission’s determination that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the environmental documents and discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the adverse environmental effects are acceptable.

IV. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

The Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental effects of the project as reflected in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Part II of the Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility, and the February 1998 Santa Paula General Plan Update EIR. The Commission finds that the Final EIR for the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Part II of the Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility and the portions of the February 1998 Santa Paula General Plan Update EIR referenced above are adequate for use by the Commission in its role as a Responsible Agency. The Commission further finds that there are no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures within its power that would substantially lessen or avoid any potential environmental effect of the project. The Commission hereby adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those significant adverse unavoidable impacts identified herein.





STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: July 19, 2006

TO: LAFCO Commissioners FROM: Everett Millais, Executive Officer SUBJECT: Conflict of Interest Code Amendment

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolution amending the conflict of interest code. DISCUSSION: The California Government Code requires local government agencies to adopt a conflict of interest code. The Government Code also specifies that the Board of Supervisors is the code reviewing body for any local government agency with jurisdiction wholly within the County. LAFCO is a local government agency as defined by these provisions of the government code. The Commission first adopted a conflict of interest code in 1993. It was last amended in 2004. The Government Code also requires that public agencies biennially review its conflict of interest code in even numbered years to determine if the existing code is current or in need of amendment. A written statement stating whether the code is current or transmitting any amendments must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors no later than October 1, 2006. Effective with the 2006-07 fiscal year the Commission approved a new job classification of Deputy Executive Officer and, via the 2006-07 budget, authorized filling the Deputy Executive Officer position in place of the LAFCO Analyst position. The Conflict of Interest Code needs to be amended to recognize the new Deputy Executive Officer classification.

Staff Report Conflict of Interest Code Amendment July 19, 2006 Page 2 of 2

The recommended change is strictly to ensure that the designated positions in the conflict of interest code are current. The change does not alter the requirements to file annual conflict of interest statements by the Commissioners, nor are any of the disclosure categories changed. Attachments

Amended Conflict of Interest Code in “legislative format” with additions underlined and deletions lined through.

Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code as recommended.

AMENDED CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE OF THE VENTURA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

(As Recommended July 19, 2006 – Additions underlined; Deletions lined through)

The Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission hereby amends its Conflict of Interest Code adopted in 1993 and as amended in 2000 and 2004. The Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq., requires local government agencies to adopt and promulgate Conflict of Interest Codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation (Cal. Code Regs., title 2, § 18730), which contains the terms of a standard Conflict of Interest Code (“standard code”), which may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act after public notice and hearings. The terms of California Code of Regulations (hereafter “Regulations”), title 2, section 18730, and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission, are hereby incorporated by reference and, along with the attached Exhibit A in which officials and employees are designated and disclosure categories are set forth, shall constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission. For designated persons who are officials specified in Government Code section 87200 (e.g., members of the Board of Supervisors or members of city councils), this code does not establish additional disclosure obligations within the geographic area already encompassed within the territorial jurisdiction of the office held by any such official. (See Gov. Code, § 87200 et seq. and Regulations, title 2, § 18730, subd. (b).) With respect to areas of jurisdiction of the Commission beyond the foregoing, any such official may satisfy his or her filing obligations under this code, when appropriate, by filing an expanded statement of economic interest as permitted by Regulations, title 2, section 18730, footnote 1. Pursuant to section 4 of the standard code, designated persons shall file statements of economic interests with the executive officer of the Commission. Upon receipt of the statement of a board member, alternate board member, or executive officer, the executive officer shall make and retain a copy and forward the original of the statement to the County Clerk. The statements of other designated persons shall be retained as part of the Commission’s files. The County Clerk and the Commission shall retain all such filings as required by law at the Ventura County Government Center and at the Commission’s offices, respectively. However, to avoid unnecessary duplication of filings, where a designated person files another required disclosure statement with an office or agency located at the Ventura County Government Center, which filing meets or exceeds the individual’s disclosure requirements under this code, then no additional filing under this code is required.

Exhibit A

Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission Amended Conflict of Interest Code

Adopted July 19, 2006

Designated Positions

Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners Executive Officer Deputy Executive Officer LAFCO Analyst Legal Counsel Consultants* Disclosure Categories

Subject to the definitions set forth in the Political Reform Act and applicable regulations, disclosures shall be made in the following categories: 1. All sources of income; 2. Interests in real property; and 3. Investments and business positions in business entities. * The disclosure by consultants is subject to the following limitation: The Executive Officer may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although filling a designated position, is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements in this section. Such written determination shall include a description of the consultant’s duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The Executive Officer’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this conflict of interest code.

Deleted: July 21, 2004

RESOLUTION OF THE VENTURA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION AMENDING THE

COMMISSION’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE

WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act, California Government Code Section 81000

et seq. requires local government agencies to adopt and promulgate Conflict of Interest

Codes; and

WHEREAS, the Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) adopted

a Conflict of Interest Code in 1993, made non-substantive amendments in 2000, and

made amendments in 2004 to account for changes in classifications/job titles, and

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 87306 requires Conflict of

Interest Codes be amended when a change is necessitated by changed circumstances,

including the creation of new positions; and

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 87306.5 requires every local

agency to review its Conflict of Interest Code in even-numbered years and, if a change

is necessitated by changed circumstances, to submit an amended Conflict of Interest

Code to the County Board of Supervisors by October 1; and

WHEREAS, the Commission established a new job classification of

Deputy Executive Officer, effective at the start of the 2006 – 2007 fiscal year, and the

conflict of interest code should be updated to reflect this change;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that

the Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission hereby:

(1) Amends its Conflict of Interest Code as set forth in Attachment A, attached

hereto and made a part hereof.

(2) Directs the Executive Officer to file this amended Conflict of Interest Code

with the Clerk of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors no later than

October 1, 2006.

(3) Directs the Executive Officer to compile this amendment in a format to

replace Division 1 – Operational Rules & Regulations, Chapter 2 –

Amended Conflict of Interest Code, in the Commissioner’s Handbook and

distribute the replacement Commissioner’s Handbook pages to interested

parties.

Resolution – Conflict of Interest Code July 19, 2006 Page 2 of 2

This resolution was adopted on July 19, 2006. AYES: Commissioners Grandsen, Hess, Long, Parks, Zaragoza and Alternate

Commissioners Lange and Parvin NOES: None ABSTAINS: None Dated:7/19/06 Cc: Ventura County Board of Supervisors

Attachment A

AMENDED CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE OF THE VENTURA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

The Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission hereby amends its Conflict of Interest Code adopted in 1993 and as amended in 2000 and 2006. The Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq., requires local government agencies to adopt and promulgate Conflict of Interest Codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation (Cal. Code Regs., title 2, § 18730), which contains the terms of a standard Conflict of Interest Code (“standard code”), which may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act after public notice and hearings. The terms of California Code of Regulations (hereafter “Regulations”), title 2, section 18730, and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission, are hereby incorporated by reference and, along with the attached Exhibit A in which officials and employees are designated and disclosure categories are set forth, shall constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission. For designated persons who are officials specified in Government Code section 87200 (e.g., members of the Board of Supervisors or members of city councils), this code does not establish additional disclosure obligations within the geographic area already encompassed within the territorial jurisdiction of the office held by any such official. (See Gov. Code, § 87200 et seq. and Regulations, title 2, § 18730, subd. (b).) With respect to areas of jurisdiction of the Commission beyond the foregoing, any such official may satisfy his or her filing obligations under this code, when appropriate, by filing an expanded statement of economic interest as permitted by Regulations, title 2, section 18730, footnote 1. Pursuant to section 4 of the standard code, designated persons shall file statements of economic interests with the executive officer of the Commission. Upon receipt of the statement of a board member, alternate board member, or executive officer, the executive officer shall make and retain a copy and forward the original of the statement to the County Clerk. The statements of other designated persons shall be retained as part of the Commission’s files. The County Clerk and the Commission shall retain all such filings as required by law at the Ventura County Government Center and at the Commission’s offices, respectively. However, to avoid unnecessary duplication of filings, where a designated person files another required disclosure statement with an office or agency located at the Ventura County Government Center, which filing meets or exceeds the individual’s disclosure requirements under this code, then no additional filing under this code is required.

Resolution – Conflict of Interest Code July 19, 2006 Page 2 of 2

Exhibit A Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission Amended Conflict of Interest Code

Adopted July 19, 2006 Designated Positions Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners Executive Officer Deputy Executive Officer LAFCO Analyst Legal Counsel Consultants* Disclosure Categories Subject to the definitions set forth in the Political Reform Act and applicable regulations, disclosures shall be made in the following categories: 1. All sources of income; 2. Interests in real property; and 3. Investments and business positions in business entities. * The disclosure by consultants is subject to the following limitation: The Executive Officer may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although filling a designated position, is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements in this section. Such written determination shall include a description of the consultant’s duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The Executive Officer’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this conflict of interest code.





STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: July 19, 2006

TO: LAFCO Commissioners FROM: Everett Millais, Executive Officer SUBJECT: CALAFCO Achievement Award Nomination

RECOMMENDATION: Nominate Commissioner Ted Grandsen for the CALAFCO Distinguished Service Award. DISCUSSION: Each year CALAFCO calls for nominations for Achievement Awards in nine categories. One of the categories is for distinguished service. Nominations may be submitted by anyone for the purpose of recognizing outstanding achievements relating to LAFCO. It is recommended that the Commission join with staff to nominate Commissioner Ted Grandsen for the Distinguished Service Award. As mayor of the City of Simi Valley, Commissioner Grandsen served on the Ventura LAFCO from 1973 through 1974 as a city member. As a member of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors Commissioner Grandsen served on the Ventura LAFCO from 1975 through 1976 as a regular county member and served as an alternate county member from 1977 through 1979. Currently, as a member of the Calleguas Municipal Water District Board of Directors, Commissioner Grandsen is serving on the Ventura LAFCO as a special district member. It is believed that Commissioner Grandsen is the only person in the history of LAFCOs to have served as a city, county and special district member of any LAFCO. Commissioner Grandsen’s distinguished record of public service makes him special, but his service on the Ventura LAFCO as a elected official representing three separate units of local government makes him unique.

Staff Report CALAFCO Achievement Awards Nomination July 19, 2006 Page 2 of 2

Nominations for CALAFCO Achievement Awards must be submitted by July 28. The basic nomination form and description of the achievement award categories are attached for information. All nominations submitted will be evaluated by an awards committee who will select the winners in each award category. Announcement of the award winners in all categories will be made at the Banquet Dinner at the CALAFCO Annual Conference in San Diego on Wednesday, September 6.

agenda - california · 7/19/2006 · santa paula sphere of influence. the area is also within the...

Documents