Loading...
R 3318 . ' ''. RESOLUTION NO. 3318 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CERTIFYING THE COMPLETION OF AND MAKE FINDINGS AS TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE BERRY GARDENS SPECIFIC PLAN (APPLICANT: CHARLES BAKER) WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") for the Berry Gardens Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment 97-002, Development Code Amendment 97-007, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2260 (the "Project") was prepared by firma (the "Consultant") for the City of Arroyo Grande (the "City") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq., hereinafter the "State CEQA Guidelines") and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the State Clearinghouse and to those public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested persons and agencies, and the comments of such persons and agencies were sought; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to adopt changes suggested and to incorporate comments received and the City's response to said comments, and as so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR was prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande for review and consideration in conjunction with consideration of approval and adoption of the Berry Gardens Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment 97-002, Development Code Amendment 97-007, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2260; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on August 4, 1998 to consider the Project and the Final EIR relating"thereto, following notice duly and regularly given as required by law, and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto having been heard, and said Final EIR and all comments and responses thereto having been considered; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on August 25, 1998 to consider the Project and the Final EIR relating thereto, following notice duly and regularly given as required by law, and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto having been heard, and said Final EIR and all comments and responses thereto having been considered; and Resolution 3318 EIR Certification Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, as revised and supplemented, incorporating all comments received and the response of the City and the Planning Commission thereto as of the date hereof. . NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande resolves as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby certifies tha~ the Final EIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and local procedures adopted by the City pursuant thereto. The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21082.1 and Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 2. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and considered the information contained therein and all comments, written and oral, received at the public hearing on the Final EIR prior to adopting this Resolution and acting on the proposed Project. Section 3. I The City Council hereby adopts the Findings of Fact Concerning Mitigation Measures, Exhibit A; and, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Exhibit B; both of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. Upon approval of the Project by the City Council, the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of San Luis Obispo County and the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to the provisions of Section 15094 of the State CEQA Guidelines. On motion by Councilmember Fuller, seconded by Councilmember (Tolleyand by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Fuller, Tolley, Runels, Lady, and Mayor Dougall NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 25th day of August 1998. . ~ Resolution 3318 EIR Certification Page 3 of 3 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: fL~ L. )-h_lL-i~ ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER I, NANCY A. DAVIS, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify that the following Resolution N03318is a true, full and correct copy of said Resolution passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said Council on the 25th day of roqust 1998. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 31st day of Auqust 1998. ~; a!~ NANC~, crr.,; CLERK bb\bgsp\resolu tio ns\eir FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING MITIGATION MEASURES I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Berry Gardens Specific Plan (General Plan Amendment 97-002, Development Code Amendment 97-007, and adoption of the Specific Plan) would establish land use, development and design standards for Subarea 1 of the Specific Plan area, create an approximately 0.75 acre public park and a 1.5 acre drainage basin on approximately 37 acres. Vesting Tentative Tract 2260 yvould subdivide Subarea 1 into 160 single-family lots (minimum lot size 5,700 square feet/minimum average lot size of 6,000 square feet) and 31 Patio Home lots (minimum lot si~e of 3,000 square feet). The development and design standards for Subareas 2, 3, and 4 would occur when those property owners submit development applications on the remaining approximately 13 acres. The Specific Plan area is generally located south of Grand Avenue, north of Ash Street, east of Oak Park Blvd., and west of Spruce Street II. THE FINAL EIR The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, comments on the accuracy and completeness of the Draft EIR and responses to those comments prepared by the Consultant and City, including revisions or clarifications to the text of the Draft EIR. III. THE f;1ECORD The following information is incorporated by reference and made a part of the record supporting these: a. The Draft EIR, Final EIR and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference. b. All resolutions adopted certifying the EIR and approving the Project and all exhibits attached thereto. c. All testimony and documentary evidence submitted to or delivered to the City in connection with the August 4, 1998, public hearing on the proposed Project. d. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, overheads, letters, minutes or other documents relied upon or prepared by City staff or the Consulta~t relating to the Project. EXHIBIT "A" OF EIR RESOLUTION NO. ]) 18 EIR Certification Resolution - Exhibit A Page 2 of 7 e. The General Plan of the City, including all of its constituent elements. f. The City's Municipal Code. IV. FINDINGS AND STATEMENTS OF FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS The Environmental Impact Report for the Project, prepared in compliance with the Cslifornia Environmental Quality Act, evaluates the potentially significant and significant adverse environmental impacts, which could result from approval of the Project. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15091, the Lead Agency is required to make certain findings with respect to these impacts. The required findings appear in the following sections of this document. This document lists all identified potentially significant and significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project. A. SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE AVOIDED AND MITIGATED TO A lESS THAN SIGNIFICANT lEVEl. Finding: As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Sections 15091, 15092 and 15093, the Agency finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts listed below, as identified in the EIR. These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of the proceedings before the City as stated below. All significant impact can be reduced to a less than significant level and are discussed below, along with the appropriate mitigation measure stated and adopted for implementation by approval of these Findings of Fact. DRAINA GE 1. Descriotion of significant imoact: The proposed project would result in potentially significant drainage impacts. 2. Mitigations: This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measures identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project: EIR Certification Resolution - Exhibit A Page 3 of 7 Mitigation B1 (Condition Nos. 87 and 88 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) Mitigation B2 (Condition No. 89 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) 3. Finding: The City finds that the above stated mitigation measures are incorporated into the project as a condition of approval. The City further finds that these mitigation measures are appropriate and reasonable and will substantially lessen or avoid the impact described above. SAFETY HAZARDS 1. DescriDtion of significant imDacts: The existing Eucalyptus trees adjacent to the western project boundary could result in significant property damage, traffic hazards and personal injury. The existing fuel tanks could result in significant hazards. The existing hazardous supplies could result in significant hazards or health risks. 2. Mitigations: The above impacts will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measures identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project: Mitigation C1 (Condition No. 90 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) Mitigation C2 (Condition No. 91 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) Mitigation C3 (Condition No. 92 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) 3. Finding: The City finds that the above stated mitigation measures are incorporated into the Project as a condition of approval. The City further finds that these mitigation measures are appropriate and EIR Certification Resolution - Exhibit A Page 4 of 7 reasonable and will substantially lessen or avoid the impact described above. TRAFFIC 1. Descriotion of significant imoact: The proposed project would create uneven distribution of traffic within Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2260. Inadequate sight distance on Courtland Street. Inadequate street width on Courtland Street north of the project boundary to Grand Avenue. Inadequate street width on Courtland Street at the intersection with Grand Avenue. Inadequate site distance at lots 37 and 87. Inadequate sight distance and turning movements in private drive/alley. Inadequate sight distance for driveway backup movement. 2. MitiQations: The above impacts will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measures identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project: Mitigation D1 (Condition No. 93 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) Mitigation 02 (Condition No. 94 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) Mitigation 03 (Condition No. 95 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) Mitigation 04 (Condition No. 96 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) Mitigation D5 (Condition No. 97 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) Mitigation 06 (Condition No. 98 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) Mitigation 07 (Condition No. 99 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) 3. Finding: The City finds that the above stated mitigation measures are incorporated into the Project as a condition of approval. The City EIR Certification Resolution - Exhibit A Page 5 of 7 further finds that these mitigation measures are appropriate and reasonable and will substantially lessen or avoid the impact described above. NOISE 1. DescriPtion of significant impact: The proposed project would result in potentially significant noise impacts to Patio Homes adjacent to Oak Park Blvd.. 2. Mitigations: This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project: Mitigation E1 (Condition Nos. 100 and 101 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) 3. Finding: The City finds that the above stated mitigation measures are incorporated into the Project as a condition of approval. The City further finds that these mitigation measures are appropriate and. reasonable and will substantially lessen or avoid the impact described above PUBLIC SERVICES - FIRE 1. Description of significant impact: The proposed project would potentially result in significant cumulative impacts on fire protection capabilities. 2. Mitigations: This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project: Mitigation F1 (Condition No.1 02 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) EIR Certification Resolution - Exhibit A Page 6 of 7 3. Findina: The City finds that the above stated mitigation measure is incorporated into the Project as a condition of approval. The City further finds that this mitigation measure is appropriate and reasonable and will substantially lessen or avoid the impact described above PUBLIC SERVICES - POLICE 1. Description of significant impact: The proposed project vyould potentially result in significant cumulative impacts on police protection capabilities. 2. Mitigations: This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project: Mitigation F2 (Condition No. 103 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) 3. Finding: The City finds that the above stated mitigation measure is incorporated into the Project as a condition of approval. The City further finds that this mitigation measure is appropriate and reasonable and will substantially lessen or avoid the impact described above CUL TURAL RESOURCES 1. DescriPtion of significant impact: The proposed project would potentially displace cultural deposits. 2. Mitigations: This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project: Mitigation G1 (Condition No. 104 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) EIR Certification Resolution ~ Exhibit A Page 7 of 7 3. Finding: . The City finds that the above stated mitigation measure is incorporated into the Project as a condition of approval. The City further finds that this mitigation measure is appropriate and reasonable and will substantially lessen or avoid the impact described above AIR QUALITY 1. Descriotion of significant imoact: The proposed project would potentially create fugitive dust. 2. Mitigations: This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project: Mitigation AQ1 (Condition No. 105 of Vesting Tentative Tract 2260) 3. Finding: The City finds that the above stated mitigation measure is incorporated into the Project as a condition of approval. The City further finds that this mitigation measure is appropriate and reasonable and will substantially lessen or avoid the impact described above AN. Mltlgatlor:' 81: Design project stonnwater basin capacity to City Standards of a 100-year storm times a factor to compensate for poor percolation rates, with _ an overflow spfilway to Oak Park Boulevard. The factor of increase shan be determined by the following process to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: Rainfall data from local rain gauges shaJ) be analyzed to determine the 10o-year return frequency "igh rainfall series. for multiple days. The series should be of sufficient ler:t91h to produce the maxim.Jm demand on the storage basin while considering percolation of the pond. A mass cfJagram method shall be used to demonstrate the capacity of the basin to accept runoff and dispose of water by percolation. The project basin must accommodate alt pre-development runoff and an post-development runoff from the SpecifIC Plan area except the General Commercial parcel. MItigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action te be Taken: Design basin to City Standards for 10o-year storm, accounting for slow percolation, and enlarging basin capacity as necessary to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2) PersonlEntity to Take Action: Applicant to engineer basin. 3) Timing I Duration: Prior to issuance of grading pennit. 4) Interested Agencies: City of Arroyo Grande, City of Grover Beach, State Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES permits). MItIgation 82: To offset capacity lost by Courtland Street construction, design the basin to receive overflow from the Poplar Street Basin and size project terminal basin to accommodate the overflow stormwater, in addition to 10o-year capacity for project runoff, or enlarge the capacity of the Poplar Street Basin. To avoid overflow discharge of the terminal basin to the Mentone Basin in Grover Beach, install a bleeder pipe from the project terminal basin to the Soto Basin on Ash Street MItigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: ApprlCar1t to submit improvement plans that indude additional basin capacity to receive Poplar Street Basin overflow and appropriate conveyance from the Poplar Street Basin te the project basin and from the project basin to the Sote Basin, or enlarge the - capacity of the Poplar Street Basin. 2) PersoniEntity to Take Action: Applicant te submit plans. 3) Timing I Duration: Approval of design by City Engineer prior to issuance of grading pennit. 4) Interested Agencies: Pubfic Works Department. EXHIBIT "B' OF EIR RESOLUTION NO. 3318 Mitigation C1: To reduce the potential for signifICant property damage, traffic hazards and personal injury, aI trees shall be removed. This wiI achieve the highest degree of hazard mitigation for this project. The median area shall be used for planting of replacement trees. The ptans shall include the planting 'of new trees preferably with a maximum mature height of 40 feet, be tolerant of winds and have a strong branching habit. An irrigation system shall be installed to water new trees. MItigation Implementation Monitoring . .1) Action to be Taken: The final plans. shall reflect eucalyptus tree removals and placement tree plan. 2} Entity to Take Action: AppITcant to prepare demolition and landscape plans for submittal to the City of Grover Beach as permitting agency. - 3) Timing I Duration: Prior to permit release. Tree removal to take place prior to occupancy. 4) Interested Agencies: Planning Departments for City of Grover Beach and City of Arroyo Grande. Mitigation C2: To prevent any future fuel spDls, reduce fuel vapor in the ambient air, and reduce the fire hazard the tanks should be removed prior. to commencement of the proposed project. The removal of the tanks shall be conducted according to aI Federal and State Regulations for tank removals. MItigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: Remove the above ground fuel tanks. 2) Entity to Take Action: Owner. 3) Timing I Duration: Prior to transfer of property ownership and commencement of project. 4) Interested Agencies: County Health Department, Califomia Regionai Wa1.er Quality Control Board, Air Pollution Control District. Mitigation C3: The potentially hazardous supplies in the existing structures and non- operational motor vehicles should be removed from the site prior to commencement of the proposed project to reduce the chance of exposure to any possible health risk. MItigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: Removal of all possible existing hazard materials from existing uses on the site. 2) . Entity to Take Action: Owner. 3) Timing I Duration: Prior to issuanca of a grading permit for the project. 4) Interested Agencies: Developer. County Health Department, California Regional Wa1er Quality Control Board. Mitigation D1: To rr@igate uneven distribution of traffIC within the tract on narrow local streets and con~ct th~Cedar Street extension as p~..of Phase 2 of the project Mitigation Implementatlon/Monltorfng 1) Action to be Taken: App~1c maintain phasing plan to include 1he Cedar Street connection I as part of Phase 2 of Tract 2260. :.. : 2) Entity to Take Action: Appficant 3) 1imingJOurcrtion: At time afTract Map approval. 4) Interested AgendesJDepartment COmmunity Development Department. " MItigatIon D2: To avoid safety concerns due to lack of sight distance. Courtland Street shall be redesigned along the park frontage. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: Revisa Tentative Tract Map to elimina:ts site distance problem along the park frontage on Courtland Street. 2) Entity 10 Take Acti9n: Appficant's Engineer. ~. ... ~.... . 3) 1iminglOura1ion: eity pubrlC Works Department review. 4) Interested AgencieslOepartment: Public Works Department. MItigation 03: Courtland Street shall be constructed to a 32-foot wide paved section with cuTb. gutter. and sidewalk on one side. ~ ~ ...... MItigation ImpleQ1entatlon/Monltorfng ~ ;~ '':'; . 1) Action to be Taken: Appficant to submit Improvement Plans that show the Courtland Street section as a 32-foot wide City standard collector street. 2) Entity 10 Take Action: Applicant to prepare plans for Pubfic Works review and approval 3) 1iminglOuration: Prior to approval of Improvement Plans; City to verify in field. 4) Interested AgendesJDepartment: pubrlC Works DElp~ent. Mitigation 04: Courtland street shafl be widened at its approach to Grand Avenue to insure that vehicles can enter and exit Courtland Street without encroaching into oncoming traffic. An alternative is to provide larger curb retum radii. This could require a slightly wider easement near Grand Avenue. Also, the Courtland Street approach to Gran:1 Avenue shall be provided with a separate leftJthrough lane and a separate right turn lane. ..,. .~ .. . " Mitigation Implementation/MonitorIng . 1) Action to be Taken: Applic::arrt to submit Improvement Plans with widened Courtland Street easement at Grand Avenue to provide a safe turning movement. 2) Entity to Take Action: pubrlC Works Departmerttto review Improvement Plans. 3) Tlr11ingJOura:tion: Prior to approval of Improvement Plans. 4) Interested AgendeslDepartment Public Works Department. MItIgation D5: Sight cflStance'deflCiencies at lots 37 an187 shall be rectified in a revised Tentative Tract Map submittaL Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring . .. , 1) Action to be Taken: Applicant to revise Tract Map to prcvide safe sight distance at lots 37 and 87. 2) Entity to Take Action: Public Works Department to review and approve revised map. 3) TuninglOuration: PrkJrlo tentative Tract Map approval - 4)' Interested AgenclesIDepartment: pubrlC Works Department. Effectiveness of the Measure: Proper comer geometries and lot configuration will avoid potential safety problems resulting from inadequate sight distance. Mitigation 06: To mitigate potential sight distance and turning movement deficiencies, the aUey garage access in the Townhome lots shall include a minimum 18 foot width and adequate . garage door setback from the alley 1ravellane. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action 10 be Taken: ApprlC3rrt to revise Tentative Map and SpecifIC Plan to indude adequate garage b~up sight diso.a.nca and circulation space in the Townhome alleyway. 2) _ Entity to Take Action: Applicanfs Engineer. 3) 1iming/Ouration: PubUcWorks Department to review prorto Tentative Tract Map and Specific Plan approval. ,. 4) Interested AgendeslOepartment: pubrlC Works Department. Effectiveness of the Me~sure: Provisions for adequate width and backup sight distance in the alley will avoid potential signiiicant impacts. . MitigatIon D7: To mitigate potential sight distance hazards for the driveway backup movement, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall be revised to define tot layout and driveway locations that can demonstrate a safe backup movement.. . Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) ActiOn to be Taken: Applicant to revise Tract Map to ffiustrate how development lots 64, 79, 126, 133, 148 and 155 can be configured to provide safe driveway backup sight distance. ,2) Entity to Take Action:' Applicant's Engineer. '3) 1iminglOuration: P~lic Works review prior to Specif~, Plan approval. .4) " Interested Agencie~epartment: Public Works Oe.ent.' Effectiveness of the Measure: Tract Map standards for rot driveway sight distance will avoid potential impacts. Mitigation E1: Exterior patio areas in the townhomes shall be enclosed by a solid waIl that is taD enough to intercept the line of site from the vehicular source to the patio, and acoustical insulation shall be installed to ensure interior noise levels less than 45 d8~ to reduce noise levels to 60 dBA ldn or less in the private'yard. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action' to be Taken: T ownhomes shal1 incorporate acoustical measures including solid patio . wails, a~ustically insulated windows, doors and openings certified by an acousticat engineer to meet minimum exterior (50 dBA) and interior (45 dBA) noise levels. 2) PersonlEntity to Take Action: Applicant to prepare final architecture plan and acoustical analyses for citY review and approval. 3) Taming I Duration: City to approve measures prior to building permit and monitor compliance prior to occupancy. 4) Interested Agencie~: Planning and Building Divisionsf-' ; ~ . MItigation F1: To mitigate potential cumulative irq>acts on fire protection capabilities, the City should annually review the progress of residential construction in 'relation to fire department funding to ensure service capabilities keep pace with population increases. MItigation Implementation/Monitoring .' 1) Action to be Taker.:'Annual City Councl1 reviewaf repci1t by Fire Chief. 2) PersonlEntity to Take Action: Fire Chief. 3) liming I Duration: Annual. 4}' Interested Agencies: Community Development Department, 'City Manager. MItigation F2: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts on police protection capabilities, the progress of residential. construction in relation to police department staffing should be - reviewed by the City anI:lJally to ensure service capabilities keep pace with population increases. Mltfgatlon Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken~Annual City Council review of report by Police Chief. . 2) PersonlEntity to Take Action: Pofice Chief. .3) TIming I Dur3tion: Annual. 4) Interested Agencies: Community Development Department. City Manager. Mitigation G1: A sma! scale archaeological subsurface testing program shoUld be conducted in order to define the presence or absence of additional cultural materials, and if present, the nature of the cultural deposit within the area of. potential impact, its depth, contents and organization. Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring '. 1) Action to be Taken: Perform surface archaeological t~ing at locations of the three isolates on the site. . A series of four to six shovel test pits (30 em to 40 an in diameter) should be excavated at each isolate location and screened with 1116" or 1/8" mesh. It is estimated that two .or three days would be required for subsurface testing. Standard laboratory analysis and a technical report of results should follow. This information can then be used to determine the location of intact or displaced cultural deposits within the project area and define appropriate mitigation and monitoring procedures. 2) Entity to Take Action: Applicant to retain qualified archaeologist. 3) TIming / Duration: Prior to issuance of grading permit. 4) Interested Agencies: Community Development Department Mitigation A Q1: The final flrading plans for Tract 2260 shall include a Dust Control Plan formulated in. confonnance with the standard mftigations contained in the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook ltem8.4: PM10 Mitigation Measures. MItigation Implementation/Monitoring 1) Action to be Taken: Final Grading Plans to contain Dust Control Plan. 2) Entity to Take Action: City Engineer/Planner to review and approve Plan prior to issuance of grading permit. 3) TimingIDuration: Plan check and field monitor.. 4) Interested Agencies/Department Community Development Department. APCD. - .