CITY OFVENTURA COMMUNITY Df.Vf.LOPMf

CITY OFVENTURA

COMMUNITY Df.Vf.LOPMf.NT Joint Planning Commission/Design Review Committee

Staff Report - - - c

Agemda Item: 3 Hle~,~in,g Date: December 20, 2017/

Project No: 6811 Case No: Z-12-13-19295

-PD-12-13-19299 DRC 12-13-19297 EIR-12-13-19301

Applicant: Ravello Holdings, Inc.

Planner: ;:t, Jared Rosengren, AICP, Senior Planner (805) 658-4737 L_; r Jeffrey Lambert, AICP, Community Development Director

Location: Southeast of the intersection of Johnson Drive and North Bank Drive (Attachment A)

APN: (subject site) 132-0-080-275; (linear park) 132-0-080-055 & 132-0-080-065

Recommendation: Design Review Committee Recommended Action: Approve the Design Review Permit, subject to conditions

Planning Commission Recommended Action: Approve Planned Development Permit, subject to conditions and forward an approval recommendation to the City Council for a Zone Change and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Zoning: Commercial Planned Development (CPD) current

Mixed Use Development (MXD) proposed

Land Use: Commerce (C)

Regulatory Review: SBMC Sec. 24.525.070

Environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration Review:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project is a request for a (1) Zone Change (Z-12-13-19295) from Commercial Planned Development (CPD) to Mixed Use Development (MXD), (2) a Planned Development

PROJ-6811 PC/DRC/12/20/17/JR

Permit (PD-12-13-19299), and (3) a Formal Design Review (DRC 12-13-19297) for the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of a 306-unit residential apartment, 5,000 square feet of commercial space and 5,000 square feet of community space on a 8.03 acre parcel located southeast of the intersection of North Bank Drive and Johnson Drive with a land use designation of Commerce.

Within four (4) new city blocks, there are a total of thirteen (13) buildings, which include one (1) Commercial Block building, three (3) Mansion buildings, six (6) Stacked Dwelling buildings and three (3) Rowhouse buildings. The building massing consists of a mix of two, three and four story buildings with a contemporary architectural style used throughout the project.

The project includes five unit types ranging from 668 to 1,759 square feet. The 5,000 square foot commercial component is oriented towards the corner of Johnson Drive and North Bank Drive. The central block within the proposed development is a 5,000 square foot community facility adjacent to the public park and community pool area.

The proposed project would introduce new private streets, designed to public standards, that would provide vehicular access points into the project site and a "green" street (without public parking) along a portion of the linear park. Parallel parking for residents and guests would be provided on the new private streets and along North Bank Drive.

A new 0.25 acre public park will be provided within the project area, and the project would also include improvement to the existing linear park to the north and east of the site. Those improvements would include landscaping, new pathway and construction of a stormwater detention basin.

The project would provide 559 off-street parking spaces including 461 garage spaces.

Access to the site is proposed from five separate location points, including two along North Bank Drive and three along Johnson Drive. From these points, four new streets ("A" through "D") are being introduced into the site creating a block and street pattern. The longest of the new streets, "Street A", begins as a southern extension of Elba Street, located on the north side of North Bank Drive, and serves as a "green street" boundary between the mixed-use development and the City's existing linear park wrapping around the southern boundary of the site, eventually connecting to Johnson Drive. A new signalized intersection will be placed at Road "D" and Johnson Drive.

BACKGROUND

This is the second time the project has been scheduled for a joint DRC/PC hearing and the first time the project has been recommended for approval.

• On December 14, 2009, the City Council approved the Housing Approval Program prescreen clearance for HAP-11. The City Council's motion included the Planning Commission's advisory comments provided at their October 20, 2009 meeting with

PROJ-6811 PC/DRC/12/20/17/JR

additional direction to include meeting the criteria of sidewalk widths, planting strip widths, and varying building heights along Johnson Drive.

• On May 20, 2015, the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee passed a minute motion finding that the project is conditionally consistent with the HAP-11 Housing Approval Program Prescreen Clearance with overall design comments related to mix of building types; varying the building heights; open space location; connection to the river, park and intersection; parking; sustainability; and affordable housing (Attachment B).

• On April 6, 2016, the Design Review Committee Conceptually reviewed the design of 306 apartment units, 5,000 square feet of community space and 5,000 square feet of commercial space on an undeveloped 8.03-acre site and found the project to be consistent with HAP-11 based on DRC comments and with the requirement of an additional Conceptual Design Review to verify consistency.

• On August 17, 2016, the Design Review Committee made a motion to confirm the consistency with HAP-11 was verified by the project's revised design.

• On February 1, 2017, the Design Review Committee reviewed the revised project based upon the August 17, 2016 DRC comments and confirmed the project addressed the DRC's comments with the following comments (Attachment C):

• Building evaluations are improved and responsive to prior comments; • Use pavers for pedestrian connections; • Vinyl windows would not be consistent with the high quality architecture;

Window material options would be aluminum, fiberglass or resin composite;

• Consider public art components, especially at the corner of North Bank and Johnson Drive.

STAFF ANALYSIS

Staff has analyzed the proposed project based upon review of the contents of the application and associated materials, historic case files on record with Community Development, and with applicable General Plan and zoning requirements. A zoning consistency analysis with departmental development review comments have been prepared and is attached to this staff report (Attachment D), while the body of this staff report primarily highlights policy consistency documents and components of the project that are not consistent with the development standards.

General Plan Consistency

The project site is located within the Montalvo community, which is described in the General Plan as an area that includes the Johnson Drive corridor, Bristol neighborhood center, and shares the Victoria corridor with Thille to the west. Its major civic use is the County

PROJ-6811 PC/DRC/12/20/17/JR

Government Center, but also the Rancho Ventura Linear Park and the Barranca Vista Park. The Montalvo Community contains a mix of housing types and is home to the Metrolink Station. The 2005 General Plan describes the Johnson Drive corridor as a connector between eastern Ventura and Highway 101 with suburban scale retail. Opportunities exist for highquality, mixed-uses (such as childcare, restaurants, offices, light industrial, and housing) with ground floor commercial space to strengthen its economic presence and provide a visual gateway.

The subject site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Commerce, which encourages a wide range of building types of anywhere from two to six stories (depending on neighborhood characteristics) that house a mix of functions, including commercial, entertainment, office and housing. The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan as it would consist of a mixed-use development use in an area designated for mixed-use development.

The project site is listed in the General Plan 2014-2021 Housing Element "Sites Inventory" as a vacant and/or underutilized property that could provide additional affordable units. The project is contributing 19 new units to the City's affordable housing stock.

The General Plan 2014-2021 Housing Element "Sites Inventory" identifies the project site as a vacant and/or underutilized property that could provide an estimated 305 residential units based upon a density of 38 units per acre. The Housing Element also anticipated that 55 of the units would be affordable units. Currently, there are no regulations in place to require the developer to construct all 55 units as affordable housing and the 2006 lnclusionary Housing Program (Res. No. 2006-058, § 1, 8-7-06) does not apply to rental apartment projects because rental units are deemed to be at the moderate income level. The project proposes 19 affordable housing units as recommended by the Planning Commission at its May 20, 2015, meeting. The table below shows the number of Housing units identified in the City's Housing Element "Sites Inventory" and the affordable units proposed by the project.

Total Units Very-Low I Low Moderate Market Housing Element 305 55 150 100 Estimate

Proposed Project 306 9 110 287 0

The Housing Element "Sites Inventory" identifies available lands citywide that could accommodate housing units, at all required income levels, to fulfill the City's obligation to the regional housing needs defined by the Southern California Association of Governments, known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The total RHNA obligation over an eight-year period from 2013 to 2021 is 3,654 units, broken down in the following income level categories: 1,452 (extremely low, very low and low income), 673 (moderate) and 1,529 (above moderate). Since the City does not produce these housing units-only ensures the land, zoning or other programs are available to accommodate the housing-the City must partner with and rely upon the private sector to achieve RHNA. For this project, staff analyzed the project for 2014-2021 Housing Element "Sites Inventory" Compliance, and worked with the

PROJ-6811 PC/DRC/12/20/17 /JR

developer cooperatively on the 19 affordable units to be broken into the very low/low income categories, which will contribute to the city's RHNA obligation. While the remaining 36 affordable units (very low/low income) will not be met on this site, the remaining "Sites Inventory" citywide contains other identified lands to adequately meet the city's housing needs at affordable income levels, as identified in the certified Housing Element and annually tracked and monitored by staff.

Pursuant to Government Code 65863(b)(1) and (2), the Community Development Director has determined approval of the project with fewer housing units than identified in the Sites Inventory is compliant with State Housing Law because the proposed residential mixed-use project is consistent with the General Plan; and while only 19 out of the 55 identified housing units for the subject property are provided as lower income affordable units in the project, adequate alternate sites are available in the Sites Inventory to accommodate the remaining 36 units (Very Low/Low income) in the Districts, Corridors and Neighborhood Centers to fulfill the City's obligation for the regional housing needs, as documented in the certified 2014-2021 Housing Element, Technical Report Appendix B - Residential Land Inventory, dated September 2013.

Historic Context

The project site does not contain an existing or potential landmark, point of interest, or historic resource, and it is not located within an existing, proposed, or potential Historic District.

MXD Zone Analysis

The project site will includes a proposed zone change from Commercial Planned Development to Mixed Use. The Mixed Use (MXD) zone provides regulations for feasible uses of buildings for selected combined uses, including opportunities for development of combined live/work spaces. Staff has analyzed the proposed project utilizing the MXD Zoning Consistency Table (Attachment D) and found that it would be consistent with all of the requirements of the MXD zone and parking requirements.

Site Plan

The proposed project is broken up into four separate blocks. The buildings located on each block are oriented towards the street, enhancing pedestrian activity, defining open spaces and providing a sense of ownership. Parking is generally located underneath the proposed buildings or within subterranean garages. Open spaces are located throughout the site to make them easily accessible for all residents and a community building and a 0.25 acre open space is located centrally, with strong connections to the existing City linear park. The City linear park which wraps around the eastern edge of the site is proposed to be improved with a bike path, new landscaping and amenities as well as functioning as a stormwater treatment facility for the project site in the southern portion.

PROJ-6811 PC/DRC/12/20/17/JR

) I

/, I !

/ 1 -·-I

I

Block

Block 1

Block2

Block 3

Block 4

Total

1~ U .t( 1 .t1 .ljf\1~ 1\. LJ K VENTURA

::: i L-1

CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE

---·---

Table 1 Proposed Project Use Summary

Number of Building Total Number of

Number of Stories Total Block Area Units Building IA 36 units

Building 1B 9 units

Building IC 23 units

Building 10 24 units

5,000 sq. ft. commercial

Building 2A 32 units

Building2B 18 units

Building3A 6 units

Building3B 5 uni ts

Building3C 21 units

Building30 34 units

Building3E 41 units

5,000 sq. ft. community space

Building4A 6 units

Building4B 30 units

13 306

4

3

4

4

4

4

2

2

3

4

4

2

4

varies

70,560 (1.62 acres)

40,179 (0.92 acres)

94,826 (2.18 ac res)

35,196 (0.80 acres)

5.52 acres

PROJ-6811 PC/DRC/12/20/17 /JR

Parking

As proposed, the Municipal Code would require a total of 553 parking spaces (476 parking spaces onsite and 77 spaces on-street). The project provides a total of 556 parking spaces, with 461 spaces provided in four subterranean parking garages, with ramped driveways accessed from the interior private streets. The remaining 95 spaces would be provided along the private streets.

Bicycle parking and storage lockers are provided throughout the site within parking garages and is consistent with Municipal Code Sec. 24.415.140 - Bicycle Parking Facilities.

Building Height

The proposed project conforms to the MXD overall height regulations. The MXD zone allows for a maximum height of 75 feet and six stories, and the proposed project is identified as having a maximum height of 57 feet and 7 inches with 2, 3, and 4-story buildings.

Architecture

According to the applicant, the project's design responds to the current context along Johnson Drive as well as using a contemporary design approach in order to act as a catalytic project for the City's southern gateway that will set the tone for how other sites in the area could redevelop. Primarily, the buildings line the perimeter of the blocks creating semi-public open courtyard spaces within the interior of the blocks that connect to the streets through paseos and grand stairways.

The proposed buildings have a distinctive horizontal base, occupied middle and parapet line that complement and balance one another and uses recognized building and frontage types including storefronts, stoops and dooryards. Fiberglass and composite frame type windows and sliding doors have been incorporated into the design, with the color consistent among all window frame and doors, and with two commercial areas using clear glazing for their storefront windows.

Landscape & Open Space

Landscaping would include drought tolerant and native street trees, shrubs, groundcover and high quality hardscape. Landscaping features would be comprised of common landscaped areas concentrated around the perimeter of the proposed buildings, within courtyards, paseos and 0.25 acre park space located centrally within the site.

Currently, the majority of the project area's existing landscaping occurs within or near the City's linear park. An arborist report was prepared to determine the condition of the existing trees and determine which trees would be removed as a result of the project. The arborist report determined the vast majority of the existing trees are eucalyptus trees in below average health condition and four of the trees on the private property would be removed as part of the project; one tree recommended for removal is in linear park, resulting in the removal of 5 total

PROJ-6811 PC/DRC/12/20/17/JR

trees. The redevelopment of the linear park would result in an improved bike path, additional landscaping including a substantial amount of new trees, and amenities including trailhead and gathering areas with seatwalls, and play areas. Per condition of approval, the applicant is required to finalize the landscape plan with review and approval by the Parks Manager for final tree number and placement. Additionally, the project's stormwater treatment facility is proposed to be located within the linear park area through an agreement with the City that would include the maintenance of both the detention basin and linear park being the responsibility of the developer in perpetuity.

In staff's analysis, the proposed open and community space is evenly dispersed throughout the project and consist of a mix of passive and active amenities.

MS4 Stormwater Permit Compliance

As described above the project includes stormwater methods in compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the County Municipal Stormwater (MS4) Permit: Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program (VCSQMP), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS004002 & Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Control Measures.

The project has been reviewed by the Public Works - Land Development unit who determined that the project is designed to meet the standards of the MS4 Permit, as implemented with required conditions of approval for the related permits.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

On, November 8, 2017, staff circulated for public review a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Attachment E) under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). To date, no comment letters have been received; however, any comment letters received subsequent to the release of this document will be responded to and made available to the public at or before the public hearing. The MND identifies potentially significant but mitigable impacts related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Utility Services which have been mitigated to less than significant levels by measures recommended in the MND and incorporated into the attached Resolutions (Attachment G) as conditions of approval on the project.

The impact areas of concern, which have been mitigated, are as follows:

Air Quality

The expected project construction activities include demolition, clearing, grading, and earth moving which can produce fugitive dust emissions that may impact·air quality.

Identified mitigation measures, AQ-1 through AQ-4, include minimizing the amount of equipment and idling times, and maintaining equipment and the construction site to prevent excessive amounts of fugitive dust.

PROJ-6811 PC/DRC/12/20/17/JR

Biological Resources

Portions of the site, namely those areas with low-growing sparse vegetation and fossorial mammal burrows, comprise marginally suitable habitat for the burrowing owl. While a burrowing owl or burrowing owl sign was not observed during site reconnaissance or within 500 feet of the site, burrowing owls have been documented within 0.5 mile of the property. Construction activities are not likely to affect burrowing owls, because no signs or individual owls were observed during the appropriate season and conditions; however, a focused survey for burrowing owls will be required prior to earth moving activities in the linear park.

While some trees will be removed as a result of the project, some trees will be preserved, and in order to protect those trees, protective fencing will be required to be placed around the drip line of these trees. Identified mitigation measures, Bio-1 and Bio-2, include pre-construction survey and tree protection fencing.

Cultural Resources

Any Project-related excavations that encounter native soil have the potential of uncovering archaeological or historic resources, while any excavations reaching the older Quaternary Alluvial deposits have the potential for yielding significant vertebrate fossils. Additionally, the concerns voiced by the Native American Heritage Commission, as well as by tribes, individuals, and organizations appearing on the Native American Contacts list, suggest there is a potential for recovering subsurface cultural resources within the area.

Identified mitigation measures, CR-1 and CR-2, include requiring the applicant to retain a professional archaeologist if archaeological resources are uncovered on the project site during grading and the requirement that all contractors and subcontractors inform all employees or others on the job site that no artifacts are to be removed from the area except through procedures authorized by the City of San Buenaventura.

Utility Services

To ensure there is adequate sewer capacity for the proposed project, the project will be required to upgrade the existing sewer line located in Johnson Drive.

Identified mitigation measure, U-1, includes upgrading approximately 320 feet of an existing sewer line within Johnson Drive from 8 inches to 10 inches.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends the DRC approve the Design Review Permit (Attachment F), subject to conditions. The Design Review Committee is asked to provide direction so the applicant can incorporate any necessary refinements into the design as part of the Design Review Committee Confirmation of Details Review.

PROJ-6811 PC/DRC/12/20/17/JR

Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Planned Development Permit (Attachment G) subject to conditions and forward an approval recommendation to the City Council to approve the Zone Change from Commercial Planned Development (CPD) to Mixed Use Development (MXD) (Attachment H) and accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration contained in the attached resolutions.

NEXT STEPS

The project is subject to the following:

• City Council approval of the Zone Change and Mitigated Negative Declaration • Design Review Committee Confirmation of Details Review • Plan Check and Grading and Building Permit Issuance • Design Review Compliance Inspection

ATTACHMENTS

A. Site Information and Context B. May 20, 2015 PC/DRC Minutes C. February 1, 2017 DRC Minutes D. Zoning Consistency Table E. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study F. Draft DRC Notice of Decision G. Draft Planning Commission Resolution (Planned Development, Design Review

Committee) Exhibits "A" through "UUU" Plan Materials dated December 20, 2017

H. Draft Planning Commission Resolution (Zone Change) Exhibits "A" dated December 20, 2017

PROJ-6811 PC/DRC/12/20/17/JR

Attachment A Site Information and Context

PROJ-6811 Attachment A

Site Information and Context

Attachment B May 20, 2015 PC/DRC Minutes

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: Member Sandoval

Chair Cline declared the motion carried. CONCEPTUAL ITEM - PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

2. PROJ-6811 - Conceptual Design Review for a 306 unit apartment and 10,000 square feet of commercial space mixed use project consisting of 3 to 5 stories located on 8.03 acres at the southeast corner of Johnson Drive and North Bank Drive; Ravello Holdings, lnc./Devco, applicant; ,C-P-D zone.

/i;f:?d>-

CASE NOS.: ··~~~{/x:\ Z-12-13-19295 ,.<~>,. PD-12-13-19299 ·.:.,,.:>}d:J,,.DRC 12 13 1,,;9"''"'2··. 97

·,,, ·\<1t~f?;/?'./. - - ~Iiv4iw ffit.~t!}t•, .. «JifffffM-12-13l19300

};\ ''·':+{:/::.·; <:/;fd,':J;Ut~,,. d!::,'.!:J;!Y ~./':{, /;)<.• t : ;. t·· El~~1"i,:j3l,o/19301

i ?. /.__ , / 1: \. :::/. /i:/-.. '?Zft{W;Jf/ RECOMMENDED QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTft5N /,~ff;Jttff~(fi··, > ·w Provide design comments arfcCmake a MinutiM.·. ,, o.ti,o.·htrst;tftil~ the project remains '/,, ;;:;:;:;,if.::;,. 1::r:1?};.), .;/, }!#<4Y consistent with the HAP-11 Ho"t.J~tfig Approval'.Rfogram Prescreen Clearance.

•..;14~» ·~Jf;, California Envirorm;;uir:ttal Quality KSlx't . "~~K\ Not required for tnif~tn~rr::x :; , ',;i'C/ ,,, i%P;

/.·•·.·.. :s\:Zr.:i~:0·~ ... ~.·.;~t .. i;.~_-.. ·.:··<:<::(t·:L\.·. t > · ,."; •. ; .. Staff: lain h!pJttSeni;'f:t·~Janner ',f PiUy,tJJff/

SPEAKER~JCf? '>ytt,, 'i~1}t,,

Staff: laigJtt)~lt; Senior Platj:{j~f 4z{f~; Appli~\f*Sandy Smith, cori,i~lt~nt fof•,tQJ,applicant; Phil Ram, applicant; Chris Prather,

~BFJJpant; Jay L~r;g~gno, arooi,,st. Merritiers of PublicffRae Ann Dasn6it, speaker & comment letter; Nina Danza, Sierra Club; "'<?w,%',9;;:,, dlf$?{feff{ '(fff;:t::t, James H.~Q~.~·,i~k~as of Santa Clara River; Rosie Ornelas concede time to James Danza; Evelyn Mett~t>'l"~f entura; Mark Abbe, Ventura; Neil Cole comments read by Chair Long; Ed Jefferson, oWQ~;[J,gf Northbank Plaza; Kathy Bremer, Ventura; Vernon Morseman, Johnson Drive business'"ifwner; Stephanie Caldwell, CEO Ventura Chamber of Commerce. Documents: PoM{J!j}3}nt by Staff; PowerPoint by James DeAnza, Transmittal Memo

containing letters<ift]Sm Ed Jefferson, Evelyn Metten, David Jefferson and Nina Danza. Ex-parte Communication: Commissioner Beck received online communication via the "Next Door" application.

Vote of the Planning Commission

Commissioner Beck made a minute motion to find that the project is conditionally consistent with the HAP-11 Housing Approval Program Prescreen Clearance and to accept the comments provided as follows:

• General desire for additional building types to be provided with this project consistent with original HAP-11;

• The project heights should vary consistent with the City Council's direction, which implied a variety of heights including less than four stories. Building massing should be shifted away from the Johnson Drive and place height that allows adequate solar access to the courtyards to make them livable spaces;

• The design of the open space and courtyards should be refined to provide greater opportunities to promote gathering in addition to the recreation building and pool areas. The open spaces and courtyards should embrace the communal space associated with each of the buildings as intended by the building typology instead of being a series of continuous interwoven pathways;

• As this is a "gateway" project to the City, the edgespf project should relate to the gateway. Emphasize the connection to the river and cfo'rpxr,ercial intersection at North Bank and Johnson· :t,: ··,.,

' ·<::;;t~j:t<: ·-.. / ·/>· • The park space should be designed as it§9ym strong eleme"gf{qnd the pack $.h6uld not

coming le park paths with primary pathi;y~y~tqtb,e units; ift, .. P:t/ ,;, • Study the c_onnections _to building from "\~~:ifr${tf;Xrt,~ Stack~~i2¥Yr~1iing_ bui!dings

should design the patio areas to serve;;9~. secondaryier:Jtrances·;.to maintain the activation of the street frontage~ and the paf(area./18e pfql~,qt~notild provide direct access to each ground 1eve1·uiJ.i\t9 further ei)fi999;ftne pedgstriln connectivity;

• Building frontages that includtf~§9cmdary emf(es/exits should be repositioned or redesigned so they are not the domiiJ?nt featurt~r,,d/or defeat activation of the street f t . . .. . ; ; ".(,:;;? ran ages, / ·<. .. H/ · .. . (.

• Need to study the c::pf~§¢tiyely.9fthe grb~.q'.d plani1bd to define the open spaces with the buildings.better, ,;ri~rt(cu1arly'.t.h~>Pctt1</?ft,~ prbject needs to develop the public realm comp9ne11t of pYo]~'ctJo integl'ate'wi(h'tHe park and river. The project should /,:~,,:-:;:,.-,-:' ';, '/ ;,,;::/';. -.,,,;,, ., ,' ,/,

have a strong connection"withthe river /1>, .,,:,,.\::{. }/;. ·.. ''/if(</:·\·,

• Needtb'.$tudy parkjrig and defirj'.ewhere and how the commercial component provides its oWn'i~arking· · ,;?zt;\ <<?

• ,~(btfythe proje~rs ~uit~Jns1bilit/fi9arding the use of 1and, energy & water; -,//[fit project §OQ~ld incdtpqr9,te an affordable housing component to demonstrate

,. ,;-:!:/»;:;:::, • ,Y:?:Y>/:',·-'"r 'l·>f<ft> 9ggJ~1ste~~tf'~1th the Hous1n9,JjJement;_ and .

• Th~;pqgJ1sstreet should be located adJacent to the river. ;;,,, ·,·:;; ,\///·, /(

/ / ,:·;< :; i;~\ Commissioner Ferrin seconded the motion.

Vote of the Desi~W~R.~/view Committee ·,,';,,, /

Upon call of the roll the vote was as follows:

AYES: Member Ferrin, Picciotti, Vice Chair Brodersen, and Chair Cline

NOES: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: Member Sandoval

Chair Cline declared the motion carried by a roll call of 4-0.

Vote of the Planning Commission

Upon call of the roll of the vote was as follows:

AYES: Commissioners Beck, Dunbar, Ferrin, Guthrie, Vice Chair Francis, and Chair Long

NOES: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: Commissioner Boydstun

Chair Long declared the motion carried by a rolid~H of 6 -:: 0. ,. ,,,,, . /'• ;:.;..c·.

Chair Long called for a brief recess <>fthe JointNle~ting"s~t'8:50prn:The joint meeting of the Planning Commission and DesigO:Review Cohl6,)ttee reconvened at 9:00pm.

'\:·:·')/·:, ••'/•/;(

. ct; , /, . ; {_~_'(_.~;~ •/:;·.·/ ,

FORMAL ITEM - PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

3.

''.!•' , . // ··,. /'";,,., .;, .. ,,. \,~//,;;· \":::. ·.;".,, ····... />\':/_'"· ·'·/··~ ~--·:··<(.:·. :··: · ..

PROJ-5085 ~ FormalD~sign Review;fol":a 255 unit multi-family development ., . :. /'. •(;/,·:: /·.. . .. ,:,:-; ....... ·/'. consisting of\~t,pked DW:~!!Jng and Mansion building types ranging from 3 to 5 stori~~.h,igh ont~~cres.'~~.~ project requests Warrants for maximum building heigl)fStacked DW~lllpg openJip~ce configuration, architectural encroachments ~p:~, side setbacks; ~h,d an Ex~-~~lion for parking placement. The project is

Jc:,c~ted at 129 ~anta Cla'rij ~tree(SASN Corporation, applicant; DTSP T4.3 zone. / .:.; ; /! /, :/ /'., . ··>,//(· .

. <6ase Nos.'1';;; •/-:~:,::;/;::. ·. / ·, ;, '/ /"£>/

RECOMMENDED QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTION Design Review Committee:

DRC-10-12-13194 E-10-12-13193 W-5-15-27938 HPR-10-12-13197 CDP-10-12-13199 EIR-10-12-13200

Forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission to approve the Design Review, subject to conditions.

Planning Commission Recommended Action:

Attachment C February 1, 2017 DRC Minutes

APPROVED - Joint Historic Preservation Committee & Design Review Committee Minutes February 01, 2017 Page 6

Member Antelman seconded the motion.

Upon call of the roll, the vote of the Design Review Committee was as follows:

AYES: Members Antelman, Cline, Vice-Chair Ferrin, and Chair Brodersen

NOES: None

RECUSED: None

ABSTAIN: Member Dunne

ABSENT: None

4.

proposed zone.

Case Nos.:

SPEAKERS:

DRC-12-13-19297 PD-12-13-19299 TTM-12-13-19300 Z-12-13-19295 EIR-12-13-19301

Staff: Scott Kolwitz, Principal Planner; Jared Rosengren, AICP, Senior Planner Applicant: Scott Boydstun (Architect, Rasmussen & Associates); Tyler Gold, (Landscape

Architect, L.A. Group Design Works, Inc); Sandy Smith, (Applicant Representative, Sespe Consulting)

Members of Public: None Documents: PowerPoint by Staff and Applicant

APPROVED - Joint Historic Preservation Committee & Design Review Committee Minutes February 01, 2017 Page 7

Ex-parte Communication: Chair Brodersen spoke with the applicant regarding the landscaping.

Member Cline made a motion to continue the project to a date uncertain and the DRC confirms the plans as presented address the Design Review Committee's August 17, 2016 direction with the following comments:

• Building evaluations are improved and responsive to prior comments; • Use pavers for pedestrian connections; • Vinyl windows would not be consistent with the high quality architecture. Window

material options would be aluminum, fiberglass or resin cb,mposite:/ • Consider public art components, especially at the 9orner of North Bank and Johnson

Drive · ·. ··

Vice-Chair Ferrin seconded the motion. ;f

Upon call of the roll, the vote of the Design Review CO\}l[nilt<ii, Y,,as as ;~1c,li{p: /. ., / ··,·/

AYES: Members Antelman, Cline, Dunne, Vice-Chair Ferrin, and Chair Brodersen '· ·. :· ·, , ... /

NOES: None

RECUSED: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: None i \ / './

Chair Brodersen declar~c:Lthe motion carried 5 - 0. /: '/ / '• / , / /,/' ' , '

,,:;: ··,

5. PROJ:1QI~5 _.'.fprrri~i,[)esign Review and Planned Development Permit to ,q9,11strucfc!i(l~~)23,501 ~q.~are foot two story industrial building on a vacant pgfJje>n of a :~~8 ~ere property developed with two industrial building totaling 27;~bh: square,,Jeet located at 5811 Olivas Park Drive; James Armstrong, app(icanti zoned 'IVIPD.

;.-:_;::.·· /,.. /'., <

).,·\. ':/::>

',;,/

RECOMMENDED QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTION Approved, subject to conditions.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

DRC-11-16-38043 PD-11-16-38043

The Addendum is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164.

Staff: Elizabeth Richardson, Associate Planner

Attachment D Zoning Consistency Table

Required/ Allowed Proposed Project . iH ~

Fr ont Setback None set by Ordinance Code ~he project consists of one mixed-use Exceptions:

1. Buildings and lots used lot therefore no front setback is required, however buildings are exclusively for residential generally setback 20 feet from the purposes shall comply with the property line as required by the R-3 front setback regulations of the zone. J R-3 zone

Si de yard set'bao'k None set by Ordinance Code Exceptions:

1. Abuts any residential zone: ~he project consists of one mixed-use 10% of the width of the lot;

not to be less than 3 feet, and lot therefore no side setback is

not to exceed 5 feet in width. required, however buildings are

2. Buildings or lots used generally setback 20 feet from the property line as required by the R-3 exclusively for residential zone. J purposes shall comply with the

side setback regulations of the R-3 zone.

R ear yard setback 1. 20% the depth of lot or 20 ~he project consists of one mixed-use feet, whichever is less lot therefore the 20-foot rear yard

2. Buildings and lots used setback is required, however exclusively for residential buildings are generally setback 40

I 1 purposes shall comply with the feet, which is in excess of 25 feet

' rear setback regulations of the from the property line as required by R-3 zone. the R-3 zone. I

Ii eight 6 stories not to exceed 75 feet l4 stories; 57 feet 7 inches J

Lot Coverage -

None set by Ordinance Code ~he project consists of one mixed-use Exceptions: lot therefore no lot coverage

I

1. 100% Residential only standard is required, however the lot I

development: use lot coverage coverage is 37% which is less than I

standards for the R-3-3 zone the 60% maximum in the R-3 zone. I Density (il.00% R-3-3 (1 unit per 1,600 SF)

JN/A I Residential only} ~arking Office/Retail: 1 space/300 gross sqft !Office/Retail:

of floor area. I 5,000/300 = 17 req spaces 17 spaces I

I Residential: Residential: i I

I 1 space per 1 bed units

I 2 spaces per 2 bed units

I

!

Required/ Allowed Proposed Project

25% of total units for guest parking Total Covered Provided: 461

1 space per unit must be covered subterranean garage spaces

Total Covered required: 306 spaces 95 on-street, on-site

Total Spaces Required: 553 Total Provided: 556 spaces I Pa11king - Other Bicycle : I

1. Residentia I: I a. Multi-Family: 10% of 1. Residential

required vehicle spaces, no less than 5 spaces

481 x 10% = 48 Total Res. Bike spaces= 48 Total Res Bike Spaces= 48

2. General Use: 2. General Use: a. 10% minimum of required

vehicle spaces 17 x 10% = 2

I Total Comm Bike spaces= 2 Total Comm Bike spaces provided:

' 4 spaces Carpool/Vanpool 1. 10% minimum of required 3. Carpool/Vanpool spaces

vehicle spaces for non- Other Spaces N/A I residential uses with employment of 100 or more persons at a particular site

1, N/A

Attachment E Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration,

Initial Study

Initial Study I CEQA Environmental Checklist City of San Buenaventura

Initial Study I Environmental Checklist for the

Project Information

1. Project Title

North bank Apartments Project-6811 Case Numbers:

Z-12-13-19295, Zone Change

Northbank Apartments

PD-12-13-19299, Planned Development Permit DRC-12-13-19297, Design Review Permit EIR-12-13-19301, Mitigated Negative Declaration

2. Lead Agency Name and Address

City of San Buenaventura 50 l Poli Street Ventura, CA 93001

3. Contact Person and Phone Number

Jared Rosengren, AICP Senior Planner (805) 658-4737 jrosengren(wcityofventura.net

4. Project Location

page 1 North Bank Apartments

North bank Apartments proposed east of the intersection of Johnson Drive and N orthbank Drive in the City of Ventura and includes Assessor Parcel Numbers 132-0-080-055, 132-0-080-065, and 132-0-080-275

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address

Phil Ram Ravello Holdings, Inc. 12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 512 Los Angeles, CA 90025

6. General Plan/Specific Plan Designation

Commerce: Encourages a wide range of building types of anywhere from two to six stories (depending on neighborhood characteristics) that house a mix of functions, including commercial, entertainment, office and housing.

7. Zoning

Existing: C-P-D (Commercial Planned Development): (Mixed Use Commercial and Residential allowed)

Proposed: M-X-D (Mixed Use Development)

November 2017

Initial Study/ CEQA Environmental Checklist City of San Buenaventura

8. Description of Project


The applicant proposes to build 306 new residential apartment units and 5,000 square feet of commercial space and 5,000 square feet of community space within four ( 4) city blocks on the 8.03-acre parcel located at the east of the intersection of North bank Drive and Johnson Drive. There are thirteen (13) buildings, which include one (1) Commercial Block building, three (3) Mansion buildings, six (6) Stacked Dwelling buildings, and three (3) Rowhouse buildings. The building massing consists of primarily four-story buildings with portions of three-story elements and two buildings with two-story elements. A contemporary architectural style is used throughout the Project (see Figure 1 through Figure 4- Typical Residential Elevations).

The Project includes five apartment unit types ranging from 668 to 1,759 square feet. The 5,000-square-foot commercial component is oriented towards the corner of Johnson Drive and North bank Drive. The central block within the proposed development is a 5,000-square-foot community facility adjacent to the public park and the community pool area.

The proposed Project will introduce new private streets, designed to public standards, that will provide vehicular access points into the Project site and a "green" street (without public parking) along a portion of the linear park. Parallel parking for residents and guests will be provided on the new private streets and along North bank Drive. A new signalized intersection will be constructed at "Street D" (directly across from the Motel 6 driveway) and Johnson Drive.

A 0.25-acre public park will be provided within the Project area, and will be privately maintained. The Project will also include storm water retention and public recreation improvement to the existing City-owned linear park to the north and east of the site. Those improvements will include landscaping and new pathway, and a portion of the linear park to the east, 2.82 acres in size, would accommodate the Project's storm water detention basin that will be maintained by the applicant through an agreement with the City.

Table 1 summarizes the site statistics.

Table 1 - Site Building Statistics

Land Use Size/Units Commercial 5,000 square feet Residential Apartments 306 units

The table below compares the maximum buildable area for a potential future project regarding the existing zoning (C-P-D) and the proposed future zoning (M-X-D): commercial/mixed use.

Table 2 - Zoning Three-Dimensional Building Standards Comparison

C-P·D Development Standards M·X·D Development Standards Multi-Family Residential Use Not allowed allowed Lot Area No minimum required No minimum requirement Lot Width No minimum required No minimum requirement Front yard setback 20% of the depth of lot No minimum requirement Side yard setback No minimum required No minimum requirement Rear yard setback 20% of the depth of the lot not to 20% of the depth of the lot not to exceed

exceed 20 feet 20 feet Height 6 stories; 75 feet maximum 6 stories: 75-feet maximum Lot Coverage 50% maximum No maximum

November2017


EXTERIOR ELEVATION - BUILDING IA SCVTH

NORTH BANK APARTMENTS

I Figure 1 - Typical Residential Elevations 1

November 201 7

EXTERIOR ELE'/ATlON - BUILDING IA EAST

,. .................. ._.,...__, ...... -..... ,~ .... ~- ......... ,..__.,, -=-,,.,..~ ... ,.><.,,, ...


RA$MU88EN l "880CIATU

::r::1:1. E<~·1r,;:~ A12


FXTERIOR. ELEVATION - BUILD!NS !B NORTH

NORTH BANK APARTMENTS NORTH B,·-..~K GRIYE .t JCH&:,N DRVE

[Figure 2 -Typical Residential Elevations 2

November 2017

I •·-~:;~

c ~ .. ......,.. .......... -.,~~ .... C: ,.,,........,.."""""_"_ ... ~. C:' "-'~"-..,.""""-.0"0<·V ,,. _._ .. .....,,..!l.xoc_··-r) -~ ... ~·-··--"~~, _,...,.,,..,.,. ..... ..,, n ~-""""'~ ............. ..,. c::; ~ ... ,. .... ~ ... ·--.,._., ......... .,,, _ _,. ..... ~,.,. c~ ......, .... ".-..~'"'·"'' ............. . G ~-·.-: .,_, ..... ,.~,,.., .. .,. .... ,.,. ....... ,,_ ... ~


RAUIU$8EII 1 A880CIAT£&


l<!::::,,.-9

' !

~r=z--'--'"-l-~~-""a.+-~---"'!"l--4=-,"""= ·~ EXTERIOR ELEVATION. - BVILD N0 38 t,;QRTII

EXrERiOR ELEVATION - BUILDINS 35 50'.JTH

[XT'.::R OR E;_EVAT!O",S - BJILDIN0 3B

NORTH BANK APARTMENTS t'iOR.TH BA~i.K DRIVE .f .JOl-JNSGN DF.: ",rE

[ Figure 3 -Typical Residential Elevations 3

November 2017

EXTERIOR ELEVATION - BUILDIN6 38 EAST

[J ,-.--,~-----CJ ......... ...,,,,.,,._,,....,..._..,. .. ,~ c"""'~"'"""'....0.c,....,.. F.: "-"'~--"'"'""~"'"""' c ............ .,,,."' ...... ~-= .. ,...~_...,.......,,,..,. C -,~,,~,--~· " (j ,..,,...,,=~-.·-.-."•u,,.,...,_..,,,,_, [~ ,.,...,,,,v<=-= F, «=·-<1"'

page 5 North Rank Apartments

RASMU&eEN l ASSOCIATES

Iiritial Slltdy / CEQA Environmental Checklist City of San Ruenaventum

~-·· . .,._ .,,.,_ ·.r=-1

EXTERICR ELEV/>, T!ON - B.JILDINS 3D 50VTH

EX'"ERIC.R ELEV,Af:::)t-,:', - 8UILDIN6 3:.)

NORTH BANK APARTMENTS

I Figure 4 -Typical Residential Elevations 4

November 2017

E>CER!OR ELPh\T!ON - BJILfJlliG 3D E.A.ST


RAUIUSHN a AS80ClA TES



In addition, the Project applicant has demonstrated beneficial aspects that will improve the aspect of the Project:

Public Benefits

• Improvement to Linear Park (1.87 acres) valued at approximately $500,000. This includes construction of a new multi-use path, landscaping, and seating.

• Creation of an additional on-site public park including tot lot valued at approximately $75,000 • Construction of the "Green Street" to allow pedestrian-friendly open space adjacent to both

public parks valued at $200,000. • Construction of trail head with gathering area and seat walls adjacent to Santa Clara River,

valued at approximately $25,000. • The offering of 10 very low income and 9 low income affordable units. Per Section 24R240.410

of the City Municipal Code, rental apartments are exempt from the affordable housing provisions; however, our offering is a goodwill gesture to the community.

• Project includes no exceptions, variations, density bonus, modifications, or any additional benefits.

• Net Zero Fee - Estimated at $2,400,000 • Willingness to provide alternative to Vinyl Windows

9. Existing and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting

Table 3 identifies the surrounding land uses:

Table 3 - Surrounding Land Uses

Northeast Commercial Northwest Commercial, vacant land East Agricultural land South SR 101, Santa Clara River, parkland, Nature Conservancy

10. Environmental Baseline Determination

The existing commercial and residential use was included and analyzed at the program level of the City of Ventura 2005 General Plan FEIR SCH#2004101014.

11. Approvals Required by Other Public Agencies

None

B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

D Aesthetics D Agriculture I Forestry Resources ~ Air Quality

~ Biological Resources ~ Cultural Resources D Geology /Soils

D Greenhouse Gas Emissions D Hazards & Hazardous Materials D Hydrology I Water Quality

D Land Use I Planning D Mineral Resources D Noise

D Population I Housing D Public Services D Recreation

D T ransportalion/T raffic D Utilities I Service Systems D Mandatory Findings of Significance

November 2017


C. Determination


This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and relevant provisions of the California Environmental Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and in accordance with the City of San Buenaventura Community Development Department CEQA process and procedures . Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines defines an Initial Study as the proper preliminary method of analyzing the potential environmental consequences of a Project. Among the purposes of an Initial Study are:

1) To provide the Lead Agency (the City of San Buenaventura) with the necessary information to decide whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration;

2) To enable the Lead Agency to modify a Project, mitigating adverse impacts, thus avoiding the need to prepare an EIR (if possible); and

3) Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required.

This Initial Study assessment for the North bank Mixed Use Project was prepared by Jared Rosengren, Senior Planner, in March 2017.

Based upon review of this initial evaluation:

D I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

~ I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

D I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

D I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

D I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.

Date

Jared Rosengren, Planning Manager (print)

November 2017


D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:


A brief explanation is provided for all answers. Responses take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as Project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information source( s) show that the impact simply does not apply to Projects like the one involved (e.g., the Project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer is explained where it is based on Project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a Project-specific screening analysis).

When determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist response indicates whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

When determined that a physical impact may occur, but that the level of effect has been demonstrated to be less than potentially significant, the checklist response may indicate if the impact is "Less Than Significant Impact" based on substantial evidence. "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" would apply where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." As appropriate, mitigation measures are identified along with a brief explanation how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). Mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses" may be cross-referenced to support a response of "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated." References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances) and/or previously prepared or outside document are identified in each environmental issue category, with the full reference list at the end of the checklist.

Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts ( e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a Project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance

November2017


Common Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADT average daily traffic AELUP Airport Environ Land Use Plan AM. ante mericliem ANSI American National Standards Institute AOPC Areas of Potential Concern AQMP Air Quality Management Plan AST aboveground storage tank BAU business as usual BMPs Best Management Practices C&D Construction and Demolition CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CALF IRE California Department of Forestry and

Fire Protection CalRecycle California Department of Resources

Recycling and Recovery CA Os Cleanup and Abatement Orders CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCAA California Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CDE California Department of Education CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife CD Os Cease and Desist Orders CEC California Education Code CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act CFCs chlorofluorocarbons cfs cubic feet-per-second CH4 methane CIWMP Countywide Integrated Waste

Management Plan CMP Congestion Management Program CMPHS Congestion Management Program High

System CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level co carbon monoxide C02e COz equivalent CO PCs Chemicals of Potential Concern CPTED Crime Prevention through Environmental

Design DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan dB decibel c!BA A-weighted decibel scale DPM Diesel particulate matter DSA Division of State Architect DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control El Expansion Index ElR Environmental Quality Report EPCRA Emergency Planning Community Right to

Know Act

November2017

FEMA FHSZ FIRM FMMP

FTA FWPCA GHG GIS GPA GWP HCM IICP HFCs HGL HMBP HSC Hz 1-5 IEPR

IPaC IR IS TK-6

Lgo

Lctn Le4

LOS LRAs LRP LS Ts LUST MBTA mgd MMRP

MND mph MRDS MS4

MSL NzO NAAQS NCCP ND NOz NO! NOx NP DES NRCS


Federal Emergency Management Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones Flood Insurance Rat.e Map Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Federal Transit Administration Federal Water Pollution Control Act greenhouse gases Geographic Information System General Plan Amendment global warming potential Highway Capacity Manual Habitat Conservation Plan perfluorocarbons hydraulic gradient lines Hazardous Materials Business Plan Health and Safety Code hertz Interstate 5 California's Integrated Energy Policy Report Information, Planning and Conservation Interpretation of Regulations Initial Study Transitional kindergarten through 6t11

grade Noise level that is exceeded 90% of the time at a given location Day-night average noise Equivalent noise level level of service Local Responsibility Areas Legally Responsible Person localized significance thresholds leaking underground storage tank Migratory Bird Treaty Act million gallons per clay Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigated Negative Declaration miles per hour Mineral Resources Data System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems permit above mean sea level nitrous oxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards Natural Community Conservation Plan Negative Declaration nitrogen dioxide Notice of Intent nitrogen oxides National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Natural Resources Conservation Service


NW! National Wetlands Inventory 0:i ozone OCPs organochlorine pesticides OPR Office of Planning and Research OPSC Office of Public School Construction OSHA Occupational Health and Safety PA SB Planning Area SB Pb lead PD Police Department PEA Preliminary Endangerment Assessment PF Cs perfluorocarbons phf peak hour factor P.M. post meridiem PM Particulate matter PM10 respirable particulates PMz.s fine particulate matter PPV peak particle velocity PRDs Permit Registration Documents RCP Reinforced concrete pipe RCRJ\ Resource Conservation and Recove1y Act ROG Reactive organic gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SB 18 California Senate Bill 18 SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management

District SCH State Clearinghouse SEMS Standardized Emergency Management

System SF6 sulfur hexafluoride

November 2017

SIP SM ARA SOz SRA SRAs STP SUS MP

SWPPP SWRCB TAC TIA UBC UNFCCC

USDA USEPJ\

USFWS USGS USTs VdB voe VTTM w WQMP WSA WTP zc ZEVs


California State Implementation Plan Surface Mining and Reclamation Act sulfur dioxide State Responsibility Arca source receptor areas Standard temperature and pressure Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan State Water Resources Control Board toxic air contaminant Traffic Impact Analysis Uniform Building Code United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change United States Department of Agriculture United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey underground storage tanks vibration decibels volatile organic compound Vested Tentative Tract Map West Water Quality Management Plan Water Supplies Assessment Water Treatment Plan Zone Change Zero Emission Vehicles


E. Environmental Issues

I. Aesthetics Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including. but not limited to, trees.

rock outcroppings. and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site

and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely

affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Existing Setting

Potentially Significant

Impact

D D D D

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation

Incorporated

D D D D

I. Aesthetics J.. page 12 North Bank Apartments

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

~ D ~ D ~ D ~ D

The 8.3-acre site is within the Montalvo planning community and the Johnson Drive Corridor. The site is approximately 600 feet north of U.S. Highway 101, which sits 20 feet higher than the Project site. The Santa Clara River forms the southeastern boundary of the City and lies directly southeast of the Project site, with the City of Oxnard located on the opposite side of the river. County agricultural land is located east and northeast of the Project site and is separated from the site by the Harmon Barranca and a City linear park. Existing commercial uses are located north and west of the Project site, which includes large-scale and small-scale retail, dining, and beverage uses and lodging. Currently, the site is a vacant field enclosed by a chain link fence.

The Project site is highly visible from Highway 101, which is identified in the City of San Buenaventura 2005 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the General Plan as routes having scenic value, and intermittent views of the ocean, beaches and harbor (these views are not available at this location). Policy 40 of the FEIR requires the protection of views along scenic routes, and Action 4.37 directs the City to request Highway 101 be designated a State Scenic Highway. There are no historic buildings within the viewshed of the Project site.

Explanation

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and

historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in

the area?

a) through d): No impact

As described above, Highway 101 is identified as a local scenic highway route within the 2005 General Plan. While it is eligible as a State Scenic Highway, it has not been designated as such. The proposed Project consists of 306 new residential apartment units and 5,000 square feet of commercial space, 5,000 square feet of community space, and a zone change. As identified in Project Description Table 2, altering the Project site from the existing baseline, Commercial Planned Development(CPD), to the proposed condition Mixed Use Development (M-X-D) zone would result in the same restrictive three-dimensional building standards. The CPD zone district three-dimensional building standards are identical to the MXD development standards for projects that are not exclusively residential, and the MXD zone district threedimensional building standards are similar to the CPD zone district standards. Therefore, no net Aesthetics impact would occur on the Project site with a CPD zone compared to a MXD zone.

November 2017


l. Aesthetics A page 13 North Bank Apartments

Because the three-dimensional building standards would be equal to the existing baseline condition:

a) The proposed Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, because there are no scenic vistas in proximity to the Project site;

b) The proposed Project will not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway, because there are no important scenic resources located on or adjacent to Project site, and while Highway 101 is eligible as a state scenic highway, it is currently not designated as such;

c) The Proposed Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding area, because the proposed two-story, three-story, and four-story structures would not be located next to residential low-density uses, and the Project is scaled and masses to complement and not overwhelm the surrounding commercial uses. While the site plan design is contemporary, it complements structures that currently exist in the Project vicinity. Building materials use stucco, metal, cementitious board, and glass and undulate in height and materials. Relief features depict a multf-story ( 4 stories and a height limit of 57 feet) building with interest and a scale appropriate for the site plan.

cl) The proposed Project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the Project area.

Significance Determination

Less than significant impacts based on review of the Ventura Municipal Code, General Plan, existing setting, and the site plan.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation is required.

Significance Determination After Mitigation

The proposed Project would have no impact, and mitigation is not required.

References

A (Project Application, Site Plan); C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.1 (Aesthetics), pgs. 4.1-1 through 4.1-26)

November 2017


II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide

Importance (Farmland). as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature. could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Existing Setting

II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources A page 14 North Bank Apartments


Potenf1ally Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant

Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact

I D D D ~

I D D D ~ I

I

D D D ~

D D D ~

D D D ~

The Project site is designated as Commerce on the 2005 General Plan Land Use Map, allowing for city infill developments. The Project site is undeveloped and is not designated for agricultural use. The Project implements the General Plan priority of "Infill First" strategy for Ventura, which means avoiding suburban sprawl by directing new development to vacant land in the City and the Sphere of Influence ( with the exception of SOAR land), and by focusing new public and private investment in carefully selected districts, corridors, and neighborhood centers where concentrated development and adaptive reuse will improve the standard of living and quality oflife for the entire community.

No forest land or timberland zoning is present in the surrounding area. Agricultural land outside City limits and within the Serra Potential Expansion Area is located approximately 150 feet to the east. This 438-acre area is identified within the 2005 General Plan as a potential expansion area currently used for a mix of orchards and row crops and is classified as a mix of"Prime," "Statewide Importance," and "Unique" farmland. Commercial uses are to the southwest along Johnson Drive. has

The City's Right-To-Farm Ordinance supplements the agricultural buffer to further reduce potential adverse impacts to adjacent farm operations. The Right-to-Farm Ordinance provides protection to farmers against nuisance claims and frivolous lawsuits involving legal and accepted farming practices. The measure requires real tors to disclose potential conflicts with agriculture ( e.g., pesticide smells, noise from machinery, pesticides use) when properties adjacent to agricultural parcels are for sale.

November 2017


Explanation

II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources A page 15 North Bank Apartments

a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code

section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in

conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

a) through d): No impact

The proposed Project would not convert any prime or regionally significant farmland, or conflict with a . Williamson Act contract. There are trees on the Project site (eucalyptus); however, the Project would not conflict with forest land, result in loss of forest lands, or involve conversion to non-forest uses. Therefore, less than significant impacts to farmland or agricultural soils would occur. Impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources are not projected. Therefore, the Project would not create any impacts to agriculture or forestry resources.

Residents living adjacent to agricultural lands without an adequate buffer zone often cite odor nuisance impacts, noise from farm equipment, vehicle conflicts, dust, and pesticide spraying as land use conflicts. Conflicts between farm vehicles and high-speed automobiles used by residents on adjacent roadways can lead to accidents. Pesticide spraying can result in health hazards. Odor and noise are nuisances that can affect the enjoyment of private dwellings. Increased dust from soils and farm equipment can be both a nuisance and a health hazard. These conflicts can also result in reduced property values along the interface with agricultural uses. The placement of residential development adjacent to farmland can also have negative impacts on farming operations.

Direct physical impacts to farmland can include vandalism to farm equipment or fencing, and theft of fruits and vegetables. Soil compaction from trespassers or equestrians can also damage crop potential. These can all result in direct or indirect economic impacts to the farmer. One study (Ventura County Agricultural Land Trust, 1996) showed that crop production in the first two rows adjacent to urban uses is about 20% lower than the rows beyond. Reduced air quality from adjacent urban development can also result in impacts to adjacent farmland. Placement of residences adjacent to cultivated agriculture without adequate buffer can have additional economic impacts to growers.

The County of Ventura Agricultural/Urban Buffer Policy (Revised 7 /19 /06) provides guidelines to prevent or mitigate conflicts that may arise at the agricultural/urban interface where urban structures are permitted adjacent to land in crop production and apply to projects requiring discretionary approval by a city where the proposed project is abutting farming activity but is located outside the City's Sphere of Influence. Consistent with the County of Ventura Agricultural/Urban Buffer Policy, the Project is providing a 150-foot buffer/setback from agricultural uses with a vegetative screen within the existing City linear park providing an appropriate buffer between the Project site and the existing agriculture uses to the east.

Compliance with this policy and its requirements listed below prior to occupancy of any dwelling unit would mitigate impacts to less than significant levels:

• Fencing • Reinforced 8-foot chain link fence • Placement nearest agricultural use

November 2017


• Vegetative Screen (Shelter belt)

II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources J.. page 16 North Bank Apartments

• Two staggered rows of trees and shrubs characterized by evergreen foliage that extends from the base of the plant to the crown.

• Drought tolerant trees and shrubs at least 6 feet in height at the time of installation. • Plants have 50% to 75% porosity (i.e., approximately 50% to 75% of the plant is air space). • Plant height varies to capture drift within 4 feet of ground applications. • Mature tree height will exceed 15 feet or more. • Plantings of two staggered rows located 5 feet apart and consisting of minimum 5-gallon

plants at least 6 feet tall planted 10 feet on center. • Recommended plants include Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), Sugarbrush (Rhus ovata),

Laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), and Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens). • Long-term maintenance of vegetative shelter belt.

In November 1995, a majority of voters (52%) in Ventura passed the Save Our Agricultural Resources (SOAR) Ordinance, also called the Agricultural Lands Preservation Initiative. The Ventura County Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources Initiative, Measure B, passed in November 1998 by a 63% majority. Both measures generally prevent changes in specified land use categories (of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the County General Plan) unless the land use change is approved by a majority of voters. The City SOAR Ordinance reaffirms and readopts the Agriculture designations defined in the current Comprehensive Plan until the year 2030. Properties adjacent to the east of the proposed Project are restricted by the SOAR Ordinance. Therefore, no changes to the plan area would result in the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural uses.

The proposed Project complies with the applicable agricultural and land use policies. Therefore, no impact would occur. Additionally, with implementation of those measures already encompassed in the Project Description, implementation of Right-To-Farm Ordinance provisions, and standard construction practices required within the City of Ventura per Mitigation Measure AQ-3 of the 2005 General Plan FEIR, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact under this issue area.


No impact based on review of the Ventura Municipal Code, General Plan, existing setting, and the site plan.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed Project would have no impact and mitigation is not required.

References

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.2 (Agriculture), pgs. 4.2-1 through 4.2-12)

November 2017


Ill. Air Quality Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or Projected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Existing Setting


Impact

D D

D

D D


Incorporated

D [gJ

D

D D

III. Air Quality A page 17 North Bank Apartments


Impact No Impact

[gJ D D D

[gJ D

[gJ D [gJ D

The Project site is located in the Central South Coast Air Basin, which covers San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties. The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) monitors and regulates the local air quality in Ventura County and manages the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Air quality is affected by stationary sources (e.g., land use and development) and mobile sources (e.g., motor vehicles). Air quality at a given location is a function of several factors, including the quantity and types of pollutants emitted locally and regionally, and the dispersion rates of pollutants in the region. Primary factors affecting pollutant dispersion are wind speed and direction, atmospheric stability, temperature, the presence or absence of inversions, and topography. The Project site is located in the eastern portion of the Basin, which has moderate variability in temperatures, tempered by coastal processes. The air quality within the Basin is influenced by a wide range of emissions sources, such as dense population centers, heavy vehicular traffic, industry, and weather.

To protect the public health and welfare, the federal and state governments under direction of the EPA have identified six criteria air pollutants and a host of air toxics, and established ambient air quality standards through the federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. Federal and state criteria air pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (N02), ozone (O:i), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM1u), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2s), and sulfur dioxide (S02). Air quality impacts are assessed by comparing impacts to baseline air quality levels and applicable ambient air quality standards. Standards are levels of air quality considered safe from a regulatory perspective, including an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare.

To identify ambient concentrations of the criteria pollutants, the VCAPCD operates air quality monitoring stations throughout Ventura County. These stations are located in El Rio, Ojai, Piru, San Nicolas Island, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, and Ventura. The monitoring stations closest to the Project site are located in Ojai approximately 10 miles north, and in Oxnard approximately 10 miles southeast. Both stations monitor O:i and PM,s, and the Simi Valley monitoring station also monitors NO,, PM10, and PM,s. CO monitoring was eliminated in Ventura County in 2004 as a response to the proposed National Monitoring Strategy set forth by the U.S. EPA, and Ventura County has consistently met the CO standard. In addition, S02 monitoring in Ventura County was eliminated in 2004 because ambient concentrations were low and S02 monitors are not required for State Implementation Plan (SIP) or maintenance planning. In addition, lead monitoring is

November 2017


III. Air Quality A page 18 North Bank Apartments

not conducted in the County, and the EPA established that the VCAPCD is not subject to lead monitoring requirements1•

Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential for the generation of localized CO levels (i.e., CO hotspots). As further discussed within Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic (beginning on page 70), adjacent intersections to the Project site distribute traffic well and are operating at an acceptable level of service (e.g., Level of Service above E). Therefore, no CO hotspots are anticipated to occur on adjacent roadways.

a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

A significant air quality impact may occur if a project is not consistent with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), or would in some way represent a substantial hindrance to employing the policies, or obtaining the goals, of that plan.

The Project site, located within the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), is located in the South Central Coast Air Basin, which comprises Ventura County, Santa Barbara County, and San Luis Obispo County.

The primary objective of the Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is to provide continuous air pollutant emissions reductions over time, with the goal of attaining the federal and state standards. The VCAPCD's most recentAQMP was adopted in January 2017 and establishes a comprehensive air pollution control program leading to the attainment of state and federal air quality standards in the Basin, which is in non-attainment for ozone (O:i) and particulate matter (PM10). The AQMP also addresses the requirements set forth in the state and federal Clean Air Acts. As discussed in more detail below, the Project's air quality emissions would be below the VCAPCD significance thresholds, and mitigation measures have been identified, where appropriate, consistent with VCAPCD recommendations.

As stated in the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (October 2003), project consistency with the AQMP can be determined by comparing the actual population growth in the county with the projected growth rates used in the AQMP. The projected growth rate in population is used as an indicator of future emissions from population-related emissions categories in the AQMP. These emissions estimates are used, in part, to project the date by which Ventura County will attain the federal ozone standard. The AQMP assumes that general new development within the Basin will occur in accordance with population growth and transportation projections identified by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in its most current version of the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS), which was adopted April 7, 2016. Therefore, a demonstration of consistency with the population forecasts used in SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP /SCS should be used for assessing project consistency with the AQMP.

The Project involves the construction and operation of a mixed-use development with a total of 3 06 residential units, retail commercial space, and park/open space on a site designated for commercial uses in the City's General Plan. The Project does not include the removal of existing structures, because the site is currently open space. Moreover, the Project would not increase population figures over those that have been planned for the area, and would not jeopardize attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards.

The 2016 RTP /SCS estimates housing in Ventura County to be 269,400 housing units in 2012 and 312,300 housing units in 2040, a 16% increase. The Project's addition of 306 residential units would constitute less than 0.1 % of the projected 2040 housing estimate for Ventura County.

1 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan, 2014; Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Monitoring Division; http: I /www.vcapcd.org/pu bs/Moni toring/2 0 l 4FinalMonitoringN etworkPlan.pdf. page C-6

November 2017


III. Air Quality ;._ page 19 North Bank Apartments

For these reasons, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable AQMP, and this impact would be less than significant.

b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or Projected air quality violation?

A project may have a significant impact if project-related emissions would exceed federal, state, or regional standards or thresholds, or if project-related emissions would substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.

The VCAPCD reviews and comments on the adequacy and accuracy of environmental documents for projects that may affect air quality in Ventura County. Such documents include Notices of Preparation, Initial Studies, Negative Declarations, Mitigated Negative Declarations (MND), and Environmental Impact Reports (EIR). The VCAPCD recommends that an MND or an EIR be prepared for projects that meet one or more of the significance criteria listed below. It should be noted that these criteria are guidelines only. The final decision on the significance of air quality impacts, the appropriate environmental document, and mitigation measures, lies with the City (as lead agency) for the project.

VCAPCD Thresholds (per Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, October 2003}

Ozone (based on emission levels of reactive organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen). The following are the reactive organic compounds (ROC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) thresholds that the Ventura County Air Pollution Control Board has determined will individually and cumulatively jeopardize attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard, and thus have a significant adverse impact on air quality in Ventura County.

(1) Ojai Planning Area Reactive Organic Compounds: 5 pounds per day Nitrogen Oxides: 5 pounds per day

(2) Remainder of Ventura County Reactive Organic Compounds: 25 pounds per day Nitrogen Oxides: 25 pounds per day

The Project site is not located in the Ojai Planning Area; thus, the thresholds under subheading (2) for the remainder of Ventura County are applicable to the Project. It should be noted that these thresholds are primarily for operational scenarios, and the VCAPCD has not adopted quantitative thresholds of significance for construction emissions since such emissions are temporary. Rather, the VCAPCD recommends implementation of emission and dust control requirements for all construction projects with ROG or NO, emissions over 25 pounds per day (VCAPCD, 2003).

General - A project that may cause an exceedance of any ambient air quality standard (state or federal), or may make a substantial contribution to an existing exceedance of an air quality standard, will have a significant adverse air quality impact. "Substantial" is defined as making measurably worse an existing exceedance of a state or federal ambient air quality standard. For example, a project that directly or indirectly produces large quantities of carbon monoxide (CO) could cause an exceedance of the state or federal CO standards. Such a determination may require the use of an appropriate air quality model.

Fugitive Dust

(1) A project that may be reasonably expected to generate fugitive dust emissions in such quantities as to cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person or the public, or which may cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property (see California Health and Safety Code, Division 26, §41700) will have a significant adverse air quality impact.

November 2017


III. Air Quality J.. page 20 North Bank Apartments

(2) A project for which an appropriate air dispersion modeling analysis shows a possible violation of an ambient particulate standard will have a significant adverse air quality impact.

Construction Emissions

The Project involves the construction and operation of a mixed-use development with a total of 3 06 residential units, retail commercial space, and park/open space. Parking will be provided in 461 garage spaces and 98 street parking spaces. The Project site is currently vacant and would not require any demolition activities. The Project would require grading and site preparation activities that would involve the cut and fill of land to ensure the proper base and slope for the entire site, including building pads and foundations. At this time, it is anticipated that grading activities would balance the soil on-site, and the import or export of soil will not be necessary. See Appendix AQ to this Draft lS/MND for additional details regarding the air quality calculations.

Project construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dusts, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. Construction activities involving grading and site preparation would primarily generate PM2.s and PM10 emissions. Mobile sources (such as diesel-fueled equipment on-site and traveling to and from the Project site) would primarily generate NOx emissions. The application of architectural coatings would primarily result in the release of ROC emissions. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the amount and types of construction activities occurring at the same time. The estimate of regional daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing the Ca!EEMod computer model recommended by the VCAPCD. Table 4 below identifies daily emissions that are estimated to occur on peak construction days for each construction phase.

Table 4 - Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions

Emissions in Pounds per Dav Emissions Source ROG NO, co SO, PM10 PM2.5 Grading and Site Preparation Phase

Fugitive dust -- -- -- -- 2.77 1.50 Off-road diesel equipment 2.77 30.67 16.58 0.03 1.55 1.43 Worker trips 0.07 0.05 0.50 0.01 0.12 0.03 Total emissions 2.84 30.72 17.08 0.04 4.44 2.96

Building Construction Phase Building construction off-road diesel equipment 2.97 26.41 19.98 0.03 1.67 1.57 Building construction vendor trips 0.43 11.52 3.39 0.02 0.72 0.28 Building construction worker trips 1.79 1.20 12.20 0.03 3.05 0.82 Architectural coatings 22.64 -- -- -- -- --Architectural coating off-road diesel equipment 0.27 1.84 1.84 0.01 0.13 0.13 Architectural coatings worker trips 0.33 0.21 2.20 0.01 0.61 0.17 Total emissions 28.43 41.18 39.61 0.10 6.18 2.97 ..

Note: Calculations assume watering twice daily for fug1t1ve dust suppression. Building phase includes equipment for paving activities. CalEEMod data provided in Appendix AO to this Draft IS/MND.

Consistent with the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (October 2003), constructionrelated emissions (including portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment subject to the ARB's Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program, and used for construction operations or repair and maintenance activities) of ROC and NOx are not counted towards the two significance thresholds, since these emissions are temporary. However, construction-related emissions should be mitigated if estimates of ROC and NOx emissions from the heavy-duty construction equipment anticipated to be used for a particular project exceed the 25 pounds per day threshold for the county areas not located in the Ojai Planning Area. As Table 4 illustrates, construction emissions could exceed 25 pounds per day of ROC and NOx, mitigation measures to reduce such emissions have been identified below in MM AQ-1.

November 2017


III. Air Quality "- page 21 North Bank Apartments

With respect to fugitive dust, the VCAPCD states that a project's construction emissions are considered to cause a significant impact to air quality if fugitive dust emissions are generated in such quantities as to cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person or the public. Thus, as stated the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (October 2003), the VCAPCD recommends minimizing fugitive dust, especially during grading and excavation operations, rather than quantifying fugitive dust emissions. Control techniques for fugitive dust generally involve watering, chemical dust control agents for soil stabilization, scheduling of activities, and vehicle speed control. Therefore, such mitigation measures to reduce Project-related dust-generating operations and activities have been identified below in MM AQ-1.

In conclusion, the VCAPCD has not adopted quantitative thresholds of significance for construction emissions, because such emissions are temporary. Rather, the VCAPCD recommends implementation of emission and dust control requirements for all construction projects with ROC or NOx emissions over 25 pounds per clay. As shown above, construction emissions from the proposed Project would exceed 25 pounds per day for ROC and NOx. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1 is necessary to reduce the construction emissions. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1 construction related impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

MMAQ-1

MMAQ-2

November 2017

The following control measures provided in the most recent version of the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (October 2003) pursuant to Mitigation Measure AQ-3 of the 2005 General Plan Final EIR would minimize the generation of fugitive dust (PM 10 and PM2s), ROC, and NOx during construction activities and shall be implemented during construction: 1. To reduce impacts associated with NOx emissions (a precursor to ozone) the

following measures shall be implemented: a. Equipment idling time should be minimized; b. Equipment engines should be maintained in good condition and in proper

tune, as per manufacture's specifications; c. During the smog seasons (May through October), the construction period

should be lengthened so as to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time;

d. Alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, or electric, should be used if feasible.

During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operation, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust-preventive measures using the following procedures: 1. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive

amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day, so that water penetrates sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. Reclaimed water should be used if available;

2. All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved roadways on-site, should be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Measures may include watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate;


III. Air Quality...._ page 22 North Bank Apartments

MMAQ-3

MM AQ-4

3. Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site should be monitored at least weekly for dust stabilization. If a portion of the site is inactive for more than 4 days, soil on-site should be stabilized;

4. Signs should be posted limiting on-site traffic to 15 miles per hour; 5. All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during

period of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over 1 hour) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust;

6. All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust pursuant to California Vehicle Code §23114;

7. Respiratory protection shall be used by all employees in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations;

8. Measures to reduce the fungus that causes Valley Fever should include the following: a. Facemasks should be worn on employees involved in grading or excavation

operations during dry period to reduce inhalation of dust. b. Employment should be restricted to persons with positive coccidioidin skin

tests. c. Crews should be hired from local populations where possible, since it is

more likely that they have previously been exposed to the fungus and are therefore immune.

d. Cabs of grading and construction equipment should be air-conditioned. e. Crews should work upwind from excavation sites. f. Construction roads should be paved. g. Weed growth should be controlled by mowing instead of discing. h. The access way into the Project site should be paved or treated with

environmentally safe dust control agents during rough grading and construction.

i. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations should be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, and during construction activities, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following procedures: 1. All inactive portions of the construction site shall be seeded and watered until

grass cover is grown; 2. All active portions of the construction site shall be sufficiently watered to prevent

excessive amounts of dust.

At all times, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by assuring that streets adjacent to the Project site shall be swept as needed to remove silt, which may be accumulated from construction activities so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Construction activities should utilize new technologies to control ozone precursor emissions as they become available and feasible. Streets must be swept at least once a day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads.

Operational Emissions

As discussed previously, the Project involves the construction and operation ofa mixed-use development with a total of 306 residential units, retail commercial space, and park/open space. The Project's operational air quality emissions associated with area sources, energy demand, and mobile sources (motor vehicles) have been calculated with CalEEMod. These results are presented in Table 5 below. According to the VCAPCD, a project's operational emissions are considered to cause a significant impact to air quality if

November 2017


Ill. Air Quality"' page 23 North Bank Apartments

ROC and NOx emissions exceed the 25 pounds per day threshold for the county areas not located in the Ojai Planning Area. As shown in Table 5, the Project would not exceed the thresholds of significance set by the VCAPCD for ROC or NOx. Therefore, impacts associated with operational air quality emissions would be considered less than significant.

Table 5 - Estimated Daily Operational Emissions

Emissions in Pounds per Day Emissions Source ROG NOx co SOx PM10 PM2.5 Summertime (Smog Season) Emissions

Area sources 12.10 0.29 25.43 <0.01 0.14 0.14 Energy demand 0.11 0.93 0.40 <0.01 0.07 0.07 Mobile (motor vehicles) 4.72 17.69 54.07 0.16 13.86 3.83 Total proiect emissions 16.92 18.91 79.89 0.17 14.07 4.05

Wintertime (Non-Smog Season) Emissions Area sources 12.10 0.29 25.43 <0.01 0.14 0.14 Energy demand 0.11 0.93 0.40 <0.01 0.07 0.07 Mobile (motor vehicles) 4.51 18.54 55.31 0.16 13.86 3.83 Total project emissions 16.72 19.76 81.14 0.16 14.08 4.05

Note: Column totals may not add due to rounding from the model results. Calculation sheets provided in Appendix AO to this IS/MND.

c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

A significant impact may occur if a project would add a considerable cumulative contribution to federal or state non-attainment pollutant.

As stated in the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (October 2003), a project with emissions of 2 pounds per clay or greater of ROC, or 2 pounds per day or greater of NOx that is found to be inconsistent with the AQMP will have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact. A project with emissions below 2 pounds per day of ROC, and below 2 pounds per day of NOx, is not required to assess consistency with the AQMP. Inconsistent projects are usually those that cause the existing population to exceed the population forecasts contained in the most recently adopted AQMP.

While the Project would exceed 2 pounds per day or greater of ROC and 2 pounds per day or greater of NOx, the Project would be consistent with the AQMP as discussed previously. It should also be noted, as discussed previously, that the Project's air quality emissions would be below the VCAPCD significance thresholds (25 pounds per day for ROC and NOx), and mitigation measures have been identified where appropriate consistent with VCAPCD recommendations. As such, cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.

d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? A significant impact may occur if a project were to generate pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive receptors.

CO Hotspots

As stated in the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (October 2003), a CO hotspot screening analysis using the screening procedure in Cal trans' CO Protocol should he conducted for any project with indirect emissions greater than the applicable ozone project significance thresholds discussed previously that may significantly impact roadway intersections that are currently operating at, or are expected to operate at, Levels of Service E or F. As discussed above, the Project would not exceed the thresholds of

November 2017


Ill. Air Quality A page 24 North Bank Apartments

significance set by the VCAPCD for ROC or NOx. Therefore, according to the VCAPCD guidelines, none of the intersections qualified for a CO hotspot screening analysis and these impacts would be less than significant.

TAC Impacts

The Project would not include the operations of any land uses routinely involving the use, storage, or processing of carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic toxic air contaminants. Thus, no appreciable operationalrelated toxic airborne emissions would result from Project implementation. With respect to the Project's proximity to the 101 Freeway, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) recommends that lead agencies avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day.2 The closest point from the Project site to the 101 Freeway is greater than 500 feet and is therefore not within CARB's recommended buffer zone. With respect to construction, the construction activities associated with the Project would be typical of other similar land use development projects in the region, and would be subject to the regulations and laws relating to toxic air pollutants at the regional, state, and federal level that would protect sensitive receptors from substantial concentrations of these emissions. Therefore, impacts associated with the release of toxic air contaminants would be less than significant.

e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if construction or operation of the proposed Project would result in generation of odors that would be perceptible in adjacent sensitive areas. The proposed Project involves the construction and operation of residential, commercial retail, and recreational uses. The Project does not include any of the land uses identified by the VCAPCD as being associated with odors (such as wastewater treatment facilities, sanitary landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, asphalt batch plants, painting and coating operations, fiberglass operations, food processing facilities, feed lots/ dairies, petroleum facilities, chemical manufacturing operations and facilities, and rendering plants). Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the use of architectural coatings and solvents as well as asphalt paving. However, the Project would be consistent with all applicable rules and regulations governing construction equipment and processes. As such, the Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during construction or long-term operation. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur with respect to the creation of objectionable odors.


Potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure

Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1 through AQ-4 will reduce impacts to less than significant.


Less than significant after mitigation

2 For a detailed discussion of the various air pollution studies being referenced, see Air Quality and Land Use llandbook: I\ Community Ilealth Perspective, California Air Resources Board, 2005. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf

November 2017


Reference

Ill. Air Quality;._ page 25 North Bank Apartments

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.3 (Air Quality), pgs. 4.3-1 through 4.3-26), H. ITE Trip Generation Rates - 81h Edition Pass-by rates from !TE Trip Generation Handbook - 2n<1 Edition

November 2017


IV. Biological Resources Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat

modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool. coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling. hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

D Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local. regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Existing Setting


Impact

D

D

D

D

D

D

IV. Biological Resources J.. page 26 North Bank Apartments

Less Than Significant Impact with Less Than Mitigation Significant

Incorporated Impact No Impact

~ D o·

~ D D

D ~ D

D ~ D

~ D D

D D ~

The Project site is located in an urbanized area, in close proximity to SR-101. The City's General Plan is predominantly focused on the intensification and reuse of previously developed areas, thereby limiting expansion into agricultural and/or relatively undisturbed areas. The Project site is bounded by commercial and hotel uses, the SR-101, and the Santa Clara River. Policies and actions are put forth in the General Plan intended to decrease development pressure on more sensitive or biologically productive areas within the scope of the General Plan. The property consists of a generally level and undeveloped field, the majority of which has been regularly disked. Occurring along the eastern and southern boundaries of the property is an existing City of Ventura bike trail/linear park that is vegetated with a mix of native and ornamental species. Harmon Barranca occurs immediately opposite of the existing trail along the eastern boundary of the property and is tributary to the Santa Clara River.

Vegetation at the site consists primarily of weedy, non-native species including black mustard (Brassica nigra), Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), Russian thistle (Sa Isola tragus), wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and red bro me grass ( Brom us madritensis ssp.). The property also supports several individuals of narrow-leaf milkweed (Asclepias fascicularis). Mature sugar gum trees (Eucalypus cladocalyx) line the eastern perimeter of the property.

Animal species observed on-site by direct observation or diagnostic sign include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), house sparrow (Passer domestic us), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), checkered white butterfly (Pontia protodice), and monarch butterfly (Dcmaus plexippus). A red-tailed hawk family group was also observed

November 2017


IV. Biological Resources A page 27 North Bank Apartments

utilizing a stand of Fremont's cottonwood (Populus fremontii) trees, offsite and across the Harmon Barranca.

Existing development in the Project area has been modified from its natural state. Relevant actions to biological resources are found as Actions 1.22, 1.23 and 1.24, which require the preservation and requirements for native plants and trees.

Explanation

a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool. coastal, etc.} through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

D Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

The majority of Monarch butterfly overwintering habitat in California comprises mature groves of eucalyptus, where the appropriate microclimatic conditions suitable for overwintering are present. Eucalyptus, sycamores, Monterey pines, and Monterey cypresses provide shelter in the winter (Appendix Bio 1 to this Initial Study; Pyle, et al. 1993). Monarch butterflies observed during a site visit conducted by Glenn Lukos Associates in July 2014 resulted in a recommendation of a focused survey during winter months to determine whether the existing eucalyptus trees were being used as winter roosting habitat. According to a focused survey for the site titled Monarch Butterfly Winter Roost and Wintering Burrowing Owls Focused Surveys for the DevCo Ventura Project, Ventura, March 19, 2015 (Appendix Bio 2 to this Initial Study), overall wildlife activity at the site was low.

Ten Monarch butterflies were observed flying within the Project site; however, no roosting activity was observed. The report concludes that construction activities are not likely to affect Monarchs, because no aggregations were observed during a survey that was conducted during the appropriate season and conditions, and no avoidance measures are recommended. The site is not a recorded overwintering roost, aggregations were not observed, and the nearest potentially suitable eucalyptus roosting habitat is located off-site 175 feet to east.

The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is designated as a State Species of Special Concern. Burrowing owls typically occur in shortgrass prairies, grasslands, lowland scrub, agricultural lands (particularly rangelands), coastal dunes, desert floors, and some artificial, open areas as a year-long resident. They require large open expanses of sparsely vegetated areas on gently rolling or level terrain with an abundance of active small mammal burrows ( e.g., ground squirrels, rabbits). As a critical habitat feature, burrowing owls require the use of rodent or other burrows for roosting and nesting cover, but may also use artificial structures such as culverts and underpasses. Portions of the site, namely those areas with lowgrowing sparse vegetation and fossorial mammal burrows, comprise marginally suitable habitat for burrowing owl. While burrowing owl or burrowing owl sign was not observed during site reconnaissance or within 500 feet of the site, burrowing owls have been documented within 0.5 mile of the property. Construction activities are not likely to affect burrowing owls, because no signs or individuals were

November 2017


IV. Biological Resources ...._ page 2B North Bank Apartments

observed during the appropriate season and conditions; however, focused surveys for the burrowing owl are recommended for the property.

Least Bell's vireo is a state and federally listed endangered species. It is a small migratory songbird that inhabits dense riparian habitats with a stratified canopy, and relatively dense herbaceous understory including southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and riparian forest. The least Bell's vireo primarily nests in small remnant segments of vegetation typically dominated by willows and mule fat, but may also use a variety of shrubs, trees, and vines. The birds forage in riparian and adjoining chaparral or scrub habitat.

While the mature sugar gum trees along the eastern perimeter of the property offer potentially suitable nesting habitat for raptors, habitat does occur immediately adjacent to the southern portion of the property within the Harmon Barranca and adjacent Santa Clara River to the south, suitable nesting habitat does not occur on-site.

Based upon the arborist report (Appendix Bio 3 to this Initial Study) prepared to determine the health of the existing eucalyptus trees, four trees will be required to be removed, because they are inside the Project site and are in conflict with the proposed development and nearby infrastructure. It will also be necessary to remove one tree located just outside the property due to issues of declining health and hazard abatement. The Project has been designed to include a mix of native and drought tolerant plants with in the Project site and within the linear park.

The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, a Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.


Impacts are potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures

MM Bio-1

MM Bio-2

A focused breeding season survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted within 14 days of site disturbance prior to grading. If burrowing owls are detected on-site, the owls must be relocated prior to site disturbance following accepted protocols to avoid direct harm to owls. The relocation of owls must be conducted outside of the breeding season to avoid impacts to nesting owls. The exclusion of owls must be approved by CDFW pursuant to the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

Protective temporary fencing shall be placed around all existing trees that are to be preserved. This should consist of 6-foot, T-panel, chain-link fence placed at the drip line of each tree. Orange plastic safety fence should be zip-tied onto the chain-link fence for added visibility around each tree. No activity should take place within the fenced area around the trees. There should he no clumping of additional soil, debris, concrete, paint or other foreign materials within these fenced areas. Vehicles and construction materials must not be permitted within the fenced areas. Protective tree fencing should be maintained throughout the construction period and should not be removed until it is time to perform nearby irrigation and landscape work. Ivy and other ground cover should be removed from under the existing trees.



November 2017


Reference

IV. Biological Resources J.. page 29 North Bank Apartments

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.4 (Biological Resources), pgs. 4.4-1 through 4.4-32)

Results of a Biological/Regulatory Overview at the Johnson Drive Site (Tract 3448), Located in the City of Ventura, Ventura County,California, October 16, 2014; Monarch Butterfly Winter Roost and Wintering Burrowing Owls Focused Surveys for the DevCo Ventura Project, Ventura, March 19, 2015; Arborist Report, Northbank Drive Apartment, November 27, 2016

November 2017


V. Cultural Resources Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical

resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an

archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or

unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal

cemeteries?

Existing Setting


Impact

D

D

D

D

V. Cultural Resources J.. page 30 North Bank Apartments



D D ~

D D ~

D ~ D

~ D D

The Project as centered has an overall elevation range of 76-89 feet above mean sea level (ams!). It is in an unsectioned portion of Township 2 North, Range 22 West on the San Bernardino Base and Meridian. It is within the former Mexican land grant known as Rancho Santa Paula y Saticoy on the United States Geological Survey Oxnard 7.5' quadrangle (1949 PR 1967). It is situated in the lower Santa Clara Valley on the Oxnard Plain, a large coastal plain formed by sediment deposition from the Santa Clara River and Calleguas Creek. The Project area appears heavily disturbed at the surface level, with extensive weed abatement, vehicular driving, construction debris, dumping, trampling, and utility excavation.

Surficial deposits of the Project area consist of younger Quaternary Alluvium sediments overlying older deposits of Quaternary Alluvium as well as possibly Plio-Pleistocene marine and non-marine sediments. The younger Quaternary Alluvium may not yield fossil remains, because no paleontological resources have been discovered in such deposits in the area. However, there is limited data in this area, thus Rancholabrean aged deposits (10 to 70 thousand years ago) may be encountered a few feet below the surface. Additionally, the older deposits in the surrounding area, including older Quaternary Alluvium, have yielded significant vertebrate fossils.

Any Project-related excavations that encounter native soil have the potential of uncovering archaeological or historic resources, while any excavations reaching the older Quaternary Alluvial deposits have the potential for yielding significant vertebrate fossils. Additionally, the concerns voiced by the Native American Heritage Commission, as well as by tribes, individuals, and organizations appearing on the Native American Contacts list, suggest there is a potential for recovering subsurface cultural resources within the area. Due to the potential to encounter subsurface archaeological and paleontological materials, full-time archaeological and paleontological monitoring of all construction-related earth-moving activities for the Project is recommended until the Project Archaeologist and/or Project Paleontologist no longer deems it necessary.

Explanation

a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

b) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

Currently, the entire Project area has been mass graded. The Project site would be subject to precise grading permit requirements by City of Ventura (City). No historical or archaeological resources were identified within the Project area during previous investigations; however, unknown or unrecorded

November 2017


V. Cultural Resources J.. page 31 North Bank Apartments

resources may potentially be revealed during precise grading activities. This may occur if ground disturbance activities penetrate deeper than previous work performed.

The City's Municipal Code requires the protection of natural, cultural, structural, and archaeological resources. California Public Resources Code (PRC) protects archeological, paleontological, and historical sites with a wide variety of state policies and regulations in conjunction with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore, all construction activities must comply with PRC §§21083.2-21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 and §15126.4(b), which address the protection of archeological and historical resources. California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires local government agencies to consult with Native American tribes in the land development process to preserve traditional tribal cultural places.

No prehistoric cultural resources were observed on the Project property during the survey (Appendix CR to this Initial Study). Some of the deposited trash could be historic, meaning it is over 50 years in age, but the few glass and earthenware fragments found were all non-diagnostic and are probably the result of dumping/littering as opposed to some other activity. There were two items of interest on the Project site, including a concrete cover or box in the ground at the northeast end of the Project near the Harmon Barranca, which appears to be related to the channel. However, the exact nature of the encountered feature· is unknown at this time. The other item was found near one of the debris piles and was half of a concrete cover with marine shell (mostly clam) embedded into it. This cover is unique in that it appears that the embedded shell was placed by hand. However, the origin, date, and function of this concrete cover are unknown at this time.

c) Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? As previously mentioned in item a) above, the site and surrounding properties have already been graded. Previous grading activities were conducted in accordance with the City's Grading Code standards.

Although this Project proposes grading activities, it is not anticipated to directly or indirectly destroy any paleontological resources or site or unique geologic feature, because previous grading activities have yielded negative results.

In the unlikely event that a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature is discovered during precise grading activities, California Public Resources Code requirements would become effective immediately. Therefore, with adherence to all applicable requirements, less than significant impacts would be anticipated.

d) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? As previously mentioned in item a) above, the Project area has been graded and the site would require grading permits from the City. During previous ground disturbance activities, no human remains were identified or recorded onsite. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, during precise grading or construction activities, the Project would be subject to California Health and Safety Code §7050.5, CEQA §15064.5, and California Public Resources Code §5097.98.

California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 have procedures during the unlikely discovery of human remains. CEQA §15064.5 indicates the process for determining the significance of impacts to archeological and historical resources. California Public Resources Code §5097.98 stipulates the notification process during the discovery of Native American human remains, descendants, disposition of human remains, and associated artifacts. Therefore, adherence to all applicable codes and regulations would result in a less than significant impact.

APRMI requested a Sacred Lands File Search and a Native American Contacts list for the proposed Project area from the NAHC on June 25, 2014. The NAHC's search of the Sacred Lands Inventory, conducted on July 3, 2014 and received on July 7, 2014, did not find any Native American traditional sites or places within the APE. The NAHC, though, goes on to state that the lack of recorded sites does not indicate that such sites

November 2017


V. Cultural Resources "' page 32 North Bank Apartments

are not present subsurficially. Additionally, the NAHC provided APRMI with a Native American Contacts list. AP RMI then contacted the tribes, individuals, and organizations listed by phone on July 9, 2014, and sent them pertinent information regarding the Project area by mail on July 10, 2014. The responses received from the Native American community indicate that there are no known sites within the proposed Project area, but that all of Ventura County is still of concern, and thus the Project should be monitored by both an archaeologist and a Native American Chumash monitor. A summary of contact with the Native American groups and individuals along with specific written responses by both the NAHC and contacts. Therefore, potential impacts are present.

Due to the potential to encounter subsurface archaeological and paleontological materials, full-time archaeological and paleontological monitoring of all construction-related earth-moving activities for the Project is recommended until the Project Archaeologist and/or Project Paleontologist no longer deems it necessary.


Impacts are potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures

MM CR-l

MMC-2

November 2017

The applicant shall retain the services of a professional archaeologist to inspect grading activities associated with project construction. Whenever the monitoring archaeologist suspects that potentially significant cultural resources have been encountered, the piece of equipment that encounters the suspected deposit will be stopped, and the excavation inspected by the monitoring archaeologist. If the suspected cultural resources prove to be non-significant or non-cultural in origin, work will recommence immediately. If the suspected cultural resources prove to be part of a significant deposit, all work should be halted in that location until the Community Development Director reviews and approves a mitigation measure having an equal effect in reducing the likely impact below the threshold of significance for the newly discovered resource.

Monitoring will consist of the archaeologist watching the major excavation process. Monitoring will occur under the direction of the archaeologist and will continue at the discretion of the archeologist. Equipment stoppages will only involve those pieces of equipment that have actually encountered significant or potentially significant deposits, and should not be construed to mean a stoppage of all equipment on the site unless the cultural deposit covers all portions of the construction site.

All contractors and subcontractors shall inform all employees or others on the job site that no artifacts are to be removed from the area except through procedures authorized by the City of Ventura in consultation with a qualified archaeologist; when applicable. The plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division and Land Development Division for purposes of obtaining grading and building permit approval shall prominently state the following in bold, capitalized text, "THIS CONSTRUCTION SITE MAY CONTAIN SUBSURFACE HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ALL WORK INVOLVING GRADING AND FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMMENCE ONLY IN THE PRESENCE OF THE MONITORING ARCHAEOLOGIST. WHENEVER THE MONITORING ARCHAEOLOGIST SUSPECTS THAT POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL RESOURCES HAVE BEEN ENCOUNTERED, ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE SUSPENDED WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE FIND UNTIL SUCH TIME AS IT IS INSPECTED BY THE MONITORING ARCHAEOLOGIST."



The proposed Project would have no impact after mitigation.

Reference

V. Cultural Resources "- page 33 North Bank Apartments

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.5 (Cultural and Historic Resources), pgs. 4.5-1 through 4.5-18); Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Phase 1 Assessment, North Bank Ventura Project: Johnson Drive and North Bank Drive, City of San Buenaventura, Ventura County, California, August 2014

November 2017


VI. Geology and Soils Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,

including the risk of loss, injury. or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most

recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

Existing Setting


Impact

D

D D D D

D

D

D

VI. Geology and Soils ;._ page 34 North Bank Apartments



D [SJ D

D [SJ D D [SJ D D D [SJ D [SJ D

D [SJ D

D [SJ D

D D [SJ

The City of Ventura is situated between the Pacific Ocean, the Ventura foothills, and the Ventura and Santa Clara rivers. The City is located at the western edge of the Oxnard Plain, an alluvial plain that covers over 200 square miles in the southern portion of Ventura County. Much of the City is on the relatively flat coastal plain, but steeply sloped hills abut the northern portion of the city.

The Project site is generally level and slopes gently from north to south. No major drainages, wetlands, or waterways occur within the Project area; however, drainage throughout the City of Ventura area is generally from the hillsides to the southwest toward the Pacific Ocean.

Similar to much of Southern California, Ventura is located within a seismically active region and is crossed by several potentially active fault systems. Major fault zones in the General Plan Area include the VenturaFoothill, Country Club, Oak Ridge, McGrath, and Red Mountain faults. The McGrath site is closest to the Project area.

A major earthquake event could potentially trigger liquefaction, a temporary, but substantial, loss of shear strength in granular solids, such as sand, silt, and gravel. An earthquake of sufficient magnitude and duration can create seismic waves that can shear soil deposits that have a tendency to decrease in volume. If drainage cannot occur, this reduction in soil volume will increase the pressure exerted on the water contained in the soil. This process can transform stable granular material into a fluid-like state. The potential for liquefaction to occur is greatest in areas with loose, granular, low-density soil where the water table is within the upper 40 to 50 feet of the ground surface. Liquefaction can result in slope and/or foundation failure, and also post-liquefaction settlement. The entire Johnson Drive Corridor area lies within a liquefaction hazard zone.

November 2017


Explanation

VI. Geology and Soils "- page 35 North Bank Apartments

a) Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

The Project site, like all of California, is considered an area of potential seismic activity as a result of numerous active fault systems. However, the Project area is not mapped within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for fault rupture hazani.3 The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act (California Public Resources Code §2621, et seq.) limits development to areas outside of known surface traces of known active earthquake faults. The proposed Project would be constructed to comply with the grading code of the City of Ventura and City's Municipal Code, including Title 22 for excavation, grading, and placement of fill and would not increase risk of human health or safety related to fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction, or landslides compared to existing conditions. As a result, the Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with fault rupture within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Active or potentially active faults are not known to exist on the site.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

While the Project site exists within a seismically active region, there are no active or potentially active faults in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. The Project would comply with grading code for the City of Ventura, and construction of the proposed Project would be built in conformance with City requirements outlined in the General Plan Safety Element and Title 22 of the municipal code which sets performance standards for excavation, grading, and filling. As a result, impacts resulting from strong seismic groundshaking would be less than significant impact as a result of Project development.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

The site is located within an area deemed to have a potential for liquefaction (Appendix G to this Initial Study; CGS, 2002); based on the previous site liquefaction evaluation, the potential for liquefaction on site was considered low and not a concern for the subject site (Appendix G to this Initial Study;· Geotechnologies, 2002) As a result, impacts resulting from seismic related ground shaking including liquefaction would be less than significant impact as a result of Project development..

iv) Landslides?

The Project area is located on a relatively flat parcel and is not located immediately in a landslide hazard area. Construction of the Project will comply with development standards as discussed in response to a)iii, above. As a result, there would be no impact related to landslides for the Project area.

b) Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Construction of the proposed Project would require soil disturbance during the construction period. But, inclusion of best management practices (BMPs) (i.e., erosion control measures) required by the City Municipal Section 8.600.410, Construction Project Erosion and Sediment Control Maintenance Requirements, would limit the potential for soil erosion. In addition, all Ventura County Stormwater Management Plan (MS4) measures would be required. As a result, impacts resulting from substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant impact as a result of Project development.

3 2005 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Ventura, August 2005; Figure 4.6-1, Major Fault Systems

November 2017


VI. Geology and Soils A page 36 North Bank Apartments

c) Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

According to the City of Ventura's Geologic Figure 7-1 Natural Hazards Map, the Project area is not located on unstable soil or geologic unit in terms of risk of landslide, surficial creep, or seismicity. Additionally, the Project refurbishment would be engineered to comply with California Building Code requirements as with the original construction. Expansive soils are not located on the Project site, and impacts are considered less than significant.1

d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

The Project site contains existing compacted backfill material that was originally engineered to ensure stable foundation. Construction plans and geotechnical studies would dictate mitigation measures and requirements. The proposed Project would not be developed on expansive soil creating a risk to life or property and impacts are considered less than significant.

e) Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

This Project does not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems. Therefore, no impact related to incapability of soil to support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur.


Less than significant based on review of the Ventura Municipal Code, the General Plan, existing setting, and the Updated Geotechnical Report.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed Project would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.

Reference:

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.6 (Geologic Hazards), pgs. 4.6-1 through 4.6-32) and Update Report for a Mixed-Use Development at the corner of North Bank Drive and Johnson Drive, North Bank Ventura Development, City of Ventura, LGC Valley, May 21, 2014

4 2005 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Ventura, August 2005; Figure 4.6-5, Expansive Soil Areas.

November 2017


VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly. that may

have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the

purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Existing Setting

VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions A page 37 North Bank Apartments


Potentially Impact with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant


D D D [:8J

D D D [:8J

Global climate change can be measured by changes in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Scientific consensus has identified that human-related emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) above natural levels significantly contribute to global climate change. GHGs are emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere and regulate the Earth's temperature, and include water vapor, C02, methane (CH.1), nitrous oxide (NzO), ground level ozone, and fluorinated gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydro chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and halons. The potential impacts of climate change include severe weather patterns, flooding, reduced quality and availability of water, sea level rise, and beach erosion. Primary activities associated with GHG emissions include transportation, operation of utilities (e.g., power generation and transport), industrial activities, manufacturing, agriculture, and residential uses. Encl-use sector sources of GHG emissions in California are as follows: transportation (37%), industry (23%), electricity generation (20%), agriculture and forestry (8%), residential (7%) and other (5%).5

Assembly Bill (AB) 32 is a California law that establishes a comprehensive program to reduce GHG emissions from all sources throughout the state. AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regulations and market 1nechanisms to reduce California's GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, representing a 25% reduction statewide, with mandatory caps beginning in 2012 for significant emissions sources.6

GHG Emissions Thresholds

As mentioned in Section III. Air Quality (beginning on page 17), the Project site is located within the Central South Coast Air Basin. The VCAPCD has not yet approved a threshold of significance for GHG emissions. The significance threshold considered in this document is based on the work of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). CAPCOA investigated a variety of analytical procedures and ranges of what would be considered significant for a Project, and suggests a conservative screening criteria threshold of 900 million tons per year of COze (MT /yr C02e) for a development Project to be considered potentially significant. CAPCOA notes that a zero threshold would be appropriate for global, cumulative effects from greenhouse gases. Due to the current global situation, any addition of greenhouse gas emissions could be considered significant. Other thresholds that could be used and have been considered outside of VCAPCD documentation include a 10,000 MT /yr COze measurement by the Market Advisory Committee, or the highest considered threshold of 50,000 MT /yr C02e by CAPCOA for large-scale construction P1~ojects. As land uses within the Project site would be developed for community open space, the most conservative threshold option of 900 MT /yr C02e is appropriate.7

5 California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory - 2015 Edition; California Air Resources Board; http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/clata/data.htm (accessed May 2016)

6 Assembly 13ill 32, California Air Resources Board; http://arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm (accessed May 2016) 7 CEQA & Climate Change, January 2008; California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA); Table 1,

page 18; http: //www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/downloacls/2010 /05/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pclf (accessed May 2016)

November 2017


Explanation

VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions J.. page 3B North Bank Apartments

a) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

A project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions typically are very small in comparison to state or global GHG emissions. In isolation, a Project may have no significant direct impact on climate change. However, the increased accumulation of GHGs from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere may result in global climate change, which can cause the adverse environmental effects previously discussed. Accordingly, the threshold of significance for GHG emissions determines whether a project's contribution to global climate change is "cumulatively considerable." Many air quality agencies concur that GHG and climate change should be evaluated as a potentially significant cumulative impact, rather than a projectspecific and direct impact.

VCAPCD Draft Thresholds

The VCAPCD staff prepared a report titled Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance Options for Land Use Development Projects (November 8, 2011). The report presents a number of options for setting GHG significance thresholds. Since 2008, the CARB and several larger local air districts (South Coast, Bay Area, and San Joaquin) have undertaken efforts to identify and adopt suitable GHG significance thresholds for land use development projects in their respective jurisdictions. Several other California air districts, including VCAPCD, are still looking into this complex matter as part of their CEQA implementing procedures (CEQA Guidelines §15022) or thresholds of significance development (CEQA Guidelines §15064.7). Such thresholds, however, would only be advisory and not regulatory directives. That is because, although California air districts have a vital role in the CEQA review process, and have authority to regulate emissions from indirect or areawide sources (California Health & Safety Code §40716(a)), they do not have authority over land use projects (California Health & Safety Code §40716(b)), and have not adopted control measures, rules, or regulations governing GHG emissions from land use projects.

Given that Ventura County is adjacent to the South Coast AQMD jurisdiction and is a part of the SCAG region, District staff believes it makes sense to set local GHG emissions thresholds of significance for land use development projects at levels consistent with those set by the South Coast AQMD. While no conclusive threshold of significance has been adopted, the District staff will continue to evaluate and develop suitable interim GHG threshold options for Ventura County with preference for GHG threshold consistency with the South Coast AQMD and the SCAG region.

Based on VCAPCD staff recommendation summarized above, this analysis will rely in part on the draft thresholds of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD released draft guidance regarding interim CEQA GHG significance thresholds in 2008. In December 2008, the SCAQMD adopted an interim 10,000 metric tons C02e (MTC02e) per year screening level threshold for stationary source/industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead agency. The SCAQMD continues to consider adoption of significance thresholds for non-industrial development projects. The most recent proposal issued in September 2010 uses the following tiered approach to evaluate potential GHG impacts from various uses:

Tier 1: Determine ifCEQA categorical exemptions are applicable. Ifnot, move to Tier 2.

Tier 2: Consider whether or not the proposed project is consistent with a locally adopted GHG reduction plan (i.e., a Climate Action Plan) that has gone through public hearings and CEQA review, that has an approved inventory, includes monitoring, etc. If not, move to Tier 3.

Tier 3: Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of screening thresholds for individual land uses. The 10,000 MTC02e/year threshold for industrial uses would be recommended for use by all lead agencies. Under option 1, separate screening thresholds are proposed for

November 2017


VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions A page 39 North Bank Apartments

residential projects (3,500 MTC02e/year), commercial projects (l,400 MTC02e/year), and mixed-use projects (3,000 MTC02e/year). Under option 2 a single numerical screening threshold of 3,000 MTC02e/year would be used for all non-industrial projects. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable screening threshold, move to Tier 4.

Tier 4: Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of applicable performance standards for the project service population (population plus employment). The efficiency targets were established based on the goal of AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The 2020 efficiency targets are 4.8 MTC02e per service population for project level analyses and 6.6 MTC02e per service population for plan level analyses. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable efficiency targets, move to Tier 5.

Tier 5: Consider the implementation of CEQA mitigation (including the purchase of GHG offsets) to reduce the project efficiency target to Tier 4 levels.

The thresholds identified above are not adopted by the SCAQMD or the VCAPCD, nor distributed for widespread public review and comment, and the working group tasked with developing the thresholds has not met since September 2010. The future schedule and likelihood of threshold adoption is uncertain. However, for the purpose of evaluating the GHG impacts associated with the Project, this analysis utilizes the Tier 4 threshold above. Proposed projects that are consistent with these service population efficiency targets would not be considered to have a cumulatively considerable increase in GHG emissions. This draft threshold has been used for other projects in the South Coast Air Basin.

Construction GHG Emissions

Construction emissions represent an episodic, temporary source of GHG emissions. Emissions are generally associated with the operation of construction equipment and the disposal of construction waste. To be consistent with the methodology for calculating criteria pollutants from construction activities, only GHG emissions from on-site construction activities and off-site hauling and construction worker commuting are considered as Project-generated. As explained by California Air Pollution Controls Officers Association (CAPCOA) in its 2008 white paper, the information needed to characterize GHG emissions from manufacture, transport, and end-of-life of construction materials would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level. CEQA does not require an evaluation of speculative impacts (CEQA Guidelines §15145). Therefore, the construction analysis does not consider such GHG emissions, but does consider non-speculative on-site construction activities and off-site hauling and construction worker trips. All GHG emissions are presented on an annual basis. Emissions of GHGs were calculated using CalEEMod 2016.3.1 for construction of the Project. As shown in Appendix GHG to this Draft IS/MND, the Project would generate 1,393.81 metric terns of construction-related GHG emissions. To ensure that construction emissions are assessed in a quantitative sense, construction GHG emissions have been amortized over a 30-year period and have been added to the annual operational GHG emissions of the Project identified in Table 6 below.

November 2017

Table 6 - Project Operational GHG Emissions

Estimated C02e Emissions Emissions Source (Metric Tons per Year)

Area 3.81 Energy demand (electricity and natural gas) 904.67 Mobile (motor vehicles) 2,529.37 Solid waste generation 76.19 Water demand 137.95 Construction emissions* 46.46 Project total 3,698.45 *The total construction GHG em1ss1011s were amortized over 30 years and added to the operation of the Project. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix GHG to this Draft IS/MND.


Operational GHG Emissions

VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ;._ page 40 North Bank Apartments

As discussed previously, the Project involves the construction and operation of a mixed-use developi11ent with 306 residential units, retail commercial space, and park/open space. The operations of the Project would generate GHG emissions from the usage of on-road motor vehicles, electricity, natural gas, water, and generation of solid waste and wastewater. Emissions of operational GHGs are shown in Table 6 above. Based on the estimate provided by CalEEMod, the population increase associated with the residential component would total 936 persons (i.e., the service population). As shown in Table 6, the GHG emissions generated by the Project would be approximately 3,698.45 C02e MTY, which would be approximately 3.95 MTC02e per resident. This estimate would be consistent with Tier 4 efficiency targets of 4.8 MTC02e per service population, and the Project would be consistent with interim GHG significance thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD. It should be noted that this service population estimate is conservative, as it does not take into consideration the employment estimates for the commercial uses, and this analysis includes the GHG emissions of the commercial uses in the calculation, likely overstating the Project's GHG estimate per service population target.

In addition, and separate from the quantitative analysis above, there is substantial evidence to supportthat the Project is qualitatively consistent with statewide goals and policies in place for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, including AB 32 and the corresponding Scoping Plan. The Projectintends to pursue a LEED Gold certification or equivalent. Thus, the Project would meet and exceed the 2016 Title 24 standards (effective as of January 1, 2017), which were revised and adopted in partto respond to the requirements of AB 32. Specifically, new development projects constructed within California after January 1, 2017 are subject to the mandatory planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and environmental quality measures. As noted on page 37 in the First Update to the Scoping Plan (May 2014), building efficiency standards were updated in 2013 and are now 30% more efficient for non-residential construction.

Although the Project is expected to emit GHGs, the emission of GHGs by a single project into the atmosphere is not itself necessarily an adverse environmental effect. As discussed in recent CEQA case law,B the global scope of climate change and the fact that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, once released into the atmosphere, are not contained in the local area of their emission means that the impacts to be evaluated are also global rather than local. For many air pollutants, the significance of their environmental impact may depend greatly on where they are emitted; for greenhouse gases, it does not. For individual projects, like the proposed Project, which are designed to accommodate long-term growth in California's population and economic activity, this fact gives rise to an argument that a certain amount of greenhouse gas emissions is as inevitable as population growth. Under this view, a significance criterion framed in terms of efficiency is superior to a simple numerical threshold because CEQA is not intended as a population control measure. These considerations militate in favor of consistency with meeting AB 32's statewide goals as a permissible significance criterion for project emissions. Meeting our statewide reduction goals does not preclude all new development. Rather, the Scoping Plan - the state's roadmap for meeting AB 32's target - assumes continued growth and depends on increased efficiency and conservation in land use and transportation from all Californians. To the extent a project incorporates efficiency and conservation measures sufficient to contribute its portion of the overall greenhouse gas reductions necessary, one can reasonably argue that the Project's impact is not cumulatively considerable, because it is helping to solve the cumulative problem of greenhouse gas emissions as envisioned by California law.9

As discussed above, the Project's total construction and operational GHG emissions would be consistent with Tier 4 efficiency targets. In addition, the Project's goal for LEED Gold certification or equivalent and through required implementation of the 2016 Title 24 standards, the Project would be consistent with local

8 Supreme Court of California, Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. California Department ofFish and Wildlife (2015), 5217763, 11-13.

9 Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, supra, 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. at p. 210.

November 2017


VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ;._ page 41 North Bank Apartments

and State-wide goals and policies aimed at reducing the generation of GHGs, including CARB's AB 32 Scoping Plan aimed at achieving 1990 GHG emission levels by 2020.

Therefore, based on the discussion above, the Project's generation of GHG emissions would not be considered cumulatively considerable, because of the scope of the emissions (i.e., the Project's efficiency targets per service population) and because the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses. Therefore, the Project's cumulative impact would be less than significant.


No impact based on review of the Ventura Municipal Code, the General Plan, existing setting, and the site plan.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed Project would not have impacts, and no mitigation is required.

Reference

F (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). January 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.) G South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2010. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group Meeting #15. http:I/www.aqmcl.gov/ceqa/handbook/GH G /2 010 /sept28met/sept29.html

November 2017


VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the

routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through

reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in a Project area located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport?

D Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in a Project area within the vicinity of a private airstrip?

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands?

Existing Setting

VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials A page 42 North Bank Apartments




D D ~ D

D D ~ D

D D D [?sJ

D D D [?sJ

D D D [?sJ

D D D [?sJ

D D ~ D

D D ~ D

The Project is vacant and has not been previously developed. Nonetheless, hazardous materials include medical and industrial wastes, pesticides, herbicides, radioactive materials, and combustible fuels. Improper use, storage, transport, or disposal of these materials may result in harm to humans, surface or ground water degradation, air pollution, or fire and explosion.

The Ventura County Sheriff Office ofEmergency Services (OES) is responsible for countywide disaster planning, mitigation, response, and recovery activities. Disaster planning, training and exercises, public education, emergency alert and warning, and disaster assistance coordination are all included within OES activities. Ready Ventura County is the governmental entity that provides disaster information for the City ofVentura.10 The 2015 Ventura County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP), prepared for Ventura County, gives guidance for emergencies including hazards and threats such as a major earthquake, hazardous material incident, wildland fire, flooding, landslide, civil unrest, transportation, and terrorism threat, among other local hazards. The MHMP additionally outlines planning, hazards and vulnerability analysis, capability assessment, mitigation strategies, and plan maintenance ensuring future implementation of the plan.11

10 Office of Emergency Services, Ventura County Sheriff's Office; http://www.vcsd.org/oes.php (accessed May 2016) 11 Ventura County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, September 2015;

http: I /readyventuracounty.org/images/pd fl ventura%i2 Ohmp mai n°1i12 Obody september%202015.pclf ( accessed May 2016)

November 2017


Explanation

Vlll. Hazards and Hazardous Materials -l page 43 North Bank Apartments

a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would use small quantities of hazardous and flammable substances routinely utilized in the operation of equipment and vehicles, including but not limited to, oil, diesel fuel, and transmission fluid. Transport, use, or disposal of these hazardous substances during construction would occur according to instructions provided by the product manufacturer, including proper methods of storage and disposal. Operation of the water pipeline would only involve maintenance activity on a periodic basis and would not require the use of substances beyond the small amount discussed above for construction. The potential for the release of these materials is considered low and, even if a release were to occur, it would result in a less than significant hazard to the public, surrounding uses, or the environment due to the small quantities of these materials associated with construction vehicles.

b) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

As discussed above, in item a) above, the potential for the release of hazardous substances during construction or operation is considered low, and, even if a release were to occur, it would not result in a significant hazard to the public, surrounding uses, or the environment due to the small quantities of these materials associated with construction vehicles.

c) Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

The proposed Project is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school Therefore the proposed Project would have no impact.

d) Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report was prepared in January 2011 (Appendix Haz) for the site to determine if any pesticide or hazardous materials were associated with the proposed Project, and revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property. Six environmental sites are located within a one-quarter mile radius of the subject property. The nearest listed contaminated site to the subject property is North Bank Cleaners/Kids and Parents Medical Center located at 2950 Johnson Drive approximately 670 feet to the west northwest. The case was closed in 1998. Selected environmental risk sites found to exist within one-quarter mile radius of the property are listed in Table 7.

Table 7 - Environmental Risk Sites

Distance from Name Address Subject Property Sources Magic Touch Cleaners 2950 Johnson Drive 670 ft. WNW DRYCLEANERS, SLIC, HAZNET, RCRA-SQG, North Bank Cleaners Suite 111, Suite 14 FINDS Kids and Parents Medical Center Exxon Mobil #18-JAR 6762 Northbank Dr. 740 ft. WSW LUST, RCRA-LQG, HAZNET Cycle-Scene 2893 Johnson Dr. 930 ft. WNW DRY CLEANERS, HAZNET Dryclean Safari 2855 Johnson Dr. #R 1,080 NW DRY CLEANERS, VENTURA CO. BWT

HAZNET Fisher Martin Auto. 6665 Ventura Blvd. 1,120 ft. WSW RCRA-SQG, FINDS, HAZNET, EDR Weaver Bob Auto. HISTORICAL AUTO STATIONS

November 2017


Name Address Trans. King Trans. 6663 Ventura Blvd. Dave Wiles Trans. Atra Trans

Vlll. Hazards and Hazardous Materials "' page 44 North Bank Apartments

Distance from Subject Property Sources

1, 130 ft. WSW LUST, HIST UST, HAZNET, HIST CARTESE. RCRA-SQG, FINDS, VENTURA CO. BWT EDR HISTORICAL AUTO STATIONS

The orphan site summary in the EDR database report lists small quantity generators (e.g., auto repair and medical offices) of hazardous waste. The properties are located greater than 500 feet from the subject site and are expected to have no impact on the subject property.

e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?

The proposed Project is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, there are no impacts.

n For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?

The proposed Project is not located within a vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore there are no impacts.

g) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

The proposed Project would not conflict with emergency response access or procedures associated with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan in within the City of Ventura. In addition, the Project would comply with fire codes and regulations.

Impacts are considered less than significant.

h) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

The potential for a severe wildfire to occur is increased if dense vegetation growth and accumulations of dead plant material are present. Weather conditions and steep terrain also increase the hazardous wildfire potential; however, these conditions do not cause wildfires. Human error, arson, high-voltage lines, vehicles, and lightning are the primary causes of wildfires. Compliance with State Building Code, Fire Code regulations, and best management practices will ensure that the Project does not result in a fire hazard and the potential for impacts resulting from wildlands fires will be less than significant.


Less than significant based on review of the State Fire and Building Code, the Ventura Municipal Code, the General Plan, existing setting, and the site plan.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed Project would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

November 2017


Reference

VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials "- page 45 North Bank Apartments

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.7 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), pgs. 4.7-1 through 4.7-20) and Environmental Site Assessment-Phase I Update, California Environmental, California Environmental, January 2011

November 2017


IX. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

fj Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Existing Setting

IX. Hydrology and Water Quality J... page 46 North Bank Apartments




D D ~ D

D D D ~

D D ~ D

D D ~ D

D D ~ D

D D ~ D

D D ~ D

D D D ~

D D D ~

D D D ~

The federal Clean Water Act establishes the framework for regulating discharges to waters of the U.S. to protect their beneficial uses. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code) regulates water quality within California and establishes the authority of the State Water Resources Control Board and the nine regional water boards. For storm water, development Projects are required by the State Board to provide careful management and close monitoring or runoff during construction, including onsite erosion protection, sediment management and prevention of non-storm discharges. The Regional and State Boards issue National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to regulate specific discharges. The NPDES permit requires that development Projects provide for ongoing treatment of storm water within the site, using low-impact design (LID), infiltration, or onsite reuse, to address Project runoff using specific design criteria.

Rainfall in the City of Ventura generally drains from the hills to the north and terminates in the Ventura River, Santa Clara River or the Pacific Ocean.12 The Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD)

12 2005 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Ventura, August 2005; Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality

November 2017


IX. Hydrology and Water Quality;._ page 47 North Bank Apartments

has jurisdiction over and maintains approximately 20 natural barrancas and concrete channels that serve as major drainages in the city. The Project area is within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated 500-year floodplain. The City owns and/or maintains local drainage facilities in the City. Most City drainage facilities are designed to convey runoff generated from a 10-year storm event within the storm drain, while city streets convey flows above the 10-year storm.

According to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Clean Water Act (CWA) 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments, there are no areas within the Project area where water quality is a concern. Water quality is subject to seasonal variation. Common sources of water quality degradation in the Ventura area include surface runoff from oil fields, agricultural areas, urban land uses, and natural sedimentation. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are typically employed during construction to maintain water quality and must be consistent with anticipated pollutant loads and water quality objectives.

If the Castaic and/ or Pyramid dams were to fail, they would have the potential to flood the Project site.13

Castaic dam is approximately 47 miles to the northeast of the City of Ventura and Pyramid dam is an additional 15 miles north of Castaic. Both dams meet applicable safety requirements and are inspected by the Division of Dam Safely and the California Department of Water Resources twice per year to ensure compliance and that any necessary maintenance is performed.M

Explanation

a) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Potential short-term surface water quality impacts related to Project construction activities include runoff of loose soils and/or construction wastes and fuels that could potentially percolate into the vacant land areas. To standards, the proposed Project would be required to implement water quality best management practices (BMPs) outlined in the County of Ventura's Drainage Area Management Plan and the Municipal Code Title 16, Water Quality Control Ordinance (requiring adherence to the City's Standard Urban Storm Water Plan). The Regional and State Boards issue National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NP DES) permits and MS4 permits to regulate specific discharges. The NP DES permit requires that development Projects provide for ongoing treatment of storm water within the site, using low-impact design (LID), infiltration, or onsite reuse, to address Project runoff using specific design criteria.

Consequently, implementation of MS4 permits would reduce impacts on water quality standards to less than significant.

b) Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Implementation of Ventura County SQUIMP requirements on all new development address water quality. Impacts are less than significant.

The proposed Project submitted a water study15 indicating that the Project does not involve any activity that would alter or deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there

13 2005 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Repott, City of Ventura, August 2005; Figure 4.8-5, Dam Inundation Areas

14 2005 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Ventura, August 2005; Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, page 4.8-8

15 Water System Hydraulic Evaluation and Supply Discussion for the Kaiser Permanente Medical Office Building in the City of Ventura, prepared by Michael Baker International, dated September 11, 2015

November 2017


IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ,;._ page 48 North Bank Apartments

would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a iowering of the local groundwater table level. No impact would occur.

c) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

The existing site drainage on the parcels involves sheet flow and percolation. The Project site is not developed; therefore, drainage patterns of the site would be modified. However, since the Project site is fairly level, no substantive alteration of the drainage pattern would occur as a result of the Project, and implementation of the MS4 requirements would reduce the potential for substantial erosion or siltation during construction to less than significant.

d) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

The Santa Clara River occurs in the immediate area. The Project involves the addition of pervious surface, and the existing site drainage patterns would be slightly altered. The Proposed Project would not substantively alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. As described in question a) above, implementation of the SWPPP and MS4 requirements would reduce the potential for surface runoff during construction to less than significant.

e) Would the Project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

The Project would involve the addition of pervious surface and would contribute to an increase in volume and velocity of storm flows or polluted runoff under normal operating conditions. The proposed Project would be required to implement BMPs to comply with the County of Ventura Drainage Area Management Plan and the Municipal Code Title 16, Water Quality Control Ordinance, requiring adherence to the City's Standard Urban Storm Water Plan. Consequently, the Project Proponent would implement MS4 and SWPPP requirements. Impacts to runoff would be less than significant.

D Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Potential short-term surface water quality impacts related to Project construction activities include runoff of loose soils and/ or construction wastes and fuels that could potentially percolate into the adjacent properties. Regulations under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) require compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general construction storm water permit for Projects that would disturb an area greater than one acre. Compliance with the NPDES permit requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that contains BMPs to control discharge of pollutants including sediment into local surface water drainage. In addition, the Ventura County Stormwater Quality Urban Impact Mitigation Plan (SQUIMP) requires new development and redevelopment Projects to implement various BMPs to minimize the amount of pollutants entering surface waters. Implementation of these standards and adherence to and implementation of adopted policies and actions would ensure that impacts to drainage, surface runoff, erosion, siltation, flooding, and water quality would be less than significant.

g) Would the Project place housing within 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

The Project is not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area; therefore, there would be no impacts.

November 2017


IX. Hydrology and Water Quality J.. page 49 North Bank Apartments

h) Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? The Project area is not located within a FEMA 100-year flood zone. No impact would occur.

i) . Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

The Project would not be constructed near a levee or dam. No impact would occur.

j) Would the Project inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?

The proposed Project would not be inundated by a seiche, tsunami or mudflow. No impact would occur.


Less than significant based on review of the Ventura Municipal Code, the General Plan, existing setting, and the site plan.

Mitigation Measures



Impacts will be less than significant.

Reference

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality), pgs. 4.8-1 through 4.8-28) and Water System Hydraulic Evaluation and Supply Requirements for the Johnson Bridge Project - Tract No. 5939, Michael Baker International, Revised September 4, 2015.

November 2017


X. Land Use and Planning Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community?

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Existing Setting

Regulatory Setting


Impact

D

D

D

X. Land Use and Planning A. page 50 North Bank Apartments



D D ~

D ~ D

D D ~

The proposed (Mixed Use Development) zoning contains standards similar to the CPD (Commercial Planned Development) Zone. The parameters to which the proposed Project must adhere can be found in b) below. Not only are the standards presented, but also how the Project meets those standards. The Land Use designation for the site is Commerce, which encourages a wide range of building types of anywhere from two to six stories (depending on neighborhood characteristics) that house a mix of functions, including commercial, entertainment, office, and housing. The land use designation for the adjacent Serra area could be considered for future conversion. Therefore, although the expansion areas could be converted without voter approval in accordance with the SOAR Ordinance, this alternative potentially conflicts with current policies relating to the preservation of agricultural land.

Conversion of either expansion area may require a future adjustment to the SOI, because the Ventura LAFCo will likely remove all areas subject to the SOAR Ordinance, including the Serra area, from the SOI following a Municipal Service review for Ventura.

Physical Setting

The Project site is vacant, and the immediate surrounding area is characterized as by 1-, 2- and 3-story general commercial buildings, motel, mini malls, and vacant commercially zoned land. Additionally, within the next 2 years a 40,534-square-foot California Highway Patrol replacement office is tentatively planned to be constructed directly west of the Project site across Johnson Drive. Southeast of the Project site is the north bank of the Santa Clara River, which is a well-developed grassland and riparian community owned by the Nature Conservancy, and which serves as important visual element in creating a scenic approach to the City from the south. The river is nearly dry most of the year, exposing an expansive rock and sand stream bed interspersed with riparian vegetation. Northeast of the Project site is agricultural activity. The proposed new construction would allow for commercial and office mixed-use development to be constructed, residential housing, parking, rehabilitated bike trail, and outdoor community spaces on 8.03 acres of vacant property located at North bank Drive and Johnson Drive. The site is located in close proximity to SR-101.

Explanation

a) Would the Project physically divide an established community?

The proposed Project would not physically divide a property or an established community. No impact will occur.

November 2017


X. Land Use and Planning J.., page 51 North Bank Apartments

b) Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

The Project site is located within the Johnson Drive Corridor. The auto center and other uses within this area are highly visible from U.S. 101. The Johnson Drive Corridor is described as a connector between eastern Ventura and Highway 101 and suburban scale retail. Opportunities exist for high-quality mixed uses (such as child-care, restaurants, offices, light industrial, and housing) with ground floor commercial space to strengthen its economic presence and provide a visual gateway.

The proposed MXD zoning allows for mixed uses including retail and multi-family uses. The subject site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Commerce, which is defined as encouraging a wide range of building types of anywhere from two to six stories that house a mix of functions, including commercial, entertainment, office, and housing.

M·X·D Mixed Use Standards Required/Allowed Proposed Project Front Setback None set by Ordinance Code The Project consists of one mixed-use lot

Exceptions: therefore no front setback is required; however. • Buildings and lots used exclusively for buildings are generally set back 20 feet from the

residential purposes shall comply with the property line consistent with the R-3 zone. front setback regulations of the R-3 zone

Side yard setback None set by Ordinance Code The Project consists of one mixed-use lot; Exceptions: therefore, no side setback is required. However. • Abuts any residential zone: 10% of the width buildings are generally set back 20 feet from the

of the lot; not to be less than 3 feet, and not property line consistent with the R-3 zone. to exceed 5 feet in width.

• Buildings or lots used exclusively for residential purposes shall comply with the side setback regulations of the R-3 zone.

Rear yard setback • 20% the depth of lot or 20 feet, whichever is The Project consists of one mixed-use lot; less therefore, the 20-foot rear yard setback is

• Buildings and lots used exclusively for required. However, buildings are generally set residential purposes shall comply with the back 40 feet, which is in excess of 25 feet from the rear setback regulations of the R-3 zone. property line as required by the R-3 zone.

Height 6 stories not to exceed 75 feet 4 stories; 57 feet 7 inches

Lot Coverage None set by Ordinance Code The Project consists of one mixed-use lot: Exceptions: therefore. no lot coverage standard is required. 100% Residential only development: use lot However, the lot coverage is 37%, which is less coverage standards for the R-3-3 zone than the 60% maximum in the R-3 zone.

Density (100% Residential only) R-3-3 (1 unit per 1,600 SF) N/A

Parking Office/Retail: Office/Retail: 1 space per 300 gross square feet of floor 17 spaces area 5,000/300 = 17 required spaces

Residential: Residential 1 space per 1-bed unit 106 open spaces 2 spaces per 2-bed unit Total Covered Provided: 476 garage spaces 25% of total units for guest parking Total Provided: 582 spaces 1 space per unit must be covered Total covered required: 306 spaces Total spaces required: 558

November 2017


M-X·D Mixed Use Standards Required/Allowed Parking - Other Bicycle:

1. Residential: Multi-Family: 10% of required vehicle spaces, no less than 5 spaces 481x10%=48 Total residential bicycle spaces = 48

2. General Use: 10% minimum of required vehicle spaces 17 x 10% = 2 Total comm bicycle spaces = 2

3. CarpoolNanpool 10% minimum of required vehicle spaces for non-residential uses with employment of 100 or more persons at a particular site N/A

X. Land Use and Planning A. page 52 North Bank Apartments

Proposed Project Bicycle: 1. Residential

Total residential bicycle spaces: 48

2. General Use Total comm bicycle spaces provided: 4 spaces

3. Carpool/vanpool spaces Other spaces: N/A

The Project includes no exceptions, variations, density bonus, modifications or any additional benefits. There is no conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulations of any jurisdiction. The impacts would be less than significant.

c) Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

The Project site does not contain any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

No land use and planning impacts would impact the Proposed Project.


Less than significant based on review of the Ventura Municipal Code, the General Plan, existing setting, and the site plan.

Mitigation Measures

None required.


The proposed Project would not have impacts, and mitigation is not required

Reference

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.14 (Land Use and Planning), pgs. 4.14-1 through 4.14-27), E (City of Ventura Municipal Code, Chapter 24 (Zoning Ordinance)

November 2017


XI. Mineral Resources Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be

of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource

recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Existing Setting


Impact

D

D

XI. Mineral Resources J.. page 53 North Bank Apartments



D D ~

D D ~

There are no Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) that impact the Project site. 16 The nearest known mine is the Rocklite quarry. The quarry, operated by the County of Ventura, is currently idle.ll Additionally, no oil or gas wells are located within or near the Project site, although there are a number of wells covering an oil and gas field with a multitude of wells mapped in the northwestern part of the City.18 This stretch of oil fields is part of the southern boundary of the Ventura Oil Field, with the nearest abandoned oil well, Victory Oil Foster No. 4, located in this region.19

a) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

No records of any protected mineral resources on the Project site exist. The proposed Project would be located within a current easement dedicated to use of the existing water pipeline but will not be constructed over the pipeline. The Project alignment is composed of fill material from original construction of the Project. The Project would have no impact on protected mineral resources.

b) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

No records of mineral resource recovery at the Project site exist, according to the City of Ventura General Plan.


No impact based on review of the Ventura Municipal Code, General Plan, existing setting, and site plan.

Mitigation Measures

None required.

Reference

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.9 (Mineral Resources), pgs. 4.9-1 through 4.9-11)

16 2005 General Plan rinal Environmental Impact Report, City of Ventura, August 2005; Figure 1.9-2, Aggregate Resources

17 Mine List Search; Office of Mine Reclamation, Mines On Line (MOL), California Department of Conservation; http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/rnol/mol-app.htrnl ( accessed May 2016)

18 Well finder; California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR); http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/#close (accessed May 2016)

19 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - 2.41 Acre Kellogg Street Property, 2012; West Coast Environmental and Engineering

November 2017


XII. Noise Would the Project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of

standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?

e) Exposure of people residing or working in a Project area, which is located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, to excessive noise levels?

D Exposure of people residing or working in the Project area, which is within the vicinity of a private airstrip, to excessive noise levels?

Existing Setting

Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise


Impact

D

D

D

D

D

D


Incorporated

D

D

D

D

D

D

XII. Noise J.. page 54 North Bank Apartments


Impact No Impact

~ D

~ D

~ D

~ D

~ D

~ D

Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (i.e., loudness) and frequency (i.e., pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The dB scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted dB scale (dBA) provides this compensation by emphasizing frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.

Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound audible at such a level that the sound becomes an undesirable by-product of society's normal day-to-day activities. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, causes actual physical harm, or results in adverse health effects. The definition of noise as unwanted sound implies that it has an adverse effect, or causes a substantial annoyance, to people and their environment. However, not every unwanted audible sound interferes with normal activities, causes harm, or has adverse health effects. For unwanted audible sound (i.e., noise) to be considered adverse, it must occur with sufficient frequency and at such a level that these adverse impacts are reasonably likely to occur. Thresholds of significance, set forth below, are established to differentiate between benign, unwanted audible sound and potentially significant and adverse unwanted audible sound.

A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady ambient noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise, such as traffic on a major highway. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effects of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effects of noise on people are largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows:

• Leq: An Leq, or equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating

November 2017


XII. Noise A page 55 North Bank Apartments

community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.

• Lmax: The maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time.

• Lmin: The minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time.

• CNEL: The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA "weighting" during the hours of7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a 10 dBA "weighting" added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a constant 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a CNEL of 66.7 dBA.

Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day, night, or over a 24-hour period. For residential uses, environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60- to 70-dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Frequent exposure to noise levels greater than 85 dBA over time can cause temporary or permanent hearing loss. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet suburban residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA.

It is widely accepted that in the community noise environment the average healthy ear can barely perceive CNEL noise level changes of 3 dBA. CNEL changes from 3 to 5 dBA may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A 5 dBA CNEL increase is readily noticeable to most people, while the human ear perceives a 10 dBA CNEL increase as a doubling of sound. However, there is no direct correlation between increasing or even doubling noise-generating uses and what is detectable by the human ear as an increase in noise level.

The human ear perceives a 10 dB(A) increase in sound level to be a doubling of sound volume, but doubling the sound energy (i.e., the noise-generating activity) only results in a 3 dB(A) increase in sound. This means that a doubling of sound wave energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a roadway) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level to the human ear. Thus, relatively sizeable increases in baseline noise generation are not necessarily perceived as significant noise increases by the human ear.

Noise levels from a particular source generally decline as distance to the receptor increases. Other factors, such as the weather and reflective barriers, also help intensify or reduce the noise level at any given location. A commonly used rule of thumb for roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source (assume a starting point of 50 feet), the noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA at acoustically "hard" locations (i.e., the area between the noise source and the receptor is nearly complete asphalt, concrete, hard-packed soil, or other solid materials) and 4.5 dBA at acoustically "soft" locations (i.e., the area between the source and receptor is normal earth or has vegetation, including grass). Noise from stationary or point sources is reduced by about 6 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance at acoustically hard and soft locations, respectively. Noise levels are also generally reduced by about 1 dBA for each l,000 feet of distance due to air absorption. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures. Generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm can reduce noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The normal noise attenuation within residential structures with open windows is about 17 dBA, while the noise attenuation with closed windows is about 25 dBA. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer homes and office buildings can be more than 30 dBA, depending on construction materials and methods used.

Regulatory Framework

The City's General Plan includes noise compatibility guidelines based on various land uses. For residential developments like the proposed Project, noise levels up to 70 dBA CNEL are considered conditionally acceptable. The City Noise Ordinance provides exterior noise standards within the City. The following references are those portions of the Noise Ordinance that may be applicable to the Project.

November 2017



The City of Ventura Municipal Code has issued standards for noise levels at receiving properties within a City-designated noise zone, as shown in Table 8 below. Section 10.650.130 of the Municipal Code prohibits unnecessary, excessive, or annoying noise in the City. The ordinance does not control traffic noise, but applies to all noise sources located on private property including traffic noise. As part of this ordinance, properties within the City are assigned a noise zone based on their corresponding land use. "Noisesensitive" properties are designated as Noise Zone I; residential properties are designated Noise Zone II; commercial properties are included in Noise Zone III, and industrial/agricultural districts are designated as Noise Zone IV. The Ordinance also limits the amount of noise generated by uses during normal operation that may affect the surrounding areas.

Table 8 - Exterior Noise Levels

Noise Sensitive Residential Properties* Properties

Time Interval (Zone I) (Zone II) 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 50 dB(A) 50 dB(A) 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 45 dB(A) 45 dB(A) Source: City of Ventura, Designated Noise Zones, Section 10.650. 130(8). Note: dB(A) = decibels

Commercial Properties (Zone Ill) 60 dB(A) 55 dB(A)

*Noise sensitive properties include schools, hospitals, convalescent care, boarding, and rest homes.

Industrial and Agricultural Properties

(Zone IV) 70 dB(A) 70 dB(A)

The noise standards shown in Table 8 apply to any noise-generating activity that exceeds the applicable level for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour. For noise levels that last less than 30 minutes, the following standards apply: maximum noise levels equal to the value of the noise standard plus 5 dB(A) for a cumulative period of no more than 15 minutes in any hour; 10 dB(A) for a cumulative period ofno more than 5 minutes in any hour; 15 dB(A) for a cumulative period of no more than 1 minute in any hour; or 20 dB(A) for any period of time. If the ambient sound level exceeds the allowable exterior standard, the ambient levels become the standard. The noise ordinance identifies interior noise level limits for multi-family residential uses but not for commercial uses. Multi-family residential units have an interior noise level limit of 40 dB(A) between 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and a noise level limit of 45 dB(A) between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.

To abate the potential nuisance from construction noise, the City of Ventura Construction Noise Regulations (Section 10 .650 .15 0 (D) of the City's Municipal Code) regulates construction and building noise in several ways. The applicable noise regulations are described below:

Section 10.650.150(0(1)) Construction of Buildings and Structures - Between the hours of8:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next, no person adjacent to or within any residential zone in the city shall operate power construction equipment or tools or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings or structures, or operate any pile driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, steam or electric hoist or other construction device so as to create any noise which exceeds the noise level limits of this article. These specified construction activities are permitted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The performance of emergency work is exempt from the provisions of this section.

Section 10.650.150(0(3)) Construction of Buildings and Structures - The planning commission and city council shall retain the right to impose more restrictive hours of construction upon any projects involving construction activity by adding appropriate conditions to the city's approval of subdivisions, planned development permits, conditional use permits, variances and other projects.

November 2017


Existing Noise Levels


To identify the existing ambient noise levels in the general vicinity of the Project Site, noise measurements were taken with a 3M SoundPro SP DL-1 sound level meter, which conforms to industry standards set forth in ANSI Sl.4-1983 (R2006) - Specification for Sound Level Meters/Type 1. This noise meter also meets and exceeds the requirements of a sound level meter defined in Section 10.650.120 of the Municipal Code. This instrument was calibrated and operated according to the manufacturer's written specifications. At the measurement sites, the microphone was placed at a height of approximately five feet above grade. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are an adjacent City Park to the south and a motel use approximately 120 feet west across Johnson Drive. The measured noise levels are shown in Table 9, Existing Ambient Daytime Noise Levels. See Appendix N to this Draft IS/MND for a graphic illustrating the noise measurement locations.

Table 9 - Existing Ambient Daytime Noise Levels

No. Location Primary Noise Sources 1 Near the east area of the Project Site, west of the Traffic along Johnson Drive and Northbank Drive

farmland approximately 500 southwest 2 Near the west area of the Project Site near the Traffic along Johnson Drive and Northbank Drive

Johnson Drive and Northbank Drive intersection 3 Near motel sensitive receptor across Johnson Traffic along Johnson Drive

Drive 'Noise measurements were taken on February 15. 2017 at each location for a duration of 15 minutes. See Appendix N to this Draft ISIMND for noise data. Source: Pomeroy Environmental Services, 2017.

Noise Levels* Leq Lmax Lmin

59.7 62.9 57.3

69.9 82.5 59.0

71.6 81.4 62.1

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?

Construction Noise Impacts

Construction of the Project would require the use of heavy equipment for grading and site preparation, the installation of utilities, architectural coatings, paving, and building construction. During each construction phase, there would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of each activity. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment and typical construction activities. The data pertaining to the types of construction equipment and activities that would occur at the Project Site are presented in Table 10 - Noise Range of Typical Construction Equipment, and Table 11 - Typic<1,I Outdoor Construction Noise Levels, respectively, at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source (i.e., reference distance).

The noise levels shown in Table 11 represent composite noise levels associated with typical construction activities, which take into account both the number of pieces and spacing of heavy construction equipment that are typically used during each phase of construction. As shown, construction noise during the heavier initial periods of construction is presented as 86 dBA Leq when measured at a reference distance of 50 feet from the center of construction activity. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 84 dBA Leq measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would reduce to 78 dBA Leq at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and reduce by another 6 dBA Leq to 72 dBA Leq at 200 feet from the source to the receptor. Thus, construction activities associated with the Project would be expected to generate noise levels consistent with these estimates at the surrounding uses. It should also be noted that any increase in noise levels at off-site receptors during construction of the Project would be temporary in nature, and would not generate continuously high noise levels, although occasional single-event

November2017


XII. Noise "- page 58 North Bank Apartments

disturbances from construction are possible. In addition, the construction noise during the heavier initial periods of construction (i.e., grading work) would typically be reduced in the later construction phases (i.e., interior building construction at the proposed buildings) as the physical structure ofth.e proposed structures would break the line-of-sight noise transmission from the construction areas to the nearby receptors.

Table 10 - Noise Range of Typical Construction Equipment

Construction Phase Ground Clearinq Excavation, Gradinq Foundations Structural Finishinq

Noise Level in dBA Construction Equipment Leq at 50 Feet* Front loader 73-86 Trucks 82-95 Cranes (moveable) 75-88 Cranes (derrick) 86-89 Vibrator 68-82 Saws 72-82 Pneumatic impact equipment 83-88 Jackhammers 81-98 Pumps 68-72 Generators 71-83 Compressors 75-87 Concrete mixers 75-88 Concrete pumps 81-85 Back hoe 73-95 Tractor 77-98 Scraper/grader 80-93 Paver 85-88 *Machinery equipped with noise control devices or other noise-reducing design features does not generate the same level of noise emissions as that shown in this table. Source: USEPA. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, PB 206717, 1971.

Table 11 - Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels

Noise Levels at 50 Noise Levels at 60 Noise Levels at 100 Feet with Mufflers Feet with Mufflers Feet with Mufflers

(dBA Leq) (dBA Leq) (dBA Leq) 82 80 76 86 84 80 77 75 71 83 81 77 86 84 80

Noise Levels at 200 Feet with Mufflers

(dBA Leq) 70 74 65 71 74 .. Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment

and Home Appliances. PB 206717, 1971.

The City does not have specific limitation on construction noise levels. Instead, construction noise is regulated by limiting construction activity to the less noise sensitive daytime hours. Specifically, Project construction, including ground clearing, grading, structural, and other noise-generating activities would occur at the Project site between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. in accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance (Section 10.650.150(0)). As the City permits construction related noise to occur during these hours, for the purpose of this analysis, the proposed Project's construction activities are assumed to result in less than significant impacts if construction related activities occur between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.rn. The Project would comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and therefore impacts with respect to construction noise would he less than significant.

November 2017


Operational Noise Impacts

XII. Noise ,1.. page 59 North Bank Apartments

With respect to the Project's stationary noise sources, mechanical HVAC equipment would be installed for the proposed structures at the Project Site. These noise sources would be generally consistent with existing mechanical and HV AC units operating in the vicinity of the Project Site. Furthermore, Section 10.650. lSO(C) (machinery, equipment, fans and air-conditioning) of the Municipal Code states that no person shall operate any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air-conditioning apparatus or tool of any nature or similar mechanical device so as to create any noise which exceeds the noise level limits. As such, compliance with Section 10.650.lSO(C) of the Municipal Code would ensure noise from stationary sources would be less than significant.

With respect to the Project's parking, noise would be generated by activities within the parking areas associated with the Project. Sources of noise within the parking areas would include engines accelerating, doors slamming, car alarms, and people talking. Noise levels within the parking areas would fluctuate with the amount of automobile and human activity. It is anticipated that parking related noise would be substantially similar to the existing noise generated by existing roadway activity (and the 101 Freeway), street parking, and parking associated with the existing adjacent uses. In addition, the Project will include garage parking for residents which would reduce parking noise at off-site locations. As such, noise impacts associated with the Project's parking areas would be less than significant.

In addition, on-site residences would not he adversely impacted by elevated ambient urban noise levels because the Project would be constructed to meet and exceed Title 24 insulation standards of the California Code of Regulations for residential buildings, which serves to provide an acceptable interior noise environment for sensitive uses. Specifically, as required by Title 24, the Project would be designed and constructed to ensure interior noise levels would be at or below a CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room of the Project. With respect to noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Site, the highest modeled traffic noise level would be 68.7 dBA CNEL. Given the approximate 30 dBA exterior-to-interior noise reduction for new residential construction,20 it is clear that standard construction methods and materials would achieve interior noise levels at or below 45 dBA. As such, impacts associated with interior noise levels at the proposed residences would be less than significant.

With respect to the Project's generation of traffic noise, for purposes of defining a "substantial" increase in traffic noise see Table 12 - General Plan Noise Element EIR, Thresholds for Substantial Traffic Noise Increase. The evaluation of roadway noise levels with and without the proposed Project were addressed using the FHWA-RD-77-108 model, which calculates the CNEL noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, based on site-specific traffic volumes, distances, speeds and/or noise barriers. Based on the traffic analysis prepared for the Project in combination with an analysis of the surrounding land uses, roadway noise levels were forecasted to determine if the Project's vehicular traffic would result in a significant impact at off-site locations. Roadway noise levels were calculated for primary roadway segments located in proximity to the Project Site. The roadway segments selected for analysis are considered to be those that are expected to be most directly impacted by Project-related traffic, which, for the purpose of this analysis, include the roadways that are nearest to the Project site and had the most Project-generated trips. These roadways, when compared to roadways located farther away from the Project site, would experience the greatest percentage increase in traffic generated by the Project. Thus, this analysis represents the worst-case net increase in Project-related traffic noise increases.

20 Title 24 Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings requires substantial building insulation and windows which reduces exterior to interior noise transmission.

November 2017


XI!. Noise "- page 60 North Bank Apartments

Table 12 - General Plan Noise Element EIR, Thresholds for Substantial Traffic Noise Increase

Ambient Noise Levels CNEL <60 dBA

60-65 dBA >65 dBA

Threshold CNEL +5.0 dBA or more +3.0 dBA or more +1.5 dBA or more

The Project-related increases in noise levels at the primary roadway segments located in proximity to the Project site are identified in Table 13 - Project Roadway Noise Impacts. The table identifies the change in noise levels along the study-area roadway segments between the existing scenario and the existing plus Project scenario. As shown, the Project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 1.1 dBA CNEL. This increase, along with all other roadway noise increases, would be below the applicable significance thresholds identified. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways. The operational noise impact of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Table 13 - Project Roadway Noise Impacts

Noise Levels in dBA CNEL .... ---- ----

Roadway Roadway Segment Between Ventura Blvd. & Johnson Dr.

Existing Traffic Volumes

Existing + Project Traffic Volumes Increase

Significance Threshold

Significant Impact?

North bank Drive Between Johnson Dr. & Elba

St. ~-----+--------------- ----- -- - - ----- - --- ·-

Between Northbank Dr. &

65.5 65.7

53.9 55.9

68.6 68.7

0.2 1.5 No

2.0 5.0 No -- --------- - ---· ---

0.1 1.5 No Bristol Road 1 Johnson Drive ,__B_e_tw_e_e_n_N_o-rth_b_a-nk-Dr-. -&-1-01------+---------+------,..-----+-----;

f!~~IIJ_§l'_ ___________ -~- 67.2 67.4 0.2 ____ :·~-- _ No ,. ------·--------- --- _____ , Traffic data: Project's Traffic Impact Study, Associates Transportation Engineers, January 14, 2015. Noise modeling data provided in Appendix N to this Draft IS/MND.

b) A significant impact may occur if a project were to generate excessive vibration during construction or operation.

Construction Vibration

Construction activities for the Project have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that propagate though the ground and diminishes in intensity with distance from the source. Vibration impacts can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage of buildings at the highest levels. The construction activities could have an adverse impact on sensitive structures ( e.g., building damage) and people ( e.g., annoyance).

In terms of construction impacts on buildings, the City has not adopted policies or guidelines relative to ground borne vibration. Consequently, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) vibration standards for buildings which are used to evaluate potential construction impacts. Based on the FTA and Caltrans criteria, construction impacts relative to groundborne vibration would be significant if the following were to occur:21

• Project construction activities would cause a PPV groundborne vibration level to exceed 0.5 inches per second at any building that is constructed with reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber;

21 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006; and California Department of Transportation, Transportation- and Construction-lnclucccl Vibration Guidance Manual, June 2001·.

November 2017


XII. Noise ..i.. page 61 North Bank Apartments

• Project construction activities would cause a PPV ground borne vibration level to exceed 0.3 inches per second at any engineered concrete and masonry buildings;

• Project construction activities would cause a PPV ground borne vibration level to exceed 0.2 inches per second at any non-engineered timber and masonry buildings; or

• Project construction activities would cause a PPV ground-borne vibration level to exceed 0.12 inches per second at any historical building or building that is extremely susceptible to vibration damage.

In addition, the City has not adopted any thresholds associated with human annoyance for groundborne vibration impacts. Therefore, this analysis uses the FT A's vibration impact thresholds for human annoyance. These thresholds include 80 VdB at residences and buildings where people normally sleep (e.g., nearby residences) and 83 VclB at institutional buildings, which includes schools and churches. No thresholds have been adopted or recommended for commercial and office uses.

Table 14 identifies various PPV and RMS velocity (in VdB) levels for the types of construction equipment that would operate at the Project Site during construction. As shown in Table 14, vibration velocities could range from 0.003 to 0.089 inch/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source activity, with corresponding vibration levels ranging from 58 VdB to 87 VdB at 25 feet from the source activity, depending on the type of construction equipment in use.

Table 14 - Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment

Approximate PPV lin/sec) Approximate RMS (VdB)

Equipment 25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet Larqe Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69 Caisson Drillinq 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.010 86 77 75 72 68 Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.004 79 70 68 65 61 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 58 49 47 44 40 Note: in/sec = inches per second Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Final Report, 2006.

With respect to construction vibration impacts upon existing off-site structures, there are no historical buildings or buildings that are extremely susceptible to vibration damage within 25 feet of proposed heavy construction activity. As shown in Table 14, at distances beyond 25 feet from the Project Site boundary, construction vibration levels would not exceed 0.089 PPV. As previously discussed, the most restrictive threshold for building damage from vibration is 0.12 PPV for historic buildings and buildings that are extremely susceptible to vibration damage, and the least restrictive threshold is 0.5 PPV at any building that is constructed with reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber. As maximum off-site vibration levels at existing structures would not have the potential to exceed 0.089 PPV, the Project's construction activities would not exceed the thresholds of significance for building damage from vibration. As such, impacts with respect to building damage upon off-site structures would be less than significant.

With respect to human annoyance resulting from vibration generated during construction, the adjacent City Park south of the Project Site could be exposed to increased vibration levels up to 85 VdB according to Table 14. However, it should be noted that vibration levels experienced in the Project vicinity would be temporary and intermittent, and would be reduced when the construction activities are located toward the center of the Project Site. In addition, there are no recreational annoyance threshold for vibration and the motel use across Johnson Avenue is more than 100 feet from the Project Site and would not experience vibration levels more than 69 VdB which is below the 80 VdB threshold for residential uses. Furthermore, Project construction, including ground clearing, grading, structural, and other vibration-generating activities would occur at the Project site between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM in accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance (Section 10.650.150(0)). As the City permits construction to occur during these

November 2017


XII. Noise ;.._ page 62 North Bank Apartments

hours, for the purpose of this analysis, the proposed Project's construction activities are assumed to result in less than significant impacts if construction related activities occur between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The Project would comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and therefore impacts with respect to construction vibration would be less than significant.

Operational Vibration

The Project involves the construction and operation of a mixed-use development with a total of 306 residential units, retail commercial space, and park/open space and would not involve the use of stationary equipment that would result in high vibration levels, which are more typical for large commercial and industrial projects. Groundborne vibrations at the Project Site and immediate vicinity currently result from heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks and transit buses) on the nearby local roadways, and the proposed land uses at the Project Site would not result in a substantive increase of these heavy-duty vehicles on the public roadways. While refuse trucks would be used for the removal of solid waste at the Project Site, these trips would typically only occur once a week. As such, vibration impacts associated with operation of the Project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

Explanation

d) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?

e) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?

The nearest airport is the Oxnard Airport, located approximately 2 miles south of the Project Site. The Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan area, and is also not located in the vicinity of any private airstrips. Thus, the Project would not expose people to excessive aircraft noise levels. Therefore, no impact would occur.


No impact based on review of the Ventura Municipal Code, General Plan, existing setting, and site plan.

Mitigation Measures



The proposed Project would have no impact, and mitigation is not required.

Reference

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.10 (Noise), pgs. 4.10-1 through 4.10-31) and Noise Monitoring Data and Roadway Noise Calculations, Pomeroy Environmental Services

November 2017


XIII. Population and Housing Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for

example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Existing Setting

XIII. Population and Housing "' page 63 North Bank Apartments




D D ~ D

D D D ~

D D D ~

Using 2014 U.S. Census Bureau data, the population estimate for the City of Ventura is 109,484, making up about 13 % of Ventura County's population of 846, 178 (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). There are no large-scale planned housing or commercial developments within the immediate area - other than the proposed Project. As discussed previously the Project is proposing 306 multi-family residential units and 5,000 square feet of commercial space.

Explanation

a) Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

The applicant proposes to build 306 new residential apartment units, 5,000 square feet of commercial space, and 5,000 square feet of community space within four ( 4) city blocks and provides four ( 4) different building types are used per the HAP criteria on the 8.03-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of North bank Drive and Johnson Drive. There are a total of thirteen (13) buildings, which include one (1) Commercial Block building, three (3) Mansion buildings, six (6) Stacked Dwelling buildings and three (3) Rowhouse buildings. The building massing consists of primarily 4-story buildings with portions of 3-story elements and 2 buildings with 2-story elements. A contemporary architectural style is used throughout the Project.

This Project is considered infill and would not be considered growth inducing because it utilizes an 8.03-acre site that is surrounded by agriculture, commercial, the Santa Clara River and the nearby SR 101. Ventura today is the product of decades of earlier growth and development. These patterns have largely established our community's character and will continue to do so in the future. The passage of SOAR, the Hillside Voter Protection Area, and other land-use constraints, along with natural boundaries, such as the ocean and the rivers, make it abundantly clear that before we expand outward any further, we must pursue an "Infill First" strategy. Such a strategy will help avoid sacrificing farmland and sensitive areas in our hillsides and along our rivers. By utilizing the Project site, it accommodates the "Infill First" strategy.

b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

The proposed Project does not propose to displace any housing. The property site is presently vacant.

November 2017



XIII. Population and Housing"' page 64 North Bank Apartments

No impact based on review of the Ventura Municipal Code, the General Plan, existing setting, and the site plan. .

Mitigation Measures

None required.

Level of Significance after Mitigation

Not applicable

Reference

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.15 (Population and Housing), pgs. 4.15-1 through 4.15-11)

November 2017


XIV. Public Services J.. page 65 North Bank Apartments



XIV. Public Services Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the Project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the

provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? D D ~ D ii) Police protection? D D ~ D iii) Schools? D D ~ D iv) Parks? D D ~ D v) Other public facilities? D D D ~

Existing Setting

The Ventura City Fire Department (VFD), which operates under cooperative initiatives with the Ventura County Fire Protection District, provides fire protection services and emergency medical (paramedic) services within the City. The City has six stations that provide the community with emergency response services. The VFD has approximately 70 firefighter personnel. Approximately 11,500 calls for service are responded to annually, among which approximately 75% are for medical emergency services. Ventura Fire Department Station No. 5 is the first-response station as it is located nearest to the Project site, located at address 4225 E. Main Street. The VFD has a response time goal of 5 minutes, and manages a Fire Hazard Reduction Program to assist with fire prevention and reduce the risk of wildfire in vegetated hillsides.zz

The Ventura Police Department (VPD) provides police protection services within the City. The Project site is located in Beat 4, Repo1ting District 80 for the VPD. The VPD employs approximately 172 employees, with 127 officers and 42 civilians. Approximately 88,000 calls for service are responded to annually, with nearly 40,000 processed.23 The VPD's Strategic Plan: A Crime Fighting Blueprint for Our Community 2015-2018 provides goals and strategies for crime control, team development, active partnerships, safe neighborhood maintenance, and efficiency and accountability. Measures include arriving to emergencies and crimes within 5 minutes or less and reducing Ventura's per capita crime rate from previous years.2·1 The 180 Day calls for service heat map does not indicate a higher amount of crime within the Project site vicinity. Some calls for service including "Shots fired; Shots heard" and "Parole; Probation" are indicated more often in the Westside Community area along North Ventura Avenue than other areas of the City. However, the number of police calls for service within the downtown Ventura area surpasses every measure compared to the Project site vicinity within the heat map.zs

The City of Ventura Department of Parks, Recreation & Community Partnerships, located at 501 Poli Street, Room 226, provides a variety of programs, services and activities for City residents and communities. The

22 About Us, City of Ventura Fire Department; http: //www.cityofventura.net/fire/about ( accessed May 2016) 23 About Us, City of Ventura Police Department; http://www.cityofventura.net/pcl/about (accessed May 2016) 24 VPD's Strategic Plan: A Crime Fighting Blueprint for Our Community; City of Ventura;

http://www.cityofventura.net/pd/about/strategicplan#goals (accessed May 2016 25 Police Calls for Service - Public Version; City of Ventura GIS;

http://maps.cityofventura.net/rnenu/flex/policcmap/ l accessed May 2016)

November 2017


XIV. Public Services J.. page 66 North Bank Apartments

City contains at least 27 parks covering more than 800 acres of land consisting of beaches, recreation facilities, and senior services.zii

The Ventura Unified School District (VUSD) provides public school education to the neighborhoods adjacent to the Project site. The VUSD has approximately 19 elementary schools, 7 middle schools, 5 high schools, and a variety of additional programs. The nearest public schools are Montalvo Elementary school located at 2050 Grand Avenue, approximately 1.4 miles of the Project site, and Elmhurst Elementary school located approximately 3.5 miles west at 5080 Elmhurst.

Explanation

a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable seNice ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public seNices: i) Fire protection?

Fire Station 5, located at Station 5 4225 E. Main Street, Ventura, CA 93003. The Ventura Fire Department (VFD) has a response time goal of 4 minutes (for at least 90% of responses); however, response times in the Montalvo area currently exceed 4 minutes, and therefore do not meet VFD standards. However, the General Plan Policy 7C for optimizing firefighting and emergency response capabilities and Actions 7.12, and 7.13, ensure adequate structural fire protection, access, water supply, vegetation clearance, and measures that resolve extended response time problems. Therefore, no change in required equipment type would be expected. No new fire protection facilities would be needed to serve the Project Site. Neither schools nor parks or other public facilities would be generated by the proposed Project.

ii) Police protection?

The General Plan accounts for growth in its assessment of police needs. There is no identified need for new police facilities within the Project Area (Ventura, City of, 2005a). The proposed use would not increase demand for police protection service or create the need for new or expanded facilities.

iii) Schools?

The anticipated addition of 8,300 residential units through 2025 would generate an estimated 3,486 new students at the Ventura Unified School District. This total includes 1,826 elementary, 747 middle school, and 913 high school students. With this increase in enrollment, overall enrollment would exceed the capacity of existing VUSD schools by an estimated l,962 students.

Based on California Department of Education recommended standards, Projected student growth associated with Scenario 1 would generate the need for an estimated 2 to 3 new elementary schools, and potentially a new middle school and high school. Overall acreage needed to accommodate new facilities would range from about 29 to 93 acres, depending primarily upon whether new middle or high school facilities are needed.

Pursuant to §65995(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the payment of statutory fees " .. .is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or individual school sites as they are identified in the future.

26 City of Ventura, Parks, Recreation & Community Partnerships; http://cityofventurzi.net/prcp (accessed May 2016)

November 2017


iv) Parks?

XIV. Public Services ;.._ page 67 North Bank Apartments

A 0.25-acre public park will be provided within the Project area, and the Project would also include improvement to the existing linear park to the north and east of the site. Those improvements would include storm water retention, public recreation, landscaping, and new pathway. Specifically, the Project applicant proposes:

• Improvement to Linear Park (1.87 Acres) valued at approximately $500,000. This includes construction of a new Multi-Use path, landscaping, seating, etc.

• Creation of an additional on-site public park including tot lot valued at approximately $75,000 and

• Construction of Trail Head with gathering area and seat walls adjacent to Santa Clara River. Valued at approximately $25,000.

• The 2.82 linear park is an existing park that will be improved but it already exists.

The applicant will be responsible for the maintenance of the improved linear park through a use agreement with the City.

v) Other public facilities?

There are no anticipated significant impacts to public facilities as a result of the implementation of the Project.


No impact based on review of the Ventura Municipal Code, the General Plan, existing setting, and the site plan.

Mitigation Measures

None required.


The proposed Project would not have impacts, and mitigation is not required.

Reference

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.11 (Public Services), pgs. 4.11-1 through 4.11-51)

November 2017


XV. Recreation ...._ page 6B North Bank Apartments



XV. Recreation Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the Project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other

D D [g] D recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the D D [g] D environment?

Existing Setting

The closest neighborhood park to the Project site is the 8.7-acre Barranca Vista Center & Park, located 0.9 miles north of the Project site at 7050 E. Ralston Street. Amenities at the park include playground/tot lot, picnic tables, restrooms, rentable BBQ areas, rentable facilities, and public art.

Lining the eastern boundary of the Project site is an existing linear park that belongs to incomplete network of linear parks connecting from the Project site 1.4 miles north the Community Park. Ventura's linear park network intersperses trails and picnic areas among a mostly undeveloped web of barranca and riverbanks that provide valuable wildlife habitat and migration corridors. The linear parks also merge with a number of neighborhood and community parks, complementing developed recreation areas with natural riparian qualities. Extending trails through the linear park network can create additional opportunities for low-impact contact with nature, and in some cases even provide pleasant non- automobile commuting options.

A 0.25-acre public park will be provided within the Project area, and the Project would also include improvement to the existing linear park to the north and east of the site. Those improvements would include landscaping, new pathway and a portion of the linear park to the east would accommodate the Project's storm water detention basin. Specifically, the Project applicant proposes:

• Improvement to Linear Park (1.87 Acres) valued at approximately $500,000. This includes construction of a new Multi-Use path, landscaping, seating, etc.

• Creation of an additional on-site public park including tot lot valued at approximately $75,000 and

• Construction of Trail Head with gathering area and seat walls adjacent to Santa Clara River. Valued at approximately $25,000.

• The 2.82-acre linear park is an existing park that will be improved with new landscaping and amenities. The applicant will be responsible for the maintenance of the improved linear park through an agreement with the City.

Explanation

a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

A 0.25-acre public park will be provided as well as additional amenities. Nonetheless, the proposed Project will have outdoor community spaces including construction of a trail head and tot lot. Therefore, there are no anticipated significant impacts to parks as a result of the implementation of the proposed Project would occur.

November 2017



XV. Recreation ,1.. page 69 North Bank Apartments

No Impact hased on review of the Ventura Municipal Code, the General Plan, existing setting, and the site plan.

Mitigation Measures

None required.


The proposed Project would not have impacts and mitigation is not required.

Reference

A (Project Application, Site Plan), D (2005 General Plan Chapter 6 (Our Active Community), pgs. 6-1 through 6-7)

November 2017


XVI. Transportation and Traffic ;._ page 70 North Bank Apartments


Potentially Impact with Less Than Mitigation Significant Significant

XVI. Transportation and Traffic Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the Project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan. ordinance or policy establishing measures

of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non- D D ~ D motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths. and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program. including. but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, D D ~ D or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in D D ~ D traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves D D ~ D or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D ~ D D Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit.

bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or D D ~ D safety of such facilities?

Existing Setting

Regional access to the Project site will be provided by U.S. Highway 101 via southbound ramps at Johnson Drive and northbound ramps at North bank Drive. Direct access to the Project would be provided by driveway connections on Johnson Drive, Northbank Drive, and via an extension of Elba Drive from the existing terminus to the southern boundary of the Project site. Internal circulation within the Project site would be provided via three connections to Northbank Drive.

U.S. Highway 101, located south and west of the Project site, is a multi-lane freeway which serves as a major arterial for the City and is the principal inter-city route along this portion of the Pacific Coast. The segment of U.S. Highway 101 adjacent to the study-area is a 6- to 12-lane freeway including auxiliary lanes. Access to the freeway from the study-area is currently provided via ramps located at North bank Drive and Johnson Drive. Johnson Drive is a 2- to 4-lane north-south roadway located east and north of the study-area. Johnson Drive currently extends north from Auto Center Drive and terminates just south of State Route 126. Johnson Drive serves as a major access route from U.S. Highway 101 to the eastern portion of the City.

Bristol Road is a 2-lane east-west roadway which extends east from Grand Avenue to Montgomery Avenue where it becomes the eastern section of North bank Drive. Bristol Road service primarily residential uses in the study-area.

Northbank Drive is a 2-lane roadway running from the U.S. Highway 101 on-/off-ramps to Elba Street. North bank Drive provides direct access to commercial land uses. Ultimately North bank Drive will provide three travel lanes northbound and southbound with a bike lane. In the interim Northbank Drive northbound will be striped to provide two travel lanes with a bike lane and parking lane adjacent to the Project site.

Ventura Boulevard is a 2-lane north-south roadway parallel to U.S. Highway 101 from Northbank Drive to Victoria Avenue. Ventura Boulevard serves primarily commercial and light industrial land uses in the study area.

November 2017


XVI. Transportation and Traffic "- page 71 North Bank Apartments

Elba Street is a 2-lane roadway that extends north from North bank Drive to Capri Avenue. Elba Street provides direct access to the Northbank Plaza and Cafes.

The City of Ventura considers LOS "E" as the acceptable standard at freeway interchange intersections and LOS "D" as the acceptable standard atthe Principal Intersections within the City. Principal Intersections are intersections that are regularly monitored by the City as a gauge of the operation of the City's circulation system.

Table 15 presents the existing AM and PM peak hour levels of service for the study-area intersections.

Table 15- Existing Intersection Operations

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Control ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS Johnson Drive/Bristol Road Signal 0.72 LOSC 0.66

I

LOSB Northbank Drive/Elba Street* STOP-Sign 7.6 sec. LOSA 7.5 sec. LOSA Johnson Drive/Northbank Drive Signal 0.60 LOSA 0.58 LOSA Johnson Drive/Motel 6 Driveway* STOP Sign 25.8 sec. LOS D 18.2 sec. LOSC Northbank Drive/Ventura Boulevard* STOP-Sign 0.34 LOSA 0.46 LOSA U.S. Highway 101 SB Ramps/Johnson Drive Signal 0.42 LOSA 0.49 LOSA

*Unsignalized intersection; level of service determined by average delay per vehicle.

The data presented in Table 15 indicate that the study-area intersections operate at LOS "D" or better with existing traffic volumes. These operations are considered acceptable based on the City's level of service standards.

Performance Standard: Level of service "E" (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 1.00) for freeway ramp intersections and non-Principal Intersections that are located in the CMP network. Level of service "D" (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 0.90) for all other Principal Intersections.

Threshold of Significance: For an intersection that is forecast to operate worse than its performance standard, the impact of a Project is considered to be significant if the Project inc;reases the intersection V JC ratio by more than 0.01.

Explanation

a) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of.transportation including mass transit and non

. motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeway~,· pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Table 16 - Project Trip Generation

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Size ADT Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Apartments 306 units 1,793 21 113 134 110 55 165 Commercial 10,000 sq. ft. 839 12 8 20 37 39 76 Park/Open Space 2.82 acres 14 0 0 0 1 1 2 Total Trip Generation 2,646 33 121 154 148 95 243

As shown in Table 16, the Project is forecast to generate 2,646 daily trips, 154 AM peak hour trips and 242 PM peak hour trips.

November 2017


XVI. Transportation and Traffic A page 72 North Bank Apartments

Existing+ Project Intersection Operations

Levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections. Table 17 and Table 18 present the peak hour levels of service for the study-area intersections.

Table 17- Existing+ Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations

Existing Existing + Proiect ICU Intersection ICU-Delay/LOS ICU-Delay/LOS Change Impact? Johnson Drive/Bristol Road 0.72/LOS C 0.72/LOS C 0.00 No Northbank Drive/Elba Street* 7.6 sec./LOS A 8.1 sec./LOS A N/A No Johnson Drive/Northbank Drive 0.60/LOS A 0.63/LOS B O.Q3 No Johnson Drive/Motel 6 Driveway* 25.8 sec./LOS D 18.8 sec./LOS C N/A No Northbank DriveNentura Boulevard 0.34/LOS A 0.34/LOS A 0.00 No U.S. Highway 101 SB Ramps/Johnson Drive 0.42/LOS A 0.43/LOS A O.Q1 No


Table 18- Existing+ Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations

Existing Existing + Project ICU Intersection ICU-Delay/LOS ICU-Delay/LOS Change Impact? Johnson Drive/Bristol Road 0.66/LOS B 0.67/LOS B 0.01 No Northbank Drive/Elba Street* 7.5 sec./LOS A 7.9 sec./LOS A N/A No Johnson Drive/Northbank Drive 0.58/LOS A 0.61/LOS B 0.03 No Johnson Drive/Motel 6 Driveway* 18.2 sec./LOS C 15.4 sec./LOS C N/A No Northbank DriveNentura Boulevard 0.46/LOSA 0.48/LOS A 0.02 No U.S. Highway 101 SB Ramos/Johnson Drive 0.49/LOS A 0.53/LOS A 0.04 No


The data presented in Table 17 and Table 18 indicate that the six study-area intersections are forecast to operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Project traffic. The Project would therefore not generate Project-specific impacts to the study- area intersections based on the City's impact criteria.

Table 19 - Year 2025 + Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations

Year 2025 Year 2025 + Project ICU Intersection ICU-Delay/LOS ICU-Delay/LOS Change Impact? Johnson Drive/Bristol Road 0.71/LOS C 0.71/LOS A 0.00 No Northbank Drive/Elba Street* 8.6 sec./LOS A 9.0 sec./LOS A NIA No Johnson Drive/Northbank Drive 0.70/LOS B 0.69/LOS B -0.01 No Johnson Drive/Motel 6 Driveway* 35.8 sec./LOS E 41 .7 sec./LOS E NIA No Northbank DriveNentura Boulevard 0.41/LOS A 0.43/LOS A 0.02 No U.S. Highway 101 SB Ramos/Johnson Drive 0.52/LOS A 0.52/LOS A 0.00 No

'Unsignalized intersection; level of service determined by average delay per vehicle.

Table 20 - Year 2025 + Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations

Year 2025 Year 2025 + Project ICU Intersection ICU-Delay/LOS ICU-Delay/LOS Change Impact? Johnson Drive/Bristol Road 0.73/LOS C 0.75/LOS A O.Q2 No Northbank Drive/Elba Street* 9.5 sec./LOS A 10.7 sec./LOS B N/A No Johnson Drive/Northbank Drive 0.82/LOS C 0.81/LOS B -0.01 No Johnson Drive/Motel 6 Driveway* 29.7 sec./LOS D 32.8 sec./LOS D N/A No Northbank DriveNentura Boulevard 0.88/LOS D 0.88/LOS D 0.00 No U.S. Highway 101 SB Ramps/Johnson Drive 0.84/LOS D 0.85/LOS D 0.01 No

*Unsignalized intersection: level of service determined by average delay per vehicle.

November 2017


XVI. Transportation and Traffic ..._ page 73 North Bank Apartments

The data presented in Table 19 and Table 20 indicates that the principal study-area intersections are forecast to operate at LOS "D" or better with Year 2025 and Year 2025 + Project traffic volumes. The nonPrincipal Johnson Drive/Motel 6 Driveway intersection will operate at LOS "E" with Year 2025 and Year 2025 + Project traffic volumes. The Project would therefore not generate significant cumulative impacts to the study-area intersections. One of the public improvements associated with the Project is the signalization of the intersection at "Street D" (directly across from Motel 6 driveway) and Johnson Drive.

Access to the Project would be provide by driveway connections to North bank Drive and Johnson Drive. The Project will provide the right-of-way to construct North bank Drive adjacent to the Project site to its full street section. Ultimately North bank Drive will provide three travel lanes with a bike lane. In the interim the Project will stripe Northbank Drive to provide two travel lanes with a bike lane and parking lane adjacent to the Project site. Internal circulation within the Project site would be provided by four internal streets and pedestrian pathways and sidewalks. Internal street and pedestrian connections will allow circulation to and from the residential, commercial and green space portions of the development. The proposed access connections and internal circulation would adequately accommodate Project generated traffic.

c) Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

The Proposed Project does not have access to air traffic patterns. No changes would occur to air traffic patterns.

d) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

The proposed Project does not propose any increased hazards as a result of design features. No sharp curves are proposed adjacent or internal to the site.

e) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? As discussed in a) and b) above the Project will have three access routes to the site.

lublic bus and rail transit service is provided within the Project study area. Public bus transit service is currently provided by Gold Coast Transit (formerly South Coast Area Transit). Metro link also operates one commuter rail transit line which stop and service the East Ventura Station. The Ventura County Line runs east-west from Montalvo to the Los Angeles Union Station (Figure 5).

A review of the Project site location and pedestrian walkway network indicates that these five primary characteristics are accommodated as part of the proposed Project. The Project site is accessible from nearby public bus and rail transit stops as well as other amenities along nearby major corridors. The majority of pedestrian access to the Project site is envisioned to occur via the existing and future public sidewalks provided along streets in the study area. In addition, the site's internal pedestrian walkways and adjacent sidewalks will be appropriately landscaped and adorned to provide a friendly walking environment.

Existing or proposed bicycle facilities (e.g., Class I Bicycle Path, Class II Bicycle Lanes, Class III Bicycle Routes, Proposed Bicycle Routes, Bicycle Friendly Streets) in the City's 2005 Bicycle Plan are located adjacent to the site (Figure 6). The proposed Project will not impact transit systems.

November 2017


!-~~~ : ~·rt~-nH>,~ !t1f~t.z-t. ! ::.:~-~:.v~•- -~.l ,. .. ,-•~f.:Jrl-.. 1-\.,.,a,.-~,,... w, ..... ....,..,.., .... ;,~.- ........... ,._JtW '. ....... r..~,-,£

, .. ; .Y\;,;· .· .. ·~ ... ::. . ;;-. ? •... .J., " .

. · ,r , , . ,

VENTURA

XVI. Transportation and Traffic A. page 74 North Bank Apartments

MAP SOURCE: GOLD COAST TRANSIT & METROLINK * PROJECT SITE FIGURE 4-2

EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT ROUTES

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers KAISER PERMANENTE MARKET STREET MOB PROJECT

Figure 5 Existing Public Transit Routes

November 2017


'\ \

IMP SOURCE: CtrYOFSANBVENAVENTURA, C4

* PROJECT SITE

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineer,;

!Figure 6 Citywide Bikeway System

November 2017

'""' "''""' --

XVL Transportation and Traffic -" page 75 North Bank Apartment~

FIGURE 3-1 CITYWIDE BIKEWAY SYSTEM

KAISER PERMANENTE MARKET STREET MOB PROJECT



Less than significant

Mitigation Measure

No mitigation measures are required.


XVI. Transportation and Traffic A page 76 North Bank Apartments

The proposed Project would have less than significant impacts and mitigation is not required.

Reference:

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.12 (Transportation and Circulation), pgs. 4.12-1 through 4.12-94), Traffic and Circulation Study for the North bank Project, ATE, January 14, 2015 and Parking Analysis for the North bank Mixed Use Project, ATE, April 5, 2016.

November 2017


XVII. Utilities and Service Systems Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable

Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater

treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's Projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?

D Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Existing Setting

Water


Impact

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ...._ page North Bank Apartments

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Less Than

Incorporate Significant d Impact No Impact

D ~ D

D ~ D

D ~ D

D ~ D

~ D D

D ~ D D D ~

As stated in the City's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, (UWMP), the City's water system is a geographically complex system of 16 pressure zones, 10 active wells, 21 booster stations, approximately 380 miles of pipelines ranging from 4-inches to 36-inches in diameter, and a total storage capacity of approximately 52 million gallons (MG) in 32 tanks and reservoirs. The City operates three purification facilities, including one membrane filtration treatment plant for surface water sources on the west side of the City, and two iron/manganese removal treatment plants for groundwater sources on the east side. The City also maintains and operates the Ventura Water Reclamation Facility. Five distinct sources provide surface and groundwater to the City supply system.

• Casitas Municipal Water District • Ventura River surface water intake, subsurface water and wells (Foster Park) • Mound groundwater basin • Oxnard Plain groundwater basin (Fox Canyon Aquifer) • Santa Paula groundwater basin.

The City also holds a State Water Project entitlement of l 0,000 acre-feet per year.

The UWMP is required by the California State Water Code. The UWMP is a long-term planning tool that provides water purveyors and their customers a broad perspective on water supply issues over a 20- to 25-year period. The UWMP is a management tool, providing the framework for action but not functioning as a detailed Project development plan.


XVII. Utilities and Service Systems A page North Bank Apartments

In addition to the UWMP, in 2013 the City Council directed Ventura Water and the Community Development Department to work together to develop a short-term balance of water supply and demand, the result of this collaboration is the annual Comprehensive Water Resource Report (CWRR). The CWRR specifically focuses on water demand of approved ( entitled) Projects only. The CWRR focuses on a short timeframe and on near-term demand changes, as well as long-term projections of demand and supply. The CWRR estimates demands from approved Projects whereas the UWMP estimates demands from population Projections.

The current (normal year) available water supply for the City per the most recent (2017) CWRR is 21,292 acre-feet per year (AFY). Drought condition water supply for 2017 is estimated to range from a low of14,988 AFY to a high of 16,847 AFY. With the current drought conditions, the estimated drought water supply is very close to current water demand.

The 2017 CWRR includes information on tightening water supply restrictions. The report also includes estimated total future water demands based on existing water demands (17,111 AF baseline demand, 10-year average), plus estimated demands for approved development projects at an absorption rate of 3 50 units per year (350 units). The total future water demand (18,519 AF) estimates do not account for any other recently initiated or pending projects.

The 2017 CWRR indicates that "the spread between the current water demand and the current water supply is very tight, and in some conditions the supply could be less than the demand." This presents challenges for the City moving forward in its ability to allocate water supply to development Projects that will generate additional water demands. The projected 2018 drought water supply numbers are less than the projected water demand numbers. This indicates that if the continues water shortage persists, the City's customers will need to continue to conserve water and comply with the Stage 3 water shortage emergency conservation measures and/or pay penalties for overuse of the City's water supply sources.

As indicated in the City's 2005 General Plan and General Plan EIR, project proponents are required to conduct evaluations of the existing water distribution system, pump station and storage requirements for the proposed development in order to determine if there are any system deficiencies or needed improvements for the proposed development. A report, Water System Hydraulic Evaluation and Supply Discussion of the Johnson Drive Project - Tract No. 5939 (formerly Tract No. 3448) dated October 5, 2015 by Michael Baker International was completed for Ravello Holding, Inc. The Water Report included the analysis of 306 residential units, 10,000 square feet of commercial use and approximately 0.25 acres of park area.

Wastewater

As stated in the City's 2015 UWMP, the Ventura Water Reclamation Facility (VWRF) is permitted at 14 million gallons per day (MGD) and discharges up to 9 MGD. The VWRF is currently discharging less than 9 MGD. The VWRF provides wastewater collection and treatment service for approximately 98 percent of City residences as well as McGrath State Beach Park and the North Coast Communities (County Service Area No. 29). In February 2016, the City took over sewer service for the formerly unincorporated Montalvo community serviced by Montalvo Community Services District. The VWRF produces recycled water that is treated to tertiary Title 22 standards through tertiary filtration and disinfection. Currently, approximately 7 percent of the treated effluent is reused as recycled water; the rest is discharged to the Santa Clara Rivers Estuary.

The City's wastewater collection system consists of approximately 290 miles of gravity sewers ranging in size from 4 to 42 inches, approximately 10 miles of force mains, 11 wastewater lift stations, and the Ventura Water Reclamation Facility, a tertiary treatment plant. In addition, the City has taken over the 7.5 miles of sewer mains formerly owned by the Montalvo Community



Services District. The collection system conveys flows generally from east to west and north to south, culminating at the Ventura Water Reclamation Facility for treatment.

As indicated in the City's 2005 General Plan and General Plan EIR, project proponents are required to conduct sewer collection system analysis to determine if downstream facilities are adequate to handle the proposed development.

Solid Waste

Solid waste disposal services are provided by the City's Environmental Sustainability Division of the Public Works Department. Waste is sorted at the Gold Coast Recycling Facility, where approximately 70 percent is diverted from landfills, exceeding the state mandate of SO percent diversion. 4 7 Approximately 88 percent of the remaining waste is sent to Toland Road Landfill, 11 percent is sent to the Simi Valley Landfill, and 1 percent shipped to Azusa Land Reclamation Company, Inc., Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, or Nu-Way Live Oak Landfill. The two primary landfills have estimated closure dates in 2027, with over 40,000,000 cubic yards of remaining capacity.

Electric and Natural Gas

Electric power and natural gas services are provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), respectively. SCE prepares ten-year preliminary forecasts for California energy demand, and implements facilities to provide for the demand. According to the 2014-2024 preliminary forecast, demand is Projected to reach between 23,499 and 26,602 megawatts. Surface SCE utility access is located at the western edge of the Project site, and overhead powerlines border along the southern extent of the Project site. City goals to conserve energy include switching to LED street lighting.

Stormwater

The City's General Plan (Policy SA) encourages the use ofbioswales, and wildlife ponds for flood and water quality control when feasible, and (Action 5.2) to incorporate storm water treatment practices that allow percolation and minimize off-site runoff. City goals to improve storm water quality include installing screens in storm drain inlets near high litter areas to keep trash out of coastal waters.

Explanation

a) Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirefoentsof the applicable Regional.WaterQuality¢ontrol . Board? .. · . .. . ... . . . . .... . . . . . .. .. . . .. . ... . ..... .

The Ventura Water Reclamation Facility (VWRF) is currently permitted to treat 14 million gallons per day (MGD) and discharge an annual average of up to 9 MGD. The VWRF is currently treating less than 9 MGD. The City's NPDES permit, issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the VWRF, indicates that once the average daily dry-weather flow equals or exceeds 75 percent of the Plant's design capacity then a report must be submitted outlining the steps needed to provide for additional capacity for water treatment. Plant flows are closely monitored due to the permit requirements to consider expansion when at 75 percent capacity.


XVII. Utilities and Service Systems .1.. page North Bank Apartments

b) Would thif Projec:tJequire of result in the construction C>fnew water or wastewater treatment facilities or > . . >expansforfof existing facilities, the Construction ofwhich could.cause sighificantenvironrnentaleffects'r

The City provides drinking water, and water for fire protection, to households and businesses in Ventura through a complex system. Five distinct sources provide surface and groundwater to the City supply system:

• Casitas Municipal Water District • Ventura River surface water intake, subsurface water and wells (Foster Park) • Mound groundwater basin • Oxnard Plain groundwater basin (Fox Canyon Aquifer) • Santa Paula groundwater basin

The estimated water demand for the proposed project is 89.97 AFY as stated in the October 5, 2015 Water System Hydraulic Evaluation and Supply Discussion of the Johnson Drive Project - Tract No. 5939 by Michael Baker International for Ravello Holding, Inc.

On June 6, 2016, the City of San Buenaventura adopted a Water Rights Dedication and Water Resource Net Zero Fee Ordinance to apply to future development. Because adequate water rights are not available to offset the projected water demand of 89.97 AFY, the Water Resource Net Zero Fee will apply to the Project.

Based on the Water Report and the Water Rights Dedication and Water Resources Net Zero Fee Ordinance requirement for the Project, no new water treatment facilities or expansion of the existing water infrastructure are required to serve the Project.The Ventura Water Reclamation Facility (VWRF) is currently permitted to treat 14 million gallons per day (MGD) and discharge an annual average ofup to 9 MGD. The VWRF is currently treating less than 9 MGD. The City's NPDES permit, issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the VWRF, indicates that once the average daily dry-weather flow equals or exceeds 75 percent of the Plant's design capacity then a report must be submitted outlining the steps needed to provide for additional capacity for water treatment. Plant flows are closely monitored due to the permit requirements to consider expansion when at 75 percent capacity.

The sewer infrastructure review is a part of standard conditions for the project. All recommendations shall be included in the final design.

c) ••·••·•Would.theProJeot•require orresult.in the(;onstrucUqn of new•storrn:waWdrainc1ge•taCiiities or ~xpansi6hof ••: • existing facilitiesithe>construction of which Could cause sigrtificaritenvironrnent.i(effects? ........ ·.·.·. . .... ·.·.· ... ·

Large storm water drainage facilities will not be needed for the proposed Project as the parcel is fairly flat and the Project incorporates storm water mechanism's that will mitigate any impacts

d). ·. WoUld theiProjecthave suffic:ietJt water supplies avauab1e to serve theProjecf@rn existing}ntitlement(and ••.. • ..... •resources, or ar~•n:ew or·exp~nded E3htitleh1f1ntS need~d? Please see.Item· b}•abo\/e;.No•riew·orexparid~d Wat~r facilities are needed: · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

A Water System Hydraulic and Supply Discussion was prepared by Michael Baker International, dated October 5, 2015 and was used in the preparation of this analysis.


XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ...._ page North Bank Apartments

The Project is located at the south end of the 330 Zone, which serves the southern area of the City's distribution system. The current water supply sources for the 330 Zone include the following:

• 330 Booster Pump Station • Golf Course Booster Pump Station • Bailey Conditioning Facility • Telegraph & Mills PRV (Emergency) • Petit PRV (Emergency

Supply is taken from the 330 Zone by the following facilities:

• Mariano Booster Pump Station • Bailey Booster Pump Station • Palma PRV • Main & Mills PRV (Emergency)

Storage for the 330 Zone is provided by the following water storage facilities:

• Bailey Reservoir (3)

The Project will receive water service from four separate connections: two off of the existing 12-inch waterline in Northbank Drive, and the two off of the existing 12-inch waterline in Johnson Drive. It is understood that the Project's water system will develop as a public system. For that reason, the entire on-site Project water system was added to the model for all simulations under proposed conditions. Through an initial analysis, it was determined that the on-site system should be a minimum of 8-inches in diameter based on estimated demand and fire flow requirements described herein. Results presented in the analysis were based on an 8-inch on-site public looped system.

Based on the hydraulic model results, all pressures were found to be acceptable within the immediate Project area. Pressures below the minimum criteria were identified among a total of 10 junctions located along the top of the 330 Zone boundary near Telephone Road and Johnson Drive. These deficiencies were already identified as deficient in the 2011 WMP - primarily clue to their relatively high elevations for the 330 Zone and hence, low static pressures (ranging from 38 to 48 psi). While the proposed Project did not cause any new deficiencies, several borderline-acceptable pressures dropped below the minimum criteria as all Planning Projects are built out. Overall, the additional Project demand had a minimal impact on 330 Zone pressures, decreasing them by less than 0.6 psi, and decreased local pressures by approximately 1.0 psi. With all Planning Projects in place, 330 Zone pressures decreased by a maximum of 4.0 psi, and the local pressures decreased a maximum of approximately 7.6 psi.

For all scenarios, all pipeline internal velocities were found to be acceptable within the immediate Project area, with a maximum pipeline velocity of approximately 13.7 feet per second under fire flow conditions. The additional demand of the Project had a minor impact on pipe velocities within the immediate Project area, increasing by a maximum of 0.3 feet per second, and did not create any new deficiencies. The water study's review is part of standard conditions for the Project. All recommendations shall be included in the final design.

The City of San Buenaventura is implementing a Water Rights Dedication and Water Resource Net Zero Policy per Municipal Code Chapter 22.180. This project is subject to compliance with the Policy to offset the projected water demand of 89.97 AFY which includes implementation of conservation offsets, dedication of water rights, and/or payment ofa Water Resource Net Zero Fee.



e) .••. >\A/ould th!tProjectfesultin a determination by<the wastewatertreatmentprovider wbichserves Ot rnay serve the• . Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's Projected demand in .ad~itiOll fo the pmvider:s : exisUng commitments? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

See Items a and b. above.

The City's wastewater collection system consists of approximately 290 miles of gravity sewers ranging in size from 4 to 42 inches in diameter, approximately 10 miles of force mains and 11 wastewater lift stations. In addition, in February 2016 the City took over the 7.5 miles of sewer mains formerly owned by the Montalvo Community Services District.

The project will discharge into one of two 8" sewer mains. The 8" sewer main that is located in Johnson Drive has no existing flow. The project is modeled to discharge 0.062 MGD (43.07 gpm) on average per master plan calculations that are consistent with previous projects. During the peak wet weather flow (PWWF) the 8" sewer main in Johnson Drive will exceed the design capacity of 50% full or depth to diameter ( d/D) ratio of 0.5. The sewer main will have a d/D of 0.64 which will warrant a mitigation measure to replace the sewer main with a recommended 12" diameter sewer pipe. Based on the hydraulic model results, the sewer main in North Bank Drive has a d/D of 0.11 under the PWWF scenario and can receive additional sewer flow.

The sewer infrastructure review is a part of standard conditions for the project. All recommendations shall be included in the final design.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM U-1 utility and service system related impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

U-1 - Prior to the occupancy of any dwelling, the applicant shall upgrade approximately 320 feet of an existing sewer line within Johnson Drive from 8 inches to 10 inches.


Potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure

Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM U-1 will reduce impacts to less than significant.



Reference

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.13 (Utilities and Service Systems), pgs. 4.13-1 through 4.13-46), Water System Hydraulic Evaluation and Supply Discussion for the Johnson Drive Project,-Tract 5839 (formerly Tract No. 3448) in the City of Ventura, October 5, 2015, Michael Baker International; Sewer Infrastructure Review - Johnson Drive Ravello Project, November 2, 2017, City of Ventura Public Works Department; 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of Ventura prepared by Kennedy /Jenks Consultant dated June 2016; 2017 Comprehensive Water Resources Report prepared by Ventura Water dated April 2017.


XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...._ page 82 North Bank Apartments


Potentially Impact with Less Than

XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance Significant Mitigation Significant

Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Does the Project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially

reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a D ~ D D plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of D D D ~ past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects)?

c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects D D D ~ on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Existing Setting

a) The Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict therange of a rare or endangered plant or animal as the Project can be considered infill and is immediately adjacent 'to SR-101. which would not provide for suitable habitat for endangered species. There are no indications that the site has the potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. ·

No past, current, or probable future Projects were identified in the Project vicinity that, when added to Project-related impacts, would result in significant cumulative impacts on any other environmental resources. Based on the analysis provided in this Initial Study, the proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to any significant cumulative adverse impact. Mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

b) Does the Project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?

The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The proposed Project would not conflict with City's General Plan policies or land use designations. The proposed Project would construct on approximately 8.03 acres, a 5,000 square feet commercial site and 306 multi-family uses. This use would be consistent with Commerce land use designation.

The proposed Project would not conflict with zoning for the Project site.

c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ·

As discussed in this Initial Study, the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts with incorporation of standard permit conditions and mitigation measures, and would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the proposed Project's potential significant effects on air quality, hazards and hazardous materials to less-than-significant levels.

November 2017


XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance;._ page 83 North Bank Apartments

F. References

Aesthetics A (Project Application, Site Plan); C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.1 (Aesthetics), pgs. 4.1-1 through 4.1-26)

Agriculture and Forestry Resources C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.2 (Agriculture), pgs. 4.2-1 through 4.2-12)

Air Quality C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.3 (Air Quality), pgs. 4.3-1 through 4.3-26), H. !TE Trip Generation Rates - 8th Edition Pass-by rates from !TE Trip Generation Handbook - 2nc1 Edition

Biological Resources C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.4 (Biological Resources), pgs. 4.4-1 through 4.4-32); Results of a Biological/Regulatory Overview at the Johnson Drive Site (Tract 3448), Located in the City of Ventura, Ventura County,California, October 16, 2014; Arborist Report, North Bank Drive Apartment, November 27, 2016; Monarch Butterfly Winter Roost and Wintering Burrowing Owls Focused Surveys for the DecCo Ventura Project, Ventura, March 19, 2015

Cultural Resources C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.5 (Cultural and Historic Resources), pgs. 4.5-1 through 4.5-18); Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Phase 1 Assessment, North Bank Ventura Project: Johnson Drive and North Bank Drive, City of San Buenaventura, Ventura County, California, August 2014

Geology and Soils C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.6 (Geologic Hazards), pgs. 4.6-1 through 4.6-32) and Update Report for a Mixed-Use Development at the corner of North Bank Drive and Johnson Drive, North Bank Ventura Development, City of Ventura, LGC Valley, May 21, 2014

Greenhouse Gas Emissions F (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). January 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.) G South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2010. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group Meeting #15. http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa /handbook/GH G /2010 /sept28met/sept29.h trnl

Hazards and Hazardous Materials C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.7 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), pgs. 4.7-1 through 4·.7-20) and Environmental Site Assessment-Phase I Update, California Environmental, California Environmental, January 2011

Hydrology and Water Quality C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality), pgs. 4.8-l through 4.8-28) and Water System Hydraulic Evaluation and Supply Requirements for the Johnson Bridge Project- Tract No. 5939, Michael Baker International, Revised September 4, 2015

Land Use and Planning C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.14 (Land Use and Planning), pgs. 4.14-1 through 4.14-27), E (City of Ventura Municipal Code, Chapter 24 (Zoning Ordinance)

Mineral Resources

Noise

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.9 (Mineral Resources), pgs. 4.9-1 through 4.9-11)

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.10 (Noise), pgs. 4.10-l through 4.10-31) and Noise Monitoring Data and Roadway Noise Calculations, Pomeroy Environmental Services

November 2017


Population and Housing

XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance A page 84 North Bank Apartments

C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.15 (Population and Housing), pgs. 4.15-1 through 4.15-11)

Public Services C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.11 (Public Services), pgs. 4.11-1 through 4.11-51)

Recreation A (Project Application, Site Plan), D (2005 General Plan Chapter 6 (Our Active Community), pgs. 6-1 through 6-7)

Transportation and Traffic C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.12 (Transportation and Circulation), pgs. 4.12-1 through 4.12-94 ), Traffic and Circulation Study for the Northbank Project, ATE, January 14, 2015 and Parking Analysis for the North bank Mixed Use Project, ATE, April 5, 2016.

Utilities and Service Systems C (2005 General Plan EIR, Section 4.13 (Utilities and Service Systems), pgs. 4.13-1 through 4.13-46), Water System Hydraulic Evaluation and Supply Discussion for the Johnson Drive Project,-Tract 5839 (formerly Tract No. 3448) in the City of Ventura, October 5, 2015, Michael Baker International

Attachments

Vicinity Map and Project Location Map Site Plan Appendix AQ - Air Quality Appendix Bio - Biology Appendix CR - Cultural Resources Appendix GHG - Greenhouse Gas Emissions Appendix Haz - Hazards Appendix Hydro - Hydrology Appendix N - Noise Appendix T - Traffic Appendix U - Utilities and Service Systems

November 2017


November 2017

North Bank Apartments

Vicinity Map and Project Location Map


I Vicinity Map

November 2017


SITE

N

N.T.S.


I Project Location Map

November2017



November2017


Site Plan


AR.CIIITECTS IIIWAl"JKG!OltllV0.'1.l·HA•f•,\DH~H,CAIUll

~~:.::rrt~~~;~~[~!~~~A,_~\~.!~c~:

Site Plan

November 2017

·--...:.,

NORTH BANK VENTURA RAVELLO HOLDINGS, INC. I DEVCO 12121 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 512

LOS ANGELES, CA 90025

North !lank Apartment,

-·.,-."'< .. -,,--,-•• ;,.;;· .. -:,-,. ,Y~<' ,?f .•

1.2

CITY OFVENTURA COMMUNITY Df.Vf.LOPMf

Documents

Transcript of CITY OFVENTURA COMMUNITY Df.Vf.LOPMf