Ventura County, Californiavcportal.ventura.org/.../PD/2015/4_03_15_ND_PL14-0056.pdf · 2015. 8....

$: Ventura County, Californiavcportal.ventura.org/.../PD/2015/4_03_15_ND_PL14-0056.pdf · 2015. 8. 21. · Project PLl4-0056 æ ll-ralJ Parcel: APN: 151{-040-555 Zoning Area Plan IIT$

Project PLl4-0056

æll-ralJ Parcel: APN: 151{-040-555

Zoning

Area Plan

IIT

III

County of VenturaPlanning Director Hearing

PL14-0056Exhibit 2 - Aerial, GP, Zoning and

Land Use Maps

0 S 100 Feel

+Venturâ county,cal¡forh¡a

R€soúrce Månågemont AgêncyGIS Devslopmênt t itapp¡ng Sodlc6s

Mep Crcâled on ll-12-2014fhis aerial ihagery is underthe

copyr¡ghte of PlctomelrySource: P¡clometry,Jån. 2014

RMA9rs

obcl¡imer Thi. M.pÈ6 cFatêd by hô V.nlure coûnv F€eú@þ@ômônt ¡$nq, kpping Sefrþæ - cls whbh h ddgndEnd op€rátêd ælêly brltu @¡vonÈnæ ot lhe Couñly.nd ßl.ldpubìic dg6nds fh Couñty dæ6 no t.ranl he eæuÞcyol lhbmFnd no dæbbn involving a úk olo@nomb ld. or phfúél

RH

I

l

ô

I

I

I

L

LOI G ELOCK

LoT 2 (25 RS 16)

oOC No 90-123992,0R

ma!=. o)E JAr \/--.oi=¿ i

- -¡'- 9<=e'lõ

qõ Éãaó?'orÉo <o=

! 0)f¡)ô¡i-afo(og

zÞô!

o4

8'

2

I

l

i

I

P

I

Items Correspondinq io Schedule B

INST No 20100916-00140320, 0R

Lor 4 (2s RS t6)

LOT E, BLOC( 4

(r6 MR rl)

O ^'d(d"a.ç¡d!æ-

P.È 4 omd R.d. l8¡ibr¡'drøs,

O hhE.-'6.d4b-.&dP¡@ ¡70, Orr<¡ tuød. lshbt /¡ t¡tu.. ! fd6 Lh. ûdsr n.r d ! d¡ rd LÀdê

eú'dv'hireúrryqLor r (25 RS 16)

5260 0R 654 LNST No 20050823-00209921, 0R,

LoT 3 (2s RS 16)

Þ

Doc No 93-0157811, 0R

PORIION OF LOT A

(r6 MR J3)

là

lÊ

lH

¡È

I

I

I

L

I

I

PARCÊL 2GROSS & NEI AREA =

2D,341

o-ro*,no o,

ì -

3a,,qs.q -

L?,E

Ët

L

I

I

I

Doc No 97-120621, 0R

SummorPro

ulrlY tA*!ÉNr LNF^Û

PARCEL 1

GROSS AREA = 21,444 stNEI AREA = 20,001 sl

(16 MR ll)

,1NS-t No 2002-231922, 0R

N 7t!.@'E 29€¡¡

LOr 10 (14 MR 52)

?6 woe aCCESS ondIIILIIY EASÊNÊNT P'R20r l09r 9-00160s16-0,

LOT 11 (14 MR 52)

NOT A PART

DOC No 86-117522, OR

Record Leqol Descriplion

Leqend of Symbo s

LINE LECENO

Propose¿ Frop.riy Liñ.Propos.d Eoseñeñt L'ne -- ----- --_----

Ex'stiñ9 Propertt Line

-

Elrsln9 Eoscñ.ñt L'ñc --------

E:'sl¡ç Pov.menl L'n.E¡Lsh¡9 Wol Lne

I

Utilily OwnersO snr

ôoness rro e^c^P^ onrw

@ ^s*sson e^rc+ to r i5r-o-o¡o-sss

@ ex'srrc owurcs ea REsmNr[

-:l r_æo ¿oÉ p^NEr , silrcosr'c er'.c.\. dür.v at/tg/2ÔtÔ. za. \'@ r,'sr^c,oô usr nes,oe"r^.

@ exsrrc zm^c R i roo@rr

@ raoroseo .ro use REsoENraL (s'd FûrLy)

@ "oo"o*o 2orNc No cH^NcE

@ rolcrrr .^"0 uses csrorrrer

@ *e eouôm" s"o^ B.REoN ,s ^pRo¡,r^rcRECORO SURWY DAIA

,"."'"".,'"'" /

Bench lvlork

o

IING

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP No 5930310 ANACAPA DRIVE

^NAC^P^ C¡VÀFLLLO PROPERIES LLC

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY

county of venturaPlanning Division

Kimberly L, PrillhartDirector

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Entitlement: Tentative Parcel Map No. 5930 (Case No. PL14 0056)

ApplicanUOwner: Anacapa Camarillo Properties, LLC. Attn: James Johnson,2227 Portola Road, Ventura, CA 93003.

Location: The 41 ,791 square foot site is located at 310 Anacapa Drive, in thecommunity of Camarillo Heights, an unincorporated area of Ventura County.

Assessor's Parcel No.: 1 51-0-040-550

Parcel Size: 0.96 acre (41,791 square feet)

General PIan Desisnation: Exist ing Community, Urban Reserve

Existinq Zoninq: R1-10 ,000 square feet (Single-Family Residential, 10,000square feet minimum lot size)

Responsible and/or Trustee Agencies: None

Proiect Description: The applicant requests approval of a Tentative ParcelMap (TPM 5930) to subdivide the subject property into two lots and constructone single-family dwelling on the proposed vacant lot.

More specifically, the proposed project will subdivide the 0.96 acre legal parcelinto two separate lots. Proposed Parcel One will be 20,000 square feet (s.f.) ofnet area in size and is currently developed with an existing 3,100 s.f. single-family residence and attached two-car garage. Proposed Parcel Two will be20,366 s.f. of net area in size. The proposed project includes the creation of abuilding pad for proposed Parcel Two (which is currently vacant) that will belocated in the east end of the property, once subdivided. The applicant isproposing a self-imposed restriction to limit future development to only a single-family dwelling and garage on each proposed lot.

The proposed building envelope on proposed Parcel Two will requireapproximately 150 cubic yards of earth for compaction of the building pad, and tocreate earthen swales with infiltration trenches and an infiltration basin for sitestorm drainage.

The proposed project includes the construction of a new private access drivewaythat will provide access to proposed Parcels One and Two. The proposed accessdriveway will be 26 feet wide with a boot-style turnaround of 26 feet in width forVentura County Fire Protection District (VCFPD) access on proposed ParcelTwo'

county of Ventura

g00 south victoria Avenue, PlanningÐirector Hearing

,-24g1 Fax (g05) 654-2509Exhibit 4 - Negative Declaration@

The proposed project does not include the removal of native vegetation orprotected trees. ln addition, the Pleasant Valley Mutual Water Company willprovide water, Southern California Edison will provide electricity, and The GasCo. will provide gas. An existing on-site septic system will continue to providesewage disposal for the development on proposed Parcel One. The proposedproject includes the installation of a new, on-site private septic system to providesewage disposal for future development on proposed Parcel Two.

B. STATEMENT OF ENTAL FINDINGS:State law requires the Resource Management Agency (RMA), Planning Division,as the lead agency for the proposed project, to prepare an Initial Study(environmental analysis) to determine if the proposed project could significantlyaffect the environment. Based on the findings contained in the attached lnitialStudy, it has been determined that the proposed project will not have asignificant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration has beenprepared.

C. PUBLIC REVIEW:

Leqal N Method: Direct mailing to property owners within 300 feet ofproposed project boundary, and a legal notice in the Ventura County Star.

Document Posting Period: November 25,2014, through December 15,2014

Public Review: The lnitial Study/Negative Declaration is available for publicreview on-line at un¡nv.ventura.org/rma/planning (select "CEQA EnvironmentalReview") or at the County of Ventura, Resource Management Agency, PlanningDivision, 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California from 8:00 am to 5:00pm Monday through Friday.

Gomments: The public is encouraged to submit written comments regardingthis lnitial Study/Negative Declaration no later than 5:00 p.m. on the last day ofthe document posting period to Nicole Doner, the case planner, at the County ofVentura, Resource Management Agency, Planning Division, 800 South VictoriaAvenue L#1740, Ventura, CA 93009. The Planning Division's FAX number is(805) 654-2509. You may also e-mail the case planner atn icole.do ner@ventu ra. org.

D CONSIDERATION AN D APPROVAL OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION:Prior to approving the project, the decision-making body of the Lead Agencymust consider this Negative Declaration and all comments received during publicreview. That body shall approve the Negative Declaration if it finds that theproject will not have a significant effect on the environment.

Prepared by:

Nicole Doner, Planner(805) 654-5042

Recommended for Approval byLead Agency by:

Kim L. Prillhart, DirectorVentura County Planning Division

Reviewed for Release to the Public by:

Daniel , ManagerResid Section

Gounty of Ventura Planning Division8O0 Soutlt Victoria Avønue. Vanturd, CA 93OO9-174O . (8OS) 654-2488 . httÞ:l/wwut.venluß orglrme/planning

Tentative Parcel Map No. 5930 (PL14-0056)

Section A- Project Description

1. Project Case Number: Tentative Parcel Map No. 5930 (Case No. PL14-0056)

2. Name of Applicant: Anacapa Camarillo Properties, LLC, Attn: James Johnson, 2227Portola Road, Ventura, CA 93003.

3. Project Location and Assessor's Parcel Number(s): The 41,791 square foot site islocated at 310 Anacapa Drive, in the community of Camarillo Heights, an unincorporatedarea of Ventura County. The Tax Assessor's parcel number for the parcel that constitutesthe project site is 151-0-040-550. (Exhib¡t 2).

4. General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Designation of the Project Site:

a. General Plan Land Use Designation: Existing Community, Urban Reserve (Exhibit2)

b. Zoning Designation: R1-10,000 square foot (Single-family Residential, 10,000square foot minimum lot size) (Exhibit 2)

5. Description of the Environmental Setting: The project site is located off of AnacapaDrive in the semi-rural residential area of Camarillo Heights. The subject property isaccessed from a private drive off of Anacapa Drive and slopes slightly to the south. Theproject site is developed with a single-family dwelling. Existing development in theCamarillo Heights Community consists of single-family residential development on parcelsof 0.30 acre to 1.79 acres in size. The project site is a dirt lot with some ruderal vegetation,several ornamental trees, and an existing residence that is located within a developedcommunity. The site drains to the southeast and stormwater runoff from the site is currentlyconveyed by developed storm drains.

6. Project Description: The applicant requests approval of a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM5930) to subdivide the subject property into two lots and construct one single-family dwellingon the proposed vacant lot.

More specifically, the proposed project will subdivide the 0.96 acre legal parcel into twoseparate lots. Proposed Parcel One will be 20,000 square feet (s.f.) of net area in size and is

currently developed with an existing 3,100 s.f. single-family residence and attached two-cargarage. Proposed Parcel Two will be 20,366 s.f. of net area in size. The proposed projectincludes the creation of a building pad for proposed Parcel Two (which is a vacant parcel)

Final lnitial Study For PL14-0056Page 1

that will be located in the east end of the property, once subdivided. The applicant isproposing a self-imposed restriction to limit future development to only a SFD and garageon each proposed Parcels One and Two.

The proposed building envelope on Parcel Two will require approximately 150 cubic yardsof earth for compaction of the building pad, and to create earthen swales with infiltrationtrenches and an infiltration basin for site storm drainage.

The proposed project includes the construction of a new private access driveway that willprovide access to Parcels One and Two. The proposed access driveway will be 26 feetwide with a boot-style turnaround of 26 feet in width for Ventura County Fire ProtectionDistrict (VCFPD) access on proposed Parcel Two.

The proposed project does not include the removal of native vegetation or protected trees.ln addition, the Pleasant Valley Mutual Water Company will provide water, SouthernCalifornia Edison will provide electricity, and The Gas Co. will provide gas. An existing on-site septic system will continue to provide sewage disposal for the development onproposed Parcel One. The proposed project includes the installation of a new, on-siteprivate septic system to provide sewage disposal for future development on proposedParcel Two (Attachment 2).

7. List of Responsible and Trustee Agencies: None.

8. Methodology for Evaluating Cumulative lmpacts: Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines [$15064(hX1)1, this lnitial Study evaluates the cumulative impacts of the project, byconsidering the incremental effects of the proposed project in connection with the effects ofpast projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable futureprojects. More specifically, the projects noted in Attachments 3 and 4 were included in theevaluation of the cumulative impacts of the project, due to their proximity to the proposedproject site and potential to contribute to environmental effects of the proposed project(Attachments 3 and 4, Map of County and City of Camarillo Projects).

Final lnitial Study For PL14-0056Page2

Section B - Initial Study Checklist and Discussion of Responsesl

Project lmpact DegreeOf Effect*

Gumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect*"lssue (Responsible Department)*

N LS PS-M PS N LS PS-M PS

RESOURCES

l. Air Quality (VCAPCD)

Will the proposed project:

a) Exceed any of the thresholds set forth in theair quality assessment guidelines asadopted and periodically updated by theVentura County Air Pollution Control District(VCAPCD), or be inconsistent with the AirQuality Management Plan?

X x

b) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem I of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X

lmpact Discussion:

1a. Based on the information provided by the appl¡cant, air quality impacts will be belowthe 25 pounds per day threshold for reactive organic compounds and oxides ofnitrogen as described in the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines(October 2003). The potential impact to local air quality will be less than significantbecause the future construction of a single-family dwelling is temporary and only onenew dwelling would be created by the Parcel Map. Therefore, the proposed projectwill not have a significant project-specific impact on regional air quality and will notmake a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative air qualityimpact.

1b. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ltem 1 of the lSAGs, specifically Section 1.2, Air Quality (Sections 1.2-1,1.2-2, and 1 .2-3). The proposed project is consistent with the Ventura County AirQuality Management Plan.

M itigation/Residual lmpact(s) :

None.

lssue (Responsible Department)* Proiect lmpact DegreeOf Effect*

Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**

1 lThe threshold criteria in this lnitial Study are derived from the Ventura County lnitial Study AssessmentGuidelines (lSAGs) (April 26, 2011). For additional information on the threshold criteria (e.9., definitions of issuesand technical terms, and the methodology for analyzing each impact), please see the Ventura County lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines.



2A. Water Resources - Groundwater Quantity (WPD)


X X

1) Directly or indirectly decrease, eitherindividually or cumulatively, the net quantityof groundwater in a groundwater basin thatis overdrafted or create an overdraftedgroundwater basin?

x X

2) ln groundwater basins that are notoverdrafted, or are not in hydrologiccontinuity with an overdrafted basin, resultin net groundwater extraction that willindividually or cumulatively causeoverdrafted basin(s)?

X X

3) ln areas where the groundwater basinand/or hydrologic unit condition is not wellknown or documented and there is evidenceof overdraft based upon declining waterlevels in a well or wells, propose any netincrease in groundwater extraction from thatgroundwater basin and/or hydrologic unit?

X X

4) Regardless of items 1-3 above, result in 1.0acre-feet, or less, of net annual increase ingroundwater extraction?

X X5) Be consistent with the applicable General

Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 2A of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

lmpact Discussion:

2A-1 through 2A-3. The proposed project overlies the Pleasant Valley Groundwater Basinand the Pleasant Valley Mutual Water Company (PVMWC) will provide water for theproposed project as documented in the Water Availability letter from PVMWC datedMarch 20, 2014 and signed by Mr. Gerard Doran. The PVMWC lies within theboundaries of the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA). Theproposed project is not located in an overdrafted Basin. The PVMWC uses a

combination of imported State Project water and groundwater. Groundwater extractiondata from Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency shows PVMWC reported1,000 acre-feet of extractions. Water purchased from Calleguas was approximately255 acre-feet. As a result, 25% of their 2013 water deliveries were State Projectwater. The potential impact to the groundwater basin will be less than significantbecause the FCGMA limits groundwater extractions within its boundaries by use of anallocation system. PVMWC can only extract groundwater up to its current allocation


limit.

Therefore, the proposed project will have a less-than-significant project-specificgroundwater quantity impact and will not make a cumulatively considerablecontribution to a significant cumulative groundwater quantity impact.

2A-4. The proposed project will result in 1.0 acre-feet, or less, of net annual increase ingroundwater extraction.

Therefore, the proposed project will have a less-than-significant project-specificgroundwater quantity impact and will not make a cumulatively considerablecontribution to a significant cumulative groundwater quantity impact

2A-5. The proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 24.

M itigation/Residual lmpact(s):None.

Project lmpact Degree

Of Effect*Gumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**


lssue (Responsible Department)"

28. Water Resources - Groundwater Quality (WPD)


XX

1) lndividually or cumulatively degrade thequality of groundwater and cause groundwaterto exceed groundwater quality objectives set bythe Basin Plan?

X x2) Cause the quality of groundwater to fail tomeet the groundwater quality objectives set bythe Basin Plan?

XX

3) Propose the use of groundwater in anycapacity and be located within two miles of theboundary of a former or current test site forrocket engines?

X X

4) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 28 of the lnitialStudy Assessment Guidel ines?

lmpact Discussion:

2B-1. The proposed project will not individually or cumulatively degrade the quality of


groundwater and cause groundwater to exceed groundwater quality objectives set bythe Basin Plan because the proposed project will rely on septic systems for sewerservice. Septic systems are permitted by the County Environmental Health Divisionand the operation of the system is regulated by the State Regional Water QualityControl Board. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less-than-significantproject-specific groundwater quality impact and will not make a cumulativelyconsiderable contribution to a significant cumulative groundwater quality impact.

2B-2. The proposed project will not cause the quality of groundwater to fail to meet thegroundwater quality objectives set by the Basin Plan because the proposed projectwill rely on septic systems for sewer service. Septic systems are permitted by theCounty Environmental Health Division and the operation of the system is regulated bythe State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, the proposed project willhave a less{han-significant project-specific groundwater quality impact and will notmake a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative groundwaterquality impact.

2B-3. The proposed project is not within two miles of a former or current test site for rocketengines. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific groundwaterquality impact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to asignificant cumulative groundwater quality impact, related to a former or current testsite for rocket engines.

2B-4. The proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 28.


None.

Project lmpact DegreeOf Effect**



lssue (Responsible Department)*

2G. Water Resources - Surface Water Quantity (WPD)




Gumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**



1) lncrease surface water consumptive use(demand), either individually orcumulatively, in a fully appropriated streamreach as designated by SWRCB or whereunappropriated surface water isunavailable?

X X

X X

2) lncrease surface water consumptive use(demand) including but not limited todiversion or dewatering downstreamreaches, either individually or cumulatively,resulting in an adverse impact to one ormore of the beneficial uses listed in theBasin Plan?


Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 2C of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

lmpact Discussion:

2C-1. No surface water from sources within Ventura County is proposed to be used for thisproject. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific surface waterimpact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significantcumulative surface water imPact.

2C-2. No surface water from sources within Ventura County is proposed to be used for thisproject. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific surface waterimpact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significantcumulative surface water impact.

2C-3. The proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 2C.

M itigation/Residual lm pact(s):None.

Final lnitialStudy For PL14-0056Page 7





2D. Water Resources - Surface Water Quality (WPD)




N LS PS N LS PS-M PS


PS-M

1) lndividually or cumulatively degrade thequality of surface water causing it to exceedwater quality objectives as contained inChapter 3 of the three Basin Plans?

x X

X x

2) Directly or indirectly cause storm waterquality to exceed water quality objectives orstandards in the applicable MS4 Permit orany other NPDES Permits?

3) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 2D of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X

lmpact Discussion:

2D-1. The proposed project will not individually or cumulatively degrade the quality ofsurface water causing it to exceed water qua¡ity objectives as contained in Chapter 3of the Los Angeles Basin Plan as applicable for this area. lmpacts related to surfacewater quality will be less{han-significant because the proposed project is notexpected to result in a violation of any surface water quality standards as defined inthe Los Angeles Basin Plan. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less{han-significant project-specific surface water quality impact and will not make acumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative surface water qualityimpact.

2D-2 The proposed project consists of a subdivision to create two lots. The WatershedProtection District is not recommending the imposition of surface water qualityconditions on the proposed project. At the time of construction (requiring a gradingand/or building permit), the applicant will be required to implement Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) per the Ventura Countywide Municipal Stormwater NPDES PermitC4S004002, "Development Construction Program" Subpart 4.F. As such, neither theindividual project nor the cumulative threshold for significance would be exceeded andthe project is expected to have a less-than-significant impact related to water qualityobjectives or standards in the applicable MS4 Permit (Ventura Countywide MunicipalStormwater NPDES Permit CAS004002) or any other NPDES Permits. Therefore, theproposed project will have a less-than-significant project-specific surface water qualityimpact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significantcumulative surface water quality impact.

2D-3. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 2d.

Final lnitialStudy For PL14-0056Page I

M itigation/Residual lm pact(s) :

None.

Project lmpact DegreeOf Effect*"




3A. Mineral Resources - Aggregate (Plng.)

Will the proposed project

x X

1) Be located on or immediately adjacent toland zoned Mineral Resource Protection(MRP) overlay zone, or adjacent to aprincipal access road for a site that is thesubject of an existing aggregate ConditionalUse Permit (CUP), and have the potential tohamper or preclude extraction of or accessto the aggregate resources?

X

2) Have a cumulative impact on aggregateresources if, when considered with otherpending and recently approved projects inthe area, the project hampers or precludesextraction or access to identified resources?

X X

3) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 3A of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

lmpact Discussion:

3A-1 and 3A-2. The ISAGs state that aggregate resources consist of sand, gravel, andcrushed rock used in the construction industry. The Ventura County Non-CoastalZoning Ordinance includes a Mineral Resource Protection (MRP) overlay zone forareas that contain or may contain important mineral resources and the extraction ofthese resources may be a compatible land use. The closest MRP zone is locatedapproximately 5 miles west of the project parcel boundary. Due to the location andthe nature of the proposed use, the proposed project would not have the potential tohamper or preclude extract¡on of or access to the nearest aggregate resources.Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific impact and will notmake a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact,related to aggregate resources.

3A-3 The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 34.

M iti gation/Residual lm pact(s) :

None.


Source Documents: Ventura County lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines of April2011,Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance (2011:$8104), and Planning GIS data layers.





38. Mineral Resources - Petroleum (Plng.)


X X

1) Be located on or immediately adjacent toany known petroleum resource area, oradjacent to a principal access road for a sitethat is the subject of an existing petroleumCUP, and have the potential to hamper orpreclude access to petroleum resources?

XX

2) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 38 of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

lmpact Discussion:

3B-1 The ISAGs state that any land use that is proposed to be located on or immediatelyadjacent to any known petroleum resource area, or adjacent to a principal accessroad to an area that is subject to an existing petroleum CUP, has the potential tohamper or preclude access to petroleum resources. The proposed project is notlocated within a petroleum resource area, or within or adjacent to the boundary of anoil extraction CUP. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less-than-significantproject-specific impact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to asignificant cumu¡ative impact, with regard to access to petroleum resources.

The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 38.

M itigation/Residual lm pact(s)None.


38-2

Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect*"


PS N LS PS-M PS


N LS PS-M

4. Biological Resources

44. Species


Gumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**lssue (Responsible Department)*


Willthe proposed project, directly orindirectly:

X X

1) lmpact one or more plant species byreducing the species' population, reducingthe species' habitat, fragmenting its habitat,or restricting its reproductive capacity?

2) lmpact one or more animal species byreducing the species' population, reducingthe species' habitat, fragmenting its habitat,or restricting its reproductive capacity?

X X

lmpact Discussion:

4A-1. and 4A-2. No native vegetation exists within the project site or within the surroundingarea. The project site is a dirt lot with some ruderal vegetation (non-native grassesand other weeds following disturbance), several ornamental trees, and an existingresidence that is located within a developed commun¡ty. There is no potential forspecial-status plants to occur on or near the project site, and therefore, the projectwould not impact native plants.

The only potential wildlife habitat on the project site occurs within the ornamentaltrees. These trees potentially provide suitable habitat for nesting migratory birds thatare protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and GameCode Sections 3503.5, 3511, and 3513. The proposed project does not include thealteration or removal of these trees. Therefore, the proposed project will not have aproject-specific impact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to asignificant impact related to special status species.

Mitigation/Residual lm pact(s) :

None.

Final lnitialStudy For PL14-0056Page 1 1




48. Ecological Communities - Sensitive Plant Gommunities





1) Temporarily or permanently remove sensitiveplant communities through construction,grading, clearing, or other activities?

X X

2) Result in indirect impacts from projectoperation at levels that will degrade thehealth of a sensitive plant community?

X X

lmpact Discussion:

4B-1 and 4B-2. No native vegetat¡on occurs on the project site or within the surroundingarea. The project site is a dirt lot with some ruderal vegetation (non-native grassesand other weeds following disturbance), several ornamental trees, and an existingresidence that is located within a developed community. Therefore, the proposedproject will not have a project-specific impact and will not make a cumulativelyconsiderable contribution to a significant impact related to sensitive plantcommunities.


None.





4C. Ecological Communities - Waters and Wetlands



Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**lssue (Responsible Department)*


1) Cause any of the following activities withinwaters or wetlands: removal of vegetation;grading; obstruction or diversion of waterflow; change in velocity, siltation, volume offlow, or runoff rate; placement of fill;placement of structures; construction of aroad crossing; placement of culverts orother underground piping; or anydisturbance of the substratum?

X x

2) Result in disruptions to wetland or riparianplant communities that will isolate orsubstantially interrupt contiguous habitats,block seed dispersal routes, or increasevulnerability of wetland species to exoticweed invasion or local extirpation?

X x

3) lnterfere with ongoinghydrological conditionswetland?

maintenance ofin a water or X X

4) Provide an adequate buffer for protectingthe functions and values of existing watersor wetlands?

X X

lmpact Discussion:

4C-1 through 4C-4. The project site is a dirt lot with some ruderal vegetation (non-nativegrasses and other weeds following disturbance), several ornamental trees, and anexisting residence that is located within a developed community. No watercourses orwetlands occur on or near the project site. Stormwater runoff from the site iscurrently conveyed by developed storm drains to streams and creeks outside of thecommunity. The proposed project will not change the existing drainage of stormwaterfrom the site. Finally, as discussed in Section 2D-2 of this lnitial Study (above), at thetime of construction (requiring a grading and/or building permit) on proposed Parcel2, the applicant will be required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs)per the Ventura Countywide Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit C4S004002,"Development Construction Program" Subpart 4.F, thereby avoiding the creation of asignificant water quality impact to surface water bodies. Therefore, the proposedproject will not have a project-specific impact and will not make a cumulativelyconsiderable contribution to a significant ímpact related to waters and wetlands.






4D. Ecological Gommunities - ESHA (Applies to CoastalZone Only)


1) Temporarily or permanently remove ESHAor disturb ESHA buffers throughconstruction, grading, clearing, or otheractivities and uses (ESHA buffers are within100 feet of the boundary of ESHA asdefined in Section 8172-1 of the CoastalZoning Ordinance)?

X x

2) Result in indirect impacts from projectoperation at levels that will degrade thehealth of an ESHA?

X X

lmpact Discussion:

4D-1 and 4D-2. The project site is not within the coastal zone and does not contain coastalhabitats. Therefore, the proposed project will not create a project-specific impact ormake a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts on coastal habitat.


None.


Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**lssue (Responsible Department)"


4E. Habitat Connectivity





PS


N LS PS-M PS N LS PS-M

X x1) Remove habitat within a wildlife movementcorridor?

X2) lsolate habitat? x

X

3) Construct or create barriers that impede fishand/or wildlife movement, migration or longterm connectivity or interfere with wildlifeaccess to foraging habitat, breeding habitat,water sources, or other areas necessary for theirreproduction?

X

X X

4) lntimidate fish or wildlife via the introductionof noise, light, development or increasedhuman presence?

lmpact Discussion:

4E-1 through 4E-4. The project site is located within a developed community, which is anexisting barrier to wildlife movement. There are no wildlife movement corridors nearthe project site. Therefore, the proposed project will not create a project-specificimpact or make a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to wildlifemovement.


None.

Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect"*


LS PS-M PS N LS PS-M PS


N

X x

4F. W¡¡l the proposed project be consistentwith the applicable General Plan Goalsand Policies for ltem 4 of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidel ines?

lmpact Discussion:

4F. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Goals and Policies forBiological Resources, because the project site is located within an existing developedarea and will not impact biological resources.

Final lnitial Study For PL14-0056Page '15

M itigation/Residual Im pact(s):None.



N LS PS.M PS N LS PS-M PS


5A. Agricultural Resources - Soils (Plng.)


X X

1) Result in the direct and/or indirect loss ofsoils designated Prime, Statewidelmportance, Unique or Local lmportance,beyond the threshold amounts set forth inSection 5a.C of the lnitial Study AssessmentGuidelines?

2) lnvolve a General Plan amendment that willresult in the loss of agricultural soils?

X X


X X

lmpact Discussion:

5A-1. The project site is located on land with an agricultural soils classification of"developed" land, according to the lmportant Farmland lnventory Map. The soildesignation for the project site is not considered a soil of importance according to thelSAGs, and the proposed project will not result in the removal or covering ofimportant soil classifications. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific agricultural soils impact and will not make a cumulatively considerablecontribution to a significant cumulative agricultural soils impact.

5A-2. The proposed project does not involve a General Plan amendment that will result inthe loss of agricultural soils. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a projectspecific agricultural soils impact and will not make a cumulatively considerablecontribution to a significant cumulative agricultural soils impact.

5A-3. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 54.






58. Agricultural Resources - Land Use lncompatibility (AG.)


1) lf not defined as Agriculture or AgriculturalOperations in the zoning ordinances, becloser than the threshold distances set forthin Section sb.C of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidel ines?

X X

2) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 5b of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X

lmpact Discussion:

5B-1. No agricultural operations exist within 1,000 feet of the project site and, consequently,the project site is not located within the threshold distances set forth in the lSAGs.Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific agricultural land useincompatibility impact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to asignificant cumulative agricultural land use incompatibility impact.

5B-2. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 5b.





N LS


PS-M PS N LS PS-M PS

6. Scenic Resources (Plng.)





X X

a) Be located within an area that has a scenicresource that is visible from a public viewinglocation, and physically alter the scenicresource either individually or cumulativelywhen combined with recently approved,current, and reasonably foreseeable futureprojects?

X X

b) Be located within an area that has a scenicresource that is visible from a public viewinglocation, and substantially obstruct,degrade, or obscure the scenic vista, eitherindividually or cumulatively when combinedwith recently approved, current, andreasonably foreseeable future projects?

c) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 6 of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X

lmpact Discussion:

6a. and 6b. The project site is not located within or near a designated Scenic ResourceProtection (SRP) Overlay Zone area. The nearest SRP Overlay Zone is located 5.8miles from the project site. ln addition, the project site cannot be seen from aDesignated or Eligible Scenic Highway because of the intervening existingdevelopment and mature landscaping that blocks views of the project site. Therefore,the proposed project will not have a project-specific scenic resources impact and willnot make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative scenicresources impact.

6c The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 6.


None.





7, Paleontological Resources





X X

a) For the area of the property that is disturbedby or during the construction of theproposed project, result in a direct orindirect impact to areas of paleontologicalsignificance?

b) Contribute to the progressive loss ofexposed rock in Ventura County that can bestudied and prospected for fossil remains?

X X

X


X

lmpact Discussion:

7a and 7b.The subject property is underlain by alluvial fan deposits. According to the lSAGs,alluvial fan deposits are given a paleontological importance ranking of "low" for theoccurrence of paleontological resources. Therefore, it is unlikely that paleontologicalresources exist within the project site. However, in the unlikely event thatpaleontological resources are uncovered during ground disturbance activities, theproposed project will be subject to a condition of approval to require the applicant tosuspend construction until a paleontologist can evaluate, recover, and curate the find,subject to the Planning Director's concurrence.

The Condition of Approval for paleontological resources inadvertently discoveredduring grading is as follows:

Purpose: In order to mitigate potential impacts to paleontological resources that maybe encountered during ground disturbance or construction activities.

Requirement: lf any paleontological remains are uncovered during grounddisturbance or construction activities, the Permittee shall:

a. Cease operations and assure the preservation of the area in which thediscovery was made;

b. Notify the Planning Director in writing, within three days of the discovery;c. Obtain the services of a paleontological consultant or professional

geologist who shall assess the find and provide recommendations on theproper disposition of the site;

d. Obtain the Planning Director's written concurrence of the recommendeddisposition of the site before resuming development; and,

e. lmplement the agreed upon recommendations.


Documentation: Permittee shall submit the reports prepared by the paleontologistor geologist. Additional documentation may be required to demonstrate that thePermittee has implemented any recommendations made by in the paleontologicalreport.

Timing: Paleontological reports shall be provided to the Planning Divisionimmediately upon completion.

Monitoring and Reporting: The Permittee shall provide any paleontological reportprepared for the project site to the Planning Division to be made part of the projectfile. The Permittee shall implement any recommendations made in thepaleontological report to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific paleontologicalresources impact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to asignificant cumulative paleontological resources impact.

The proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 7.

7c.


Project lmpact DegreeOf Effect""



8A. Gultural Resources - Archaeological


1) Demolish or materially alter in an adversemanner those physical characteristics thataccount for the inclusion of the resource in alocal register of historical resourcespursuant to Section 5020.1(k) requirementsof Section 502a.1(g) of the PublicResources Code?

X X

2) Demolish or materially alter in an adversemanner those physical characteristics of anarchaeological resource that convey itsarchaeological significance and that justifyits eligibility for inclusion in the CaliforniaRegister of Historical Resources asdetermined by a lead agency for thepurposes of CEQA?

X X


X X


lmpact Discussion:

8A-1 and 8A-2. A search of the County's Archeological Report database found that there areno archeological sites within 1 mile of the proposed project site. Therefore, it isunlikely that archeological resources exist within the project site. However, in theunlikely event that archeological resources are uncovered during ground disturbanceactivities, the proposed project will be subject to a condition of approval to require theapplicant to suspend construction until an archaeologist can evaluate, recover andcurate the find, subject to the Planning Director's concurrence.

The Condition of Approval for archaeological resources inadvertently discoveredduring grading is as follows:

Purpose: In order to mitigate potential impacts to archaeological resourcesinadvertently discovered during ground disturbance.

Requirement: The Permittee shall implement the following procedures:

a. lf any archaeological or historical artifacts are uncovered during grounddisturbance or construction activities, the Permittee shall:

i. Cease operations and assure the preservation of the area in which thediscovery was made;

¡¡. Notify the Planning Director in writing, within three days of the discovery;ii¡. Obtain the services of a County-approved archaeologist who shall assess

the find and provide recommendations on the proper disposition of the sitein a written report format;

iv. Obtain the Planning Director's written concurrence of the recommendeddisposition of the site before resuming development; and,

v. lmplement the agreed upon recommendations.b. lf any human burial remains are encountered during ground disturbance or

construction activities, the Permittee shall:i. Cease operations and assure the preservation of the area in which the

discovery was made;ii. lmmediately notify the County Coroner and the Planning Director;iii. Obtain the services of a County-approved archaeologist and, if necessary,

Native American Monitor(s), who shall assess the find and providerecommendations on the proper disposition of the site in a written reportformat;

iv. Obtain the Planning Director's written concurrence of the recommendeddisposition of the site before resuming development on-site; and,

v. lmplement the agreed upon recommendations.

Documentation: lf archaeological remains are encountered, the Permittee shallsubmit a report prepared by a County-approved archaeologist includingrecommendations for the proper disposition of the site. Additional documentationmay be required to demonstrate that the Permittee has implemented anyrecommendations made by the archaeologist's report.

Timing: Archaeologist reports shall be piovided to the Planning Division immediatelyupon completion.


8A-3.

Monitoring and Reporting: The Permittee shall provide any archaeologist reportprepared for the project site to the Planning to be made a part of the project file. ThePermittee shall implement any recommendations made in the archaeologist's reportto the satisfaction of the Planning Director. (PL-59)

Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific archeologicalresources impact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to asig n ificant cum u lative a rcheolog ica I resou rces i m pact.

The proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 84.


None.




88. Gultural Resources - Historic (Plng.)


Final lnitialStudy For PL14-0056Page22




1) Demolish or materially alter in an adversemanner those physical characteristics of anhistorical resource that convey its historicalsignificance and that justify its inclusion in,or eligibility for, inclusion in the CaliforniaRegister of Historical Resources?

X X

2) Demolish or materially alter in an adversemanner those physical characteristics thataccount for its inclusion in a local register ofhistorical resources pursuant to Section5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code orits identification in a historical resourcessurvey meeting the requirements of Section5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code?

X X

3) Demolish or materially alter in an adversemanner those physical characteristics of ahistorical resource that convey its historicalsignificance and that justify its eligibility forinclusion in the California Register ofHistorical Resources as determined by alead agency for purposes of CEQA?

X X

4) Demolish, relocate, or alter an historicalresource such that the significance of thehistorical resource will be impaired [PublicResources Code, Sec. 5020(q)l?

X X

lmpact Discussion:

8B-1 to 8B-4. The project site is developed with a single family res¡dence. The project site isnot listed or determined eligible for listing as a historical site in the California Registerof Historic Resources or the National Register of Historic Places, or identified in ahistoric survey worthy of designation in a local register. ln addition, Cultural HeritageBoard staff reviewed the proposed project and determined that there are no items ofhistorical importance located on the project site. No historical resources will bedemolished or materially altered.

Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific historical resourcesimpact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significantcumulative historical resources impact.


None.





9. Goastal Beaches and Sand Dunes


a) Cause a direct or indirect adverse physicalchange to a coastal beach or sand dune,which is inconsistent with any of the coastalbeaches and coastal sand dunes policies ofthe California Coastal Act, correspondingCoastal Act regulations, Ventura CountyCoastal Area Plan, or the Ventura CountyGeneral Plan Goals, Policies andPrograms?

X X

b) When considered together with one or morerecently approved, current, and reasonablyforeseeable probable future projects, resultin a direct or indirect, adverse physicalchange to a coastal beach or sand dune?


X X

lmpact Discussion:

9a and 9b.The project site is located approximately 4 miles from the coast. The proposedproject does not involve any physical construction or installation of barriers in thecoastal zone that could impede sand transport and does not involve the constructionof a shoreline protective structure. Therefore, the proposed project will not have aproject-specific coastal beach or sand dune impact and will not make a cumulativelyconsiderable contribution to a significant cumulative coastal beach or sand duneimpact.

9c. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 9.

Mitigation/Residual lmpact(s):None




N

lssue (Responsi ble Department)*


10. Fault Rupture Hazard (PWA)





X

a) Be at risk with respect to fault rupture in itslocation within a State of Californiadesignated Alquist-Priolo Special FaultStudy Zone?

b) Be at risk with respect to fault rupture in itslocation within a County of Venturadesignated Fault Hazard Area?

X


X X

lmpact Discussion:

There is no known cumulative fault rupture hazard that would occur as a result of otherprojects, to which the proposed project could make a cumulatively considerable contribution.

10a through 10c. Any discussion of potential impacts of seismic and geologic hazards to theproposed project is provided for informational purposes only and is neither required byCEQA nor subject to its requirements. There are no known active or potentially activefaults extend¡ng through the proposed lot based on State of California EarthquakeFault Zones in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, andVentura County General Plan Hazards Appendix-Figure 2.2.3b. Furthermore, noproposed habitable structures are within 50 feet of a mapped trace of an active fault,and the proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 10. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific impact related to potentialfault rupture hazard.

Mitigation/Residual lmpact(s):None





11. Ground Shaking Hazard (PWA)



Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect*lssue (Responsible Department)*


a) Be built in accordance with all applicablerequirements of the Ventura County BuildingCode?

X X

X

b) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 11 of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X

lmpact Discussion:

The hazards from ground shaking will affect each project individually. No cumulat¡ve groundshaking hazard would occur as a result of other projects, to which the proposed project couldmake a cumulatively considerable contribution.

11aand 11b.Any discussion of potential impacts of seismic and geologic hazards to theproposed project is provided for informational purposes only and is neither required byCEQA nor subject to its requirements. The property will be subject to moderate tostrong ground shaking from seismic events on local and regional fault systems. TheCounty of Ventura Building Code adopted from the California Building Code, dated2010, Chapter 16, Section 1613 requires the structures be designed to withstand thisground shaking. These parameters will need to be updated to the building code ineffect at the time the application for building permit is submitted. The requirements ofthe building code will reduce the effects of ground shaking to less-than-significant.Therefore, the proposed project will have a less{han-significant project-specificimpact related to ground shaking hazards, and the proposed project is consistent withthe applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ISAGs ltem 11.

M itigation/Residual lm pact(s):None




12. Liquefaction Hazards (PWA)






a) Expose people or structures to potentialadverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury, or death involving liquefactionbecause it is located within a SeismicHazards Zone?

X


X X

lmpact Discussion:

The hazards from liquefaction will affect each project individually. No cumulative liquefactionhazard would occur as a result of other projects, to which the proposed project could make acumulatively considerable contribution.

12a and 12b. Any discussion of potential impacts of seismic and geologic hazards to theproposed project is provided for informational purposes only and is neither required byCEQA nor subject to its requirements. The site is not located within a potentialliquefaction zone based on the Ventura County General Plan Hazards Appendix -Figure 2.4b. This map is a compilation of the State of California Seismic HazardsMaps for the County of Ventura and is used as the basis for delineating the potentialliquefaction hazards within the county. The project soil report prepared by HeathcoteGeotechnical, dated June 1 ,2013, concludes that the potential for liquefaction is not afactor for the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impactrelated to potential hazards from liquefaction, and the proposed project is consistentwith the applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ISAGs ltem 12.

Mitigation/Residual lmpact(s):None.





13. Seiche and Tsunami Hazards (PWA)





a) Be located within about 10 to 20 feet ofvertical elevation from an enclosed body ofwater such as a lake or reservoir?

X

b) Be located in a mapped area of tsunamihazard as shown on the County GeneralPlan maps?

X


X X

lmpact Discussion:

The hazards from seiche and tsunami will affect each project individually. No cumulativeseiche and tsunami hazard would occur as a result of other projects, to which the proposedproject could make a cumulatively considerable contribution.

13a through 13c. Any discussion of potential impacts of seismic and geologic hazards to theproposed project is provided for informational purposes only and is neither required byCEQA nor subject to its requirements. The project site is not located adjacent to aclosed or restricted body of water based on aerial imagery review (photos datedDecembet 2011, aerial imagery is under the copyrights of Pictometry, Source:Pictometry@, December 2011) and is not subject to seiche hazard. Furthermore, theproject site is not mapped within a tsunami inundation zone based on the VenturaCounty General Plan, Hazards Appendix Figure 2.6. Therefore, the proposed projectwill have no impacts related to seiche or tsunami hazards, and the proposed project isconsistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ISAGs ltem 13.


None.




14. Landslide/Mudflow Hazard (PWA)





PS N LS


N LS PS-M PS-M PS

a) Result in a landslide/mudflow hazard, asdetermined by the Public Works AgencyCertified Engineering Geologist, based onthe location of the site or project within, oroutside of mapped landslides, potentialearthquake induced landslide zones, andgeomorphology of hillside terrain?

X


X X

lmpact Discussion:

The hazards from landslides/mudslides will affect each project individually. No cumulativelandslide/mudslide hazard would occur as a result of other projects, to which the proposedproject could make a cumulatively considerable contribution.

14aand 14b. The site is not located in a mapped landslide orwithin a hillside, and is notlocated in a potential seismically induced landslide zone, based on analysis conductedby the California Geological Survey as part of California Seismic Hazards MappingAct, 1991 , Public Resources Code Sections 2690-2699.6. The proposed project doesnot include any excavations into a hillside. Therefore, the proposed project will haveno impacts related to landslide hazards, and the proposed project will be consistentwith the applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ISAGs ltem 14.

M iti gation/Residual lm pact(s) :

None.





15. Expansive Soils Hazards (PWA)





a) Expose people or structures to potentialadverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury, or death involving soil expansionbecause it is located within a soilsexpansive hazard zone or where soils withan expansion index greater than 20 arepresent?

X


X X

lmpact Discussion:The hazards from expansive soils will affect each project indívidually. No cumulativeexpansive soils hazard would occur as a result of other projects, to which the proposedproject could make a cumulatively considerable contribution.

15a. The geotechnical report prepared by Heathcote Geotechnical, dated June 1,2013,indicates the near surface soils are not considered expansive (El = 0). Therefore, theproposed project will have no impacts related to hazards from expansive soils, and theproposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policies forISAGs ltem 15.


None.

Proiect lmpact DegreeOf Effect*

Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**lssue (Responsible Depafment)*


16. Subsidence Hazard (PWA)


a) Expose people or structures to potentialadverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury, or death involving subsidencebecause it is located within a subsidencehazard zone?

X


x X

Final lnitialStudy For PLl4-0056Page 30

lmpact Discussion:

The hazards from subsidence will affect each project individually. No cumulative subsidencehazard would occur as a result of other projects, to which the proposed project could make acum ulatively considerable contribution.

16a and 16b. The subject property is not within the probable subsidence hazard zone asdelineated on the Ventura County General Plan Hazards Appendix Figure 2.8 (June28,2011) and the project is not for oil, gas, or groundwater withdrawal. Therefore, theproposed project will have no impact related to subsidence hazards, and the proposedproject is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ISAGsItem16.


None.


Cumulative lmpactDeqree Of Effect**


N LS PS-M PS N LS PS-M PS17a. c Hazards - Non-FEMAWill the proposed proiect1) Result in a potential erosion/siltation hazard

and flooding hazard pursuant to any of thefollowing documents (individually,collectively, or in combination with oneanother):. 2007 Ventura County Building Code

Ordinance No.4369¡ Ventura County Land Development

Manual. Ventura County Subdivision Ordinance. Ventura County Coastal Zoning

Ordinance. Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning

Ordinance. Ventura County Standard Land

Development Specifications. Ventura County Road Standards. Ventura County Watershed Protection

District Hydrology Manual. County of Ventura Stormwater Quality

Ordinance, Ordinance No. 41 42. Ventura County Hillside Erosion Control

Ordinance, Ordinance No. 3539 andOrdinance No. 3683

. Ventura County Municipal Storm WaterNPDES Permit

. State General Construction Permit

. State General lndustrial Permit

. National Pollutant DischargeElimination Svstem (NPDES)?

X X


X X


lmpact Discussion:

17a-1 and 17a-2.The proposed project will be completed according to current codes andstandards. The Preliminary Drainage Report by M3 Civil, dated October 29, 2013,and submitted with the previously approved grading project for a building pad, GradingPermit GP13-0059, indicates that it is feasible to maintain the post project runoff atexisting quantities by construction of a S-foot wide earthen swale containing aninfiltration trench. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General PlanGoals and Policies for ISAGs ltem 17a. Therefore, the proposed project will have alessthan-significant project-specific impact and will not make a cumulativelyconsiderable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to non-FEMA floodhazards.


None.





17b. Hydraulic Hazards - FEMA (WPD)


1) Be located outside of the boundaries of aSpecial Flood Hazard Area and entirelywithin a FEMA-determined'X-Unshaded'flood zone (beyond the 0.2o/o annual chancefloodplain: beyond the 500-year floodplain)?

x X

2) Be located outside of the boundaries of aSpecial Flood Hazard Area and entirelywithin a FEMA-determined'X-Shaded' floodzone (within the 0.2% annual chancefloodplain: within the 500-year floodplain)?

X X

3) Be located, in part or in whole, within theboundaries of a Special Flood Hazard Area(1% annual chance floodplain: 1OO-year),but located entirely outside of theboundaries of the Regulatory Floodway?

x X

4) Be located, in part or in whole, within theboundaries of the Regulatory Floodway, asdetermined using the 'Effective' and latestavailable DFIRMS provided by FEMA?

X X


X X

lmpact Discussion:

17b-l through 17b-5. The subject property is deemed to be Less than Significant becausethe property is located outside of the 1o/o annual chance floodplain as evidenced onthe latest "Effective" Digital Flood lnsurance Rate Map (DFIRM) issued by FEMA(January 20,2010) (Panel 0931 of 1275, Map # 06111C0931E). The subject propertyis located within an 'X Unshaded Zone'on the DFIRM Rate Map (outside the 500-yearfloodplain). A Floodplain Development Permit and a Floodplain Clearance are notrequired. Finally, the proposed project is consistent with the floodplain managementpolicies of the Ventura County General Plan and ISAGs ltem 17b.

Therefore, the proposed project will have a less-than-significant project-specificimpact related to flooding, and will not make a cumulatively considerable contributionto a significant cumulative impact related to flooding.


None.





N LS

18. Fire Hazards (VCFPD)

Will the proposed proiect:

a) Be located within High Fire HazardAreas/Fire Hazard Severity Zones orHazardous Watershed Fire Areas?

X X

X


X

lmpact Discussion:

18a. The project is not located within High Fire Hazard Areas/Fire Hazard Severity Zonesor Hazardous Watershed Fire Areas. The project will comply with all applicableFederal, State regulations and the requirements of the County of Ventura BuildingCode and the Fire Code. Therefore, the proposed project will have no project-specificfire hazard impact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to asignificant cumulative fire hazard impact.

18b. The proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 18.

Mitigation/Residual lmpact(s)None.





19. Aviation Hazards (Airports)


a) Comply with the County's AirportComprehensive Land Use Plan and pre-established federal criteria set forth inFederal Aviation Regulation Part 77(Obstruction Standards)?

X X

x X

b) Will the proposed project result in residentialdevelopment, a church, a school, or highcommercial business located within asphere of influence of a County airport?

x xc) Be consistent with the applicable General

Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 19 of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

lmpact Discussion:

19a. and 19b. The project site is not located within the sphere of influence of any publicairport. ln addition, the proposed project will not involve development that will createobstructions within navigable airspace (e.9., the construction of structures orinstallation of lighting that could interfere with navigation). Therefore, the proposedproject will comply with the County's Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan and pre-established federal criteria set forth in Federal Aviation Regulation Title 14, Part 77(Obstruction Standards).

Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific aviation hazard impactand will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulativeaviation hazard i mpact.



None.




20a. Hazardous MaterialsM/aste - Materials (EHD/Fire)







N

x

1) Utilize hazardous materials in compliancewith applicable state and local requirementsas setforth in Section 20aof the lnitialStudy Assessment Guidelines?

X


Plan Goals and Policies for ltem 20a of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

lmpact Discussion:

20a-1.The proposed project does not involve the use of any hazardous materials.Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific impact related tohazardous materials and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to asignificant cumulat¡ve impact related to hazardous materials.

20a-2.The proposed project does not involve the use of any hazardous materials. Therefore,the proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policiesfor ISAGs ltem 20a.


None.





N

20b. Hazardous MaterialsMaste - Waste (EHD)


X X

1) Comply with applicable state and localrequirements as set forth in Section 20b ofthe lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

xX


lmpact Discussion:

20b-1. The proposed project is not considered an activity that generates hazardous waste.Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific impact related tohazardous wastes and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to asignificant cumulative impact related to hazardous wastes.


20b-2.The proposed project is not considered an activity that generates hazardous waste.Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goalsand Policies for ISAGs ltem 20b.


None.





21. Noise and Vibration


x X

a) Either individually or when combined withother recently approved, pending, andprobable future projects, produce noise inexcess of the standards for noise in theVentura County General Plan Goals,Policies and Programs (Section 2.16) or theapplicable Area Plan?

X X

b) Either individually or when combined withother recently approved, pending, andprobable future projects, includeconstruction activities involving blasting,pile-driving, vibratory compaction,demolition, and drilling or excavation whichexceed the threshold criteria provided in theTransit Noise and Vibration lmpactAssessment (Section 12.2)?

X X

c) Result in a transit use located within any ofthe critical distances of the vibration-sensitive uses listed in Table 1 (lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines, Section 21 )?

x X

d) Generate new heavy vehicle (e.9., semi-truck or bus) trips on uneven roadwayslocated within proximity to sensitive usesthat have the potential to either individuallyor when combined with other recentlyapproved, pending, and probable futureprojects, exceed the threshold criteria of theTransit Use Thresholds for rubber-tire heavyvehicle uses (lnitial Study AssessmentGuidelines, Section 21-D,Table 1, ltem No.3)?


Gumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect"*lssue (Responsible Department)"


X X

e) lnvolve blasting, pile-driving, vibratorycompaction, demolition, drilling, excavation,or other similar types of vibration-generatingactivities which have the potential to eitherindividually or when combined with otherrecently approved, pending, and probablefuture projects, exceed the threshold criteriaprovided in the Transit Noise and Vibrationlmpact Assessment [Hanson, Carl E., DavidA. Towers, and Lance D. Meister. (May2006) Section 12.21?

Ð Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 21 of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

x X

lmpact Discussion:

21a. The methodology used in determining whether or not a project will result in asignificant noise impact requires a determination as to whether the proposed use is a"Noise Generator" or a "Noise Sensitive Use." With the exception of construction noise(which is evaluated separately in this lnitial Study below), the use of the single-familydwellings is unlikely to involve the use of noise-generating equipment for a durationthat will result in noise that will exceed the thresholds set forth in the ISAGs and theVentura County General Plan Goals, Policies and Programs (Section 2.1 6).

According to the ISAGs (p. 12O), single-family dwellings are noise sensitive uses.Although this lnitial Study evaluates noise impacts with respect to the use of theproposed single-family dwelling, this analysis is not required pursuant to CEQA and isprovided solely for disclosure purposes and to evaluate the proposed project'sconsistency with the noise policies of the Ventura County General Plan Goals, Policiesand Programs (General Plan). The proposed project will result in the addition of asingle family dwelling. The proposed single family dwelling will not be located nearnoise generators such as railroads, airports, highways, truck routes, heavy industrialactivities and other relatively continuous noise sources. Thus, the proposed projectwill not result in a project-specific impact and will not make a cumulativelyconsiderable contribution to a significant cumulative noise.

21b and 2le.Construction vibration impacts of future development were evaluated using thecriteria set forth in the Transit Noise and Vibration lmpact Assessment (Hanson et al,May 2006, Section 12.2). "The construction activities that typically generate the mostsevere vibrations are blasting and impact pile-driving' (lbid, p.12-11). ln addition, theTransit Noise and Vibration lmpact Assessment states that the "level of constructionvibration analysis will be determined by factors related to the scale of the project andthe sensitivity of the surrounding land use" (p. 12-10). The closest sensitive uses are


existing dwellings located adjacent to the proposed project site. ln order to determineconstruction vibration impacts on vibration sensitive uses, the Vibration lmpact Criteriaconsider the age and fragility of the buildings that include the vibration sensitive use;the Vibration lmpact Criteria state: "Ground vibrations from construction activities donot often reach the levels that can damage structures. A possible exception is thecase of fragile buildings, many of them old, where special care must be taken to avoiddamage" (p. 12-10 and 12-11). However, a visual inspection of the adjacent dwellingsindicate that most of the surrounding development is about 30 years old and thereforewas constructed according to modern building and safety codes. Furthermore, asstated above, the proposed construction activities will not involve blasting, pile-driving,or vibratory compaction.

The newly created vacant parcel will be graded to accommodate the construction ofthe proposed dwelling unit, with the height of the finished slope proposed at 1 foot(from top to bottom). Thus, the grading, construction, and any ground disturbanceactivities related to the proposed dwelling will not involve any blasting, pile-driving, orvibratory compaction. Finally, the use of the proposed single-family dwelling will notinvolve blasting, pile-driving, vibratory compaction, or use of manufacturing orindustrial equipment that could result in vibration impacts. Therefore, the proposedproject will have a less{han-significant project-specific vibration impact and will notmake a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative vibrationimpact.

21c. The proposed project does not involve the development of a transit use. Therefore,the proposed project will not result in a project-specific vibration impact and will notmake a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative noise andvibration impact.

21d. The proposed project does not involve the use of semi-trucks (except for possiblytemporary construction activities) or buses. Therefore, the proposed project does nothave the potential to exceed the threshold criteria of the Transit Use Thresholds forrubber{ire heavy vehicle uses. The proposed project will have a less-than-significantproject-specific vibration impact and will not make a cumulatively considerablecontribution to a significant cumulative noise and vibration impact.

21f. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 21.


None.





N

22. Daytime Glare






a) Create a new source of disability glare ordiscomfort glare for motorists travellingalong any road of the County RegionalRoad Network?

X X


X X

22a.

lmpact Discussion:

The ISAGs describe daytime glare as intense light that is blinding or discomforting tohumans. Conditions that create daytime glare are typically caused by the reflection ofsunlight from highly reflective surfaces at or above eye level. Daytime glare is causedby the reflective surfaces of buildings, structures, or facilities with materials such asmetal or glass. However, the project site does not front on a public street (e.9.,Anacapa Drive, which is located near, but not adjacent to, the project site) and willultimately be screened if or when proposed Parcel Two is developed in the future.Given the screening of a future residence on the adjacent lot, the proposed projectdoes not have the potential to create a new source of disability glare or discomfortglare for motorists. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a significant project-specific impact due to daytime glare. The proposed project will not make acumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative daytime glareimpact.

22b The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 22.

M itigation/Residual lm pact(s)None






23. Public Health (EHD)




PSN LS PS-M PS N LS PS-M


X X

a) Result in impacts to public health fromenvironmental factors as set forth in Section23 of the lnitial Study AssessmentGuidelines?

X Xb) Be consistent with the applicable General


lmpact Discussion:

23a. The proposed project may have impacts to public health from individual sewagedisposal systems. However, compliance with applicable state regulations enforced bythe Environmental Health Division will reduce potential project-specific impacts toless-than-significant, and the proposed project will not make a cumulativelyconsiderable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to public health.

23b. The proposed project may have impacts to public health from individual sewagedisposal systems. However, compliance with applicable state regulations enforced bythe Environmental Health Division will reduce potential project-specific impacts toless{han-significant, and the proposed project will not make a cumulativelyconsiderable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to public health.Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goalsand Policies for ISAGs ltem 23.

Mitigation/Residual lm pact(s)None

Gumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect*"


PS N LS PS-M PSN LS PS-M


24. Greenhouse Gases (VCAPCD)


X x

a) Result in environmental impacts fromgreenhouse gas emissions, either projectspecifically or cumulatively, as set forth in

CEQA Guidelines SS 15064(hX3), 15064.4,15130(bX1)(B) and -(d), and 15183.5?

lmpact Discussion:

24a. The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) has not yet adopted anyapproach to setting a threshold of significance for land use development projects inthe area of project greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed project will generateless than significant impacts to regional and local air quality and the proposed project


will be subject to a condition of approval to ensure that all project construction andoperations shall be conducted in compliance with all VCAPCD Rules andRegulations.

Furthermore, the amount of greenhouse gases anticipated from the proposed projectwill be a small fraction of the levels being considered by the VCAPCD for greenhousegas significance thresholds and far below those adopted to date by any air district inthe state.

Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than-significant project-specificgreenhouses gases impact and will not make a cumulatively considerablecontribution to a significant cumulative greenhouse gases impact.


None.



LS PS-M PS N PS-M PS


N LS

25. Community Character (Plng,)


a) Either individually or cumulatively whencombined with recently approved, current,and reasonably foreseeable probable futureprojects, introduce physical developmentthat is incompatible with existing land uses,architectural form or style, sitedesign/layout, or density/parcel sizes withinthe community in which the project site islocated?

x x

X X


lmpact Discussion:

25a. The project site is located at 310 Anacapa Drive, in the Camarillo Heights Communityof the unincorporated area of Ventura County, north of Las Posas Road. Theproposed project site is currently developed with a single-family, two-story residencethat is 3,100 s.f. in size and includes a two-cargarage that is 400 s.f. in size. Theproposed project is consistent with the Ventura County General Plan "ExistingCommunity/Urban Reserve" land use designation and the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance R1-10,000 s.f. minimum lot size zoning designation, forthe property. The range of heights and sizes of existing single family dwellings withinthe Camarillo Heights area are one and two-story residences of approximately 1,500to 5,000 gross floor area in size. The project site's existing single family dwelling is3,100 square feet in size. The proposed residence on the vacant lot will have a 2,200


s.f. footprint with a maximum square footage of 4,400 square feet. Thus, theproposed single family dwelling will be compatible with existing land uses, massing,dwelling and parcel sizes, and density within the community in which the project siteis located.

Proposed Parcel One will be 20,001 s.f. in size and proposed Parcel Two will be20,347 s.f. in size. The size of the proposed lots will be consistent with the size ofexisting lots within the Camarillo Heights Community, which range from 13,068 s.f. to77,972 s.f. in size. The proposed project includes the creation of a building pad forproposed Parcel Two that will be located in the east end of the property oncesubdivided. The proposed building envelope on Parcel Two will requireapproximately 150 cubic yards of grading forcompaction of the building pad, and tocreate earthen swales with infiltration trenches and an infiltration basin for stormwater drainage. The new private access drive that will provide access to proposedParcels One and Two will be 26 feet wide with a turnaround for VCFPD accesslocated on proposed Parcel Two.

The maximum allowed building coverage per the Ventura County General Plan forthe proposed lot is approximately 7,200 s.f. The proposed residence on the vacantlot will have a 2,200 s.f. footprint and a garage footprint of 500 s.f., thus resulting in atotal maximum building coverage of 2,700 s.f. Therefore, the proposed project willcomply with the maximum building coverage requirements that apply to the proposedproject. Pursuant to the maximum building height regulations of the Ventura CountyNon-Coastal Zoning Ordinance (S 8106-1.1), the future single-family dwelling andattached garage could not exceed 25 feet in height unless the side yard setbackswere increased to allow a 35 foot maximum height.

Therefore, the proposed project will have a lessthan-significant project-specificcommuníty character impact and will not make a cumulatively considerablecontribution to a significant cumulative community character impact.

The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 25.

25b.

M itigation/Residual lm pact(s)None




26. Housing (Plng.)





LS PS-M PS


N LS PS-M PS N

X X

a) Eliminate three or more dwelling units thatare affordable to:. moderate-income households that are

located within the Coastal Zone;and/or,

. lower-incomehouseholds?

b) lnvolve construction which has an impact onthe demand for additional housing due topotential housing demand created byconstruction workers?

X X

X Xc) Result in 30 or more new fulltime-

equivalent lower-income employees?

X Xd) Be consistent with the applicable General


lmpact Discussion:

26a. The project will result in the construction of an additional single-family dwelling.Regardless of the income category to which the existing single-family dwelling isaffordable, or the income category to which the proposed single-family dwelling willbe affordable, the proposed project will not result in the removal of dwelling units thatare affordable to moderate-income or lower-income households. Therefore, theproposed project will not have a significant project-specific ímpact related to theelimination of housing, and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution toa significant cumulative impact related to the elimination of housing.

26b. As stated in the ISAGs (p.146), any project that involves construction has an impacton the demand for additional housing due to potential housing demand created byconstruction workers. However, construction worker demand is a less thansignificant project-specific and cumulative impact because construction work is short-term and there is a sufficient pool of construction workers within Ventura County andthe Los Angeles metropolitan regions." Therefore, the proposed project will have aless{han-significant project-specific impact related to the demand for constructionworker housing and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a

significant cumulative impact related to the demand for construction worker housing.

The proposed residential use of the project site will not involve the creation of 30 ormore new full-time-equivalent lower income employees. Therefore, the proposedproject will have a less{han-significant project-specific housing impact and will notmake a cumulatively cons¡derable contribution to a significant cumulative housingimpact.


26c

26d. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 26.


None



N



27a(11. Transportation & Circulation - Roads and Highways - Level of Service (LOS) (PWA)


a) Cause existing roads within the RegíonalRoad Network or Local Road Network that arecurrently functioning at an acceptable LOS tofunction below an acceptable LOS?

X X

lmpact Discussion:

27a(1)-a.The project is a subdivision of one lot into two lots in the unincorporated area ofCamarillo Heights. The project does not have direct frontage on the nearest publicroadway, a city-maintained road. The proposed project will generate additional trafficon the Regional Road Network and local public roads. To address the cumulativeadverse impacts of traffic on the Regional Road Network, Ventura County Trafficlmpact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) Ordinance 4246 and the policies set forth in the VenturaCounty General Plan Goals, Policies and Programs (S 4.2.2) require that the PublicWorks Agency Transportation Department (PWATD) collect a TIMF for development.This development is subject to this Ordinance. With payment of the TIMF, the LOS ofthe existing roads will remain consistent with the County's General Plan policies.

Therefore, the proposed project will have a less-than-significant project specific trafficimpact with regard to LOS, and the proposed project will not make a cumulativelyconsiderable contribution to a significant cumulative traffic impact with regard to LOS.




Gumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect**lssue (Responsible Department)"


27a(21. Transportation & Girculation - Roads and Highways - Safety and Design of Public Roads(PwA)






X X

a) Have an Adverse, Significant Project-Specificor Cumulative lmpact to the Safety and Designof Roads or lntersections within the RegionalRoad Network (RRN) or Local Road Network(LRN)?

lmpact Discussion:

27a(2)-a. The project site is accessed via a private access drive from Anacapa Drive, whichis a city-maintained road. No County-maintained roadways are affected by theproject since Anacapa Drive is a public roadway under the City of Camarillo'sjurisdiction. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less-than-significantproject specific traffic impact with regard to the safety and design of roadways, andthe proposed project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to asignificant cumulative traffic impact with regard to safety and design of roadways.



Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect"*



27a(31. Transportation & Circulation - Roads & Highways - Safety & Design of Private Access(vcFPD)

X X

a) lf a private road or private access isproposed, will the design of the private roadmeet the adopted Private Road Guidelinesand access standards of the VCFPD aslisted in the lnitial Study AssessmentGuidelines?

X

b) Will the project be consistent with theapplicable General Plan Goals and Policiesfor ltem 27a(3) of the lnitial StudyAssessment Guidelines?

X

lmpact Discussion:

27a(3)-a. Assuming the Planning Director approves the proposed project, the VCFPD hasrecommended that the Planning Division place conditions of approval on theTentative Parcel Map for: a) the relocation of the existing water valve and firehydrant out of the private drive entrance; b) require the design and improvement of


a 26 foot turn-around and a 26 foot wide private access roadway that meet the FireCode requirements for fire department access to serve proposed Parcels One andTwo. The creation of a 26 foot wide roadway and the turn-around with a pervious,all-weather surface, as conditioned, will not have an impact on safety and designof private access.

Therefore, the proposed project will have a less-than-significant project specifictraffic impact with regard to the safety and design of private access roads, and theproposed project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to asignificant cumulative traffic impact with regard to the safety and design of privateaccess roads.

27a(3)-b. The proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goalsand Policies.


None.





27aþ1. Transportation & Girculation - Roads & Highways - Tactical Access (VCFPD)


a) lnvolve a road or access, public or private,that complies with VCFPD adopted PrivateRoad Guidelines?

X X

X X

b) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 27a(4) ofthe lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

lmpact Discussion:

27a(4)-a. As stated in Section 27a(3)-a of this lnitial Study (above), the proposed project willbe subject to conditions of approval to ensure that all roads that will afford accessto the project site will meet the minimum requirements of VCFPD accessstandards. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific impactand will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significantcumulative impact, with regard to emergency access.

27a@)-b. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 27a(4).



None.



N LS PS-M PS


N LS PS-M PS

27b. Transportation & Girculation - Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities (PWA/PIng.)


X X

1) Will the Project have an Adverse, SignificantProject-Specific or Cumulative lmpact toPedestrian and Bicycle Facilities within theRegional Road Network (RRN) or Local RoadNetwork (LRN)?

x x

2) Generate or attract pedestrian/bicycle trafficvolumes meeting requirements for protectedhighway crossings or pedestrian and bicyclefacilities?

x X3) Be consistent with the applicable General Plan

Goals and Policies for ltem 27b of the lnitialStudy Assessment Guidelines?

lmpact Discussion:

27b-1 and 27b-2. The proposed project will contribute to a slight increase in the population(estimated at 3.4 persons per household) due to the construction of one new single-family dwelling. This small increase will not generate significant pedestrian andbicycle traffic. The nearest public roadway is in the City of Camarillo's jurisdiction. Dueto the rural nature of the road, pedestrian traffic that may be generated by the newsingle-family residence must walk on the road shoulder and any bicycle traffic thatmay be generated must share the road with vehicular traffic. Therefore, the proposedproject will have a less-than-significant project-specific pedestrian/bicycle facilitiesimpact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significantcu m u lative pedestria n/bicycle facilities im pact.

27b-3. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 27b.






27c. Transportation & Circulation - Bus Transit


1) Substantially interfere with existing bustransit facilities or routes, or create asubstantial increase in demand foraddítional or new bus transitfacilities/services?

X X

X X

2) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 27c of lhelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

lmpact Discussion:

27c-1. The project site is not located near any bus transit facilities. The nearest bus route isthe Vista Bus line stop at Carmen Plaza that is located approximately one and a halfmiles from the project site. At this distance, the proposed development does nothave the potential to interfere with bus transit facilities. Furthermore, the net increaseof one single-family dwelling will not create a substantial increase in demand for bustransit facilities.

Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific bus transit impact andwill not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative bustransit impact.

27c-2. The proposed project ¡s consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 27c.



Gumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect"*lssue (Responsible Department)*


27d. Transportation & Girculation - Railroads






1) lndividually or cumulatively, substantiallyinterfere with an existing railroad's facilitiesor operations?

X X

2) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 27d of lhelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X

lmpact Discussion:

27d-1. The Union Pacific railroad is located about two miles from the proposed project site.The proposed project consists of the subdivision of one lot into two lots, and theconstruct¡on of one single-family dwelling, on the proposed vacant lot. Given thedistance between the Union Pacific railroad and the project site, as well as theexisting development that physically separates the project site from the Union Pacificrailroad, the proposed project will not interfere with the use of the Union Pacificrailroad. Therefore, the proposed project will have a lessthan-significant project-specific railroads impact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution toa significant cumulative railroads impact.

27d-2. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 27d.


None.





27e. Transportation & Circulation - Airports (Airports)






1) Have the potential to generate complaintsand concerns regarding interference withairports?

X x

2) Be located within the sphere of influence ofeither County operated airport?

X x

3) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 27e of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X x

lmpact Discussion:

27e-1. and 27e-2. The proposed project site is not located within an airport sphere ofinfluence. The proposed project consists of the subdivision of one Iot into two lots,and the construction of one single-family dwelling, on the proposed vacant lot. Thistype of development is not expected to generate complaints or concerns regardinginterference with airports. As discussed in this lnitial Study (above), the proposedproject site is not located within the sphere of influence of a County-operated airport,and does not involve a use or the construction of a building or structure that couldinterfere with the operations of an airport. The proposed single family dwelling will beno more than twenty-five feet in height and its future lighting is not expected toinclude strobe, scintillating, flood, or other types of lighting that will be projectedupward and could interfere with air traffic. Therefore, the proposed project will nothave a project-specific airport impact and will not make a cumulatively considerablecontribution to a significant cumulative airport impact.

27e-3. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 27e.





N LS PS-M PS N LS


PS-M PS

27f. Transportation & Circulation - Harbor Facilities (Harbors)





1) lnvolve construction or an operation that willincrease the demand for commercial boattraffic and/or adjacent commercial boatfacilities?

x X

2) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 27f of lhelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

x X

lmpact Discussion:

27f-1 The project site is not located adjacent to a harbor, will not affect the operations of aharbor, and/or increase the demands on harbor facilities. The nearest harbor is theVentura Harbor, which is located approximately eight miles to the south/southwest ofthe project site. Furthermore, the proposed project does not involve the constructionof new shoreline protective measures that could interfere with the operations of theVentura Harbor or any other harbor.

Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific harbor facilities impactand will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulativeharbor facilities impact.

27f-2. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 27f .







279. Transportation & Circulation - Pipelines


X X

1) Substantially interfere with, or compromisethe integrity or affect the operation of, anexisting pipeline?


X X

lmpact Discussion:

279-1. According to the Resource Management Agency GIS Viewer, the proposed projectwill not be located near any oil and/or gas pipelines. The nearest major pipeline tothe project site is located 1.7 miles from the project site. The project would notsubstantially interfere with or compromise the integrity of the operation of the existingpipeline. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specific impact andwill not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulativeimpact to pipelines.

279-2. The proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 279.

Mitigation/Residual lmpact(s) :

None.




28a. Water Supply - Quality (EHD)


1) Comply with applicable state and localrequirements as set forth in Section 2Ba otthe lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X x

2) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 28a of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

x X

lmpact Discussion:

28a-1 and 28a-2. The State Department of Health Services regulates the public watersystem that will serye domestic water for the proposed project. The quality of domesticwater must be in compliance with applicable State drinking water standards. Designand construction of the proposed project must conform with applicable State andBuilding Code requirements pertaining to water systems. ln addition, the proposedproject will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and Policies forISAGs ltem 28a.

The proposed project will not have any project-specific impacts related to the quality ofwater from a public water system and will not make a cumulatively considerablecontribution to a significant cumulative impact related to the quality of water from apublíc water system.



None.




28b. Water Supply - Quantity (WPD)


1) Have a permanent supply of water? X X

X X

2) Either individually or cumulatively whencombined with recently approved, current,and reasonably foreseeable probable futureprojects, introduce physical developmentthat will adversely affect the water supply -quantity of the hydrologic unit in which theproject site is located?


X X

lmpact Discussion:

28b-1. A water availability letter dated March 20, 2014 and signed by Mr. Gerard Doran fromthe Pleasant Valley Mutual Water Company (PVMWC) states that water will beavailable to both proposed lots. PVMWC is considered to be able to supply along-term supply of domestic water to the proposed project site. Therefore, theproposed project will have no impact regarding the quantity of water supply for theproposed project, and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to asignificant cumulative impact regarding the quantity of the water supply for theproposed project.

28b-2.The proposed project will not individually or cumulatively when combined with recentlyapproved, current, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, introducephysical development that would adversely affect the quantity of water of thehydrologic unit in which the project site is located. The Fox Canyon GroundwaterManagement Agency limits groundwater extractions within its boundaries by use of anallocation system. PVMWC can only extract groundwater up to its current allocationlimit. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact regarding the quantity ofwater supply for the proposed project, and will not make a cumulatively considerablecontribut¡on to a significant cumulative impact regarding the quantity of the watersupply for the proposed project.

28b-3.The proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals and


Policies for ISAGs ltem 28b.





28c. Water Supply - Fire Flow Requirements (VCFPD)


1) Meet the required fire flow? X X

2) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 28c of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X

lmpact Discussion:

28c-1. The project is served by a water purveyor that can provide the required fire flow inaccordance with the Ventura County Waterworks Manual and VCFPD Fire Code.Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact with regard to the water supply forfire protection purposes, and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution toa significant cumulative impact regarding the quantity of the water supply for fireprotection purposes.

28c-2. The proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies.


None.




29a. Waste Treatment & Disposal Facilities - Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (EHD)






1) Comply with applicable state and localrequirements as set forth in Section 29a ofthe lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

x X


X X

lmpact Discussion:

29a-1 and 29a-2.4n individual sewage disposal system will be utilized for sewage disposal.The soils report provided for review adequately demonstrates septic system feasibilityfor the subject project. Compliance with applicable state and local regulations withrespect to the design and installation of septic systems will reduce potentialproject-specific and cumulative impacts from individual sewage disposal to a levelconsidered less than significant. ln addition, the proposed project will be consistentwith the applicable General Plan Goals and Policies for ISAGs ltem 29a.

Therefore, the proposed project will have a less-than-significant impact with regard tothe use of individual sewage disposal systems, and will not make a cumulativelyconsiderable contribution to a significant cumulative impact regarding the use ofindividual sewage disposal systems.



Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect*"lssue (Responsible Department)*


29b. Waste Treatment & Disposal Facilities - Sewage Collection/Treatment Facilities (EHD)


1) Comply with applicable state and localrequirements as set forth in Section 29b ofthe lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X


x x

Final lnitiatStudy For PL14-0056Page 55

lmpact Discussion:

29b-1 and 29b-2. The proposed project does not include connection to a public sewersystem. ln addition, the proposed project will be consistent with the applicableGeneral Plan Goals and Policies for ISAGs ltem 29b. Therefore, the proposed projectwill not have a project-specific impact regarding the use of a sewagecollection/treatment facility, and will not make a cumulatively considerable contributionto a significant cumulative impact regarding the use of a sewage collectionitreatmentfacility.


None.




29c. Waste Treatment & Disposal Facilities - Solid Waste Management (PWA)


1) Have a direct or indirect adverse effect on alandfill such that the project impairs thelandfill's disposal capacity in terms ofreducing its useful life to less than 15 years?

x X

2) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 29c of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X x

lmpact Discussion:

29c-1. As required by California Public Resources Code (PRC) 41701, Ventura County'sCountywide Siting Element (CSE), adopted in June 2001 and updated annually,confirms Ventura County has at least 15 years of disposal capacity available forwaste generated by in-County projects. Because the County currently exceeds theminimum disposal capacity required by state PRC, the proposed project will haveless than significant project-specific impacts, and will not make a cumulativelyconsiderable contribution to significant cumulative impacts related to VenturaCounty's solid waste disposal capacity.

29c-2. Ventura County Ordinance 4421 requires all discretionary permit applicants whoseproposed project includes construction and/or demolition activities to reuse, salvage,recycle, or compost a minimum of 60% of the solid waste generated by their project.The IWMD's waste diversion program (Form B Recycling Plan/Form C Report)ensures this 60% diversion goal is met prior to issuance of a final zoning clearancefor use inauguration or occupancy, consistent with the Ventura County General


Plan's Waste Treatment & Disposal Facility Goals 4.4.1-1 and -2 and Policies 4.4.2-1,-2, -4, and -6. Therefore, the proposed project will have less than significant project-specific impacts, and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution tosignificant cumulative impacts, related to the Ventura County's General Plan goalsand policies for solid waste disposal capacity.


None.




29d. Waste Treatment & Disposal Facilities - Solid Waste Facilities (EHD)


1) Comply with applicable state and localrequirements as set forth in Section 29d ofthe lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X

2) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 29d of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

X X

lmpact Discussion:

29d-1. The proposed project does not include a solid waste facility. Therefore, the proposedproject will not have any project-specific impact related to the construction and use ofa solid waste facility, and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to asignificant cumulative impact related to the construction and use of a solid wastefacility.

29d-2.The proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 29d.



Project lmpact DegreeOf Effect"*



30. Utilities






a) lndividually or cumulatively cause adisruption or re-routing of an existing utilityfacility?

X X

X X

b) lndividually or cumulatively increasedemand on a utility that results in expansionof an existing utility facility which has thepotential for secondary environmentalimpacts?


X X

lmpact Discussion:

30a. The local area ¡s currently served with electrical, gas, and communication facilities.The proposed project consists of the subdivision of one lot into two lots, and theconstruction of a single-family dwelling on the proposed vacant lot. Utilities locatedwithin the project site will be temporarily disrupted and re-routed during theconstruction phase of the project. However the disruption will be temporary and theutilities will be restored once construction of the single-family dwelling is completed.Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than-significant cumulative utilitiesimpact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significantcumulative utilities impact

30b. Development of the proposed project will not increase demand on a utility such thatan expansion of an existing utility facility is necessary. Therefore, the proposedproject will have a less-than-significant project-specific utilities impact and will notmake a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative utilitiesimpact.



None.



N LS



31a. Flood Control Facilities/Watercourses - Watershed Protection District (WPD)






N


X X

1) Either directly or indirectly, impact floodcontrol facilities and watercourses byobstructing, impairing, diverting, impeding,or altering the characteristics of the flow ofwater, resulting in exposing adjacentproperty and the community to increasedrisk for flood hazards?


X X

lmpact Discussion:31a-1. The proposed project will not involve a direct connect¡on to Anacapa Drain, Camarillo

Hills Drain, or any other Watershed Protection District jurisdictional red line channels.Anacapa Drain and Camarillo Hills Drain are located southerly of the siteapproximately 1,568-feet and 2,000-feet, respectively, from the project site. Futuredevelopment on the proposed lots will be subject to the requirements of Appendix J ofthe Ventura County Building Code, which requires runoff from the site to be releasedat no greater than the undeveloped flow rate and in such a manner as to not cause anadverse impact downstream in velocity or duration. Therefore, the proposed projectwill have a less-than-significant project-specific impact to Watershed ProtectionDistrict jurisdictional red line channels, and will not make a cumulatively considerablecontribution to a significant impact to Watershed Protection District jurisdictional redline channels.

31a-2.The proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 31a.

M itigation/Residual lmpact(s)None.



Gumulative lmpactDegree Of Effec{**



31b. Flood Control Facilities/Watercourses - Other Facilities (PWA)





1) Result in the possibility of deposition ofsediment and debris materials withinexisting channels and allied obstruction offlow?

x X

2) lmpact the capacity of the channel and thepotential for overflow during design stormconditions?

X X

3) Result in the potential for increased runoffand the effects on Areas of Special FloodHazard and regulatory channels both onand off site?

x X

4) lnvolve an increase in flow to and fromnatural and man-made drainage channelsand facilities?

x X


X X

lmpact Discussion:

31b-1 through 31b-4.The project will be completed according to current codes and standards.The Preliminary Drainage Report by M3 Civil, dated October 29,2013, and submittedwith prevíously approved grading project for a building pad, Grading PermitGP13-0059, indicates that it is feasible to maintain the post project runoff at existingquantities by construction of a 5-foot wide earthen swale with an infiltration trench.Therefore, the impacts of the project on drainage facilities not under the jurisdiction ofthe Watershed Protection District are less than significant.




Cumulative lmpactDegree Of Effect"*lssue (Responsible Department)*


32. Law E nforcemenUEmergency Services (S heriff)





LS PS-M PS


N LS PS-M PS N

X Xa) Have the potential to increase demand for

law enforcement or emergency services?

X Xb) Be consistent with the applicable General


lmpact Discussion:

32a. The proposed project consists of the subdivision of one lot into two lots, and theconstruction of one s¡ngle-family dwelling on the proposed vacant lot. The netincrease of one single-family dwelling above existing conditions will not require theacquisition or construction of additional personnel, equipment, or facilities of theVentura County Sheriffs Department, in order to continue to provide lawenforcemenUemergency services. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less-than-significant project-specific law enforcemenUemergency services impact and willnot make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative lawenforcemenUemergency services impact.

32b. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 32.




PS N LS PS-M PS


N LS PS-M

33a. Fire Protection Services - Distance and Response (VGFPD)






1) Be located in excess of five miles,measured from the apron of the fire stationto the structure or pad of the proposedstructure, from a full{ime paid firedepartment?

X X

X X

2) Require additional fire stations andpersonnel, given the estimated responsetime from the nearest full-time paid firedepartment to the project site?


x X

lmpact Discussion:

33a-1 and 33a-2.The project is located within 5 miles of the nearest full time fire station andhas a response time not exceeding 7 minutes in urban areas from the nearest fulltime fire station (Station 54 located at 2160 Píckwick Drive, Camarillo). No new firestations or personnel will be required. Therefore, the proposed project will not have aproject-specific distance and response times impact and will not make acumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative distance andresponse times impact.

33a-3. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goalsand Policies for ISAGs ltem 33a.

M itigation/Residual lmpact(s)

None.






33b. Fire Protection Services - Personnel, Equipment, and Facilities (VCFPD)






X X1) Result in the need for additional personnel?

x X2) Magnitude or the distance from existing

facilities indicate that a new facility oradditional equipment will be required?


X X

lmpact Discussion:33b-1 and 33b-2. The project site is located within 5 miles of the nearest full-time paid fire

station (Station 54 located at 2160 Pickwick Drive, Camarillo), and no new firestations or personnel will be required. Therefore, the proposed project will not have aproject specific personnel, equipment, and facilities impact and will not make acumulatively considerable contribut¡on to a significant cumulative personnel,equipment, and facilities impact.


M itigation/Residual lm pact(s):

None.




LS PS-M PS


N LS PS-M PS N

34a. Education - Schools


X X1) Substantially interfere with the operations of

an existing school facility?

X X


lmpact Discussion:

34a-1. Camarillo Heights Elementary School is the nearest school to the project site. lt islocated approximately a mile from the project site. Based on the distance between theelementary school and the project site, the proposed project will not substantiallyinterfere with the operations of an existing elementary school.

The proposed project consists of the subdivision of one lot into two lots, and theconstruction of one single-family dwelling on the proposed vacant lot. The netincrease of one single-family dwelling will create a corresponding demand for newschool facilities. However, pursuant to Government Code S65996[a(1) and a (2)]: (1)the applicant will be required to demonstrate that the applicant paid the requisiteschool fees prior to obtaining a building permit for the single-family dwelling; and (2)the payment of these fees is considered to be "full and complete school facilitiesmitigation" of the proposed project's impacts related to the demand for new schoolfacilities. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant project-specific schools impact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution toa significant cumulative schools.

34a-2. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 34a.





34b. Education - Public Libraries (Lib. Agency)





LS PS-M PS


N LS PS-M PS N

X1) Substantially interfere with the operations of

an existing public library facility?

X

2) Put additional demands on a public libraryfacility which is currently deemedovercrowded?

X

3) Limit the ability of individuals to accesspublic library facilities by private vehicle oralternative transportation modes?

X

4) ln combination with other approved projectsin its vicinity, cause a public library facility tobecome overcrowded?

X X


lmpact Discussion:

34b-1.and 34b-2. The closest library is the City of Camarillo Public Library, which isapproximately 1.5 miles away from the project site. Based on the distance betweenthe City of Camarillo Public library and the project site, the proposed project will notsubstantially interfere with the operations of an existing public library facility. TheCity of Camarillo Public Library is a relatively new library (constructed in 2011) thathas not been deemed overcrowded by the City of Camarillo. Therefore, the projectwill not put substantial additional demands on a public library facility. The proposedproject will not have a project-specific libraries impact and will not make acumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative libraries impact.

34b-3.

34b-4.

As stated above, the closest library is the City of Camarillo Public Library, which isapproximately 1.5 miles away from the project site. At this distance, the proposedproject does not have the potential to interfere with access to the City of CamarilloLibrary or any other public library facilities. Therefore, the proposed project will nothave a project-specific libraries impact and will not make a cumulativelyconsiderable contribution to a significant cumulative libraries impact.

The proposed project will contribute to a slight increase in the population (estimatedat 3.4 persons per household) due to the construction of one new single-familydwelling. This increase is negligible and thus will not create a significant impact tothe City or County library system or cause the public library facility to becomeovercrowded. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a project-specificlibraries impact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to asignificant cumulative libraries impact.


34b-5. The proposed project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 34b.






35. Recreation Facilities (GSA)


X X

a) Cause an increase in the demand forrecreation, parks, and/or trails andcorridors?

b) Cause a decrease in recreation, parks,and/or trails or corridors when measuredagainst the following standards:. Local Parks/Facilities - 5 acres of

developable land (less than 15% slope)per 1,000 population;Reqional Parks/Facilities - 5 acres ofdevelopable land per 1,000 population;o[,ReqionalTrails/Corridors - 2.5 miles per1,000 population?

a

a

x X

X Xc) lmpede future development of Recreation

Parks/Facilities and/or RegionalTrails/Corridors?

X X

d) Be consistent with the applicable GeneralPlan Goals and Policies for ltem 35 of thelnitial Study Assessment Guidelines?

lmpact Discussion:

35a. and 35b. The proposed project will result in a net increase of one single-family dwellingand a corresponding demand for recreational facilities. However, pursuant to therequirements of the Ventura County Subdivision Ordinance ($8209-6.1(a)), theproposed project will be subject to a condition of approval to require the applicant topay the requisite fee ("Quimby fee") to the General Services Agency - ParksDepartment, in lieu of dedicating land for local park acquisition or development. Withthe payment of this fee for the development of recreational facilities, the proposedproject will have a lessthan-significant project-specific impact on recreationalfacilities and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant


cumulative impact related to the demand for recreational facilities

35c. The proposed project does not have the potential to impede the development ofparks/facilities and/or regional trails/corridors. There are no existing or planned trailsor corridors within the project site or on lands adjacent to the project site. Theproposed project will have a less-than-significant project-specific recreation facilitiesimpact and will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significantcumulative recreation facilities impact.

35d. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Goals andPolicies for ISAGs ltem 35.


None.

*Key to the agencies/departments that are responsible for the analysís of the items above:

Airports - Department Of Airports AG. - Agricultural Department VCAPCD - Air Pollution Control District

EHD - Environmental Health Division VCFPD - Fire Protection District GSA - General Services AgencyHarbors - Harbor Department Lib. Agency - Library Services Agency Plng. - Planning Division

PWA - Public Works Agency Sheriff - Sheriffs Department WPD - Watershed Protection District

HKey to lmpact Degree of Effect:N - No lmpactLS - Less than Significant lmpactPS-M - Potentially Signifìcant but Mitigable lmpact


Section C - Mandatory Findings of Significance

Based on the information contained within Section B:

Yes No

X

L Does the project have the potential to degrade thequality of the environment, substantially reduce thehabitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish orwildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare orendangered plant or animal, or eliminate importantavarnnlac nf fha rnainr narinr{q nf Califnrnia histnru nr

x

2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long{erm, environmentalgoals? (A short-term impact on the environment is onethat occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of timewhile lono-term imoacts will endure well into the future).

X

Does the project have impacts that are individuallylimited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulativelyconsiderable" means that the incremental effects of aproject are considerable when viewed in connectionwith the effects of past projects, the effect of othercurrent projects, and the effect of probable futureprojects. (Several projects may have relatively smallindividual impacts on two or more resources, but the

3

X

4. Does the pro¡ect have environmental effects that willcause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly?

Findings Discussion:

As stated above in Section B of this lnitial Study, the proposed project does not havethe potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitatof a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the numberor restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate importantexamples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

The proposed project does not involve the potential to achieve short term, to thedisadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.

As stated in Section B, the proposed project does not have the potential to create acumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

As stated in Section B, the proposed project will have at most a less-than-significantimpact with regard to adverse effects, either directly or indirectly, on human beings.


1

2.

3.

4

Section D - Determination of Environmental Document

Based on this initial evaluation:

I rPlanner Date

Attachments:

Attachment 1 - Aerial Location MapAttachment2- Tentative Parcel MapAttachment 3 - County of Ventura List and Map of Past, Present, and Reasonably

Foreseeable Future Projects Used in the Cumulative lmpacts AnalysisAttachment 4 - City of Camarillo List and Map of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable

Future Projects Used in the Cumulative lmpacts AnalysisAttachment 5 -Works Cited


.Aû /

txl I find the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, anda Negative Declaration should be prepared.

t1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on theenvironment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigationmeasure(s) described in Section B of the lnitial Study will be applied to the project. AMitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared.

t1 I find the proposed project, individually and/or cumulatively, MAY have a significanteffect on the environment and an Environmental lmpact Report (ElR) is required."

t1 I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least oneeffect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicablelegal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on theearlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental lmpact Report isrequired, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.*

t1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on theenvironment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzedadequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards,and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NegativeDeclarqtion, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon theproposè{project, noth ing fu rther is requ i red.

Project PL14-0056

ffi e"r"",' APN: tsl-0-o4o-ss5

@FlÞnZoning

Area Plan

III

III

County of VenturaPlanning Director Hearing

PL14-0056General Plan & Zoning Map

$Venlura county,cel¡toaniâ

Resoúrco Mil¿gÞmnt AgþncyGIS Dêvolopmdt t MÂpping S€Í¡cê3

Mâp Creeted on 11-12-2014Thi3 Âeriâl ¡mâgery ¡3 underthe

copyrigÌrG ot P¡ctmdrySou.co: Pictomtry,Jan. 2014

RMA9's

ATTACHMENT 1

DÉclarme. ThiÊ Map was crealed by lhe Venlurã Counly ReeurcèkñagemênlAgðncy Måppino SêryÈe6.GlSwhbh iô dedgnedend opeÈiod Ðl.ly for lhè convônbnæ ol lhe CounV and rcl.ledpublc ã96nciee ltu Cou¡ty doe6 no Merånl lhe aÉu6cy ol lhßrup¿nd no deciôbn involviñg a ri6kolêconomb lo6Ê orphyd€l

RH

I

I

I

I

I

tI

l"l

LOT 1 (25 RS 16)

5260 0R 554

LOT 2 (25 RS 16)

DOC No 90-123992, OR

.P

25'

Bench l\y'ork

Record Leqol DescripIion

o.t

=ÍtzlÞ

Items Correspondinq to Schedule B

,** *-//z

\l

INST No 20100916-00140320, OR

LOT 4 (25 RS 16)

LOI E BLOCK 4

(r6 MR ¡l)

O ^rohd-y--.-*-'d-bróduúdi hd. bdÚ¡rhùn!r,¡

PrF{ ødrREdr @þrh¡.M)

o hÉ.-*drd@b-d-,P¡r..70 odbdtud. te,H0r.rdcilqùhdnF)

I

INST No 20050823-00209921, OR

LO'r J (2s RS 16)

Leqend of Syñbols Utrlrty OwnersO ste rco"rss lro

^NAcÆ^ o*w

@ ^s*so" PÆG! No ¡ I r5r-o-o1o-5s5

@ er'mnc omunos, dE REsroENr[

f-l FLæD zdE p^NaL r 6rrc09]E .r..ûÉ &r.: at/tg/2oto, z.n. 'x'

@ e,snn" .^"0 u* "es,oenn^t

@ rx'sr'rc zourc n-' roooør

O eno"oteo L^ND ur: RESTDENT^L (sNcLÉ tauly)

@ ""o"otro zdrNc No daNcc

@ ornæn..*o rset, æs'oe^n^.

@)*Eæ'"oÆ"$o*RECORD SUREY DAIÀ

LINE LEGEND

P.opos.d Property Li..

-

P.oÞosea Eos€m€nt Line ----------------

Erirlinq Prop.4y Liñ.EtiltiôE Eoscñent Linê ---'----€ristinç lnd.rContôur L¡ñêExlstiñg Fêôce Liôc

E¡islinq Pov.ñênt Li.cExistiñ9 wôil Liñêo

EÉ

o e4 F6r

oOC No 93-0157811, OR

PORION OF LOÌ Á

. .il

\\(16 üR ll)

r3-æ59

llNqgÞq -

,E

n

I

I

o-\soprrc ¡r

GROSS & NE

PARCEL 2

DOC No 97-120621, OR

!.

P

'ìr .

,::

I

(t6 MR tt)

No 2002-231922, OR

I

I

I

I

\INS'T.

l).

tol ril {14 MR 52)

26 wloE ÆCISS 6ú -

Uf]LI æEüENI PER20r¡09r9-001 50518-q

LoT 11 (r4 MR 52)

NOI A PART

TING

E

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP No. 5930310 ANACAPA DRIVE

@

Attachment 3Gounty of Ventura List and Map of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future

Projects Used in the Cumulative lmpacts Analysis

Permit Gase No. Permit Descri n


PL12-0168 Permit Adjustmentto CUP LU11-0111

Request for minor changes to anAgricultural Contractor's Storage Yard inorder to revise the amount and locationof outdoor storage, to add a trashenclosure, add a heat treat chamber,add 2 storage containers and add a1,600 s.f. shade structure at the front ofthe property.

Tentative ParcelMap to subdividethe property intofour lots.

Request to subdivide a 137 .4 acre parcelwith existing agricultural uses, into 3parcels: Parcel 1-40.04 acres, Parcel2-45.94 acres, and Parcel 3-51.46 acres.

sDl0-0038

Tentative ParcelMap to subdividethe property intofour lots.

Request to subdivide a 135.3 acre parcelwith existing agricultural uses, into 3parcels: Parcel 1- 45.33 acres, Parcel2-45.01 acres and Parcel 3- 45 acres.

sD10-0039

Request to subdivide a 17 .88 acre parcelinto 4 -1 acre parcels and a developed13.49 acre remainder parcel.

PL13-O121 Tentative ParcelMap to subdividethe property intofour lots and aremainder lot.CUP Request to continue the use of an

ornamental plant propagation andgrowing nursery including the followingoffices, parking and landscaping,greenhouse operations, and outdoorgrownq.

PL13-0167

Permit renewal ofcuP 531 3

Permit renewal of CUP 5313 for VerizonWireless Communications facility at 7568Santa Rosa Road, Camarillo.

PL14-0014

Request for a25-year renewal to CUP4858, for the existing Crestview MutualWater Comoanv ooeration.

PL1 4-0040 CUP

Request for a 30-year renewal of CUP2045for the Conejo Mountain MemorialPark & Funeral Home and a phased 6acre expansion of the cemetery useincluding burial grounds, a 25 foot wideaccess drive and five new communitymausoleums (three at 1,845 s.f. and twoat2,712 s.f.) adjacent to the existingfacilitv.

PL1 4-0050 Minor Modificationto CUP2045|LU04-O074

Minor Modificationto CUP 5339

Request for a 1O-year renewal of CUP5339 for an existing wirelesscom m u nicatíon facil ity

PL1 4-0063

Request for a 45 s.f. addition to FireStation 55.

PL14-0072 Permit Adjustmentto CUP 3871

Request to remove and replace 9 panelantennas, install 6 new radio remoteunits, and install 1 Ravcap box on an

PL1 4-0079 PAJ to CUP4877|LU11-0022

Permit Gase No.

*CUP- Conditional Use PermitPAJ- Permit AdjustmentSPAJ- Site Plan Adjustment

Permit *

existino wireless communication tower.CUPPL14-0093 Request for a 2O-year time extension to

CUP 4495 and to eliminate the previousentitlement to construct a 98,720 s.f.greenhouse, and to eliminate theconversion of an existing 52,095 s.f.qreenhouse to a warehouse.

PAJ to CUP 4924PL1 4-009s Request to legalize the construction of43,580 s.f. of buildings: 1) a 202 s|f .

storage equipment and 2) 17,441 s.f .

break room/packing/storage building.The project also include the conversionof 25,595 s.f. of greenhouse to storageatea.

PL1 4-0098 CUP Request for an existing wirelesscommunication facility originallyaooroved as CUP 5311.

PL14-0104 CUP Request for an existing operation of aPrivate Water Purveyor with reservoirfacilities originally approved as CUP4573.

PAJ to CUP 4736PL14-0114 Request for minor changes to thebuilding sizes and layouts and additionalparkinq at the Casa Pacifica facility.

PL14-0130 Minor ModificationtoCUP 4242

Request for a 1O-year renewal of CUP4242 to allow the on-going use of anexisting approximately 1,800 s.f. farmworker dwellinq.

Final lnitialStudy For PL14-0056Page71

PL14-0063

PL13-O121

PLI¡t-0104 PLl4-0098 PLI¡l-0093

PLl4-0130

PL14-0040

sD10-0039

sDt0-0038

PL14-0114PLl2-0168

PL14-0050PL14-0095

I151-0-040-555

5-mile Radius

Approved Project

Pending Project

*

Ventura County

Resourcê Management Agency

lnformation Syslems Departm€nt

l\rap created on 10106120'14

County of VenturaPlanning Division

PL14-0056Cumulative Projects Map

-l-{

Obc Ventúrð County ReuræIvl¿n - GIt whlch is d6l0redild of ùe County ånd clatedEbllc aqencles. The Cdnty dæs not wamnt ttE acuÉcy ol ürbirap and m decbbn lnvolvlng ð rbk of ecmmk los or plryslcallnju¡y shald b€ made in rellånce heÉln

5 0002 500

$nMAgr's

ATTACHMENT 3

Attachment 4City of Camarillo List and Map of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future

Projects Used in the Gumulative lmpacts Analysis

RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS

APPROVAL

DATE

EXPIRATION

DATEDESCRIPTION

TOTAI-

UNITS STATUS PI-ANNERrocATroN APNDEVETOPER

MAP

ID CASE

M. Smith L0l4lzort n/a

Apartments(includes 75

affordableun¡ts)

384Under

ConstructionSpringville

157-0-030-32O/3sO,

157-0-050-09s/10s

4 RPD-173

AMLI Resident¡al

Jason Arm¡son

3195 Redh¡ll Ave Loft F

Costâ Mesa CA92626lc4cì 700-s001

J. Lee 1,lL!/2Or2 L/t7/2016157-0-030-r8o/zso

Courtyardsingle family

84 ApprovedSpringville4TT-s561

RPD.172

LARO Properties

Aleks Baharlo

16633 ventura Bl, ste 1330

Encino CA 91436(818) 986-8890

Approved J. Lee rlLL/2OL2 tl11/2016157-0-030-

L8O/zsc

Alley single

family75

LARO Propertìes

Aleks Baharlo

16633 Ventura Bl, Ste 1330

Encino CA 91436

1818) 986-8890

Springville4TT-5561

RPD-183

L Lee Lht/2012 7/lL/2076157-0-030-

78O/2s0Slngle family 57 ApprovedSpringville4

TT-5561

RPD.184

LARO Properties

Aleks Baharlo


Enc¡no CA 91436(818) 986-8890

J. Lee tl2r/2oL4 L/2.1.l21rsAffordable

apartments60 ApprovedSpringville r.57-0-030-2504 RPD.19O

LARO Properties

Aleks Baharlo


Encino CA 91436(818) 986-8890

l. Lee n/a nla157-0-020-19sM¡xed use

rental50 PendingSpri ngville4 cuP-350

Rancho Associates

Dennis Hardgrave

2L1. Village Commons Bl, Ste 15

Camar¡llo, CA 93012

(805) 484-8303

J. Lee nla nlaL57-0-020-195 condominiums L32 Pend¡ngSpringville4

TT-5919

RPD-178M(1)

Rancho Assoc¡ates

Dennis Hardgrave

211 Village commons Bl,ste 15

Camar¡llo, cA 93012

(80s) 484-8303

Community Development Department Monthly Report Page 3 of 14


STATUS PTANNER

APPROVAI-

OATE

EXPIRATION

DATErocAnoN APN DESCRIPTION

TOTAT

UNITSCASE OEVEI.OPER

MAP

ID

J. Lee 5/20/2OL4 s/20120ts7s7-0-020-200

Sen¡or

affordable

apartments

104 Approved

Rancho Assoc¡ates

Denn¡s Hardgrave

2l.l Village Commons Bl, Ste 15


(80s) 484-8303

Springville4 cuP-3s7

130 Approved J. Lee 7/70120t3 7/t0120t6Springville Lot 1 offT-5671 Condominiums4TT-5903

RPD-177

Rancho Associates

Denn¡s Hardgrave

2LL Village commons Bl, ste 15

Camarillo, cA 93012

(8os) 484-8303

163 Approved J. Lee lo/16/20L2 ro/Ls/20t6Springville Lot 2 of TT-5671 Rental Units4 RPD-178

Rancho Associates

Denn¡s Hardgrave

211 Village Commons Bl, Ste 15

Camarillo, CA 930L2

(80s) 484-8303

Under

ConstructionJ. Lee 7/16/2OL2 n/aVillage at the Park

229-0-L50-025&315

Mixed use

condos36TT-5753

cuP-307M(3)

C¡ty Ventures

Eill McReynolds

1900 Qua¡l Street

Newport Beach CA 92660

(s621 23o-e874

2

UnderConstruction

M. Smith 3/6/2012 n/aVillage at the Park 229-0-1s0-039Mixed use

rental722 cuP-337

H¡ji lnvestment Co.

Dennis Hardgrave

211 V¡llage Commons Bl, Ste 1.5

camariilo, CA 93012

(8os) 484-8303

Pending J. Lee n/a nlaVillage at the Park 157-0-020-L95Mixed use

rentalL22 cuP-307M(2)

H¡j¡ lnvestment co

Denn¡s Hardgrave

2ll Vlllage Commons Bl,ste 15

camarillo, CA 93012

(80s) 484-8303

77 Approved T. Moran rL/6/2OO2 8/24/201.4v¡llage at the Park 234-0-010-330 Single family8TT-5367

RPD-155

Jake Persons

Standard Pacific Homes

757 Nile R¡ver Drive

Oxnard, CA 93036


RESIDENTIAT PROJECTS

APN DESCRIPTION

TOTAI

UNITS STATUS PIÁNNER

APPROVAT

DATE

EXPIRANON

DATE

MAP

ID cÁsE DEVELOPER LOCANON

s. Mitchell 11/6/2002 8/24l21rs7

TT-5368

RPD-

1s6M(2)

DR HortonDavid Bennett

21300 Victory Bl, Ste 700

Woodland H¡lls, CA 91367(818) 2s1-s704

Village at the Park 234-0-OtÙ-220 Single family 59 Approved

M. Smith 2/22/2o!2 n/a2TT-5896

cuP-281

City Ventures

Bill McReynolds

1900 Quail Street

Newport Beach CA 92660

ls62l 230-9874

village at the Park 229-0-150-095Mixed use

condos18

UnderConstruction

L2/3l2or3 12/3/zOLs6 RPD-186

FF Realty

Ed McCoy

5510 Morehouse Dr, Ste 200

san Diego, CA92L2L(80s) 626-8341

Village Gateway 229-0-O70-210

Rental units(includes 19

affordable

un¡ts)

368 Approved S. Mitchell

6 RPD.187

FF Realty

Ed McCoy

5510 Morehouse Dr, Ste 200

San Diego, CA9?LZI(80s) 626-8341

Village Gateway 229-0-O70-2t0

Rental un¡ts

(includes 5

affordable

u n its)

82 Approved S. Mitchell L2/3/2ot3 72/3/zOLs

6 RPD-189

Hijl lnvestment co.

Dennis Hardgrave

211V¡llage Commons 81, Ste 15


(80s) 484-8303

Village Gateway 157-0-020-195 Rental units 83 Pending S. Mitchell LolLsl2OL3 toltsl2ot4

5 cuP-330

City of Camarillo

601 Carmen Dr

Camarillo, CA 93010(80s) 388-s360

Ventura Bl

betweenCedar and Oak

152-0-L04-010,

162-0-135-050

& -060

M¡xed use

rental22 Approved S. Mitchell tL/s/20L3 tLls/2oLs

6 RPD-188

Hawkeye ll lnv.

Joel Mann1240 Cougar Rldge Rd

Buellton, CA93427805.451.0178

Village Gateway 229-O-070-270 For Sale 87 Pending S. Mitchell nla n/a

Community Development Department Monthly Report Page5ofl4


PI.ANNER

APPROVAT

DATE

EXPIRATION

DATE

MAP

ID CASE DEVETOPER TOCA.l.lON APN DESCRIPTION

TOTAT

uNlls STAruS

south of Sevilla St 162-0-200-015 Single family 9 Approved M. Smith Lt/4/2009 LL/4/¿ots3 rr-5724

Vito Mammana

697 Trueno Av

Camarillo CA 93012

(80s) 388-0s1s

Hillary Ling

3748 Groves Pl

Somis, CA 93066

Southeast corner

of Ventura Blvd

and Fir St.

152-0-134-150Mixed use

rentel4 Pending S. Mitchell n/a n/a9 cuP-360

10 T-5920

Crestv¡ew Ranch

David Hasson

20272 Via San Sov¡no

Porter Ranch CA 91326(818) 831-6009

Crestvlew t52-O-790-275 13 - 1-acre Iots 0 Approved B. Burrow 7/23/2oL4 7/23/20L6

cPD-219

Peter Wong

301 N. Canon Dr Ste E

Beverly Hllls, CA 90210

310.788.0688

165-0-140-005Mixed use

rental32 Approved S. Mitchell 2/L6/2Ot0 2/L6/z]tsL Pickwick Dr

RESIDENTIAT ACTIVITY SUMMARY

DWELLING UNIT PERMITS ISSUED IN MAY 0 DWELLING UNIT PERMITS ISSUED IN 2014 54

DWELLING UNITS DEMOLISHED IN MAY 0 DWELLING UNITS DEMOLISHED IN 2014 U

UDWELLING UNITS FINALED IN MAY 0 DWELLING UNITS FINALED IN 2014

TOTAL ESTIMATED DWELLING UNITS (MAY 31, 2014) 25,t37

foFUNITS

foFPROJECTSPROJECT STATUS

PENDING 368 6

APPROVED/NOT BUILT L,332 15

4UNDER CONSTRUCTION 450

2,150 25TOTAL


J

UzÉ,

3'Æ

2 Miles00.5 1

c@ted on 9/6/'ll

D.p¡rtment ofCmmunlty Osvolopmsnt

clty of Cåmar¡llo

Gity of CamarilloResidential Projects @

Page 2 of 14 S

N

w E

Department Monthly Reportity Development

ATTACHMENT 4

COMMERCIAT PROJECTS

MAP

ID CASE DEVETOPER tocAnoN APN DESCRIPTION ELDG SF ACRES ÍATUS PI.ANNER

APPROVAT

DATE

EXPIRATION

DATE

Approved M. Smith1 cPD-197M(13)

Red Rock Restaurant

Constantino Papanicolaou

3301 Sturg¡s Rd

0xnard, CA 93030

(80s) 604-0909

Ventura Blvd atthe Promenade

Parcel B

of LD-519A

Restaurant

and brewery10,990 0.46 LuL6/2O7O LLl76/2OL4

2 commercialbuildings

10,000 0.45Under

constructionS. Mitchell e/4/20t2 n/aL cPD-197M(1s)

Brand Growth lnc.

lohn Baker

3636 Birch St, Ste 360

Newport Beach, CA 92660(9s1) 293-s9s4

Ventura Blvd atthe Promenade

229-0-010-650

165-0-140-00s Mixed use 5,400 1.06 Approved S. Mitchell 2/16/2Or0 2/L6/zots3 cPD-219

Peter Wong

301 N. Canon Dr Ste E

Beverly H¡lls, CA 90210

310.788.0688

Pickwick Dr

Commercial

center499,000 44.84 Approved S. Mitchell 2lrs/207r 2lrs/20rs4 cPD-226M(21

Selleck

David Ghirardelllil5655 Lindero Cyn Rd, Ste 301

westalke village cA 91362

(818) 991-7890

A¡rport North

230-0-020-230/240,

230-0-101-

47O/480

842 0.5 Approved M. Smith 3/6/2012 3/6/z0ts2 cuP-337

Hiji lnvestment Co

DennÌs Hardgrave

21L V¡llage commons Bl, ste 15


(80s) 484-8303

Village at thePark

229-O-Ls-O39 Mixed use

10,918 t.26 Approved S. Mitchell t2/7/2070 L2/7 /20L46 cPD-232

Art D'Egido

17401 Gresham St

Northridge CA 91325

(3Lol 82L-272s

Oak Canyon

Road171-0-250-325

2 office/reta¡lbuildings

Commercialmixed-use

center

42,630 to.02 Approved J, Lee 9/ts/2oo9 9/Ls/20142 cPD-236

HÌj¡ lnv coltFR lnv co

Denn¡s H¿rdgrave

2LL V¡llage commons Bl,ste 15

camar¡llo cA 93012

(80s)484-9303

Village at thePark

219-0-150-L2s/3ts

Community Development Department Monthly Report Page I of 14

x 3

)Uzd

2 Miles00.5 1

crealed on 9/5/14

D€partment otCmmun¡ly Devolopmont

City of Camarlllo

Gity of GamarilloGommercial Projects

ity Development Department Monthly Report

N

E

Attachment 5lnitial Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 5930 (PL14-0056)

Works Gited

City of Camarillo. Pending Projects List and Map. Available on-line at[http://www.ci.camarillo.ca.us/docs/MonthlyReport.pdfl. Accessed November 4, 2014.

Danko, Christina. June 3,2O14. Planning Biologist Review Memorandum to Nicole Doner.

Dodd, John. June 5,2014. Fire Prevention Review to Nicole Doner.

Doran, Gerard. March 20,2O14. Pleasant Valley Mutual Water Company Water AvailabilityLetter.

Emami, Benham. May 1 ,2O14. Memorandum to Nicole Doner.

Heathcote Geotechnical. June 1, 2013. Geotechnical Report.

Leachman, Pandee. November 4,2014. Waste Management Review to Nicole Doner.

M-3 Civil. October 29,2013. Preliminary Drainage Report

Martia, Karen. July29,2O14. Watershed Protection DistrictJurisdictional Drainage ReviewtoNicole Doner.

Mutkowska, Ewelina. May 6,2014. Watershed Protection District, Surface Water Review toNicole Doner.

O'Tousa, Jim. May 6,2014. Geology Review to Nicole Doner.

Pictometry@. December 201 1 .

Stratton, Alicia. October 7,2014. Personal Communication with Nicole Doner.

Talent, Melinda. June 16,2014. Environmental Health Review to Nicole Doner.

Trushinski, Brian. May 1 ,2014. Floodplain Drainage Review to Nicole Doner

Ventura County, 2011. Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance.

Ventura County. 2011 Ventura County General Plan.

Ventura County. June 2014. Ventura County RMA GIS Viewer.

Ventura County. 2011. Ventura County lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines.

Viergutz, Rick. May 6, 2014. Watershed Protection District Groundwater Review to NicoleDoner.


Ventura County, Californiavcportal.ventura.org/.../PD/2015/4_03_15_ND_PL14-0056.pdf · 2015. 8....

Documents

Transcript of Ventura County, Californiavcportal.ventura.org/.../PD/2015/4_03_15_ND_PL14-0056.pdf · 2015. 8....