Camarillo City Council
April 24, 2024

Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/
Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
SCH#2010081043
prepared by
City of Camarillo
Department of Community Development
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, California 93010
Contact: Paul McClaren, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants
180 North Ashwood Avenue
Ventura, California 93303
March 2024

Table of Contents
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report i Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................................................. iii 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Project Background ......................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Land Use Designation .......................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Zoning Designation ............................................................................................................. 4

2.4 Project History .................................................................................................................... 5 3 Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Lead Agency Name and Contact ....................................................................................... 13

3.2 Project Sponsor’s Name and Contact ............................................................................... 13

3.3 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 13

3.4 SPA and Springville Component ........................................................................................ 14

3.5 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................. 14

3.6 Required Approvals ........................................................................................................... 15 4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 17

4.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 19

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................. 23

4.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 25

4.4 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................... 29

4.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................ 33

4.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................... 37

4.7 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 39

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 45

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 49

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 55

4.11 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 61

4.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 63

4.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 65

4.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 69

4.15 Public Services and Recreation ......................................................................................... 71

4.16 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 73

4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................ 77

4.18 Wildfire.............................................................................................................................. 83

4.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 85 5 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 87 6 References .................................................................................................................................... 89 City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

ii
Tables
Table 1 Operational Emissions ...................................................................................................... 27 Table 3 Estimated Construction Vibration Levels .......................................................................... 68 Table 4 Existing Landfill Capacity and Intake ................................................................................. 80 Table 5 Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation ....................................................................... 80 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 2 Specific Plan Area ................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 3 Specific Plan Land Uses ....................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4 Current Land Use .............................................................................................................. 10 Figure 5 Current Zoning .................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 6 Airport North Specific Plan Phases ................................................................................... 12 Figure 7 Overall Site Plan ................................................................................................................ 16 Appendices
Appendix A 2016 Final SEIR MMRP
Appendix B Traffic Study Memo
Appendix C CalEEMod Results
Appendix D Biological Assessment
Appendix E 2008 Final SEIR MMRP
Appendix F Geotechnical Report
Appendix G Infiltration Report
Appendix H Water Report
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report iii Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BMPs Best Management Practices
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CPD Commercial Planned Development
CLUP Compatible Land Use Plan
CSD Camarillo Sanitary District
CWTP Camarillo Wastewater Treatment Plant
dBA decibels A
DDD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DOC California Department of Conservation
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ESA Environmental Project Site Assessment
GHGs Greenhouse Gases
GPA General Plan Amendment
HRZ Height Restriction Zone
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IPD Industrial Planned Development
Lbs Pounds
MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

iv
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SCH State Clearinghouse
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TPZ Traffic Pattern Zone
TTM Tentative Tract Map
VCAPCD Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

Introduction
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 1 1 Introduction
This document is an Addendum to the 2016 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Adopted September 28, 2016, SCH #2010081043), herein referred to as the 2016 Final SEIR, located in the City of Camarillo, CA. The document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §21000, et seq., as amended, and implementing CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations.

Specifically, a project has been proposed located in the 337-acre Airport North Specific Plan (Specific Plan), adopted in 1986, in the City of Camarillo. This Addendum considers an amendment to said Specific Plan (SPA) that proposes to modify language in the adopted Specific Plan that removes certain design guideline requirements that were not implemented in existing developments within the Specific Plan since its adoption. The proposed SPA involves modification of the text of the Specific Plan to provide consistency with other commercial development areas within the Specific Plan Area, revisions to development standards, and adds Automobile Dealerships and uses ancillary to dealerships such as cafes, carwashes, and vehicle charging stations as allowed land uses in the Specific Pan. This portion of the SPA is a policy change and does not include any development or include any ground-disturbing activities. Furthermore, the addendum considers a proposed Automobile Dealership Center and Industrial Business Park consisting of a Springville Auto Center an Industrial Business Park component (hereinafter “Springville Component”). The Springville Component encompasses the entire area, no more and no less, than the project analyzed in the 2011 EIR, the 2016 Final SEIR, and the 2023 Addendum and described as the 46.87-acre portion of the Specific Plan area (Phase 1 and small portion of Phase II) comprised of three vacant parcels at the southwest quadrant of U.S. 101 and the Springville Drive interchange (hereinafter “Project Site”). The Springville Component proposes development of up to 218,000 square feet (SF) of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse and 25,000 integrated office uses. The details of the Springville Component are described in Section 3, Project Description.

An Addendum to the 2016 Subsequent EIR was prepared in 2023 (2023 Addendum) and analyzed the environmental impacts of reverting the land use designation of the site back to entirely Research and Development and zoning to L-M. The 2023 addendum analyzed the actions the City took to revert the Project Site back to its pre-2016 designations. The 2023 addendum did not include a physical project.

The 2016 Final SEIR evaluated a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2014-2) from the City of Camarillo that would change the land use designation of 26 acres of the 46.87-acre Project Site from Industrial (Research and Development) to Commercial and evaluated the proposed development of 268,500 SF of commercial and 198,767 SF of light industrial (hereinafter “2016 Project”). The 2016 Final SEIR also evaluated a corresponding amendment to the Specific Plan, a change of zone for the 26 acres of the Project Site from L-M (Limited Manufacturing) to CPD (Commercial Planned Development), and a modification to Tentative Tract Map No. T-5812 to subdivide the Project Site into six parcels. The 2016 Final SEIR determined that the 2016 Project was substantially equivalent to the project analyzed in the 2011 EIR which involved the subdivision of the 46.87-acre project site into 25 or fewer lots for the development of up to 700,000 SF of light industrial and/or office uses. No actual buildings were proposed at that time and the final building sizes and space would be determined throughout the planning process, but the total building size would not exceed 700,000 SF.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

2 This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Camarillo. According to Section 15164(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to an EIR is the appropriate environmental document in instances when “only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15261 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for a project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration,
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR,
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The SPA proposes minor modifications amending the text of the Specific Plan to provide consistency with other commercial developments within the Specific Plan area. This portion of the SPA is a policy change and does not include any development or include any ground-disturbing activities.

The SPA and Springville Component would not create potentially significant environmental impacts above and beyond those contemplated in the 2011 EIR, 2016 Final SEIR and the 2023 Addendum.

The Springville Component would also not substantially increase the magnitude or severity of impacts that were previously identified. This addendum does not require public circulation because it does not provide significant new information that changes the 2011 EIR or 2016 Final SEIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Springville Component or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect.

This Addendum includes an overview of the project analyzed in the 2023 Addendum, a description of the proposed changes to the Specific Plan and the Springville Component, and a discussion of the environmental consequences of the proposed changes and comparison of all environmental issue areas contained in the City of Camarillo CEQA Guidelines.

Introduction
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 3 The City of Camarillo shall consider this Addendum in conjunction with the 2011 EIR and the 2016 Final SEIR prior to considering the Springville Component. The 2011 EIR, 2016 Final SEIR, and 2023 Addendum are available for review at the City of Camarillo website.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

4 2 Project Background

2.1 Project Location
The Airport North Specific Plan (Specific Plan) area is located south of U.S. Highway 101 (Ventura Freeway) and north of Camarillo Airport in two segments with one between Las Posas Road on the east and West Ventura Boulevard (formerly Bajo Agua Avenue) on the west, and the other between Wood Road and the western boundary of the City of Camarillo’s sphere of influence. Development of the Specific Plan was evaluated under the EIR for the Airport North Specific Plan and approved by the Camarillo City Council in 1986. The City of Camarillo General Plan (2004) and the Springville Specific Plan, adopted in 2008 and Amended in 2020, was also used as a contextual reference for development in the project vicinity for this Addendum.

The Specific Plan planned for the development of up to 4,488,775 SF of mixed use, hotel, office, corporate, commercial support, and research and development (R&D) uses, and other uses permitted in the L-M Limited Manufacturing Zone as identified in CMC Section 19.28.040. The Specific Plan buildout (Figure 6) includes three phases. The Springville Component that is a portion of the subject of this Addendum was envisioned to be Phase I of the Specific Plan buildout. To date, all of the development that has occurred within the Specific Plan has occurred to the east in the area identified as Phase II. This area is developed with the Camarillo Town Center and Camarillo Town Center II commercial centers. The Camarillo Town Center is developed with approximately 370,000 SF of commercial uses. The Camarillo Town Center II development is anchored by a home improvement store that is approximately 162,000 SF. A 160,000-square-foot warehouse store is currently being processed west of and adjacent to the home improvement store.

The Springville Component of this Addendum is located on a 46.87-acre undeveloped site identified as Phase I and a small portion of Phase II in the Specific Plan (Project Site). The site is bordered on the north by U.S. Highway 101, on the south by the Camarillo Hills Drain and Camarillo Airport, on the east by Springville Drive and a commercial-zoned vacant property, and on the west, by West Ventura Boulevard and a mostly built-out and occupied manufacturing-zone. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the Specific Plan, Figure 2 shows the Springville Component within the existing neighborhood context and Specific Plan area, and Figure 3 shows the surrounding land uses.

2.2 Land Use Designation
The Camarillo General Plan land use designation for the Specific Plan includes Commercial, Industrial and Office use. The Springville Component is Industrial (Research and Development). Figure 4 below shows the land use designation of the Springville Component.

2.3 Zoning Designation
The Specific Plan zoning includes Commercial Planned Development (CPD), Limited Manufacturing (L- M), and Professional Office (P -O) zones. The Springville Component is zoned L -M. Figure 5 below shows the zoning of the Springville Component.

Project Background
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 5

2.4 Project History
Airport North Specific Plan
The Specific Plan, was originally approved by the Camarillo City Council in 1986, and most recently amended by the Camarillo City Council in 2023. The Specific Plan presents a development program to aid in the understanding of the intensity levels and land uses allowed there. The Specific Plan proposes to develop the properties into a high quality, corporate image, business park, with unique development patterns, combining research and development type uses, office, corporate, Mixed- Use and hotel uses. The Springville Component is designated as Industrial (Research and Development) under the Specific Plan 2023 update. A draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Specific Plan in September 1985.

The area between the Springville Component and the Camarillo Town Center II development was approved for development of up to 499,000 SF of commercial uses in 2007. In 2011 and 2016 modifications were approved to the site plan. The area currently remains undeveloped, however, applications to develop a 160,000 SF Costco warehouse with a gas station on the eastern half of the site have been filed with the City. All of these existing and approved developments are designated for Commercial land use under the City of Camarillo General Plan and zoned CPD (Commercial Planned Development).

Tentative Tract Map No. T-5812
In June 2011, the City of Camarillo (City) approved Tentative Tract Map No. T-5812 (TTM No. T- 5812), which involved a subdivision of the 46.87-acre Springville Component into 25 or fewer lots for the development of up to 700,000 SF of light industrial and/or office uses. The lots range in size from 1.00 acre to 4.07 acres.. At the time of the adoption of TTM No. T-5812, no actual physical buildings were proposed, and the final building sizes and space were to be determined throughout the planning process, but the total building size would not exceed 700,000 SF. TTM No. T-5812 did not include any land use or zoning changes from the original Industrial (Research and Development) designation and L-M (Limited Manufacturing) zoning of the Specific Plan.

The potential environmental impacts associated with the TTM No. T-5812 project were addressed in an EIR, which was certified in June 2011. The 2011 EIR (SCH #2010081043) provided detailed evaluations of impacts associated with land use and planning, aesthetics/ visual resources, agricultural resources, hydrology and water quality, traffic and circulation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and water supply. Other potential impacts were discussed in less detail in the Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant section of the 2011 EIR. A modification to T-5812 was approved in 2016 to subdivide the site into six parcels. A Subsequent EIR (SCH #2010081043) was certified in 2016 which addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with TTM modification. The TTM was not recorded, and the entitlement has since expired.

General Plan Amendment 2014-2
In September 2016, after a request from the applicant, the City approved General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2014-2, which amended the land use designation from Industrial (Research and Development) to Commercial and changed the zoning designation from L-M (Limited Manufacturing) zoning to CPD (Commercial Planned Development) of 26.1 acres of the 46.87-acre Springville Component. The remaining 20.88 acres of the Springville Component remained unchanged as Industrial (Research and Development) and zoned L-M (Limited Manufacturing). It also included a corresponding City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

6 amendment to the Specific Plan designations. Under a maximum development scenario, up to 268,500 SF of commercial space could be developed within the redesignated 26.1 acres.

In September 2016, in conjunction with the GPA described above, the City entered into an agreement (Sellek Agreement) with the applicant for commercial land use, in anticipation of a regional destination retail use. The agreement included “Project milestones” for submittal of a regional destination retail use. In March 2017, the agreement was amended to extend the “project milestone” date for the developer to present to the City a destination retailer in five years, which would be through March 3, 2022.

A Subsequent EIR (SCH #2010081043) was certified in 2016 which addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with GPA, Specific Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The 2016 Subsequent EIR analyzed the potential development of up to 268,500 SF of commercial space and 198,767 SF of industrial and/or office space (from the 700,000 (SF) of industrial/office) and provided detailed evaluations of impacts associated with aesthetics/ visual resources, air quality, agricultural resources, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic and circulation and water supply. Other potential impacts were discussed in less detail in the Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant section of the 2016 Subsequent EIR.

General Plan Amendment 2019-1
In November 2023, the Camarillo City Council approved GPA 2019-1, a Specific Plan Amendment and Change of Zone (CZ) No. 335 which reverted land use designation and zoning of the entire

46.87-acre Springville Component to pre-GPA 2014-2 designations. The 26.1 acres which had previously been amended to Commercial land use designation and CPD (Commercial Planned Development) zoning by GPA 2014-2 was reverted to Industrial (Research and Development) land use designation and L-M (Limited Manufacturing). The Camarillo City Council also authorized the City Manager to execute a termination of Agreement 2016-56 (Selleck Agreement) as requested by the applicant.

The Camarillo City Council also certified the 2023 Addendum which addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with GPA 2019-1, a Specific Plan Amendment and CZ No. 335.

The 2023 Addendum analyzed the provided detailed evaluations of impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems and wildfire. The 2023 Addendum found that the GPA 2019-1, a Specific Plan Amendment and CZ No. 335 would not substantially increase the magnitude or severity of impacts that were previously identified in the 2016 Final SEIR and impacts beyond those identified and analyzed in the adopted 2016 Final SEIR would not be expected to occur as a result of GPA 2019-1, a Specific Plan Amendment and CZ No. 335. Overall, the proposed modifications to the GPA 2014-2 would result in no new impact or mitigation information of substantial importance that would generate new, more severe impacts or require new mitigation measures compared to those identified 2016 Final SEIR.

Project Background
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 7 Figure 1 Regional Location

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

8 Figure 2 Specific Plan Area

Project Background
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 9 Figure 3 Specific Plan Land Uses

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

10 Figure 4 Current Land Use

Project Background
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 11 Figure 5 Current Zoning

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

12 Figure 6 Airport North Specific Plan Phases

Project Description
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 13 3 Project Description

3.1 Lead Agency Name and Contact
Paul McClaren, Senior Planner
Phone: 805-388-5365
e-mail: [email protected]
City of Camarillo
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, California 93010

3.2 Project Sponsor’s Name and Contact
Darren Embry, VP of Community Development
(323) 48
1-9178
[email protected]
F
aring Capital, LLC
659 N. Robertson Boulevard
West Hollywood, CA 90069

3.3 Existing Conditions
The Specific Plan planned for the development of up to 4,488,775 SF of mixed use, hotel, office, corporate, commercial support, and Research and Development uses. Springville Component was envisioned to be Phase I of the Specific Plan buildout. To date, all of the development that has occurred within the Specific Plan site has occurred to the east in the area identified as Phase II. This area is developed with the Camarillo Town Center and Camarillo Town Center II commercial centers.

The Camarillo Town Center is developed with approximately 370,000 SF of commercial uses. The Camarillo Town Center II development is anchored by a home improvement store. The area between the Springville Component area and the Camarillo Town Center II development was approved for development of up to 499,000 SF of commercial uses in 2007. This currently undeveloped project is referred to as Paseo Camino Real. All of these existing and approved developments are designated for Commercial under the City of Camarillo General Plan and zoned CPD (Commercial Planned Development).

The area to the west of the Springville Component area, identified as Phase III, is currently undeveloped and contains agricultural uses. Phase III is comprised solely of the McGrath Property.

This property comprises approximately 98 acres or 45 percent of the total Specific Plan area. The development potential on McGrath represents 45 percent of the total development. This area is designated as General Commercial, Commercial (Office) and Industrial (Research and Development) under the Camarillo General Plan and zoned as AE -40 (Agricultural Exclusive, 40 -acre minimum lot size) under the Ventura County Zoning Ordinance.

The Springville Component area is currently vacant and undeveloped. The property is relatively flat and slopes gently to the south at a rate of approximately 0.007 foot in height to one foot of distance.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

14 Until the spring of 2008, the land was used for the agricultural production of row crops. In 2013 the property owner attempted to grow hay without the use of water and pesticides. However, the crop did not thrive due to a lack of rain and was fallowed . The Springville Component area is no longer actively cultivated. The property is also bisected by the relocation of West Ventura Boulevard and two cut-outs are currently provided for future roadway access into the Springville Component.

3.4 SPA and Springville Component
The Specific Plan area is 337 acres, the SPA proposes to modify language in the adopted Specific Plan that removes certain design guideline requirements that that were not implemented in existing developments within the Specific Plan since its adoption. This portion of the SPA involves amending the text of the Specific Plan to provide consistency with other commercial development areas within the City. This portion of the SPA is a policy change and does not include any development or include any ground-disturbing activities.

This Addendum also considers a 46.87-acre portion of the Specific Plan area (Phase I), comprised of four vacant parcels at the southwest quadrant of U.S. 101 and the Springville Drive interchange proposes to develop up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses, and 25,000 SF of integrated office uses on Phase I and a small Portion of Phase II areas. The Springville Component would involve the construction of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses on an approximately ten-acre (10.23 net acres) portion of the site (Parcel 1) directly south of and adjacent to US 101 and its Springville Drive exit. The remainder of the site would be occupied by an industrial business park consisting of multiple structures with up to of 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses as allowed in the Specific Plan’s Industrial (R&D) and General Plan’s Industrial land use designations, and as compatible with the Limited Manufacturing (L-M) zone. Four of the L-M buildings will be contained in an approximately 28.90 net acres single parcel (Parcel 2) and arranged in two internal blocks divided by a new north-south privately maintained main project roadway (consisting of 1.48 acres). The remaining L-M structure will occupy an approximately 5.76 net acres single parcel (Parcel 3) along the portion of the site south of the east-west portion of West Ventura Boulevard. The building will contain L-M uses in a single- stepped structure designed to respect the Camarillo Airport’s avigation easement. The Springville Component would provide on-site parking and loading as required by the Camarillo Municipal Code (CMC) and the Specific Plan. In addition, the Springville Component would meet 2022 Title 24 (Title 24), California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards, including solar-ready construction for future installation of PV panels to offset energy use of air-conditioned spaces.

For purposes of evaluating the potential environmental impacts, the ultimate development of the Springville Component and mix of land uses is proposed to be up to 575,000 SF of industrial and 25,000 office uses (approximately 73 percent of the total structural square footage) and up to 218,000 SF of auto center and supporting uses (approximately 27 percent of the total structural square footage). The proposed development of the site will not exceed 818,000 SF of structural square footage. Figure 7 below shows the overall site plan for the Springville Component.

3.5 Project Objectives
The objectives of the SPA are to update the document to a modern specific plan that provides for additional flexibility, modifies some design components to be current with modern trends, and adjusts to the pattern of development that has already occurred within the Specific Plan area. The Project Description
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 15 Springville Component objectives are to create an Automobile Dealership corridor within the Specific Plan area between Springville Drive and West Ventura Boulevard and provide opportunities for the development of new uses in western Camarillo, which would enhance Camarillo’s economic tax base. In addition, the following are also objectives of the Springville Component:
 Provide new revenue and tax-generating, jobs-creating Auto Center uses along prominen t
C
amarillo freeway frontage.
 Create a new local industrial employment hub at a currently underutilized, accessible, and appropriate location within the City away from sensitive receptors and residences.  Promote a reduction in project related vehicle trips and trip lengths and encourage use of mult i
m
odal transit options through transportation demand management strategies, pedestrian enhancements, transit improvements and provision of bicycle parking spaces.

3.6 Required Approvals
The proposed SPA and Springville Component would require the following discretionary approvals from the City of Camarillo City Council, with initial recommendations by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission.
 Airport North Specific Plan Amendment (Auto Center with Supporting Uses, including EV charging, and sign regulations)
 Heritage Zone Architectural Review Board Approval
 Industrial Planned Development (IPD) Permit
 Addendum to 2016 Final SEIR
 Compatibility Review(s) by Airport Land Use Commission/ Ventura County Transportation Commission (Occurred February 2, 2024)
City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

16 Figure 7 Overall Site Plan

Impact Analysis
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 17 4 Impact Analysis
This Addendum evaluates potential environmental impacts that could result from the Proposed Specific Plan Amendment and the Springville Component. The Specific Plan Amendment and the Springville Component were reviewed in relation to both the certified 2016 Final SEIR and the 2011 EIR, in addition to the current baseline environmental conditions. The 2011 EIR analyzed the potential impacts of the 2011 Approved Project, which involved 700,000 SF of total floor area, including 525,000 SF industrial and 175,00 SF of office uses. The 2011 EIR concluded that the 2011 Approved Project would result in 5,875 daily trips. The Springville Component involves 818,000 SF of total floor area, including up to 218,000 SF of auto dealership and related uses, up to 575,000 SF of industrial uses and 25,000 SF of office uses. Although the Springville Component has been revised since the 2011 Approved Project to include an auto dealership instead of office uses, it contains the same amount of overall floor area and the same amount of industrial uses assumed in the 2011 EIR.

Accordingly, the Springville Component is substantially similar to the 2011 Approved Project.

Because the Springville Component contains the auto dealership and related uses instead of the office uses of the 2011 Approved Project, it results in 9,140 daily trips, which is more than the daily trips associated with the 2011 Approved Project. However, the 2016 Approved Project (i.e., 467,267 SF of total floor area, including 268,500 SF commercial and 198,767 SF industrial/office uses), which was analyzed in the 2016 SEIR, resulted in 10,548 daily trips, approximately 1,400 more than the daily trips associated with the Springville Component. Accordingly, the technical analyses of the 2016 SEIR relies on a higher daily trip count than would be associated with the Springville Component, and thus the Springville Component’s impacts would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the 2016 SEIR.

Given the important aspects of both the 2011 EIR and the 2016 SEIR, this Addendum relies on analyses from both the certified 2016 Final SEIR and the 2011 EIR. The CEQA Appendix G checklist included in this Addendum is consistent with the format and environmental topics and questions of the checklist used in the 2016 Final SEIR. The checklist considers the full range of environmental issues subject to analysis under CEQA (in rows), and then poses a series of questions (in columns) aimed at identifying the degree to which the issue was analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR. The checklist also includes a column identifying whether the Proposed Specific Plan Amendment constitutes new information of substantial importance relative to each environmental issue. This Addendum evaluates potential environmental impacts that could result from the Proposed Specific Plan Amendment and Springville Component. The Specific Plan Amendment and the Springville Component were reviewed in relation to both the certified 2016 Final SEIR and the 2011 EIR, in addition to the current baseline environmental conditions. The 2011 EIR analyzed the potential impacts of the 2011 Approved Project, which involved 700,000 SF of total floor area, including 525,000 SF industrial and 175,00 SF of office uses. A comparative analysis of the potential impacts associated with the Proposed Specific Plan Amendment and those of the approved project analyzed in the adopted 2016 Final SEIR has been prepared using Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as a guide. The CEQA Appendix G checklist is consistent with the format and environmental topics and questions of the checklist used in the 2016 Final SEIR, but also includes recent updates to reflect the most recently adopted checklist provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

18 The checklist considers the full range of environmental issues subject to analysis under CEQA (in rows), and then poses a series of questions (in columns) aimed at identifying the degree to which the issue was analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR. The checklist also includes a column identifying whether the Proposed Specific Plan Amendment constitutes new information of substantial importance relative to each environmental issue.

Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 19

4.1 Aesthetics
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial
a
dverse effect on a scenic
vista that is visible from a
City scenic corridor?
P
age 166 No No No N/A
b. Substantially alter or
d
amage a scenic resource
that is visible from a City
scenic corridor?

c. Conflict with applicable
General Plan policies o
r
zo
ning regulations
governing scenic quality?
Pages 166
- 167
No No No N/A
d. Create a new source of
s
ubstantial light or glare
which would adversely
affect day or nighttim
e
v
iews in the area?

a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista that is visible from a City scenic corridor?
The Springville Component consists of flat, formerly agricultural, undeveloped land. As described in the 2016 Final SEIR, views to the north are dominated by the Ventura Freeway, beyond which are the Camarillo Hills which are developed with residential uses. Short-range views looking south across the property towards Camarillo Airport are not considered scenic vistas. Long-range views of the Santa Monica Mountains to the southeast and east are generally available due to their elevation; however, the flat topography of the land and intervening buildings to the east may prevent these views from some portions of the property. Consequently, no other scenic vistas currently exist in the areas around the Springville Component and therefore the 2016 Final SEIR found that impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant.

The Project is a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) and proposed development of a portion of the plan area. The Specific Plan area is 337 acres; the Project proposes to modify language in the adopted SPA that removes certain design guideline requirements that were never implemented in the development that has occurred in the Specific Plan area. This portion of the SPA involves amending the text of the Specific Plan to provide consistency with other commercial development areas within City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

20 the SPA. This portion of the SPA is a policy change and does not include any development or include any ground-disturbing activities. The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses, and 25,000 SF of integrated office uses. The maximum height of the proposed buildings would not exceed 50 feet.

Likewise, heights for Building E, would respect the adjoining Camarillo Airport’s avigation easement outlined in the Ventura County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan by stepping back the floor levels of the structure and rising to 40 feet maximum. Therefore, the Springville Component would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas visible from a city scenic corridor and would result in no new or more severe impacts to scenic vistas beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? As described in the 2016 Final SEIR, there are no scenic resources, such as native California trees, bodies of water, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings at the vacant Project Site. Also, the segments of U.S. Highway 101 in Camarillo are not designated as a state scenic highway. The only valued public view in the area would be of the Santa Monica Mountains to the southeast and east.

Since these mountain ranges are at a substantially higher elevation than the Project Site, views of the mountains from the city’s two scenic routes would not be obstructed by the Springville Component’s buildings. The 2016 Final SEIR found that impacts to scenic resources would be less than significant.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses, and 25,000 SF of integrated office uses. Site conditions are the same as those analyzed in the 2011 EIR, 2016 Final SEIR, and 2023 Addendum, as such there are no scenic resources on the Project Site. Therefore, the Springville Component would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic resources and would result in no new or more severe impacts to scenic vistas beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR. c. Would the project conflict with applicable General Plan policies or zoning regulations governing scenic quality?
The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses, and 25,000 SF of integrated office uses.

The Project Site is located within the City’s Heritage Zone which requires developments to have particular design themes, such as Mission, Monterey, Early California, Spanish, and Mediterranean styles or modern interpretations of these styles. Also, the Specific Plan requires buildings to follow design standards based upon Mediterranean, Mission, Monterey, and Early California architectural styles. The Springville Component has incorporated features of these design themes including barrel tiles, mariposa tile, columns, arches and arched windows into the project design. Additionally, the Springville Component would also be subject to a Heritage Zone Architectural Review Board by the Architectural Review Committee. Therefore, the Springville Component would not conflict with applicable General Plan policies or zoning regulations governing scenic quality and would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 21 d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses, and 25,000 SF of integrated office uses. Thus, there is a potential for the introduction of new sources of light and glare.

Nighttime sources of light would include vehicle headlights, streetlights, interior and exterior security building lights, parking lot and other security lighting. These sources of light would be very similar to the existing lighting in the industrial area to the west and the Camarillo Town Center developments to the east. As described in the 2016 Final SEIR, compliance with Camarillo Zoning Ordinance standards would ensure that there will not be excessive nighttime lighting beyond that necessary for function and safety. Exterior lighting would be located and designed to preclude direct spill beyond the parking lot or service area. In addition, the Springville Component would comply with lighting standards included in the Hardscape Design Elements of the Specific Plan and the City’s Lighting Ordinance CMC Chapter 19.47. In accordance with Title 24 as implemented through City codes and standard conditions of approval, all lighting would be shielded and focused on the project features, and directed away from the adjacent highway, roadways, and Camarillo Airport. Blinking, flashing, or unusually high intensity lighting would be prohibited in accordance with Camarillo Zoning Ordinance standards. As such, lighting at the Project Site would not adversely affect aircraft flights into or out of Camarillo Airport or vehicular traffic on U.S. Highway 101 or Ventura Boulevard.

Sources of glare that may cause daytime glare include exterior building materials such as glass and highly reflective façade materials and finishes. Surface paving materials and cars parked in surface lots are also sources of glare. The Community Design Element of the City of Camarillo General Plan recommends that industrial buildings shall be a compliment to the area and shall promote good architectural design through the use of building proportions, massing, materials, textures, and colors. Also, the design schemes required by the City’s Heritage Zone as well as the Mediterranean/Spanish architectural styles required under the Specific Plan do not involve design styles with highly reflective materials and limited reflective materials are included in the Springville Component’s design.

Based on this information the Springville Component would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

22 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 23

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewid
e
I
mportance (Farmland), as
shown on maps prepared
pur
suant to the Farmland
M
apping and Monitoring
Program of the California
Re
sources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?

b. Conflict with existing zoning
f
or agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?

c. Involve other changes in the
existing environment which,
due to their location or
nature, could result i
n
c
onversion of Farmland to
n
on-agricultural use?

a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and M
onitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses, and 25,000 SF of integrated office uses and consists of flat, formerly agricultural, undeveloped land.

The Project Site is classified as farmland of local importance by the California Department of Conservation (DOC 2018). Although quality soils are present at the property, the 2016 Final SEIR determined that impacts were less than significant because of the relatively small size of the Project Site, agricultural irrigation water no longer being available at the site, and the property being surrounded by urban uses. Therefore, the Springville Component would not convert Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use and would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

24 b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
The Project Site is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract (DOC 2018). Additionally, the land is not currently zoned or designated for agricultural uses. Therefore, the Springville Component would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Willamson Contract and would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR. c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? The Project Site has been planned for conversion from agriculture to urban land uses since 1986.

Additionally, land uses within the vicinity include commercial retail, residential, and airport associated uses. Generally, there are limited agricultural activities within the area which could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use and thus, there would be no unanticipated actions that could cause other land in the vicinity of the Project Site to convert from agriculture to non- agriculture uses. Therefore, the Springville Component would not involve changes that could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses and would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 25

4.3 Air Quality
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
current Ventura County Air
Quality Management Plan?

106
No No No N/A
b. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase o
f
R
OC and/or NOx emissions?
Pages 106 -
113
No No No Yes
c. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations of fugitive
dust, carbon monoxide, toxic
air contaminants, and/or San
Joaquin Valley Fever spores?
Pages 113 -
114
No No No N/A
d. Result in other emissions that
create objectionable odors
adversely affecting a
substantial number of -
people

a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the current Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan?
The 2016 Final SEIR determined that the 2016 Project did not include any residential uses and would not result in the direct growth of population within the Camarillo Growth Area. Therefore, the project proposed would not conflict with the 2007 Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) or jeopardize attainment of state and national ambient air quality standards in Ventura County and the impact would be less than significant.

The 2022 Ventura County AQMP was approved by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) on December 13, 2022. Although the VCAPCD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate the air quality issues associated with plans and new development projects within the County. Instead, the VCAPCD has used its expertise and prepared the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines to indirectly address these issues in accordance with the projections and programs of the AQMP (VCAPCD 2003). The purpose of the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines is to assist Lead Agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties, in evaluating potential air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in Ventura County. As discussed in the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, for general development projects, the VCAPCD recommends that consistency with the current AQMP be determined by comparing the population generated by the City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

26 project to the population projections used in the development of the AQMP. The Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines does not include guidelines for determining consistency with the current AQMP for commercial or industrial projects. Like the project proposed and evaluated in the 2016 Final SEIR, the Springville Component does not include any residential uses and would not result in the direct growth of population within the Camarillo Growth Area. Therefore, the Springville Component would not conflict with the 2022 Ventura County AQMP and would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR. b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ROC and/or NOx emissions?
The 2016 Final SEIR determined that the 2016 Project would generate a cumulatively considerable net increase of ROC and NOx emissions during project construction and operation. The 2016 Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 during construction that would reduce fugitive dust emissions and emissions generated by heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment operating at the project site. In addition, during project operation, the 2011 Final EIR and 2016 Final SEIR required the following identical mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-3, which would require developers to use low emission water heaters in new buildings and low emission landscaping equipment; Mitigation Measure AQ-4, which would require the developer to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for the entire project to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by uses at the project site; and Mitigation Measure AQ-5, which requires the developer to pay to the City TDM fund an applicable mitigation fee per vehicle trip, determined by the City of Camarillo Department of Community Development.

These mitigation measures are described in detail on pages 108 through 110 of the 2016 Final SEIR and the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) of the 2016 Final SEIR, included in this document as Appendix A. Compliance with these mitigation measures would reduce ROC and NOx emissions from the 2016 Project to a less than significant level.

The Springville Component would include the development of 218,000 SF of auto center and supporting uses and 600,000 SF of industrial and office uses, which would result in temporary construction emissions and long-term operational emissions. The VCAPCD does not recommend any thresholds of significance for construction-related emissions, and rather bases the determination of significance on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented. If all appropriate emissions control measures recommended in the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines relating to construction activities are implemented, then construction emissions are not considered significant. The Springville Component would be required to implement identical Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 from the 2011 Final EIR and the 2016 Final SEIR, which would ensure compliance with VCAPCD’s construction control measures. Therefore, similar to the project proposed in the 2016 Final SEIR, construction-related impacts would be less than significant.

Operational emissions are comprised of area source emissions, energy emissions, and mobile source emissions. Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment; consumer products such as solvents and propellants contained in aerosol and non-aerosol products; pesticide application; and architectural coating. Emissions attributed to energy use include natural gas consumption for space and water heating. Mobile source emissions are generated by the increase in motor vehicle trips to and from the project site associated with operation of on-site development.

Air pollutant emissions generated by project operation were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1. CalEEMod uses project-specific information, including the project’s land uses, the square footages for different uses, and location to model a project’s operational emissions. The analysis reflects the operation of the project as described under Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 27 Project Description. Mobile source emissions are based on the trip generation rates provided in the Traffic Study Memo prepared by Stantec on November 20, 2023 (Stantec 2023; Appendix B). Table 1 summarizes the operational air pollutant emissions associated with the project.

Table 1 Operational Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
Emission Source ROC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 67 47 384 1 82 21
VCAPCD Significance Thresholds 25 25 NA NA NA NA
Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes No No No No
ROC: reactive organic compounds; NOX: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOX: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate matter measuring 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter; NA: not applicable See Appendix C for modeling details and CalEEMod results.

Notes: Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.

According to Table 21 of the 2016 Final SEIR, the 2016 project would produce maximum daily ROC emissions of 35.38 and maximum daily NOX emissions of 51.09. As shown in Table 1, similar to the project proposed in the 2016 Final SEIR, operational emissions associated with the Springville Component would exceed the 25 pounds per day threshold for ROC and NOX. Nonetheless, the Springville Component would be required to implement Mitigation Measures AQ-3 through AQ-5 from the 2011 Final EIR and the 2016 Final SEIR that were determined to reduce operational emissions to a less than significant level. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3 through AQ-5, operation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant and the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR. c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of fugitive dust, carbon monoxide, toxic air contaminants, and/or San Joaquin Valley Fever spores? The Springville Component is not in proximity to residences or other sensitive receptors that could be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations from future development. No new sensitive receptors have been constructed in proximity to the Springville Component since adoption of the 2016 Final SEIR. Furthermore, as discussed in the 2016 Final SEIR, all intersections within the City of Camarillo will continue to operate at LOS B or better with the addition of traffic generated by the project. According to the Traffic Study prepared by Stantec, the Springville Component would result in 9,140 daily trips while the project approved in the 2016 Final SEIR resulted in 10,548 daily trips (Stantec 2023; Appendix B). Accordingly, the technical analyses of the 2016 Final SEIR relies on a higher daily trip count than would be associated with the Springville Component, and thus the Springville Component’s impacts would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR
. Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollution beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

28 d. Would the project result in other emissions that create objectionable odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The 2016 Final SEIR determined that the commercial and light industrial uses of the 2016 Project are not typically associated with odor complaints and there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site that would be offended by objectionable odors. Therefore, it was determined that the potential impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant.

The Springville Component would include the development of 133,000 square feet of auto center and supporting uses and up to 575,000 square feet of industrial and office uses. Odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes, as well as sewage treatment facilities and landfills. Although the Springville Component would include up to 575,000 square feet of industrial uses, the existing land uses to the west of the Project Site are developed with industrial uses and capable of generating similar odors. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site which would be exposed objectionable odors. Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to the creation of objectionable odors beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 29

4.4 Biological Resources
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or
through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the Californi
a
D
epartment of Fish and
W
ildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Pages 170 -
171
No No No Yes
b. Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural
community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish a
nd
W
ildlife Service?
Pages 170 -
171
No No No N/A
c. Have a substantial adverse
effect on state or federally
protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal
,
e
tc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other
means?
Pages 170 -
171
No No No N/A
d. Interfere substantially wit
h
t
he movement of any native
r
esident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of nativ
e
w
ildlife nursery project sites?
Pages 170 -
171
No No No N/A
City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

30 Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
e. Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
Pages 170 -
171
No No No N/A
f. Conflict with the provisions
of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Pages 170 -
171
No No No N/A
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery Project Sites? e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Until the spring of 2008, the Project Site was used for the agricultural production of row crops. The on-site soils were plowed at the beginning of each planting season and plants were removed at the end of each planting season, of which there were at least two per year. The property is no longer under active cultivation. The land is also bisected by Ventura Boulevard and the extension of Springville Drive. As such, any natural habitat or sensitive species that may have been at the project site in the past were removed several decades ago for agricultural operations. There are also no existing trees at the Project Site nor is the site considered to be part of an established migratory Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 31 wildlife corridor. The area around the Project Site has also been used for agriculture and urban uses and generally does not support any riparian or other sensitive habitat. The Camarillo Hills Drain is subject to the California Department of Fish and Game 1603 permit procedures, but no alteration to the drain was proposed.

The 2016 Final SEIR determined that the 2016 Project was not expected to have any impact on sensitive biological resources. However, the potential exists for migratory burrowing owls and other wildlife to be present at the Project Site when construction activities commence. Therefore, the 2016 Project was required to implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1, which requires a pre- construction survey for resident burrowing owls, and BIO-2, which requires the presence of a qualified biologist on the property during initial ground disturbance activities. These mitigation measures are described in detail on pages 170 through 171 of the 2016 Final SEIR and the MMRP of the 2016 Final SEIR, included in this document as Appendix A. Implementation of these mitigation measures is found to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls and wildlife of low mobility to less than significant levels.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses, and 25,000 SF of integrated office uses. Conditions at the site are the same as when it was analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum). A Biological Assessment Report prepared by Rincon Consultants in 2024 (Appendix D) that included a biological reconnaissance survey to determine the potential for presence of sensitive biological resources, including nesting birds. No sensitive biological resources including special status wildlife species or bird nests were documented on the Project Site. Additionally, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would also be implemented as part of the Springville Component. Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to biological resources beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

32 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 33

4.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal
Cultural Resources
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Pages 171 -
172
No No No N/A
b. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Pages 171 -
172
No No No Yes
c. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
a tribal cultural resource,
defined in a Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either
a Project Site, feature, place,
or cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in
terms of the size and scop
e
o
f the landscape, sacred
p
lace, or object with cultural
value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:

1. Listed or eligible for
listing in the California
Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local
register of historical
resources as defined in
Public Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k)?

2. A resource determined
by the lead agency, in
i
ts discretion and
supported by
s
ubstantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
N/A; New
CEQA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2016
SEIR

N/A N/A N/A N/A
City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

34 Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
d. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred
outside of formal
cemeteries?
Pages 171 -
172
No No No Yes
The 2016 Final SEIR determined that the Project Site has been modified and used for agricultural purposes for several decades and that due to the lack of any buildings/structures on site and given prior agricultural disturbances, there would be a less than significant impact to historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains with the implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-3 which require inadvertent discovery provisions be implemented as described in detail on page 172 of the 2016 Final SEIR and the MMRP of the 2016 Final SEIR, included in this document as Appendix A.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and integrated office uses. During the preparation of this Addendum, a Phase I cultural resources assessment (Rincon 2024) was prepared which included a review of previous environmental documentation prepared for the site, archival and background research, a cultural resources records search through the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), geoarchaeological review, and a pedestrian survey of the project site. The assessment confirmed that no buildings exist on site and that a dirt irrigation ditch and associated pump related to past agricultural uses identified during survey, is not eligible for federal, State, or local listing. Nor are any previously recorded archaeological resources located within the project site or sacred lands identified by the NAHC in the project vicinity. As such, consistent with the 2016 Final SEIR, no impacts to buildings/structures qualifying as historical resources or to known archaeological resources qualifying as either historical resources or unique archaeological resources are anticipated from the Springville Component.

Review of the 2008 Springville Specific Plan Final EIR as well as archival and other background research indicated there is the potential for encountering historic-period archaeological resources associated with the former Springville church and cemetery. Geoarchaeological review concluded that due to the nature of onsite sediments and the presence of nearby prehistoric archaeological resources, that there is also a potential for encountering prehistoric archaeological resources within native alluvial sediments. As such, consistent with the 2016 Final SEIR, there is the potential for the Springville Component to encounter unknown historic- and prehistoric-period archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources or unique archaeological resources, as well as human remains. However, with the implementation of: Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-3 which require inadvertent discovery provision as described in detail on page 172 of the 2016 Final SEIR and the Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 35 MMRP of the 2016 Final SEIR, included in this document as Appendix A; Mitigation Measures 3.4-3 and 3.4-4 which require the retention of a qualified archaeologist and inadvertent discovery provisions and reporting requirements as described in detail on pages 3.4-10 – 3.4-11 of the 2008 Springville Specific Plan Final EIR and the MMRP of the 2008 Final SEIR, included in this document as Appendix E, the impact to such resources would be less than significant.

The 2016 Final SEIR predates the updates to the CEQA Guidelines requiring the evaluation of potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. The following provides a discussion of the City’s consultation efforts as required under Assembly Bill (AB) 52.

Nonetheless, in August 2023 City staff contacted the NAHC and requested a contact list of Native Americans culturally affiliated with the project area and sent certified mail AB 52 letters to the 12 local Native American contacts provided notifying them of the proposed project. Of the 12 groups contacted, one, the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians, requested consultation. In response the City provided the tribe with the project scope, background, and past environmental documents. The City spoke with Matthew Vestuto of the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians via telephone September 28, 2023 and answered questions the tribe had regarding the scope of this project. No tribal cultural resources were identified and AB 52 consultation with the tribe concluded September 28, 2023. As a result of the later lot line adjustment and Specific Plan Amendment, in December 2023 the City prepared and sent certified mail Senate Bill (SB) 18 letters to local Native American contacts listed in the NAHC results. The City received one response from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians on December 26, 2023, requesting no further consultation on the project unless supplementary literature reveals additional information or if the scope of work changes. No resources of concern were identified and SB 18 consultation concluded.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

36 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Energy
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 37

4.6 Energy
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energ
y
r
esources, during project
construction or operation?
N/A; New
CEQA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2016
SEIR

N/A N/A N/A N/A
b. Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
N/A; New
CEQA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2016
SEIR
N/A N/A N/A N/A a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction o r
o
peration?
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Since the approval of the Certified EIR, CEQA has been revised to require an Energy section.

However, recent California case law confirms that changes in the CEQA Guidelines only apply prospectively to CEQA documents that have not yet been circulated for public review and not to CEQA documents that rely on previously certified EIRs that complied with applicable CEQA requirements when publicly reviewed. The court in Olen Properties Corp. v. City of Newport Beach (2023) 93 Cal.App.5
th 270 recognized that impacts known of and understood at the time the EIR was certified do not constitute new information that would trigger recirculation. Both the existence of impacts related to wasteful energy usage were known at the time the 2011 EIR and 2016 SEIR were approved.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and integrated office uses. The Springville Component would be subject to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Furthermore, new development projects constructed within California after January 1, 2017, including the Springville Component, are subject to the mandatory planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and environmental quality City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

38 measures of the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11).

Compliance with these standards during project construction and operation would ensure that the use of energy resources would not occur in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary amount and impacts would be less than significant. Additional, adherence to the measures of CALGreen would ensure that the Springville Component would not conflict with state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and no impact would occur.

Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 39

4.7 Geology and Soils
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to the
2016 SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial
adverse effects, includin
g
t
he risk of loss, injury, or
death involving rupture of a
known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist- Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
Pages 173 –
174
No No No N/A
b. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial
adverse effects, includin
g
t
he risk of loss, injury, or
death involving strong
s
eismic ground shaking?
Pages 173 –
174
No No No N/A
c. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial
adverse effects, includin
g
t
he risk of loss, injury, or
death involving seismic-
related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Pages 173 –
174
No No No N/A
d. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial
adverse effects, includin
g
t
he risk of loss, injury, or
death involving landslides?
Pages 173 –
174
No No No N/A
e. Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil
during project constructio
n
an
d/or operation?
Pages 173 –
174
No No No N /A
City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

40 Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
FINAL SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
FINAL SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to the
2016 FINAL
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016

FINAL SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
f. Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become
unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially
result in on site or off site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
Pages 173 –
174
No No No N/A
g. Be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
Pages 173 –
174
No No No N/A
h. Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater
disposal systems where
sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
Pages 173 –
174
No No No N/A
i. Directly or indirectly destroy
a unique paleontological
resource or Project Site or
unique geologic feature?
Pages 171 –
172
No No No Yes
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? b. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? c. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? d. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 41 As discussed in the 2016 Final SEIR, according to the City of Camarillo General Plan, the Project Site is not underlain by an active fault, not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard zone and is not located within a landslide/mudslide hazard zone. Although the property is located in an area with liquefaction potential, the suitability of the land to support non-residential development, including industrial uses, has been evaluated in the Preliminary Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation, 50 Acre Agricultural Property, South of 101 Freeway and Bajo Agua, City of Camarillo, California prepared by Geolabs – Westlake Village (Appendix F). Updates to this report were prepared by Geolabs – Westlake Village in 2010 and 2023 to account for revisions to the California Building Code. The City of Camarillo has independently reviewed and approved the information presented in the reports.

The reports demonstrate that the development of the property with non-residential uses, including industrial uses, is feasible from a geotechnical perspective with no unusual risk or geotechnical hazard. Standard engineering practices as specified in the technical reports would ensure that the project developments would not pose a significant risk to people or structures in the event of a seismic activity. These types of measures are required of all new development in Camarillo including the Project Site. Therefore, the 2016 Final SEIR determined that potential impacts associated with geology and soils would be less than significant.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and of integrated office uses. The Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to potential adverse geologic effects beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR. e. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? As discussed in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum), there are no natural watercourses at the Project Site and the property does not drain towards any natural watercourse. Stormwater runoff from the property would continue to flow towards the drains on West Ventura Boulevard. These drains were sized to accommodate the development of the Project Site along with nearby properties. Therefore, the 2016 Project proposed in the 2016 Final SEIR would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the property or area in a manner which would result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil and therefore the 2016 Final SEIR and 2023 Addendum determined that impacts would be less than significant.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and of integrated office uses on the Project Site.

Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related soil erosion beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR. f. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-Project Site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? g. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? As discussed in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum), the suitability of the Project Site to support non-residential development, including industrial uses, was evaluated in the 2005 Geolabs report referenced above. Updates to this report were prepared by Geolabs – Westlake Village in City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

42 2010 and 2023 to account for revisions to the California Building Code. The City of Camarillo has independently reviewed and approved the information presented in the reports.

The reports demonstrate that the development of the Project Site with non-residential uses, including industrial uses, is feasible from a geotechnical perspective with no unusual risk or geotechnical hazard. Standard engineering practices as specified in the technical reports would ensure that the project developments would not pose a significant risk to people or structures in the event of a seismic activity. These types of measures are required of all new development in Camarillo including the 2016 Project. Therefore, the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) determined that potential impacts associated with unstable or expansive soils would be less than significant.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and of integrated office uses on the Project Site.

Compliance with existing building codes would ensure that impacts related to unstable or expansive soils would be less than significant. Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to unstable or expansive soils beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.
h. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
As discussed in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) wastewater from the Project Site would be conveyed by sewer lines and treated by the Camarillo Sanitary District. Therefore, the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) determined that the 2016 Project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, and no geological impacts from implementation of septic tanks would occur.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and of integrated office uses on the Project Site.

The Springville Component would be served by new and existing sewer lines and treated by the Camarillo Sanitary District. Therefore, the Springville Component would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.
i. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or Project Site or unique geologic feature?
The 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) determined that there are no known paleontological resources within the Project Site. It is likely that any surface and subsurface paleontological remains that might have once occurred on the property would have long since been eliminated by past agricultural activities. However, there is a possibility that paleontological resources may still exist below the surface, and that these remains could be encountered during excavation activities.

Therefore, the 2016 Project evaluated would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CR-2, described in detail on page 172 of the 2016 Final SEIR and the MMRP of the 2016 Final SEIR, included in this document as Appendix A, which would require halting construction if paleontological resources are encountered during development. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2 would reduce impacts to paleontology resources to a less than significant level.

Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 43 The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and of integrated office uses on the Project Site.

The Springville Component would also be subject to Mitigation Measure CR-2 during construction and ground disturbing activities. Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to paleontological resources beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

44 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 45

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
Pages 127 -
130
No No No N/A
b. Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose o
f
r
educing the emissions of
g
reenhouse gases?
Pages 130 -
131
No No No N/A
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The 2016 Final SEIR determined that the 2016 Project would yield an efficiency of 1.69 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) per service population member. The GHG emissions per service population member would be substantially less than the then South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) draft threshold of 4.8 MTCO 2e per
service population. Therefore the 2016 Final SEIR concluded that the City of Camarillo, as lead agency, may conclude that the GHG emissions generated in association with the 2016 Project would not have a significant impact on the environment.

The Springville Component would include the development of 133,000 sSFof auto center and supporting uses and up to 575,000 SF of industrial and office uses, which would result in the generation of GHG emissions. CalEEMod version 2022.1 was used to calculate emissions resulting from operation of the Springville Component, which would be compared to the GHG threshold of

4.8 MTCO
2e used in the 2016 Final SEIR. Long-term emissions relate to mobile sources, area sources, energy use, water use, solid waste, and refrigerants. Each of the operational sources of emissions is discussed further below and summarized in Table 4.

Mobile Source Emissions
As calculated by CalEEMod, the Springville Component would generate an estimated 302,100 VMT per year. The Springville Component would emit an estimated 11,333 MT of CO2e per year from mobile sources.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

46 Area Source Emissions
CalEEMod was used to calculate direct sources of air emissions associated with the Springville Component. These include consumer product use and landscape maintenance equipment. Area emissions are estimated at 12 MT of CO2e per year.

Energy Use Emissions
Operation of the project would consume electricity. The Springville Component would generate approximately 4,001 MT of CO2e per year associated with overall energy use.

Water Use Emissions
Based on the amount of electricity generated to supply and convey water for the project, the Springville Component would generate approximately 357 MT of CO2e per year.

Solid Waste Emissions
Based on the estimate of GHG emissions from project-generated solid waste as it decomposes, solid waste associated with the Springville Component would generate approximately 301 MT of CO2e per year.

Refrigerant Emissions
The Springville Component would generate approximately 25 MT of CO2e per year of refrigerant emissions.

Total Annual Emissions
The end users for the Springville Component have not been identified and therefore, the number of employees has not been determined and would be based on the end users. However, as discussed in the 2016 Final SEIR, the total service population can be roughly estimated by dividing the number of potential daily vehicle trips by two. The vehicle trip numbers are divided by two since each service population member would make one trip to the site and one trip from the site (one person, two trips). This is a very conservative assumption since each vehicle is assumed to accommodate only one person, whereas many of the vehicles would accommodate more than one person.

According to the Traffic Study Memo prepared by Stantec, the daily vehicle trips for the Springville Component is 9,140 (Stantec 2023; Appendix B). Dividing this number by two, identifies a conservative project service population of approximately 4,570 employees, customers, and vendors.

As shown in Table 2, the project’s annual emissions would total approximately 16,029 MT of CO 2e
per year, or approximately 3.5 MT of CO2e per service population per year. Therefore, emissions would not exceed the 2016 Final SEIR GHG threshold of 4.8 MT of CO2e per service population per year. Since GHG emissions would not exceed the GHG threshold, and the project would be similar to the type of use assumed for the site in the 2016 Final SEIR, the project would not generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions. Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to GHG emissions beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 47 Table 2 Estimated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e/year)
Mobile 11,333
Area 12
Energy 4,001
Water 357
Solid Waste 301
Refrigerants 25
Total 16,029
Springville Component Service Population 4,570
Springville Component GHG Emissions per Service Population 3.5 2016 Final SEIR SCAQMD GHG Threshold 4.8
Exceeds Threshold? No
See Table 2.5 “Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated” emissions. CalEEMod worksheets for GHG in Appendix C. b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The 2016 Final SEIR determined that the 2016 Project’s efficiency of 1.69 MTCO2e of GHGs per service population member would be consistent with the goal of AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and therefore it would be consistent with AB 32. The Approved Project would also be subject to the energy efficiency requirements of the Title 24 CALGreen Code.

Based on this information, the 2016 Final SEIR concluded that the 2016 Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and the impact of the project would be less than significant.

As shown in the analysis above, future development under the Springville Component would yield an efficiency of 3.5 MTCO
2e of GHG per service member, and thus it would also be consistent with the AB 32 and GHG reduction targets set by SCAQMD. Similar to the 2016 Project, the Springville Component would also be required to comply with the most recent iteration of CALGreen’s Title 24.

As such, future development under the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts to GHG reduction plans, policies or regulations beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

48 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 49

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to
t
he public or the
environment through the
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
Pages 175 No No No N/A
b. Create a significant hazard t
o
t
he public or the
environment through
r
easonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions
involving the release of
h
azardous materials into the
environment?

c. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials
,
s
ubstances, or waste within
o
ne quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?

d. Be located on a Project Site
that is included on a list of
hazardous material Projec
t
S
ites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?

e. Not comply with the
Adopted Land Use
Compatibility Standards i
n
t
he Safety Zones of the
A
irport Comprehensive Land
U
se Plan for Ventura County
a
nd/or the Height
Restriction Zones for
Camarillo Airport?
Pages
175 -
177
No No No N/A
City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

50 Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
f. Substantially physically
interfere with the City’s
designated evacuation
routes?

g. Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving
wildland fires?

a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) determined that the industrial uses at the Project Site could involve the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials. However, it is expected that all such materials would be transported, stored, and used in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. Vehicles that transport such materials are regulated by federal and state agencies and the storage of hazardous materials is regulated by federal and state regulations and is verified through inspections by the Ventura County Fire Department. The use of hazardous materials is regulated by federal and state Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) agencies.

Given all the federal and state regulatory requirements, the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) concluded that compliance with the applicable regulations ensures that potential operational impacts associated with hazardous materials at the Project Site are less than significant.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and of integrated office uses. The Springville Component is located on the same Project Site as the 2016 Project and Project Site conditions are the same as when it was analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum). Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to hazardous materials beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 51 c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? There are no sensitive receptors in close proximity to the Springville Component, the nearest school – Gateway Community School – is located approximately .85 miles southeast of the project.

Therefore, similar to what was concluded in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum), the Springville Component would result in less than significant impacts to schools. d. Would the project be located on a Project Site that is included on a list of hazardous material Project Sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? A Phase I Environmental Project Site Assessment (ESA) produced by Anacapa Geoservices in 2005 (Anacapa, 2005) found that the property is not included on any federal, state, or local listing of hazardous materials project sites and none are located in the vicinity of the property. The only issue of potential concern identified during the Phase I ESA investigation was the possibility of farm- related pesticides, herbicides, and other farm chemicals occurring in the soil as a result of the normal, legal application of these materials by the previous farming activity. A Limited Phase II ESA was subsequently prepared to evaluate this possibility. The analysis concluded that Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and its break-down by-products Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD) and Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), as well as Chlordane, alpha-Chlordane, and gamma-Chlordane were detected at locations within the property.

However, no detected concentrations exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommended preliminary remediation goals for these products. As such, soils at the property were not considered hazardous waste and impacts associated with implementation of the 2016 Project would be less than significant.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and of integrated office uses. The Springville Component is located on the same Project Site as the 2016 Project and Project Site conditions are the same as when it was analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum). Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to hazardous materials beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR. e. For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? As described in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum), the Project Site is located directly north of Camarillo Airport and is located within the Airport North Specific Plan and the Compatible Land Use Plan (CLUP) for Camarillo Airport, which is included in the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Ventura County. The southern portion of the property is located within the Height Restriction Zone (HRZ), which restricts structure height to a 7:1 ratio measured from the airport runway elevation starting at the northerly airport property line. The property is also located within the Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ). The CLUP allows for office and industrial uses provided that the structural coverage of industrial and office uses within the TPZ do not exceed 50 percent structural coverage and that an avigation easement, and fair disclosure and covenant be recorded by the owner and developer of the properties within the TPZ.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

52 The 466,767 SF of building space included in the 2016 Project would represent a maximum structural coverage of 23 percent of the property, which would not exceed the 50 percent recommendation for properties within the TPZ. According to the Specific Plan, portions of the Project Site are located within the 2-story airport building height zone, which specifies a maximum height of 35 feet for two-story buildings, and portions are located within the 3-story, 50-foot maximum height zone, exclusive of architectural elements such as towers, cupolas, etc. Special purpose buildings requiring heights in excess of two stories may be considered under a conditional use permit (CUP) . Under no circumstance, however, may building heights (including architectural features) exceed the FAR Part 77 or CLUP height restrictions and established avigational easements.

Future buildings planned under the Springville Component would be reviewed by the Camarillo Community Development Department during the Industrial Planned Development (IPD) approval process to ensure that the maximum building elevations, excluding various architectural features, would not exceed the height zone and avigational easement standards. The city also forwards the building plans for projects near Camarillo Airport to the Airport Manager for review and comment for consistency with all applicable height and density restrictions, and applicable avigation easements. As an industrial and/or office development, the 2016 Project is unlikely to include uses that could conflict with airport operations, electronic communications or navigational aids that could potentially be associated with research and development activities as detailed in the EIR for the Airport North Specific Plan. However, the city requires as a standard condition of approval that the project developers sign an agreement indicating that any electromagnetic disturbance that causes interference with radio transmission, aircraft, instruments, navigational aids, or other electromagnetic receptors, shall be modified or abated upon the written request by the Camarillo Airport Authority. Consequently, the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) found that impacts related to airport safety hazards for the 2016 Project would be less than significant.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and office uses. The Springville Component is located on the same Project Site as the Approved Project and Project Site conditions are the same as when it was analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum). The approximately 707,000 SF of building space included in the Springville Component would represent a maximum structural coverage of 35 percent of the property, which would not exceed the 50 percent recommendation for properties within the TPZ. However, the SPA proposes to modify the maximum height restrictions of the airport building height zone to allow for a maximum building height of four stories and 50 feet and thus a CUP for a maximum height variance will not be required. The height of Building E, located on the south of the Springville Component in the HRZ, would respect easement outlined in the CLUP by stepping back the floor levels of the structure and rising to 40 feet maximum. The Springville Component would also be subject to the same regulations and approval procedures as the 2016 Project. Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to airport safety hazards beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 53 f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) found that the 2016 Project would not generate sufficient traffic to create severe traffic congestion, nor would it interfere with emergency access to the Project Site. The internal roadways and driveways would be designed in accordance with all City regulations, including those pertaining to emergency access. Consequently, the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) determined that impacts associated with emergency access would be less than significant for the 2016 Project.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and integrated office uses on the property. A traffic memo prepared by Stantec (Stantec 2023) in 2023 determined that the Springville Component would result in significantly less daily vehicular trips than the 2106 Project. In addition, internal roadways and driveways included in the Springville Component have been designed in accordance with all City regulations, including those pertaining to emergency access. Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to emergency access beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) determined that the Project Site is located within a developed area and there are no adjacent wildlands that would be subject to wildfire. U.S. Highway 101 is located to the immediate north of the property. Camarillo Airport and the Camarillo Hills Drain are located to the immediate south of the property. U.S. Highway 101 / Springville Drive Interchange is located to the east of the property and the area to the west of the property is largely developed with industrial uses. Therefore, the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) concluded that no impact associated with wildland fires would occur for the 2016 Project.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and integrated office uses on the property. The Springville Component is located on the same Project Site as the Approved Project and Project Site conditions are the same as when it was analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum).

Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to wildland fires beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

54 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 55

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality
s
tandards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
s
ubstantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
Pages 178-
179
No No No N/A
b. Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially
with groundwater
recharge such that the
project may imped
e
s
ustainable groundwater
management of the
basin?

c. Substantially alter the
e
xisting drainage pattern of
the Project Site or area,
i
ncluding through the
alteration of the course of a
s
tream or river or through
the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner whic
h
w
ould result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or
off-Project Site?
Pages 178-
179
No No No N/A
d. Substantially alter the
e
xisting drainage pattern of
the Project Site or area,
i
ncluding through the
alteration of the course of a
s
tream or river or through
the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner whic
h
w
ould substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner
which would result i
n
f
looding on- or off-Project
Site?

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

56 Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
e. Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the Project Site or area,
including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through
the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which
would create or contribute
runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of
existing or planned
stormwater drainage
systems or provide
substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Pages 178-
179
No No No N/A
f. Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the Project Site or area,
including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through
the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which
would create or contribute
runoff water which would
impede or redirect flood
flows?

g. Be located in a flood hazard
zone and risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?

h. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?

a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 57 impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-Project Site?
e. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would e
xceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
As described in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum), th e 2016 Project would require a Permit coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) (Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ) prior to the start of construction. The Construction General Permit requires that a Notice of Intent (NOI) be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). One of the conditions of the General Permit is the development and the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP identifies structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented, such as sandbag barriers, temporary desilting basins near inlets, gravel driveways, dust controls, employee training, and general good housekeeping practices. As described in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum), with implementation of the applicable permit requirements and the application of BMPs specifically designed to minimize construction-related water quality impacts, construction of the 2016 project would minimize the possibility of violating any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and only in extreme storm events would a BMPs fail.

Prior to the submittal of a development application, the project applicant would be required to su
bmit a Post Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSMP) that is designed in accordance with the City’s Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit for Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (MS4 Permit) (Order No. R4-2021-0105), which incorporates site specific controls that mitigate stormwater, and these controls will be built following design requirements in the City's MS4 Permit.

In addition, the 2016 Project would be required to implement project design features so that peak storm water flow is not increased from pre-development 100-year storm conditions. In accordance with the approved drainage and stormwater quality control plan, each development within the Project Site would be also designed to meet the requirements of the City’s MS4 Permit and related requirements of the Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (TGM) in effect at the time of development. With the compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, Code requirements, and permit provisions, the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) determined the 2016 Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during operation and impacts would be less than significant.

The S
pringville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and integrated office uses . The Springville Component is located on the same Project Site as the 2016 Project and Project Site conditions are the same as when it was analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum). An infiltration test performed by Geolabs – Westlake Village in 2023 (Appendix G) found that the on-site alluvium found at the Project Site has very low infiltration rates that do not allow for the project to utilize infiltration BMPs. Therefore, the project will propose onsite biofiltration BMPs to meet the requirements of the City’s MS4 Permit and related TGM in effect at the time of development. A PCSMP has not been submitted to the City for review, but future proposed projects on the site will be required to prepare a PCSMP that will meet the requirements of the MS4 permit. The Project Applicant will be required to design bioretention basins in accordance with the MS4 Permit and City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

58 TGM. Design features such as bioretention areas and underground detention systems would ensure that that peak storm water flow is not increased from pre-development 100-year storm conditions and that the Springville Component would not violate any water quality standards. Consistent with the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum), the Springville Component would also be subject to local, state and federal regulations governing the release of pollutants and ensure post development stormwater run-off flows are equal to or less than pre-development conditions. Therefore, the Springville Component would not have a substantial adverse effect related to water quality and would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum).
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
h. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
As described in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum), groundwater would be the source of potable water for the 2016 Project and water demand for the 2016 Project would be substantially less than the historic groundwater use at the Project Site. The property is not a source of groundwater recharge and it is technically infeasible to infiltrate storm water to recharge area aquifers. The 2016 Final SEIR (and the 2023 Addendum) determined the 2016 Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and the impact of the project on groundwater supplies would be less than significant.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and integrated office uses. The Springville Component is located on the same Project Site as the 2016 Project and Project Site conditions are the same as when it was analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR. A Water Report prepared for the Project Site by Jensen Design & Survey Inc. in 2024 (Appendix H) found that the proposed water system was designed in accordance with the City of Camarillo and Ventura County Fire Protection District standards and criteria and that the proposed water system has been sufficiently sized to accommodate the needs of the development. Therefore, the Springville Component would not have a substantial adverse effect related to groundwater and would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR. d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-Project Site? f. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? g. Would the project be located in a flood hazard zone and risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
As described in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum), the Project Site is not within an inundation zone or dam failure hazard area, is not located within a 100-year flood zone, and no impacts would occur with implementation of the 2016 Project.

Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 59 The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and integrated office uses. The Springville Component is located on the same Project Site as the 2016 Project and conditions are the same as when it was analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum). Therefore, the Springville Component would not have a substantial adverse effect related to flood hazards and would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

60 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 61

4.11 Land Use and Planning
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an
established neighborhood or
community?
Pages 58-
59 No No No N/A
b. Cause a significant
environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation or
applicable goal or policy from
the City of Camarillo General
Plan that was adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
Pages 59-
67 No No No N/A
a. Would the project physically divide an established neighborhood or community? As described in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum), the Project Site does not contain any residential communities on or adjacent to the site and the infill project would not divide an established community. There would be no impact for the 2016 Project.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and integrated office uses. The Springville Component is located on the same Project Site as the 2016 Project and Project Site conditions are the same as when it was analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum). The Springville Component is part of the Airport North Specific Plan and has remained undeveloped, surrounded by industrial and commercial development. Therefore, the Springville Component would not divide an established neighborhood or community and would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation or applicable goal or policy from the City of Camarillo General Plan t
hat was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? As described in the 2016 Final SEIR, the 2016 Project would be consistent with all applicable standards and policies contained in the Land Use, Circulation, Recreation, Community Design, Safety and Noise Elements of the City of Camarillo General Plan. Impacts were determined to be less than significant for the 2016 Project.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

62 The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and integrated office uses . As described in Section

4.1 Aesthetics, the Springville Component is located within the City’s Heritage Zone which requires developments to have particular design themes, such as Mission, Monterey, Early California, Spanish, and Mediterranean styles or modern interpretations of these styles. Also, the Specific Plan requires buildings to follow design standards based upon Mediterranean, Mission, Monterey, and Early California architectural styles. The Springville Component has incorporated features of these design themes including barrel tiles and arched windows into the project design. Additionally, the Springville Component would also be subject to Architectural Design Review by the Architectural Review Committee. The project applicant is also requesting a Specific Plan Amendment to incorporate “Auto Center and Supporting Uses” into the Specific Plan. While manufacturing uses (including automobile manufacturing) are allowed in the L-M zone and Industrial (Research and Development) land use designations, retail sales of such products are limited, thus the incorporation of Auto Center and Supporting uses into the regulatory documents is being requested. These modifications to the Specific Plan are subject to compatibility review(s) by Ventura County Transportation Commission / Airport Land Use Commission, which occurred on February 2, 2024.The Springville Component in concept was also found compatible by Airport Land Use Commission/Ventura County Transportation Commission. The maximum height of the proposed buildings would not exceed 50 feet, but would be over 35 feet. However the Specific Plan amendment will modify the maximum height restrictions of the airport building height zone to allow for a maximum building height of 50 feet and thus a CUP for a maximum height variance will not be required. The Springville Component is part of the Airport North Specific Plan and following the proposed general plan, specific plan and zoning code amendments, each building within the Springville Component would be subject to all applicable Industrial land use policies and L-M zone requirements. The Springville Component would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

Impact Analysis
Mineral Resources
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 63

4.12 Mineral Resources
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that would
be of value to the region
and the residents of the
state?
Pages 180-
181
No No No N/A
b. Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral resourc
e
r
ecovery Project Site
de
lineated in the City of
Camarillo General Plan,
specific plan, or other
applicable land use plan?
Pages 180-
181
No No No N/A a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery Project Site delineated in the City of Camarillo General Plan, specific plan, or other applicable land use plan?
The 2016 SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) did not identify any mineral resources of statewide significance in the Camarillo area and the Camarillo General Plan does not identify any locally important mineral resource recovery sites on the Project Site. The 2016 Final SEIR found that there would be no impacts to mineral resources for the Approved Project.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and integrated office uses. The Springville Component is located on the same Project Site as the 2016 Project and no oil extraction or mineral extraction activities have been conducted on the Project Site. Additionally, there are no known mineral resources on the Project Site (Camarillo 2006). Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in the loss of known mineral resources and no new or more severe impacts would occur beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

64 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Noise
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 65

4.13 Noise
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Generate construction noise
l
evels that exceed the Noise
Or
dinance exterior or
interior noise standards at
residential properties during
the hours specified in
Se
ction 10.34.120 of the
City of Camarillo Municipal
Code?
Pages 140 -
142
No No No N/A
b. Generate a substantial
temporary
(nonconstruction) or
permanent increase in nois
e
l
evels at existing sensitive
receptors in the vicinity of
the Project Site?
Pages 143 -
146
No No No N/A
c. Generate excessive ground
borne vibration?
Pages 142 -
143
No No No N/A
d. Expose people residing or
working in the project area
t
o excessive noise levels
from aircraft operations
from Camarillo Airport?
Pages 146 -
147
No No No N /A
a. Would the project generate construction noise levels that exceed the Noise Ordinance exterior or interior noise standards at residential properties during the hours specified in Section 1 0.34.120 of the City of Camarillo Municipal Code?
The 2016 Final SEIR determined that construction activities associated with the 2016 Project would not exceed any of the standards of the City of Camarillo Noise Ordinance since the Project Site is located in a commercial and industrial area of the city and is not located in close proximity to any sensitive uses such as residences. In addition, the future uses at the Project Site would also be subject to all applicable standards of the City of Camarillo Noise Ordinance for new sources of noise.

Therefore, the 2016 Final SEIR concluded that the construction and operational impact of the 2016 Project would be less than significant.

The construction noise thresholds outlined in the City’s CEQA Environmental Guidelines and the CMC are utilized in this analysis to evaluate project construction noise impacts. Project construction would occur on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and would therefore be City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

66 consistent with the CMC. Therefore, similar to the 2016 Final SEIR conclusions, construction noise impacts would be less than significant, and the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to construction noise levels beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

Noise generated during daytime construction activities would not be subject to quantitative thresholds, however, daytime noise levels are quantified for informational purposes. Construction noise was estimated using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2006).

RCNM predicts construction noise levels for a variety of construction operations based on empirical data and the application of acoustical propagation formulas. Using RCNM, construction noise levels were estimated at the nearest noise-sensitive receivers near the project site, which are residences located approximately 1,100 feet to the northeast. Intervening structures that may provide attentuation were conservatively not included in the modeling. Project construction noise would be generated by heavy-duty diesel construction equipment used for site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving phases. Each phase of construction has a specific equipment mix and associated noise characteristics, depending on the equipment used during that phase. For the analysis, it was assumed a bulldozer, excavator, and dump truck would be operating simultaneously.

At a distance of 1,100 feet to the nearest residential area, this equipment would generate a noise level of 54 dBA L
eq. Due to the residences location near Highway 101, they are within the 70 dBA noise contour as identified in Figure 5 of the City’s Noise Element; therefore, construction noise levels would be much lower than ambient noise level and would have a negligible effect. b. Would the project generate a substantial temporary (nonconstruction) or permanent increase in noise levels at existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site? The 2016 Final SEIR discussed how locations in the vicinity of the Project Site would experience a slight increase in noise resulting from the additional traffic generated by the industrial project. The 2016 Final SEIR determined that the traffic generated by the industrial project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 0.5 decibels A (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which would be imperceptible to most people and would not exceed the applicable thresholds of significance for the affected existing land uses. As discussed above, the Project Site is located in a commercial and industrial area of the city and is not located in close proximity to any sensitive uses such as residences. Therefore, the 2016 Final SEIR determined this impact would be less than significant for the 2016 Project.

The Springville Component is located on the same Project Site as the 2016 Project and Project Site conditions are the same as when it was analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR. The future uses at the site would be subject to applicable standards of the City of Camarillo Noise Ordinance for new sources of noise. For example, new stationary sources of noise, such as rooftop mechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment would be installed at the future buildings at the site. This equipment would be shielded and appropriate noise muffling devices installed to ensure that noise levels meet City Noise Ordinance standards. The type of HVAC equipment currently installed on new commercial, office, and industrial buildings generates noise levels that average around 66 dBA L
eq on the air inlet side and 62 dBA Leq on the other sides when measured at 50 feet from the source. The shielding installed around the new equipment reduces these noise levels by around 15 dBA. The resulting equipment noise levels of less than 51 dBA L eq at nearby buildings
would be substantially less than the existing noise levels at these locations.

Impact Analysis
Noise
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 67 The new uses proposed as part of the Springville Component may have different noise sources than analyzed in the 2016 Project. For example, the auto dealership may have amplified sound through an announcement system. Similar to the HVAC units analyzed for the 2016 Project, these would need to comply with City Noise Ordinance standards. In addition, due to proximity of Highway 101, the area is within the 65 to 70 dBA noise contours as identified in Figure 5 of the City’s Noise Element; therefore, operational noise levels from the auto dealership and other uses would not substantially increase the ambient noise levels.

Similar to the 2016 Project, locations in the vicinity of the Springville Component would experience a slight increase in noise resulting from the additional traffic generated by future development. The Springville Component is similar in size to the 2016 Project, and would thus would create similar daily vehicular trips. Therefore, a similar traffic noise increase of 0.5 decibels dBA CNEL would be expected, which would be imperceptible to most people and would not exceed the applicable thresholds of significance for the affected existing land uses. In addition, the Springville Component is located in a commercial and industrial area and is not located in close proximity to any sensitive uses. Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to noise levels at sensitive receptors beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR. c. Would the project generate excessive ground borne vibration? The 2016 Final SEIR describes how construction activities that would occur at the Project Site have the potential to generate low levels of ground borne vibration. However, nearby industrial uses are not considered to be sensitive to ground-borne vibration and the resulting ground-borne vibration levels would not exceed any adopted standards for these uses. The 2016 Project did not include uses that are expected to generate measurable levels of ground borne vibration during operation.

Therefore, the greatest regular source of project-related ground borne vibration would be from trucks making deliveries and larger garbage trucks picking-up refuse material generated by the project occupants. However, because there are no sensitive uses in the vicinity of the Project Site, the 2016 Final SEIR concluded that impacts related to ground borne vibration would be less than significant for the 2016 Project.

As with the 2016 Project, construction activities that would occur at the Springville Component have the potential to generate low levels of ground-borne vibration. Table 3 identifies various vibration velocity levels for the types of construction equipment that may operate at the project site during construction. The vibration levels are provided for the nearest residences at 1,100 feet from construction. Based on the information presented in Table 3, vibration levels could reach as high as approximately 0.0033 inches per second PPV at the nearest industrial use. The maximum vibration level of 0.0033 inches per second PPV would be below the threshold of significance for potential building damage of 0.02 inches per second PPV. Therefore, the potential impacts associated with construction vibration would be less than significant.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

68 Table 3 Estimated Construction Vibration Levels
Equipment
Reference Vibration (25
feet) in/sec PPV 1
Nearest Residence
(1,100 feet) in/sec PPV Exceed Threshold?2
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.0033 No
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.0014 No
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.0012 No
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.0002 No
1- FTA 2018
2 Threshold used is the FTA’s vibration damage potential threshold for non-engineered timber and masonry building structures of 0.2 in/sec PPV.

The Springville Component does not include uses that are expected to generate measurable levels of groundborne vibration during operation of the Springville Component. Therefore, the greatest regular source of project-related ground-borne vibration would be from local trucks making deliveries to the project site and larger garbage trucks picking-up project-related refuse material.

The vibration levels associated with these trucks would be less than the levels associated with large construction equipment. Therefore, the operational impacts associated with ground-borne vibration would be less than significant at nearby industrial uses or the nearest residential uses.

Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to ground borne vibration beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR. d. Would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft operations from Camarillo Airport? The 2016 Final SEIR describes how the Project Site is located to the north of Camarillo Airport.

According to the Noise Element of the City of Camarillo General Plan, future noise levels at the Project Site attributable to Camarillo Airport would not exceed 65 dBA CNEL. These average noise levels would not exceed the City’s 75 dBA CNEL external noise standard for commercial, industrial, and office uses. Higher noise levels would occur when individual aircraft fly over the Project Site.

These aircraft are nearly all propeller airplanes and helicopters. These noise levels would primarily affect people walking outdoors within the Project Site but are not equivalent to the higher noise levels associated with jet aircraft that may be considered excessive. Therefore, the 2016 Final SEIR determined that impacts related to the aircraft operations from the Camarillo Airport would be less than significant for the 2016 Project.

The Springville Component involves construction of auto center, industrial/warehouse, and office uses. The Springville Component is located on the same Project Site as the 2016 Project and Project Site conditions are the same as when was analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR. According to the Noise Element of the City of Camarillo General Plan, future noise levels at the Project Site attributable to Camarillo Airport would not exceed 65 dBA CNEL. These average noise levels would not exceed the City’s 75 dBA CNEL standards for industrial and office uses. Higher noise levels would occur when individual aircraft fly over the Project Site. These aircraft are nearly all propeller airplanes and helicopters. These noise levels would primarily affect people walking outdoors at the Project Site but are not the higher noise levels associated with jet aircraft that may be considered excessive.

Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to aircraft operations from the Camarillo Airport beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 69

4.14 Population and Housing
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned
po
pulation growth in an area,
either directly or indirectly?
Pages 181-
182
No No No N/A
b. Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Pages 181-
182
No No No N/A
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly) or indirectly?
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) described how the 2016 Project would not displace any housing units and that 25 percent of the 980 employees generated by the 2016 Project would require housing in the city. The 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) determined that existing and future housing stock in the City would be sufficient to accommodate the 245 new employees of the 2016 Project. The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and integrated office uses on the project site. The Springville Component does not include any residential development and there are no housing units on the Project Site. The Springville Component has been planned for urban uses, including industrial uses, in the City of Camarillo General Plan, and the Springville Component does not extend any infrastructure to areas where growth is unplanned. Therefore, because no additional employees or residents beyond those analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) would be introduced to the City as a result of the Springville Component, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to population and housing beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

70 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 71

4.15 Public Services and Recreation
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically altered
governmental facilities, or
the need for new or
physically altered
governmental facilities, th
e
co
nstruction of which could
cause significant
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,
response times or other
performance objectives for
any of the public services:

1. Fi
re protection? Pages 183-
184
No No No N/A

2. Police protection? Page 184 No No No N/A

3. Schools? Page 184 No No No N/A

4. Parks? Page 185 No No No N/A

5. Other public facilities? Page 185 No No No N/A
b. Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Pages 185-
186
No No No N/A
c. Include recreational facilities
or require the constructio
n
or
expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Pages 185-
186
No No No N/A
City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

72 a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities? b. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
c. Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) describes how the 2016 Project would not require the development of new fire department, or police facilities. School impact fees would also mitigate potential impacts to schools to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the 2016 Project would not generate substantial unforeseen employment or population growth and, therefore, impacts to park services or other public facilities would be less than significant. Therefore, the 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) determined that the 2016 Project would result in less than significant impacts related to public services and recreation.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and integrated office uses on the project site.

While the Springville Component may increase the demand for fire protection services through the development of new buildings, these demands would be met by the existing Fire Department facilities in Camarillo. As such, project development would not require the development of new or physically altered fire protection facilities which would cause significant environmental impacts. In accordance with standard City practice, the development and building plans would be subject to review by the Fire Department to ensure that the site design and building plans comply with all applicable fire codes. Police protection to the Specific Plan area is provided via officers driving in Police Department vehicles. Therefore, the Springville Component would not create the need for the construction of new or physically altered police facilities. As such, the Springville Component would not create a significant impact under CEQA. In accordance with standard City practice, development and building plans would be subject to review by the Camarillo Police Department to reduce opportunities for the commission of crimes at the project site. As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the Springville Component would not generate substantial unforeseen employment or population growth. Additionally, development of the Springville Component would also be subject to school and park impact fees which are intended to help fund the construction of new school and recreational facilities. The fees for nonresidential developments are substantially less than those for residential units and mitigate the potential impact to a less than significant level.

Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to public services and recreation beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

Impact Analysis
Transportation
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 73

4.16 Transportation
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
Final SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
Final SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 Final
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 Final
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance or policy
a
ddressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle a
nd
p
edestrian facilities?

88 N/A N/A N/A N/A
b. Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3(b) for the
reduction of vehicle miles
travelled (VMT)?
N/A; New
CE
QA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2016
SEIR

N/A N/A N/A N/A
c. Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., far
m
e
quipment)?

85 No No No Yes
d. Result in inadequate
emergency access?

a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation s
ystem, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) found implementation of the 2016 Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation and no mitigation was required, impacts were less than significant. The 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) determined that the 2016 Project does not include any facilities for alternative transportation, nor does it remove, replace or preclude the use of public transportation by future occupants or visitors to the project site.

The Springville Component would be consistent with all applicable Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element policies for circulation patterns and design, and alternative modes of transportation. Vehicular ingress and egress will be provided on the west via West Ventura Boulevard, and from the south via the privately maintained interior project road originating at West Ventura Boulevard. This road will be designed and constructed consistent with all applicable Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element policies and the Specific Plan. The Springville Component City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

74 will also provide specific Transportation Demand Management programs and improvements that will help further goals and objectives identified in the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCAG 2016). These programs and improvements will include the following:
 Improved pedestrian connectivity through the construction of an onsite pedestrian network that will connect to the existing off-site pedestrian network.  Implementation of commute trip reduction marketing for employees.  A ridesharing program.
 Employer-sponsored vanpool.
 Implementation of a telecommuting and/or alternative work schedule program.  End of trip bicycle facilities (i.e., parking, lockers, and showers) for employee use.

Therefore, implementation of the Springville Component would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), which was added to the CEQA Guidelines as part of the update adopted by the State in November 2018, defines acceptable criteria for analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA. It states that land use projects with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact, and that projects that decrease VMT compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. While the 2016 Final SEIR did not include a VMT analysis, development under the 2016 Project constitute infill development, that would generally reduce VMT compared to greenfield development (new development on lands not previously planned for development) and the 2016 Final SEIR determined that the 2016 Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Since adoption of the 2011 EIR and 2016 SEIR, the LOS metric for analyzing transportation and traffic impacts under CEQA has been replaced with a VMT analysis to address consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). However, recent California case law confirms that CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) only applies prospectively to CEQA documents that have not yet been circulated for public review and not to CEQA documents that rely on previously certified EIRs that complied with applicable CEQA requirements when publicly reviewed. The court in Olen Properties Corp. v.

City of Newport Beach (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 270 explicitly recognizes that VMT impacts were known of and understood at the time the EIR in that case was certified (i.e., 2006) and therefore do not constitute new information that would trigger recirculation. Thus, a project relying on a previously certified EIR under CEQA Guidelines 15168(c) is not required to provide a VMT analysis if:
(1) the previously certified EIR evaluated transportation impacts based on LOS and (2) the subsequent project is within the scope of the impacts assessed in the previously certified EIR and any applicable mitigation measures are adopted.

A VMT analysis was not performed for the Springville Component. However, a Traffic Memo prepared by Stantec in November 2023 (Appendix B) determined that the Springville Component would have 1,408 less average daily trips than the 2016 Project, would not generate any significant intersection impacts, and that this finding is consistent with the findings included in the 2016 Final Impact Analysis
Transportation
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 75 SEIR. Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to its potential to conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp cur
ves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? The 2016 Final SEIR recommended implementation of Mitigation Measure TC-1, described in detail on page 83 of the 2016 Final SEIR and the MMRP of the 2016 Final SEIR, included in this document as Appendix A, which would require the developer to install a traffic signal at the intersection of West Ventura Boulevard (east-west segment) and “A” Street (shown on the new proposal as a private street) when traffic conditions warrant a signal. The 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) concluded that Mitigation Measure TC-1 would ensure that the intersection of West Ventura Boulevard (east-west segment) and “A” Street would operate at LOS A and reduce the potential impact of the 2016 Project to less than significant levels.

The Springville Component includes a signalized entry roadway on the “east/west” segment of Ventura Boulevard, approximately midway between Springville Drive and the “north/south” segment of Ventura Boulevard (i.e., at the private street). This would satisfy the requirements of Mitigation Measure TC-1. Additionally, one or more access points would be provided along the “north/south” segment of Ventura Boulevard. The existing connection to Ventura Boulevard at the ninety-degree westerly turn at the northwest corner of the Springville Component would be preserved. Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to hazardous design features beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR. e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
The 2016 Final SEIR determined that intersections and driveways providing access to the Project Site would operate at acceptable levels of service and internal roadways and driveways would be designed in accordance with all City regulations, including those pertaining to emergency access.

Consequently, emergency vehicles would not be subject to unacceptable delays entering or exiting the Project Site and impacts associated with emergency access would be less than significant for the Approved Project.

As described above, the Springville Component would be consistent with all applicable Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element policies for circulation patterns and design. Vehicular ingress and egress will be provided via West Ventura Boulevard to the west, and the privately maintained interior project road originating at West Ventura Boulevard to the south and would include a signalized entry roadway on the “east/west” segment of Ventura Boulevard, approximately midway between Springville Drive and the “north/south” segment of Ventura Boulevard. These proposed roadways and intersections would be designed in accordance with all City regulations, including those pertaining to emergency access. Consequently, emergency vehicles would not be subject to unacceptable delays entering or exiting the Project Site. Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to emergency access beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

76 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 77

4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the
relocation or construction of
new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could
cause significant
environmental effects?
Pages 186 -
187
No No No N/A
b. Comply with the applicable
water purveyor water
conservation ordinance
requirements for n
ew
d
evelopment projects?
N/A; New
CEQA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2016
SEIR

N/A N/A N/A N/A
c. Result in a determination by
t
he wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existin
g
c
ommitments?
Pages 186 -
187
No No No N/A
d. Generate solid waste in
excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of th
e
ca
pacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
i
mpair the attainment of
s
olid waste reduction goals?

e. Comply with federal, state,
and local management and
reduction statutes an
d
r
egulations related to solid
waste?

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

78 a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) describes how existing wastewater infrastructure and treatment facilities, and storm drain facilities have the capacity to accommodate the 2016 Project.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant for the 2016 Project. However, the 2016 Final SEIR did not analyze impacts to electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.

In 2016 the City of Camarillo City Council adopted Ordinance 1126 which amends chapter 14.12 of the CMC to require the preparation of a Water Service Impact Study and demonstrates the proposed development will not create additional demand on the city's water system. A Water Report for the Springville Component prepared by Jensen Design and Survey Inc. in January 2024 (Appendix H) determined that the water system for the Springville Component is designed in accordance with the City of Camarillo and Ventura County Fire Protection District standards and criteria and the proposed water system has been sufficiently sized to accommodate the needs of the development.

The Project Site has been planned for Industrial and Automobile Dealership uses under Camarillo General Plan and land use for the Springville Component and will not conflict with those land use designations. The Project Applicant would be required to coordinate with utility providers to implement infrastructure enhancements to meet the needs of Springville Component. All specific connections to the Springville Component for electric and telecommunications would be coordinated by the Project Applicant, in concurrence with City requirements and would require approval by the City of Camarillo Public Works Department. Therefore, although the Springville Component would not result in an increased demand for water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, and telecommunications, no new or expanded utilities facilities are required to accommodate the increased demand and impacts related to new utilities would be less than significant.
b. Comply with the applicable water purveyor water conservation ordinance requirements for new development projects?
This impact was not analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR. The Springville Component will comply with all water conservation policies included in the CMC (Title 14, Chapter 14.12), including the City’s permanent water conservation measures and additional water conservation measures, and Urgency Ordinance No. 2012 declaring a Water Shortage Supply Stage 1 in the City. Additionally, the landscape planting and irrigation for all buildings in the Springville Component will comply with requirements set forth by the City. The irrigation design will be a fully automatic, underground water use and conservation system, with high efficiency and low precipitation rates, using an evapotranspiration weather-based control system. The selection of plant material is based on geographic, cultural, aesthetic and low maintenance considerations. Therefore, impacts related to water purveyor water conservation ordinance for the Springville Component would be less than significant.

Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 79 c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand i
n addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
The 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) describes how the Camarillo Sanitary District provides sewer service to the project area. Sewage from the vicinity of the Project Site is conveyed via sewer infrastructure to the Camarillo Wastewater Treatment Plant (CWTP). The 2016 Final SEIR concluded that the CWTP had adequate capacity to treat the wastewater that would be generated by the 2016 Project. It also stated that the wastewater would continue to be treated in accordance with the treatment requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, the 2016 Final SEIR concluded that the potential impact of the 2016 Project on wastewater infrastructure and treatment facilities was determined to be less than significant.

The Springville Component is located on the same Project Site as the 2016 Project and Project Site conditions are the same as those analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR. The 2016 Final SEIR determined that the Approved Project would generate approximately 106,400 gallons (0.106 mgd) of wastewater per day and concluded that the CWTP had adequate capacity to treat the wastewater that would be generated by the industrial project. As such, the CWTP would have capacity to provide wastewater treatment service to the Springville Component. Additionally, A Wastewater Master Plan prepared for the Camarillo Sanitary District (CSD) in 2022 (Camarillo 2022) determined that 4 out of the 5 sewage pump stations in the CSD have capacity to accommodate Peak Hour Wet Weather Flow at the buildout of the Camarillo General Plan. No immediate capacity upgrades are required at the sewage pump stations at this time, however the CSD will need to install a fourth pump to accommodate buildout flows. Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to wastewater treatment beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reductio n
go
als?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The 2016 Final SEIR (and 2023 Addendum) describes how the City of Camarillo has an Exclusive Agreement with E.J. Harrison & Sons trash company for regular day-to-day refuse service. Refuse from the 2016 Project would also be subject to this agreement as the Project Site is within the City of Camarillo. All solid-waste-generating activities within the City of Camarillo is subject to the requirements set forth in AB 939, which requires each city and county to divert 50 percent of its solid waste from landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling, and composting. The City of Camarillo has been diverting approximately 75 percent of its total solid waste from landfills. The 2016 Final SEIR concluded that landfills serving the City of Camarillo have adequate capacity to accommodate the total solid waste generation of the 2016 Project and impacts would be less than significant.

The Springville Component consists of the development of up to 218,000 SF of auto center uses, up to 575,000 SF of light industrial/warehouse uses and integrated office uses and is on the same Project Site as the 2016 Project and Project Site conditions are the same those analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR. The City of Camarillo has an Exclusive Agreement with E.J. Harrison & Sons trash company for regular day-to-day refuse service. Refuse from the Springville Component would also City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

80 be subject to this agreement as the Springville Component is within the City of Camarillo. Trash from the City is taken to the following landfills and transfer stations:
 Calabasas Sanitary Landfill, 5300 Lost Hills Road, Calabasas, CA.  Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, 29201 Henry Mayo Drive, Valencia, CA.  Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center, 2801 Madera Road, Simi Valley, CA.  Toland Road Landfill, 3500 North Toland Road, Santa Paula, CA.  Gold Coast Recycling and Transfer Station, 5275 Colt Street, Ventura, CA The existing capacities of these landfills are shown in Table 4. As shown, these four landfills have approximately 83,114 tons of remaining capacity per day.

Table 4 Existing Landfill Capacity and Intake
Landfill Capacity
Estimated
Closure Date
Permitted Daily
Intake (tons)
Remaining Capacity
(Cubic Yards)
Maximum Permitted
Capacity (Cubic Yards)
Calabasas Sanitary Landfill 2029 3,500 14,500,000 69,300,000 Chiquita Canyon Sanitary
Landfill
2047 12,000 60,408,000 110,366,000
Simi Valley Landfill &
Recycling Center
2063 64,750 82,954,873 119,600,000
Toland Road Landfill 2033 2,864 16,068,864 30,000,000
Totals 83,114 173,931,737 329,266,000
Source: California Department of Resources Recycling & Recovery (CalRecycle), 2024 The estimated solid waste generation for the Springville Component is shown in Table 5. As shown, the Springville Component would generate approximately 996.15 tons of solid waste per year.

Assuming an average of 348 days of operation per year, this equates to approximately 2.68 tons per day.

Table 5 Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation
Land Use Size (SF) Generation Rate*
Solid Waste
Generation (tons)
Auto dealer and Service Center (Commercial) Up to 218,000 1.05 tons per year 228.9 Light Industrial/Warehouse 575,000 1.24 tons per year 713.0 Office 25,000 .93 tons per year 23.25
Totals 965.15
*Rates per 1,000 SF of building space.

Generation Rate Source: 2016 SEIR
Based on the information in Table 5, the landfills serving the City of Camarillo have adequate capacity to accommodate the total solid waste generation of the project. Much of the solid waste that would be generated by the Springville Component would be required to comply with all of California regulatory recycling requirements. Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341) set a statewide goal for a 75 percent reduction in waste disposal by the year 2020 and established mandatory recycling for commercial businesses. The City is required to comply with this law and report their progress towards achieving the 75 percent reduction goal to the Department of Resources Recycling and Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 81 Recovery (CalRecycle). The Applicant would also be required to comply with the City’s existing solid waste diversion program. Therefore, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to solid waste beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

82 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 83

4.18 Wildfire
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
If located in or near areas or lands classified in the City of Camarillo’s General Plan Safety Element as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an
a
dopted emergency
evacuation plan?

b. Due to slope, prevailing
w
inds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a
w
ildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?

c. Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbat
e
fi
re risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?

d. Expose people or structures
to significant risks, including
d
ownslopes or downstream
f
looding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire
s
lope instability, or drainage
changes?

If located in or near areas or lands classified in the City of Camarillo’s General Plan Safety Element as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency evacuation plan? b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

84 c. Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The 2016 Final SEIR predates the updates to the CEQA Guidelines requiring the evaluation of potential impacts related to wildfire; therefore, the 2016 Final SEIR does not directly address the stand alone CEQA Guidelines Appendix G wildfire thresholds. A discussion of wildfire/wildland hazards is included in Section 5g, Impacts Found to Be Less Than Significant, of the 2016 Final SEIR.

The 2016 Final SEIR states the Project Site is located within a developed area and there are no wildlands adjacent to the 2016 Project.

The potential for impacts related to wildfire risk were known prior to adoption of the 2016 Final SEIR. The Springville Component is not located in a very high fire hazard severity zone as classified in the City of Camarillo’s General Plan Safety Element. The Project Site is located within a developed area and there are no adjacent wildlands. U.S. 101 is located to the immediate north of the project site. Camarillo Airport and the Camarillo Hills Drain are located to the immediate south of the site.

The area to the east of the site is developed with the U.S. 101 / Springville Drive Interchange and the area to the west of the site is largely developed with industrial uses. A Water Report for the Springville Component prepared by Jensen Design and Survey Inc. in January 2024 (Appendix H) determined that the water system for the Springville Component is designed in accordance with the City of Camarillo and Ventura County Fire Protection District standards and criteria and the proposed water system has been sufficiently sized to accommodate the needs of the development.

The design of the Springville Component also includes fire hydrants and emergency water valves. In accordance with standard City practice, the development and building plans would be subject to review by the Fire Department to ensure that the site design and building plans comply with all applicable fire codes. The Springville Component would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to wildfire beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

Impact Analysis
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 85

4.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
SEIR?
Do
Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016 SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
a. Does the project have the
p
otential to substantially
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially
r
educe the habitat of a fish
o
r wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustainin
g
l
evels, threaten to eliminate
a p
lant or animal
community, substantially
reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rar
e
o
r endangered plant or
animal or eliminate
important examples of th
e
m
ajor periods of California
hi
story or prehistory?
N/A No No No Yes
b. Does the project have
i
mpacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable?
("Cumulatively
considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a
project are considerabl
e
w
hen viewed in connection
wi
th the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the
effects of probable futur
e
p
rojects)?
N/A No No No N/A
c. Does the project have
en
vironmental effects which
will cause substantial
adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or
indirectly?
N/A No No No Yes
City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

86 a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
This section was not included in the 2016 Final SEIR. However based on the analysis provided in the document, it can be determined that there are no new circumstances that require major revisions to the 2016 Final SEIR and there is no new information resulting in new or substantially more severe significant impacts.

As described above in Sections 3.1 through 3.18, the Springville Component would result in no new or more severe direct or indirect impacts beyond those identified in the previously adopted 2016 Final SEIR for the 2016 Project. Upon review of new development projects and infrastructure projects that have occurred within the vicinity of the Springville Component since the certification of the 2016 Final SEIR, no new reasonably foreseeable future projects have been identified within proximity to the Springville Component that were not previously considered in the cumulative impacts analysis in the adopted Final 2016 Final SEIR. Therefore, the Springville Component would have no new or more severe impacts in terms of its potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory; have potentially significant cumulative impacts; or have environmental effects causing substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures from the adopted 2016 Final SEIR would be reduced to consider reduction of ROC and NOx emissions (as described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of this Addendum), reduction of impacts to biological resources (as described in Section 3.4 Biological Resources of this Addendum), reduction of impacts to protect archaeological resources and human remains (as described in section 3.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources of this Addendum), and protect paleontological resources (as described in section 3.7 Geology and Soil of this Addendum). Overall, implementation of these mitigation measures would help prevent environmental effects causing substantial adverse effects on human beings.

Conclusion
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 87 5 Conclusion
As established in the analysis above regarding the potential environmental effects that may be generated as compared to the 2016 Project, it is concluded that substantial changes are not proposed to the 2016 Project nor have substantial changes occurred that would require major revisions to the adopted 2016 Final SEIR prepared for the 2016 Project. Impacts beyond those identified and analyzed in the adopted 2016 Final SEIR would not be expected to occur as a result of the Springville Component. Overall, the proposed modifications to the 2016 Project that constitute the Springville Component would result in no new impact or mitigation information of substantial importance that would generate new, more severe impacts or require new mitigation measures compared to those identified for the 2016 Project in the adopted Final 2016 Final SEIR.

Therefore, the City of Camarillo concludes that the analyses conducted, the conclusions reached, and the mitigation measures adopted in the 2016 Final SEIR, adopted on September 28, 2016, by the Camarillo City Council, remain valid. As such, the Springville Component would not result in conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring Subsequent environmental review or a Subsequent EIR, and these are therefore not required for the Springville Component. It can be emphasized that the Springville Component would remain subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures included in the adopted Final 2016 SEIR for the 2016 Project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted for the 2016 Project on September 28, 2016, would remain applicable to the Springville Component. Based on the above analysis, this Addendum to the previously adopted 2016 Final SEIR for the project has been prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

88 This page left intentionally blank.

References
Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 89 6 References
Camarillo, City of. 2013. Camarillo General Plan – Safety Element https://cms7files.revize.com/camarilloca/Departments/Community%20Development/Gene ral%20Plan/Safety.pdf. Accessed January 2024.
______. 2006. Camarillo General Plan – Open Space and Conservation Element. Accessible at:
https://cms7files.revize.com/camarilloca/Departments/Community%20Development/Gene ral%20Plan/OpenCons.pdf. Accessed January 2024.
______. 2016. Airport North Specific Plan.
https://cms7files.revize.com/camarilloca/Departments/Community%20Development/Appr oved%20Projects/FINAL%20Airport%20North%20Specific%20Plan%20%20UD%2009- 2016.pdf Accessed January 2024
______. 2011. Final EIR Tentative Tract 5812, Springville LLC. https://cms7files.revize.com/camarilloca/Final%20EIR%20Springville.pdf Accessed January 2024
______. 2016 Final Subsequent EIR Springville Commercial. https://cms7files.revize.com/camarilloca/Departments/Community%20Development/Appr oved%20Projects/Springvile%20Commercial%20Prelim%20Final%20SEIR%20June%202016.p df Accessed January 2024
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2018. Important Farmland Finder https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/. Accessed January 2024 Southern California Association of Government (SCAG). 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/f2016rtpscs.pdf?1606005557 Accessed January 2024.

California Department of Resources Recycling & Recovery (CalRecycle) 2024 Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search Accessed January 2024 Accessed January 2024.

Rincon Consultants. 2024. Springville Auto Center and Business Park Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment.

City of Camarillo
Airport North Specific Plan Amendment/ Springville Auto Center & Industrial Park

90 This page left intentionally blank.