Camarillo City Council
November 13, 2024

Camarillo Planning Commission

AGENDA REPORT
Date: October 15, 2024
To: Planning Commission
From: David Sanchez, Director of Community Development
Submitted by: Jaclyn Lee, Planning Manager
Subject: Addendum to Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6, Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment, Change of Zone No. 336, and Commercial Planned Development Permit No.
255, Hiji Investment & TFR Investment Companies

BACKGROUND
The City is considering requests from Hiji Investment & TFR Investment Companies for the following:
•An amendment to the Village at the Park Specific Plan to change the Specific Plan designation from Mixed Use to Commercial on 0.94 acres and allow for drive- through uses within the Commercial Specific Plan designation. •Change of Zone (CZ-336) to change the zoning on Parcel A of Lot Line Adjustment 563A, consisting of 0.94 acres from Village Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) to Commercial Planned Development (CPD).
•Commercial Planned Development Permit (CPD-255) to construct a 2,190-square- foot Starbucks coffee shop with a drive-through lane and pick-up window on 0.94 acres. The project includes the grading of Lots 1 through 6 of Tract 5753 on approximately six acres to provide parking and access, located in the Village at the Park Specific Plan area, south of U.S. 101, between Village at the Park Drive and Westpark Court.

Pursuant to the Camarillo Municipal Code (CMC) Section 19.26.200, the Planning Commission is the decision-maker for the requested CPD. However, since the City Council is the approving body for the Amendment to the Village at the Park Specific Plan and Change of Zone, the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council on the Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 2009-6, Specific Plan Amendment, CZ-336, and CPD-255.

Applicant: Hiji Investment & TFR Investment Companies, 203 Village Commons Boulevard, Suite 11, Camarillo, California 93012
Property Owner: Hiji Investment & TFR Investment Companies, 203 Village Commons Boulevard, Suite 11, Camarillo, California 93012

SPA/CZ-336/CPD-255, Hiji Investment & TFR Investment Companies October 15, 2024

2 0
8 8
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 229-0-320-145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, and -215 General Plan Designation: General Commercial
Specific Plan Designation: Village at the Park – Mixed Use Zoning Designation: Village Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU)

DISCUSSION
Parcel and Area Characteristics
The project site is located in the southeast area of the city, south of U.S. Highway 101, between Village at the Park Drive and Westpark Court in the Village at the Park Specific Plan area.

The site is currently vacant and is surrounded by the following land uses:

GENERAL PLAN

LAND USE

DESIGNATION
ZONING

DESIGNATION CURRENT LAND USE
PROJECT SITE General Commercial Village Commercial
Mixed-Use (CMU) Vacant
NORTH U.S. Highway 101 N/A U.S. Highway 101
SOUTH General Commercial Village Commercial
Mixed-Use (CMU)
Townhomes and Mixed
Use
EAST Residential and public
(City Wide Park) Open Space (O-S) Park
WEST General Commercial and
High Density Residential
Commercial Planned
Development (CPD)
and Residential
Planned Development
(RPD-30U)
Hotel and Apartments
Project Site
View of project site from Village at the Park Drive, via Google Maps on August 22, 2024.

SPA/CZ-336/CPD-255, Hiji Investment & TFR Investment Companies October 15, 2024

2 0
8 8
Entitlement History
The Village at the Park Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2001. In accordance with Tract 5350 that subdivided the nearly 330-acre Specific Plan area, including the project site, the backbone infrastructure, grading and drainage improvements were completed.

In 2009, the City Council approved Tract 5753 for the subdivision of 10 acres into eight lots, located on the triangular piece of land south of U.S. 101, between Village at the Park Drive and Westpark Court. Additionally, CUP-307 and CPD-236 were approved for the development of 42,630 square feet of commercial space and 36 townhome units. The 36 townhomes have been developed; however, the commercial buildings were never constructed. The project proposes to develop a drive-through on 0.94 acres and grade the remaining six acres of vacant land to complete the internal circulation through the site and provide parking.

General Plan Consistency
The Camarillo General Plan Land Use Map designates the property for general commercial use. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Mixed Use to Commercial and the zoning from CMU to CPD on the

0.94-acre Starbucks lot is consistent with the underlying General Plan General Commercial designation. There are no pending General Plan changes for the site.

Primary access to the proposed development will be from Village at the Park Drive. The General Plan Circulation Element identifies Village at the Park Drive as a secondary arterial across the project frontage.

Zoning Compliance
The project involves a Change of Zone from CMU to CPD on Parcel A of Lot Line Adjustment 563A, consisting of 0.94 acres. The Change of Zone application has been submitted to facilitate the development of a drive-through use, as the CMU Zone does not allow drive-through uses, however, are permitted in the CPD Zone. The proposed zone change to CPD will allow drive-through use with the approval of a planned development permit, pursuant to CMC 19.26.030.

The proposed Starbucks coffee shop with drive-through use is permitted in the CPD Zone, subject to the approval of a CPD permit, as stated above. The proposed project complies with the height, lot coverage, setback requirements of the proposed CPD zoning, as shown in the table below:

SPA/CZ-336/CPD-255, Hiji Investment & TFR Investment Companies October 15, 2024

2 0
8 8
Development Standards Compliance
Building
Height
Maximum
Lot Coverage
Maximum
Front Setback
to Nearest
Public Right-
of-Way
Minimum Rear
Setback
Minimum
Side Setback
Required 35 feet 30% 10 feet /
50 feet 10 feet 0 feet
Provided
22 feet to
rooftop, 35
feet to top of
tower

5.3% 48 feet 80 feet 47’ (south)
132’ (north)
Additionally, the proposed coffee shop with drive-through use is consistent with the commercial and industrial performance standards as described in CMC Chapter 19.54 because there will be no hazardous elements, smoke, noxious matter, glare, nor excessive noise and vibrations caused by the proposed uses.

Project Description
The request is to allow the development of a new 2,190-square-foot, one-story Starbucks coffee shop with a drive-through, indoor seating, and outdoor patio seating. The drive- through will have two lanes to enter for greater queuing capacity that will merge into one lane for ordering and pick-up. The project provides 26 parking spaces on the Starbucks lot. The area north of the Starbucks site adjacent to the freeway is within a Structural Setback Zone for the Camarillo fault. As no structures are permitted in this area, it will be improved as a paved parking lot and landscaping and will provide an additional 134 parking spaces for the project and future uses.

The Starbucks drive-through will employ 20-30 people and will operate from 4:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days per week. The drive-through speaker is conditioned to have automatic volume control that will adjust the outbound volume based on the outdoor, ambient noise level. When ambient noise levels naturally decrease in the early morning and night, the outbound speaker volume will also decrease. Additionally, the ordering area at the drive-through will be situated along Village at the Park Drive so noise at the order board will be directed away from existing and future residential uses.

The project proposes to grade Lots 1 through 6 of Tract 5753, which consists of six parcels totaling six acres in Village at the Park Specific Plan Area, excluding the concrete bike path and area north of the bike path within Lots 1 and 2. Grading of lots 1 through 6 will allow the on-site circulation to be completed, extending the driveway from the existing traffic circle on the south end of the property to the cul-de-sac at the end of Westpark Court. There are no pending applications on the remaining lots within Tract 5753, however, it is designated in the certified 2021-2029 Housing Element as a by-right high density residential site.

The applicant is also requesting approval of a Change of Zone from CMU to CPD for Parcel A of Lot Line Adjustment 563A, which is a 0.94-acre portion of current Lot 1. The purpose of the zone change is to allow for the drive-through component of the Starbucks

SPA/CZ-336/CPD-255, Hiji Investment & TFR Investment Companies October 15, 2024

2 0
8 8
coffee shop, which the current CMU zoning does not allow. The drive-through coffee shop use is consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation of General Commercial, therefore, no amendment to the General Plan is required.

Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Village at the Park Specific Plan to redesignate the Specific Plan designation on the 0.94-acre Starbucks site from Mixed Use to Commercial to align with the Change of Zone from CMU to CPD. Additionally, the Specific Plan Amendment proposes changes to section 3.2.3.c – Commercial Development Standards (page 3-9) to delete the following text, “Drive thru uses are discouraged” and to add the following text, “ Drive through uses are allowed, subject to review and approval of the drive-through design by the Planning Commission under the planned development permit process.”
Current Specific Plan Map

SPA/CZ-336/CPD-255, Hiji Investment & TFR Investment Companies October 15, 2024

2 0
8 8
Proposed Specific Plan Map
Access and Circulation
Vehicular access to the proposed project will be provided via a new driveway on Village at the Park Drive to the west and two new driveways on Westpark Court to the east.

Access is also provided by the existing driveways on Village at the Park Drive and Westpark Court that currently serve the residential development.

After accounting for pass-by trips (which are made as an intermediate stop on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination), the proposed project is anticipated to generate 32 trips during the peak a.m. hour, 14 trips during the peak p.m. hour, and 199 new daily trips, according to the Traffic Analysis Memorandum provided by Translutions (Attachment 5).

The drive-through lane will have two separate entrances that will merge into one lane prior to ordering and pick-up. This will provide queuing for 15 vehicles, which is a higher queue length than other Starbucks queue lengths previously analyzed, which range from 10 to 13 spaces. The provided queue length also meets the required minimum of ten vehicle stack-up spaces pursuant to CMC 19.44.105(A)(1). Therefore, the project is anticipated to accommodate the maximum observed queue length typical for Starbucks locations. Vehicles are unlikely to spill over to City streets, as the access to the drive- through lanes are internal roadways of the project site.

Parking
Pursuant to CMC Section 19.44.080(11), parking required for restaurants is determined based on the following:
a. One parking space for each three fixed seats or for each 45 square feet available for seating, whichever is greater.
b. One parking space for each 100 square feet of noncustomer area including storage areas and utility space.
c. In no event may less than ten parking spaces be provided regardless of the number of fixed seats, dining area, noncommercial area or number of employees.

The project proposes 270 square feet of customer seating area, requiring six spaces (at 1:45) and 1,920 square feet of non-customer area, requiring 19 spaces (at 1:100), for a

SPA/CZ-336/CPD-255, Hiji Investment & TFR Investment Companies October 15, 2024

2 0
8 8
total of 25 spaces required. The proposed project has been designed to provide a total of 26 parking spaces within the project parking lot, which meets the required parking amount. The area to the north of the drive-through coffee shop will be paved to provide an additional 134 parking spaces that can be used by the project and future development.

In addition, CMC Section 19.46.030(D) states that a restaurant shall have the number and size of loading spaces determined in conjunction with review of the planned development permit. The project will be adequately serviced by the proposed 11-ft by 12- ft 4-in loading space within the parking lot.

Building Height and Architecture
The proposed Starbucks coffee shop building measures 35 feet in height to the top of the tower, the tallest portion of the building. The Village at the Park Specific Plan and Commercial Design Guidelines in the Community Design Element (Section 10.4 of the General Plan) promotes good architectural design through the use of building proportions, massing, materials, textures, and colors that complement the surrounding area and encourages the commercial character of Camarillo to implement the historically used Spanish-style architecture, constructed substantially of smooth stucco, stone, and brick.

The proposed project is designed with Spanish-style architecture, including stucco walls, and colors consistent with the architectural style, which consist of red barrel tile for the roof and beige, bronze, and brown for the walls, trims, and tints.

The main entrance consists of outdoor seating with a canopy trellis to create an attractive, pedestrian-welcoming outdoor setting. The building roofline is broken up by varied parapet heights. Additionally, a mixture of horizontal and vertical surface detailing elements has been implemented to reduce the massing.

STAFF REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed and found the proposed project to be consistent with the applicable policies of the City of Camarillo’s General Plan, Village at the Park Specific Plan and Economic Development Strategic Plan.

General Plan Land Use Element Commercial Standard: The freeway commercial classification includes those commercial uses which are located adjacent to and directly related to the uses of the freeway. Typical uses would include gasoline service stations, other automotive service facilities, restaurants, hotels, motels and similar related uses.

Freeway commercial also includes other retail uses; such as, outlet centers and membership retail or regional retail; such as, furniture, appliances, etc. Freeway service commercial uses, where possible, should be concentrated in areas most appropriate for such development with convenient access to the freeway but designed to be a complement to the area. Development standards for freeway commercial uses should assure that such uses can be served by public streets to carry traffic, and should not detract from the aesthetic quality of the community at large. ➢The proposed project is a drive-through coffee shop, located adjacent to the U.S. Highway 101 and Village at the Park interchange, which serves as an exit off the U.S. Highway 101 onto Petit Street/Village at the Park Drive. The

SPA/CZ-336/CPD-255, Hiji Investment & TFR Investment Companies October 15, 2024

2 0
8 8
proposed project includes a drive-through element with a 15--vehicle queuing lane to avoid spill-over of queued vehicles into City streets. In addition, the Spanish style architecture is consistent with the architectural design of the surrounding area and with the Commercial Design Guidelines in the Community Design Element (Section 10.4 of the General Plan) and therefore will not detract from the aesthetic quality of the community at large.

General Plan Land Use Element Commercial Standard: Provide adequate land and proper location for the various types of commercial activities so that they can provide optimum service to the community and surrounding service area. ➢The proposed project will involve the construction of a new coffee shop on a vacant lot that will serve the residents of the City and surrounding areas. Upon approval of the Change of Zone, the proposed coffee shop and drive-through element will be a permitted use and comply with the development standards of the CPD Zone and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation for Commercial use.

Community Design Element Policy CS-1.4.2 a. through h.: Enhance design for all new development and redevelopment through application of materials and design elements including:
a. Richness and authenticity of material surface and texture. b. Muted earth tone colors (such as off-whites, ochres, siennas, umbers, beiges, tans, browns or other similar subdued colors) for primary building surfaces, with more intense colors limited to accents.
c. Significant wall articulation (insets, canopies, wing walls, trellis features, arcades, colonnades).
d. Full-sloped roofs, multi-planed roofs (combination of pitched and flat roofs). e. Roof overhangs, articulated eaves, and parapets.
f. Window configurations compatible with the design of the building. g. Articulated building mass and form.
h.Landscape elements, which include planting and hardscape that complement the style of architecture, enhance building site design and are integrated into the surrounding context.
➢The proposed design is in keeping with the scale and character of the adjoining sites because of the similar Spanish architecture and because the proposed bulk and mass are broken up by architectural elements such as entry architectural features, windows and glazing, building articulation, and the use of a variety of wall planes and building heights. The proposed design also utilizes Spanish architecture and earth tone colors, such as beige, brown, and bronze, similar to nearby buildings. The project design also utilizes wooden trellises and parapets varying in height.

SPA/CZ-336/CPD-255, Hiji Investment & TFR Investment Companies October 15, 2024

2 0
8 8
Village at the Park Specific Plan Commercial Uses Development Standard 3.2.3(a):

Summary:
•Work with the Public Realm to enhance the individual businesses. •Variety of architecture and facades within the “Spanish” style. •Incorporate pedestrian-oriented details.
➢The proposed design utilizes Spanish style architecture, which is similar to the adjacent commercial and residential buildings. In addition, the project site includes a pedestrian walkway to access the project site, as well as a covered outdoor seating area. These projects incorporated the Public Realm aspect specified in the Specific Plan by providing a smooth transition for the public to access and utilize the project site.

Economic Development Strategic Plan 4d, Retail Repositioning: Coordinate with commercial property owners on retail/restaurant tenant recruitment to support long-term market strengthening and/or needed repositioning of existing retail shopping facilities. ➢The proposed project will serve the Village at the Park Specific Plan community, as well as those staying at the Residence Inn or visiting the Pleasant Valley Fields, as it provides convenient food options that are currently lacking in the area.

Staff has reviewed and found the proposed project to be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, the Village at the Park Specific Plan, the Economic Development Strategic Plan, and the development standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

CEQA DETERMINATION
In 2009, Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 2009-6 was adopted for a Tentative Tract Map (TT-5753), Conditional Use Permit (CUP-307), Commercial Planned Development (CPD-236), and Change of Zone (CZ-310) for a commercial mixed-use project on approximately 10 acres within the Village at the Park Specific Plan area. The proposed drive-through coffee shop development is located within the site previously evaluated under MND 2009-6.

An Addendum to MND 2009-6 was prepared for the proposed project, in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which concluded that substantial changes are not proposed nor have substantial changes occurred that will require major revisions to the adopted Final MND 2009-6. The project will result in no new impact or mitigation information of substantial importance that will generate new, more severe impacts or require new mitigation measures compared to those identified in the adopted Final MND 2009-6. The proposed project will not result in conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring Subsequent environmental review or a Subsequent

SPA/CZ-336/CPD-255, Hiji Investment & TFR Investment Companies October 15, 2024

2 0
8 8
EIR. The proposed project will remain subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures included in the adopted Final MND 2009-6.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of an Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6;

2. Adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of an Amendment to the Village at the Park Specific Plan;

3. Adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone No. 336 on 0.94 acres from Commercial Mixed Use to Commercial Planned Development; and

4. Adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of Commercial Planned Development Permit No. 255, subject to the recommended conditions of approval.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution for MND 2009-6

2. Resolution for Village at the Park Specific Plan

3. Resolution for CZ-336

4. Resolution for CPD-255

5. Traffic Analysis Memorandum provided by Translutions

6. Location Map

7. Public Hearing Notice

RESOLUTION NO. PC 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF CAMARILLO RECOMMENDING THE

APPROVAL OF AN ADDENDUM TO FINAL MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) 2009-6
The Planning Commission of the City of Camarillo resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. General Findings. The Planning Commission finds as follows:

A. The proposed Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment, Change of Zone (CZ-336), and Commercial Planned Development Permit (CPD-255) were considered under an Addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 2009-6, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s environmental guidelines. A public review period is not required by CEQA.

B. Per section 15164(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to a negative declaration is the appropriate environmental document as only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions described in Section 15261 calling for the preparation of a subsequent negative declaration have occurred.

C. The City has contracted with Rincon Environmental Consultants to prepare the Addendum to MND 2009-6, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the City of Camarillo Environmental Guidelines.

D. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission for the City of Camarillo on October 15, 2024, at which time testimony was heard on the proposed Project and Addendum to Final MND 2009-6.

E. The Planning Commission has considered the Addendum to MND 2009-6 together with all comments received during the public review process, including the public hearing.

F. The Planning Commission finds that the Addendum to MND 2009-6 adequately complies with the requirements of CEQA.

SECTION 2. Recommendation of Approval of Addendum to the Final MND 2009-6. Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission of the City of Camarillo recommends to the City Council approves the adoption of Addendum to the Final MND 2009-6 as shown on Exhibit A, copies of which are on file with the Department of Community Development.

SECTION 3. Construction. This Resolution must be broadly construed in order to achieve the purposes stated in this Resolution. It is the Planning Commission’s intent that the provisions of this Resolution be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Resolution.

SECTION 4. Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the matter. The determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Resolution No. PC 2024-

Addendum to MND 2009-6
October 15, 2024

SECTION 5. Limitations. The Planning Commission’s analysis and evaluation of this matter is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating the matter that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the matter will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the matter is the Planning Commission’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City’s ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 6. Preservation. This Resolution does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this Resolution’s effective date. Any such amended part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Resolution.

SECTION 7. Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Planning Commission intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 8. Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 9. Office of Record. The record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is located in the Department of Community Development, which is the office of record for the matter.

SECTION 10.Effective Date. This Resolution is effective upon adoption.

SECTION 11. The Planning Commission Chair, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix their signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the Planning Commission of the City of Camarillo, and the Planning Commission Secretary is directed to attest thereto.

Resolution No. PC 2024-

Addendum to MND 2009-6
October 15, 2024

APPROVED AND ADOPTED on October 15, 2024, by members of the Planning Commission voting as follows:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

Chair
Secretary
c: General Services Department (Information Systems Division) Community Development Department
Dennis Hardgrave (applicant)
Resolution No. PC 2024-

Addendum to MND 2009-6
October 15, 2024

Village at the Park Specific Plan
Amendment Commercial Component
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6
prepared by
City of Camarillo
Department of Community Development
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, California 93010
Contact: Jaclyn Lee, AICP, Planning Manager
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
180 North Ashwood Avenue
Ventura, California 93003
October 2024

EXHIBIT A
Table of Contents
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 i
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. iii 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Project Background ......................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Land Use Designation .......................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Zoning Designation ............................................................................................................. 3

2.4 Project History .................................................................................................................. 10 3 Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Lead Agency Name and Contact ....................................................................................... 11

3.2 Project Sponsor’s Name and Contact ............................................................................... 11

3.3 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 11

3.4 SPA and Commercial Component ..................................................................................... 12

3.5 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................. 12

3.6 Required Approvals ........................................................................................................... 12 4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 14

4.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................. 17

4.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 19

4.4 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................... 25

4.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................ 29

4.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................... 33

4.7 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 35

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 41

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 45

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 49

4.11 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 55

4.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 57

4.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 59

4.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 63

4.15 Public Services and Recreation ......................................................................................... 65

4.16 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 67

4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................ 69

4.18 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................. 73

4.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 75 5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 77 6 References .................................................................................................................................... 79 City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component ii
Tables
Table 1 Estimated Construction Vibration Levels .......................................................................... 60 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 2 Village at the Park Specific Plan Area .................................................................................. 5 Figure 3 Surrounding Land Uses ....................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 Current Zoning .................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5 Proposed Zoning ................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 6 General Plan Land Use Designations .................................................................................. 9 Figure 7 Overall Site Plan ................................................................................................................ 13 Appendices
Appendix A 2009 IS-MND MMRP
Appendix B Tract 5753
Appendix C Proposed Plans for Coffee Shop Drive-Through with Grading Appendix D Translutions Traffic Analysis Memorandum
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
BMPs Best Management Practices
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CLUP Compatible Land Use Plan
CMC Camarillo Municipal Code
CMU Commercial Mixed Use
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CPD Commercial Planned Development
CLUP Compatible Land Use Plan
dBA decibels A
DOC California Department of Conservation
EIR Environmental Impact Report
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IS-MND Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
mt metric tons
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OS Open Space
RPD Residential Planned Development
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCH State Clearinghouse
sf square foot/feet
City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component iv
SPA Specific Plan Amendment
SQUIMP Stormwater Quality Urban Impact Management Plan
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TGM Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures TTM Tentative Tract Map
UBC Uniform Building Code
VCAPCD Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
VCOG Ventura Council of Governments
VCTC Ventura County Transportation Commission
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
ZEVs Zero-Emission Vehicles
Introduction
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 1
1 Introduction
This document is an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307 (hereinafter referred to as the 2009 IS-MND) and includes project background information included in the 2001 Village at the Park Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (adopted October 10, 2001, SCH #2000011063), hereinafter referred to as the 2001 Final EIR, located in the City of Camarillo, California. 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. The 2009 MND document and its associated MMRP are attached as Appendix A.

Project No. CPD-255 (“proposed project”) includes development of approximately 6.0 acres on Lots 1 through 6 within the 329.51-acre Village at the Park Specific Plan (Specific Plan) area in the City of Camarillo, near the U.S. 101 and Village at the Park interchange. The proposed changes would require a zone change from Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU) to Commercial Planned Development (CPD) on Lot 1 (Parcel A of Lot Line Adjustment 563A) and a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), both of which are currently being processed concurrently with the CPD-255 permit application. This Addendum analyzes an amendment to the Specific Plan to accommodate the zone change. Specifically, the proposed project would amend the adopted Specific Plan to change the Specific Plan land use designation on Parcel A of Lot Line Adjustment 563A from Mixed Use to Commercial, permit drive through uses in the Commercial Specific Plan d and provide flexibility in drive through standards in accordance with the planned development permit. The proposed project would grade Lots 1 through 6 of Tract 5753, with the exception of the existing concrete bike path and the area northerly of the bike path within Lot 1 and Lot 2. Tract 5753 is attached as Appendix B.

The proposed project includes the development of a coffee shop with a drive-through lane to be developed on Lot 1. The coffee shop drive-through plans are attached as Appendix C. This proposed use resulted in need for a proposed zone change for Tract 5753, which is supported by this Addendum. The approval of the grading, coffee shop with drive-through, and zone change are referred hereinafter as the “Commercial Component.” The details of the Commercial Component are described in Section 3, Project Description.

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 adopted mitigated negative declaration 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 or mitigated negative declaration have occurred.” Section 15162(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states no subsequent document 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 environmenta l
e
ffects 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 City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 2 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 th e
en
vironment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or a
lternative.

The proposed project includes a drive-through, which under the current CMU zoning for the project site is not allowed, thus the applicant is requesting a change of zone on Lot 1 to CPD. The drive through would allow patrons to advance to drive-through window for payment, similar to other development projects with drive-throughs. The coffee shop operation does not include a separate employee collecting payment.

Under the existing zoning the project site is precluded from being developed with a drive-through at the site. Therefore, in order to confirm with the requirements of CEQA, the City has prepared an Addendum to the 2009 IS-MND (with background information for the site provided in the 2001 EIR) to analyze that no environmental impacts would occur beyond those previously analyzed in the 2009 IS-MND. In order to determine if impacts would occur as a result of the development of the proposed drive through, a Traffic Analysis Memorandum was prepared by Translutions, dated August 15, 2024 and attached as Appendix D. In the memorandum, it was determined that the drive-through would not increase patrons anticipated to frequent to the project site. The Commercial Component would not create potentially significant environmental impacts, nor would it substantially increase the magnitude or severity of impacts that were previously identified in the 2009 IS-MND. This Addendum does not require public circulation because it does not provide significant new information that changes 2009 IS-MND in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Commercial Component or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect.

This Addendum includes a description of the proposed changes to the Specific Plan, specifically at the Commercial 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.

The City of Camarillo shall consider this Addendum in conjunction with the 2009 IS-MND prior to considering the Commercial Component changes. The 2009 IS-MND are available for review at the City of Camarillo website.

Project Background
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 3
2 Project Background

2.1 Project Location
The Village at the Park Specific Plan (Specific Plan) area is bordered on the north by the U.S.

Highway 101 (Ventura Freeway), between Pleasant Valley Road and Lewis Road. Specifically, the project site is located at Village at the Park Drive on the west, Westpark Court on the east, and a roundabout that connects the Village at the Park Drive and Westpark Court to the south.

This Addendum is located on a 6-acre undeveloped site consisting of Lots 1 through 6 of Tract 5753 (“project site”). Figure 1 shows the regional location of the Specific Plan. Figure 2 and Figure 3 shows the Commercial Component within the existing neighborhood context and Specific Plan area.

Figure 4 depicts the current Specific Plan Area zoning, Figure 5 depicts the proposed project’s zoning change, and Figure 6 shows the General Plan Land Use designations. Finally, Figure 7 shows the site plan for the proposed coffee shop and grading project.

2.2 Land Use Designation
The Camarillo General Plan land use designation for the Specific Plan includes High, Medium, and Low Density Residential, General Commercial, and Public (City-Wide Park) uses. The Commercial Component of the Specific Plan is designated as General Commercial. Figure 6 below shows the General Plan land use designation of the Specific Plan, including the Commercial Component.

2.3 Zoning Designation
The Specific Plan zoning includes Commercial Mixed Use (CMU), Commercial Planned Development (CPD), Residential Planned Development (RPD), and OS (Open Space) zones. The Commercial Component is zoned CMU. Figure 4 below shows the zoning of the Specific Plan.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 4 Figure 1 Regional Location

Project Background
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 5
Figure 2 Village at the Park Specific Plan Area

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 6 Figure 3 Surrounding Land Uses

Project Background
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 7
Figure 4 Current Zoning

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 8 Figure 5 Proposed Zoning

Project Background
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 9
Figure 6 General Plan Land Use Designations

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 10 2.4 Project History
The Specific Plan 2001 Final EIR was prepared to analyze the potential impacts from changing the land use designation at the Specific Plan area from Agriculture to a combination of residential, commercial, recreational and institutional uses on a 330-acre site, including the proposed project site generally located south of U.S. Highway 101, between Pleasant Valley Road and Lewis Road. The EIR identified impacts related to aesthetics, land use, and agriculture that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance, even after the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Findings of facts indicated that certain social and economic factors outweighed the significant adverse impacts associated with the conversion of the visual character of the site from an open field to an urban setting. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council for those significant and adverse impacts in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. All other impacts were found to be mitigatable to a level of insignificance through the imposition of the mitigation measures. The 2009 IS-MND and 2001 Final EIR is available for review at the City of Camarillo Community Development Department.

Subsequently, an initial study was previously prepared and circulated on July 27, 2009, for TT- 5753/CZ-310/CPD-236/CUP-307. In 2013, a modification to CUP-307 was approved to modify the previously-approved building elevations and floor plans.

Project Description
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 11
3 Project Description

3.1 Lead Agency Name and Contact
Jaclyn Lee, AICP, Planning Manager
Phone: 805-383-5616
e-mail: [email protected]
City of Camarillo
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, California 93010

3.2 Project Sponsor’s Name and Contact
Dennis Hardgrave, Hiji Investments & TFR Investment Companies Phone: 805-402-1589
e-mail: [email protected]
H
iji Investments & TFR Investment Companies
434 Park Cottage Place
Camarillo, CA 93012

3.3 Existing Conditions
The project site consists of approximately 6 acres within the City of Camarillo (City) and occupies a portion of the Village at the Park Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The project site is an infill site that has been previously graded as part of the 2004 certified grading plan as part of an overall approved Village at the Park Master Tract 5350. The grading that occurred in 2004 was analyzed in the certified 2001 Final EIR for Village at the Park, which addressed all native soil conditions for the project s ite prior to the start of initial grading in 2004. Additional grading and certification of additional compaction subsequently occurred in 2014. The project site is currently vacant and there is no vegetation. The site is surrounded by roadways and development.

The Village at the Park Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Specific Plan area in 2001. The Final Map for Tract 5350 was subsequently recorded and all improvements were made per the Final Map and City Improvement Plans. Those improvements included the completion of all compacted, certified grading and drainage improvements identified on the Tract 5350 plans. That includes the proposed project site , which was Lot 2, Tract 5350. Lot 2, Tract 5350 was re -subdivided under subseq uent Tentative Tract 5753 by the original/current owners, Hiji Investment/TFR Investment Co., LLC, and now consists of six lots total.

The following approvals were subsequently granted along with Tentative Tract 5753 in late 2009:
 Zone Change CZ-310
 Conditional Use Permit CUP-307
 Commercial Planned Development Permit CPD-236
 2009 Mitigated Negative Declaratio
n
City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 12 Lot 1 of Tract 5753 was identified on the approved TTM site plan as a “Future Building” and its land Lot 1 of Tract 5753 was identified on the approved TTM site plan as a “Future Building” and its land use designation was proposed as “Restaurant.” No other uses are proposed for this parcel.

Tract 5753 was recorded by the current owners and Lot 7 and Lot 8 were developed with mixed - use/townhomes from approximately from 2010 to 2013. Minor grading occurred in conformance with approved Tract 5753, and a public access bike path has been installed along the north edge of the site.

3.4 SPA and Commercial Component
The Specific Plan is 329.51 acres, and the proposed Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) and the Commercial Component would modify the adopted Specific Plan relevant to Tract 5753 consisting of approximately 6 acres of Village at the Park. CPD-255 involves approval of grading Lots 1 through 6 of Tract 5753, with the exception of the concrete bike path and the area northerly of the bike path within Lots 1 and 2.

The proposed project would amend the adopted Specific Plan to change the Specific Plan land use designation on Parcel A of Lot Line Adjustment 563A from Mixed Use to Commercial, permit drive through uses in the Commercial specific plan designation and provide flexibility in drive through standards in accordance with the planned development permit.

CPD-255, which is proposed to be developed in what would be Lot 1 after Lot Line Adjustment approval within Tract 5753. CPD-255 (the project) includes the development of a 2,910 square foot (sf) coffee shop with a drive-through lane and pickup window (Starbucks) with indoor seating, outdoor patio seating, and 28 parking spaces along with a loading area and trash enclosure on a

0.94-acre portion of the project site. The project site is currently zoned Village Mixed Use (CMU), which does not allow drive-throughs. A Zone Change is proposed to change Lot 1 zoning from Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) to Commercial Planned Development (CPD), which allows drive- throughs.

The grading set to occur for the Commercial Component would consist of shallow excavations, estimated to be between two to four feet in depth, to remove and recompact loose surface soils that may not meet certification standards for structural or parking lot/driveway purposes in their existing condition. Figure 7 below depicts the overall site plan for the Commercial Component.

3.5 Project Objectives
The objectives of the project are to update the Specific Plan to provide additional flexibility to the pattern of development in the Specific Plan area, including the retail project CPD-255 with a drive- through between Westpark Court and Village at the Park Drive.

3.6 Required Approvals
The proposed SPA would require the following discretionary approvals from the City of Camarillo City Council, with initial recommendations by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission.  Addendum to the2009 MND
 Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment
 Commercial Planned Development Permit (CPD-255)
 Zone Change (CZ-336)
Project Description
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 13
Figure 7 Overall Site Plan

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 14 4 Impact Analysis
This Addendum evaluates potential environmental impacts that could result from the proposed Commercial Component and Specific Plan Amendment. The proposed project was reviewed in relation to the certified 2009 IS-MND, in addition any applicable background information from the 2001 Final EIR is provided for context to the project.

A comparative analysis of the potential impacts associated with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and those of the approved project analyzed in the adopted 2009 IS-MND 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 2009 IS-MND, but also includes recent updates to reflect the most recently adopted checklist provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.

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 2009 IS-MND. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 15

4.1 Aesthetics
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do the 2009
IS-MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista that
is visible from a City scenic
corridor?
Pa
ge 8 No No No N/A
b. Substantially alter or
damage a scenic resourc
e
t
hat is visible from a City
scenic corridor?

c. Conflict with applicable
G
eneral Plan policies or
zoning regulations
governing scenic quality?
Pages 8 No No No N/A
d. Create a new source of
substantial light or glar
e
w
hich would adversely
affect day or nighttime
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?
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Would the project conflict with applicable General Plan policies or zoning regulations governi ng
s
cenic quality?
The project site is relatively flat and has been previously rough graded and is covered with ruderal vegetation. No significant visual features, such as trees and rock outcroppings, are located on the property. Due to the lack of topographical relief, the project site is visible from surrounding areas.

This includes views from U.S. Highway 101, which is designated a scenic highway adjacent to the site and provides a prominent view of the site.

The 2009 IS-MND described how the Final 2001 FINAL EIR identified the effect on scenic vistas and the existing visual character as a significant adverse impact (2001 FINAL EIR, page 5.4-18). Findings of facts indicated that certain social and economic factors outweighed the significant adverse impacts associated with the conversion of the visual character of the site from an open field to an urban setting. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council for those City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 16 significant and adverse impacts in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

The Village at the Park Specific Plan was established for the purpose of providing a comprehensive planning program to direct the orderly development of the site. The project proposes to change the existing zoning from CMU to CPD on Lot 1, change the Specific Plan land use designation from Mixed Use to Commercial, and permit drive through uses in the Commercial specific plan designation This change would allow the project site to be graded and allow the development of a coffee shop with a drive through. No new impacts are anticipated due to aesthetics as a result of the project. Given the developed nature of the properties surrounding the proposed project, the project would be consistent with the Specific Plan design guidelines for the CPD zoning and provides for a cohesive, attractive commercial use development. The Village at the Park Specific Plan would continue with the planned orderly development of all lands within the Specific Plan area. No new impacts would occur than those identified in the 2009 IS-MND.
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 Commercial Component consists of the development of a 2,190 square foot coffee shop with a drive through. 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 and residential area to the west. As described in the 2009 IS-MND, 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 Commercial 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.

Based on this information the Commercial 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 2009 IS-MND.

Impact Analysis
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 17

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do the 2009
IS-MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (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
for 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 Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 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? Presently, the project site is covered in ruderal vegetation and is vacant and is not being used for agricultural purposes. The loss of agriculture was previously analyzed in 2001 FINAL EIR for the Village at the Park Specific Plan. Under the EIR, the project site was identified as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance (2001 FINAL EIR, page 5.2-8). Findings of Facts indicated that certain social and economic factors outweighed the significant adverse impacts associated with the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was thereby adopted. The implementation of the Village of the Park Specific Plan would continue the planned orderly conversion of all lands within the Specific Plan area into urban uses. Therefore, the conversion of the project site from a vacant former agricultural site to non- agricultural uses has already been considered and approved and is currently designated and zoned for mixed-use commercial uses. No new impact would occur.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 18 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 2024). The proposed project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural uses since the property is currently designated and zoned for mixed-use commercial uses. There are no property owners currently under a Williamson Act contract.

Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 19

4.3 Air Quality
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
i
mplementation of the
current Ventura County Air
Quality Management Plan?
Pages 10 -
14 No No No Yes
b. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
ROC and/or NOx emissions?
Pages 10 –
14 No No No Yes
c. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
c
oncentrations of fugitive
dust, carbon monoxide, toxic
ai
r contaminants, and/or San
Joaquin Valley Fever spores?
Pages 10 -
14 No No No Yes
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?
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ROC and/or NOx emissions?
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? Impacts to air quality were previously analyzed in 2001 FINAL EIR for the Village at the Park Specific Plan. Short-term air quality impacts would result primarily from vehicle emissions, equipment emissions, and fugitive dust generation during normal site preparation and construction phases of the proposed development. Due to the short-term nature of construction activities, the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) does not consider normal construction-related air quality impacts to be significant. The VCAPCD requires Mitigation Measure 5 to be implemented during project construction in order to minimize air quality impacts (2001 FINAL EIR, page 5.6-11).

Emissions associated with the operation of the proposed project would be generated by both stationary and mobile sources on a day-to-day basis, were previously considered in both the 2001 Final EIR and the 2009 IS-MND.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 20 2001 FINAL EIR indicated that the buildout of the Village of the Park Specific Plan area would result in exceeding VCAPCD-recommended significant thresholds for ROC and NOx. The proposed project would be required to comply with the mitigation measures contained in 2001 FINAL EIR to reduce impacts to less than significant (2001 FINAL EIR, pages 5.6-12, 5.6-13). The Commercial Component would be required to implement the mitigation measures contained in 2001 FINAL EIR and 2009 IS- MND.

Mitigation M easure 5.6-1
The contractor shall prepare a dust control plan at the time that grading permits are requested. The dust control plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures, which should be implemented by the contractor.
 Sufficiently water active portions of the construction site.  Replace ground cover, cover bare soil, or apply environmentally safe soil stabilizers on inactive portions of the construction site.
 Apply water or environmentally safe soil stabilizers to unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces.
 Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds exceed 20 mph averaged over one hour. Contact the VCAPCD meteorologist for current information about average wi nd
s
peeds.
 Sufficiently water or securely cover all material transported off site and all fill material transported on site.
 Provide employees involved in grading operations with face masks during dry periods to reduce inhalation of dust, which may exacerbate health problems of the respiratory tract.  Limit speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less.
 Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over the adjacent roads.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measures during grading and construction activities.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation M
easure 5.6-2
Contractors shall keep records on the project site demonstrating that equipment engines are maintained in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers’ specifications to prevent excessive emissions. Such records will be available for review during grading and construction inspections.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during grading and construction activities.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 21
Mitigation Measure 5.6-3
Emissions generated by demolition activities shall be reduced by the following:
 Trucks transporting loose debris such as waste asphalt and wallboard off site shall be covered.  All diesel-powered equipment should be turned off when not in use for more than 30 minutes and gasoline-powered equipment should be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measures during grading and construction activities.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation M easure 5.6-4
Lighting for public streets, parking areas, and recreational areas shall utilize energy-efficient mechanical, computerized, or photo cell switching devices to reduce energy usage.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation M
easure 5.6-5
Solar or low emission water heaters shall be installed into proposed buildings to reduce natural gas consumption and emissions.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation M
easure 5.6-6
Energy-efficient, automated controls for air conditioners shall be installed into proposed buildings to reduce energy consumption and emissions.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation M easure 5.6-7
Automatic lighting on/off controls and energy-efficient lighting shall be installed into proposed buildings to reduce electricity consumption and associated emissions.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 22 Mitigation Measure 5.6-8
Light-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark roofing materials shall be used on proposed buildings. Light-colored materials reflect sunlight and minimize heat gains in buildings. This measure would lessen the overall demand for mechanical air conditioning systems.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation M easure 5.6-9
Wall and attic insulation shall be provided in proposed buildings beyond the requirements of Title 24, California Code of Regulations.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation M easure 5.6-11
Special sunlight filtering window coatings or double-paned windows shall be installed into proposed buildings to reduce thermal gain in hot weather and loss in the cold weather, thus reducing emissions associated with heaters and air conditioners.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation M
easure 5.6-12
Shade trees shall be provided to reduce heating/cooling needs.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during landscape plan check.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation M easure 5.6-13
The project shall mitigate 24.84 pounds per day of ROC and 34.64 pounds per day of NOx.

Specifically, the project applicant shall contribute funds to an off-site Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. The fee shall be in the amount of $1,150.00 per residential dwelling unit plus the amount for the commercial share of the air quality impacts as determined by the Village at the Park Specific Plan EIR, in accordance with the VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines. The contributions shall be calculated based on the amount of emissions that must be reduced to bring the project below the thresholds established by the VCAPCD, and will be based on the year of completion of the development. The applicant shall submit the calculations for air quality fees to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure prior to issuance of building permits.

Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 23
Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.
d. Would the project result in other emissions that create objectionable odors adversely affecting a s
ubstantial number of people?
The2009 IS-MND, found the City’s Municipal Code Commercial/Industrial Performance Standards regulate odors from industrial and commercial uses. These standards prohibit commercial land from being used in any manner so as to create any dangerous, injurious, noxious, or any other hazardous elements such as fire, explosive, noise or vibration, smoke, dust, odor, or other form of pollution.

Any new business would be subject to these regulations. Therefore, the Commercial Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to the creation of objectionable odors beyond those identified in the 2009 IS-MND.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 24 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 25

4.4 Biological Resources
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
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
p
lans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California
De
partment of Fish and
W
ildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?

b. Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat
or
other sensitive natural
community identified in local
o
r regional plans, policies, or
r
egulations, or by the
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?

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. Interfere substantially with
the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with
established native resident o
r
m
igratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native
wil
dlife nursery project sites?

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 26 Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
e. Conflict with any local
p
olicies or ordinances
pr
otecting biological
resources, such as a tree
p
reservation policy or
ordinance?

f. Conflict with the provisions
of an
adopted Habitat
Con
servation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
c
onservation plan?

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 an d
W
ildlife 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, Natur al
C
ommunity Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The p
roposed project has been rough graded as approved under Tract 5350 and is disturbed and contains ruderal vegetation. The project site is located in a highly urbanized area which has been previously disturbed due to the construction of adjacent infrastructure to serve the property. As such, any natural habitat or sensitive species that may have been at the project site in the past are no longer present . Therefore, the project site does not provide conditions to develop habitat for fish and wildlife on the property. The project is located in an urbanized area and does not provide a suitable habitat for wildlife species or interfere with the movement of any wildlife species. There are Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 27
also no existing trees at the project site nor is the site considered to be part of an established migratory wildlife corridor. The project will not result in a conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or habitat conservation plan.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 28 T
his page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 29

4.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal
Cultural Resources
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
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 17 No No No N/A
b. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Pages 17 No No No N/A
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 i
n
te
rms of the size and scope
of the landscape, sacred
place, 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, i
n
it
s 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 2009 IS-
MND

N/A N/A N/A N/A
City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 30 Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Resources Code Section
5024.1?
d. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred
outside of formal
cemeteries?
N/A No No No N/A
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a P
ublic Resources Code Section 21074 as either a project site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred plac
e, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is

1. L
isted 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 its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
The project site is not listed by the State of California as a historical site or place of historic significance nor is the site identified as a place of paleontological or geological significance. There are no known burial sites in the area. The 2001 FINAL EIR for the Village at the Park Specific Plan previously analyzed impacts to cultural resources. Under CEQA criteria, no significant historic or cultural resources were identified on the project site (2001 FINAL EIR, page 5.10-9). Though not anticipated to be a concern, the City of Camarillo has a standard condition that requires if archaeological or historical artifacts are uncovered during land modification activities, the site shall be preserved until a qualified archaeologist is consulted for proper disposition of the site with concurrence by the Director of Community Development.
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The 2009 IS-MND predates the updates to the CEQA Guidelines requiring the evaluation of potential impacts to tribal cultural resources.

California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), and PRC Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the unlikely event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. The Ventura County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery of potential human remains. The Coroner must then determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the human remains (including bone fragments and funerary Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 31
objects) to be Native American, he or she must contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by phone within 24 hours. The NAHC then designates a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) with respect to the human remains within 48 hours of notification. The MLD will then have the opportunity to make recommendations to the Project proponent for disposition of the remains and associated grave goods within 48 hours of notification.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 32 T
his page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Energy
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 33

4.6 Energy
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially
significant environmental
i
mpact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
r
esources, during project
construction or operation?
N/A; New
CEQA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2009 IS-
MND

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 2009 IS-
MND

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 or operation?
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Since the approval of the 2009 Final 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 2001 Final EIR and 2009 IS- MND were approved.

The Commercial 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 Commercial Component, are subject to the mandatory planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and environmental quality 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 City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 34 amount and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, adherence to the measures of CALGreen would ensure that the Commercial 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 35

4.7 Geology and Soils
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to the
2009 IS-MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. 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 mos
t
r
ecent Alquist- Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issu
ed by the State Geologist
for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of
a kn
own fault?
Pages 18 –
19 No No No N/A
b. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death
involving strong seismic
ground shaking?
Pages 18 –
19 No No No Yes
c. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death
involving seismic-related
ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Pages 18 –
19 No No No Yes
d. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death
involving landslides?
Pages 18 –
19 No No No N/A
e. Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil
during project construction
and/or operation?
Pages 19
No No No N/A
City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 36 Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to the
2009 IS-MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
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 18 –
19 No No No Yes
g. Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18-1-B of
t
he Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
Pages 18 –
19 No No No Yes
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?
N/A; New
CEQA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2009 IS-
MND
No No No N/A
i. Directly or indirectly destroy
a unique paleontological
resource or project site or
unique geologic feature?
N/A; New
CEQA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2009 IS-
MND
No No No N/A
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 Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 37
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 B
uilding Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? As discussed in the 2009 IS-MND, 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 of the 2009 IS-MND). 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 aforementioned reports demonstrate that the development of the proposed project 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 2009 IS-MND determined that potential impacts associated with geology and soils would be less than significant.

As discussed in the 2009 IS-MND, the extension of the Camarillo fault which is considered an active fault has been assigned a Structural Setback Zone that extends 50 feet north and south of the active fault area. This Structural Setback Zone would affect the northern portion of the Specific Plan Area.

The Specific Plan site plan shows all proposed buildings to be located outside the Structural Setback Zone. All building foundations and structures would be constructed in accordance with the specifications identified in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) that are in effect at that time. Within the structural setback would be paved parking areas and landscaping. Mitigation measures below were implemented to reduce geology and soils impacts to less than significant.

A geotechnical report was prepared by Geolabs-Westlake Village, dated September 25, 1998 for the Village at the Park EIR. According to the report, based upon the moisture in the sample borings, and consideration of the past agricultural use, the potential for hydroconsolidation is considered low. In addition, the lack of near-surface groundwater at the project site makes the potential for liquefaction and liquefaction-induced settlement very low.

With the implementation of the following mitigation measures from the 2009 IS-MND, the Commercial Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to potential adverse geologic effects beyond those identified in the 2009 IS-MND.

Mitigation M
easure 5.8-1
Prior to the design and construction of any structural improvements, the project developers shall have comprehensive design level geotechnical evaluations conducted that include subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. Recommendations for grading/earthwork, surface and subsurface drainage, foundations, pavements structural sections, and other pertinent geotechnical City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 38 design considerations shall be formulated and implemented based on the findings of this evaluation.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure prior to the issuance of grading permits and at the time of submittal of building plans.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation M easure 5.8-2
In order to safeguard against major seismic-related structural failures, all buildings within the project site shall be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City Council.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure at the time of submittal of building plans.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation M easure 5.8-3
The fault hazard area and Structural Setback Zone shall be identified on the tract map or other appropriate document to provide notice to property purchasers of the limitation on the use of the property.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure prior to recordation of the tract map.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.
e. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? As discussed in the 2009 IS-MND, the project site is relatively flat and has been rough graded and is therefore not an area of soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

There are no natural watercourses at the project site and does not drain towards any natural watercourse. Drainage plans and patterns are provided as part of the proposed coffee shop drive- through project. In addition, the project proposes to fine grade the already rough graded areas, therefore there will be no soil on site., the Commercial Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related soil erosion beyond those identified in the 2009 IS-MND. 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 2009 IS-MND wastewater from the project site would be conveyed by sewer lines and treated by the Camarillo Sanitary District. Therefore, the 2009 IS-MND determined that the project would not require new treatment facilities for the Specific Plan area.

The Commercial Component would be served by new and existing sewer lines and treated by the Camarillo Sanitary District. Drainage plans are provided with the project plans provided in Appendix C. Therefore, the Commercial 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 2009 IS- MND.

Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 39
i. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or project site or unique geologic feature?
Section E (Cultural Resources) of the 2009 IS-MND determined that there are no known paleontological resources within the project site. Given that past agricultural activities and rough grading of the project site likely eliminated any surface or subsurface paleontological remains, and that the project will involve only fine grading, the Commercial Component is not expected to introduce new or more significant impacts to paleontological resources beyond those already identified in the 2009 IS-MND.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 40 T
his page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 41

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
i
ndirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
N/A; New
CEQA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2009 IS-
MND
No No No N/A
b. Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation
ad
opted for the purpose of
r
educing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
N/A; New
CEQA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2009 IS-
MND
No No No N/A
The 2009 MND did not address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change, because these checklist questions were not included in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines or the City’s IS Checklist at the time the MND analysis was prepared. Therefore, the analysis below determines the level of impacts for the modified project relative to compliance with the most current plans or policies for the reduction of GHG emissions and with consideration of the development envisioned for the project site under the original project.

In response to an increase in man-made GHG concentrations over the past 150 years, California has implemented Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 codifies the Statewide goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels) and the adoption of regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. In 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill (Senate Bill) 32 into law, which requires the State to further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

SB 32 is an extension of AB 32. The other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged.

On December 14, 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 GHG emissions reduction target established by SB 32. To meet reduction targets, the 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, as well as implementation of policies such as SB 350 and SB 1383. SB 350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015, has two objectives: to increase the procurement of electricity from renewable sources from 33 percent to 50 percent by 2030 and to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation. Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 requires CARB to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants and requires CalRecycle, in City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 42 consultation with ARB, to adopt regulations that achieve specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills. The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies.

The 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally-appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with a statewide per capita goal of six metric tons (MT) CO 2e by 2030 and two
MT CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2019). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals are appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, subregional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the State. In the United States, most of the emissions of human-caused GHG emissions come from burning fossil fuels for energy use in transportation and electricity generation (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2024); therefore, per capita GHG emissions reduction goals would be expected to result in corresponding reductions in per capita energy consumption.

CARB published the Final 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan Update) in November 2022, as the third update to the initial plan that was adopted in 2008. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update identifies ways to achieve new targets for carbon neutrality by 2045 and to reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions to at least 85 percent below 1990 levels, while also assessing the progress California is making toward reducing its GHG emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, as called for in SB 32 and laid out in the 2017 Scoping Plan (CARB 2022).

The 2022 Scoping Plan Update reflects existing and recent direction in the Governor’s Executive Orders and State Statutes, which identify policies, strategies, and regulations in support of and implementation of the Scoping Plan. Among these include Executive Order B-55-18 and AB 1279 (the California Climate Crisis Act), which identify the carbon neutrality and GHG reduction targets for 2045 incorporated into the Scoping Plan.

In addition, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) suggests making significance determinations on a case-by-case basis when no significance threshold has been formally adopted by a lead agency. This includes evaluating a project’s sources of GHG emissions and considering project consistency with applicable emission reduction strategies and goals. The project would implement features consistent with the requirements of the most current Building Energy Efficiency Standards at the time construction begins. Additionally, the project’s post-2020 GHG emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend under anticipated future regulatory restrictions, consistent with the State’s 2030 and 2050 and the goals of AB 32. Additionally, GHG emissions reductions would be achieved through energy-efficient lighting, installation of low-flow appliances, and water conservation. Therefore, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts associated with GHG emissions and conflicts with any applicable GHG reduction plan, policy, or regulation, when compared to those under development anticipated for the project site in the 2006 MND. The 2006 MND does not include any mitigation measures for potential impacts associated with GHG emissions and none are required for the project.

The principal State GHG reduction plans and policies are AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and the subsequent legislation, SB 32 and AB 1279. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. In 2022, the State passed AB 1279, which declares the State would achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2045 and would reduce GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. The latest iteration of the Scoping Plan is the 2022 Scoping Plan, which focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 43
State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities. The 2022 Scoping Plan's strategies that apply to the proposed project include the following:
 Reducing fossil fuel use, energy demand and VMT.
 Maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills.

The proposed project would be consistent with these goals through project design, which includes complying with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards. In addition, the proposed project would allocate EV charging stations and EV ready parking spaces in accordance with Title 24, and would be served by Southern California Edison, which is required to increase its renewable energy procurement in accordance with SB 100 targets. The project is an infill development that would not convert natural lands and would contribute to the job and housing balance.

Several of the State’s plans and policies would contribute to a reduction in mobile source emissions from the project. These include Executive Order N-79-20, CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan, and CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement.

Executive Order N-79-20 establishes the goal for all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, will be zero-emission by 2035 and all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavy-duty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) “towards the target of 100 percent.” CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation in June 2020 requires truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8.

CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy which includes increasing ZEV buses and trucks and their Sustainable Freight Action Plan which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near-zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks. This plan applies to all trucks accessing the project site and may include existing trucks or new trucks that are part of the statewide goods movement sector.

The project would not obstruct or interfere with efforts to increase ZEVs or State efforts to improve system efficiency. The project would also benefit from implementation of the State programs for ZEVs and goods movement efficiencies that reduce future GHG emissions from trucks. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the State’s long-term climate goals of carbon neutrality by 2045.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 44 T
his page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 45

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
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 20 No No No N/A
b. Create a significant hazard to
t
he public or the
environment through
r
easonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?

c. Emit hazardous emissions or
ha
ndle hazardous or acutely
h
azardous materials,
substances, or waste within
one quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?

d. Be located on a project site
that is included on a list of
hazardous material Project
si
tes 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 Us
e
Com
patibility Standards in
the Safety Zones of the
Airport Comprehensive Land
Use Plan for Ventura County
and/or the Heigh
t
R
estriction Zones for
Camarillo Airport?

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 46 Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
f. Substantially physically
interfere with the City’s
designated evacuation
r
outes?

g. Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving
wil
dland 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?
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? The City’s Hazardous Materials Ordinance requires, among other things, that businesses that use or manage hazardous materials or hazardous waste be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to occupying or building on a site in Camarillo. Businesses which generate, treat, recycle, store, utilize, dispose of, or otherwise manage hazardous waste or materials on site shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development and developed in accordance with the Municipal Code. It is not anticipated, however, that future uses would occupy the proposed commercial center as it is intended to be occupied by typical commercial planned development uses such as restaurants and retail stores. Future uses will be reviewed to ensure that they will be compatible with the residential portion of the development. There are no properties within Camarillo that are on the State of California list of hazardous materials sites.

In addition, the Commercial Component is located on the same project site as the 2009 Project and project site conditions are the same as when it was analyzed in the 2009 IS-MND . Therefore, the Commercial Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to hazardous materials beyond those identified in the 2009 IS-MND.
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 Commercial Component. The nearest school, Rancho Rosal School, is located approximately 0.70 miles east of the project. Therefore, similar to what was concluded in the 2009 IS-MND, the Commercial Component would result in less than significant impacts to schools.

Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 47
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? The project site is located approximately 3.7 miles east of Camarillo Airport and is not 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. In addition, the project does not propose any new project features that would result in new or more severe impacts related to airport safety hazards beyond those identified in the 2009 IS-MND. f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Similar to the 2009 IS-MND, the project will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Based on the traffic memo prepared by Translutions (Translutions 2024) in 2024, the Commercial Component would not generate an increase in traffic sufficient enough to create severe traffic congestion, nor would it interfere with emergency access. In addition, internal roadways and driveways included in the Commercial Component have been designed in accordance with all City regulations, including those pertaining to emergency access. Therefore, the Commercial Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to emergency access beyond those identified in the 2009 IS-MND.
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 2009 IS-MND determined that the project site is located within a developed area and there are no adjacent wildlands that would be subject to wildfire. The project site is surrounded by existing and planned commercial uses, as well as U.S. Highway 101 is located to the immediate north. The Commercial Component is located on the same project site as the 2009 IS-MND project site conditions are the same as was analyzed in the 2009 IS-MND. In addition, the proposed project does not propose any new features that would cause a significant risk involving wildfires. Therefore, the Commercial Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to wildland fires beyond those identified in the 2009 IS-MND.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 48 T
his page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 49

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do
Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
s
ubstantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
Pages 22 –
23 No No No N/A
b. Substantially decrease
gr
oundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
gr
oundwater recharge such
that the project may
impede sustainable
groundwater management
of the basin?

c. 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 result in
substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-project site
?
Pages 24 No No No N/A
d. 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 woul
d
su
bstantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-projec
t
site?

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 50 Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do
Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
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 source
s
of p
olluted runoff?
Pages 24 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
i
nundation? 7,8

h. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
N/A; New
CEQA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2009 IS-
MND
No No No N/A
Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 51
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 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 exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substant ial
addit
ional sources of polluted runoff?
As described in the 2009 IS- MND, the 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, storm drain inlet protection, stabilized construction site entrances and exits, dust controls, employee training, and general good housekeeping practices. As described in the 2009 IS-MND , with implementation of the applicable permit requirements and the application of BMPs specifically designed to minimize construction-related water quality impacts, construction of the proposed project would minimize the possibility of violating any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during the course of construction, and only in extreme storm events would a BMP fail.

Since the project area was a part of a Tract Map (Lot 1 of T-5753) , which was approved prior to
October 11, 2011, the effective date of the July 13, 2011 Ventura County Stormwater Quality Technical Guidance Manual, the project applicant would be required to submit a Stormwater Quality Urban Impact Management Plan (SQUIMP). The SQUIMP must be 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 proposed 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 2009 IS-MND determined the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during operation and impacts would be less than significant.

The C
ommercial Component consists of the development of CPD-255, the development of a 2,910 square foot coffee shop with a drive-through lane and pickup window with indoor seating, outdoor patio seating, and 28 parking spaces along with a loading area and trash enclosure on a 0.94-acre portion of the 6.0-acre project site. The Commercial Component is located within the Village at the Park project site, which was analyzed in the 2009 IS-MND. The project conditions for the City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 52 Commercial area (Tract 5753) are the same as when they were analyzed in the 2009 IS-MND. An infiltration test performed by Geolabs – Westlake Village in 2023 (Appendix G of the 2009 IS-MND) 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. The project is required to submit a SQUIMP that will describe the proposed BMPs, as it is grandfathered into previous MS4 Permit requirements and therefore is not required to submit a PCSMP. Final proposed project design will be required to include features that would ensure peak storm water flow is not increased from pre-development 100-year storm conditions and that the Commercial Component would not violate any water quality standards. Consistent with the 2009 IS-MND, the Commercial 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 Commercial 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 2009 IS- MND
.
b. W
ould the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with gr
oundwater 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 2009 IS-MND, groundwater would be the source of potable water project and water demand project would be substantially less than the historic groundwater use at the project site. The project site is not a source of groundwater recharge and it is technically infeasible to infiltrate storm water to recharge area aquifers. The 2009 IS-MND determined the 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.

CPD-255 is part of the Commercial Component and includes the development of a 2,910 square foot coffee shop with a drive-through lane and pickup window with indoor seating, outdoor patio seating, and 28 parking spaces along with a loading area and trash enclosure on a 0.94-acre portion of the 6.0-acre project site. The Commercial Component is located on the same project site as the project and project site conditions are the same as when it was analyzed in the 2009 IS-MND. A Water Report prepared for the project site by Jensen Design & Survey Inc. in 2024 (Appendix H of the 2009 IS-MND) 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 Commercial 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 2009 IS-MND.

Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 53
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 2009 IS-MND, 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 project.

The Commercial Component includes CPD-255 includes the development of a 2,910 square foot coffee shop with a drive-through lane and pickup window with indoor seating, outdoor patio seating, and 28 parking spaces along with a loading area and trash enclosure on a 0.94-acre portion of the 6.0-acre project site. The Commercial Component is located on the same project site as the project and conditions are the same as when it was analyzed in the 2009 IS-MND. Therefore, the Commercial 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 2009 IS-MND.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 54 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 55

4.11 Land Use and Planning
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an
established neighborhood or
community?
Pages 25-
26 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 environmenta
l
e
ffect?
Pages 25-
26 No No No N/A
a. Would the project physically divide an established neighborhood or community? 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? The project site is currently designated for commercial development in the General Plan. The proposed zone change from the CMU zone to the CPD zone would remain consistent with this designation as the CPD zone is intended to provide commercial development, which the CMU zone would have also permitted. As such, due to the similarity in designated future development, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. The project is also consistent with the Village at the Park Specific Plan which provides for a comprehensive planning program to direct the orderly development of the Village at the Park site. The project site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

As described in the 2009 IS-MND, the proposed Commercial Component 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. Therefore, similar to the 2009 IS-MND, the proposed project would have no impact on land use and planning resources.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 56 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Mineral Resources
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 57

4.12 Mineral Resources
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
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 26 No No No N/A
b. 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?
Pages 26 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 2009 IS-MND 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 2009 IS-MND found that there would be no impacts to mineral resources within the Village at the Park Specific Plan Area.

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, as specified in the 2009 IS- MND. Therefore, the Commercial 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 2009 IS- MND.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 58 T
his page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Noise
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 59

4.13 Noise
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Generate construction noise
levels that exceed the Noise
O
rdinance exterior or interior
noise standards at residential
properties during the hours
specified in Section

10. 34.120 of the City of
Camarillo Municipal Code?
Pages 27 No No No N/A
b. Generate a substantial
temporary
(nonconstruction) or
permanent increase in nois
e
le
vels at existing sensitive
receptors in the vicinity of
t
he Project site?
Pages 27 No No No N/A
c. Generate excessive ground
borne vibration?
Pages 27 No No No N/A
d. Expose people residing or
w
orking in the project area
t
o excessive noise levels
fr
om aircraft operations
from Camarillo Airport?
Pages 28 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

10. 34.120 of the City of Camarillo Municipal Code?
The 2009 IS-MND found that a condition of approval would be included for the project which would limit the delivery and trash pick-up hours between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. in order to reduce potential noise impacts to residential uses proposed on the site. The developer would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code which prohibits construction activities to be conducted between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. and on Sundays and holidays.

The 2009 IS-MND also required a condition of approval be required for the developer to provide a written notice to all prospective purchasers of all existing and proposed future land uses within proximity of the development.

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 2009 IS-MND City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 60 concluded that the construction and operational impact of the project would be less than significant.
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 2009 IS-MND determined this impact would be less than significant for the project. The project site conditions are the same as when it was analyzed in the 2009 IS-MND. 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.

Similar to the project, locations in the vicinity of the Commercial Component would experience a slight increase in noise resulting from the additional traffic generated by future development.

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. Therefore, the Commercial Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to noise levels at sensitive receptors beyond those identified in the 2009 IS-MND.
c. Would the project generate excessive ground borne vibration? The 2009 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.

Construction activities that would occur at the project site would have the potential to generate low levels of ground-borne vibration. Table 1 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 1, 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.

Table 1 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.

Impact Analysis
Noise
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 61
As such, the operational impacts associated with ground-borne vibration would be less than significant at nearby commercial uses or the nearest residential uses. Therefore, the Commercial Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to ground borne vibration beyond those identified in the 2009 IS-MND.
d. Would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft operations from Camarillo Airport?
The project site is located approximately 2.3 miles east of the Camarillo Airport and is not within the Extended Traffic Pattern Zone according to the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. There are also no private airstrips in or within the vicinity. Therefore, the project would not be impacted by noise from aircraft operations from the Camarillo Airport.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 62 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 63

4.14 Population and Housing
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned
po
pulation growth in an area,
either directly or indirectly?

b. Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the
construction of replacemen
t
h
ousing elsewhere?

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 proposed project would develop a 2,910 square foot coffee shop with a drive-through lane and grading of the surrounding area. There is no existing residential use on the property nor is there proposed to be. Therefore, the proposed project will not displace people or necessitate the replacement of housing.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 64 This page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 65

4.15 Public Services and Recreation
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
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
g
overnmental facilities, or
t
he need for new or
physically altered
g
overnmental facilities, the
construction of which could
c
ause significant
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times
o
r other performance
ob
jectives for any of the
public services:

1. F
ire protection? Page 29 No No No N/A

2. Police protection? Page 29 No No No N/A

3. Schools? Page 29 No No No N/A

4. Parks? Page 29 No No No N/A

5. Other public facilities? Page 29 No No No N/A
b. Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
f
acilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated?

c. Include recreational facilities
o
r require the construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on
the environment?

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 66 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 go
vernmental 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 2009 IS-MND describes how development of the project site 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 Commercial Component 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 2009 IS-MND determined that the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to public services and recreation.

In addition, the proposed project will be served by existing fire facilities including the station on Pickwick Drive which is approximately 1.5 miles from the project.

The City of Camarillo receives police protection from the County of Ventura Sheriff’s Department.

The police station located on Las Posas Road in Camarillo will serve the project. Additionally, tax revenues would be generated from the commercial development and deposited into the City’s General Fund. A portion of these revenues could then be allocated to maintain Police services.

The proposed project is within the Pleasant Valley School District and Oxnard Union High School District. All new development is required to pay school facility fees. The school fees are paid at the time of issuance of a building permit and are based on the size of the structure.

The proposed project will not have a significant impact to parks as the proposed project will not create a substantial growth to the population. The project will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and does not include or require the expansion of recreational facilities because the proposed commercial project is not expected to generate a substantial growth to the population. The proposed project is located within the Village at the Park Specific Plan, which provides for a comprehensive planning program to direct the development of the area into a mix of land uses. This includes provisions for park and recreational land uses, including a 55-acre sports park located east of the project site.

All other public facilities to support the development are in place to serve the proposed development. Therefore, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2009 IS-MND.

Impact Analysis
Transportation
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 67

4.16 Transportation
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy
a
ddressing the circulation
s
ystem, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?

b. Conflict or be inconsistent
wit
h CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3(b) for the reduction
o
f vehicle miles travelled
(VMT)?
N/A; New
C
EQA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2009 IS-
MND

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., farm
equipment)?
Pages 31 –
32 No No No N/A
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 2009 IS-MND found implementation of the Specific Plan would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation and no mitigation was required, as impacts were less than significant.

The Commercial 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 primarily by Village at the Park Drive.

This road will be designed and constructed consistent with all applicable Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element policies and the Specific Plan.

Therefore, implementation of the Commercial Component would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 68 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.

A Traffic Memo was prepared by Translutions in August 2024 (Appendix B). The Memo was based on data Translutions previously collected on coffee shops with a drive-through lane within the Southern California area. The Traffic Memo determined that the Commercial Component would not generate any significant intersection impacts and that the proposed storage space in the drive- through lanes is anticipated to accommodate the maximum observed queue length surveyed at coffee shop locations. Therefore, the Commercial 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).

The OPR Technical Advisory as well as the Ventura County CEQA VMT Adaptive Mitigation Program prepared by Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) and Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG) exempt projects which serve the local community and have the potential to reduce VMT, such as neighborhood K-12 schools and local-serving retail less than 50,000 square feet. The proposed project is a coffee shop which qualifies as a retail project of less than 50,000 square feet. Therefore, the project meets the requirements and is screened out for requiring a VMT analysis.
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., shar p
c
urves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? As analyzed in the 2009 IS-MND, the project would not cause an increase in anticipated traffic levels that would result in substantial safety risks. The site plan shows driveway locations off of Village at the Park Drive and Westpark Court which have already been improved under Tract 5350. The site has been designed to provide for the safe and orderly flow of vehicles and trucks within the site.

There are no design features that will substantially increase traffic hazards. d
. R
esult in inadequate emergency access?
The 2009 IS-MND determined that project would provide adequate emergency access as Village at the Park Drive and Westpark Court are existing improved roadways as previously constructed under Tract 5350 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 Commercial Component Project.

As described above, the Commercial Component would be consistent with all applicable Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element policies for circulation patterns and design. Emergency vehicles would not be subject to unacceptable delays entering or exiting the project site. Therefore, the Commercial Component would not result in new or more severe impacts related to emergency access beyond those identified in the 2009 IS-MND.

Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 69

4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the
r
elocation 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 coul
d
c
ause significant
environmental effects?
Pages 33 No No No N/A
b. Comply with the applicable
water purveyor water
conservation ordinance
requirements for new
development projects?
N/A; New
CEQA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2009 IS-
MND

N/A N/A N/A N/A
c. Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?
Pages 33 No No No N/A d. Generate solid waste in
excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
i
mpair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?

e. Comply with federal, state,
and local management and
r
eduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 70 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?
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 in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
The 2009 IS-MND determined that the project site would provide sewage service and waste disposal by means of a community disposal system with private on-site sewer collection. Sewerage system design, including connections to the Camarillo Sanitary District system are required to be submitted to the District. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements or require new treatment facilities as the Camarillo Sanitary District presently has the capacity to serve the project.

However, the 2009 IS-MND did not analyze impacts to electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.

The project site has been planned for commercial uses under Camarillo General Plan and land use for the Commercial 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 Commercial Component. All specific connections to the Commercial Component project 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 Commercial 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?
Th
is impact was not analyzed in the 2009 IS-MND. The Commercial 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 Commercial 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 Commercial Component would be less than significant.

Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 71
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 reduction goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The project site is currently vacant and would not involve the demolition and removal of any structures. The City has a requirement that during construction, the applicant shall divert recyclable material such as waste lumber, concrete, asphalt, drywall products, metal, cardboard, cans, bottles, plastics and other recyclable materials from the waste stream in accordance with Camarillo Municipal Code Chapter 9.07 and the California Integrated Waste Management Act. The project will be required to comply with standard city conditions that require the users to submit a recycling plan illustrating the programs that will be employed. Also, in addition to the usual trash receptacles, the city requires that space be provided in the trash enclosure for the storage of containers for recycling and green waste or a separate enclosure be provided depending on the amount of recyclable and green waste material.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 72 T
his page intentionally left blank.

Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 73

4.18 Wildfire
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
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
e
vacuation plan?
N/A; New
CEQA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2009 IS-
MND

N/A N/A N/A N/A
b. Due to slope, prevailing
w
inds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project
occupants to pollutan
t
c
oncentrations from a
wil
dfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
N/A; New
CEQA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2009 IS-
MND

N/A N/A N/A N/A
c. 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?
N/A; New
CEQA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2009 IS-
MND
N/A N/A N/A N/A d. Expose people or structures
to significant risks, including
d
ownslopes or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire
sl
ope instability, or drainage
changes?
N/A; New
CEQA
checklist
item added
subsequent
to 2009 IS-
MND

N/A N/A N/A N/A
City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 74 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?
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 2009 IS-MND predates the updates to the CEQA Guidelines requiring the evaluation of potential impacts related to wildfire; therefore, the 2009 IS-MND does not directly address the stand alone CEQA Guidelines Appendix G wildfire thresholds. A discussion of wildfire/wildland hazards is included on Page 21 in Section G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, discussion no.8, of the 2009 IS- MND. The 2009 IS-MND states that development of the project site will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires because the property is not adjacent to any wild lands and is surrounded by existing and planned commercial and residential uses.

The potential for impacts related to wildfire risk were known prior to adoption of the 2009 IS-MND.

The Commercial 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.

The design of the Commercial 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 Commercial Component would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to wildfire beyond those identified in the 2009 IS-MND.

Impact Analysis
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 75

4.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do
Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2009 IS-
MND?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2009 IS-
MND
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
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 plan
t
o
r animal community,
substantially reduce the
number or restrict the rang
e
o
f a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate
important examples of the
major periods of Californi
a
h
istory or prehistory?

b. Does the project have
impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a
p
roject 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?

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 76 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? The proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal community, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory because the project site is located within an urbanized area that has been already rough graded and is surrounded by existing development that does not provide a suitable habitat for wildlife. The project site is not likely to contain any archaeological or paleontological resources. Therefore, this does not constitute the potential for a significant impact on the environment. 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)? The proposed project is consistent with the Camarillo General Plan and Village at the Park Specific Plan, which designates the site for commercial development. The change of zone from CMU to CPD is consistent with this designation. Compliance with mitigation measures and conditions of approval will reduce the potential individual impacts to a less than significant level. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects o n
hum
an beings, either directly or indirectly?
The project site is located within an urbanized area designated for commercial development. The project does not have any environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Conclusion
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 77
5 Conclusion
As established in the analysis above regarding the potential environmental effects that may be generated as compared to the project, it is concluded that substantial changes are not proposed to the Commercial Component nor have substantial changes occurred that would require major revisions to the adopted 2009 IS-MND prepared for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307 . Impacts beyond those identified and analyzed in the adopted 2009 IS-MND would not be expected to occur as a result of the Commercial Component. Overall, the proposed Commercial 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 the adopted Final 2009 IS-MND.

Therefore, the City of Camarillo concludes that the analyses conducted, the conclusions reached, and the mitigation measures adopted in the 2009 IS-MND by the Camarillo City Council remain valid.

As such, the Commercial 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 Commercial Component. It can be emphasized that the Commercial Component would remain subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures included in the adopted Final 2009 IS-MND. The 2009 IS-MND would remain applicable to the Commercial Component. Based on the above analysis, this Addendum to the previously adopted 2009 IS-MND for the project has been prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 78 T
his page left intentionally blank.

References
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2009-6 79
6 References
California Air Resources Board. 2019. 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 01/2017_sp_vmt_reductions_jan19.pdf. Accessed August 2024/ ______. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

Camarillo, City of. 2001. Final Environmental Impact Report. Village at the Park. GPA 99-2. EIR No. 99-25. SCH No. 2000011063.
https://cms7files.revize.com/camarilloca/3.%20Final%20EIR%20Village%20at%20the%20Par k%20(Searchable).pdf. Accessed August 2024.
______. 2001. Village at the Park Specific Plan.
https://cms7files.revize.com/camarilloca/1.%202001%2010- 10%20Village%20at%20the%20Park%20Specific%20Plan.pdf. Accessed August 2024. ______. 2009. Initial Study for Mitigated Negative Declaration TT-5753/CZ-310/CPD-236/CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC. Accessed August 2024. ______. 2013. Camarillo General Plan – Safety Element.
https://cms7files.revize.com/camarilloca/Departments/Community%20Development/Gene ral%20Plan/Safety.pdf. Accessed August 2024.
______. 2014. Camarillo General Plan – Circulation Element. https://cms7files.revize.com/camarilloca/Departments/Community%20Development/Gene ral%20Plan/05%20Circulation%20Element%202014.pdf. Accessed August 2024.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2024. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/index.html. A ccessed August 2024.

Translutions. 2024. Starbucks Project CPD-255 Addendum – Trip Generation and Queuing Analysis.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2024. Electricity Explained. Electricity in the United States. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php. Accessed August 2024.

City of Camarillo
Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment Commercial Component 80 T
his page left intentionally blank.

Appendix A
2009 IS-MND MMRP
MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

INITIAL STUDY
FOR

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, HIJI INV. CO., LLC/ TFR INV. CO., LLC

[SOUTH SIDE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 101,
BETWEEN WESTPARK COURT AND VILLAGE AT THE PARK DRIVE]

Introduction

This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the CEQA Guidelines as revised through October 26, 1998. Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that the purposes of an Initial Study are to:

1. Provide the Lead Agency (i.e., the City of Camarillo) with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration;

2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to quality for a Negative Declaration;

3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by:
 Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant;  Identifying the effects determined not to be significant;  Explaining the reasons why potentially significant effects would not be significant; and  Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project’s environmental effects.

4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;

5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment;

6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and

7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.

The City of Camarillo Procedures for the Conduct of Initial Studies was used along with other pertinent information for preparing the Initial Study for this project.

Determination that Initial Study should be conducted

If a project is subject to the requirements of CEQA and does not meet any exemption criteria, an Initial Study is used to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environments. If the Director can determine that an EIR clearly will be required for the project, an Initial Study is not MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

required but may still be made if determined to be desirable. If it is determined that an Initial Study is required for a project, all phases of project planning, implementation, and operation are considered in the environmental assessment of the project.

Use of Initial Study

The Initial Study is intended to be used to provide information as the basis for the determination of whether a Negative Declaration or an EIR shall be prepared for a project. The Initial Study shall also be used to identify whether a program EIR, master EIR. tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project’s environmental effects.

Determining the significance of environmental impacts is a critical and often controversial aspect of the environmental review process. It is critical because a determination of significance may require that the project be substantially altered, or that mitigation measures be readily employed to avoid the impact or reduce it below the level of significance. If the impact cannot be reduced or avoided, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. An EIR is a detailed statement that describes and analyzes the significant environmental impacts of a proposed project, discusses ways to reduce or avoid them, and suggests alternatives to the project, as proposed.

Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so that potential adverse effects are mitigated to a point where no significant environmental effects will occur, a Negative Declaration shall be prepared instead of an EIR. If the project will still result in one or more significant effects on the environment after mitigation measures are added to the project, an EIR shall be prepared.

When the Initial Study concludes that no EIR is necessary, the Study also provides documentation of the factual basis for the finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

INITIAL STUDY
TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, HIJI INV. CO., LLC/ TFR INV. CO., LLC

1. Project Title: TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/ TFR Inv. Co., LLC

2. Lead agency name and address:

City of Camarillo, 601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010

3. Contact person and phone number: Jaclyn Lee, Associate Planner; 805.383.5616

4. Project location: South of U.S. Highway 101, Between Westpark Court and Village at the Park Drive

5. Project sponsor’s name and address:

Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/ TFR Inv. Co., LLC, 771 Mountain View Avenue, Oxnard, CA 93030

6. General Plan designation:

Commercial (General Commercial)

7. Zoning:

CPD (Commercial Planned Development)

8. Description of project : (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)

The proposed project consists of change of zone (CZ-310) from CPD (Commercial Planned Development) to CMU (Commercial Mixed-Use); tentative tract map (TT-5753) to subdivide

10.06 acres into 8 lots; commercial planned development permit (CPD -236) to develop 8 commercial buildings totaling 42,630 square feet; conditional use permit (CUP -307) to develop 36 residential units , clubhouse, pool, and approximately 5,700 square feet of ground floor commercial space as part of a horizontal mixed- use development, and request an increase in the maximum building height by allowing up to three-story buildings. The project site has been rough-graded in the past and street improvements on Westpark Court and Village at the Park Drive are existing. The property is currently zoned CPD (Commercial Planned Development) and is located on the south side of U.S. Highway 101, between Westpark Court and Village at the Park Drive within the Village at the Park Specific Plan area.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting
: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings)

The project is bordered to the north by U.S. Highway 101. To the east is a sports park currently under construction zoned O -S (Open Space) and an existing YMCA facility on property zoned RPD (Residential Planned Development). To the west of the project site across Village at the Park Drive is a 128-room hotel currently under construction and vacant land approved for the construction of two office buildings . To the south across Village at the Park Drive are existing apartments zoned RPD -18U (Residential Planned Development, 18 dwelling units per acre maximum).

10. Other public
agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.)
MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

None; the change of zone from CPD to CMU, subdivision of 10.06 acr es into 8 lots, and construction of a horizontal mixed- use development will not require approval from any other public agency.

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

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

Aesthetics

 Agricultural Resources

Air Quality

Biological Resources

 Cultural Resources

Geology/Soils

Hazards & Hazardous
Materials

 Hydrology/Water Quality

Land Use/Planning

Mineral Resources

 Noise

Population/Housing

Public Services

 Recreation

Transportation/Traffic

Utilities/Service Systems

 Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

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

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

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

/s/ Jaclyn Lee

July 27, 2009
Signature Date
Jaclyn Lee

Associate Planner
Print Name Title
MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” cited in support of conclusions reached in other sections may be cross - referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used—Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed—Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures —For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

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

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

8. The explanation of each issue should identity: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

EARLIER ANALYSIS

The Village at the Park Specific Plan EIR 99-25 (SCH No. 2000011063) was prepared by Impact Sciences, and certified by the Camarillo City Council (Resolution No. 2001-150) on October 10, 2001.

This document was prepared to analyze the potential impacts from changing the existing land use designation from Agriculture to a combination of residential, commercial, recreational and institutional uses on a 330-acre site including the project site generally located south of U.S. Highway 101, between Pleasant Valley Road and Lewis Road. The EIR identified impacts related to aesthetics, land use, and agriculture that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance, even after the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR . Findings of facts indicated that certain social and economic factors outweighed the significant adverse impacts associated with the conversion of the visual character of the site from an open field to an urban setting. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council for those significant and adverse impacts in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines . All other impacts were found to be mitigatable to a level of insignificance through the imposition of the mitigation measures. EIR 99-25 is available for review at the City of Camarillo Community Development Department.

An initial study was previously prepared and circulated on July 8, 2008 for TT-5753/CPD -236.

However, the applicant has revised the project by modifying the project from a commercial development to a horizontal mixed use development and has submitted applications for CUP-307 and CZ-310. Therefore, a new initial study has been completed for the project.

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

A. AESTHETICS

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?

4. Create a source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?

Discussion:
(1 through 3)

No significant visual feature such as trees and rock outcroppings are located on the property . The project site is relatively flat and has been previously rough graded and is covered in weeds and grasses. Due to the lack of topographical relief, the project site is visible from surrounding areas . This includes views from U.S. Highway 101, which is designated a scenic highway adjacent to the site and provides a prominent view of the site.

The Village at the Park Specific Plan EIR 99-25 identified the effect on scenic vistas and the existing visual character as a significant adverse impact (EIR 99-25, page 5.4-18) . Findings of facts indicated that certain social and economic factors outweighed the significant adverse impacts associated with the conversion of the visual character of the site from an open field to an urban setting. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council for those significant and adverse impacts in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

The Village at the Park Specific Plan was established for the purpose of providing a comprehensive planning program to direct the orderly development of the site. The project proposes to change the existing zoning from CPD to CMU. The implementation of the Village at the Park Specific Plan allows for the conversion of agricultural uses to urban uses. No new impacts are anticipated due to aesthetics as a result of the project. The proposed development has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the design guidelines contained in the Specific Plan and provides for a cohesive, attractive mixed- use development. The additional building height to allow for three -story residential buildings is compatible with the design of the proposed commercial buildings and existing and approved development surrounding the site as it provides for a similar height and scale. The Village at the Park Specific Plan continues the planned orderly development of all lands within the Specific Plan area.

Therefore, the development of the project site has already been approved and the potential impacts overridden by the City. No new impact would occur.

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

(4)

All proposed new lighting will be required to adhere to the Camarillo Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance that requires all exterior lighting to be focused and directed downward to avoid light and glare from being directed onto adjoining properties. All new light fixtures will be reviewed for compliance with the Municipal Code regulations during plan check . Therefore, this does not result in a significant impact due to light or glare.

Mitigation:

None required

Monitoring: None

Result After Mitigation: N/A

B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES*

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural
use?

2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

3. Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use?

* In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland.

Discussion:
(1, 3)

Presently, the project site is covered in weeds and grasses and is not being used for agricultural purposes. The property has been rough graded as approved under Lot 2 of Tract 5350. The tract map subdivided the approximately 330- acre Village at the Park site into 21 lots and provided for the backbone infrastructure, including streets and utilities to serve future uses.

The loss of agriculture was previously analyzed in EIR 99-25 for the Village at the Park Specific Plan.

Under the EIR, the project site was identified as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance (EIR 99-25, page 5.2-8) . Findings of Facts indicated that certain social and economic factors outweighed the significant adverse impacts associated with the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses and a Statement of Overriding Consi derations was thereby adopted. The implementation of the Village of the Park Specific Plan continues the planned orderly conversion of all lands within the Specific Plan area into urban uses. Therefore, the conversion of the project site from MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

agricultural to non-agricultural uses has already been approved and the potential impacts overridden by the City. No new impact would occur.

(2)

The proposed project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural uses since the property is currently designated and zoned for commercial planned development uses . There are no property owners currently under a Williamson Act contract.

Mitigation: None required

Monitoring: None

Result After Mitigation: N/A

C. AIR QUALITY*

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (Ventura County Air
Quality Assessment Guidelines; Urbemis Model 7G-
Computer Program)

2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (Ventura County Air Quality Assessment
Guidelines; Urbemis Model 7G-Computer Program)

3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? (Ventura County Air Quality
Assessment Guidelines; Urbemis Model 7G-
Computer Program)

4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Ventura County Air Quality
Assessment Guidelines; Urbemis Model 7G-
Computer Program)

5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? (Ventura County Air Quality
Assessment Guidelines; Urbemis Model 7G-
Computer Program)

* Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

Discussion:
(1 through 3)

Impacts to air quality were previously analyzed in EIR 99-25 for the Village at the Park Specific Plan.

Short-term air quality impacts would result primarily from vehicle emissions, equipment emissions, and fugitive dust generation during normal site preparation and construction phases of the proposed development. Due to the short-term nature of construction activities, the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District ( VCAPCD) does not consider normal construction-related air quality impacts to be significant. The VCAPCD does require mitigation measure 5 be implemented during project construction in order to minimize air quality impacts. (EIR 99-25, page 5.6-11).

Emissions associated with the operation of the proposed project would be generated by both stationary and mobile sources on a day -to-day basis . According to Urbemis Version 8.7.0, it is estimated that the project will individually generate 24.84 pounds per day of ROC (reactive organic compounds) and 34.64 pounds per day of NO x. (nitrogen oxide). The VCAPCD recommended significant threshold for ROC and NOx is 25 pounds per day . Individually, the project will exceed the 25 pounds per day threshold for NO x. Collectively, this was part of the Village at the Park project that is required to mitigate the entire amount of air quality impacts.

EIR 99-25 indicated that the buildout of the Village of the Park Specific Plan area would result in exceeding VCAPCD-recommended significant thresholds for ROC and NO x. The project is required to comply with the m itigation measures contained in EIR 99-25 to reduce this impact to less than significant (EIR 99-25, pages 5.6-12, 5.6-13).

Mitigation:

The contractor shall prepare a dust control plan at the time that grading permits are requested.

The dust control plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures, which should be implemented by the contractor.

 Sufficiently water active portions of the construction site.

 Replace ground cover, cover bare soil, or apply environmentally safe soil stabilizers on inactive portions of the construction site.

 Apply water or environmentally safe soil stabilizers to unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces.

 Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds exceed 20 mph averaged over one hour . Contact the VCAPCD meteorologist for current information about average wind speeds.

 Sufficiently water or securely cover all material transported off site and all fill material transported on site.

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

 Provide employees involved in grading operations with face masks during dry periods to reduce inhalation of dust, which may exacerbate health problems of the respiratory tract.

 Limit speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less.

 Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over the adjacent roads.

Monitoring:

The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measures during grading and construction activities.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation:

Contractors shall keep records on the project site demonstrating that equipment engines are maintained in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers’ specifications to prevent excessive emissions. Such records will be available for review during grading and construction inspections.

Monitoring:

The developer shall comply wi th the above mitigation measure during grading and construction activities.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation:

Emissions generated by demolition activities shall be reduced by the following:

 Trucks transporting loose debris such as waste asphalt and wallboard off site shall be covered.

 All diesel -powered equipment should be turned off when not in use for more than 30 minutes and gasoline- powered equipment should be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measures during grading and construction activities.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation:

Lighting for public streets, parking areas, and recreational areas shall utilize energy -efficient mechanical, computerized, or photo cell switching devices to reduce energy usage.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation:

Solar or low emission water heaters shall be installed into proposed buildings to reduce natural gas consumption and emissions.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Result After Mitigation:

Less than significant.

Mitigation:

Energy-efficient, automated controls for air conditioners shall be installed into proposed buildings to reduce energy consumption and emissions.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Result After Mitigation:

Less than significant.

Mitigation:

Automatic lighting on/off controls and energy -efficient lighting shall be installed into proposed buildings to reduce electricity consumption and associated emissions.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Result After Mitigation:

Less than significant.

Mitigation:

Light-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark roofing materials shall be used on proposed buildings. Light-colored materials reflect sunlight and minimize heat gains in buildings . This measure would lessen the overall demand for mechanical air conditioning systems.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation:

Wall and attic insulation shall be provided in proposed buildings beyond the requirements of Title 24, California Code of Regulations.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Result After Mitigation:

Less than significant.

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

Mitigation:

Special sunlight filtering window coatings or double-paned windows shall be installed into proposed buildings to reduce thermal gain in hot weather and loss in the cold weather, thus reducing emissions associated with heaters and air conditioners.

Monitoring:

The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation:

Shade trees shall be provided to reduce heating/cooling needs.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during landscape plan check.

Result After Mitigation:

Less than significant.

Mitigation:

The project shall mitigate 24.84 pounds per day of ROC and 34.64 pounds per day of NO x.

Specifically, the project applicant shall contribute funds to an off-site Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. The fee shall be in the amount of $1,150.00 per residential dwelling unit plus the amount for the commercial share of the air quality impacts as determined by the Village at the Park Specific Plan EIR, in accordance with the VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines. The contributions shall be calculated based on the amount of emissions that must be reduced to bring the project below the thresholds established by the VCAPCD, and will be based on the year of completion of the development. The applicant shall submit the calculations for air quality fees to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development.

Monitoring:

The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure prior to issuance of building permits.

Result After Mitigation:

Less than significant.

Discussion:
(4)

The City of Camarillo General Plan Safety Element, as well as the Municipal Code Commercial/Industrial Performance Standards , addresses the use of hazardous materi als in commercial buildings. The site is not located adjacent to a school or hospital, however it is located adjacent to a 55-acre outdoor sports park. The project will exceed the VCAPCD threshold for NO x. EIR 99-25, indicating that the build-out of the Village of the Park Specific Plan area would result in exceeding VCAPCD recommended significant thresholds for ROC and NO x. The project is required to MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

comply with the mitigation measures contained in EIR 99-25 to reduce this impact to less than significant, which includes the payment of air quality fees. (EIR 99-25, pages 5.6-12, 5.6-13)

Mitigation: None required

Monitoring:

None

Result After Mitigation:

N/A

Discussion:
(5)

The Municipal Code Commercial/Industrial Performance Standards regulate odors from industrial and commercial uses. These standards prohibit commercial land to be used in any manner so as to create any dangerous, injurious, noxious, or any other hazardous elements such as fire, explosive, noise or vibration, smoke, dust, odor, or other form of pollution. Any new business will be subject to these regulations.

Mitigation:

None required

Monitoring:

None

Result After Mitigation:

N/A

D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

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

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

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

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

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

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

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

Discussion:
(1 through 6)

The property has been rough graded as approved under Tract 5350. The project site is located in a highly urbanized area which has been previously disturbed due to the construction of adjacent infrastructure to serve the property. Therefore, the site does not provide conditions to develop habitat for fish and wildlife on the property. The project is located in an urbanized area and does not provide a suitable habitat for wildlife species or interfere with the movement of any wildlife species . The project will not result in a conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or habitat conservation plan.

Monitoring:

None

Result After Mitigation:

N/A

E. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?

2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?

3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geological
feature?

4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

Discussion:
(1 through 4)

The site is not listed by the State of California as a historical site or place of historic significance nor is the site identified as a place of paleontological or geological significance. There are no known burial sites in the area. EIR 99-25 for the Village at the Park Specific Plan previously analyzed impacts to cultural resources. Under CEQA criteria, no significant historic or cultural resources were identified on the property (EIR 99-25, page 5.10- 9). Though not anticipated to be a concern, the City of Camarillo has a standard condition that requires if archaeological or historical artifacts are uncovered during land modification activities, the site shall be preserved until a qualified archaeologist is consulted for proper disposition of the site with concurrence by the Director of Community Development.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a. 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 known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Pub. 42.

b. Strong seismic ground shaking?
c. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
d. Landslides?

2. Result in substantial soil erosion, or the loss of
topsoil?

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

4. 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?

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

Discussion:
(1, 3, 4)

Impacts related to geology and soils were previously analyzed in EIR 99- 25 for the Village at the Park Specific Plan. The extension of the Camarillo fault which is considered an active fault has been assigned a Structural Setback Zone that extends 50 feet north and south of the active fault area. This Structural Setback Zone would affect the northern portion of the project site. The submitted site plan shows all proposed buildings to be located outside the Struc tural Setback Zone. All building foundations and structures would be constructed in accordance with the specifications identified in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) that are in effect at that time (EIR 99 -25, page 5.8-5). Within the structural setback would be paved parking areas and landscaping. Mitigation measures below would be implemented to reduce geology and soils impacts to less than significant.

The lack of near -surface groundwater at the project site makes the potential for liquefaction and liquefaction-induced settlement very low (EIR 99-25, page 5.8-2).

A geotechnical report was prepared by Geolabs -Westlake Village, dated September 25, 1998 for the Village at the Park EIR . According to the report, based upon the moisture in the sample borings, and consideration of the past agricultural use, the potential for hydroconsolidation is considered low.

Mitigation:

Prior to the design and construction of any structural improvements, the project developers shall have comprehensive design level geotechnical evaluations conducted that include subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. Recommendations for grading/earthwork, surface and subsurface drainage, foundations, pavements structural sections, and other pertinent geotechnical design considerations shall be formulated and implemented based on the findings of this evaluation.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure prior to the issuance of grading permits and at the time of submittal of building plans.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation:

In order to safeguard against major seismic -related structural failures, all buildings within the project site shall be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City Council.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure at the time of submittal of building plans.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation:

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

The fault hazard area and Structural Setback Zone shall be identified on the tract map or other appropriate document to provide notice to property purchasers of the limitation on the use of the property.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure prior to recordation of the tract map.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Discussion:
(2)

The project site is relatively flat and has been rough graded, and therefore is not in an area of landslide risk, soil erosion, or the loss of topsoil.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

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

2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable up-set
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?

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

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

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

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

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

7. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

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

Discussion:
(1 through 4)

The Municipal Code Commercial/Industrial Performance Standards prohibit industrial land to be used in any manner so as to create any dangerous, injurious, noxious, or any other hazardous elements such as fire, explosive, noise or vibration, smoke, dust, odor, or other form of pollution. The city’s Hazardous Materials Ordinance requires, among other things, that businesses that use or manage hazardous materials or hazardous waste be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to occupying or building on a site in Camarillo. Businesses which generate, treat, recycle, store, utilize, dispose of, or otherwise manage hazardous waste or materials on site shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development and developed in accordance with the Municipal Code. It is not anticipated, however, that future uses would occupy the proposed commercial center as it is intended to be occupied by typical commercial planned development uses such as restaurants and retail stores.

Future uses will be reviewed to ensure that they will be compatible with the residential portion of the development. There are no properties within Camarillo that are on the State of California list of hazardous materials sites.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

Discussion:
(5)

The project site is located approximately 2.3 miles east of the Camarillo Airport and is not within the Extended Traffic Pattern Zone according to the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

Result After Mitigation: N/A

Discussion:
(6)

There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

Discussion:
(7)

The project will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

The City of Camarillo has formed a disaster preparedness team that will come together in the event of a community disaster . This team conducts regular disaster preparedness drills and would coordinate the evacuation of areas of Camarillo.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

Discussion:
(8)

The proposed project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires because the property is not adjacent to any wild lands and is surrounded by existing and planned industrial uses.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

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

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

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

5. Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?

6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

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

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

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

10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Discussion:
(1)

During construction of the project, the primary water quality concern is introducing pollutants into the ground or surface waters. Unless mitigated, the potential exists for these pollutants to flow off-site. The project would be required to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program for stormwater runoff.

Development of the property will replace the pervious lot with some impervious parking surfaces and structures. The proposed project is not expected to violate any water quality standards or discharge MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

requirements because it would be required to comply with the Ventura County Municipal Storm Water Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (Order No. 09-0057). Under this permit, the developer would be required to incorporate appropriate storm water quality mitigation measures as identified in the permit into the project. These measures may include hydromodification, low impact development, and water quality treatment controls. The project would also be required to comply with the State General Construction NPDES Permit. The project construction plans would be required to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMP’s) applicable to the development for the review and approval by the City Engineer. This includes parking and associate roadways be designed to minimize degradation of storm water quality by incorporating BMP’s to intercept pollutants and runoff from discharging into the storm drain system.

Mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce hydrology and water quality impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation:

Prior to the initiation of any construction activity on the project site, the project developer shall provide proof of coverage under the current State General Construction NPDES permit (GCP) available from the State Water Resources Control Board. The developer shall be responsible for complying with all applicable requirements under the State GCP.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation:

Project improvement plans shall incorporate appropriate stormwater mitigation requirements into the project design consistent with the current Ventura County Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit and related Stormwater Quality Urban Impact Mitigation Plan (SQUIMP) . The project will be required to implement all applicable requirements under the Municipal Permit.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Result After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Discussion:
(2)

The development will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level because the project does not propose any groundwater wells or pumping activities. All water supplied to the site would be derived from the existing city water supply.

Mitigation: None required.

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

Discussion:
(3, 4)

The project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area because there are no natural watercourses on the project site and the site does not drain toward a natural watercourse.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

Discussion:
(5)

The project will not create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff because the project would be required to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program . The developer is required to submit a hydrology and hydraulics study for the project to the City Engineer . The study will include without limitation the hydraulic analysis for the sizing of the required storm drain system . Appropriate facilities for proper drainage within the development shall be provided and constructed as directed and approved by the City Engineer.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

Discussion:
(6)

Refer to discussion in paragraph 1 . There are no components of the proposed project that would otherwise substantially degrade water quality.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

Discussion:

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

(7, 8, 9)

A review of the FEMA FIRM Community Panel No. 0650200005B shows that the property is located within Flood Zone B (an area between the 100-year and 500-year flood zone). The project proposed to construct 36 residential units and approximately 48,330 square feet of commercial building area.

Design and construction of the project must conform to the City of Camarillo Municipal Code Title 16, Chapter 16.34, Flood Damage Protection. Compliance with these requirements will reduce the potential for flood hazard impacts to a less than significant level . There are no major dams or levees located near the site, therefore flooding as a result of dam or levee failure would not be expected.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

Discussion:
(10)

The subject property is not located in an area that is subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

I. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Physically divide an established community?

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

3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?

Discussion:
(1 through 3)

The General Plan Land Use Map currently designates the property for commercial development. The proposed change of zone to CMU would be consistent with this designation as the CMU Zone is intended to provide for a combination of commercial and residential uses as part of a village commercial mixed-use development. Development of the project site will not physically divide an MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

established community or conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. The project is also consistent with the Village at the Park Specific Plan which provides for a comprehensive planning program to direct the orderly development of the Village at the Park site. The property is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

The development of Village at the Park, which included the project site, was previously analyzed in EIR 99-25. The EIR acknowledged that development would eliminate all existing agriculture from the site and would convert a primary scenic element in the City to an urban use. With the exception of leaving the site in active agricultural use, there were no feasible mitigation measures capable of reducing the project’s impact to a less than significant level (EIR 99-25, page 5.1-3) . Findings of Facts indicated that certain social and economic factors outweighed the significant adverse impacts associated with the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was thereby adopted. The implementation of the Village of the Park Specific Plan continues the planned orderly conversion of all lands within the Specific Plan area into urban uses. Therefore, the conversion of the project site from agricultural to non-agricultural uses has already been approved and the potential impacts overridden by the City . The project site has been rough graded under Tract 5350 which provided for the backbone infrastructure, including streets and utilities to serve future uses . Therefore, no agricultural use presently exists on site . No new impact would occur.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

J. MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. 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?

2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Discussion:
(1, 2)

The Camarillo General Plan Open Space and Conservation Elements do not identify known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource recovery site on the project site.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A
MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

K. NOISE

Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

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

2. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?

4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels without the project?

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

6. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?

Discussion:
(1 through 4)

A condition of approval will be included which would limit the delivery and trash pick -up hours between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. in order to reduce potential noise impacts to residential uses proposed on the site.

The developer would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code which prohibits construction activities to be conducted between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. and on Sundays and holidays.

A condition of approval will be included that requires the developer to provide a written notice to all prospective purchasers of all existing and proposed future land uses within proximity of the development. The sales office shall provide a map depicting surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed.

EIR 99-25 for the Village at the Park Specific Plan previously analyzed impacts related to noise . The EIR did not identify any significant impacts with the development of the proposed commercial center with respect to noise.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A
MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

Discussion:
(5)

The project site is located approximately 2.3 miles east of the Camarillo Airport and is not within the Extended Traffic Pattern Zone according to the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

Discussion:
(6)

There are no private airstrips in or within the vicinity.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

L. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through an extension of roads or other infra-
structure)?

2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

3. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

Discussion:
(1 through 3)

The project is a proposal to develop a total of 48,350 square feet of commercial floor area and 36 dwelling units and is not of a magnitude to induce substantial population growth. There is no existing residential use on the property and will not displace people or necessitate the replacement of housing.

Mitigation: None required.

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

M. PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Fire protection?

2. Police protection?

3. Schools?

4. Parks?

5. Other public facilities?

Discussion:
(1 through 5)

The project will be served by existing fire facilities including the station on Pickwick Drive which is approximately 1.5 miles from the project. The city adopted a fire protection facilities fee requiring that applicants for building permits pay a fee to defray the cost of constructing and equipping fire protection facilities as needed to minimize level of service impacts on fire protection caused by new development.

All new development within the City is required to pay the fee that is held in an account until such time as new stations and staffing are necessary to provide adequate fire protection services . The City of Camarillo receives police protection from the County of Ventura Sheriff’s Department. The police station located on Las Posas Road in Camarillo will serve the project. New development is required to pay a police facility fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. Additionally, tax revenues would be generated from the commercial development and deposited into the City’s General F und. A portion of these revenues could then be allocated to maintain Police services. The property is within the Pleasant Valley School District and Oxnard Union High School District. All new development is required to pay school facility fees. The school fees are paid at the time of issuance of a building permit and are based on the size of the structure. The proposed project will not have a significant impact to parks as the proposed project will not create a substantial growth to the population. All other p ublic facilities to support the development are in place to serve the proposed development.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

Result After Mitigation: N/A

N. RECREATION Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. 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?

2. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?

Discussion:
(1,2)

The project will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and does not include or require the expansion of recreational facilities because the proposed mixed-use project is not expected to generate a substantial growth to the population . The proposed project is located within the Village at the Park Specific Plan, which provides for a comprehensive planning program to direct the development of the area into a mix of land uses. This includes provisions for park and recreational land uses, including a 55-acre sports park located east of the project site.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?

2. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

3. Result in a change in traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks?

4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?

5. Result in inadequate emergency access?

6. Result in inadequate parking capacity?

7. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Discussion:
(1, 2)

Impacts related to transportation and traffic were previously evaluated under EIR 99-25 for the Village at the Park Specific Plan, which included the project site . Build out of Village at the Park would generate 24,653 ADT and would result in a significant impact at seven intersections and along a road segment of Pleasant Valley Road unle ss mitigated (EIR 99-25, page 5.5-9) . With implementation of mitigation measures, the EIR did not identify any unavoidable impacts to traffic as a result of the development. Under Tract 5350, which provided for the subdivision of major parcels and backbone infrastructure of the entire 330-acre site, the developer was required to comply with these mitigation measures. Since the project site is a part of Tract 5350, traffic impacts have been mitigated as required under the tract map. No new impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project.

The developer is required to pay traffic impact mitigation fees prior to the issuance of a zone clearance as set forth in the Camarillo Municipal Code. The developer is also required to pay the County Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) to address the cumulative impacts of this project on the County Regional Road Network, in accordance with the City’s reciprocal agreement with the County.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None

Result After Mitigation: N/A

Discussion:
(3, 4)

The project site will not cause an increase in anticipated traffic levels that would result in substantial safety risks . The site plan shows d riveway locations off of Village at the Park Drive and Westpark Court which have already been improved under Tract 5350. The site has been designed to provide for MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

the safe and orderly flow of vehicles and trucks within the site. There are no design features that will substantially increase traffic hazards.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None

Result After Mitigation: N/A

Discussion:
(5)

The project will provide adequate emergency access as Village at the Park Drive and Westpark Court are existing improved roadways as previously constructed under Tract 5350.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None

Result After Mitigation: N/A

Discussion:
(6)

The submitted site plan indicates that a variety of restaurant and retail uses are anticipated to occupy the commercial center. According to the data on the site plan, approximately 9,600 square feet would be allocated for restaurant uses, and 38,730 square feet would be allocated for retai l uses, requiring a total of 251 vehicle parking spaces. The site has been designed to provide 333 vehicle parking spaces for the commercial component of the proj ect. The residential units are required to provide two covered parking spaces per unit plus one guest space for every five units . Since the project proposes 36 dwelling units, a total of seven guest parking spaces are required. The project is in compliance with the parking requirements as each unit will be designed to provide a two car garage and the site provides 28 guest parking spaces. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the Municipal Code with respect to off-street parking.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None

Result After Mitigation: N/A

P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

2. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?

3. Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?

4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?

5. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?

6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?

7. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion:
(1, 2, 5)

The proposed project will provide sewage and waste disposal by means of a community disposal system. Sewerage system design, including connections to the Camarillo Sanitary District system are required to be submitted to the District. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements or require new treatment facilities as the Camarillo Sanitary District presently has the capacity to serve the project.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

Discussion:
(3)

EIR 99-25 previously analyzed impacts to storm water drainage facilities . Storm water would drain to detention basins along the southerly portion of the Village at the Park Specific Plan boundary, located on the north side of Pleasant Valley Road. Runoff from the detention basins would discharge into Calleguas Creek (EIR 99-25, page 5.9-11). Based on the results of hydrology reports prepared for Village at the Park , the development of the project is feasible from a hydrologic perspective providing MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

that standard engineering techniques are incorporated into the project. There are no known hydrologic hazards affecting the project site or vicinity that would pose a risk to the proposed development (EIR 99-25, page 5.9-10).

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

Discussion:
(4)

The property receives water from the City of Camarillo Water Department. The Department obtains water from its own wells and imports water from the Calleguas Municipal Water District. EIR 99-25 for Village at the Park previously analyzed impacts to water resources. The specific plan area is served by water mains in Petit Street, Pleasant Valley Road, Constitution Avenue, and along the eastern boundary. The increase in water demand on the site would not require expanded water distribution facilities (EIR 99-25, page 5.11.5-7).

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

Discussion:
(6, 7)

The project site is currently vacant and would not involve the demolition and removal of any structures .

The City has a requirement that during construction, the applicant shall divert recyclable material such as waste lumber, concrete, asphalt, drywall products, metal, cardboard, cans, bottles, plastics and other recyclable materials from the waste stream in accordance with Camarillo Municipal Code Chapter 9.07 and the California Integrated Waste Management Act. The development will be required to comply with standard city conditions that require the users to submit a recycling plan illustrating the programs that will be employed. Also, in addition to the usual trash receptacles, the city requires that space be provided in the trash enclosure for the storage of containers for recycling and green waste or a separate enclosure be provided depending on the amount of recyclable and green waste material.

Mitigation: None required.

Monitoring: None.

Result After Mitigation: N/A

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?

2. 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)?

3. Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Discussion:
(1)

The proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal community, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory because the project site is located within an urbanized area that has been already rough-graded and is surrounded by existing development that does not provide a suitable habitat for wildlife. The project site is not likely to contain any archaeological or paleontological resources . Therefore, this does not constitute the potential for a significant impact on the environment.

Discussion:
(2)

The project is consistent with the Camarillo General Plan and Village at the Park Specific Plan, which designates the site for commercial development. The change of zone to CMU is consistent with this designation. The development of the proposed commercial center has been previously analyzed under EIR 99-25 for Village at the Park Specific Plan. Compliance with mitigation measures and conditions of approval will reduce the potential individual impacts to a less than significant level.

MND 2009-6 for TT-5753/ CZ-310/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/TFR Inv. Co., LLC July 27, 2009

Discussion:
(3)

The project site is located within an urbanized area designated for commercial development. The project does not have any environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS

UNLESS MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED

None

JL*:sls (f:\ Vlg@pk\T5753\ mnd docs\ initial study jul 09 )

TT-5753/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/ TFR Inv. Co., LLC

Exhibit A

MITIGATION MEASURES

Case No. TT-5753/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv Co., LLC/ TFR Inv. Co., LLC

AIR QUALITY

1. Mitigation: The contractor shall prepare a dust control plan at the time that grading permits are requested. The dust control plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures, which should be implemented by the contractor. (
Mitigation condition for Section C of MND 2009-6:
• Sufficiently water active portions of the construction site. • Replace ground cover, cover bare soil, or apply environmentally safe soil stabilizers on inactive portions of the construction site. • Apply water or environmentally safe soil stabilizers to unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces.
• Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds exceed 20 mph averaged over one hour. Contact the VCAPCD meteorologist for current information about average wind speeds.
• Sufficiently water or securely cover all material transported off site and all fill material transported on site.
• Provide employees involved in grading operations with face masks during dry periods to reduce inhalation of dust, which may exacerbate health problems of the respiratory tract.
• Limit speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less.
• Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over the adjacent roads.

Monitoring
: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measures during grading and construction activities.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

TT-5753/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/ TFR Inv. Co., LLC

2. Mitigation:

Contractors shall keep records on the project site demonstrating that equipment engines are maintained in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers’ specifications to prevent excessive emissions. Such records will be available for review during grading and construction inspections.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during grading and construction activities.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

3. Mitigation:

Emissions generated by demolition activities shall be reduced by the following:

• Trucks transporting loose debris such as waste asphalt and wallboard off site shall be covered.

• All diesel- powered equipment should be turned off when not in use for more than 30 minutes and gasoline- powered equipment should be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measures during grading and construction activities.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

4. Mitigation:

Lighting for public streets, parking areas, and recreational areas shall utilize energy-efficient mechanical, computerized, or photo cell switching devices to reduce energy usage.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

TT-5753/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/ TFR Inv. Co., LLC

5. Mitigation:

Solar or low emission water heaters shall be installed into proposed buildings to reduce natural gas consumption and emissions.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

6. Mitigation:

Energy-efficient, automated controls for air conditioners shall be installed into proposed buildings to reduce energy consumption and emissions.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

7. Mitigation:

Automatic lighting on/off controls and energy -efficient lighting shall be installed into proposed buildings to reduce electricity consumption and associated emissions.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

TT-5753/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/ TFR Inv. Co., LLC

8. Mitigation:

Light-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark roofing materials shall be used on proposed buildings. Light-colored materials reflect sunlight and minimize heat gains in buildings. This measure would lessen the overall demand for mechanical air conditioning systems.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

9. Mitigation:

Wall and attic insulation shall be provided in proposed buildings beyond the requirements of Title 24, California Code of Regulations.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

10. Mitigation:

Special sunlight filtering window coatings or double- paned windows shall be installed into proposed buildings to reduce thermal gain in hot weather and loss in the cold weather, thus reducing emissions associated with heaters and air conditioners.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during building plan check.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

TT-5753/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/ TFR Inv. Co., LLC

11. Mitigation

Shade trees shall be provided to reduce heating/cooling needs.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure during landscape plan check.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

12. Mitigation:

The project shall mitigate 24.84 pounds per day of ROC and 34.64 pounds per day of NO x. Specifically, the project applicant shall contribute funds to an off -site Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. The fee shall be in the amount of $1,150.00 per residential dwelling unit plus the amount for the commercial share of the air quality impacts as determined by the Village at the Park Specific Plan EIR, in accordance with the VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines.

The contributions shall be calculated based on the amount of emissions that must be reduced to bring the project below the thresholds established by the VCAPCD, and will be based on the year of completion of the development. The applicant shall submit the calculations for air quality fees to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure prior to issuance of building permits.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

13. Mitigation

Prior to the design and construction of any structural improvements, the project developers shall have comprehensive design level geotechnical evaluations conducted that include subsurface exploration and laboratory testing.

Recommendations for grading/earthwork, surface and subsurface drainage, foundations, pavements structural sections, and other pertinent geotechnical

TT-5753/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/ TFR Inv. Co., LLC

design considerations shall be formulated and implemented based on the findings of this evaluation.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure prior to the issuance of grading permits and at the time of submittal of building plans.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

14. Mitigation:

In order to safeguard against major seismic -related structural failures, all buildings within the project site shall be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City Council.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure at the time of submittal of building plans.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

15. Mitigation:

The fault hazard area and Structural Setback Zone shall be identified on the tract map or other appropriate document to provide notice to property purchasers of the limitation on the use of the property.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure prior to recordation of the tract map.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

16. Mitigation:

Prior to the initiation of any construction activity on the project site, the project developer shall provide proof of coverage under the current State General

TT-5753/ CPD-236/ CUP-307, Hiji Inv. Co., LLC/ TFR Inv. Co., LLC

Construction NPDES permit (GCP) available from the State Water Resources Control Board. The developer shall be responsible for complying with all applicable requirements under the State GCP.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

17. Mitigation:

Project improvement plans shall incorporate appropriate stormwater mitigation requirements into the project design consistent with the current Ventura County Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit and related Stormwater Quality Urban Impact Mitigation Plan (SQUIMP). The project will be required to implement all applicable requirements under the Municipal Permit.

Monitoring: The developer shall comply with the above mitigation measure prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Compliance:

Signature Date_____________

JL*: sls (f:\ Vlg@pk\T5753\mnd docs\ mitigation measures exhibit doc sept 09)

Appendix B
Tract 5753

Appendix C
Proposed Plans for Coffee Shop Drive-Through with Grading DEVELOPMENT PLANS RESUBMITTAL | 05.15.2024

CAMARILLO, CA

VILLAGE GATEWAY
HIJI INVESTMENT CO., LLC
203 Village Commons Blvd., Suite 11
Camarillo, CA 93012
attn: Dennis Hardgrave
[email protected]
(805) 402-1589
Architecture + Planning
949.851.2133
ktgy.com CAMARILLO, CA 93012 # 2023-0251

VILLAGE GATEWAY
MAY 15, 2024

DEVELOPMENT PLANS
1 HIJI INVESTMENT CO., LLC
203 Village Commons Blvd., Suite 11
Camarillo, CA 93012
attn: Dennis Hardgrave
[email protected]
(805) 402-1589
CPD #255
Lot 1, Tract 5753
Village at the Park
City of CamarilloSITE PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 50’-0”
0 1005025
LOT 6

0.45 Ac.

LOT 4

0.53 Ac.

LOT 3

0.63 Ac.

LOT 5

1.17 Ac.

LOT 1

3.07 Ac.

COFFEE
2,190 SF
26 PS
Trash /Loading
Village at the Park Drive
Westpark Court
101 FWY
Petit St.

Architecture + Planning
949.851.2133
ktgy.com CAMARILLO, CA 93012 # 2023-0251

VILLAGE GATEWAY
MAY 15, 2024

DEVELOPMENT PLANS
2 HIJI INVESTMENT CO., LLC
203 Village Commons Blvd., Suite 11
Camarillo, CA 93012
attn: Dennis Hardgrave
[email protected]
(805) 402-1589
CPD #255
Lot 1, Tract 5753
Village at the Park
City of CamarilloFLOOR & ROOF PLANS
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
0 1684
NOTES:

1. RTU LOCATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

2. DRAIN LOCATIONS ARE TBD.

3. ROOF SLOPES ARE TBD.

4. ALL GAS LINES TO RUN UNDERGROUND AND
THROUGH INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.

TRELLIS ABOVE
PAD A
±2,190 SF

TRELLIS WITH SOLAR

PANELS ABOVE

TRELLIS WITH SOLAR

PANELS ABOVE
SLOPE:
14" PER FOOT

SOLAR PANELS
(± 425 SF)
RTU
RTU

SOLAR PANELS
(± 1000 SF)
FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN1 2
Architecture + Planning
949.851.2133
ktgy.com CAMARILLO, CA 93012 # 2023-0251

VILLAGE GATEWAY
MAY 15, 2024

DEVELOPMENT PLANS
3 HIJI INVESTMENT CO., LLC
203 Village Commons Blvd., Suite 11
Camarillo, CA 93012
attn: Dennis Hardgrave
[email protected]
(805) 402-1589
CPD #255
Lot 1, Tract 5753
Village at the Park
City of Camarillo

CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
0 1684
1 13
5 53
5 5 5
3 62 263 1
5 51
24 41 3
22 44 41 33 36213
6 A
BJ

K H G GK B

KG G H LH GK
M E B

GP PGB E O N FF L ND

K G GBM

PC CA J

PP FCC CA N LBJ ME BGEPFAEJ
G
H
+8’-0”
+13’-2”
+13’-2”
+13’-2”
+8’-6”
T.O. ROOF
T.O. PARAPET
T.O. ROOF
T.O. ROOF
T.O. TOWER
B.O. TRELLIS
B.O. TRELLIS
B.O. CANOPY
B.O. TRELLIS
B.O. CANOPY
T.O. PARAPET
T.O. PARAPET
T.O. TOWER
+22’-0”
+24’-9”
+22’-0”
+22’-0”
+35’-0”
+24’-9”
+24’-9”
+35’-0”
A STUCCO: OMEGA, "20/30 FINE SAND FLOAT" G WALL TILE N WROUGHT IRON GRILLE 1 PAINT: SHERWIN WILLIAMS-SW7006 "EXTRA WHITE" B ARCHITECTURAL TRIM H ROOF TILE O LANDSCAPE TRELLIS 2 PAINT: SHERWIN WILLIAMS-SW7036 "ACESSIBLE BEIGE" C METAL CANOPY J TRELLIS P PRECAST CONCRETE 3 PAINT: SHERWIN WILLIAMS-SW7510 "CHATEAU BROWN" D DOOR K SIGNAGE (Under separate Submittal) Q METAL GATE 4 PAINT: SHERWIN WILLIAMS-SW7020 "BLACK FOX" E STONE VENEER : EL DORADO STONE, LIMESTONE "SAN MARINO" L LIGHTING R METAL MESH 5 WALL TILE: ARTO "SD100B CERAMIC TILE" 6X6 F ALUMINUM STOREFRONT: ARCADIA-AB4 "MEDIUM BRONZE" M SOLAR PANELS S STRUCTURAL STEEL 6 WALL TILE: DALTILE "TS71 AUTUMN MIST", 4X4

MATERIALS FINISHES

NORTH ELEVATION (RIGHT)EAST ELEVATION (FRONT)

WEST ELEVATION (BACK) SOUTH ELEVATION (LEFT)
1 2
43 Architecture + Planning
949.851.2133
ktgy.com CAMARILLO, CA 93012 # 2023-0251

VILLAGE GATEWAY
MAY 15, 2024

DEVELOPMENT PLANS
4 HIJI INVESTMENT CO., LLC
203 Village Commons Blvd., Suite 11
Camarillo, CA 93012
attn: Dennis Hardgrave
[email protected]
(805) 402-1589
CPD #255
Lot 1, Tract 5753
Village at the Park
City of CamarilloSECTIONS
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
0 842
22'

TOP OF ROOF
16'-8"

TOP OF ROOF
35'

TOP OF ROOF
5'-9"
5'-5"
8'
B.O. CANOPY
22'

BUILDING HEIGHT
35'

TOP OF ROOF
15'-6"

TOP OF WALL
24'-9"

TOP OF WALL
5'-4"
5'-3"
13'

BOTTOM OF TRELLIS
13'-6"

BOTTOM OF TRELLIS
15'-5"

TOP OF ROOF
8'-6"
B.O. CANOPY

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

CROSS SECTION
A
B
Architecture + Planning
949.851.2133
ktgy.com CAMARILLO, CA 93012 # 2023-0251

VILLAGE GATEWAY
MAY 15, 2024

DEVELOPMENT PLANS
5 HIJI INVESTMENT CO., LLC
203 Village Commons Blvd., Suite 11
Camarillo, CA 93012
attn: Dennis Hardgrave
[email protected]
(805) 402-1589
CPD #255
Lot 1, Tract 5753
Village at the Park
City of Camarillo

PERSPECTIVE VIEW

PERSPECTIVE VIEW - NORTHEAST CORNER OF BUILDING

COVERED PATIO SEATING LOW WALL
Architecture + Planning
949.851.2133
ktgy.com CAMARILLO, CA 93012 # 2023-0251

VILLAGE GATEWAY
MAY 15, 2024

DEVELOPMENT PLANS
6 HIJI INVESTMENT CO., LLC
203 Village Commons Blvd., Suite 11
Camarillo, CA 93012
attn: Dennis Hardgrave
[email protected]
(805) 402-1589
CPD #255
Lot 1, Tract 5753
Village at the Park
City of Camarillo

PERSPECTIVE VIEW

PERSPECTIVE VIEW - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BUILDING

SOLAR PANELS

INTEGRATED INTO

THE TRELLIS CANOPY

OVER THE PICK UP
WINDOW

STARBUCKS DRIVE

THRU SIGNAGE OVER

THE PICK UP WINDOW
Architecture + Planning
949.851.2133
ktgy.com CAMARILLO, CA 93012 # 2023-0251

VILLAGE GATEWAY
MAY 15, 2024

DEVELOPMENT PLANS
7 HIJI INVESTMENT CO., LLC
203 Village Commons Blvd., Suite 11
Camarillo, CA 93012
attn: Dennis Hardgrave
[email protected]
(805) 402-1589
CPD #255
Lot 1, Tract 5753
Village at the Park
City of Camarillo

PERSPECTIVE VIEW

PERSPECTIVE VIEW - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BUILDING

SOLAR PANELS

INTEGRATED INTO

THE TRELLIS CANOPY

OVER THE PICK UP
WINDOW

DECORATIVE TRELLIS

OVER THE DRIVE-

THRU LANE WITH

OPTION TO PUT SOLAR

PANELS ON TOP LOW WALL
Architecture + Planning
949.851.2133
ktgy.com CAMARILLO, CA 93012 # 2023-0251

VILLAGE GATEWAY
MAY 15, 2024

DEVELOPMENT PLANS
8 HIJI INVESTMENT CO., LLC
203 Village Commons Blvd., Suite 11
Camarillo, CA 93012
attn: Dennis Hardgrave
[email protected]
(805) 402-1589
CPD #255
Lot 1, Tract 5753
Village at the Park
City of Camarillo

PERSPECTIVE VIEW

PERSPECTIVE VIEW - NORTHWEST CORNER OF BUILDING

DECORATIVE TRELLIS

OVER THE DRIVE-

THRU LANE WITH

OPTION TO PUT SOLAR

PANELS ON TOP

STARBUCKS LOGO

DISK ON THE TOWER

CLOSEST TO THE

FREEWAYLOW WALL
Architecture + Planning
949.851.2133
ktgy.com CAMARILLO, CA 93012 # 2023-0251

VILLAGE GATEWAY
MAY 15, 2024

DEVELOPMENT PLANS
9 HIJI INVESTMENT CO., LLC
203 Village Commons Blvd., Suite 11
Camarillo, CA 93012
attn: Dennis Hardgrave
[email protected]
(805) 402-1589
CPD #255
Lot 1, Tract 5753
Village at the Park
City of CamarilloTRASH ENCLOSURE, TRELLIS,
AND LOW WALL DETAILSSCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
0 842
10'-2"
9'-0" 3'-4"
R.O
7'-0"
19'-4"
5'-0" CLR.
11'-0"
8"
8"
1'-0"
1'-0" 17'-4" 1'-0"
9'-0"
9'-0"
R.O
9'-0"
R.O
18'-0" CLR.
3FT LOW WALL

TRELLIS WITH SOLAR

PANELS ABOVE
1 1
13 3
33 3
33 3
4 4
42 2
2 2 2 3
A
A
AC
C
CS
S
SQ
Q
R
R
RP
P
P

P P JM E
T.O. ROOF
T.O. ROOF
B.O. TRELLIS
T.O. ROOF
T.O. WALL
T.O. WALL
T.O. WALL
+10’-0”
+10’-0”
+11’-6”
+10’-0”
+7’-0”
+7’-0”
+3’-0”
+0’-0”
+7’-0”

TRASH ENCLOSURE FLOOR PLAN TRELLIS & LOW WALL FLOOR PLAN T.E. ELEVATION (E)
T.E. ELEVATION (W)
T.E. ELEVATION (N/S)

TRELLIS ELEVATION (LONG) TRELLIS ELEVATION (SHORT)
1 2
A
B
C
D E
A STUCCO: OMEGA, "20/30 FINE SAND FLOAT" G WALL TILE N WROUGHT IRON GRILLE 1 PAINT: SHERWIN WILLIAMS-SW7006 "EXTRA WHITE" B ARCHITECTURAL TRIM H ROOF TILE O LANDSCAPE TRELLIS 2 PAINT: SHERWIN WILLIAMS-SW7036 "ACESSIBLE BEIGE" C METAL CANOPY J TRELLIS P PRECAST CONCRETE 3 PAINT: SHERWIN WILLIAMS-SW7510 "CHATEAU BROWN" D DOOR K SIGNAGE (Under separate Submittal) Q METAL GATE 4 PAINT: SHERWIN WILLIAMS-SW7020 "BLACK FOX" E STONE VENEER : EL DORADO STONE, LIMESTONE "SAN MARINO" L LIGHTING R METAL MESH 5 WALL TILE: ARTO "SD100B CERAMIC TILE" 6X6 F ALUMINUM STOREFRONT: ARCADIA-AB4 "MEDIUM BRONZE" M SOLAR PANELS S STRUCTURAL STEEL 6 WALL TILE: DALTILE "TS71 AUTUMN MIST", 4X4

MATERIALS FINISHES

Appendix D
Translutions Traffic Analysis Memorandum

m e m o r a n d u m
DATE: October 2, 2024
TO: Mr. Jason Samonte, Transportation Engineer
FROM: Sandipan Bhattacharjee, PE, TE, AICP, ENV SP
SUBJECT: Starbucks Project CPD-255 Addendum – Trip Generation & Queueing Analysis

Translutions, Inc. (Translutions) is pleased to provide this focused traffic analysis discussing the trip generation and queueing analysis and VMT screening for the Starbucks Coffee project to be located within the Village Gateway Specific Plan in the City of Camarillo.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will include the construction of a 2,190 square foot Starbucks coffee shop with drive through window. Access to the project will be provided via Village at the Park Drive and internally through Westpark Court. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project within Village Gateway and Figure 2 shows the site plan.

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Vehicle trips generated by a project site can be separated into two major categories, pass-by trips and primary trips. A pass-b y trip is made as an intermediate stop on the way from an origin to a prim ary trip destination. Pass-by trips are attracted from traffic passing the site on an adjacent street or roadway that offers direct access to a project site. Retail developments such as restaurants, shopping centers, and banks are often located adjacent to busy streets in order to attract motorists already on the street system on their way to a destination. These pass-by trips do not add new traffic to the adjacent street system and may be reduced from the total external trips generated by a project site. In addition, a primary trip is a new trip made for the specific purpose of visiting the generator and is the primary reason for the trip. The trip typically goes from an origin to a destination and then returns to the origin. The trip g eneration for the project includes pass-by and primary trips and is discussed further below. Based on the scoping agreement approved by the C ity, trip generation for the project is based on rates for Land Use 937 “Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Through Window” from the ITE Trip Generation, 11
th Edition. The pass by rates for Land Use 938 “Coffee/Donut Shop With Drive-Through Window and No Indoor Seating” has been applied to the trip generation. Trip generation for the proposed project is included in Table A.

As seen on Table A, the proposed project is forecast to generate 18 8 a.m. peak hour trips, 85 p.m. peak hour trips, and 1,169 d aily trips. Of these, pass-by trips account for 156 a.m. peak hour trip s, 71 p.m. peak hour trips, and 970 daily trips. After accoun ting for pass-by trips, the net trip generation is 32 a.m. peak hour trips, 14 p.m. peak hour trips, and 199 daily trips.

Table A: Project Trip Generation
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total Daily

Coffee Shop with Drive-Through Window
Trip Generation Rates 1 43.80 42.08 85.88 19.50 19.50 38.99 533.57 Trip Generation 2.190 TSF 96 92 188 43 42 85 1,169
Pass By Trips2 83% (78) (78) (156) (35) (36) (71) (970) Total Net Trips 18 14 32 8 6 14 199

Total Net New Trip Generation 18 14 32 8 6 14 199

Notes: TSF = Thousand Square Feet
1 Trip generation based on rates for Land Use 937 - "Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Through Window" from Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition).
2 Pass-By rates based on rates for Land Use 938 "Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Through Window and No Indoor Seating" from ITE Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition).

DRIVE-THROUGH QUEUING ANALYSES
To determine the potential drive-through queue lengths that may be anticipated with the completion of the project, a drive-thro ugh queuing analysis was conducted based on surv eys conducted at three existing Starbucks locations. The Starbucks locations were tran slutions
the transportatio n solut ions company. ..

Memorandum: Starbucks Coffee – Village Gateway Camarillo Trip Generation & Queueing Analysis

2 October 2, 2024
the transportation solutions company...
surveyed on weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Appendix A includes the survey data. Table B shows the observed queues. As shown in Table B, the maximum observed queue was 13 vehicles.

Table B: Starbucks Locations Drive-Through Queues
City Address Maximum Queue Length
1 . Anaheim 1134 N. State College Blvd 11
2 . Santa Ana 2302 17th Street 13
3 . Tustin 2701 N. Bristol St. 10
The site plan provides queuing space for 15 vehicles in the drive-through lane. Therefore, the project’s available storage space in the drive-through lanes is anticipated to accommodate the maximum observed queue length surveyed at the Starbucks locations. In addition, even if the queues exceed the above observed queue lengths, vehicles are unlikely to spill over to city streets as the access to the drive through lanes are through internal roadways.

VMT SCREENING ANALYSIS
VMT analysis is a requirement under CEQA due to the passage of Senate Bill 743 (SB-743).SB-743 was codified in Public Resources Code section 21099, was signed by the Governor in 2013 and direct ed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify alternative metrics for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. Pursuant to Section 21099, the criteria for dete rmining the significance of transportation impacts must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimod al transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” Recently adopted changes to the CEQA guidelines in response to Section 21099 include a new section (15064.3) that specifies that Vehicle Mile s Traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportat ion impacts. A separate Technical Advisory issued by OPR provides additional technical details on calculating VMT and assessing transportation impacts for various types of projects.

The City has adopted the Ventura County CEQA VMT Adaptive Mitigation Program prepared by Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) and Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG). The guidance exempts projects which serve the local community and have the potential to reduce VMT, such as neighborhood K- 12 schools and loca l-serving retail less than 50,000 sq. ft. The proposed project is a coffee shop which qualifies as a retail pr oject of less than 50,000 square feet. Therefore, the project meets the requirements and is screened out.

CONCLUSION
Project Description. The project will include the construction of a 2,190 square foot Starbucks coffee shop with drive through window.

Project Trip Generation. The proposed project is forecast to generate 32 net trips during the a.m. peak hour, 14 net trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 199 net new daily trips.

Drive-Through Queues. The maximum observed queue based on surveys at three Starbucks locations was 13 vehicles. The site plan provides queuing space for 15 vehicles. Therefore, the project’s available storage space in the drive-through lanes is anticipa ted to accommodate the maximum observed queue length surveyed at the Starbucks locations.

VMT Screening. Based on the recommended VMT thresholds set by the OPR, VCTC, and VCOG, the project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT.

Memorandum: Starbucks Coffee – Village Gateway Camarillo Trip Generation & Queueing Analysis

3 August 15, 2024
the transportation solutions company...

Figures

-Page 3-
FIGURE 1
Starbucks Coffee Site Starbucks Coffee - Village Gateway Camarillo Village Gateway Site Plan
the transportation solutions company...

P:\Rincon - Starbucks Camarillo CPD-255\Z30 Site Plan Landscape.xlsx (8/15/2024) -Page 4-
Source: Amor Architectural Corporation (08-14-2023) FIGURE 2 Starbucks Coffee - Village Gateway Camarillo
Starbucks Coffee Site Plan
the transportation solutions company...

P:\Rincon - Starbucks Camarillo CPD-255\Z30 Site Plan Landscape.xlsx (8/15/2024) -Page 5-
Memorandum: Starbucks Coffee – Village Gateway Camarillo Trip Generation & Queueing Analysis

4 August 15, 2024
the transportation solutions company...

Appendix A: Drive Through Queueing Study
-Page 6-
LOCATION: Starbucks, 1134 N. State College Blvd DAY: Thursday C$i$TY: Anahe$i$m DATE: 5/31/2018

ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL
7:02:23 - 1 2 3 7:41:19 0:00:27 1 3 4
7:02:25 0:00:02 2 1 3 7:41:22 0:00:03 2 3 5
7:04:33 0:02:08 1 2 3 7:41:25 0:00:03 3 2 5
7:04:38 0:00:05 2 2 4 7:41:29 0:00:04 4 2 6
7:08:03 0:03:25 1 0 1 7:42:18 0:00:49 3 2 5
7:08:20 0:00:17 2 0 2 7:42:23 0:00:05 4 2 6
7:08:24 0:00:04 3 0 3 7:42:52 0:00:29 4 3 7
7:08:39 0:00:15 3 1 4 7:43:32 0:00:40 4 3 7
7:08:46 0:00:07 4 1 5 7:45:01 0:01:29 3 4 7
7:09:22 0:00:36 4 2 6 7:45:40 0:00:39 3 4 7
7:09:37 0:00:15 5 2 7 7:45:47 0:00:07 4 4 8
7:10:02 0:00:25 5 2 7 7:49:11 0:03:24 1 4 5
7:11:15 0:01:13 5 2 7 7:50:30 0:01:19 1 3 4
7:11:42 0:00:27 5 3 8 7:51:28 0:00:58 1 4 5
7:11:46 0:00:04 6 3 9 7:51:59 0:00:31 2 3 5
7:12:06 0:00:20 6 3 9 7:52:27 0:00:28 3 3 6
7:12:23 0:00:17 7 3 10 7:52:48 0:00:21 4 3 7
7:13:12 0:00:49 6 4 10 7:53:42 0:00:54 3 3 6
7:14:37 0:01:25 5 5 10 7:54:16 0:00:34 3 4 7
7:15:27 0:00:50 6 5 11 7:55:46 0:01:30 4 4 8
7:17:02 0:01:35 5 4 9 7:57:07 0:01:21 4 4 8
7:17:10 0:00:08 5 5 10 8:00:21 0:03:14 1 3 4
7:19:44 0:02:34 3 4 7 8:01:21 0:01:00 1 2 3
7:19:47 0:00:03 4 4 8 8:02:37 0:01:16 1 2 3
7:21:22 0:01:35 4 3 7 8:04:27 0:01:50 1 1 2
7:21:24 0:00:02 5 3 8 8:04:29 0:00:02 2 1 3
7:21:51 0:00:27 4 4 8 8:04:46 0:00:17 3 1 4
7:23:24 0:01:33 3 3 6 8:04:51 0:00:05 4 1 5
7:23:44 0:00:20 3 4 7 8:04:53 0:00:02 5 1 6
7:24:07 0:00:23 4 3 7 8:09:41 0:04:48 1 4 5
7:25:36 0:01:29 4 4 8 8:09:50 0:00:09 2 4 6
7:25:42 0:00:06 5 4 9 8:09:52 0:00:02 3 4 7
7:26:32 0:00:50 4 5 9 8:10:18 0:00:26 4 4 8
7:28:43 0:02:11 2 4 6 8:10:26 0:00:08 5 4 9
7:29:48 0:01:05 2 3 5 8:10:42 0:00:16 5 4 9
7:30:27 0:00:39 1 3 4 8:11:19 0:00:37 5 4 9
7:32:34 0:02:07 1 2 3 8:11:51 0:00:32 5 4 9
7:32:38 0:00:04 2 2 4 8:13:17 0:01:26 5 3 8
7:32:40 0:00:02 3 2 5 8:13:23 0:00:06 6 3 9
7:32:49 0:00:09 4 2 6 8:15:14 0:01:51 3 2 5
7:33:14 0:00:25 4 1 5 8:15:32 0:00:18 4 2 6
7:34:03 0:00:49 4 2 6 8:15:35 0:00:03 5 2 7
7:34:28 0:00:25 4 3 7 8:19:36 0:04:01 1 4 5
7:37:15 0:02:47 2 2 4 8:20:39 0:01:03 1 3 4
7:37:19 0:00:04 2 3 5 8:21:42 0:01:03 1 4 5
7:37:54 0:00:35 3 2 5 8:22:01 0:00:19 1 4 5
7:40:52 0:02:58 1 2 3 8:25:12 0:03:11 1 0 1

ARRIVAL/QUEUE SURVEY
TIME PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
-Page 7-
LOCATION: Starbucks, 1134 N. State College Blvd DAY: Thursday C$i$TY: Anahe$i$m DATE: 5/31/2018

ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL

ARRIVAL/QUEUE SURVEY
TIME PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM
8:25:19 0:00:07 2 0 2
8:26:25 0:01:06 1 2 3
8:26:27 0:00:02 2 2 4
8:26:29 0:00:02 3 2 5
8:28:00 0:01:31 2 2 4
8:28:06 0:00:06 3 2 5
8:29:29 0:01:23 1 4 5
8:31:15 0:01:46 1 2 3
8:32:59 0:01:44 1 1 2
8:33:03 0:00:04 2 1 3
8:33:30 0:00:27 2 1 3
8:33:54 0:00:24 3 1 4
8:34:56 0:01:02 2 2 4
8:35:59 0:01:03 1 3 4
8:36:53 0:00:54 1 3 4
8:37:05 0:00:12 2 3 5
8:37:58 0:00:53 2 2 4
8:38:57 0:00:59 2 2 4
8:41:58 0:03:01 1 0 1
8:42:22 0:00:24 1 1 2
8:42:37 0:00:15 2 1 3
8:43:35 0:00:58 2 2 4
8:43:45 0:00:10 3 2 5
8:44:09 0:00:24 3 2 5
8:45:21 0:01:12 3 2 5
8:46:01 0:00:40 4 2 6
8:47:31 0:01:30 3 1 4
8:48:49 0:01:18 3 1 4
8:51:04 0:02:15 2 2 4
8:53:02 0:01:58 1 1 2
8:53:14 0:00:12 2 1 3
8:54:53 0:01:39 1 3 4
8:55:08 0:00:15 2 2 4
8:56:27 0:01:19 2 2 4
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
-Page 8-
LOCATION: Starbucks, 1134 N. State College Blvd DAY: Thursday CITY: Anaheim DATE: 5/31/2018

ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL
16:00:40 - 1 3 4 17:25:27 0:00:44 3 2 5
16:01:10 0:00:30 1 3 4 17:31:29 0:06:02 2 2 4
16:01:23 0:00:13 2 3 5 17:36:05 0:04:36 1 1 2
16:03:27 0:02:04 2 4 6 17:36:19 0:00:14 2 1 3
16:05:03 0:01:36 1 4 5 17:37:34 0:01:15 2 1 3
16:06:02 0:00:59 1 4 5 17:39:47 0:02:13 1 2 3
16:06:20 0:00:18 2 4 6 17:39:52 0:00:05 2 2 4
16:07:45 0:01:25 2 4 6 17:40:06 0:00:14 3 2 5
16:10:14 0:02:29 2 4 6 17:47:36 0:07:30 1 0 1
16:11:23 0:01:09 2 5 7 17:47:49 0:00:13 2 0 2
16:12:58 0:01:35 2 4 6 17:47:53 0:00:04 3 0 3
16:13:48 0:00:50 3 4 7 17:49:22 0:01:29 3 1 4
16:14:06 0:00:18 4 4 8 17:53:08 0:03:46 1 4 5
16:16:48 0:02:42 4 4 8 17:53:13 0:00:05 2 4 6
16:17:39 0:00:51 5 4 9 17:53:35 0:00:22 3 4 7
16:19:59 0:02:20 3 5 8 17:56:44 0:03:09 2 3 5
16:26:46 0:06:47 1 4 5 17:57:02 0:00:18 2 4 6
16:27:06 0:00:20 2 4 6 17:57:06 0:00:04 3 4 7
16:29:19 0:02:13 1 4 5
16:32:12 0:02:53 1 2 3
16:32:31 0:00:19 2 2 4
16:34:12 0:01:41 2 2 4
16:34:30 0:00:18 3 2 5
16:34:45 0:00:15 3 3 6
16:35:07 0:00:22 4 3 7
16:35:34 0:00:27 4 4 8
16:38:02 0:02:28 3 5 8
16:44:53 0:06:51 1 4 5
16:47:22 0:02:29 1 4 5
16:47:38 0:00:16 2 4 6
16:47:52 0:00:14 3 4 7
16:49:26 0:01:34 4 3 7
16:51:50 0:02:24 3 4 7
16:51:57 0:00:07 4 4 8
16:54:23 0:02:26 3 4 7
16:54:25 0:00:02 4 4 8
16:55:13 0:00:48 4 5 9
16:57:01 0:01:48 5 5 10
17:01:45 0:04:44 3 5 8
17:04:24 0:02:39 2 5 7
17:08:23 0:03:59 1 4 5
17:12:05 0:03:42 1 4 5
17:14:59 0:02:54 1 3 4
17:21:46 0:06:47 1 0 1
17:21:53 0:00:07 2 0 2
17:23:41 0:01:48 2 1 3
17:24:43 0:01:02 3 1 4

ARRIVAL/QUEUE SURVEY
TIME PERIOD: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
-Page 9-
LOCATION: Starbucks, 2302 17th Street DAY: Wednesday
CITY: Santa Ana DATE: 5/30/2018

ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL
7:00:00 - - - 0 7:42:08 0:00:53 7 3 10
7:01:00 0:01:00 3 1 4 7:42:45 0:00:37 6 3 9
7:02:43 0:01:43 1 3 4 7:44:21 0:01:36 4 3 7
7:02:46 0:00:03 1 2 3 7:45:00 0:00:39 4 3 7
7:03:32 0:00:46 2 2 4 7:45:55 0:00:55 4 3 7
7:05:12 0:01:40 2 3 5 7:46:07 0:00:12 5 3 8
7:07:16 0:02:04 1 3 4 7:46:10 0:00:03 6 3 9
7:09:55 0:02:39 1 2 3 7:47:22 0:01:12 4 4 8
7:10:27 0:00:32 2 1 3 7:47:40 0:00:18 5 4 9
7:11:19 0:00:52 1 3 4 7:48:48 0:01:08 6 3 9
7:11:23 0:00:04 1 3 4 7:50:16 0:01:28 5 3 8
7:13:27 0:02:04 2 3 5 7:50:29 0:00:13 6 3 9
7:14:41 0:01:14 1 1 2 7:51:47 0:01:18 4 3 7
7:15:22 0:00:41 1 1 2 7:51:50 0:00:03 5 3 8
7:15:52 0:00:30 1 1 2 7:52:11 0:00:21 6 3 9
7:16:33 0:00:41 1 2 3 7:52:15 0:00:04 7 3 10
7:17:45 0:01:12 1 3 4 7:53:15 0:01:00 6 3 9
7:19:44 0:01:59 2 2 4 7:54:16 0:01:01 5 2 7
7:20:24 0:00:40 1 2 3 7:54:29 0:00:13 5 3 8
7:20:44 0:00:20 1 2 3 7:55:20 0:00:51 5 3 8
7:21:50 0:01:06 1 2 3 7:55:27 0:00:07 6 3 9
7:22:14 0:00:24 1 2 3 7:56:36 0:01:09 5 3 8
7:24:25 0:02:11 2 1 3 7:56:40 0:00:04 6 3 9
7:24:29 0:00:04 1 1 2 7:56:51 0:00:11 6 4 10
7:25:20 0:00:51 2 1 3 7:57:11 0:00:20 7 3 10
7:25:23 0:00:03 1 3 4 7:57:40 0:00:29 8 3 11
7:25:33 0:00:10 2 3 5 7:58:57 0:01:17 6 3 9
7:26:48 0:01:15 3 3 6 8:00:37 0:01:40 4 3 7
7:26:52 0:00:04 4 2 6 8:01:02 0:00:25 5 3 8
7:26:58 0:00:06 5 2 7 8:01:32 0:00:30 5 3 8
7:27:05 0:00:07 6 2 8 8:01:38 0:00:06 6 3 9
7:28:28 0:01:23 7 2 9 8:03:05 0:01:27 2 3 5
7:28:35 0:00:07 7 3 10 8:03:08 0:00:03 3 3 6
7:28:55 0:00:20 8 3 11 8:06:23 0:03:15 1 2 3
7:32:02 0:03:07 8 4 12 8:06:24 0:00:01 2 2 4
7:32:05 0:00:03 9 3 12 8:06:44 0:00:20 3 2 5
7:33:04 0:00:59 10 3 13 8:07:17 0:00:33 2 3 5
7:34:03 0:00:59 8 3 11 8:07:38 0:00:21 3 3 6
7:34:55 0:00:52 8 3 11 8:07:45 0:00:07 4 3 7
7:35:36 0:00:41 7 4 11 8:08:45 0:01:00 3 3 6
7:36:36 0:01:00 7 3 10 8:09:37 0:00:52 4 3 7
7:37:10 0:00:34 6 3 9 8:09:50 0:00:13 5 3 8
7:38:52 0:01:42 7 3 10 8:09:55 0:00:05 6 3 9
7:39:16 0:00:24 6 3 9 8:09:57 0:00:02 7 3 10
7:40:22 0:01:06 7 3 10 8:09:59 0:00:02 8 3 11
7:40:34 0:00:12 7 3 10 8:10:53 0:00:54 8 3 11
7:41:15 0:00:41 7 4 11 8:11:52 0:00:59 8 3 11
8:11:57 0:00:05 9 3 12 8:55:49 0:02:36 1 2 3
8:12:04 0:00:07 9 4 13 8:56:04 0:00:15 2 2 4
8:14:08 0:02:04 8 3 11 8:56:15 0:00:11 3 2 5
8:16:19 0:02:11 4 3 7 8:56:27 0:00:12 4 1 5
8:17:12 0:00:53 4 3 7 8:57:10 0:00:43 3 2 5
8:17:53 0:00:41 4 4 8 8:57:46 0:00:36 4 2 6
8:18:26 0:00:33 4 4 8 8:57:49 0:00:03 4 3 7
8:18:40 0:00:14 5 3 8 8:58:26 0:00:37 5 3 8

ARRIVAL/QUEUE SURVEY
TIME PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
-Page 10-
LOCATION: Starbucks, 2302 17th Street DAY: Wednesday
CITY: Santa Ana DATE: 5/30/2018

ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL

ARRIVAL/QUEUE SURVEY
TIME PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM
8:18:56 0:00:16 5 3 8 8:59:13 0:00:47 5 3 8
8:18:57 0:00:01 6 3 9 8:59:42 0:00:29 5 4 9
8:22:00 0:03:03 4 3 7 0:00:00 - - -
8:22:58 0:00:58 5 3 8 0:00:00
8:23:33 0:00:35 6 3 9 0:00:00
8:23:52 0:00:19 5 4 9 0:00:00
8:24:38 0:00:46 5 3 8 0:00:00
8:24:44 0:00:06 6 3 9 0:00:00
8:25:19 0:00:35 6 3 9 0:00:00
8:25:23 0:00:04 7 3 10 0:00:00
8:25:26 0:00:03 8 3 11 0:00:00
8:27:36 0:02:10 6 3 9 0:00:00
8:29:43 0:02:07 4 3 7 0:00:00
8:29:53 0:00:10 5 3 8 0:00:00
8:31:16 0:01:23 3 3 6 0:00:00
8:33:37 0:02:21 2 1 3 0:00:00
8:34:33 0:00:56 1 3 4 0:00:00
8:35:13 0:00:40 1 4 5 0:00:00
8:36:33 0:01:20 2 3 5 0:00:00
8:36:56 0:00:23 3 3 6 0:00:00
8:37:12 0:00:16 4 3 7 0:00:00
8:37:44 0:00:32 3 4 7 0:00:00
8:39:04 0:01:20 3 3 6 0:00:00
8:39:08 0:00:04 4 3 7 0:00:00
8:40:33 0:01:25 2 3 5 0:00:00
8:41:01 0:00:28 3 3 6 0:00:00
8:42:06 0:01:05 1 3 4 0:00:00
8:43:04 0:00:58 2 3 5 0:00:00
8:45:16 0:02:12 1 2 3 0:00:00
8:46:29 0:01:13 1 2 3 0:00:00
8:46:44 0:00:15 2 2 4 0:00:00
8:47:40 0:00:56 1 2 3 0:00:00
8:50:32 0:02:52 1 1 2 0:00:00
8:50:52 0:00:20 2 1 3 0:00:00
8:51:06 0:00:14 2 2 4 0:00:00
8:51:08 0:00:02 3 2 5 0:00:00
8:51:10 0:00:02 4 2 6 0:00:00
8:52:58 0:01:48 1 3 4 0:00:00
8:53:13 0:00:15 2 3 5 0:00:00
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
-Page 11-
LOCATION: Starbucks, 2302 17th Street DAY: Wednesday
CITY: Santa Ana DATE: 5/30/2018

ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL
16:01:57 - 1 0 1 17:28:46 0:00:20 2 0 2
16:02:21 0:00:24 2 0 2 17:29:07 0:00:21 3 0 3
16:05:16 0:02:55 1 1 2 17:30:22 0:01:15 2 2 4
16:05:38 0:00:22 2 1 3 17:31:40 0:01:18 1 3 4
16:06:53 0:01:15 2 2 4 17:37:27 0:05:47 1 1 2
16:09:03 0:02:10 2 2 4 17:37:39 0:00:12 2 1 3
16:13:19 0:04:16 1 1 2 17:38:05 0:00:26 3 1 4
16:13:31 0:00:12 2 1 3 17:38:26 0:00:21 3 2 5
16:13:39 0:00:08 3 1 4 17:41:16 0:02:50 1 3 4
16:14:15 0:00:36 3 2 5 17:42:17 0:01:01 1 3 4
16:17:36 0:03:21 1 3 4 17:44:59 0:02:42 2 3 5
16:19:45 0:02:09 2 2 4 17:46:23 0:01:24 3 2 5
16:22:09 0:02:24 1 3 4 17:48:44 0:02:21 1 2 3
16:22:37 0:00:28 2 3 5 17:52:12 0:03:28 1 1 2
16:24:21 0:01:44 2 3 5 17:54:14 0:02:02 1 0 1
16:25:43 0:01:22 2 3 5 17:54:20 0:00:06 2 0 2
16:26:17 0:00:34 3 2 5 17:56:52 0:02:32 1 1 2
16:30:45 0:04:28 2 2 4 0:00:00
16:35:54 0:05:09 1 1 2 0:00:00
16:36:31 0:00:37 1 2 3 0:00:00
16:37:25 0:00:54 1 3 4 0:00:00
16:39:05 0:01:40 1 2 3 0:00:00
16:39:36 0:00:31 1 3 4 0:00:00
16:40:44 0:01:08 2 3 5 0:00:00
16:43:27 0:02:43 2 3 5 0:00:00
16:45:51 0:02:24 1 2 3 0:00:00
16:47:10 0:01:19 1 2 3 0:00:00
16:48:40 0:01:30 1 2 3 0:00:00
16:48:53 0:00:13 2 2 4 0:00:00
16:49:20 0:00:27 3 2 5 0:00:00
16:56:35 0:07:15 1 0 1 0:00:00
16:56:49 0:00:14 2 0 2 0:00:00
16:56:56 0:00:07 3 0 3 0:00:00
16:58:55 0:01:59 1 2 3 0:00:00
17:00:01 0:01:06 1 3 4 0:00:00
17:00:23 0:00:22 2 3 5 0:00:00
17:06:08 0:05:45 1 3 4 0:00:00
17:10:06 0:03:58 1 0 1 0:00:00
17:11:01 0:00:55 1 1 2 0:00:00
17:15:05 0:04:04 1 0 1 0:00:00
17:18:34 0:03:29 1 0 1 0:00:00
17:19:23 0:00:49 2 0 2 0:00:00
17:19:35 0:00:12 2 1 3 0:00:00
17:20:05 0:00:30 2 2 4 0:00:00
17:24:28 0:04:23 1 0 1 0:00:00
17:26:01 0:01:33 1 1 2 0:00:00
17:28:26 0:02:25 1 0 1 0:00:00

ARRIVAL/QUEUE SURVEY
TIME PERIOD: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
-Page 12-
LOCATION: Starbucks, 2701 N. Bristol St. DAY: Thursday
CITY: Tustin, CA DATE: 5/31/2018

ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL
7:01:04 - 4 3 7 7:44:14 0:01:38 1 2 3
7:01:41 0:00:37 4 3 7 7:44:43 0:00:29 1 3 4
7:02:51 0:01:10 4 3 7 7:44:53 0:00:10 2 3 5
7:03:05 0:00:14 5 2 7 7:46:27 0:01:34 1 2 3
7:03:33 0:00:28 5 2 7 7:46:45 0:00:18 2 2 4
7:04:53 0:01:20 3 3 6 7:49:05 0:02:20 1 2 3
7:06:30 0:01:37 4 2 6 7:49:13 0:00:08 2 2 4
7:06:38 0:00:08 4 3 7 7:49:32 0:00:19 2 3 5
7:06:59 0:00:21 4 3 7 7:50:04 0:00:32 2 4 6
7:07:16 0:00:17 4 3 7 7:50:33 0:00:29 3 3 6
7:10:43 0:03:27 2 2 4 7:51:05 0:00:32 3 4 7
7:12:10 0:01:27 2 2 4 7:52:32 0:01:27 3 3 6
7:12:48 0:00:38 2 2 4 7:54:31 0:01:59 1 2 3
7:13:50 0:01:02 2 3 5 7:55:31 0:01:00 2 1 3
7:14:26 0:00:36 2 3 5 7:56:16 0:00:45 1 2 3
7:14:45 0:00:19 3 3 6 7:56:48 0:00:32 2 2 4
7:17:31 0:02:46 1 2 3 7:56:50 0:00:02 3 2 5
7:17:59 0:00:28 2 2 4 7:56:55 0:00:05 4 2 6
7:18:38 0:00:39 1 3 4 7:57:07 0:00:12 4 2 6
7:18:50 0:00:12 2 3 5 7:57:19 0:00:12 5 2 7
7:19:02 0:00:12 3 2 5 7:59:37 0:02:18 2 4 6
7:19:06 0:00:04 3 3 6 7:59:55 0:00:18 3 4 7
7:19:19 0:00:13 4 3 7 7:59:57 0:00:02 4 4 8
7:19:55 0:00:36 4 3 7 8:01:12 0:01:15 4 3 7
7:20:41 0:00:46 4 3 7 8:02:05 0:00:53 3 3 6
7:21:26 0:00:45 4 3 7 8:02:08 0:00:03 4 3 7
7:23:21 0:01:55 2 4 6 8:02:32 0:00:24 5 2 7
7:24:02 0:00:41 2 4 6 8:02:55 0:00:23 5 2 7
7:26:19 0:02:17 1 2 3 8:03:04 0:00:09 6 2 8
7:26:47 0:00:28 1 3 4 8:03:07 0:00:03 7 2 9
7:26:53 0:00:06 2 3 5 8:03:49 0:00:42 6 3 9
7:27:17 0:00:24 2 4 6 8:04:03 0:00:14 7 3 10
7:27:29 0:00:12 3 4 7 8:04:57 0:00:54 7 3 10
7:27:52 0:00:23 4 3 7 8:07:24 0:02:27 4 3 7
7:28:30 0:00:38 4 3 7 8:09:05 0:01:41 2 2 4
7:28:32 0:00:02 5 3 8 8:09:35 0:00:30 3 2 5
7:28:57 0:00:25 6 3 9 8:09:52 0:00:17 3 3 6
7:29:31 0:00:34 6 3 9 8:10:20 0:00:28 4 3 7
7:29:57 0:00:26 7 3 10 8:10:31 0:00:11 4 3 7
7:33:47 0:03:50 4 4 8 8:12:19 0:01:48 3 3 6
7:38:01 0:04:14 1 3 4 8:12:33 0:00:14 4 2 6
7:38:23 0:00:22 1 3 4 8:12:43 0:00:10 5 2 7
7:39:14 0:00:51 2 1 3 8:12:52 0:00:09 6 1 7
7:40:02 0:00:48 1 2 3 8:14:19 0:01:27 4 3 7
7:42:30 0:02:28 1 0 1 8:14:28 0:00:09 5 2 7
7:42:33 0:00:03 2 0 2 8:16:05 0:01:37 3 2 5
7:42:36 0:00:03 3 0 3 8:16:09 0:00:04 4 2 5

ARRIVAL/QUEUE SURVEY
TIME PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
-Page 13-
LOCATION: Starbucks, 2701 N. Bristol St. DAY: Thursday
CITY: Tustin, CA DATE: 5/31/2018

ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL

ARRIVAL/QUEUE SURVEY
TIME PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM
8:17:40 0:01:31 2 4 6 0:00:00
8:17:42 0:00:02 3 4 7 0:00:00
8:17:44 0:00:02 4 4 8 0:00:00
8:19:17 0:01:33 3 3 6 0:00:00
8:19:22 0:00:05 4 3 7 0:00:00
8:19:25 0:00:03 5 3 8 0:00:00
8:20:05 0:00:40 5 3 8 0:00:00
8:21:02 0:00:57 4 3 7 0:00:00
8:21:08 0:00:06 5 3 8 0:00:00
8:23:19 0:02:11 2 3 5 0:00:00
8:24:29 0:01:10 1 3 4 0:00:00
8:25:12 0:00:43 1 3 4 0:00:00
8:25:52 0:00:40 1 3 4 0:00:00
8:26:38 0:00:46 1 4 5 0:00:00
8:26:42 0:00:04 2 4 6 0:00:00
8:27:51 0:01:09 1 4 5 0:00:00
8:28:10 0:00:19 2 4 6 0:00:00
8:28:12 0:00:02 3 4 7 0:00:00
8:28:16 0:00:04 4 4 8 0:00:00
8:28:20 0:00:04 5 4 9 0:00:00
8:29:24 0:01:04 5 4 9 0:00:00
8:29:36 0:00:12 5 4 9 0:00:00
8:32:19 0:02:43 2 3 5 0:00:00
8:34:30 0:02:11 1 2 3 0:00:00
8:35:46 0:01:16 1 1 2 0:00:00
8:36:04 0:00:18 2 0 2 0:00:00
8:37:07 0:01:03 1 2 3 0:00:00
8:37:14 0:00:07 2 2 4 0:00:00
8:39:07 0:01:53 1 1 2 0:00:00
8:41:13 0:02:06 1 0 1 0:00:00
8:42:22 0:01:09 1 1 2 0:00:00
8:44:21 0:01:59 1 0 1 0:00:00
8:44:45 0:00:24 1 1 2 0:00:00
8:44:55 0:00:10 2 1 3 0:00:00
8:44:59 0:00:04 3 1 4 0:00:00
8:48:00 0:03:01 1 2 3 0:00:00
8:49:47 0:01:47 1 0 1 0:00:00
8:51:57 0:02:10 1 0 1 0:00:00
8:53:26 0:01:29 1 1 2 0:00:00
8:55:44 0:02:18 1 0 1 0:00:00
8:55:47 0:00:03 2 0 2 0:00:00
8:56:55 0:01:08 2 1 3 0:00:00
8:57:10 0:00:15 3 1 4 0:00:00
8:57:47 0:00:37 3 2 5 0:00:00
8:57:59 0:00:12 4 2 6 0:00:00
8:58:14 0:00:15 4 3 7 0:00:00
0:00:00 0:00:00
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
-Page 14-
LOCATION: Starbucks, 2701 N. Bristol St. DAY: Thursday
CITY: Tustin, CA DATE: 5/31/2018

ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL ARRIVAL
TIME

TIME BETWEEN

ARRIVALS
Order
Board
Pick-up
Window TOTAL
16:00:39 - 1 1 2 17:21:58 0:04:23 1 0 1
16:02:41 0:02:02 1 1 2 17:22:30 0:00:32 1 1 2
16:03:01 0:00:20 1 1 2 17:24:06 0:01:36 1 2 3
16:10:11 0:07:10 1 0 1 17:25:23 0:01:17 1 1 2
16:13:11 0:03:00 1 0 1 17:27:04 0:01:41 1 1 2
16:13:19 0:00:08 2 0 2 17:27:27 0:00:23 2 1 3
16:13:38 0:00:19 2 1 3 17:36:17 0:08:50 1 0 1
16:13:40 0:00:02 3 1 4 17:38:43 0:02:26 1 0 1
16:16:26 0:02:46 1 4 5 17:42:45 0:04:02 1 0 1
16:16:49 0:00:23 2 4 6 17:48:31 0:05:46 1 0 1
16:16:53 0:00:04 3 4 7 17:49:43 0:01:12 2 0 2
16:18:00 0:01:07 3 3 6 17:53:43 0:04:00 1 0 1
16:23:12 0:05:12 1 2 3 17:56:23 0:02:40 1 1 2
16:24:06 0:00:54 1 2 3 17:59:28 0:03:05 1 0 1
16:25:35 0:01:29 1 2 3 0:00:00
16:26:56 0:01:21 1 2 3 0:00:00
16:29:55 0:02:59 2 0 2 0:00:00
16:33:03 0:03:08 1 1 2 0:00:00
16:33:49 0:00:46 1 1 2 0:00:00
16:34:55 0:01:06 1 2 3 0:00:00
16:35:23 0:00:28 1 3 4 0:00:00
16:36:32 0:01:09 1 2 3 0:00:00
16:39:53 0:03:21 1 1 2 0:00:00
16:40:25 0:00:32 1 1 2 0:00:00
16:40:35 0:00:10 2 1 3 0:00:00
16:42:12 0:01:37 1 2 3 0:00:00
16:46:02 0:03:50 1 0 1 0:00:00
16:46:08 0:00:06 2 0 2 0:00:00
16:46:36 0:00:28 2 1 3 0:00:00
16:47:44 0:01:08 1 3 4 0:00:00
16:49:22 0:01:38 1 2 3 0:00:00
16:50:11 0:00:49 1 3 4 0:00:00
16:57:19 0:07:08 1 0 1 0:00:00
16:57:29 0:00:10 2 0 2 0:00:00
16:57:55 0:00:26 2 1 3 0:00:00
17:01:09 0:03:14 1 0 1 0:00:00
17:02:45 0:01:36 1 1 2 0:00:00
17:02:48 0:00:03 2 1 3 0:00:00
17:03:54 0:01:06 3 0 3 0:00:00
17:04:15 0:00:21 4 0 4 0:00:00
17:04:17 0:00:02 5 0 5 0:00:00
17:05:26 0:01:09 5 1 6 0:00:00
17:06:41 0:01:15 4 3 7 0:00:00
17:07:16 0:00:35 4 3 7 0:00:00
17:12:38 0:05:22 1 2 3 0:00:00
17:16:49 0:04:11 1 0 1 0:00:00
17:17:35 0:00:46 1 1 2 0:00:00

ARRIVAL/QUEUE SURVEY
TIME PERIOD: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
-Page 15-

Resolution No. PC 2024- Village at the Park Specific Plan Amendment