St. John’s Residential Community Environmental Impact ... Dev/Projects... · Subject: St John’s...

St. John’s Residential Community

Final Environmental Impact Report

SCH # 2016071030

Prepared for:

City of Camarillo

601 Carmen Drive

Camarillo, California 90010

Prepared by:

Impact Sciences, Inc.

231 Village Commons Boulevard, Suite 17

Camarillo, California 93012

September 2017

Impact Sciences, Inc. i St. John’s Residential Community Final EIR

37.030 September 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1.0‐1

2.0 Responses to Comments ........................................................................................................................ 2.0‐1

3.0 Corrections and Additions .................................................................................................................... 3.0‐1

4.0 Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................................................... 4.0‐1

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

4.0‐1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix .................................................................... 4.0‐2

Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0‐1 St. John’s Residential Community Final EIR


1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document is the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the St. John’s Residential Community

Project. This document together with the Draft EIR and its technical appendices comprise the Final EIR.

The document has been prepared by the City of Camarillo (City) in accordance with the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Final EIR is required under Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines to include the Draft EIR,

comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, the responses of the lead agency to

significant environmental issues raised by those comments in the review and consultation process, and

any other relevant information added by the lead agency (including minor changes to the Draft EIR).

A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is also required; it can be a separate document, or, as in

this case, included in the Final EIR.

The evaluation and response to comments is an important part of the CEQA process as it allows the

following: (1) the opportunity to review and comment on the methods of analysis contained within the

Draft EIR; (2) the ability to detect any omissions which may have occurred during preparation of the

Draft EIR; (3) the ability to check for accuracy of the analysis contained within the Draft EIR; (4) the

ability to share expertise; (5) the ability to discover public concerns.

This document provides revisions to the Draft EIR made in response to comments, staff review, and/or

changes to the proposed project. These revisions also correct, clarify, and amplify the text of the

Draft EIR, as appropriate, and do not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR.

PROCESS

In accordance with Section 15050 of the State CEQA Guidelines the City is the lead agency that prepared

both the Draft and Final EIR for the project, the St. John’s Residential Community. The City prepared and

circulated the Draft EIR for a period of 45 days, extending from June 13, 2017 and ending on July 28, 2017.

The Draft EIR was available for review at the City of Camarillo Department of Community Development,

the City of Camarillo Public Library, and an electronic copy of the Draft EIR was posted on the City

website. A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was transmitted to responsible and trustee agencies,

regulatory agencies and other interested parties to request comments on the Draft EIR, pursuant to State

CEQA Guidelines Section 15086. Comments on the Draft EIR were received during the comment period,

and those comments are responded to in this Final EIR.

1.0 Introduction



The Final EIR and the additional entitlement requests for the proposed project will be considered by the

Planning Commission and the City Council at properly noticed public hearings. The Planning

Commission will make recommendations to the City Council for the project’s entitlements and the Final

EIR.

CONTENT OF THE FINAL EIR

As discussed above, the primary intent of the Final EIR is to provide a forum to air and address

comments pertaining to the analysis contained within the Draft EIR. Pursuant to Section 15088 of the State

CEQA Guidelines, the City has reviewed and addressed all comments received on the Draft EIR by the

comment period deadline. Included within the Final EIR are the written comments that were submitted

during the public comment period.

In order to adequately address the comments provided by interested agencies and the public in an

organized manner, this Final EIR includes the following chapters and appendices:

Section 1.0: Introduction. This chapter provides a brief introduction to the Final EIR and its contents.

Section 2.0: Responses to Comments: This chapter provides a list of commenting agencies, organizations,

and individuals. Responses to all comments on the Draft EIR are also included in this chapter.

Section 3.0: Corrections and Additions. This chapter provides a list of corrections and additions to the

Draft EIR. None of the changes significantly impact the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.

Section 4.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: This chapter includes the Mitigation

Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared in compliance with the requirements of Section

21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15091(d) and 15097 of the State CEQA

Guidelines.

REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR

Consistent with CEQA (Public Resource Code Section 21092.5), responses to agency comments are being

forwarded to each commenting agency prior to certification of the Final EIR. The Final EIR is available for

public review at:

City of Camarillo Department of Community Development, 601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010

City of Camarillo Public Library, 4101 Las Posas Road, Camarillo, CA 93010

The Final EIR is also located on the City’s website at:

http://www.cityofcamarillo.org/departments/community_development/pending_projects/index.php

Impact Sciences, Inc. St. John’s Residential Community Final EIR


2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

The Draft EIR for the St. John’s Residential Community project was circulated for public review on June

13, 2017. The public review period, which ended on July 28, 2017, afforded public agencies, organizations,

and the public in general the opportunity to review the Draft EIR and submit written comments

regarding the Draft EIR and the proposed project in accordance with Section 15073 of the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

A total of four agencies, one organization, six individuals, and one City of Camarillo Department

provided comments during the circulation period for the Draft EIR. This section includes copies of the

comments received, with the responses to the comments raised immediately following each piece of

correspondence.

Comment

Number Commenter Name Date

A Public Agencies

A‐1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Betty J. Courtney 7/21/2017

A‐2 California Department of Transportation,

District 7 – Office of Regional Planning Dianna Watson 7/24/2017

A‐3 Camrosa Water District Joe Willingham 8/17/17

A‐4 Native American Heritage Commission Gayle Totton 7/11/2017

A‐5 Ventura County Air Pollution

Control District Alicia Stratton 7/26/2017

B Organizations

B‐1 St. John’s Seminary Msr. Marc Trudeau 6/21/2017

Comment

Number Commenter Date

C Private Citizens / Individuals

C‐1 Ivijan & Andrew Day 7/28/2017

C‐2 Bruce & Janice Fuhrman 6/29/2017

C‐3 Tom Magdaleno 6/20/2017

C‐4 Charles Parra 7/12/2017

C‐5 Ann Swiech 7/19/2017

C‐6 Kristine Teller 7/17/2017

Comment

Number Commenter Name Date

D City of Camarillo

D‐1 Stormwater Program Anita Kuhlman 7/25/2017

2.0-1

2.0 Responses to Comments



PUBLIC COMMENT AND RESPONSES

The following pages provide the written comment letters and the City’s responses to these comments.

2.0-2

1

Letter A-1

2.0-3

2

3

Letter A-1

2.0-4

4

5

3

Letter A-1

2.0-5

6

5

Letter A-1

2.0-6

6

7

Letter A-1

2.0-7

7

8

Letter A-1

2.0-8

8

9

Letter A-1

2.0-9

9

Letter A-1

2.0-10

David Moe, Assistant Director of Community Development City of Camarillo July 21 , 2017 Page 9 019

References

Bar-Massada, A. , Radeloff, V. C. , & Stewart, S. I. (2014) . Biotic and abiotic effects of human settlements in the wildland-urban interface. Bioscience, 64(5), 429-437.

Belli , J. P. (2015). Movements, habitat use, and demography of western pond turtles in an intermittent central California stream. Retrieved August 22, 2016 from scholarworks.sjsu.edu.

Fink, P. (2007). Ecological functions of volatile organic compounds in aquatic systems. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, 40(3), 155-168.

Harsh, S. (20 15). Wildlife corridors: A conservation tool . International Journal of Wildlife , 3(3) , 115-126.

Hierro, J. L., Khetsuriani , L. , Andonian, K., Eren, 0 , Villarreal , D., Janoian, G., & Callaway, R. M. (2016 August 1). The importance of factors controlling species abundance and distribution varies in native and non-native ranges. Ecography.

Holway, D. A., Suarez, A. V. , & Case, T. J. (2002). Role of abiotic factors in governing susceptibility to invasion: a test with Argentine ants. Ecology, 83(6), 1610-1619.

Lima, L. & T. Salmon. (2010). Assessing some potential environmental impacts from agricultural anticoagulant uses. Proceedings of Vertebrate Pest Conference.

Norin, M. , & Str6mvaix , A M. (2004). Leaching of organic contaminants from storage of reclaimed asphalt pavement. Environmental technology, 25(3), 323-340.

2.0-11




Comment No. A‐1: California Department of Fish and Wildlife

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

South Coast Region

3883 Ruffin Road

San Diego, CA 92123

Betty J. Courtney, Environmental Program Manager I, South Coast Region

Response A‐1‐1

The commenter states the general purpose of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)

The comment does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA, no further response is

required. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers

prior to a final decision on the proposed project.

Response A‐1‐2

This comment briefly reiterates the proposed project description.

The comment does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA, no further response is

required. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers

prior to a final decision on the proposed project.

Response A‐1‐3

This comment raises issues concerning migratory birds and their protection.

The language cited in the text on Page 6.4‐10 is the portion of Section 6.4, Biological Resources in the

Draft EIR that discusses what existing resources had been found based on the general biological surveys

completed to date. Analysis of impacts to nesting birds is provided on Page 6.4‐10, where it was

determined and stated “If construction were to take place during breeding season, impacts to these

nesting birds, their eggs, or young would be considered potentially significant.” Mitigation Measure 6.4‐

4 (Page 6.4‐32) outlines the necessity to conduct nesting bird surveys prior to any work if such work

cannot avoid the nesting bird season (generally March through August). The measure further describes

measures to be taken should any active nests be found. This measure is consistent with the recommended

Mitigation Measure #1 provided in the comment.

Therefore, the information in this comment is consistent with that provided in the Draft EIR.

2.0-12




The commenter states that “The Draft EIR also indicates 22 species of birds, including special‐status

California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), as occurring, or

potentially occurring, on site (pgs. 6.4.11‐14).” This responder assumes the commenter is referring to 17

special‐status bird species listed on Table 6.4‐3 Special‐Status Wildlife Species Recorded in the Vicinity of

the Project Site on pages 6.4‐17 through 22 since there is no discussion of California gnatcatcher or

burrowing owl on the pages cited in the comment. The special‐status species table provides a list of

special‐status species recorded from the 9‐quad area including the subject site and surrounding 8 USGS

7.5‐minute quadrangles. The right column of the table describes the occurrence potential on site for each

of the species in the table. The western burrowing owl is described in Table 6.4‐3 as having a low

potential for occurrence as no owls or suitable burrows were observed on site. The reason it was assigned

a low occurrence potential is because burrowing owls can temporarily stop over in almost any habitat

during their seasonal migration. With respect to California gnatcatcher, it is explained in Table 6.4‐3 on

page 6.4‐21 that focused surveys for California gnatcatcher were initiated, but during the first survey it

was determined there was no suitable habitat for gnatcatcher and the permitted surveying biologist

communicated with Chris Dellith at the Ventura Field Office of the US Fish and Wildlife Service who

concurred with the determination and authorized the biologist to cease further surveys. As such,

California gnatcatcher is not expected to occur on site.

The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a

final decision on the proposed project.

Response A‐1‐4

This comment raises concerns regarding the removal of windrow trees, migrating Monarch butterflies

(Danaus plexippus), and their protection.

In the first paragraph the commenter states monarch butterflies are a “candidate species for listing under

the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). According to the CDFW Special Animals Lists published to

date, there is no indication of such candidacy. As described in the CDFW Special Animals Lists, the

California overwintering populations do not indicate any status by CDFW or USFWS, as such their

inclusion on the list is assumed so CDFW can track their occurrences. There is no indication of the

candidacy for listing under either the federal or state ESAs. Notwithstanding, the Draft EIR explains their

inclusion on the CDFW Special Animals List qualifies them to be considered special‐status species. As

such, the Draft EIR addresses the presence of monarchs and their potential for winter roosting on site.

Table 6.4‐3 (Page 6.4‐17) states individual monarch were present on site during January 2016 site surveys

and that the eucalyptus windrows on site provide potentially suitable winter roost sites, but that no

2.0-13




concentrations of monarch butterflies were observed; only scattered individuals. It further states there is

no water source nearby, which is required for an overwintering population.

In the impact analysis section of the Draft EIR (Page 6.4‐30) it is stated that the monarch is known to

overwinter in eucalyptus trees and its occurrence has been recorded in the region. It further states

removal of eucalyptus trees containing a flock of overwintering monarch butterflies would result in a

significant impact to the species. However, the discussion further states that the majority of the

eucalyptus windrows on the project site are proposed to remain in place, and overwintering monarchs

have not been recorded on the project site. Notwithstanding, Mitigation Measure 6.4‐3 (page 6.4‐32)

states:

“To prevent potential impacts to overwintering flocks of monarch butterflies that may occur in the

eucalyptus trees of the windrows on and surrounding the project site, eucalyptus trees proposed for

removal will be surveyed prior to such action and prior to the start of construction and/or demolition.

If a tree is occupied by a concentration of overwintering monarch butterflies, that tree will be avoided

until such time that the butterflies have migrated off the project site.”

To be more thorough in its protection, this mitigation measure will be revised as shown below to state

that if a concentration of overwintering monarch butterflies is encountered during pre‐construction

surveys, no eucalyptus trees within 100 feet will be removed until such time that the butterflies have

migrated off the project site. This will ensure that the microhabitat conditions necessary to support

overwintering butterflies is not affected.

“To prevent potential impacts to overwintering flocks of monarch butterflies that may occur in the

eucalyptus trees of the windrows on and surrounding the project site, eucalyptus trees proposed for

removal will be surveyed prior to such action and prior to the start of construction and/or demolition.

If a tree is occupied by a concentration of overwintering monarch butterflies, that tree, and any other

eucalyptus trees within 100 feet, will be avoided until such time that the butterflies have migrated off

the project site.”



Response A‐1‐5

This comment raises concerns regarding the installation of lighting on the project and its potential

impacts on nocturnal birds, mammals, and invertebrates.

2.0-14




Exterior lighting and glare are discussed in the impact analysis section (Page 6.4‐31). The discussion

utilizes the same language in the comment and states it is a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 6.4‐6 on Page 6.4‐33 states:

“All lighting along the perimeter of natural areas shall be downcast luminaries, shielded and oriented

in a manner that will prevent spillage or glare into the open space areas of Calleguas Creek. The City

of Camarillo shall approve final lighting orientation and design. All proposed lighting shall be

consistent with City Policies. It is recommended that security lighting be controlled by motion

detectors.”

To be more thorough in its protection, this mitigation measure will be revised as shown below that all

exterior lighting (except as otherwise required by City Ordinance) shall be downcast shielded luminaries.

“All exterior lighting along the perimeter of natural areas shall be downcast luminaries, shielded and

oriented in a manner that will prevent spillage or glare into the open space areas of Calleguas Creek,

as well as other surrounding properties. The City of Camarillo shall approve final lighting orientation

and design. All proposed lighting shall be consistent with City Policies. It is recommended that

security lighting be controlled by motion detectors.”



Response A‐1‐6

This comment raises concerns regarding the ability of local animals to hunt, find shelter, breed, and

conduct other normal behaviors as a result of project implementation.

The Draft EIR clearly describes and illustrates that the proposed project site is already developed with

structures, hardscape, and orchards. And it is accurate in its statement that ʺNo federally or state‐listed,

or other special‐status plant or wildlife species were observed on the project site during several site

surveys.ʺ The site is surrounded by existing development with the exception of a small, steep strip of

disturbed scrub adjacent to the dry and seasonal Calleguas Creek, which is bordered on its far side by

active agricultural fields. This condition does not constitute a “...wide variety of habitat types and food

resources…” nor “…an important wilderness‐urban interface.

The comment further states that site preparation activities will cause burrows to cave in and animals such

as western spadefoot and coast horned lizard may become trapped under compacted soils. It is agreed

that such activities could result in such cave‐ins if the animals mentioned were present. However,

2.0-15




multiple surveys on site determined that neither species is expected to occur on site due to a complete

lack of suitable habitat.

The comment also states impacts would occur because an extensive list of special‐status reptiles, birds,

mammals, and plants provided “may likely occur on‐site, as suitable habitat is present.” Following

numerous surveys of this developed property, the Draft EIR evaluated the potential for all special‐status

species recorded in the region to occur on site. All of the species listed in the comment are either not

expected due to complete lack of habitat, or are considered to have a low potential for occurrence due to

unsuitable habitat conditions or such a small amount of habitat that a population of these species would

have difficulty sustaining a population.

This comment is confusing as under the heading “Evidence impact would be significant:” the commenter

states that “Eliminating large expanses of native and mixed native‐non‐native wildlands, and continued re‐zoning

of designated Open Space to accommodate development in Santa Barbara County, has exacerbated the loss of ample

foraging areas for birds of prey, including the white‐tailed kite.”

This project does not include, nor propose to eliminate large expanses of native and mixed native‐non‐

native wildlands. As stated in Section 4.2 (Page 4.0‐1) the site is designated as natural open space and

agricultural uses. As such, in addition to the existing Seminary buildings and infrastructure, the site is or

was all in agricultural production with orchards. As illustrated in Figure 6.4‐1, the project site supports

existing development and agriculture, no native wildlands, and is located in Ventura County. A zone

change to allow for medium density residential development is proposed, but this change would not be

eliminating any wildlands, as the site is currently zoned Rural Exclusive (RE).

Since the comment includes statements that do not appear to pertain to the St. John’s Draft EIR, and

because the existing mitigation measures in the Draft EIR are substantially consistent with the

commenter’s recommended measures for species that have some potential to occur on site, no further

action is required regarding this comment.



Response A‐1‐7

This comment raises concerns regarding the removal of asphalt during project construction.

On pages 6.4‐26 and 6.4‐27 in Section 6.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, Figure 6.4‐2, Corps of

Engineers and RWQCB Jurisdictional Delineation and Figure 6.4‐3, CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation

2.0-16




illustrate the determination completed by GLA.1 This drainage would be replaced with a 60‐inch

underground storm drain pipe that will serve as a bypass for all upstream flows. Onsite storm water

runoff will be conveyed via surface flow and a network of underground storm drains and an above

ground earthen channel that will provide bio filtration of onsite storm water runoff and deliver it to a

combined detention / infiltration basin. It is understood, and required by law, that the removal of the

existing conditions and restoration of this channel will require the submittal of a Streambed Alteration

Notification Package to, and subsequent permits from, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),

CDFW, and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB).

In addition, the commenter is directed to Section 6.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, specifically the

discussion of the requirements of the State Water Quality Control Board (SWRCB) and the page 6.9‐6.

Specifically, the SWRCB administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with Construction and Land Disturbance

Activities (Order No. 2009‐0009‐DWQ; as amended by Order No. 2012‐006‐DWQ; NPDES General Permit

No. CAS000002).2 To obtain coverage under this General Permit, dischargers must file the Permit

Registration Documents (PRDs), which include a notice of intent (NOI), Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

The PRDs must be submitted to the SWRCB prior to the beginning of construction for projects disturbing

1 acre or more of land, or whose projects disturb less than 1 acre but are part of a larger common plant of

development that in total disturbs one or more acres, to be covered under the General Permit. The

General Permit requires that a SWPPP identify potential sources of pollution and specify runoff controls,

or best management practices (BMPs), during construction for the purpose of minimizing the discharge

of pollutants in stormwater from the construction area. In addition, the SWPPP must identify post‐

construction control measures and a monitoring plan.

The Draft EIR acknowledges that development of the proposed storm water control structures would

disturb an acre or more of land over the course of construction. Therefore, the proposed project applicant

will be required to obtain a General Permit for discharges of storm water associated with construction

activity. The General Permit requires an SWPPP which identifies potential sources of pollution and

specifies runoff controls, or BMPs, during construction to minimize the discharge of pollutants in

1 Glenn Lukos Associates, Jurisdictional Impact Analysis of the Camarillo Hills Project located in the City of Camarillo,

Ventura County, California. February 23, 2017

2 California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, General Permit For Storm

Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2010‐0014‐DWQ,

NPDES No. CAS000002.

2.0-17




stormwater from the construction area. In addition, the SWPPP must identify post‐construction control

measures and a monitoring plan. Consequently, the construction phase of the proposed project would

result in less than significant surface water quality and groundwater quality impacts.

In general, while the project applicant wishes to recycle asphalt and other hard materials from the

demolition of the existing structures, parking lots and roadways, and the asphalt drainage ditch (St.

John’s Drain), adherence to the requirements of the BMPs in the SWPPP would ensure the protection of

any downstream receiving waters, including Calleguas Creek. No further mitigation is necessary.



Response A‐1‐8

This comment raises concerns regarding unavoidable direct and indirect post‐Project‐related

human/wildlife interface impacts

The comment states: “The Draft EIR does not consider the unavoidable direct and indirect post‐Project‐

related human/wildlife interface impacts.” On page 6.4‐31 the Draft EIR states impacts to adjacent

habitats could result from increased human and domestic and feral animal presence associated with the

residential development of the site. The discussion further describes those potential impacts – including

increased attraction for non‐native species ‐ and determines those impacts are potentially significant. The

remainder of the comment is generally consistent with the discussion in this section of the Draft EIR.

Mitigation Measure 6.4‐5 will be amended as shown below to include the commenter’s recommended

language regarding wildlife interactions, reducing spread of Argentine ants, prohibiting the use of

invasive plant species, and control of use of pesticides and rodenticides.

“Prior to occupancy, a public awareness program shall be developed to prevent unleashed domestic

animals from entering open space areas adjacent to the project site. This program must include

promoting public education and awareness of the local biological resources and their sensitivity. The

applicant and/or its contractor shall be responsible for the development of the public awareness

program as well as installation of interpretive signs and fencing. The homeowners association

(HOA), or an acceptable land manager/agency as approved by the City of Camarillo, must be

responsible for maintaining this program, including signs and fencing.

In addition, the public awareness program shall advise homeowners to avoid over‐irrigating to

reduce the spread of non‐native Argentine ants from driveways, curbs, gutters, and gardenʹs edges

2.0-18




along homes into outlying open spaces. The public awareness program shall advise homeowners

regarding limiting the use of rodenticides, and provide information regarding wildlife friendly

exclusionary devices/options if homeowners develop problems with wildlife. The public awareness

program shall include information regarding non‐native invasive plants. Homeowners should be

advised to visit the California Invasive Plant Council Web Page (CAL‐I PC: http://cal‐

ipc.org/ip/inventory/) for a list of plants and other information, including family activities focused on

non‐native plant events.”



Response A‐1‐9

This comments states that CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports

and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which be used to make subsequent or

supplemental environmental determinations, meaning that any special status species and natural

communities detected during project surveys must be reported to the California Natural Diversity

Database (CNDDB).

No special‐status biological resources were identified on the project site. Therefore no CNDDB reports are

required. The project applicant will pay all filing fees as required by law.



2.0-19

2

1

Letter A-2

2.0-20

4

5

2

3

Letter A-2

2.0-21




Comment No. A‐2: California Department of Transportation

California Department of Transportation

District 7 – Office of Regional Planning

100 S. Main Street, MS 16

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dianna Watson, IGR/CEQA Branch Chief

Response A‐2‐1

The commenter restates the general project description for the proposed project. The comment further

discusses the nearby state roadways, under the jurisdiction of California Department of Transportation

(Caltrans) and states that while the proposed project would not directly impact these roadways, The City

should consider the potential for the proposed project in combination with other projects in the vicinity to

have a significant cumulative impact.

A full disclosure and analysis of potential cumulative traffic impacts in the project vicinity was included

in Section 6.17, Traffic and Transportation of the Draft EIR. Specifically section 6.17.8, CUMULATIVE

ANALYSIS states:

Buildout traffic volumes for the study‐area intersections were derived from the City’s Traffic Model (CTAM) and

were provided by City staff. The Traffic Model’s Year 2030 traffic forecasts include both traffic growth associated

with buildout of the City’s Land Use Element and anticipated regional growth, and incorporates the roadway

network improvements included in the City’s Circulation Element. In addition, traffic from the Camarillo

Academy High School and Performing Arts Center – Buildout Scenario was added to the City’s CTAM

forecasts.

This analysis found that the proposed project would not exceed any of the City of Camarillo’s impact

thresholds during the AM and PM peak hour under General Plan buildout conditions. While the

intersection of Adolfo Road and Santa Rosa road would operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour, the

proposed project would not increase the intersection’s v/c ratio beyond the level caused by cumulative

development. Therefore, the proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to the traffic impacts

upon General Plan buildout; thus, the project would be considered cumulatively less than significant.

Response A‐2‐2

This comment states that Caltrans recommends the inclusion of a community shuttle service as part of the

amenities offered to residents of the new community. However, the comment presents no specific

environmental issues within the meaning of CEQA and no specific response is provided.

2.0-22






Response A‐2‐3

This comment provides general information regarding Caltrans, its mission to improve transportation

infrastructure and the need for the City and/or Project Applicant to acquire the proper permits when

undertaking certain types of roadway construction or improvements. It presents no specific

environmental issues within the meaning of CEQA and no specific response is provided.



Response A‐2‐4

This comment is a general note regarding storm water run‐off. It presents no specific environmental

issues within the meaning of CEQA and no specific response is provided.

Notwithstanding the above, the following information is provided for the record:

The proposed project would include infrastructure to be developed in accordance with the current drainage patterns

found on the project site. Construction related impacts to water quality and erosion would be less than significant as

the project would be required to implement a storm water pollution prevention plan and related best management

practices. Surface water, which may potentially increase, would be detained and infiltrated on‐site per Ventura

County standards, and the required stormwater quality design volume mitigated to meet the current Los Angeles

Regional Water Quality Control Board water discharge requirements. The potential impacts to the watershed

stormwater‐runoff peak flow rates and volumes for a range of storm event return probabilities would be less than

significant.

For further information and details the reader is refereed to Section 6.9, Hydrology and Water Quality in

the Draft EIR.



2.0-23




Response A‐2‐5

This comment is a general note letting the City know where to direct any questions regarding the

comments made by Caltrans. It presents no specific environmental issues within the meaning of CEQA

and no specific response is provided. The comment will be included as part of the record and made

available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.

2.0-24

7385 Santa Rosa Road Camarillo, CA 93012-9284 Phone: (805) 482-4677 FAX: (805) 987-4797

Website: www.camrosa.com

Date: August 17, 2017 From: Joe Willingham, Planning Manager Camrosa Water District 7385 Santa Rosa Road Camarillo, CA 93012 To: City of Camarillo

Department of Community Development 601 Carmen Drive Camarillo, CA 93010 Attention: Mr. David Moe, Assistant Director of Community Development

Transmitted via email pdf attachment to [email protected] Subject: St John’s Seminary Residential Community EIR Dear Mr. Moe, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Report for the St. John’s Seminary Residential Community project. On behalf of the Camrosa Water District I have the following comments: 1_0 Executive Summary, Table 1.0-2, Pg 1.0-4 Project impacts of "Less than Significant" is given for Wastewater and Water Utilities.

Please be advised that the Camrosa Resolution 09-02, adopted June 2009, which established a temporary moratorium on any new unmitigated potable demand was made permanent in June 2012 through Camrosa Resolution 12-14 and was subsequently expanded in August 2014 through Camrosa Resolution 14-08 to include potable, non-potable, and recycled water in the moratorium. Thus, Camrosa would advise changing the project impact from “less than significant impact” to “less than significant impact with mitigation” for Wastewater and Water Utilities.

2

1

Letter A-3

2.0-25



6_18 Water, 6.18.4 Applicable Regulations, Clean Water Act, Pg 6.18-2 “LADWP is required to monitor water quality and conform to the regulatory requirements of the CWA.” This section incorrectly references LADWP as the agency responsible for monitoring water quality and conforming to CWA regulatory requirements. The Camrosa Water District and its wholesale purveyor, Calleguas Municipal Water District should be referenced as the agencies responsible for monitoring water quality and conforming to CWA regulatory requirements. 6-18 Water, Local Regulations, Camrosa Water District, Pg 6.18-6 “… the Board of Directors declared a moratorium on the issuance of Water Availability and Water Will Serve letters for new development that would result in an unmitigated new water demand upon the District’s Potable Water Distribution System.” Camrosa recommends updating this section to reflect the district’s most current resolution regarding this moratorium. Camrosa Resolution 14-08 extends the moratorium to mitigate any new potable, non-potable, and recycled water demands. 6_18 Water, 6.18.5 Existing Conditions, Water Supply, Pg 6.18-6 “The proposed project site is located within the service area of Camrosa. The district’s water supply is a complex mix of public and private sources including imported state water, public and private wells in three groundwater basins, surface water diverted from Conejo Creek, and recycled water from two wastewater treatment facilities. Having multiple water sources gives the district considerable flexibility and improved reliability when compared to other nearby purveyors. Sources available to Camrosa include imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (imported through Calleguas Municipal Water District [CMWD]), local groundwater, and non-potable recycled water from various sources.” Camrosa request the following changes to this section:

4

5

3

Letter A-3

2.0-26



“The proposed project site is located within the service area of Camrosa. The district’s water supply is a complex mix of public and private sources including imported state water, public and private wells in three groundwater basins, non-potable surface water diverted from Conejo Creek and the City of Thousand Oak’s wastewater treatment plant, and recycled water from Camrosa’s wastewater treatment facility. Having multiple water sources gives the district considerable flexibility and improved reliability when compared to other nearby purveyors. Sources available to Camrosa include imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (imported through Calleguas Municipal Water District [CMWD]), local groundwater, non-potable and recycled water from various sources.” 6_18 Water, 6.18.5 Existing Conditions, Imported Water, Pg 6.18-7 “On June 2012, under Resolution 12-14, the district established a permanent moratorium on new unmitigated potable demand, requiring all new development to “bring with them” additional or “new” water supplies sufficient to offset project max-day demands.” Camrosa recommends updating this section to reflect the district’s most current resolution regarding this moratorium. Camrosa Resolution 14-08 extends the permanent moratorium to mitigate any new potable, non-potable, and recycled water demands. 6_18 Water, 6.18.5 Existing Conditions, Groundwater, Pg 6.18-8 “… Importer-water service….” Spelling error – should be stated “Imported-water service” 6_18 Water, 6.18.5 Existing Conditions, Groundwater, Pg 6.18-8&9 “Pleasant Valley Well #2, which is being constructed during 2016, will add an additional 1,500 afy of local supply to Camrosa’s supply portfolio.” Pleasant Valley Well #2 was drilled in 2016 but site construction is expected to begin in 2107 with completion in 2018.

6

7

8

5

Letter A-3

2.0-27



6_18 Water, 6.18.5 Existing Conditions, Non-potable, Irrigation Water, Pg 6.18-10 “… 9,000 afy from HTCP.” Spelling error – acronym is “HCTP.” 6_18 Water, 6.18.7 Environmental Impacts, Water Demand, Pg 6.18-13&14 Camrosa recommends it is worth noting in Table 6.18-5 that district standards for single family homes are 3.38 persons/dwelling. However, Camrosa has altered their standards for this project since it is an adult living development and is not oriented to larger families. 6_18 Water, Summary, Pg 6.18-20 Additionally, Camrosa would like to emphasize that there may also be deficiencies in the amount of potable water storage in pressure zone 2 to adequately serve the project. In addition to the moratorium14-08 mitigation requirements, the project may also need to mitigate its additional load on storage and fire-flow demands for the zone.

Should you have any question regarding the above comments or wish to discuss them further, please contact me at your convenience.

Respectfully submitted,

Joe Willingham Planning and Data Systems Manager Camrosa Water District

9

10

11

Letter A-3

2.0-28




Comment No. A‐3: Camrosa Water District

Camrosa Water District

7385 Santa Rosa Road

Camarillo, CA 93012

Joe Willingham, Planning Manager

Response A‐3‐1

This comment acknowledges the receipt and review of certain section of the Draft EIR by the Camrosa

Water District (CWD). It presents no specific environmental issues within the meaning of CEQA and no

specific response is provided.



Response A‐3‐2

The commenter requests that the impact designation for Wastewater and Water be changed from ‘Less

than Significant Impact’ to ‘Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation’, citing Camrosa Resolution 14‐

08 which establishes a moratorium on any new unmitigated the potable, non‐potable, and recycled water,

as the reason.

However, as discussed in Section 6.18, Utilities – Water, on page 6.18‐17, in order to reconcile Camrosa’s

permanent moratorium on new water connections with the need to supply the proposed project with

potable water, the applicant and Camrosa Water District executed a Water Service Project Participation

Agreement on December 30, 2016. The Agreement requires the applicant to participate in funding the

construction of the Pleasant Valley Well Number 2 to offset the new water demand of the proposed

project. The applicant’s participation in the Well Number 2 project would not only offset its own

proposed project demand, it would also contribute directly to additional water supply for existing

Camrosa water customers. Further, as discussed in Section 6.19, Utilities – Wastewater, page 6.19‐8, the

proposed project would need to extend a sewer line approximately 1,200 feet from the primary entrance

east and then south to connect with the existing sewer line within Hillridge Drive. These are project

design features, which are legal requirements, and without which the project will not receive approval.

As such these are regulatory requirements, and not mitigation measures. Therefore no changes to the

impact designations are needed.



2.0-29




Response A‐3‐3

Per the commenter’s request, the last sentence of the first paragraph on page 6.18‐2 is revised as follows:

LADWP is The Camrosa Water District, and its wholesale purveyor, the Calleguas Municipal Water

District, are required to monitor water quality and conform to the regulatory requirements of the CWA.

Response A‐3‐4

Per the commenter’s request, footnote 7 on page 6.18‐6 is revised as follows:

7. Camrosa, Draft Integrated Facilities Master Plan (IFMP), Section 2.3.6: Moratorium on Water Will

Serve Letters, (February 2011) Resolution No. 14‐08, A Resolution of the Board of Directors of

Camrosa Water District, Establishing a Moratorium on Water Availability and Water Will Serve

Letters, adopted August 13, 2014.

Response A‐3‐5

Per the commenter’s request, the third paragraph on page 6.18‐6 is revised as follows:

The proposed project site is located within the service area of Camrosa. The district’s water supply is a

complex mix of public and private sources including imported state water, public and private wells in

three groundwater basins, surface water diverted from Conejo Creek, the City of Thousand Oaks

wastewater treatment plant, and recycled water from Camrosa’s wastewater treatment facility. two

wastewater treatment facilities. Having multiple water sources gives the district considerable flexibility

and improved reliability when compared to other nearby purveyors. Sources available to Camrosa

include imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (imported through

Calleguas Municipal Water District [CMWD]), local groundwater, and non‐potable recycled water from

various sources.

Response A‐3‐6

Per the commenter’s request, the fourth paragraph on page 6.18‐7 is revised as follows:

On June 2012, under Resolution 12‐14 August 13, 2014, under Resolution 14‐08, the district established a

permanent moratorium on new unmitigated potable demand, requiring all new development to “bring

with them” additional or “new” water supplies sufficient to offset project max‐day demands.

2.0-30




Response A‐3‐7

Per the commenter’s request, the second sentence of the fourth paragraph on page 6.18‐8 is revised as

follows:

That 40 percent acts as a buffer against increasingly unreliable SWP supplies; not only does it help keep

rates lower and more stable, compared with agencies that depend on the legislative, political, and

meteorological whims that affect Delta supply, but also in the worst‐case scenario of an extended

interruption in importer imported‐water service, Camrosa has more than sufficient supply from its

groundwater resources to keep its customers hydrated and hygienic indefinitely.

Response A‐3‐8

Per the commenter’s request, the final paragraph on page 6.18‐8 is revised as follows:

The Woodcreek Well, Camrosa’s well in the Pleasant Valley Basin, was out of service for 17 months

between 2013 and 2014; it required significant rehabilitation to be returned to service. Pleasant Valley

Well #2, which is being constructed during was drilled 2016, with construction expected to begin in 2017

and completion in 2018, will add an additional 1,500 afy of local supply to Camrosa’s supply portfolio.

Response A‐3‐9

Per the commenter’s request, the final sentence of the first paragraph on page 6.18‐10 is revised as

follows:

It is expected that Camrosa would only divert only 9,000 afy from the HTCP HCTP.

Response A‐3‐10

Per the commenter’s request, the following footnote is added to Table 6.18‐5 on page 6.18‐14:

District standards for single family homes are 3.38 persons/dwelling. However, Camrosa has altered their

standards for this project since it is an adult living development and is not oriented to larger families.

Response A‐3‐11

As previously discussed in Response to Comment A‐3‐2, the Project Applicant is legally committed to

participation in funding the construction of the Pleasant Valley Well Number 2 to offset the new water

2.0-31




demand of the proposed project. Further, as discussed in Section 6.13, Fire Protection, on page 6.9‐2, the

International Fire Code3, as well as Ventura County Fire Protection District and the City of Camarillo

Public Works Department all require adequate fire flow to be provided for the proposed project prior to

the issuance of any building permits; ensuring adequate water storage in pressure zone 2 to meet fire

flow demands is in place and available is a project design feature, and a legal requirement, without which

the project will not receive approval. As such this is regulatory requirement, and not a mitigation

measure. Therefore no new mitigation measures are needed.



3 International Code Council, 2006 International Fire Code, n.p.: International Code Council, 2015.

2.0-32

4

2

1

3

Letter A-4

2.0-33

4

Letter A-3

2.0-34

2.0-35

2.0-36

2.0-37




Comment No. A‐4: Native American Heritage Commission

Native American Heritage Commission

Environmental and Cultural Department

1550 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100

West Sacramento, CA 95691

Gayle Totton, Associate Governmental Project Analyst

Response A‐4‐1

This comment acknowledges the receipt and review of certain section of the Draft EIR by the Native

American Heritage Commission (NAHC). It presents no specific environmental issues within the

meaning of CEQA and no specific response is provided.



Response A‐4‐2

This comment raises concerns regarding mitigation measures addressing groundbreaking activities and

Tribal Cultural Resources.

The Draft EIR acknowledges that there is the potential for adverse impacts related to the discovery of

previously unknown archeological resources during the grading of the project site, in an abundance of

caution, two mitigation measures were included in the Draft EIR:

6.5‐2 Grading activities in the vicinity of identified cultural resources shall be monitored by a qualified

monitor approved by the City.

6.5‐3: In the event that archeological resources are unearthed during project construction on the

proposed residential portion of the proposed project, all earth‐disturbing work within the

vicinity of the find shall be temporarily suspended until a qualified archeologist has evaluated

the nature and significance of the find.

In light of the concerns raised by the commenter, these mitigation measures have been revised as follows:


monitor approved by the City. The City of Camarillo shall note on any plans that require ground

disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources, including

prehistoric Native American burials.

2.0-38




The project applicant shall inform representatives of the three Native American tribes present in

Ventura County of the project construction schedule and allow for a tribal monitor to be present

at the project site during grading activities in native soil.

The Project Applicant shall retain a Professional Archaeologist to provide a pre‐construction

briefing to supervisory personnel of the excavation contractor to alert them to the possibility of

exposing significant prehistoric archaeological resources within the project site. The briefing shall

discuss any archaeological objects that could be exposed, the need to stop excavation at the

discovery, and the procedures to follow regarding discovery protection and notification of the

project applicant and archaeological team. The Professional Archaeologist shall develop and

distribute for job site posting an ʺALERT SHEETʺ summarizing potential find types and the

protocols to be followed as well as points of contact to alert in the event of a discovery. The tribal

monitor will be provided an opportunity to attend the pre‐construction briefing.

The Professional Archaeologist shall be available on an “on‐call” basis during ground disturbing

construction in native soil to review, identify and evaluate cultural resources that may be

inadvertently exposed during construction. The Archaeologist shall temporarily divert, redirect,

or halt ground disturbance activities at a potential discovery to allow the identification, review

and evaluation of a discovery to determine if it is a historical resource(s) and/or unique

archaeological resource(s) under CEQA.

If the Professional Archaeologist determines that any cultural resources exposed during

construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource, he/she shall

notify the project applicant and other appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommend

mitigation measures to mitigate to a less‐than significant impact in accordance with California

Public Resources Code Section 15064.5. Mitigation measures may include avoidance,

preservation in‐place, recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery among

other options. Contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient for recovering an

archeological sample or to employ an avoidance measure may be required. The completion of a

formal Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) may be recommended by the archaeologist if

significant archaeological deposits are exposed during ground disturbing construction.

Development and implementation of the AMP will be determined by the City of Camarillo and

treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the

project applicant and the City.

A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the City of Camarillo at the conclusion of ground

disturbing construction if archaeological resources were encountered and/or recovered.

2.0-39




Response A‐4‐3

This comment reiterates the City’s responsibility under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),

specifically Public Resources Code section 21084.1, to complete an EIR and study the potential impacts to

historical resources.

In compliance with this requirement, the City of Camarillo has prepared an EIR, which includes a

detailed analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources (Section 6.5 of the Draft EIR) that relies on

numerous reports, prepared by qualified professionals, which are included as Appendices to the EIR.



Response A‐4‐4

In compliance with SB 18 and AB 52 the City of Camarillo sent out letters to three tribes in Ventura

County, the Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians, the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, and the

Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians, on September 7, 2016, notifying them of the proposed

project. According to AB 52, the tribes had 30 days from the receipt of the letter to request consultation

with the City of Camarillo.

A request for formal consultation was received via email by the City of Camarillo from Julie Tumamait‐

Stenslie, Chairperson of the Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians. No other requests were

received as of the publication of this Draft EIR.

Ms. Tumamait‐Stenslie requested that a Phase I Archaeological Survey be conducted for the project site.

Two such surveys have been conducted for the project site (included in Appendix 6.5 of the Draft EIR);

no artifacts of note were reported in either survey.

Refer also to Response to Comment A‐4‐3.

2.0-40

VENTURA COUNTYAIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Memorandum

TO: David Moe, Assistant Director of Community Development

DATE: July 26, 2017

FROM: Alicia Stratton

SUBJECT: Request for Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the St. John’s Seminary Residential Community, City of Camarillo (RMA Reference No. 17-016)

Air Pollution Control District staff has reviewed the subject draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which is a proposal for residential planned development, zone change and general plan amendment to identify potential land uses, phasing, design standards for 88.45 acres. This would allow for development of up to 300 residential units on 44 acres of the site, and a mix of residential, open space, and recreational land uses. The project location is north of Upland Road in the City of Camarillo.

Section 6.3 of the DEIR addresses air quality issues. Section 6.3.7, Environmental Impacts, Operation (Page 6.3-27) indicates that operational emissions from the project would not exceed VCAPCD’s significance 25 lbs/day thresholds for ROC and NOx, as shown in Table 6.3-10, Estimated Daily Operation Emissions – Unmitigated. We concur with the findings of this discussion that long-term, operational air quality impacts would not result from the project. No air quality mitigation is needed.

Short-term, construction emissions from the project would exceed VCAPCD’s thresholds of significance as discussed above; however, these thresholds are not applicable for construction-related emissions because they are temporary. However, as stated in our Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, construction emissions should be mitigated if they exceed the thresholds. Construction emissions are presented in Table 6.3-9, Estimated Daily Construction Emissions – Mitigated. Mitigation measures for short-term construction emissions are presented on Page 6.3-28 and Page 1.0-8. In addition to these measures, we recommend the following measures be implemented during construction phases to further reduce short-term emissions:

1. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent excessive amounts of dust;

2

1

Letter A-5

2.0-41

2. Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be graded or excavated before commencement of grading or excavation operations.Application of water should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities;3. Signs shall be posted onsite limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less.4. All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties). During periods of high winds, all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by onsite activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either offsite or onsite.5. Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors, should be advised to wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations; and,6. Signs displaying the APCD Complaint Line Telephone number for public complaints shall be posted in a prominent location visible to the public off the site: (805) 645-1400 during business hours and (805) 654-2797 after hours.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 645-1426 or email [email protected].

2

Letter A-4

2.0-42




Comment No. A‐5: Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

669 County Square Drive, Second Floor

Ventura, CA 93003

Alicia Stratton, Air Quality Specialist, Planning, Rules & Incentives Division

Response A‐5‐1

This comment acknowledges the receipt of the Draft EIR by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control

District, and reiterates the project description and concurs with the findings of the Draft EIR that no long‐

term, operational air quality impacts would result from the project, and that no mitigation is needed.



Response A‐5‐2

This comment raises concerns regarding short‐term construction emissions and the need to provide

mitigation measures to the extent feasible.

The Draft EIR includes both Mitigation Measures and a Regulatory Compliance Measure to reduce short‐

term construction emissions to the extent feasible:

Mitigation Measures

6.3‐1 All off‐road construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission

standards, where available, to reduce ROC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions at the project site. In

addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology

devices certified by CARB to the maximum feasible extent. Any emissions control device used by

the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by

a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB

regulations. At the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment, a copy of each

unit’s certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or VCAPCD operating permit

shall be provided.

6.3‐2 Where possible, require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery

trucks and soil import/export) and if the Lead Agency determines that 2010 model year or newer

diesel trucks cannot be obtained, the Lead Agency shall require trucks that meet U.S. EPA 2007

model year NOx emissions requirements.

2.0-43




Regulatory Compliance Measures

RCM 6.3‐1 Construction activities shall comply with VCAPCD Rule 55, including the following

measures:

o Apply water to disturbed areas of the site three times a day

o Require the use of a gravel apron or other equivalent methods to reduce mud and

dirt trackout onto truck exit routes

o Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on‐

site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM generation.

o Limit soil disturbance to the amounts analyzed in this air quality analysis.

o All materials transported off‐site shall be securely covered.

o Apply non‐toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all

inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).

o Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to be reduced to 15 mph or less.

As shown in Table 6.3‐9, on page 6.3‐26 of the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures 6.3‐1

and 6.3‐2, combined with Measure RCM 6.3‐1, would reduce on‐site ROC, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5

emissions during the construction process.



2.0-44

1

Letter B-1

2.0-45

1

Letter B-1

2.0-46




Comment No. B‐1: St. John’s Seminary

St. John’s Seminary

Office of the Rector/President

5012 Seminary Road

Camarillo, CA 93012‐2500

Reverend Monsignor Marc V. Trudeau

Response B‐1‐1

This comment is a set of general remarks and opinions, raising safety and security issues regarding the

provision of a new trailhead located off of Upland Road, along the southern boundary of the project site,

as part of the proposed project. It presents no specific environmental issues within the meaning of CEQA

and no specific response is provided.



2.0-47

July 28, 2017

City of Camarillo 601 Carmen Drive Camarillo, CA 93010Attention: David Moe, Assistant Director of Community Development

RE: St. John’s Seminary Residential Community Project

Dear Mr. Moe,

This letter is in response to the Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report that the City of Camarillo recently sent out to residents that live near the proposed project site.

As listed in your EIR it is clear that this project will have a significant detrimental impact on existingagricultural and cultural resources. We are therefore submitting this letter to voice our concerns and to make it clear to the members of the City Council that we hope they will decide to pursue the No Project Alternative as stated in your report. We believe this is the right course of action because moving forward with this project does not only reduce available green space but will also result in the loss of an area that is deemed to be of cultural significance so we hope you will share our concerns.

We understand that the purpose of the project is to supply the area with additional senior housing options. However, we believe that the current housing crisis in CA is mainly due to the issues surrounding affordability so if the City of Camarillo is going to focus on a specific housing problem we believe this is an area that should be explored further since it is more relevant. Thus, the argument that this proposed project will help seniors downsize and open nearby homes to young adults and families is therefore missing the point since it does not address or offer a proposed solution for the affordability issue that residents currently face.

We believe that the majority of the members in our community would support a conservative approach when it comes to these types of projects and are therefore urging the City not to pursue any additional housing developments regardless of scope or size. We will make sure to voice our concerns during the public hearing.

Sincerely,

Ivijan & Andrew Day5184 Hillridge Drive Camarillo, CA 93012

1

Letter C-1

2.0-48




Comment No. C‐1 Ivijan & Andrew Day

Response C‐1‐1

This comment is a set of general remarks and opinions, as well as a statement in opposition to the project.

It presents no environmental issues within the meaning of CEQA and no specific response is required.



2.0-49

June 2017

To: Whom it may concern

Subject: Proposed Retirement Community at St. John’s Seminary

We have lived in Camarillo since January 1962. We have become very involved in the community through the last 55 years and established many friends. We also wish to retire in Camarillo. Over the last few years we have been desiring to “downsize” searching for a single story, smaller, newer home preferably in a senior gated community with no results. When the subject development became a reality we were excited! It meant we could stay in Camarillo and not move to a desert “Sun City” type community. By the way, the “Baby Boomers” are now approaching their 70’s! We are sure most of them will want to seek a retirement home in Camarillo.

Over the past few years the city of Camarillo has been very active in providing lots of nice new; apartments, condos, two and single story homes for everyone under the age of 55 years. Village at the Park and Springville are truly cities within the city. The only existing senior gated homes are in Leisure Village (built in the 1970’s). There is an obvious demand for Leisure Village homes selling currently for up to the high $500K. We feel that a new senior development is definitely overdue for the seniors who wish to stay in Camarillo.

Shea Homes has done a good job in proposing a market driven opportunity that also fits the need of St. John’s Seminary. They have addressed the water issue by offering to offset 280 homes water consumption and the EIR will obviously reveal that seniors will not impact the schools or the roads in the busy work commute. For us it is a “win-win” opportunity and it will make available a large two story for a young family to enjoy.

Bruce & Janice Fuhrman

2264 Glenbrook Av. Camarillo, 93010

1

Letter C-2

2.0-50




Comment No. C‐2 Bruce and Janice Fuhrman

Response C‐2‐1

This comment is a set of general remarks and opinions, as well as a statement in support of the project. It

presents no environmental issues within the meaning of CEQA and no specific response is required.



2.0-51

1

Lynn Kaufman

From: David Moe <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 8:24 AMTo: Lynn KaufmanSubject: FW: St. John's Seminary Residential Community EIR

Hello Lynn,

FYI, a City employee sent me an email on the St. John’s project and I responded to him.

David

From: David MoeSent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 8:22 AMTo: Tom Magdaleno <[email protected]>Subject: RE: St. John's Seminary Residential Community EIR

Hello Tom,

The City is going to require a traffic signal at the main entrance to the development as a condition of approval.

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Have a good day,David

From: Tom MagdalenoSent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 8:17 AMTo: David Moe <[email protected]>Subject: St. John's Seminary Residential Community EIR

Hi David,I stopped by your office yesterday but you were out. I live in the tract near this development (Goldenridge Ct). I waslooking through the plans and see several options on the entrance. As much as I hate to see another traffic light itseems like it would need a signal because there will be many left turners out of that tract going to the school(s) inmission oaks or the grocery store. I worry about t bone accidents if it is left unsignalized. Ideally Flynn would gothrough to a bridge to the new development, but I know that would cost millions and effect FEMA flood plains.I am also concerned about rear end collisions for west bound traffic on Upland. People regularly travel 60mph on thatroad so they would need to have a good sight distance to that light and stopped traffic.

Tom MagdalenoCity of CamarilloGeographic Information Systems Specialist(805) 388-5300 (805) 383-5620 direct

The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the use of the named addressee(s). If you received this message in error, please notify

1

Letter C-3

2.0-52

2

the sender of its receipt by calling (805) 388-5300, and subsequently delete and/or destroy this document along with any attachments.

2.0-53




Comment No. C‐3 Tom Magdelano

Response C‐3‐1

This comment raises concerns regarding traffic safety in the project vicinity, including the need for a

traffic signal at the proposed project entry. However, it presents no environmental issues within the

meaning of CEQA and no specific response is required.

Notwithstanding the above, the City has provided the following response:

The City is going to require a traffic signal at the main entrance to the development as a condition of

approval.



2.0-54

1

Letter C-4

2.0-55




Comment No. C‐4 Charles S. Parra

Response C‐4‐1

In compliance with SB 18 and AB 52 the City of Camarillo sent out letters to three tribes in Ventura

County notifying them of the proposed project. According to AB 52, the tribes had 30 days from the

receipt of the letter to request consultation with the City of Camarillo.

A request for formal consultation was received via email by the City of Camarillo from Julie Tumamait‐

Stenslie, Chairperson of the Barbareno / Ventureno Band of Mission Indians. No other requests were

received as of the publication of this Draft EIR. Ms. Tumamait‐Stenslie requested that a Phase I

Archaeological Survey be conducted for the project site. Two such surveys have been conducted for the

project site (included in Appendix 6.5 of the Draft EIR), no artifacts of note were reported in either

survey.

However, since there is the potential for adverse impacts related to the discovery of previously unknown

archeological resources during the grading of the project site, in an abundance of caution, two mitigation

measures were included in the Draft EIR:


monitor approved by the City.

6.5‐3: In the event that archeological resources are unearthed during project construction on the

proposed residential portion of the proposed project, all earth‐disturbing work within the

vicinity of the find shall be temporarily suspended until a qualified archeologist has evaluated

the nature and significance of the find.

In light of the concerns raised by the Native American Heritage Commission and the commenter, these

mitigation measures have been revised as follows:


monitor approved by the City. The City of Camarillo shall note on any plans that require ground

disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources, including

prehistoric Native American burials.




2.0-56






exposing significant prehistoric archaeological resources within the project site. The briefing shall

discuss any archaeological objects that could be exposed, the need to stop excavation at the




protocols to be followed as well as points of contact to alert in the event of a discovery. The tribal

monitor will be provided an opportunity to attend the pre‐construction briefing.

The Professional Archaeologist shall be available on an “on‐call” basis during ground disturbing

construction in native soil to review, identify and evaluate cultural resources that may be

inadvertently exposed during construction. The Archaeologist shall temporarily divert, redirect,

or halt ground disturbance activities at a potential discovery to allow the identification, review

and evaluation of a discovery to determine if it is a historical resource(s) and/or unique















A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the City of Camarillo at the conclusion of ground

disturbing construction if archaeological resources were encountered and/or recovered.

2.0-57

1

Letter C-5

2.0-58




Comment No. C‐5 Ann Swiech

Response C‐5‐1

This comment is a set of general remarks and opinions, as well as a statement in opposition to the project.

It presents no environmental issues within the meaning of CEQA and no specific response is required.



2.0-59

4

2

1

3

Letter C-6

2.0-60




Comment No. C‐6 Kristine Teller

Response C‐6‐1

This comment is a set of general remarks and opinions regarding the entitlement of the project as a senior

housing development, as well as a statement in opposition to the project. It presents no environmental

issues within the meaning of CEQA. In addition, Section 15131(a) of the CEQA Guidelines specifically

excludes economic and/or social effects from being considered significant effects on the environment.

Therefore, no specific response is required.

Notwithstanding the above, the following response is provided:

The proposed project will be entitled as a senior citizen housing community (the occupants of each unit must

include at least one person who is age 55 or older) under Residential Planned Development application (RPD‐198)

currently under consideration at the City.



Response C‐6‐2

This comment raises concerns regarding safety changes to the train crossing in the project vicinity,

including the need to adjust warning signals. However, it presents no environmental issues within the



The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is the state agency that oversees rail safety in California. This

oversight can be broken down into three areas: 1) Railroad Safety; 2) Rail Transit Safety; and 3) Rail Crossing

Safety. The CPUC has exclusive jurisdiction over all rail crossings in California. Regional train service in the

project vicinity is provided by Metrolink and Amtrak. Neither the City nor the Project Applicant will be making

any changes to the scheduling of these trains, or to the railroad crossing at Upland and Lewis Road, as they lack the

jurisdiction to do so.



2.0-61




Response C‐6‐3

This comment raises concerns regarding the availability of potable water in the project vicinity, including

the potential need for additional water conservation. However, it presents no environmental issues

within the meaning of CEQA and no specific response is required.


A full disclosure and analysis of potential impacts to potable water supplies and service in the project

vicinity was included in Section 6.18, Utilities ‐ Water of the Draft EIR. The section includes the

following information.

Water service at the proposed project site would be provided by the Camrosa Water District. The most recent urban

water management plan prepared by the District indicates that there are sufficient supplies of water available to

supply current and projected demand for the District, including the proposed project.

On June 27, 2012, under Resolution 12‐14, the District enacted a permanent moratorium, requiring all new

development to “bring with them” additional or “new” water supplies sufficient to offset project water demands.

In order to reconcile Camrosa’s permanent moratorium on new water connections with the need to supply the

proposed project with potable water, the Applicant and Camrosa Water District executed a Water Service Project

Participation Agreement on December 30, 2016. The Agreement requires the Applicant to participate in funding the

construction of the Pleasant Valley Well Number 2 to offset the new water demand of the proposed project. The

Applicant’s participation in the Well Number 2 project would not only offset its own proposed project demand, it

would also contribute directly to additional water supply for existing Camrosa water customers.



Response C‐6‐4

This comment is a call for certain City Council members to recuse themselves from the decision making

process for the approval of the proposed project. It presents no environmental issues within the meaning

of CEQA and no specific response is required.



2.0-62

City of CamarilloDepartment of Public WorksM E M O R A N D U M

DATE: July 25, 2017

TO: Tali Tucker, City Engineer

FROM: Anita Kuhlman, Stormwater Program Manager

SUBJECT: St. John’s Seminary Residential Community Project Draft EIR June 2017 Stormwater Quality Mitigation Review

Below are comments related to stormwater quality mitigation for the above EIR that should be included in the draft response for the Public Works Dept. Also attached are the pages with these hand written comments.

Page Section Title Comment1.0-1 Executive Summary-

Project OverviewConfirm development acres is it 44.80 acres or 64 acres (needs to include trailhead site acreage)

1.0-3 Executive Summary-Project Description

Include discussion of the square footage of the impervious surface area that is being added and replaced for the trailhead site.

1.0-10 Executive Summary-Mitigation Measures No. 6.9-1

When referring to the basins, insure the terminology is “Detention/Infiltration basins” not “detention/retention basins”. This comment is typical throughout the whole EIR document.


Rewrite the second sentence to include the following:“The drainage report shall include the July 11, 2016 Post-Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSMP) which was approved by the City on August 29, 2016 and the PCSMP will be amended to include stormwater quality mitigation of the trailhead site prior to submittal of a development application.”


The EIR is missing mitigation measure for construction which was in the December 2016 draft as 6.8-5:Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and as part of the project’s compliance with the NPDES program, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board, thereby providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California Construction General Permit. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be completed for on-site and associated off-site construction activities. A copy of the SWPPP must be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. The SWPPP outlines the source control and/or treatment control best management practices (BMPs) that will avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the construction site to the maximum extent practicable.

Figure 3.0-4needs page #

Conceptual Trailhead Site Plan

Include square footage of “impervious surface area” in SF summary.

6.9-2 Hydro./Water Quality –Methodology

Rewrite 3rd bullet that address water quality impacts at trailhead site to add the italicized wording below:

“Improve water quality and mitigate potential water quality impacts caused by land through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) as described in the 2015 Errata of the Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual (TGM) and outlined in the project’s City approved Post Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSMP) dated July 11, 2016 which will be amended to include stormwater quality mitigation controls for the trailhead site prior to submittal of a development application.

4

6

7

5

2

1

3

Letter D-1

2.0-63

St. John’s EIR-June 2017July 25, 2017Page 2

Page Section Title Comment6.9-7 Hydro/Water Quality –

“Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board” section

This section needs to address all impairments to Reach 6 of Calleguas Creek. Include the following in the paragraph 3 discussion:“Reach 6 of Calleguas Creek is also impaired for Nitrogen (LARWQCB Resolution 2002-017), Toxicity, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon (LARWQCB Reso. 2005-009), Organochlorine Pesticides, PCBs, Siltation (LARWQCB Reso. 2005-010), and listed as impaired for bacteria awaiting a TMDL.

Also, include a statement in this paragraph as to how the proposed post-construction BMPs will address these impairments.

6.9-15 Hydro/Water Quality Pages 6.9-16 and 6-9-17 are missing (unless they are the pages with Figures 6.9-1 and 6-9-2 (include page numbering on these pages and put in correct order in the document).


Existing Conditions Hydrology Map

Need larger map (11x17) in document that provides readable information (i.e., cannot read the “drainage areas” tables.


Proposed Hydrology Map Conditions

Need larger map (11x17) in document that provides readable information (i.e., cannot read the “drainage areas” tables.

6.9-27 Hydro/Water Quality –Proposed Drainage Facilities

Fourth paragraph address prelim. calculations for the basin capacity. Include the calculations to address the stormwater water quality design volume: “The stormwater quality design volume (SQDV) to be retained is 79,199 cubic feet.”

Throughout EIR Throughout document when referring to the detention/retention basins, include “infiltration”

Attachments – Marked up pages of June 2017 St. John’s Seminary Residential Community EIR

C: Lucie McGovern, Deputy Public Works Director

8

9

10

11

12

13

Letter D-1

2.0-64




Comment No. D‐1: City of Camarillo

City of Camarillo

Inter‐City Memo

Anita Kuhlman, Stormwater Program Manager

Response D‐1‐1

Per the commenter’s request, the last paragraph on page 1.0‐1 is revised as follows:

The applicant has requested that the City of Camarillo approve the development of up to 300 residential

units on 44.80 acres of the 88.45‐acre proposed St. John’s Seminary Residential Community Project site.

Development of the proposed project would also include the provision of a new 0.26 acre (11,297 square

foot) trailhead located off of Upland Road, along the southern boundary of the project site. Within the

44.80‐acre development envelope, implementation of the proposed St. John’s Seminary Residential

Community Project would permit a mix of residential, open space, and recreational land uses. The focus

of the St. John’s Seminary Residential Community Project is a senior citizen housing development of up

to 300 residential units. Refer to Figures 3.0‐2 and 3.0‐4.

Response D‐1‐2

The purpose of the Executive Summary is to provide a brief overview description of the proposed project;

detailed information regarding the increase or decrease of impervious surfaces on the project site is more

appropriately addressed in the specific topic section, the commenter is referred to section 6.9, Hydrology

and Water Quality. Further, the exclusion of this information in the Executive Summary does not present

an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA and no specific response is required.



Response D‐1‐3

This comment is noted, however, the revision requested is largely semantic and would not change any of

the analyses or conclusions of the Draft EIR, and thus does not present an environmental issue within the




2.0-65




Response D‐1‐4

Per the commenter’s request, Mitigation Measure 6.9‐2 is revised as follows:

6.9‐2: Prior to approval of final maps, a site specific drainage report shall be prepared by a

California registered engineer to determine soil and infiltration information regarding

the technical feasibility of the detention/retention basin and the storm water infiltration

BMPs. The drainage report shall include the July 11, 2016 Post‐Construction Stormwater

Management Plan (PCSMP) which was approved by the City on August 29, 2016 and the

PCSMP will be amended to include stormwater quality mitigation of the trailhead site

prior to submittal of a development application, along with an assessment of project site

conditions to verify the assumptions in the Encompass Consultant Group St. John’s

Seminary Residential Development Project Drainage Report (included in Appendix 6.9).

Review of the site‐specific drainage report shall be completed by a geotechnical

consultant to confirm the feasibility of the proposed basin location and stormwater

treatment BMPs. The site‐specific drainage report shall be submitted to the City Engineer

for review and approval.

Response D‐1‐5

This mitigation measure was removed from the Draft EIR as compliance with the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, including Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

(SWPPP) is a regulatory/legal requirement that the project applicant must comply with, and as such, it is

not necessary to include it as a mitigation measure. A discussion of the NPDES program and the

proposed project’s compliance with this regulatory requirement can be found on pages 6.9‐6, 6.9‐28, 6.9‐

30, 6.9‐31, 6.9‐34, and 6.9‐37.

Response D‐1‐6

As shown on Figure 3.0‐4, the entire 11,297 square foot area of the proposed trailhead would be

comprised of pervious surfaces, refer to the note that indicates that pervious pavement would be utilized

for the parking stalls.

Response D‐1‐7

Per the commenter’s request, the third bullet on page 6.9‐2 is revised as follows:

Improve water quality and mitigate potential water quality impacts caused by land through the

implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), as described in the 2011 2015 Errata Ventura

2.0-66




County Technical Guidance Manual (TGM), and outlined in the project’s City approved Post

Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSMP) dated July 11, 2016 which will be amended to

include stormwater quality mitigation controls for the trailhead site prior to submittal of a

development application.

Response D‐1‐8

Per the commenter’s request, the last paragraph on page 6.9‐7 is revised as follows:

In response to the US EPA’s finding that surface waters in Reach 6 of the Calleguas Creek watershed

were impaired for salts, the Los Angeles RWQCB adopted Basin Plan Amendment Resolution R4‐2007‐

016 which imposes TMDL limits for boron, chloride, sulfate, and TDS (salts) in the Calleguas Creek

Watershed.4 With Los Angeles RWQCB and US EPA approval of Resolution R4‐2007‐016, watershed

stakeholders must develop a work plan to manage salts by June 2009. Due to the surface water influence

on groundwater quality, any successful work plan must include groundwater management as an element

of the plan. The SWRCB subsequently approved the amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for

the Los Angeles Basin Plan5, which satisfies the requirement for salt management. Reach 6 of Calleguas

Creek is also impaired for Nitrogen (LARWQCB Resolution 2002‐017), Toxicity, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon

(LARWQCB Reso.2005‐009), Organochlorine Pesticides, PCBs, Siltation (LARWQCB Reso. 2005‐010), and

listed as impaired for bacteria awaiting a TMDL.

The proposed stormwater treatment system provides for all SQDV flows to pass throw a hydrodynamic

separator prior to entering the project infiltration basin. This will provide pretreatment for the required

stormflows. According to Table 3‐4 of the 2011 Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual, infiltration

is the preferred method of treatment to address the pollutants of concern for Reach 6 of Calleguas Creek.

Infiltration in combination with the hydrodynamic separator allow for these pollutants to be collected

and treated onsite prior to being released into the receiving waters downstream.

Response D‐1‐9

The commenter is correct, Figures 6.9‐1 and 6‐9‐2 were erroneously inserted into the document out of

order, and should have been inserted following page 6.9‐15, rather than following page 6.9‐18; however

this error, while regrettable, does not present an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA and

no specific response is required.

4 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, Resolution No. R4‐2007‐016, October 4, 2007.

5 State Water Resources Control Board, Resolution No. 2008‐0033, 2008.

2.0-67




Response D‐1‐10

This comment requests larger figures, however, the comment does not present an environmental issue


Further, it is recommend that the commenter review the on‐line version of the Draft EIR available at:

http://www.cityofcamarillo.org/Comm%20Dev/Projects/GPA%202016‐1%20Shea/Draft

EIR%20June%202017/6_9%20Hydrology.pdf

When reviewing the electronic file, the section can be magnified to enlarge all of the figures.

Response D‐1‐11

This comment requests larger figures, however, the comment does not present an environmental issue


Further, it is recommend that the commenter review the on‐line version of the Draft EIR available at:

http://www.cityofcamarillo.org/Comm%20Dev/Projects/GPA%202016‐1%20Shea/Draft

EIR%20June%202017/6_9%20Hydrology.pdf

When reviewing the electronic file, the section can be magnified to enlarge all of the figures.

Response D‐1‐12

Per the commenter’s request, the fourth paragraph on page 6.9‐27 is revised as follows:

Preliminary calculations determined that the minimum basin capacity required 244,921 cubic feet (cf) of

storage space to accommodate both the detention and retention volumes. The area designated as the

flood control planning zone would allow for on‐site storage capacity of 245,000 cf. The stormwater

quality design volume (SQDV) to be retained is 79,199 cubic feet.

Response D‐1‐13

Refer to Response to Comment D‐1‐3.

2.0-68



3.0 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS

OVERVIEW

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088.5 states:

(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to

the EIR after public notice of its availability… “significant new information” requiring

recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:

(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new

mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless

mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others

previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but

the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.

(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature

that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

(b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or

amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in the adequate EIR.

(c) If the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency need only

recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified.

(d) Recirculation of an EIR requires notice pursuant to Section 15087, and consultation

pursuant to Section 15086.

(e) A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the

administrative record.

New information is “significant” if, as a result of the additional information, “the EIR is changed in a way

that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse

environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect.”1, 2 Recirculation

is not mandated when the new information merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes and insignificant

modification to an adequate Draft EIR.3

1 Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. 864 P.2d 502, 510 (1993) (Laurel Heights II)

2 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)

3 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 150 P.3d 709 (2007) (quoting Laurel Heights

II, 864 P.2d at 510); see also Marin Mun. Water Dist. v. KG Land California Corp., 235 Cal.App.3d 1652, 1667 (1991)

(citing Sutter Sensible Planning v. Board of Supervisors 122 Cal.App.3d 813 (1981)

3.0 Corrections and Additions



In response to public comments received, clarifications to text of the Draft EIR, as well as staff‐initiated

text changes have been made. Additional information has been identified in comments on the Draft EIR

and responded to in Section 2.0, Responses to Comments, of this Final EIR. These changes made since

publication of the Draft EIR do not substantially affect the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, do not

result in a substantial increase in the severity of a significant impact identified in the Draft EIR and do not

change the conclusions in any way.

All of the public comments on the Draft EIR, as well as these Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR

have been carefully reviewed to determine whether recirculation of the Draft EIR is required. All of the

new information in these corrections and additions to the Draft EIR, in the comments, and in the

responses to comments merely clarify or amplify or make insignificant modifications to an adequate

Draft EIR. Therefore, the Draft EIR need not be recirculated prior to certification.

CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR

Changes to the Draft EIR are identified below by the corresponding Draft EIR section and subsection, if

applicable, and the page number. Additions are in underline and deletions are shown in strikethrough

format.

1.0 Executive Summary

The last paragraph on page 1.0‐1 is revised as follows:

The applicant has requested that the City of Camarillo approve the development of up to 300 residential

units on 44.80 acres of the 88.45‐acre proposed St. John’s Seminary Residential Community Project site.

Development of the proposed project would also include the provision of a new 0.26 acre (11,297 square

foot) trailhead located off of Upland Road, along the southern boundary of the project site. Within the

44.80‐acre development envelope, implementation of the proposed St. John’s Seminary Residential

Community Project would permit a mix of residential, open space, and recreational land uses. The focus

of the St. John’s Seminary Residential Community Project is a senior citizen housing development of up

to 300 residential units. Refer to Figures 3.0‐2 and 3.0‐4.




Page 1.0‐7, Mitigation Measure 6.4‐3 is revised as follows:

6.4‐3 To prevent potential impacts to overwintering flocks of monarch butterflies that may occur in the

eucalyptus trees of the windrows on and surrounding the project site, eucalyptus trees proposed

for removal will be surveyed prior to such action and prior to the start of construction and/or

demolition. If a tree is occupied by a concentration of overwintering monarch butterflies, that

tree, and any other eucalyptus trees within 100 feet, will be avoided until such time that the

butterflies have migrated off the project site.


6.4‐5 Prior to occupancy, a public awareness program shall be developed to prevent unleashed

domestic animals from entering open space areas adjacent to the project site. This program must

include promoting public education and awareness of the local biological resources and their

sensitivity. The applicant and/or its contractor shall be responsible for the development of the

public awareness program as well as installation of interpretive signs and fencing. The

homeowners association (HOA), or an acceptable land manager/agency as approved by the City

of Camarillo, must be responsible for maintaining this program, including signs and fencing.


reduce the spread of non‐native Argentine ants from driveways, curbs, gutters, and gardenʹs

edges along homes into outlying open spaces. The public awareness program shall advise

homeowners regarding limiting the use of rodenticides, and provide information regarding

wildlife friendly exclusionary devices/options if homeowners develop problems with wildlife.

The public awareness program shall include information regarding non‐native invasive plants.

Homeowners should be advised to visit the California Invasive Plant Council Web Page (CAL‐I

PC: http://cal‐ipc.org/ip/inventory/) for a list of plants and other information, including family

activities focused on non‐native plant events.


6.5‐2 Grading activities in the vicinity of identified cultural resources shall be monitored by a

qualified monitor approved by the City. The City of Camarillo shall note on any plans that

require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural

resources, including prehistoric Native American burials.









exposing significant prehistoric archaeological resources within the project site. The briefing

shall discuss any archaeological objects that could be exposed, the need to stop excavation at the




protocols to be followed as well as points of contact to alert in the event of a discovery. The

tribal monitor will be provided an opportunity to attend the pre‐construction briefing.

The Professional Archaeologist shall be available on an “on‐call” basis during ground

disturbing construction in native soil to review, identify and evaluate cultural resources that

may be inadvertently exposed during construction. The Archaeologist shall temporarily divert,

redirect, or halt ground disturbance activities at a potential discovery to allow the identification,

review and evaluation of a discovery to determine if it is a historical resource(s) and/or unique















A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the City of Camarillo at the conclusion of

ground disturbing construction if archaeological resources were encountered and/or recovered.





6.9‐2: Prior to approval of final maps, a site specific drainage report shall be prepared by a California

registered engineer to determine soil and infiltration information regarding the technical

feasibility of the detention/retention basin and the storm water infiltration BMPs. The drainage

report shall include the July 11, 2016 Post‐Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSMP)

which was approved by the City on August 29, 2016 and the PCSMP will be amended to include

stormwater quality mitigation of the trailhead site prior to submittal of a development

application, along with an assessment of project site conditions to verify the assumptions in the

Encompass Consultant Group St. John’s Seminary Residential Development Project Drainage

Report (included in Appendix 6.9). Review of the site‐specific drainage report shall be

completed by a geotechnical consultant to confirm the feasibility of the proposed basin location

and stormwater treatment BMPs. The site‐specific drainage report shall be submitted to the City

Engineer for review and approval.

6.4 Biological Resources


6.4‐3 To prevent potential impacts to overwintering flocks of monarch butterflies that may occur in the

eucalyptus trees of the windrows on and surrounding the project site, eucalyptus trees proposed

for removal will be surveyed prior to such action and prior to the start of construction and/or

demolition. If a tree is occupied by a concentration of overwintering monarch butterflies, that

tree, and any other eucalyptus trees within 100 feet, will be avoided until such time that the

butterflies have migrated off the project site.


6.4‐5 Prior to occupancy, a public awareness program shall be developed to prevent unleashed

domestic animals from entering open space areas adjacent to the project site. This program must

include promoting public education and awareness of the local biological resources and their

sensitivity. The applicant and/or its contractor shall be responsible for the development of the

public awareness program as well as installation of interpretive signs and fencing. The

homeowners association (HOA), or an acceptable land manager/agency as approved by the City

of Camarillo, must be responsible for maintaining this program, including signs and fencing.





reduce the spread of non‐native Argentine ants from driveways, curbs, gutters, and gardenʹs

edges along homes into outlying open spaces. The public awareness program shall advise

homeowners regarding limiting the use of rodenticides, and provide information regarding

wildlife friendly exclusionary devices/options if homeowners develop problems with wildlife.

The public awareness program shall include information regarding non‐native invasive plants.

Homeowners should be advised to visit the California Invasive Plant Council Web Page (CAL‐I

PC: http://cal‐ipc.org/ip/inventory/) for a list of plants and other information, including family

activities focused on non‐native plant events.

6.5 Cultural Resources


6.5‐2 Grading activities in the vicinity of identified cultural resources shall be monitored by a

qualified monitor approved by the City. The City of Camarillo shall note on any plans that

require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural

resources, including prehistoric Native American burials.






exposing significant prehistoric archaeological resources within the project site. The briefing

shall discuss any archaeological objects that could be exposed, the need to stop excavation at the




protocols to be followed as well as points of contact to alert in the event of a discovery. The

tribal monitor will be provided an opportunity to attend the pre‐construction briefing.

The Professional Archaeologist shall be available on an “on‐call” basis during ground

disturbing construction in native soil to review, identify and evaluate cultural resources that

may be inadvertently exposed during construction. The Archaeologist shall temporarily divert,

redirect, or halt ground disturbance activities at a potential discovery to allow the identification,

review and evaluation of a discovery to determine if it is a historical resource(s) and/or unique


















A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the City of Camarillo at the conclusion of

ground disturbing construction if archaeological resources were encountered and/or recovered.

6.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

The third bullet on page 6.9‐2 is revised as follows:

Improve water quality and mitigate potential water quality impacts caused by land through the

implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), as described in the 2011 2015 Errata Ventura

County Technical Guidance Manual (TGM), and outlined in the project’s City approved Post

Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSMP) dated July 11, 2016 which will be amended to

include stormwater quality mitigation controls for the trailhead site prior to submittal of a

development application.

The last paragraph on page 6.9‐7 is revised as follows:

In response to the US EPA’s finding that surface waters in Reach 6 of the Calleguas Creek watershed

were impaired for salts, the Los Angeles RWQCB adopted Basin Plan Amendment Resolution R4‐2007‐




016 which imposes TMDL limits for boron, chloride, sulfate, and TDS (salts) in the Calleguas Creek

Watershed.4 With Los Angeles RWQCB and US EPA approval of Resolution R4‐2007‐016, watershed

stakeholders must develop a work plan to manage salts by June 2009. Due to the surface water influence

on groundwater quality, any successful work plan must include groundwater management as an

element of the plan. The SWRCB subsequently approved the amendment to the Water Quality Control

Plan for the Los Angeles Basin Plan5, which satisfies the requirement for salt management. Reach 6 of

Calleguas Creek is also impaired for Nitrogen (LARWQCB Resolution 2002‐017), Toxicity, Chlorpyrifos,

Diazinon (LARWQCB Reso.2005‐009), Organochlorine Pesticides, PCBs, Siltation (LARWQCB Reso.

2005‐010), and listed as impaired for bacteria awaiting a TMDL.

The proposed stormwater treatment system provides for all SQDV flows to pass throw a hydrodynamic

separator prior to entering the project infiltration basin. This will provide pretreatment for the required

stormflows. According to Table 3‐4 of the 2011 Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual, infiltration

is the preferred method of treatment to address the pollutants of concern for Reach 6 of Calleguas Creek.

Infiltration in combination with the hydrodynamic separator allow for these pollutants to be collected

and treated onsite prior to being released into the receiving waters downstream.

The fourth paragraph on page 6.9‐27 is revised as follows:

Preliminary calculations determined that the minimum basin capacity required 244,921 cubic feet (cf) of

storage space to accommodate both the detention and retention volumes. The area designated as the

flood control planning zone would allow for on‐site storage capacity of 245,000 cf. The stormwater

quality design volume (SQDV) to be retained is 79,199 cubic feet.


6.9‐2: Prior to approval of final maps, a site specific drainage report shall be prepared by a California

registered engineer to determine soil and infiltration information regarding the technical

feasibility of the detention/retention basin and the storm water infiltration BMPs. The drainage

report shall include the July 11, 2016 Post‐Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSMP)

which was approved by the City on August 29, 2016 and the PCSMP will be amended to include

stormwater quality mitigation of the trailhead site prior to submittal of a development

application, along with an assessment of project site conditions to verify the assumptions in the

4 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, Resolution No. R4‐2007‐016, October 4, 2007.

5 State Water Resources Control Board, Resolution No. 2008‐0033, 2008.




Encompass Consultant Group St. John’s Seminary Residential Development Project Drainage

Report (included in Appendix 6.9). Review of the site‐specific drainage report shall be

completed by a geotechnical consultant to confirm the feasibility of the proposed basin location

and stormwater treatment BMPs. The site‐specific drainage report shall be submitted to the City

Engineer for review and approval.

6.18 Utilities ‐ Water

The last sentence of the first paragraph on page 6.18‐2 is revised as follows:

LADWP is The Camrosa Water District, and its wholesale purveyor, the Calleguas Municipal Water

District, are required to monitor water quality and conform to the regulatory requirements of the CWA.

Footnote 7 on page 6.18‐6 is revised as follows:

7. Camrosa, Draft Integrated Facilities Master Plan (IFMP), Section 2.3.6: Moratorium on Water Will

Serve Letters, (February 2011) Resolution No. 14‐08, A Resolution of the Board of Directors of

Camrosa Water District, Establishing a Moratorium on Water Availability and Water Will Serve

Letters, adopted August 13, 2014.

The third paragraph on page 6.18‐6 is revised as follows:

The proposed project site is located within the service area of Camrosa. The district’s water supply is a

complex mix of public and private sources including imported state water, public and private wells in

three groundwater basins, surface water diverted from Conejo Creek, the City of Thousand Oaks

wastewater treatment plant, and recycled water from Camrosa’s wastewater treatment facility. two

wastewater treatment facilities. Having multiple water sources gives the district considerable flexibility

and improved reliability when compared to other nearby purveyors. Sources available to Camrosa

include imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (imported through

Calleguas Municipal Water District [CMWD]), local groundwater, and non‐potable recycled water from

various sources.




The fourth paragraph on page 6.18‐7 is revised as follows:

On June 2012, under Resolution 12‐14 August 13, 2014, under Resolution 14‐08, the district established a

permanent moratorium on new unmitigated potable demand, requiring all new development to “bring

with them” additional or “new” water supplies sufficient to offset project max‐day demands.

The second sentence of the fourth paragraph on page 6.18‐8 is revised as follows:

That 40 percent acts as a buffer against increasingly unreliable SWP supplies; not only does it help keep

rates lower and more stable, compared with agencies that depend on the legislative, political, and

meteorological whims that affect Delta supply, but also in the worst‐case scenario of an extended

interruption in importer imported‐water service, Camrosa has more than sufficient supply from its

groundwater resources to keep its customers hydrated and hygienic indefinitely.

The final paragraph on page 6.18‐8 is revised as follows:

The Woodcreek Well, Camrosa’s well in the Pleasant Valley Basin, was out of service for 17 months

between 2013 and 2014; it required significant rehabilitation to be returned to service. Pleasant Valley

Well #2, which is being constructed during was drilled 2016, with construction expected to begin in 2017

and completion in 2018, will add an additional 1,500 afy of local supply to Camrosa’s supply portfolio.

The final sentence of the first paragraph on page 6.18‐10 is revised as follows:

It is expected that Camrosa would only divert only 9,000 afy from the HTCP HCTP.

The following footnote is added to Table 6.18‐5 on page 6.18‐14:

District standards for single family homes are 3.38 persons/dwelling. However, Camrosa has altered their

standards for this project since it is an adult living development and is not oriented to larger families.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.0‐1 St. John’s Residential Community


4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING

AND REPORTING PROGRAM

PURPOSE

The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with

Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is the intent of this program to:

(1) verify satisfaction of the required mitigation measures of the EIR; (2) provide a methodology to

document implementation of the required mitigation measures; (3) provide a record of the Monitoring

Program; (4) identify monitoring responsibility; (5) establish administrative procedures for the clearance

of mitigation measures; (6) establish the frequency and duration of monitoring; and (7) utilize existing

review processes wherever feasible.

INTRODUCTION

This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program describes the procedures that will be used to

implement the mitigation measures adopted in connection with the approval of the project and the

methods of monitoring such actions. This MMRP takes the form of a table that identifies the responsible

entity for monitoring each mitigation measure and the timing of each measure.

4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program



Table 4.0‐1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix

Mitigation Measure Action Required Timing

Monitoring

Responsibility

Air Quality

6.3‐1: All off‐road construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards, where available, to reduce ROC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions at the project site. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology devices certified by CARB to the maximum feasible extent. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. At the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment, a copy of each unit’s certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or VCAPCD operating permit shall be provided.

The project developers shall implement emission control measures during grading and construction.

Pre‐Construction

During Construction

City of Camarillo Department of Community Development

6.3‐1: Where possible, require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and if the Lead Agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained, the Lead Agency shall require trucks that meet U.S. EPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements.

Confirm measure is incorporated into construction specifications

Pre‐Construction

During Construction


Biology

6.4‐1: When grading occurs in areas that may contain sensitive biological resources, a City‐approved biologist shall be present to monitor grading activities to provide confirmation on presence or absence of sensitive species in the vicinity (at least 300 feet around the project site).

If sensitive species are encountered, species‐specific measures shall be prepared by a City‐approved biologist in consultation with the CDFW and implemented to prevent any harm to the species.

Confirm the presence of a City‐approved biologist

Prior to issuance of a grading permit

City of Camarillo, Department of Community Development

6.4‐2: To prevent potential impacts to special‐status animal species during the implementation of the proposed project, a wildlife survey will be conducted prior to the start of construction and/or demolition. In the event that any special‐status species are encountered, they will be relocated to the native habitat on the banks of Calleguas Creek. The construction fencing will also serve to exclude wildlife from the project site once construction has begun.

Confirm that measure is incorporated into project specifications.

Confirm receipt of report of findings and inventory of specimens.

Pre‐construction

During Construction

City of Camarillo, Department of Community Development





Monitoring

Responsibility

6.4‐3: To prevent potential impacts to overwintering flocks of monarch butterflies that may occur in the eucalyptus trees of the windrows on and surrounding the project site, eucalyptus trees proposed for removal will be surveyed prior to such action and prior to the start of construction and/or demolition. If a tree is occupied by a concentration of overwintering monarch butterflies, that tree, and any other eucalyptus trees within 100 feet, will be avoided until such time that the butterflies have migrated off the project site.

Confirm measure and survey is incorporated into project specifications.

Pre‐Construction


6.4‐4: To prevent potential impacts to nesting birds occupying the proposed project site during the breeding season from the months of March through August, construction, demolition, or site‐preparation activities will not take place during this time when feasible.


During Construction


6.4‐5: Prior to occupancy, a public awareness program shall be developed to prevent unleashed domestic animals from entering open space areas adjacent to the project site. This program must include promoting public education and awareness of the local biological resources and their sensitivity. The applicant and/or its contractor shall be responsible for the development of the public awareness program as well as installation of interpretive signs and fencing. The homeowners association (HOA), or an acceptable land manager/agency as approved by the City of Camarillo, must be responsible for maintaining this program, including signs and fencing.

In addition, the public awareness program shall advise homeowners to avoid over‐irrigating to reduce the spread of non‐native Argentine ants from driveways, curbs, gutters, and gardenʹs edges along homes into outlying open spaces. The public awareness program shall advise homeowners regarding limiting the use of rodenticides, and provide information regarding wildlife friendly exclusionary devices/options if homeowners develop problems with wildlife. The public awareness program shall include information regarding non‐native invasive plants. Homeowners should be advised to visit the California Invasive Plant Council Web Page (CAL‐I PC: http://cal‐ipc.org/ip/inventory/) for a list of plants and other information, including family activities focused on non‐native plant events.


Prior to occupancy


6.4‐6: All lighting along the perimeter of natural areas, particularly street lamps, shall be downcast luminaries and be shielded and oriented in a manner that will prevent spillage or glare into the open space areas of Calleguas Creek. The City of Camarillo shall approve final lighting orientation and design. All proposed lighting shall be consistent with City policies. It is recommended that any security lighting be controlled by motion detectors.


Prior to occupancy






Monitoring

Responsibility

Cultural Resources

6.5‐1: Photo‐document St. John’s Seminary College prior to the alteration of its setting with large‐format, black and white photography and provide a written report. The recordation shall be of sufficient detail to preserve a visual record of the college and its setting and shall meet the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)/Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards for documentation and photo‐documentation of historic resources at a minimum Level 3 recordation. This documentation shall be donated to a suitable repository, such as the Camarillo Public Library and the Ventura County Museum of History and Art. Additionally, a copy of the recordation shall be donated to the St. John’s Seminary Archive.

Confirm recordation and donation has been completed

Pre‐Construction City of Camarillo Department of Community Development

6.5‐2: The City of Camarillo shall note on any plans that require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources, including prehistoric Native American burials.

The project applicant shall inform representatives of the three Native American tribes present in Ventura County of the project construction schedule and allow for a tribal monitor to be present at the project site during grading activities in native soil.

The Project Applicant shall retain a Professional Archaeologist to provide a pre‐construction briefing to supervisory personnel of the excavation contractor to alert them to the possibility of exposing significant prehistoric archaeological resources within the project site. The briefing shall discuss any archaeological objects that could be exposed, the need to stop excavation at the discovery, and the procedures to follow regarding discovery protection and notification of the project applicant and archaeological team. The Professional Archaeologist shall develop and distribute for job site posting an ʺALERT SHEETʺ summarizing potential find types and the protocols to be followed as well as points of contact to alert in the event of a discovery. The tribal monitor will be provided an opportunity to attend the pre‐construction briefing.

The Professional Archaeologist shall be available on an “on‐call” basis during ground disturbing construction in native soil to review, identify and evaluate cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction. The Archaeologist shall temporarily divert, redirect, or halt ground disturbance activities at a potential discovery to allow the identification, review and evaluation of a discovery to determine if it is a historical resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resource(s) under CEQA.

If the Professional Archaeologist determines that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource, he/she shall notify the project applicant and other

Confirm the selection and presence of a City‐approved monitor

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit






Monitoring

Responsibility appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommend mitigation measures to mitigate to a less‐than significant impact in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5. Mitigation measures may include avoidance, preservation in‐place, recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery among other options. Contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient for recovering an archeological sample or to employ an avoidance measure may be required. The completion of a formal Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) may be recommended by the archaeologist if significant archaeological deposits are exposed during ground disturbing construction. Development and implementation of the AMP will be determined by the City of Camarillo and treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the project applicant and the City.

A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the City of Camarillo at the conclusion of ground disturbing construction if archaeological resources were encountered and/or recovered.

6.5‐3: In the event that archeological resources are unearthed during project construction on the proposed residential portion of the proposed project, all earth‐disturbing work within the vicinity of the find shall be temporarily suspended until a qualified archeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find.


During Construction


6.5‐4: In the event that paleontological resources are unearthed during project construction on the proposed project, all earth‐disturbing work within the vicinity of the find shall be temporarily suspended until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find.


During Construction


6.5‐5: If human remains are encountered during a public or private construction (earthmoving) activity, State Health and Safety Code 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Ventura County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Ventura County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours.

If the coroner determines that the burial is not historic, but prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted to determine the most likely descendent (MLD) for this area. The MLD may become involved with the disposition of the burial following scientific analysis.

Upon clearance by the coroner and the NAHC for Native American remains, construction (earthmoving) activities may resume.


During Construction






Monitoring

Responsibility

Hydrology and Water Quality

6.9‐1: Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, an agreement shall be in place which states the Homeowner’s Association as the responsible party for the regular maintenance of all on‐site BMP structures (i.e., the replacement of catch basin inserts and the removal of built up sediment within the detention/retention basin). This agreement will describe the regular on‐site maintenance activities (such as removing built up sediment within the detention/retention basin every five years) and the timing of said activities in accordance with City of Camarillo standards.

Confirm design and project specifications incorporate these requirements

Prior to occupancy

City of Camarillo Department of Public Works

6.9‐2: Prior to approval of final maps, a site specific drainage report shall be prepared by a California registered engineer to determine soil and infiltration information regarding the technical feasibility of the detention/retention basin and the storm water infiltration BMPs. The drainage report shall include the July 11, 2016 Post‐Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSMP) which was approved by the City on August 29, 2016 and the PCSMP will be amended to include stormwater quality mitigation of the trailhead site prior to submittal of a development application, along with an assessment of project site conditions to verify the assumptions in the Encompass Consultant Group St. John’s Seminary Residential Development Project Drainage Report (included in Appendix 6.9). Review of the site‐specific drainage report shall be completed by a geotechnical consultant to confirm the feasibility of the proposed basin location and stormwater treatment BMPs. The site‐specific drainage report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.

Confirm design and project specifications incorporate requirements

Verify that construction is in compliance with BMPs.

Pre‐Construction

During Construction

During Project Operation


Noise

6.11‐1 All construction areas for staging and warming‐up equipment shall be located as far as possible from adjacent residences.

Confirm design and project specifications incorporate requirements of the mitigation measure.

Verify that construction activities comply with mitigation measure requirements.

Pre‐Construction

During Construction






Monitoring

Responsibility

6.11‐2 Portable noise sheds for small, noisy equipment such as air compressors, dewatering pumps, and generators shall be provided where feasible.



Pre‐Construction

During Construction


Construction Manager

6.11‐3 As feasible, construction activities shall use specially quieted equipment such as electric air compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment.



Pre‐Construction

During Construction



6.11‐4 All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with exhaust mufflers or other suitable noise reduction devices capable of achieving a sound attenuation of at least 3 dBA at 50 feet of distance.



Pre‐Construction

During Construction







Monitoring

Responsibility

6.11‐5 Construction activities whose specific location on the site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixers, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise‐sensitive land uses, particularly away Castillo de Rosas Residences, Woodcreek Road Residences, and Plata Rosa Court Residences.


Verify that construction contractor complies with mitigation measure requirements.

Pre‐Construction

During Construction



Solid Waste

6.20‐1: Prior to issuance of construction and grading permits, a waste reduction and recycling plan shall be prepared by the project applicant and approved by the City of Camarillo.

Confirm design and project specifications incorporate a Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan.

Review Summary Report and verify that project met the requirements of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan.

Pre‐Construction

During Construction


St. John’s Residential Community Environmental Impact ... Dev/Projects... · Subject: St John’s...

Documents

Transcript of St. John’s Residential Community Environmental Impact ... Dev/Projects... · Subject: St John’s...