Attachment 2 - CC Resolution No. 2024-9 — Camarillo City Council, May 28, 2025 (part 11 of 15)

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
proposed improvements would provide significant relief for existing and anticipated future traffic congestion at Los Posas Road and Central Avenue interchanges with Route 101. Local arterial improvements would also provide for more efficient east/west access north and south of Route 101.

The annexation area is surrounded on all sides by the City of Camarillo and would be considered an island. The annexation would eliminate the island area, and allow for the proposed interchange and related arterial improvements to be entirely within the City of Camarillo. The annexation area is within the City of Camarillo Sphere of Influence, and the City anticipates development within the annexation area within the next four years. According to Section 3.2 of the County of Venture General Plan the proposed project is consistent as the Sphere of Influence (S01) line is the "probable ultimate boundary of a city". Section 3.2 goes on further to state, "the urban reserve overlay designation is applied to all unimproved land within a city's adopted Sphere of Influence." Finally, the project is consistent with the County of Ventura General Plan Section 3.1.1, which promotes the establishment of reasonable boundaries and the prevention of step-out urban development.

1.6 IMPACT AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
Refer to the following summary of project impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable significant impacts.

1.7 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
Interchange/Local Arterial
No Project Alternative
Implementation of the "No Project" Alternative would result in the proposed interchange and local arterial roadways not to be constructed. Access to Route 101 would continue to be provided at Central Avenue and Las Posas Road. The "No Project" Alternative would include ultimate improvements to the Central Avenue and Las Posas Road Interchanges. In addition, without the proposed interchange, Ponderosa Drive and Ventura Boulevard would be extended to improve general circulation in the area. This Alternative would not result in any of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed construction and operation of the interchange but would still have associated arterial roadways. Short-term impacts during the construction phases of the project would not occur. The Alternative would limit potential impacts resulting from conversion of agricultural land to a permanent developed condition and impacts to cultural resources. However, it should be noted that adjacent intersections are forecast to operate at or below capacity under the No Project alternative, thereby resulting in a reduced Level of Service (LOS). Due to the reduced LOS, regional impacts associated with traffic, air quality, and noise would not be avoided under the No Project Alternative.

DRAFT ER June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 1-3

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Alternative Interchange Configuration/Local Arterial Alignments This alternative would allow development of the project in accordance with existing City of Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element. It should be noted, however, that a range of project alternatives were previously identified and analyzed within the Project Study Report (PSR) prepared for the proposed project. The City staff analyzed seven (7) local arterial alignments and interchange configurations with respect to impacts to existing resources and the amount of right-of-way (ROW) which would be required to construct the proposed interchange and local arterial roadways. The alternative configuration/alignment was selected based, in large part, on the goal of minimizing the loss of land for existing agricultural parcels, and in consideration of planned development for the Airport North Specific Plan Area.

Through the PSR alternatives process, the project, as proposed, was chosen as the most respectful of existing property lines (the least amount of ROW would be acquired) and existing resources (i.e., agricultural land and cultural resources). In addition, the project alignment, as proposed, would not impact the Scholle farm house or associated structures, the only sensitive receptor within the project area and would serve to enhance the circulation system consistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Although any one of the proposed alternatives addressed within the PSR would have similar environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project itself, the remaining PSR alternatives are not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. Therefore, the remaining alternatives outlined within the PSR have been eliminated from further consideration.

Annexation Area #83
No Annexation Alternative
Implementation of the "No Project" Alternative would result in Annexation Area #83 to remain within the County of Ventura and not be annexed within the corporate limits of the City of Camarillo. As this portion of the proposed project would remain within the jurisdiction of Ventura County, development and associated impacts (air, noise, traffic, and agricultural resources) within this area would likely not occur within the next five years. The "No Project" Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project, as none of the environmental impacts identified within this EIR for Annexation Area #83 would occur.

However, this Alternative would not realize any of the basic project objectives and is therefore, not under further consideration.

Reduced Scale Annexation Alternative
The Reduced Scale Annexation Alternative would include the annexation of an approximately 80-acre portion of the 270-acre Annexation Area #83, from the proposed eastern North-South Road alignment ROW, east to the currently proposed eastern limits of the annexation area. Implementation of the approximately 80-acre annexation area would set in motion future development on this site within the next five years. This alternative would result in the same environmental impacts as the fully proposed Annexation Area #83 (agricultural resources and aesthetics). However, the magnitude of the impacts would be

DRAFT HR
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 June 23, 1999

Page 1 ends

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
somewhat reduced for many of the environmental issue areas as this alternative would result in an approximately 190-acre reduction in the annexation area when compared to the proposed project. As with the proposal, potential future development within this annexation area is likely to require a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, which would be evaluated on a project-specific basis upon the City's receipt of a formal application. The same mitigation measures that are required for the proposed project should be implemented for this alternative. Overall this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project as the 80-acre area annexed to the City of Camarillo would be reduced and therefore the intensity of potential future development and associated impacts within the annexation area would also be reduced.

1.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The potential exists for the partial acquisition of existing residential and farm land properties in the area of the proposed interchange. The proposal will require some partial acquisitions and would include the demolition of one farm residence with relocation of the occupants.

DRAFF EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 1-5 Zoe Yue, P.E., District Permit Engineer

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT RIDER Collected By Permit No. (Original) TR-0122 (REV. 5/92) I 707-NMC-0595
Rider Fee Paid Dist/Co/Rte/PM
Exempt 07— VEN-101-15.6/17.5
Date
11/30/2010 I
Rider Number
710-NRT-2108
TO: CITY OF CAMARILLO
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, CA 93010
Attn: Ken Matsuoka
Phone: (805) 383-5672

PERMITTEE
In compliance with your request of November 30, 2010 we are hereby amending the above numbered encroachment permit as follows:

Date of completion extended to: December 31, 2012.

Except as amended, all other terms and provisions of the original permit shall remain in effect.

West Region
Camarillo
Permit Inspector: Fayad
Project Manager: Reza Fateh
Construction: Tehrani
District Office
BY:
707-NMC-0595 (file) Abbass Ahmadi, P.E., Associate Permit Engineer

FOR CALTRANS USE
PERMIT 1\14Z4,,,

Page 1 of 4 ends

STANDARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
TR-0100 (REV 07/2007)
Permission is requested to encroach on the State Highway right-of-way as follows:
(Complete all BOXES (write N/A if not applicableD

DIST/COLETE/PM
C)—I'. VE--N
_
,.... .
10 i JL)
This application is not complete until all requirements have been approved. SIMPLEX STAMP

1. COUNTY
Ventura

2. ROUTE I
101

3. POSTMILE

15.6/17.5

4. ADDRESS OR STREET NAME
Springville Drive

5. CITY
Camarillo

6. CROSS STREET (Distance and direction from site)
About 1.4 KM. East of Central Ave/Rte 10110

7. PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY DATE OF SIMPLEX STAMP

8. WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY 1
DOWN FORCES Ei CONTRACTOR

9. EST. START DATE
January 2007

10. EST. COMPLETION DATE
December 2012

11. EXCAVATION
MAX.DEPTH AVG. DEPTH AVG. WIDTH LENGTH SURFACE TYPE

12. EST. COST IN STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY
$40,500,000

FUNDING SOURCE(S)
E FEDERAL ESTATE E LOCAL El PRIVATE

13. PIPES
PRODUCT TYPE DIAMETER VOLTAGE I PSIG 14. CALTRANS PROJECT E.A. NUMBER

15. [2] Double Permit Parent Permit Number 707-NMC-0595 Applicant's Reference Number I Utility Work Order Number

16. Have your plans been reviewed by another Caltrans branch? El NO El YES (If "YES") Who?

17. Completely describe work to be done within STATE highway right-of-way :

Attach 6 complete sets of FOLDED plans (folded 8.5" x 11"), and any applicable specifications, calculations, maps, etc.

All dimensions shall be in U.S. Customary (English) Units.

Please extend permit number 707-NMC-0595 for two years (December 2012).

A new interchange is propsed in this project. This work includes grading, pipe installation, new pavement, slope cut & fill, structure building, drainage plan and landscaping. A new bridge is also proposed to overcross Route 101.

18. Is a city, county, or other agency involved in the approval of this project? 2 YES (If "YES", check type of project and attach environmental documentation and conditions of approval.) COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT El BUILDING El GRADING 21 OTHER New Interchange 0 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT 0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION El ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0 OTHER 0 NO (If "NO", please check the category below which best describes the project, and complete page 4 of this application.

O DRIVEWAY OR ROAD APPROACH, RECONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, OR RESURFACING 0 FENCE

O PUBLIC UTILITY MODIFICATIONS, EXTENSIONS, HOOKUPS

O FLAGS, SIGNS, BANNERS, DECORATIONS, PARADES AND CELEBRATIONS

O OTHER

19. Will this project cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource (45 years or older), or cultural resource? (If "YES", provide a description)

O MAILBOX
O EROSION CONTROL NOV 0 2010

O LANDSCAPING
TS
YES I: NO

20. Is this project on an existing highway or street where the activity involves removal of a scenic resource including a significant tree or stand of trees, a rock outcropping era historic building? YES 121 NO (If "YES", provide a description) . 21. Is work being done on applicant's property? El YES NO (If "YES', attach site and grading plans.) ADA NOTICE: For individuals with seaway disabilities, this document is available in alternate formats. For information call (916) 654-6410 or MD (916) 654-3880 or write to Records and Forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS-89, Sacramento, CA 95814

Page 2 of 4 ends

STANDARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
TR-0100 (REV 07/2007)
PERMIT NO.

22. Will this proposed project require the disturbance of soil? 0 YES NO If "YES", estimate the area within State Highway right-of-way in square feet AND acres: 1,217,400 (ft) AND 11.31 (acres) estimate the area outside of State Highway right-of-way in square feet AND acres: (ft') AND (acres)

23. Will this proposed project require dewatering? 0 YES El NO If "YES", estimate total gallons AND gallons/month. (gallons)AND SOURCE*: EISTORM WATER El NON-STORM WATER
(*See Caltrans SWMP for definitions of non-storm water discharge: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/stormwater/index.htm) (gallons/month)

24. How will any storm water or ground water be disposed of from within or near the limits of this proposed project? 0 Storm Drain System El Combined Sewer / Storm System Ei Storm Water Retention Basin LI Other (explain):

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOW ENG CLAUSES PRIORTO SIGNINGTHIS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPUCAT1ON.

The applicant, understands and herein agrees to that an encroachment permit can be denied, and/or a bond required for non-payment of prior or present encroachment permit fees. Encroachment Permit fees may still be due when an application is withdrawn or denied, and that a denial may be appealed, in accordance with the California Streets and Highways Code, Section 671.5. All work shall be done in accordance with Caltrans rules and regulations subject to inspection and approval.

The applicant, understands and herein agrees to the general provisions, special provisions and conditions of the encroachment permit, and to indemnify and hold harmless the State, its officers, directors, agents, employees and each of them (lndemnitees) from and againstanyand all claims, demands, causes of action, damages, costs, expenses, actual attorneys' fees,judgments, losses and liabilities of every kind and nature whatsoever (Claims) arising out of orin connection with the issuance and/or use of this encroachment permit and the placement and subsequent operation and maintenance of said encroachment for: 1) bodily injury and/or death to persons including but not limited to the Applicant, the State and its officers, directors, agents and employees, the Indemnities, and the public; and 2)damage to property ofanyone. Except as provided bylaw, the indemnification provisions stated above shall apply regardless of the existence or degree of fault of Indemnities. The Applicant, however, shall not be obligated to indemnify Indemnities for Claims arising from the sole negligence and willful misconduct of State, its officers, directors, agents oremployees.

DISCHARGES OF STORM WATER AND NON-STORM WATER: Work within State Highway right-of-way shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitissued to the Departmentof Transportation (Department), to govern the discharge of storm water and non-storm water from its properties. Work shall also be in compliance with all otherapplicable Federal, State and Local laws and regulations, and with the Department's Encroachment Permits Manual and encroachment permit. Compliance with the Departments NPDES permit requires amongst other things, the preparation and submission of a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP), ora WaterPollution Control Program (VVPCP), and the approval of same by the appropriate reviewing authority prior to the start of any work. Information on the requirements may also be reviewed on the Department's Construction Website at:
tt Swww.dotca ov/hq/construc/stormwater/stermwaterthtm

25. NAME of APPLICANT or ORGANIZATION (Print or Type) E-MAIL ADDRESS City of Camarillo kmatsuoka©ci.camarillo.ca.us
ADDRESS of APPLICANT or ORGANIZATION WHERE PERMIT IS TO BE MAILED (Include City and Zip Code) 601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010

PHONE NUMBER FAX NUMBER
) 3-5672 (805) 388-5387

26. NAME of AUTHORIZED AGENT / ENGINEER (Print or Typo) IS LETTEROFAUTHORIZATIONATTACHED? Ken Matsuoka 0 YES 1 NO

E-MAIL ADDRESS
[email protected]
ADDRESS of AUTHORIZED AGENT / ENGINEER (Include City and Zip Code) 601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010

PHONE NUMBER TFAX NUMBER
(805) 383-5672 , (805) 388-5387

27. SIGNATURE o 'PPLICANI AUTH9512ED-AGENT 28. PRINT OR TYPE NAME 29.T1TLE 30. DATE - Ken Matsuoka Principal Engineer 013471
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

STANDARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
TR-0100 (REV. 07/2007)

Page 3 of 4 ends

PERMIT NO,
'77/C 0

WORK ORDER/REFERENCE NUMBER

FEE CALCULATION -- FOR CALTRANS USE

NAME ON CARD PHONE NUMBER
NUMBER

DEF ERRED
II CASH •CREDITCARD
NAME ON CHECK PHONE .1 CHECK NUMBER
EXEMPT [1] PROJECT EA BILLING (Utility)
CALCULATED BY ///V/0 (2)
REVIEW
HOURS @ $ 'e? 7 *

1. FEE DEPOSIT
„
$ / K 9
'DATE 2. FEE/DEPOSIT DATE TOTAL FEE/DEPOSIT
$
HOURS @ $ $

INSPECTION

1. HOURS @ $

1. FEE/DEPOSIT
$
DATE 2. FEE/DEPOSIT
$

DATE TOTAL FEE/DEPOSIT
$
_ HOURS @ $ $

FIELDWORK
HOURS @ $ $ $ $

EQUIPMENT & MATERIALS

DEPOSIT
$

DATE DEPOSIT
$

DATE DEPOSIT
$___
CASH DEPOSIT IN LIEU OF BOND $ $ $

TOTAL COLLECTED

CASHIER'S INITIALS
( (----/ ti:',41,
$
* The current hourly rate is set annually by Headquarters Accounting. District Office staff do not have authority to modify this rate PERFORMANCE BOND 0

DATE AMOUNT
$
PAYMENT BOND 0

DATE AMOUNT
$
LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIRED? Eil NO
AMOUNT
• $ YES

Page 4 of 4 ends

PERMIT NO.
' IFORNIA•DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION
6TANu. • ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
TR 0100 (REV 07/2007)

INSTRUCTIONS
for completing page 4
This page needs to be completed when the proposed project DOES NOTinvolve a City, County or other public agency.

Your answers to these questions will assist departmental staff in identifying any physical, biological, social or economic resources that may be affected by your proposed project within the State highway right-of-way. And, to determine which type of environmental studies may be required to approve yourapplication for an encroachment permit.

It is the applicant's responsibility for the production of all required environmental documentation and supporting studies, in some cases this may be costly and time-consuming. If possible, attach photographs of the location of the proposed project Please answer these questions to the best of your ability. Provide a description of any "YES" answers (type, name, number, etc.)

1. Will any existing vegetation and/or landscaping within the highway right-of-way be disturbed?

2. Are there waterways (e.g. river, creek, pond, natural pool or dry streambed) adjacent to or within the limits of the project or highway right-of-way?

3. Is the proposed project located within five miles of the coast line?

4. Will the proposed project generate construction noise levels greater than 86 dBA (e.g. jack-hammering, pile driving)?

5. Will the proposed project incorporate land from a public park, recreation area or wildlife refuge open to the public?

6. Are there any recreational trails or paths within the limits of the proposed project or highway right-of-way?

7. Will the proposed project impact any structures, buildings, rail lines, or bridges within highway right-of-way?

8. Will the proposed project impact access to any businesses or residences?

9. Will the proposed project impact any existing public utilities or public services?

10. Will the proposed project impact existing pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks, crosswalks, or overcrossings?

11. Will new lighting be constructed within or adjacent to highway right-of-way? Permit No. 09-.I 3 2.

Project No.

City of Camarillo

ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
Department of Public Works
601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010
(805) 388-5340

Page 1 of 3 ends

Revised 2009

APPLICATION

THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
The Undersigned hereby applies for permission to encroach on the following described City Right of Way or other property :

Address: SRI NGVI LLE Pgi VE
Property Owner: C 1 Ty Off CAM A (t LL_Lo
,x ,
Description of the encroachment work to be done: STOr0a-j- -- Or; APPRI n 9 0 f__ _ F. /- OF K- RA11_ 5e_-c-_-ArrAct-ET) sizeTc1-4
.. /
Contractor: c, A. RA5MIU5sE1\1ZNic, , ,
Contractor Address:9 5A43 " -0 V
--- LtV1N(7:-.?1 k AE VALE-1\ici A 1 .„? 7EC - 417 . 1 Phone: 367 - 0,0 4-0 , ...., NUMBER AND STREET CITY AND ZIP CODE
I understand that any permit that may be granted as a result of this request may be revoked by the City at any time. In consideration for insurance for this permit, I agree, and by use hereof, my agents, employees, contractors and invitees agree to be bound by all ot the provisions of California Vehicle Code Sections 35780, 35782, Chapter 13.04 of the Camarillo Municipal Code, the Standard Conditions on the reverse side of this permit and any special conditions hereon, or attached hereto. I further agree to hold the City harmless of any claims, defense and legal costs, judgments for damages, or other relief against the City as a result of acts, or omissions, by me or my representatives, in the performance of any activities permitted hereunder, whether the condition giving rise to the claim or judgment was created in whole, of in part, by me or my representatives. _ . /47-7 TOM cirlAKokii Permittee: C, A. RAS ?Rai. fv16K . -MU5SENI INC . ,. ; ' Y c() Permittee Address: SAME AS A-13oVE Phone:

NUMBER AND STREET CITY AND ZIP CPODE vo w
PERMITTEE SHALL NOTIFY 0E STARK , Public Works Inspector Phone: 388 — c339 48 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK
PERMIT
THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED BY THE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS

CITY AND/OR COUNTY STANDARD
THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE ATTACHED:

DRAWING(s) II Res. Dwy. MI Comm. Dwy. LIRural Dwy.
. Curb, Curb and Gutter, Rolled Curb LI Sidewalk LI Curb Drain III DIGALERT 48 HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING City Storm Water Program Sheet • Website: www.dioalert.com
N Utility Trenches CONTACT
Toll Free: 811
CITY DRAWING Nos. yrATTACHED SKETCH
LI • CALTRANS Std. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN ATTACHED

L SPECIAL CONDITIONS
CONDITIONS: PC.0')Aitte--e, 511 et 1
(5•Ee-- ATtAct-i-ep si-e-eT)
VActirl'faill jO? i 5 i'l-6 of -ft\e- e tiikd2.eFf 610 C11 VNA'. - 2rk Cta ' illy Ma+rl'al ,SIDC4 i 1 eCe '1/1 ri', 11,4- or Wu( 4141be bav iCcacee • Per rv)itt-er- Siletil roc •fe-f 1 j I _i_ --
e-K‘l Sti'VkCi 101P(a/V,01V4C 01- hentaCe- .',i/l )(10 4. °(',1`011-fte-e- Ott 51.- lc li OW reqkf'reimetiTs usyfe.. r '-4 1 ''''' ,,,. ...„, if'" rr ,P iA•., -1( VLv,._,,, , vr-10 l TCO V i'l7LV VI (J11; ,..7al S't, r mvva-k.r NFP155 ,,,,-, ! cy-mit (2- tts40- 1 he 5-t -- rikaACtleMe-rd" 17CaCtiCe5 ES , actig Stleet) • l

Page 2 of 3 ends

Revised 2009 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
Department of Public Works Project No.
601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010
(805) 388-5340
SAFTEY DEVICE STANDARDS:

We adopt as our standards the California "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices." This manual covers signing required for some common situations. If the work by this permit involves a situation not covered in the manual, a Traffic Control Plan is required. The plan must be submitted to the inspector and approved before beginning the work. Obtain a copy of the manual before commencement of any work.

SAFTEY DEVICE CONDITIONS:

SAFTEY DEVICES, LIGHTS, BARRICADES — In the conduct of the encroachment work, supplies and excavated materials shall be properly placed and the permitted shall provide and maintain such safety devices including but not limited to lights, barricades, signs, and watchmen as are necessary to protect the public. Any omission on the part of the City to specify in the permit what safety devices shall be provided by or preventive action required of the permittee shall not excise the permittee from complying with al laws, regulations, and ordinances relating to the protection of persons or property under the circumstances. If the City finds that all suitable safeguards are not being provided, it may provide, maintain and relocate such safety devices of take action as is deemed necessary, charging the permittee in accordance with the schedule of charges as adopted by the City Council.

WARNING LIGHTS — A permittee making any excavation or leaving any obstruction which could be a hazard to persons using a right of way shall provide and maintain warning lights far enough away from the excavation or obstruction to give adequate warning to such persons and at not more than 50-foot intervals along the excavation or obstruction, from one-half hour before sunset of each day to one-half hour after sunrise the next day, until the work is completed and the right of way is made safe for use.

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS:

1. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic on all streets shall be permitted to pass through the work area with as little inconvenience as possible but at no time shall the roads be closed.

2. Flagmen shall be used on all streets where the traffic is restricted to less than two traffic lanes.

3. Maintaining of vehicular traffic through the work area shall conform to the current "Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones" (Caltrans Traffic Manual, Chapter 5)

4. All improvements within the road right of way which include road signs, road striping, road symbols, etc., which were damaged, removed, or obliterated as a result of the permittee's work shall be repaired an/or replaced.

Repairs and replacements shall be equal to or better than the existing improvements and shall match them in finish and dimensions.

5. At the end of each work day, all roads shall be restored to two-way traffic. The road surface shall be brought to a smooth, even condition free of humps and depressions, satisfactory for use by the motoring public.

6. Detours and Project-Specific Traffic Control Plans shall be stamped approved by the Traffic Engineer. Applications, including plans, shall be submitted to the Traffic Engineer three weeks before the anticipated date of work.

CLEANUP, BACKFILLING AND COMPACTION CONDITIONS:

CLEANUP AFTER COMPLETION — Immediately after the completion of work, the permittee shall cleanup and remove all materials, earth and debris of any kind. If the permittee fails within 24 hours after having been notified to do so by the City, the work may be done by the City and the permittee charged in accordance with the schedule of fees adopted by the City of Camarillo. When a pole, guy-stub or similar timber is removed and not replaced, the entire length thereof shall be removed from the ground and the hole backfilled and compacted.

BACKFILLING AND COMPACTION — Backfilling and compaction of an excavation shall be in accordance with standards established by the City and adopted by resolution of the City Council, both as to material and method. Backfilling shall commence within 48 hours after work in trench is completed.

RESTORATION OF RIGHT OF WAY — Upon completion of the encroachment work authorized by a permit, the permittee shall restore the right of way, including bridges and any other structure thereon, by replacing, repairing or rebuilding it in Permission is hereby granted to perform the activities described above subject to the statutes, ordinances, and conditions described above. Special Conditions hereon and attached here to are made a part hereof by reference. The permission is granted for the period of
to
DEPARTMENT OF 22C WORKS
12 - 2)- O''
By:

Time extension to
By: Date:

Trust Fund Deposit:

Bond:

Certificate of Insurance:G4G 23GI
Franchise:

Home Owner's Insurance:
-X. I 71 /to
TOTAL:

Date Paid/Invoid: /D---1/1 /7")
Issuance Fee:

Inspection Fee:

Atlas Fee:

Page 3 of 3 ends

Revised 2009 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
Department of Public Works
601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010
(805) 388-5340
accordance with the specifications or any special requirements but not less than to its original condition before the encroachment work was commenced. The permittee shall remove all obstructions, materials, and debris upon the right of way and shall do any other work necessary to restore the right of way to a safe and useable conditions, as directed by the City. When excavation occurs within areas already paved, the City may require temporary paving to be installed within 24 hours after excavated area is backfilled. In the event that the permittee fails to act promptly to restore the right of way as herein provided, or should or should the nature of any damage to the right of way require restoration before the permittee can be notified or can respond to the notification, the City may make the necessary restoration. The permittee shall reimburse the City in accordance with the schedule of charges as adopted by the City Council.

PROTECTION AND REPAIR OF EXISTING FACILITIES CONDITION:

PROTECTON AND REPAIR OF FACILITIES — The permittee shall support and protect all wires, cables, pipes, conduits, poles, and other apparatus, both aerial and underground, by a method satisfactory to the owner. The owner has the right to support or protect any of its facilities at the sole expense of the permittee. In any case, if said wires, cables, pipes, conduits, poles or apparatus should be damaged (and for this purpose, pipe coating or other encasement of devices are considered as part of the structure), they may be repaired by the owner at the expense of the permittee or, if authorized by the owner, may be repaired by the permittee under the supervision of the owner. The expense of repairs to any damaged facilities shall be borne by the permittee.

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Applicant/permittee is required to provide insurance naming the City of Camarillo as an additional insured for general liability and automobile coverage with policy limits of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence which insurance shall be primary and noncontributory. Applicant/permittee must submit proof of insurance to the City in the form of a certificate of insurance and an endorsement prior to the insurance of this permit by the City.

INDEMNITY REQUIREMENTS
Applicant/permittee agrees to defend, indemnity and hold harmless the City of Camarillo and its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any and all liability for injuries, death, damages, or claims of any type arising in any way from the performance of the work and/or the activity by applicant/permittee referenced in this permit.

Signature of applicant/permittee Date
Dr1/1„ (1-072 01-1 0R-c-t PlaYi
Name (Print) Title (Print)
Permit No. 9 3 2.

Project No.

Storage of K-Rai I at S pringville Drive Site
Additional Conditions for CA Rasmussen (CAR)

1. CAR will store approximately 6200 LF of K-Rail at the location indicated on the attached sketches within a storage area that will be approximately 300 ft x 30 ft. The location shall be coordinated with City's contractor — Blois Construction. Permission to store these materials may be revoked at any time by the City Engineer.

2. CAR shall be responsible for site maintenance and weed abatement around the storage area and for the security of their materials. CAR shall also be responsible for graffiti removal from stored materials and storage area. Removal of graffiti shall be performed within 24 hrs of notification. CAR shall independently review site to identify need for maintenance. City assumes no liability for damage.

3. CAR shall be responsible for cleaning of roadways and tracking associated with K-Rail storage operations.

4. CAR shall minimize impacts to City's contractor— Blois Construction. Three days maximum will be allowed for bringing materials on site. No work on holidays or weekends, unless authorized in writing by the City Engineer. CAR shall coordinate schedule of operations with Blois Construction and City Public Works Inspector.

5. CAR shall meet with City Public Works Inspector and Blois Construction on site to discuss the storage location and identify such location with stakes. CAR shall not place materials in locations that interfere with utilities (Gas, SCE, Verizon, Time Warner, etc and/or water and sewer utilities).

6. CAR shall be responsible for safety of stored materials and shall keep such materials in a safe condition.

7. CAR shall move stored materials on-site immediately (within 48 hrs of notification), if required by the City Engineer. If materials are not moved within such timeframe, City may cause the materials to be moved and costs for such work will be the responsibility of CAR.

8. Upon City Engineer's request, stored materials shall be removed from the site within 30 days of notification. City may extend this timeframe. CAR shall clean site and restore to original condition. If materials are not moved within such timeframe as required by City, City may cause the materials to be removed and disposed of and costs for such work will be the responsibility of CAR.

9. Storage of materials on the City's property is for CAR's convenience for a future project, however the future project may not move forward. No assumptions are to be made regarding the future of the project.

C. A. RASMUSSEN, NC.

General Engineering Contractors
License No. 254681 A
Valencia Commerce Center
28548 Livingston Avenue
Valencia, CA 91355-4171
Telephone 661.367.9040
Fax 661.367.9099
www.carasmussen.com
0703.1012
December 18, 2009
City of Camarillo
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, CA 930103
(F) 805.388.5387
Attn: Rick Knack
SUBJECT: Storage at Springville Road
In anticipation of the commencement of the Springville Road project, CA Rasmussen, Inc. (CAR) requests to store K-Rail for the project on site.

Reference the attached exhibits with the following comments:
• CAR will store +/-6200' of K-rail at the location identified with dimensions of approximately 300' x 30'.
• CAR will be responsible for any graffiti removal and will prosecute the removal within 24 hours. • CAR will be responsible for any tracking and cleaning of roadways during the K-Rail storage operation.
• CAR anticipates 2 days for the operation.
• CAR and Blois Construction have met on site, discussed and agreed upon the storage location. • A Certificate of Insurance with the City will be provided if requested.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 805-331-0838.

C.A. Rasmussen, Inc.

Tom Charon
Project Manager
Attachments (2)
file: Jobsite
Corporate
E
--1
13 T T7TTT70 ,I,J0=00 M_
P.22F222:!2!
-HI-47.1;l0L0
oz4losuon 3 3 tr 100)103-1
.44 Pi 200140000 00 p
4-044 U0 00011.0,0 DUO
pt! 90000 001 00000001.003 PUG SOftlit0
,ont,01/
000 01.40.411 03
210,0 “03)104004
140.01040 twm
0} op ponoJad.
ad uo,C,a, ,, 03110, .1 go/G
tooy,,, c<. Oi2/0141 31VO "g" .11
ICU 07272 I CA 15i601 ',71
tV14714
. '
0 • 2? 7 , nrAl ran,ac-ins-,rfetC, 1/141
V7.
.,
E
,
.
1 . TETRA TECH, H4C Z95 WILL IS AVENUE. SUITE CAMARILLO. CA 93010 ' *
'
,..
:
a
..
1 4
'1
..
a
4 ..
a
-‘&."' .11*" 77.713.3
/ / ., ' 04,4 / I
.... •cs,
,
''''
.,, //'2 i
Y
/
/1/ I .,
/ /-A.
i ,...,
s ;
f''''
#y„,,,
.;
=9
, ,
* ' i
i . Ii " ' I"
' , 1
.
4 i ,
' i .
! ' ;i
;ILI
, ,'
0 7.,
44 —I 8
' In1'i . v
ill ' til ., u
:,,,•,..,
..1,.
i
t
/ it .:.., a
. .0,'-`-` pc -----7"/
r ow r
>
'
i
,
'
g
/ ,
.,,
;
1//
I 1
2 6: ILL „,„
r:
,
iiiW
,
WI 1
, ‘ 14 0
W'P. .1..
,
I,F
,
„. 1 , S
,
,......„,,,, ,,,,pi c`.., ,
„
.,
, .
, A
i
. .
lc
ri
6 2
E.
.
....2,1„ /. i jJ1
e
.3
i-`51, 1
,
..
..t:
,
..,,',' `.'2„, ,
,I... ,..._,..
..
'0.'1-'

2..,
4 .., _.
'—
.:Atri
.1
id
.
.., —
- •,,
/ e ow..-ALioal..y. A 4.a041-. , , - , ' 0
, 1 -77.;
.
-7
,
' M „...,
. ..,-...-..2,-.-4,,,n
. . it ,
1 ,-
•,,,, „ ... ..

Li to
..
,

4.3 ,
.
_ 7- ...„r,
1 6!,
P. g
ill , 11 ,
_ 1 , , <.,.,_
"' ',,j
,„—"
E,,,.
,
,i I ,+
,..
' • -se el.:pl.,- I '41
. .....
`, :=0,', S ,6. to ,- 44

4. 26 '
.j:q '' ss.

LI
:
;4'4
,;
ti,,
`4 •
A -4
,/
'
4 4
;4',E 1 , ..;
1 '',%1
i
i
i ,'; 4 V
,... --4., -=•74s---, ...
;41Ii0 ,14
..•.i
PROPOSED TELEPHONAND ,. TELEVISOR CABLES BY VERI ZON ENV ç nconcE ADELPHIA — 1
1 "'c
1 Z
• 0
x
I
I
I
v'.
t2."`i..r*,.
c; '1 , •0
o .
...., V ,
,

8. '\ 44
- , ,
,
1 6 a tJ i W q. ) 01, t'
e
7,0 • \ -
g.,2! "
0::'•.,,,
:t'A,' 6V,-.

L...._
11 4,
'
::4
-7,i "•,;;
4 I
, .

I ' I ,
1 , ,
c,!,t H } .

T j II
• 1:
'
1 ;
,
i 1!
; 1
'
,
1 I,:,"'
• 4
•• s
!I
• 1
—
.,,
z.-,`"
•
•
rig
' !I
. ! .;
, •
\\
'
11 •--irs:i6':ce'
„
• .
jo
•
, , so'g

9. .- 1 4.1
ro/2 20/1 OUSIKilealya On vr1 AU (113N73143 Tunommon ainnalu -01,22-VAV 43 4
. VA A2 0A11/114 'fiVa r An14.1P4'3 .AH0151110 VID15311 140101.11tatitlY41/ 4 1113Vil,Utldaa • illtilladiitl0 dc.) •At'll A CC) R ei CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE HinmiDD/TYYT) 12/28/2009
paooucert
Lockton Insurance Brokers, LLC
725 S Figueroa Street, 35th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
CA License #0F15767 213-689-0065

THIS CERTIFICATION IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION

ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.

INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC #

INSURED
C. A. Rasmussen, Inc.

Attn: Lisa Punches
28548 Livingston Avenue
Valencia CA 91355-4171
INSURER Al Lexington Insurance Company 19437
INSURER e: Hartford Fire Insurance Company 19682
INSURER c: The Insurance Co of the State of PA 19429
INSURER Dt SeaBright Insurance Company 15563
INSURER E:

COVERAGES
THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING

ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR

MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.

INSR
LTR
A001

INERD TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE

OATE (VIM/ODNYTY)

POLICY EXPIRATION

DATE (MMIDDITYYY) LIMITS
A X

GENERAL LIABILITY

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
6462361 01/01/2009 01/01/2010 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 2,000,000 0 - 1 . 0 •
PREMISES (Ca =offence) $ 50,000
CLAIMS MADE I X i OCCUR MED EXP (Any one person) $ Exluded PERSONALE- ADV INJURY $ 2,000,000
GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 4,000,000
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:

PRO,
POLICY JE CT . LOC
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG 5 4,000,000
B X

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY

ANY AUTO

ALL OWNED AUTOS

SCHEDULED AUTOS

HIRED AUTOS

NON-OWNED AUTOS
72UENAH7093 01/01/2009 01/01/2010 COMBINE° SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) 1.000,000

BODILY INJURY
(Per person) $
X
-
X

BODILY INJURY
(Per accident) $

PROPERTY DAMAGE
(Per accicient)
-

GARAGE LIABILITY

ANY AUTO
AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $

EA ACC OTHER THAN
AUTO ONLY: AGO $
0 EXCESS
X
/ UMBRELLA LIABILITY
OCCUR Li CLAIMS MADE

DEDUCTIBLE
RETENTION $
7532964 01/01/2009 01/01/2010 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 4,000,000 AGGREGATE $ 4,000,000
i
$
$
$

WORKERS COMPENSATION AND

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY

ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
Y IN
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUOE0? Y
I r yaenad goad In Al tner
SPFClAL PROVISIONS below
66 1091638 01/01/2009 01/01/2010 .,..ii WC STATU- OTH- " TORY LIMITS ER 1,000,000 EL. EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,000,000
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000
El, DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
OTHER

DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/ LOCATIONS I VEHICLES / EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT / SPECIAL PROVISIONS The City of Camarillo is an additional insured to the extent provided by the policy language or endorsement issued or approved by the Insurance carrier.

CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCE ATION

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO mAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO rue CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TODD SO SHALL

IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES.

City of Camarillo
Attn: Insurance Department
601 Carmen Drive
CamarrIllo CA 93010

AUTHORIZED REP TATIV
0442,401
0 1988-2009 CORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
ACORD 25(2009/01)

IMPORTANT
If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. A statment on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

DISCLAIMER
This Certificate of Insurance does not constitute a contract between the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed thereon.

ACORD 25 (2009(01)
POLICY NUMBER: 006462361 ENDORSEMENT # 004 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG 20 10 10 01
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

ADDMONAL INSURED - OWNERS, LESSEES OR

CONTRACTORS - SCHEDULED PERSON OR

ORGANIZATION
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART

SCHEDULE
Name of Person or Organization:

BLANKET - AS REQUIRED BY WRITTEN CONTRACT
(If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.)
A. Section II Who Is An insured is amended to
Include as an insured the person or organization
shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to
liability arising out of your ongoing operations
performed for that insured.

B. With respect to the Insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following exclusion is
added:

2. Exclusions
This insurance does not apply to "bodily Injury" or "property damage" occurring after:
(1) All work, including materials, parts or
equipment furnished in connection with
such work, on the project (other than
service, maintenance or repairs) to be
performed by or on behalf of the additional
insured(s) at the site of the covered
operations has been completed; or
(2) That portion of your work" out of which
the injury or damage arises has been put
to its intended use by any person or
organization other than another contractor
or subcontractor engaged in performing
operations for a principal as a part of the
same project.

CG 20 10 10 01 ISO Properties, Inc., 2000 Page 1 of 1 0 119606 .1:1PC1WFP 11(IDY
ENDORSEMENT # 009
This endorsement, effective 12:01 AM 01/01/2009
Forms a part of policy no.: 0061462361
Issued to: C.A. RASMUSSEN, INC.

By: LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY

WAIVER OF SUBROGATION
(BLANKET)
It is agreed that we, in the event of a payment under this policy, waive our right of subrogation against any person or organization where the insured has waived liability of such person or organization as part of a written contractual agreement between the insured and such person or organization entered into prior to the "occurrence" or offense.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Authorized R resentative OR
Countersignature (In states where applicable)
LEXOCC234 (11/03)
L.X0485 ROnlert:7 r-:() Dv
ENDORSEMENT # 008
This endorsement, effective 12;01 AM 01/01/2009
Forms a part of policy no.: 0061462361
Issued to: C.A. RASMUSSEN, INC.

By: LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY

PRIMARY/NON CONTRIBUTORY ENDORSEMENT
This endorsement modifies insurance provided by the policy:

Notwithstanding any other provision of the policy to the contrary, the insurance afforded by this policy for the benefit of the Additional Insured shall be primary insurance, but Only with respect to any claim, loss or liability arising out of the Named Insured's operations; and any insurance maintained by the Additional Insured shall be noncontributing.

All other terms and conditions of the policy remain the same.

Authorized Representative OR
Countersignature (in states where applicable)
LX9838 (08/05) RAnwpn nnov
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY WC 04 03 06 (Ed. 4-84)
WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT—CALIFORNIA We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. (This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from US.) You must maintain payroll records 'accurately segregating the remuneration of your employees while engaged in the work described in the Schedule.

The additional premium for this endorsement shall be * % of the California workers' compensation premium otherwise due on such remuneration.

Schedule
Person or Organization Job Description

WHERE YOU ARE REQUIRED BY WRITTEN CONTRACT TO

OBTAIN THIS AGREEMENT FROM US, PROVIDED THE

CONTRACT IS SIGNED AND DATED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
LOSS TO WHICH THIS WAIVER APPLIES. IN NO INSTANCE

SHALL THE PROVISIONS AFFORDED BY THIS

ENDORSEMENT BENEFIT ANY COMPANY OPERATING
AIRCRAFT FOR HIRE.
*The premium charge for this endorsement shall be 2% of the premium developed in the State of California, but not less than $500 policy minimum premium.

This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached and Is effective on the date issued unless otherwise stated. (The information below is required only when this endorsement is Issued subsequent to preparation of the policy,) Endorsement Effective 01/01/09 Policy No. BB1091838
Insured C.A. Rasmussen, Inc.

Insurance Company SeaBright Insurance Company
Countersigned By
WC 04 03 08
(Ed. 4-84)
Endorsement No. 9
Policy Effective Date 01/01/09
01988 by the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California. All rights reserved.

Route 101/
Airport North Area
Interchange &
Annexation No. 83
SCH No. 99031099
JUNE 23, 1999
Prepared for:

City of Camarillo
Prepared by:

Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
Administrative Draft EIR Submittal: March 31, 1999
Draft EIR Completion: May 6, 1 999
Screencheck Final EIR Submittal: N/A
Final EIR Certification: June 23, 1999
FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ROUTE 101/AIRPORT NORTH AREA
INTERCHANGE & ANNEXATION No. 83
SCH No. 99031099
LEAD AGENCY:

CITY OF CAMARILLO
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, CA 93010
CONTACTS:

Mr. Matthew A. Boden
Community Development Director
(805) 388-5360
Mr. Dan Greeley, PE
Engineering Services Director
(805) 388-5300
CONSULTANT:
citobeftcBeieWilliamcFfost c,issociates
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA 92718
Contact: Mr. Kevin Thomas
(949) 855-3659
June 23, 1999
JN 10-034233
City Of Camarillo
601 Carmen Drive • .F:O. Box 248 • Camarillo, CA 93011
Department of
Engineering Service,
(805)588-5340
May 6, 1999
TO: AFFECTED AGENCIES AND PROPERTY OWNERS
SUBJECT: AIRPORT NORTH INTERCHANGE AREA AND ANNEXATION NO. 83 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This draft environmental impact report is being submitted to you for your review and consideration.

The City of Camarillo Planning Department would appreciate your comments on this report being submitted to us on or preferably before Wednesday, June 23, 1999. If no response is received, we will assume that you are in agreement with the current draft of the report.

Any comments should be directed to the Planning Director, Matthew Boden, 601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo (805) 388-5360.
-1Sr- Matthew A. Boden, Director
Planning and Community Development
Enclosure
Public Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion Supplementary Document R Document Type:Environmental Impact Report
Date: 5-6-99
Project Title: Route 101/ Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 EIR Project Location - Specific: The proposed proiect is located along Route 101 (Ventura Freeway) within the City of Camarillo between the existing interchanges at Las Posas Road one mile to the east and Central Avenue one mile to the west. Annexation Area No. 83 includes the northern portion of the interchange area, as well as additional unincorporated land to the east and west of the interchange north of Route 101.

Project Location-City: camari I lo Project Location-County: Ventura Description of Project: The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses a proposed new interchange on Route 101 (Ventura Freeway), as called out in the City General Plan Circulation Element, plus several local arterials connectingto the new interchange, and annexation of approximately 270 acres along the north side of Route 101 into the City of Camarillo.

Lead Agency: City of Camarillo Department of Planning & Community Development Lead Agency
Contact Person: Matthew A. Boden Area Code/Telephone Ext.: (805) 388-5360 Address where document may be obtained:

Agency Name: City of Camarillo Planning & Community Development Department Street Address: 601 Carmen Drive
City/State/Zip: Camarillo, CA 93010
Public Review Period: Begins 5-11-99 Ends 6-9-99
PUbi ic Hearing(s) for EIR Certification and Project Approval: None set at this time.

Note: This 30-day public review period is subject to approval by the State Clearinghouse, and may be extended to 45 days.

Anyone interested in this matter is invited to comment on the document by written response and is invited to attend and present testimony either for or against the proposed application at the hearing. If you challenge the proposed action in courts, you may be limited to raising only those issues you raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at or prior to the public hearing.

Persons wishing to appear at the hearing should call:

Name: Matthew A. Boden
Phone: (805) 388-5360
Signature Name: Matthew A. Boden
Title: Director of Planning & Community Development
EIRG:eirg.r
Shortened Review Request Form Supplementary Document S
(To be filled out and signed by the Lead Agency and submitted with project documents to SCH) (0: State Clearinghouse
Office of Planning & Research
1400 Tenth Street Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
FROM: City of Camarillo
Lead Agency
601 Carmen Drive
Address
Camarillo, California 93010
Phone #: (805) 388-5360
SCH # 99031099 Contact: Matthew A. Boden
Project Title: Route 101 Airport North Area Interchange and Annexation 83 Project Location: Camarillo Ventura
City County
Explain "exceptional circumstances" (CEQA, Section 15205(d)) for requesting a shortened review:

A request for a shortened review period is in order to maintain the public health and safety of the community by the development of a new interchange which in turn will improve the traffic flow on Las Posas Road interchange located to the east of the proposed new airport interchange. The projections of traffic within the community and the region have indicated that the Las Posas Road interchange is nearing capacity. In order to remove this congestion and to improve the public health safety and welfare of the community, it has been determined in the city's General Plan Circulation Element that a new interchange be constructed nidway between Central Avenue and Las Posas Road. In order to allow this to move forward in a timely -manner, it is necessary that every effort be made to expedite the application in the most expeditious manner possible including the environmental document. The city has also been working with Caltrans on the interchange. Because Caltrans has been working with the City of Camarillo on improvements to the Carmen Drive interchange, a shortened review period is requested and the project does not qualify as having statewide significance.

List state responsible & trustee agencies, as well as any agencies that have commented on the project (Send advance copies of the document to these agencies):

Caltrans
Regional Water Quality Control Board
California Department of Fish and Game
As designated representative for the lead agency, I verify, in their behalf, that there is no "statewide, regional, or areawide significance" to this project. (Attach a copy of the resolution or ordinance from the decision-making body of the lead agency which designates the requestor's authority.)
Length of review being requested:30 days
Today's date: -4
Matthew A. Boden
Print Name Signature
EIRG:eirg.s Revised October 1989 .

RESOLUTION NO. 91-49

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF CAMARILLO IN ACCORDANCE WITH PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21091 DESIGNATING

REPRESENTATIVES FOR REQUESTING REDUCTION OF

TIME PERIODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
WHEREAS, the City of Camarillo on occasion has a
responsibility for forwarding various environmental impact reports to the state for review and consideration and
distribution to various agencies and departments; and,
WHEREAS, on occasion, the environmental documents have been examined to determine whether or not the project would have a statewide, regional, or areawide significance; and,
WHEREAS, upon determination that projects would not have a statewide, regional, or areawide significance, requests have been made for shortened review periods for the processing of environmental impact report; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Camarillo hereby designates authorized representatives for requesting shortened review periods under the environmental review process; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council
hereby designates the Director Of Planning and Community Development, Matthew A. Boden; Director of Engineering Services, Daniel J.V. Greeley; and the Director of Community Services, John ,Elwell, as designated and authorized requestors for the City of ,Camarillo for shortened review periods for environmental impact reports.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of March
o-w)
Mayor
ATTEST:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 13th day of March / 1991 / by members of the City Council voting as follows:

AYES: Councilmembers: Craven, Daily, Gose, Morgan; Mayor Smith NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
cc: Planning (M. Boden)
Engineering (D. Greeley)
Community Services (J. Elwell)
1991
- 1 -
.See NOTE below
SCH # 99031099

10.Total Acres approximately 270 acres 11. Total Jobs Created NA

3. Project Issues Discussed In Document

01. EI Aesthetic/Visual

02. 50 Agricultural Land

3. [X] Air Quality

4. g] Archaeological/Historical

5. 0 Coastal Zone

6. 0 Economic

7. El Fire Hazard

8. E Flooding/Drainage

9. Gfl Geologic/Seismic

10. 0 Jobs/Housing Balance

11. 0 Minerals

12. (]Noise

13. 0 Public Services

14. 0 Schools

15. 0 Septic Systems

16. 0 Sewer Capacity

17. 0 Social

18. E] Soil Erosion

19. 0 Solid Waste

20. ga Toxic/Hazardous

21. [X] Traffic/Circulation

22. El Vegetation

23. l"..E Water Quality

24. 0 Water Supply

25. [g] Wetland/Riparian

26. CZ] Wildlife

27. El Growth Inducing

28. E) Incompatible Land Use

29. a Cumulative Effects

30. 0 Other

13. Funding (approx.) Federal S NA State $ NA Total $ NA

14. Present Land Use and Zoning Agricultural
Notice of Completion and Environmental
Document Transmittal Form
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 - 916/4454)613

1. Project Title Route 101/Ai rport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83

3. Contact Person Patthew & Boctf.n 3a. Street Address 601 Cprmen Drive 3b. City Camaril lo

2. Lead Agency City of Camaril lo
3c. County Venttira 3d.zip 93010 3e. Phone 805/388-5360 Project Location Route 101 between Las Posas Road and Central Avenue

4. County Ventura
4b. Assessor's Parcel No. NA
5a. Cross Streets Ilte-11111Aimpozt_N_Ri“praposecfP. For Rural, Nearest Community

6. Within 2 miles: a. State Hwy # Route 101 b. Airports Camarillo Airport c. Railways None d. Waterways None

7. Document Type
CEQA: 01. 0 NOP

2. 0 Early Cons

3. 0 Neg Dec

4. E Draft EIR

5. 0 Supplement/Subsequent EIR NEPA: 09. 0 NOI OTHER: 13. 0 Joint Document (Prior SCH NO.: ) 10. 0 FONSI 14. 0 Final Document 6. 0 NOE II. 0 Draft EIS 15. 0 Other 7. (X) NOC 12. 0 EA

8. 0 NOD

8. Local Action Type

1. 0 General Plan Update

2. 0 New Element

3. 0 General Plan Amendment

4. 0 Master Plan

5. 11] Annexation 09. 0 Rezone 12. 0 Waste Mgmt Plan 6. 0 Specific Plan 10. 0 Land Division (Subdivision, 13. 0 Cancel Ag Preserve 7. 0 Community Plan Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) 14. 0 Other 8. 0 Redevelopment 11. 0 Use Permit 4a. City/Community Camari 11 n
4c. Section 7R Twp. 2.N. Range 21.W.

9. Development Type

01. 0 Residential: ' Units Acres
)2. 0 Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees

3. 0 Shopping/Commercial: Sq.ft. ____ Acres Employees 4. 0 Industrial: Sq.ft. - Acres _ Employees

5. 0 Water Facilities: MGD

6. gc] Transportation: Type Interchange/Local Arterials

7. 0 Mining: Mineral

8. D Power Type Watts

9. 0 Waste Treatment: Type

10. 0 OCS Related

11. 0 Other:

12. Project Description The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses a proposed new interchange on Route 101 (Ven Freeway), as called out in the City General Plan Circulation Element, plus several local arterials connecting the new interchange, and annexation of approximately 270 acres along the north side of Route 101 into the City of Camari

16. Signature of Lead Agency Representative A- -' ,........" ,,...,
Date Nay 6, 1999
NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (e.g. from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in.

Form Revised 4/86 - Replaces CA189 Mark Distribution on Reverse Reviewing Agencies
s0 Resources Agency
Boating / Waterways
S J Conservation
4/ Fish and Game
0 Forestry
Colorado River Board
S 0 Dept. Water Resources
0 Reclamation
Parks and Recreation
Office of Historic Preservation
Native American Heritage Commission
S.F. Bay Cons. and Dev't. Commission
Coastal Commission
Energy Commission
State Lands Commission
Air Resources Board
Solid Waste Management Board
SWRCB: Sacramento
RWQCB: Region #
Water Rights
0 Water Quality
I/ O Caltrans District 7
O Dept. of Transportation Planning
O Aeronautics
O California Highway Patrol
o HoUsing and Community Dev't
O Statewide Health Planning
O Health
O Food and Agriculture
O Public Utilities Commission
O Public Works
O Corrections
o General Services
O OLA
0 Santa Monica Mountains
O TRPA
O OPR — OLGA
O OPR — Coastal
O Bureau of Land Management
O Forest Service
I/O Other SC.AG, VCAPCD
0 Other
= Sent by Lead Agency
X = Suggested Distribution
For SCH Use Only:

Date Received at SCH
Date Review Starts
Date to Agencies
Date to SCH
Clearance Date
Catalog Number
Applicant
Consultant
Contact Phone
Address
Notes:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1

1.1 Project Summary 1-1

1.2 Environmental Summary 1-1

1.3 Summary of Project Alternatives 1-2

1.4 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved 1-2

1.5 Project Objectives 1-2

1.6 Impact and Mitigation Summary 1-3

1.7 Summary of Alternatives 1-3

1.8 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved 1-5

1.9 Environmental Summary 1-6

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 2-1

2.1 Purpose 2-1

2.2 Compliance with CEQA 2-1

2.3 Scope of the EIR 2-1

2.4 Use of the EIR 2-2

2.5 Incorporation By Reference 2-2

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-1

3.1 Project Location 3-1

3.2 Background and History 3-1

3.3 Environmental Setting 3-2

3.4 Project Objectives 3-2

3.5 Project Characteristics 3-7

3.6 Project Phasing 3-8

3.7 Agreements, Permits and Approvals 3-8

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 4-1

4.0 Overview of EIR Methodology and Significance Determinations 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics 4.1-1

4.2 Agricultural Resources 4.2-1

4.3 Cultural Resources 4.3-1

4.4 Air Quality 4.4-1

4.5 Noise 4.5.1

4.6 Issues with Less Than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Incorporation 4.6-1

4.6.1 Land Use and Relevant Planning 4.6-1

4.6.2 Biological Resources 4.6-2

4.6.3 Geology and Soils 4.6-3

4.6.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.6-4

4.6.5 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.6-6
DRAFT HR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5-1

5.1 Interchange/Local Arterial 5-1
No Project Alternative
Alternative Interchange Configuration/Local Arterial Alignments

5.2 Annexation Area #83 5-3
No Project Alternative
Reduced Scale Annexation Alternative

5.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative 5-4

6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6-1

6.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Should the Proposed Action Be Implemented 6-1

6.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts 6-2

6.3 Cumulative impacts 6-5

7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 7-1

8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 8-1

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 9-1

10.0 APPENDICES

10.1 Initial Study/Notice Of Preparation

10.2 Cultural Resources Study

10.3 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

10.4 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

10.5 Biological Assessment

10.6 Air Quality Assessment

10.7 Noise Assumptions
DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF EXHIBITS
# Title Page
1 Regional Vicinity Map 3-3
2 Vicinity Map 3-4
3 Aerial Photo 3-5
4 Proposed Transportation Improvement 3-6
5 Typical Section 3-9
6 Important Farmlands Inventory 4.2-5
DRAFT E1R June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

4.4-1
Title Page
Local Air Quality Levels measured at the El Rio Ambient Air Monitoring Station 4.4-3

4.4-2 Ventura and Kern County Reported Cases of Valley Fever 4.4-9

4.4-3 Daily Construction Emissions (Interchange) 4.4-14

4.4-4 Daily Construction Emissions (Roadways) 4.4-15

4.5-1 Noise Levels Adjacent to Route 101 4.5-2

4.5-2 Sound Levels and Human Response 4.5-4

4.5-3 Community Noise Exposure Level 4.5-7

4.5-4 Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure 4.5-9

4.5-5 General Plan Noise Standards 4.5-9

4.5-6 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels 4.5-11

4.5-7 60 CNEL Projections 4.5-13
DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page iv

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Location
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses a proposed new interchange on Route 101 (Ventura Freeway), as called out in the City General Plan Circulation Element, plus several local arterials connecting to the new interchange, and annexation of approximately 270 acres along the north side of Route 101 into the City of Camarillo (refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity, Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity, and Exhibit 3, Aerial Photo). The Annexation Area includes the northern portion of the interchange area, as well as additional unincorporated land to the east and west of the interchange, north of Route 101. The proposed interchange is located on Route 101, between existing interchanges at Las Posas Road approximately one mile to the east and Central Avenue approximately one mile to the west.

Several local arterials are proposed north and south of Route 101, including a new north/south arterial with a grade-separated bridge/interchange with Route 101, Ponderosa Drive extension (from its existing terminus westerly to west of the proposed new interchange, Verdulara Street extension (from its existing terminus easterly to the realigned Ventura Boulevard), and Ventura Boulevard realignment. The project also includes the annexation of approximately 270 acres, generally located on the north side of Route 101, west of Las Posas Road and easterly of Ponderosa Drive/Avenida de Aprisa. Except for the rectangular annexation area north of Route 101 (within unincorporated Ventura County), the project area and surroundings are within the City of Camarillo.

1.2 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
Annexation No. 83
Both the Spanish and Mexican governments granted several large local tracts of land to individuals, usually for services rendered. One of these, the Cal leguas Ranch, was granted to the Ruiz family, but later was acquired by Juan Camarillo. The City of Camarillo is named for this early pioneer family. A 1,003-acre tract, which includes the annexation area, was not part of any of the land grants, and thus, was available for settlement by Americans when California became a United States possession. The 1,003 acre tract was locally known as The Gore, and the town of Springville developed there in the 1860s and 1870s. By 1880, Springville had a post office, hotel, store, blacksmith, shop, school and church, as well as numerous residences.

Most of Springville had disappeared by 1926. By that date, even the church had been abandoned and was in disrepair. Today all the buildings relating to the old town of Springville have been removed.

DRAFT ER
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 June 23, 1999

Page 1 ends

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 270 acre annexation area is mostly in agricultural production with row crops, strawberries, avocados and citrus. Three farm residences and associated structures exist within the area, including McGrath Ranch, which supports a produce stand, the Friedrich House, and the Sholle Farm.

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT
The City of Camarillo is one of the faster growing cities in Ventura County. The Camarillo General Plan Land Use Element currently proposes commercial and industrial development within the Airport North Specific Plan area located south of Route 101 between Las Posas Road and Central Avenue. The Land Use Element specifies agricultural uses within the Ponderosa Drive Corridor located north of Route 101 between Las Posas Road and Central Avenue. The Circulation Element includes the arterial street network and an interchange necessary to accommodate the Land Use Element while maintaining acceptable traffic levels of service (LOS). The Circulation Element specifies that traffic operating conditions should not exceed LOS D for short periods during the peak hours of less than one hour. To meet this criteria, the new Route 101/North-South interchange is necessary.

1.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed Route 101/Airport North interchange portion of the project would involve the construction of a conventional diamond interchange with a six-lane overcrossing, consisting of two through lanes in each direction and dual left turn lanes (a more detailed project descriPtion is provided in the Project Study Report for the interchange, which is available for review at the City Engineering Services Department). New on- and off-ramps would merge with the existing Route 101 northbound and southbound travel lanes. The proposed interchange overcrossing would connect to the north with the proposed westerly extension of Ponderosa, and to south would connect with the proposed easterly extension of Verdulera Street. Ponderosa Drive would be widened to four lanes from Las Posas Road to the new interchange and associated north/south arterial. The existing Ventura Boulevard south of Route 101 would be relocated (extended west of the new north/south arterial as a separate, future project). The new Ventura Boulevard would be four lanes with bike lanes and a median, and would connect to the existing westerly end of the recently constructed Ventura Boulevard located south of the Target Shopping Center (to the east of the new interchange) and the existing Ventura Boulevard (west of the new interchange).

The Annexation No. 83 component of the project requests annexation of approximately 270 acres into the City of Camarillo, Camarillo Sanitary District and detachment from the Ventura County Resource Conservation District (refer to Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity).

1.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the proposed interchange and road extensions are to provide for enhanced traffic flow in the project area, particularly for freeway and local arterial access to the Airport North Specific Plan (south of Route 101) and future land uses north of Route 101. The DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 1-2

1.6 IMPACT AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
Refer to the following summary of project impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable significant impacts.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 1-3

Through the PSR alternatives process, the project, as proposed, was chosen as the most respectful of existing property lines (the least amount of ROW would be acquired) and existing resources (i.e., agricultural land and cultural resources). In addition, the project alignment, as proposed, would not impact the Schol le farm house or associated structures, the only sensitive receptor within the project area and would serve to enhance the circulation system consistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Although any one of the proposed alternatives addressed within the PSR would have similar environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project itself, the remaining PSR alternatives are not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. Therefore, the remaining alternatives outlined within the PSR have been eliminated from further consideration.

However, this Alternative would not realize any of the basic project objectives and is therefore, not under further consideration.

DRAFF EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 1-5

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.9 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
Refer to the following summary of project impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable significant impacts.

IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange and Local
Arterials

4. 1- 1. Construction of the proposed interchange and
local arterial roadways would result in short-term
aesthetic impacts. Significance: Less than significant
with mitigation.

4.1-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading or
construction permit, the contractor shall
prepare and submit a construction phase
"good housekeeping plan" for review
and approval by the City Planning and
Community Development Department
and City Fire Department., The plan
shall include such infdrmation as
designation of on-site locations for
materials and equipment storage,
schedule for debris removal, proposed
screening mechanisms, etc.

4.1-2 Construction of the proposed interchange
would alter the views from Route 101, a designated
scenic highway. Significance: Less than significant.

4.1-2 No mitigation measures are required.

4.1-3 Construction of the proposed interchange and
local arterial roadways would impact scenic
resources (i.e., existing structures and mature trees)in the project area. Significance: Less than significant
with mitigation.

4.1-3 Refer to Section 4.3, CULTURAL
RESOURCES, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1.

No additional mitigation measures are
required.

Annexation No. 83

4.1-4. Future development within Annexation No. 83
area would alter the visual character of the area.

Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.1-4a. All future development proposals in the
annexation area shall be designed in
accordance with all applicable City
criteria, including but not limited to the
Community Design Element of the
General Plan and the City's Heritage
Zone Design Guidelines.

4.1-4b. Open vistas shall be protected by such
means as adequate setbacks, open space,
building height limits, and view corridors
pursuant to the Camarillo Municipal Code.

4.1-5 Future development within the annexation area
would impact scenic resources in the project area.

Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.1-5. Refer to Mitigation Measure 4.1-3, above.
°RAF"-HR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 1-6 Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange and Local
Arterials

4.2-1. Implementation of the proposed infrastructure
and circulation improvements would result in the
conversion of agricultural land for urban uses.

Significance: Significant and unavoidable.

4.2-1. No feasible mitigation measures have been
identified to reduce impacts relating to the
loss of agricultural soils and land (13.25
acres).

4.2-2. Construction of the interchange and local
arterials could potentially impact adjacent
agricultural uses. Significance: Less than significant
with mitigation.

4.2-2a. During site preparation of any parcel that is
adjacent to land in agricultural production,
the applicant shall maintain contact with the
adjacent land owner to determine if the wash
down of agricultural crops is warranted due
to the production of dust at the construction
site. Should crop watering be necessary, the
developer shall be responsible for such
watering. Watering shall be conducted in a
manner that is approved by the agricultural
property owner.

4.2-2b. The Final Street Improvement Plan shall
include a crossing to allow for farm
implements to traverse between portions of
the farm areas. The final design and location
is subject to City approval and include
special paving such as concrete, signage and
curb cuts as necessary.

Annexation No. 83

4.2-3. Annexation No. 83 would result in the
conversion of agricultural land for urban uses.

Significance: Less than significant.

4.2-3. No mitigation measures are required.

4.2-4. Potential for future uses within the annexation
area could potentially impact adjacent agricultural
uses. Significance: Less than significant with
mitigation.

4.2-4. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions
(CC&Rs) to be recorded for the annexation
area shall include provisions that normal
agricultural practices in the Greenbelt to the
west will continue indefinitely. The CC&Rs
will recognize the right-to-farm on the
agricultural land to the west, including the
right to normal use of agricultural chemicals
and farm machinery use as necessary for
efficient farm operations.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 1-7

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange

4.3-1. Implementation of the proposed interchange
has the potential to impact previously recorded
historical resources known as Primary Number (PN)
56-150001 (Scholle Farm). Significance: Less than
significant with mitigation.

4.3-1. Site Primary Number 56-150001 has been
determined to be an importance resource.

To mitigate the impacts to these resources,
the following measures are recommended in
order of decreasing desirability. Either:
a. Redesign the interchange and
roadway extensions to reduce the
impact to site PN 56-150001. The
redesign shall include moving the
associated interchange north/south
arterial farther east to provide a
buffer between the road and the
farmhouse's east side.

Or
b. If the roads cannot be relocated,
landscaped berms shall be constructed
to shield site PN 56-150001
(farmhouse) from excessive noise and,
as much as possible, from visual
changes to the site. The packing plant
shall be disassembled and relocated to
the south on the remaining acreage of
the farm to a site that would be
considered historically accurate. In
addition, restoration and adaption of
the farmhouse to a use more
consistent with the new surroundings
shall be considered. If necessary, all
structures within the complex, except
the farmhouse and packing plant, can
be removed as they are noncontributing elements of the historic district.
c. Should Ponderosa Drive be extended
west of its terminus with the
north/south arterial, the extension
shall be moved farther north to avoid
bisecting the farm property and
isolating the packing plant from its
association with the farmhouse. If
necessary, all structures within the
complex, except the farmhouse and
packing plant, can be removed as they
are non-contributing elements of the
historic d i strict.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 1-8 Short-Term/Construction Emissions

4.4-1 Short-term air quality impacts would occur
during site preparation and project construction.

Significance: Less than significant with
implementation of mitigation measures for asbestos
containing materials and fugitive dust; less than
significant for ROC and NOx from construction
equipment emissions (although mitigation measures
are still required by the Ventura County APCD).

4.4-1a. A comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan
shall be developed and approved by the
APCD prior to commencement of grading
and excavation operations. The plan shall
include all feasible, but environmentally safe,
dust control methods. If a particular dust
control method is determined or believed
not to be feasible, or if it would conflict with
other regulations, justification for not
including the subject method shall be
provided at the time the Fugitive Dust

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

4.3-2. Implementation of the proposed interchange
has the potential to impact previously recorded
historical resources known as Primary Number 56-
152749 (Friedrich House). Significance: Less than
significant.

4.3-2. No mitigation measures are required.

Local Arterials

4.3-3. Implementation of the proposed local arterials
has the potential to impact previously recorded
historical resources known as Primary Number 56-
15001 (Scholle Farm). Significance: Less than
significant with mitigation.

4.3-3. Refer to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1, above.

4.3-4. Implementation of the proposed local arterials
has the potential to impact previously recorded
historical resources known as Primary Number 56-
152749 (Friedrich House). Significance: Less than
significant.

4.3-4. No mitigation measures are required.

Annexation No. 83

4.3-5. Future development within the Annexation
No. 83 project area has the potential to impact
recorded archaeological sites CA-VEN-223 and F-1.

Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

This may require diversion of grading in
discreet areas while the necessary
archaeological research is completed.

4.3-6. Future development within the Annexation
No. 83 area has the potential to impact previously
recorded historical resources known as McGrath
Ranch. Significance: Less than significant.

4.3-6. No mitigation measures are required.

4.4 AIR QUALITY
DRAFT El R June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 1-9

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
Control Plan is submitted to the APCD. The
Plan shall identify all fugitive dust sources,
the means by which fugitive dust from each
identified source will be minimized, and the
schedule or frequency that each dust control
method will be applied for each identified
source. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall
include, at minimum, the following dust
control measures:
• The area disturbed by demolition, clearing,
grading, earth moving, or excavation
operations shall be minimized so as to
prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• Pre-grading activities shall include
watering the area to be graded prior to any
land clearing and excavation operations.

Application of water (preferably reclaimed,
if available) should penetrate to the depth
of the proposed cuts.
• Throughout grading and construction
operations, fugitive dust shall be controlled
with the use of water trucks or other
suitable means, generally at east three
times a day (except during and
immediately after rainfall). All water used
on the site for fugitive dust suppression
shall be reclaimed water whenever
possible.
• Dust produced during grading and
construction activities shall be controlled
by the following activities:
a) All exposed soil areas including
unpaved on-site roadways and
material stockpiles shall be watered
and/or treated with environmentallysafe soils stabilization materials and roll compacted unless recent rainfall
provides sufficient dust control.

Completed grading shall be monitored
weekly for dust stabilization.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 1-10

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
b) All trucks exporting fill from the site
shall use tarpaulins to cover the load
in compliance with State Vehicle
Code §23114. Material transported in
trucks off-site shall comply with State
Vehicle Code §23114, with special
attention to Sections 23114(b)(F),
(e)(2), and (e)(4) as amended. Material
transported on-site shall be sufficiently
watered or secured to prevent fugitive
dust emissions.
c) All material transported on-site shall
be sufficiently watered or secured to
prevent fugitive dust.
d) All active portions of the construction
site, including unpaved on-sit
roadways shall be sufficiently watered
and/or treated with environmentallysafe soil stabilization additives to prevent excessive fugitive dust.
e) All material excavated or graded shall
be sufficiently watered or treated to
prevent excessive generation of dust.
0 All inactive portions of the
construction site should be seeded
and watered until grass growth is
evident, or treated with
environmentally-safe dust
suppressants, to prevent excessive
fugitive dust.
• Signs shall be posted on-site limiting traffic
to 15 miles per hour or less.
• Soil stabilization methods, such as water
and roll compaction, and environmentallysafe dust control agents, shall be applied to portions of the construction site that are
inactive for over four days.
• During periods of high winds (i.e., wind
speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to
impact adjacent properties), all clearing,
grading, earth moving, and excavation
operations shall be curtailed to the degree
necessary to prevent fugitive dust created
by on-site activities and operations from
DRAFT El R June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 1-11

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site
or on-site. The site superintendent shall use
his/her discretion in conjunction with the
APCD in determining when winds are
excessive.
• Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept
at least once per day, preferably at the end
of the day, if visible soil material is carried
over to adjacent streets and roads.
• Employees involved in grading operations
should be advised to wear face masks
during dry periods to reduce dust
inhalation.

These control techniques will be indicated
on project grading plans. Compliance with
this measure will be subject to periodic site
inspections.

4.4-lb Project grading plans will indicate that for
the duration of construction, ozone precursor
emissions from construction equipment
vehicles shall be controlled by using the
following procedures:
• Equipment engines will be maintained an
good condition and in proper tune as per
manufacturer's specifications;
• During the smog season (May through
October), the construction period may be
lengthened so as to minimize the number
of vehicles and equipment operating at the
same time; and
• Construction activities will utilize new
technologies to control ozone precursor
emissions as they become available and
feasible.

Compliance with this measure will he
subject to periodic inspections.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 11-12

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

4.4-1c All trucks carrying soil to and from the site
shall use tarpaulins to cover the load.

Furthermore, all trucks that will haul
excavated or graded material off site shall
comply with State Vehicle Code Section
23114, with special attention to Sections
23114(b)(F), (e)(2) and (e)(4) as amended,
regarding the prevention of such material
spilling onto public streets and roads.

Valley Fever

4.4-2 Project site preparation and construction
activities may increase the level of exposure risk to
construction workers and nearby residents depending
on weather conditions during construction.

Significance: Temporary significant and unavoidable
impact.

4.4-2a Refer to Mitigation Measures 4.4-la and 4.4-
1b, which would reduce fugitive dust
emissions to less than significant levels.

4.4-2h Additionally, the following mitigation
measure is recommended for construction
worker safety, but is not required by law at
this time: Face dust masks are to be used by
all employees involved in grading or
excavation operations during dry periods to
reduce inhalation of fugitive dust.

Long-Term/Operational Emissions
Carbon Monoxide

4.4-3 Project-related traffic would not result in a
measurable increase in localized CO emissions at
surrounding intersections. Significance: Not
significant. The project would not cause Federal or
State CO standards to be exceeded at the analyzed
intersections. Significance: Less than significant.

4.4-3 No mitigation measures are required.

However, the following temporary
unavoidable adverse has been identified.

4.5 NOISE
Route 101 Interchange
Short-Term Construction Noise

4.5-1. Short-term construction noise during
construction of the proposed Route 101/North-South
Road interchange would result in an increase in
ambient noise levels within the vicinity of the
proposed project. Significance: Less than significant
with adherence to City Noise Ordinance
requirements.

4.5-1. In order to minimize construction-related
noise, construction and grading activities
shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday, and prohibited on Sundays and any
public holiday recognized by the City of
Camarillo, pursuant to Chapter 10.34.120(0
of the Camarillo Municipal Code (Noise
Ordinance). Days/hours of construction shalt
be indicated on project construction plans.

DRAFT HR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 1-13

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
Long-Term Noise Impacts

4.5-2. Implementation of the proposed Route
101/North-South Road interchange would not create
significant long-term noise impacts on existing or
future uses. Significance: Not Significant.

4.5-2. None have been identified.

Local Arterials
Short-Term Construction Noise

4.5-3. Short-term construction activities associated
with the proposed local arterial roadways (i.e.,
Ponderosa Drive extension, North-South Road,
Verdulera Street, and Ventura Boulevard) would
result in an increase in ambient noise levels within
the vicinity noise sensitive land uses. Significance:

Less than significant impact with adherence to City
Noise Ordinance requirements.

4.5-3a. Refer to Mitigation Measure 4.5-1, above.

4.5-3b. Project construction plans shall indicate that
all construction equipment, fixed or mobile,
will be in proper operating condition and
fitted with standard factory silencing features,
in order to minimize construction-related
noise. In areas where construction
equipment (such as diesel generators and air
compressors) is left for more than one day
within 300 feet of the Scholle farm house„ a
temporary portable noise structure (noise
blanket) shall be erected. These barriefs
shall be located between the piece of
equipment and sensitive use.

Long-Term Noise Impacts

4.5-4. Future (Year 2020) traffic conditions result in
an exceedance of City noise standards along the
General Plan approved North-South Road within the
area of the Scholle farm located north of Route 101.

Significance: Significant and unavoidable for future
conditions along North-South Road, north of Route
101 without mitigation incorporated.

4.5-4. No mitigation measures are feasible.

Annexation Area #83
Short-Term Construction Noise

4.5-5. Short-term construction noise during
construction activities associated with future
development projects within Annexation Area #83
would result in an increase in noise levels within the
vicinity noise sensitive land uses (Scholle farm
house). Significance: Less than significant impact
with adherence to City Noise Ordinance.

4.5-5. Refer to mitigation measure 4.5-1, above.

DRAFT FIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 11-14

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
Long-Term Noise Impacts

4.5-6. Buildout of Annexation Area #83 would result
in increased noise levels beyond existing conditions.

Significance: Less than significant impact.

4.5-6. None have been identified.

4.6 ISSUES WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION Land Use and Relevant Planning

4.6.1-1. The proposed project may conflict with any
applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of any
agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for
the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. Significance: Less than
significant with mitigation.

4.6.1-1a. Subsequent development within
Annexation Area No. 83 will be subject to
the specific conditions and measures
identified throughout the CEQA review
and entitlement approval processes as
imposed by the lead and responsible
agencies, as well as the Camarillo City
Council.

Biological Resources

4.6.2-1. The project may have an adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands. Significance: Less than
significant with mitigation.

4.6.2-1a. A wetlands delineation shall be conducted
to determine if ACOE and/or CDFG
jurisdictions are present within the project
area. If impacts to on-site irrigation
drainages are determined to be
jurisdictional, the applicant shall develop
a habitat restoration program in the
required ratio identified in the applicant's
ACOE and CDFG permit/agreement for the
proposed project.

Geology and Soils

4.6.3-1. Implementation of the proposed project has
the potential to expose people to ground shaking
impacts. Significance: Less than significant impact
with mitigation.

4.6.3-1a. All development shall adhere to standard
engineering practices (i.e., trenching
studies), required health and safety
standards and remedial steps during
grading.

4.6.3-1b. All development shall adherence to City of
Camarillo and Caltrans design criteria
relative to seismic and geologic hazards.

4.6.3-2. Grading for the proposed interchange and
local arterials would alter the existing site
topography. Significance: Less than significant with
mitigation.

4.6.3-2a. All development shall comply with City
and State design construction
requirements. In addition, standard
erosion control mitigation measures (such
as matting, slope paving, and cellular
confinement systems) shall be applied.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 1-15

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

4.6.3-3. The proposed project has the potential to be
subject to seismically-induced settlement impacts.

Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.6.3-3a. All development shall adhere to standard
engineering practices and the City of
Camarillo design criteria relative to seismic
and geologic hazards.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.6.4-1. The proposed project may create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment
though reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. Significance: Less
than significant.

4.6.4-1a. The applicant shall be required to notify
the APCD prior to the issuance of
demolition permits or the demolition of
any of the onsite structures. All demolition
activities shall be in full compliance with
APCD Rule 62.7.

4.6.4-2. The project mat result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area due to
the proposed project's close proximity to an airport.

Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.6.4-2a. Future development within the annexation
area shall be required to conform with the
CLUP.

4.6.4-2b. Future development projects within the
annexation shall be subject to further
environmental analysis as determined by
the City of Camarillo.

Hydrology and Water Quality

4.6.5-1. The project could alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a steam or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site. Significance: Less than
significant with mitigation.

4.6.5-1a. The proposed interchange and local
arteri/ls projects shall include appropriate
surface water drainage facilities, designed
in accordance with Caltrans and City
requirements.

4.6.5-1b. Prior to the issuance of any grading
permits, a detailed erosion control plan
shall be concurred with and approved by
the City Engineer.

4.6.5-1c. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a
Notice of Intent shall be submitted to the
State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) and a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be
developed and implemented on-site in
compliance with the California General
Construction Activity Storm Water Permit,
as required by the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
regulations.

4.6.5-1d. To protect water quality in Calleguas
Creek, the following mitigation measures
shall be implemented:

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 1-16

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
a. Material and waste Best Management
Practices (BMPs) during site grading and
construction shall be strictly enforced;
b. A water quality management plan shall
be prepared that addresses potential
water pollutant issues for the proposed
project site and related areas. The
report shall be prepared prior to the
issuance of any grading permits;
c. Permanent structural BMPs, such as
infiltration trenches, fossil filters and/or
water separators, shall be installed and
maintained at all on-site storm drain
inlets; and
d. Non-structural post-construction BMPs,
such as a public education program
(providing signage at all drainage inlets
prohibiting dumping of any kind) shall
be implemented.

UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Agricultural Resources
The loss of approximately 13.25 acres of land to construct the interchange and local arterial improvements remains a significant unavoidable impact.

Air Quality
No long-term unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality have been identified. However, the following temporary unavoidable adverse impact has been identified:

Noise
Year 2020 traffic levels within the vicinity of the Scholle farm house would result in a significant and unavoidable adverse noise impact due to an existing exceedance of City noise standards.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 1-17

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

2.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to review the existing conditions, analyze the potential environmental impacts and suggest feasible mitigation measures to reduce adverse environmental effects of the proposed project to less than significant levels.

The "project" addressed in this EIR includes: 1) the construction of a new interchange on Route 101 at Airport North road, 2) the improvement of several local arterial streets connecting to the new interchange and 3) annexation of 270 acres on the north side of Route 101 into the City of Camarillo. An analysis of cumulative and growth inducing impacts of the project, along with a comparative analysis of alternatives that could reduce or avoid significant impacts while attaining the basic project objectives, is also provided. For more information regarding the proposed project, please refer to Section 3.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION.

2.2 COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
This EIR has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15000 through 15387. The principal CEQA Guidelines Section governing content of this document are Sections 15120 through 15132, "Content of an EIR".

Pursuant to state and local CEQA guidelines, the City of Camarillo prepared and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and an Initial Study for the proposed project (refer to Section

3.2, BACKGROUND AND HISTORY, and Appendix 10.1, INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION). The City determined that the project may result in significant adverse effects and, therefore, the preparation of an EIR was required. This determination was based on the Initial Study and a preliminary review of available project information. Responsible agencies had 30 days to transmit their concerns and comments on the scope and content of the EIR to the State of California Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) and the City of Camarillo, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibilities.

These response letters are included in Appendix 10.1 of the Draft EIR (DEIR). As part of the review process, the DEIR is subject to a 45-day public review period by responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties. Following this review period, responses to comments received from these agencies are prepared. The Final EIR consists primarily of the DEIR, any revisions to the DEIR, and responses and comments addressing concerns raised by responsible agencies or reviewing parties.

2.3 SCOPE OF THE EIR
An Initial Study and a Notice of Preparation for the proposed project were distributed by the City of Camarillo on March 24, 1999. The Initial Study consists of a project description, a checklist, and a discussion of anticipated significant environmental impacts of the project. (The Initial Study, Notice of Preparation and distribution list are contained in Appendix 10.1).

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 2-1

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This EIR addresses potential significant impacts identified in the Initial Study, as well as relevant issues raised during the 30-day Notice of Preparation review period, which occurred from March 25, 1999 to April 23, 1999. The Initial Study and subsequent research identified the following topics requiring analysis within the EIR:
• Aesthetics;
• /Agricultural Resources;
• Cultural Resources;
• 1,- Air Quality;
• Noise;
• Alternatives;
• Cumulative Impacts; and
• Growth Inducing Impacts.

2.4 USE OF THE EIR
The EIR is part of the project review process for the proposed Route 101/Airport North Interchange and Annexation No. 83. It is the intent of this EIR to enable the City of Camarillo, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to project approvals (refer to Section 3.7, AGREEMENTS, PERMITS AND APPROVALS, for a list of the responsible agencies having approval authority over the project). The EIR suggests measures to mitigate potential significant impacts of the project and identifies any impacts which cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels. The EIR also provides additional CEQA mandated discussions, including cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts, and an analysis of alternatives to the proposed project that could feasiblely attain the basic objectives of the project (refer to Section 5.0, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT and Section 6.0, LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT).

2.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Pertinent documents relating to this EIR have been cited and incorporated by reference, in accordance with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, as a means of reducing the redundancy and length of environmental reports. The following documents are available for public review at the City of Camarillo Community Development Department and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Draft EIR. Information contained within these documents has been utilized throughout this EIR.

Final Environmental Impact Report for the Airport North Specific Plan The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Airport North Specific Plan addressed the environmental effects of developing a 338 acre site located along the south side of the U.S. 101 Freeway, west of the Las Posas Road and north of the Camarillo Airport. The Specific Plan would involve the development of office, research and development, mix use center, and hotel uses.

DRAFT HR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 2-2

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
City of Camarillo General Plan and El R, 1989
The City of Camarillo General Plan and E IR is a comprehensive document, covering all aspects of the physical environment and taking into account the social and economic consequences associated with community development and change. The plan is an outline, a framework or guide, for decision-making by both public and private sectors, to direct the growth, rebuilding or modernization of the community into the type of environment desired by its people. The General Plan consists of a series of goals and policies for the City to implement existing and proposed planning issues relevant to the City and its environment.

Project Study Report Route 101 at Airport North Interchange, January 1999 The Project Study Report (PSR) for Route 101 at Airport North Interchange analyzed three alternatives associated with the proposed project which includes: 1) No Project Alternative, 2) Alternative 1 (the project as proposed), and 3) Alternative 2. These alternatives assessed preliminary environmental impacts associated with agricultural land conversion, geology, drainage/water quality, biology, cultural resources, air quality, nosie, and aesthetics/light and glare. In addition, the PSR includes a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the project site which addresses potential environmental conditions associated with hazardous materials.

CITED BY REFERENCE
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Ponderosa Corridor Specific Plan The Ponderosa Corridor Specific Plan Final EIR analyzed impacts associated with implementation of land use policies and standards that would provide for future development within the Ponderosa Corridor Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan provides guidance to ensure orderly and systematic development that would be consistent with the City of Camarillo General Plan.

DRAFT HR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 2-3 30 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 PROJECT LOCATION
This Draft EIR addresses a proposed new interchange on Route 101 (Ventura Freeway), as called out in the City General Plan Circulation Element, plus several local arterials connecting to the new interchange, and annexation of approximately 270 acres along the north side of Route 101 into the City of Camarillo (refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity, Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity, and Exhibit 3, Aerial Photo). The Annexation Area includes the northern portion of the interchange area, as well as additional unincorporated land to the east and west of the interchange, north of Route 101. The proposed interchange is located on Route 101, between existing interchanges at Las Posas Road one mile to the east and Central Avenue one mile to the west.

Several local arterials are proposed north and south of Route 101, including a new north/south arterial with a grade-separated bridge/interchange with Route 101, Ponderosa Drive extension (from its existing terminus westerly to west of the proposed new interchange, Verdulara Street extension (from its existing terminus easterly to realigned Ventura Boulevard), and Ventura Boulevard realignment (refer to Exhibit 4, Proposed Transportation Improvements). The project also includes the annexation of approximately 270 acres, generally located on the north side of Route 101, west of Las Posas Road and easterly of Ponderosa Drive/Avenida de Aprisa. Except for the rectangular annexation area north of Route 101 (within unincorporated Ventura County), the project area and surroundings are within the City of Camarillo.

3.2 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
Annexation No. 83
Historic Land Uses
Both the Spanish and Mexican governments granted several large local tracts of land to individuals, usually for services rendered. One of these, the Calleguas Ranch, was granted to the Ruiz family, but later was acquired by Juan Camarillo. The City of Camarillo is named for.this early pioneer family. A 1,003-acre tract, which includes the annexation area, was not part of any of the land grants, and thus, was available for settlement by Americans when California became a United States possession. The 1,003-acre tract was locally known as The Gore, and the town of Springville developed there in the 1860s and 1870s. By 1880, Springville had a post office, hotel, store, blacksmith, shop, school and church, as well as numerous residences. Most of Springville had disappeared by 1926. By that date, even the church had been abandoned and was in disrepair.

DRAFT EIR May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 3-1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Current Land Uses
The annexation area is mostly in agricultural production with row crops, strawberries, avocados and citrus. Three farm residences and associated structures exist within the area, including McGrath Ranch, which supports a produce stand.

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange and Local Arterials The interchange project area consists mostly of Ca!trans' right-of-way (ROW) for Route 101, and various agricultural operations and ranch buildings. Mature non-native trees are located primarily around farm buildings and in some cases along the south side of Route 101. The Ponderosa Drive extension is adjacent to existing residential areas to the north, and may affect agricultural wetlands to the west. Various utilities extend throughout the area, including overhead electrical lines and irrigation lines. Two farm houses (Friedrich House and Schol le Farm) and associated structures are in the Airport North road alignment area, one to the north (not proposed for acquisition) and one immediately south of Route 101 (this farm house would require acquisition, as it lies in the only possible location for the new interchange). The Verdulera Street extension would be adjacent to industrial areas, and the Ventura Boulevard realignment would be adjacent to commercial/industrial areas.

Annexation No. 83
The 270-acre annexation area is mostly in agricultural production with row crops, strawberries, avocados and citrus. Three farm residences (including two noted above) and associated structures exist within the area, including McGrath Ranch, which supports a produce stand. The Annexation Area abuts a private residential development and golf course/country club, condominiums and townhouses to the north, agricultural parcels to the west, and apartments, fast food establishments and a gas station to the east. Adjacent properties to the north, south and east are located within the City of Camarillo.

3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange and Local Arterials The objectives of the proposed intersection and road extensions are to provide for enhanced traffic flow in the project area, particularly for freeway and local arterial access to the Airport North Specific Plan (south of Route 101) and future land uses north of Route 101. The proposed improvements would provide significant relief for existing and anticipated future traffic congestion at Los Posas Road and Central Avenue interchanges with Route 101. Local arterial improvements would also provide for more efficient east/west access north and south of Route 101.

Dr El R
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 June 23, 1999

Page 3 ends

to
co,
CIZ
0 RI
CN
LU
Ft.P1W3
AILOt-F-1 -
Annexation No.83
Proposed Road Improvements
BR p 9 E CC C)L N C
ROBERTBEIN . WILLI AMFROST&AS
slo
wanoldwipeoupasodoici
eg .ONuollexau uv
CD
AIRPORTNORTH/ ROUTE10 1 & ANNEXATION NO. 83
Cr

74. f 1+,) >,
c3 (AI -a
o z —
11 hi >,
0 0 Will —00Z
(4.1
it
SSP
9-CEZ4£0-0 N r

BAJO AGUA AVE
"0
CD
cn
0 a)
2 "0
"0
CD
m 3
CD
;:i•
(1)
arm
0 CS'
1-11 1:0N 1 W
OdflV £8 'ON NOLLVX3NNV I.01.3i
nal
(n -n
0 03

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Annexation No. 83
The annexation area is surrounded on all sides by the City of Camarillo and would be considered an island. The annexation would eliminate the island area, and allow for the proposed interchange and related arterial improvements to be entirely within the City of Camarillo. The annexation area is within the City of Camarillo Sphere of Influence, and the City anticipates development within the annexation area within the next four years. The proposed annexation is consistent with Section 3.2 of the County of Ventura General Plan, which states that the Sphere of Influence line is the "probable ultimate boundary of a city." Section 3.2 of the County of Ventura General Plan goes on further to state, "the urban reserve overlay designation is applied to all unimproved land within a city's adopted Sphere of Influence." In addition, the proposed annexation is consistent with the County of Ventura General Plan Section 3.1.1, which promotes the establishment of reasonable boundaries and the prevention of step-out urban development.

3.5 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange and Local Arterials The proposed Route 101/Airport North Interchange portion of the project would involve the construction of a conventional diamond interchange with a six-lane overcrossing, consisting of two through lanes in each direction and dual left turn lanes (a more detailed project description is provided in the Project Study Report for the interchange, which is available for review at the City Engineering Services Department). New on- and off-ramps would merge with the existing Route 101 northbound and southbound travel lanes. The proposed interchange overcrossing would connect to the north with the proposed westerly extension .of Ponderosa Drive, and to south would connect with the proposed easterly extension of Verdulera Street. Ponderosa Drive would be widened to four lanes from Las Posas Road to the new interchange and associated north/south arterial. The existing Ventura Boulevard south of Route 101 would be relocated. The new Ventura Boulevard would be four lanes with bike lanes and a median, and would connect to the existing westerly end of the recently constructed Ventura Boulevard located south of the Target Shopping Center (to the east of the new interchange) and the existing Ventura Boulevard (west of the new interchange).

The proposed project would involve California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right- -of-way (ROW) and property acquisition from seven (7) adjacent privately owned parcels.

Acquisition of one parcel in the southeast quadrant of the proposed interchange would require relocation assistance for one residential farmhouse. California Transportation Commission (CTC) approval would be required due to the transfer of ROW from the City to Caltrans. The City of Camarillo would own and maintain the proposed bridge and abutments.

Annexation No. 83
The Annexation No. 83 component of the project requests annexation of approximately 270 acres into the City of Camarillo, Camarillo Sanitary District and detachment from the Ventura County Resource Conservation District. The annexation would pre-zone the 270 acres to one DRAFT El R May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 3-7

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
rural exclusive on 40 acres (RE-40) consistent with the Camarillo General Plan: However no change from the existing agricultural uses are currently proposed as part of the project. Future development within Annexation No. 83 would be subject to separate discretionary, lead agency and responsible agency review.

3.6 PROJECT PHASING
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange and Local Arterials The new interchange would be constructed in two phases. The following is a brief description of each phase (refer to Exhibit 5, Typical Section).

Phase 1
Phase 1 consists of constructing the diamond interchange with an interim Airport North road two-lane configuration (including the bridge), consisting of the following components: one

3.6 meter (12-foot) thru lane in each direction, 1.2 meter (4-foot) painted median, 2.4 meter (8-foot) shoulders on each side, and a 1.5 meter (5-foot) sidewalk along the west side of the road. Single 3.6 meter (12-foot) left turn lanes would be constructed for the northbound and southbound Airport North road at the ramp termini. Four ramps would consist of one 3.6 meter (12-foot) lane with 2.4 meter (8-foot) outside shoulder and 1.2 meter (4-foot) inside shoulder. This phase would also include Ponderosa Drive widening and extension, Ventura Boulevard realignment, and Verdulera Street extension.

Phase 2
_Airport North road Phase 2 would consist of the above Phase 1 elements, in addition to an additional through lane in each direction (including the bridge), and an additional 3.6 meter (12-foot) left hand turn lane would be constructed for the northbound and southbound Airport North road at the ramp termini.

Annexation No. 83
The Annexation No. 83 area would be annexed into the City of Camarillo upon Final EIR certification by the City and approval from LAFCO.

3.7 AGREEMENTS, PERMITS AND APPROVALS
implementation of the proposed project would involve California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way (ROW) and property acquisition from seven (7) adjacent privately owned parcels. Approval of the following actions by the identified agencies is required in connection to the proposed project.
• Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission - Annexation No. 83 DRAFT El R May 6,, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 3-8 -o 0
1)4
5131,
9 -CCZ4£0
-

01.Nr
-0
V) P1
-13
0 411
0 573
-0
0 70
-4
0 70
;10
0 r-
-1
L/1
Pl
v-v
NO11
0 3S 1VOIdAl
-0
30 0
-0
0 V/
0 -0
0 7.1
> Z CA 0
rn
0 03
70 rn
v-vNOLLO3S 1VOIdAl
TNORTH / RO UTE 101 & ANNEXATION NO. 83
(I-ESA I-ISA) (I-frSA ISM
NO1103S 1VOIdA.1
NO1103S 1VOIdAl
ScillVel NO 03S0d08d
9-9 NO11
33S 1VDIdA1
'1J
P1
NJ

PROPOSED AIRPORT NORTH ROAD AT C
AL T
RANSR
/W AREA
C71
0'

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
• California Department of Transportation (Ca!trans) - Encroachment Permit • California Transportation Commission (CTC) - Approval • County of Ventura Flood Control District - drainage facility design approval • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) - Section 404 Permit • California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) - 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement
• Utility Providers - Utility relocation coordination
DRAFT EIR May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 3-10

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL

SETTING, IMPACTS, MITIGATION

MEASURES AND UNAVOIDABLE

SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

4.1 AESTHETICS

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Setting
The project site is in the southern portion of Ventura County. The area is part of a fertile coastal plain with mountainous terrain to the north (Camarillo Hills), east (Las Posas Hills, Mountcleff Ridge, Calleguas Mountains, Conejo Mountains) and south (Guadalasca Mountains, Santa Monica Mountains). The Pacific Ocean is approximately 10 miles away to the west and south. The topography of the area is diverse, with elevations ranging from about 30 feet above mean sea level (ms1) in the Oxnard Plain, 884 feet above (ms1) in the Camarillo Hills, and 1,814 feet above sea level at the northernmost extension of the Santa Monica Mountains. The area is characterized by urban and agricultural uses. Natural vegetation and wildlife communities are concentrated in three general areas on the north side of the Camarillo Hills, Las Posas Hills and Santa Monica Mountains.

Local Setting
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
The interchange project area consists mostly of Caltrans' right-of-way (ROW) for Route 101, and various agricultural operations and ranch buildings. Mature non-native trees are located primarily around farm buildings and in some cases along the south side of Route 101. The Ponderosa Drive extension is adjacent to existing residential areas to the north, and may affect a detention basin and wetlands. Various utilities lie throughout the area, including overhead electrical lines and irrigation lines. Two farm houses (Friedrich House and Schol le Farm) and associated structures are in the Airport North road alignment area: the Scholle Farm to the north and the Friedrich House immediately south of Route 101 in proposed State right-of-way.

The Verdulera Street extension would be adjacent to industrial areas, and the Ventura Boulevard realignment would be adjacent to commercial/industrial areas.

Agricultural land and commercial/industrial uses, as well as the Camarillo Airport are located south of Route 101. Light industrial uses are located west of the proposed freeway interchange, south of Route 101, with agricultural land located north of Route 101.

Annexation No. 83
The 270-acre annexation area is slightly sloping from north to south with some hillside area to the north. The annexation area is mostly in agricultural production with row crops, strawberries, avocados and citrus. Three farm residences (including the two noted above) and associated structures exist within the area, including McGrath Ranch, which supports a produce stand. Three prominent windrows of eucalyptus, and scattered ornamental trees exist within the annexation area.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.1-1

4.1 AESTHETICS
The annexation area abuts a private residential development and golf course/country club, condominiums and townhouses to the north, agricultural parcels to the west, and apartments, fast food establishments and a gas station to the east. Adjacent properties to the north and east are located within the City of Camarillo.

The annexation area is bound on the south by Route 101, a designated scenic highway, opposite the previously approved Airport North Specific Plan area, which is located south of Route 101 and is currently in agricultural production with some commercial development.

The Airport North Specific Plan area is proposed for future development as a business park, including corporate offices, general offices, research and development facilities, mixed use centers and hotel uses. East of the annexation area is a commercial strip, mall and gas station.

North of the annexation area are various residential developments including two-story apartment units, the Palm Colony condominiums and Spanish Hills estate-type single-family lots. West of the annexation area is agricultural land, mobile homes and commercial uses. At present, all of the surrounding land uses vary in architectural style and type, color and texture of materials used.

Scenic Highways
The City of Camarillo's Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan describes the regional and local scenic highway system. The project site is visible from the following designated scenic highways:
• Route 101;
• Central Avenue;
• Las Posas Road; and
• Daily Drive.

When a street is classified as a scenic highway, the scenic corridor (view from the road) is protected through various controls to ensure that the view is maintained or embellished.

Development and construction within a scenic corridor must undergo architectural and site plan review. The review and approval criteria include, but are not limited to the following criteria identified in the Scenic Highways Element:
• All elements of the proposed development shall be consistent with the intent and all requirements of the Scenic Corridor Plan.
• Buildings and structures shall be designed and located on the site as to create a generally attractive appearance and a harmonious relationship with the surrounding environment.
• Buildings, structures and plant materials shall be constructed, installed or planted, so as not to unnecessarily obstruct scenic views visible from scenic routes.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.1-2

4.1 AESTHETICS
• Potentially unsightly features (i.e., parking lots, storage areas, repair and maintenance areas, etc.) shall be located away from the scenic highway or effectively screened from view by planting and/or fencing, walls, grading or multiple use thereof.
• Development shall make use of modern site planning techniques, such as common access drives, landscaping, etc.

Community Design
The City of Camarillo's Community Design Element promotes concepts and standards to aid in the development of the character of Camarillo. The element addresses site features, architectural elements and environmental factors that affect the design of buildings. It also addresses the utilization of land, the relationships between uses of land, buildings and the maintenance of property. The Community Design Element provides many guiding policies relating to development of various land use types (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) and presents principals and objectives to be considered in the design of specific project to add dimension to the aesthetics and functions of developments within the community. In addition, the Community Design Element reiterates many of the policies and design criteria presented specifically for consideration in scenic highway corridors, as discussed above.

One approach to the enhancement of community character and image presented in the Community Design Element is the establishment of a Heritage Zone. Developments within proximity to Route 101 have been classified as being in the Heritage Zone of the City.

Developments within 500 feet of the freeway and 1,000 feet of freeway interchanges are required to have a particular design theme. Designs that would be appropriate within the Heritage Zone could include the following: Mission style, Monterey style, Early California style, Spanish style, Mediterranean style, or modern interpretations of these styles. The most important aspect of the Heritage Zone is the type of materials, their colors and textures, and the scale of the architectural elements within the building design. Appropriate types of building materials should be wood, glass, tile, textured blocks, and other similar materials.

The building materials should be appropriate to the design of the building.

IMPACTS
Significance Criteria
A project will result in a significant effect on the environment if it will have a "substantial, demonstrable negative effect." The significance of an aesthetic effect, in terms of this project, can be determined by examining anticipated project effects from a number of view points including observer position and changes to the present visual character of the project area. It is important to note that, in the absence of a site plan or building elevations, this impact analysis is more subjective and qualitative in nature and must assume worst case conditions relative to zoning requirements (setback, height, landscaping) and permitted land uses. The following standards are used to assess aesthetic impacts:

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.1-3

4.1 AESTHETICS
• Substantial obstruction of scenic views;
• Degradation of scenic views from important public gathering places; • Obstruction or alteration of views from a designated scenic highway or heavily traveled roadway;
• Substantial alteration of unique environmental or man-made visual features; • Development that does not conform with a jurisdiction's design guidelines or policies; or
• Development that is out of scale or character with a distinct neighborhood or district.

The evaluation of aesthetic impacts is, by nature, a subjective exercise due to widely varying personal perceptions. Nevertheless, replacement of agricultural land for urban uses would permanently alter the appearance of the project area.

Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange and Local Arterials

4.1-1. Construction of the proposed interchange and local arterial roadways would result in short-term aesthetic impacts. Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.1-1 Discussion: Short-term impacts would be associated with construction of the proposed interchange and local arterial roadways. During site preparation and construction periods, graded land, construction equipment, materials and structures in various phases of completion would be visible from Route 101, other area roadways and land uses in the vicinity, particularly residential uses to the north. Because construction is a temporary activity, the associated short-term aesthetics impacts are considered to be less than significant.

4.1-2 Construction of the proposed interchange would alter the views from Route 101, a designated scenic highway. Significance: Less than significant.

4.1-2 Discussion: The City of Camarillo has a policy of limiting intersecting routes to scenic routes. However, this policy calls for the limitation and not the prohibition of such intersections. As such, the proposed interchange is identified within the General Plan Circulation Element. Thus, construction of the proposed interchange would not be considered a significant impact.

4. 1-3 Construction of the proposed interchange and /oca/ arterial roadways would impact scenic resources (i.e., existing structures and mature trees)in the project area. Significance:

Less than significant with mitigation.

4.1-3 Discussion: The project area is generally absent of unique scenic resources, with the exceptions of three older farm buildings (dating prior to 1950) and various mature trees in the DRAFT HR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4_11-4

4.1 AESTHETICS
vicinity of the proposed interchange. Construction of the proposed interchange would require removal of the farm building south of Route 101. In addition, the interchange would likely involve removal of some mature trees along a section of Route 101, as well as around any displaced farm buildings. Mature trees, if determined feasible and appropriate, could be relocated in the nearby vicinity or within proposed landscaped areas. Displaced farm buildings would, on a case-by-case basis, be mitigated through avoidance, relocation, and/or archival research and photo documentation. For a more detailed discussion of impacts on historic resources, refer to Section 4.3, CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Annexation No. 83

4.1-4. Future development within Annexation No. 83 area would alter the visual character of the area. Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.1-4 Discussion: The visual analysis of any project must consider the actual visual quality of the area. Visual quality of the project area is defined by its open space value. Visual sensitivity is also a factor in a visual analysis. Visual sensitivity is defined by public views of the project, the number of viewers and the duration of the view. Therefore, a project located on a site of high visual quality with high sensitivity would have the most significant impact.

The project area is considered to be in an area of significant visual quality, due to the amount of open space and vacant land within the project area.

The existing character of the annexation area is visually consistent with the existing agricultural nature of the property to the south and west. However, future development within the annexation area would be consistent with the urban character to the north and west, as well as the ultimate buildout condition of the Airport North Specific Plan area to the south.

Future development within the annexation area would permanently convert the existing agricultural character of the area through the introduction of urban uses. This would constitute a major alteration in the visual character of the site. The City's Open Space and Conservation Element states that one of the purposes of open space is for the continued assurance of the continued availability of land for the enjoyment of scenic beauty. Given that residents and travelers on Route 101 have enjoyed the open space/agricultural character of the annexation area, conversion of the area to urban uses is considered a significant impact. However, implementation of recommended mitigation measures identified at the end of this section would reduce aesthetic impacts to less than significant levels.

4.1-5 Future development within the annexation area would impact scenic resources in the project area. Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.1-5 Discussion: Future development within the annexation area may adversely affect the McGrath Ranch farm house. In addition, future development within the annexation area would likely involve removal of some mature trees along a section of Route 101, as well as around any displaced farm buildings. As previously discussed, mature trees, if determined feasible and appropriate, could be relocated in the nearby vicinity or within proposed landscaped areas. Displaced farm buildings would, on a case-by-case basis, be mitigated through avoidance (as in the case of the farm building north of Route 101 at Ponderosa Drive DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.1-5

4.1 AESTHETICS
extension), relocation, and/or archival research and photo documentation. For a more detailed discussion of impacts on historic resources, refer to Section 4.3, CULTURAL RESOURCES.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange and Local Arterials

4.1-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading or construction permit, the contractor shall prepare and submit a construction phase "good housekeeping plan" for review and approval by the City Planning and Community Development Department and City Fire Department. The plan shall include such information as designation of on-site locations for materials and equipment storage, schedule for debris removal, proposed screening mechanisms, etc.

4.1-2 No mitigation measures are required.

4.1-3 Refer to Section 4.3, CULTURAL RESOURCES, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1. No additional mitigation measures are required.

Annexation No. 83

4.1-4a All future development proposals in the annexation area shall be designed in accordance with all applicable City criteria, including but not limited to the Community Design Element of the General Plan and the City's Heritage Zone Design Guidelines.

4.1-4b Open vistas shall be protected by such means as adequate setbacks, open space, building height limits, and view corridors pursuant to the Camarillo Municipal Code.

4.1-5 Refer to Mitigation Measure 4.1-3, above.

SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts have been identified in this regard.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 41-6

4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The following analysis was prepared based upon a review of the Ventura County General Plan, the City of Camarillo General Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Ponderosa Corridor Specific Plan.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Setting
Ventura County has some of the best agricultural land in the world. The County is one of three principal agricultural counties in California, ranking 11thin the state in agricultural production in 1997. Agricultural production in Ventura County amounted to a gross market value of over $942,300,000 in 1997. The Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner has estimated that the value of related agricultural activity is $3.11 for every $1.00 of total agricultural crop value. Therefore, agriculture contributes over $2.9 billion to the Ventura County economy in addition to the value of the crops.

The Oxnard Plain, which encompasses the cities of Oxnard, Port Hueneme and Camarillo, and surrounding unincorporated areas, has very high quality agricultural soils and a mild climate extremely favorable to farming. In some locations on the plain, up to four different crops are grown per year. Most of the farmland on the plain produces row crops, although there is a substantial citrus crop orchard as well. The lower hillsides are largely planted to orchard crops, primarily citrus and avocados. Nursery operations, including seed and stock operations, are found on the plain and in the lower hills, as well as cut flower operations.

Local Setting
The 270-acre annexation area is mostly in agricultural production with row crops, strawberries, avocados and citrus. Three farm residences and associated structures exist within the area, including McGrath Ranch, which supports a produce stand. The Annexation Area abuts a private residential development and golf course/country club, condominiums and townhouses to the north, agricultural parcels to the west, and apartments, fast food establishments and a gas station to the east. Adjacent properties to the north and east are located within the City of Camarillo.

Oxnard-Camarillo Greenbelt
The agricultural lands are generally located east of Vineyard Avenue, west of the future extension of Ponderosa Drive, south of State Route 118, and north of Route 101 are within the Oxnard-Camarillo Greenbelt. Numerous parcels extending south of Route 101 to Mugu Lagoon are also within the greenbelt. The greenbelt was established by an agreement in 1982 between the cities of Oxnard and Camarillo. The County of Ventura entered into the agreement in 1984. The purpose of the greenbelt is to control urban sprawl and maintain separate community identities through a policy of not annexing or developing properties within the
DRAFf FIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.2-1

4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
greenbelt. The annexation area is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the greenbelt boundaries, and therefore, is not subject to the non-annexation, non-development policy.

Ventura County Agricultural Policies
The annexation area is presently unincorporated and is designated under the County General Plan for "Open Space (Urban Reserve Overlay)" and "Agricultural (Urban Reserve Overlay)" uses. The "Open Space" designation includes unimproved lands devoted to open space uses, including lands set aside to preserve resources, outdoor recreation areas, forest lands, rangelands and agricultural lands not designated for agricultural uses. The "Agricultural" designation is imposed on irrigated lands suitable for the production of crops and the raising of livestock. The "Urban Reserve Overlay" is applied to unincorporated land located within a city's sphere of influence. The Camarillo Sphere of Influence boundary, adopted by the County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the County Board of Supervisors and the City of Camarillo reflects the probable ultimate city limits. The entire annexation area is located within the Camarillo Sphere of Influence. LAFCO has determined that properties located within a city's sphere of influence are appropriate for annexation and urbanization.

Camarillo Agricultural Policies
The City of Camarillo General Plan Land Use Element designates a majority of the annexation area as "Agriculture/Urban Reserve" uses. The General Plan describes the "Agriculture" designation as follows:
"The General Plan proposes that the agricultural activities be encouraged to continue both as a source of economic substance to the community and to the County and as a physical definition to the urban area of the City. The General Plan also recognizes the importance of agricultural land within the City. This land should be conserved but could be converted to other uses if there is a community need or benefit." The General Plan also provides criteria to determine whether minimum acreages are sufficient to support viable agricultural operations within areas that fall under an agricultural classification. Three agricultural classifications have been established: a 10-acre minimum agricultural operation, a 20-acre minimum operation, and a 40-acre minimum operation.

Classifications are based on the property's structural features such as size, surrounding zoning, agricultural viability, and physical features such as erosion hazard, slope and landslide hazard.

The "Urban Reserve" designation is used as an interim designation prior to the conversion of property designated "Agriculture" to some other land use determined appropriate by the City.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.2-2

4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

IMPACTS
Significance Criteria
The Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (November 1992) provide guidelines for the assessment of development/project-related impacts on agricultural soils and agricultural resources (water, air quality/micro climate, pests/diseases) and agricultural land use incompatibility. The guidelines provide a discussion of each issue and threshold criteria.

The issue discussion for agricultural soil and threshold criteria are presented below.

Definition of the Issue
Soil which is utilized or suitable for agricultural crop production. This issue entails the direct loss of agricultural soils due to removal or permanent overcovering, and indirect loss due to increased wind or water erosion.

Threshold Criteria
Any project which would result in the direct or indirect loss of soils designated Prime, Statewide significance, Unique or Local significance will have an impact.

Any soil which would result in the direct or indirect loss of agricultural soils meeting or exceeding the following criteria will be considered as having a significant project impact.

General Plan Land Use
Designation
1H1 Classification Acres Lost
Agriculture Prime/Statewide
Unique
Local
5 10
15 Any project which would result in the direct or indirect loss of agricultural soils meeting or exceeding the following criteria will be considered as having a contribution to significant cumulative impact.

General Plan Land Use
Designation
IFI Classification Acres Lost
Agriculture Prime/Statewide
Unique
1 2
U.S. Soil Conservation Service Important Farmland Inventory (IFI) system.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.2-3

4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Any project which would not meet the above criteria, although it could result in the incremental loss of some agricultural soils, is considered as having a de minimus contribution to an otherwise significant cumulative impact.

In Ventura County, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service Important Farmlands Inventory (IH) system is used to inventory lands considered to have agricultural value. This system divides farmland into classes based upon the productive capability of the land, rather than the mere presence of ideal soil conditions. The system recognizes that a large amount of agricultural land in California and Ventura County which would not ordinarily be classified as "prime" is, nevertheless, among the most productive land in the country. The inventory identifies four types of agricultural lands: "prime" and those farmlands of "statewide", "unique" and "local" importance. The Ventura County Soil Survey, published in 1970, was used to apply the WI criteria to Ventura County, and identifies mapping units which meet the "prime" and "statewide" definitions.

In general, "prime" farmlands are irrigated soils over 40 inches deep with a waterholding capacity of 4 inches or more. They are well drained, free from frequent flooding, have a slight potential for erosion, and are neither strongly acidic nor alkaline. Farmlands of "statewide" importance are lands other than "prime" that have a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics of producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. The criteria is basically similar to that for "prime", but there is no minimum soil depth limitation and no permeability restriction. "Unique" farmlands are lands other than "prime" or those of "statewide importance" that produce high value food and fiber crops, as listed in the annual report of the Department of Food and Agriculture. "Local" farmlands include dry farmed lands and non-irrigated "prime" or "statewide" lands. As shown on Figure 6, the flat and moderately sloping portions of the Specific Plan area include "prime" and "statewide importance" farmlands.

Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange and Local Arterials

4.2-1. Implementation of the proposed infrastructure and circulation improvements would result in the conversion of agricultural land for urban uses. Significance: Significant and unavoidable.

4.2-1 Discussion: The proposed alignments for the north/south arterial, Ponderosa Drive extension and Ventura Boulevard realignment have been based, in part, upon the goal of minimizing loss of existing agricultural land, and in consideration of planned developmentfor the Airport North Specific Plan area. The proposed interchange and arterial improvements are consistent with the City of Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element, and are important components for the continued planned development of the City.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.2-4

AIRPORT N

ORTH /R
OUTE 101 & ANNEXATION NO. 83
cn P5J 0
tT. 7.
05 C''..

4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

4.2-4. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to be recorded for the annexation area shall include provisions that normal agricultural practices in the Greenbelt to the west will continue indefinitely. The CC&Rs will recognize the right-to-farm on the agricultural land to the west, including the right to normal use of agricultural chemicals and farm machinery use as necessary for efficient farm operations.

SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The loss of approximately 13.25 acres of land to construct the interchange and local arterial improvements remains a significant unavoidable impact.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.2-8

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The information in this section is based upon a Literature Review, Airport North/U.S. Route 101 Interchange dated October 1998 and a Cultural Resources Reconnaissance, Airport North/U.S. Route 101 Interchange dated February 1999, both prepared by RMW Paleo Associates; a Historical Resources Technical Report: Site of Proposed Airport North road/U.S.

Route 101 Interchange prepared by Tim Gregory dated January 1999; and the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Ponderosa Corridor Specific Plan, prepared by Fugro West, Inc. dated October 1995. The purpose of this section is to identify cultural and historical resources that may exist on the property and to assess the significance of such resources. Mitigation measures are also recommended to preserve and/or protect the resources.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Historical Resources
Immediately west of the current Ferro Trust property and slightly southwest of the site of the Edward Scholle farm was the now-vanished town of Springville, which was located on the south side of Route 101. Route 101 was historically known as Conejo Road, then Springville Road and later as Ventura Boulevard. The town of Springville was centered around the intersection of Conejo Road and Wood Road, approximately three miles west of the center of Camarillo. Springville occupied the extreme western end of a triangular piece of land of about 1,000 acres known as "The Gore," due to its shape. The Gore was also known as Pleasant Valley and was bounded on the north by Rancho Las Posas, La Colonia on the south, Rancho Del Norte on the west and Rancho Cal leguas on the east.

This tract of land was never a part of any Spanish land grant, and as a result was open to colonization from Americans. Springville was founded in the 1870's on approximately 90 acres of farm land owned by John Sebastian. A precise year cannot be given to Springville's start. In 1870, a commercial area that included a general store and a blacksmith shop was established. The Conejo Road was constructed in 1873 by Ventura County and a stage station, originally built at the junction of Del Norte and Santa Clara Avenues, was moved to Springville when the stage route was changed from Santa Susana to Conejo. A post office was established in Springville in 1875. Through newspaper accounts, it is known that by 1880, there were two mercantile stores, the post office, a church, a cemetery, a blacksmith shop, a hotel, a restaurant, two feed stables and a number of homes at Springville. It became known as the trading center and team stop for at least six surrounding major ranches. The Springville School District was formed in 1887 and a school house was constructed.

The Santa Clara Water and Irrigating Ditch Company was formed in 1871 with an appropriation of 2,700 inches of water. This ditch was taken out of the Santa Clara River about ten miles north of Springville, passed through the Schiappa Pietra (del Norte) ranch, through Springville, and extended some six miles to the south through La Colonia.

DRAFT EIR May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.3-1

4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Construction of the proposed interchange and local arterial improvements would result in the loss of agricultural lands designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance.

Collectively, the proposed interchange and local arterial improvements would result in the loss of approximately 13.25 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, which exceeds the thresholds of significance for the loss of these types of agricultural lands.

Therefore, a significant project-specific impact on agricultural soils would occur.

4.2-2. Construction of the interchange and local arterials could potentially impact adjacent agricultural uses. Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.2-2 Discussion: Site preparation for the interchange and local arterial improvements would include grading, which would create dust. It is estimated that any grading conducted adjacent to existing agricultural crops or orchards would have the potential to significantly increase the exposure of crops/orchards to dust. Depending upon the soil moisture and wind conditions, dust impacts could extend several hundred feet. Dust can increase the likelihood of pests, such as spider mites, infesting crops and having other negative effects on plant health. This is considered a short-term significant impact. However, mitigation measures have been incorporated to reduce the significance level to less than significant (refer to Section 4.4, AIR QUALITY, mitigation measures 4.4-la through 4.4-1e for additional dust abatement measures.

Annexation No. 83

4.2-3. Annexation No. 83 would result in the conversion of agricultural land for urban uses.

Significance: Less than significant.

4.2-3 Discussion: The Ventura County General Plan acknowledges that the annexation area is within the City of Camarillo's Sphere of Influence. In doing so, the County recognizes that these lands would eventually be annexed into the City and ultimately developed. This fact is reflected in the "Urban Reserve Overlay" associated with the County land uses designated within the project area. The proposed annexation area is surrounded on four sides by incorporated areas of the City of Camarillo. The annexation area is proposed to remain in agriculture as shown on the Land Use Element of the City of Camarillo's General Plan. The annexation area would be pre-zoned to RE-40 acres (Rural Exclusive, 40 acre minimum lot size). All parcels would be in conformance with the zoning (parcels smaller than 40 acres would remain with no further division). This would be consistent with the City of Camarillo General Plan.

While annexation of the 270 acres into the City of Camarillo must occur before development, the annexation would not provide any development entitlement. The annexation area would remain in agricultural use until subsequent development proposals are processed through the City of Camarillo. Subsequent development would be subject to a discretionary review process including, at minimum, a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The specific impacts of future development would be addressed in project-specific CEQA documentation.

DRAFT HR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.2-6

4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
There is the potential for development proposals to be considered within the next four years.

However, the annexation area would continue to be utilized for agricultural uses under the pre-zone RE-40. No changes or disruptions to existing agricultural operations would occur until such time that future development proposals are approved by the City of Camarillo. Thus, annexing area No. 83 into the City of Camarillo would not result in the loss of agricultural land. The actual loss of agricultural land would occur with on-site development at a later date.

Therefore, the potential development-related impacts are more appropriately addressed through the CEQA document required for future development. The impacts regarding the loss of agricultural land associated specifically with the interchange and local arterials were separately identified and analyzed above.

4.2-4. Potential for future uses within the annexation area could potentially impact adjacent agricultural uses. Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.2-4 Discussion: As previously mentioned, there is the potential for development within the annexation area to be considered by the City of Camarillo within the next four years. While no specific development proposals have been identified at this time, future development has the potential to be located in close proximity to the Oxnard-Camarillo Greenbelt located to the west of the annexation area. The Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines define agricultural land use incompatibility as land uses that may be incompatible with adjacent agricultural production due to its impact on agriculture (e.g., vandalism) or being impacted by agriculture (e.g., chemical spraying). Thus, future development within the annexation area has the potential to generate land use incompatiblity impacts with the neighboring agricultural uses. The identification of specific development-related impacts and additional mitigation measures beyond those identified below, shall be addressed through the CEQA document required for future development within the annexation area.

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.2-1. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts relating to the loss of agricultural soils and land (13.25 acres).

4.2-2a. During site preparation of any parcel that is adjacent to land in agricultural production, the applicant shall maintain contact with the adjacent land owner to determine if the wash down of agricultural crops is warranted due to the production of dust at the construction site. Should crop watering be necessary, the developer shall be responsible for such watering. Watering shall be conducted in a manner that is approved by the agricultural property owner.

4.2-2b. The Final Street Improvement Plan shall include a crossing to allow for farm implements to traverse between portions of the farm areas. The final design and location is subject to City approval and include special paving such as concrete, signage and curb cuts as necessary.

4.2-3. No mitigation measures are required.

DRAFT FIR
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 June 23, 1999

Page 4 ends

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
With the ending of stage service in 1887, due to the coming of the Southern Pacific Railroad, Saticoy became the trading center of the district, and Springville gradually faded from the scene. The establishment of Camarillo around 1900 and the opening of the Coast Line in 1902 saw the end of Springville; the blacksmith shop was the last business to close shortly after that year. The post office was discontinued in 1903 and relocated to Camarillo. By the 1920s, Camarillo had taken over the role of trade center for the region, with warehouses for agricultural products springing up around its Southern Pacific rail stop. Likewise, the town of Som is, near the center of the former Las Posas grant, became the shipping center for that ranch and the center of activity for the farmers of the area.

The Springville Baptist Church, but by W.O. Wood in 1879, was in use for some 30 years.

For another 30 years, it stood unused until it was razed in the late 1930s. The last house considered to be a part of the once-thriving town of Springville was demolished in 1970. The land on which Springville stood has reverted to farming.

Evaluation of the Historic Significance of Resources
Using the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which are commonly accepted by the California Office of Historic Preservation for the California Register of Historical Resources, Mr. Tim Gregory determined the significance of the identified resources on the project site for the interchange and roadway extensions.

Within the study area, there are two known building complexes that are of sufficient age to be considered historic: the Scholle Farm Site and the Friedrich House.

Scholle Farm (APN 157-002-015
This cluster of resources lies to the north of Route 101, and has historical interest. However, the barn and cabin-like former residence have probably been moved to this location from another site (and possibly another property) and have lost their historical integrity. The guest house and former garage were probably built in 1953, and although they have reached the 45-year age mark for consideration, their methods of construction are undistinguished and the levels of integrity are poor. The age of the workshop is indeterminable and of a style that is still prevalent in nearby older agricultural properties. These structures do not measurably contribute to the significance of the site.

The farmhouse and packing house are far more historically significant. Edward Scholle was a member of a pioneer German immigrant family whose other farms have all but disappeared in recent years. Although Springville was fading by the time these buildings were constructed (mid 1890s), they are the only ones still remaining in the area that were associated with that now-vanished settlement. For these reasons, this site can be considered significant under National Register Criterion A (association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history). The architecture of the farmhouse, which has not been radically altered over the intervening years, may not have been unique for its time, but is now the only representative of its type in the immediate area that still retains its original setting. The construction technology of the packing house is also DRAFT EIR May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.3-2

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
of significance, because it is the only structure of its type remaining in the area. Therefore, these building are sufficiently distinguished to be considered significant under Criterion C (embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or representation of the work of a master, or possession of high artistic values).

In conclusion, the farmhouse and packing house are of major local significance under NRHP criteria A and C, and appear eligible for listing on the National Register as contributors to a district that has been fully documented according to Office of Historic Preservation instructions.

Friedrich House
This complex lies to the south of Route 101. Existence of this complex was known from an environmental assessment completed by ENSR Corporation in 1998. The ENSR report states that the complex is visible on aerial photographs taken in 1945 and on the 1904 USGS topographic maps. The report further states that the complex consists of a residential structure, a carport, a small storage shed and a 600 square foot concrete foundation that once was a storage shed. The Primary Number (PN) assigned to these resources is PN 56-152749 (Friedrich House). A determination has been made that the site is not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places due to the lack of unique features and important historical associations.

APN 230-001-020
The residence built in 1953 has just reached the 45-year age limit, which makes it eligible for the California Register. Although it is adjacent to the Springville town site, it was constructed many years after the town was abandoned and has no real historical connection to the town.

In addition, the original owner of the home, which a member of a pioneering local family, is not historically significant as an individual. For these reasons, this site is not considered significant under National Register Criterion A (associations with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history). The architecture of the residence, while not radically altered over the intervening years, is not unique for its time. Also, there are many houses in the California Ranch style that still exist in the immediate area. Therefore, the residence is insufficiently distinguished to be considered significant under Criterion C (embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or representation of the work of a master, or possession of high artistic values).

In conclusion, the residence is of no local significance under NRHP criteria A and C, and was found ineligible for listing on the National Register.

DRAFT OR May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.3-3

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
McGrath Ranch Sitel
The McGrath Ranch is a historical ranch site that has been recorded on the State of California's Historic Resources Inventory list. The McGrath Ranch is located at the southwestern end of the Annexation No. 83 area. The ranch house and associated structures were recorded on the State of California's Historic Resources Inventory List by RMW Paleo Associates in 1991. The house was built by the Clayburgs in approximately 1910 and bought by Joseph McGrath in 1942. The ranch complex consists of a craftsman style single-story house with a barn and shed. The house is in good condition; the barn is in fair condition.

The City of Camarillo does not consider the McGrath Ranch complex to be a significant historic resource.

Archaeological Resources
Twenty-one (21) surveys and/or excavations have been conducted within a one mile radius of the project area. Two of these reports are site-specific. Sixteen (16) additional investigations are located within the Camarillo quadrangle and potentially within the project area, but have not been mapped due to insufficient information.

A cluster of archaeological sites is known to exist to the immediate west of the northern end of the interchange study area. One excavation project has been completed at these sites. In 1991, Bissell concluded that the southern part of the site nearest the interchange study area (CA-VEN-223) was redeposited from up slope (from the north) and determined that the site is of no importance. The bulk of the site, which has not been excavated, lies slightly further north in a citrus grove. Site F-1 was recorded by Fugro West on a hill slope in the western portion of Annexation No. 83. At this time, the importance of the archaeological sites must be considered as not established, given the limited excavation work, except for the small portion of CA-VEN-223 explored by Bissell, which was determined to be not important. The archaeological sites are of an unknown quantity, insofar as their importance is concerned.

The prehistoric sites of CA-VEN-223 and F-1 have been recorded within the western end of the Annexation No. 83 area, which is immediately west of Annexation No.83. The following is a brief description of the two sites.

CA-VEN-223 Site2
CA-VEN-223 was first recorded by King and Decker in 1970, who described the site as a large midden with a moderate amount of shell. King and Decker suggested the site could possibly be the "Springville" Van Valkenberg site and estimated its date at 700-900 A.D. In 1981, John Romani and Beth Padon visited the site and determined it was larger than originally recorded Section 5.13, Cultural Resources, Final Environmental Impact Report for the Ponderosa Corridor Specific Plan, prepared by Fugro West, October 1995.
2 Section 5.13, Cultural Resources, Final Environmental Impact Report for the Ponderosa Corridor Specific Plan, prepared by Fugro West, October 1995.

DRAFT EIR May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.3-4

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
and possibly was the historic Chumash village Punta de Loma, also known as Swina. Romani and Padon noted that much of the shell scattered across the site was the result of a Pleistocene deposit and was not of cultural origin. Romani and Padon also indicated there was a high potential for burials to occur on the site based on an examination of a private collection of materials gathered at the site. RMW Paleo Associates rerecorded CA-VEN-2223 in 1990 and conducted some test excavations in 1991 at the southern end of the site. RMW Paleo Associates estimated the size of the site at 38,000 square meters. CA-VEN-223's site record and mapped location were field verified by Fugro West in a 1994 survey. Despite the disturbance to this site from the cultivation of a lemon orchard, CA-VEN-223 is considered significant for the following three reasons: 1) intact portions of the site may exist below the disturbed horizon; 2) the site may be the ethnohistoric Chu mash village Swina; and 3) there is a high potential for burials to occur within the site.

F-1 Site'
F-1 was recorded by Fugro West on a hill slope in the western portion of the Annexation No. 83 area. A broken projectile point, a groundstone fragment, a small flake and fire-affected rock make up this site. Dense non-native annual grasses obscured visibility in the vicinity of this site. It is possible that the deposit has been redeposited through slope erosion. Due to the limited visibility in the site vicinity, the site is considered significant until its horizontal and vertical deposit boundaries and an assessment of its contents are made.

IMPACTS
Significance Criteria
Section _15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifically addresses the threshold criteria for cultural resource impacts. A project will normally have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources if it will disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group; or a paleontological site except as a part of a scientific study.

Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange

4.3-1. Implementation of the proposed interchange has the potential to impact previously recorded historical resources known as Primary Number (PN) 56-150001 (Scholle Farm).

Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.3-1 Discussion: Within the study area, there are two known building complexes that are of sufficient age to be considered historic. The first of these complexes lies to the north of Route 101 and has previously been recorded as Primary Number (PN) 56-150001 (Scholle Farm). The researcher who recorded the site offered no evaluation of the importance of the complex, but did state that some of the building predate 1900 (Maki 1994). A determination Ibid.

DRAFT EIR May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.3-5

4.3 CULTURAL. RESOURCES
has been made that two elements of PN 56-150001, which included the farmhouse and packing plant, are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places as a Historic District. The other buildings in the complex are not considered eligible.

Primary Number 56-150001 would not be directly impacted by the interchange; however, significant secondary impacts are anticipated. In particular, the viewshed of the site would be greatly altered by construction of the interchange. Mitigation consisting of either a project redesign or incorporation of landscape berms would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

4.3-2. Implementation of the proposed interchange has the potential to impact previously recorded historical resources known as Primary Number 56-152749 (Friedrich House).

Significance: Less than significant.

4.3-2 Discussion: As previously mentioned, two known building complexes that are of sufficient age to be considered historic exist within the study area. The second historic complex (Friedrich House) lies to the south of Route 101 and has been previously recorded as PN 56-152749. A determination has been made that the site is not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places due to the lack of unique features and important historical associations. Construction of the proposed interchange would result in the complete demolition and removal of the resources of PN 152749. However, the loss of these resources is not considered significant.

Local Arterials

4.3-3. Implementation of the proposed local arterials has the potential to impact previously recorded historical resources known as Primary Number 56-15001 (Schol le Farm).

Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.3-3 Discussion: As discussed in impact 4.3-1, the historic complex known as PN 56- 150001 (Scholle Farm) exists north of Route 101. A determination has been made that two elements of PN 56-150001, which included the farmhouse and the packing plant, are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Naces as a Historic District. The other buildings in the complex are not considered eligible. The proposed extension of Ponderosa Drive would extend from Las Posas Road west and connect with the new interchange and associated north/south arterial. As a result, the proposed extension of the Ponderosa Drive and construction of the north/south arterial would not directly impact the historical resources.

However, the intersection of these two roads would be constructed in close proximity to the farmhouse building and secondary impacts are anticipated, particularly with respect to the viewshed of these resources. Mitigation as cited in the Impact 4.3-1 discussion would reduce impacts to less than significant.

DRAFT EIR May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.3-6

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Should Ponderosa Drive be extended to the west of Airport North road, Ponderosa Drive would bisect the property and isolate the two contributing elements of the historic district from one another. In addition, secondary impacts regarding viewshed alteration of the site would result from construction of the local arterials.

4.3-4. Implementation of the proposed local arterials has the potential to impact previously recorded historical resources known as Primary Number 56-152749 (Friedrich House).

Significance: Less than significant.

4.3-4 Discussion: As discussed in impact 4.3-2, a historic complex known as PN 56-152749 (Friedrich House) lies to the south of Route 101, in the area proposed for the local arterials.

A determination has been made that the site is not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places due to the lack of unique features and important historical associations. Construction of the proposed local arterials would result in the complete demolition and removal of the resources of PN 152749. However, the loss of these resources is not considered significant.

Annexation No. 83

4.3-5. Future development within the Annexation No. 83 project area has the potential to impact recorded archaeological sites CA-VEN-223 and F-1. Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.3-5 Discussion: A complex of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites is located a short distance to the west of the interchange area, within the limits of Annexation No. 83. The sites include McGrath Ranch, CA-VEN-223 and archaeological site F-1. Future development within the western portion of Annexation No. 83 may impact archaeological sites CA-VEN223 and F-1. As previously mentioned, the archaeological sites are an unknown quantity, insofar as their importance is concerned. The sites would not be impacted by the proposed interchange and road extensions, and would not require further consideration unless the parameters of the roadway projects are changed in such a way that the site would be included in the area to be disturbed by construction.

There is the potential to uncover important remains associated with the prior village of Springville. Most of the area occupied by Springville is in agricultural production, so any intact deposits (e.g., privy pits, wells or trash dumps) would have to be below the plow zone and probably not visible from the surface. The same would be true for the Santa Clara Ditch.

If the Santa Clara Ditch was merely filled in when it was abandoned, some portion may be preserved at depth. Unless the ditch was lined, it would not be distinguishable. Given that agricultural activities has occurred on the project site for many years, the integrity of any archaeological resources uncovered may have been destroyed. Implementation of the mitigation measure requiring an on-site archaeological monitor during grading would reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level.

DRAFT EIR May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4,3-7

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.3-6. Future development within the Annexation No. 83 area has the potential to impact previously recorded historical resources known as McGrath Ranch. Significance: Less than significant.

4.3-6 Discussion: Future development within Annexation No. 83 would impact the McGrath Ranch site. As previously discussed, the McGrath Ranch is a historical ranch site that has been recorded on the State of California's Historic Resources Inventory list in 1991. The ranch complex consists of a craftsman style single-story house with a barn and shed. The house is in good condition; the barn is in fair condition. The City of Camarillo does not consider the McGrath Ranch complex to be a significant historic resource. While future development in the annexation area could result in the removal and demolition of historic resources on this ranch site, the loss of these resources is not considered significant given the historical determination of these resources by the City of Camarillo.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures directly correspond to the numbered impact statements in the previous Impact Analysis discussion.

4.3-1. Site Primary Number 56-150001 has been determined to be an importance resource.

To mitigate the impacts to these resources, the following measures are recommended in order of decreasing desirability. Either:
a. Redesign the interchange and roadway extensions to reduce the impact to site PN 56-150001. The redesign shall include moving the associated interchange north/south arterial farther east to provide a buffer between the road and the farmhouse's east side.

Or
b. If the roads cannot be relocated, landscaped berms shall be constructed to shield site PN 56-150001 (farmhouse) from excessive noise and, as much as possible, from visual changes to the site. The packing plant shall be disassembled and relocated to the south on the remaining acreage of the farm to a site that would be considered historically accurate. In addition, restoration and adaption of the farmhouse to a use more consistent with the new surroundings shall be considered. If necessary, all structures within the complex, except the farmhouse and packing plant, can be removed as they are non-contributing elements of the historic district.
c. Should Ponderosa Drive be extended west of its terminus with the north/south arterial, the extension shall be moved farther north to avoid bisecting the farm property and isolating the packing plant from its association with the farmhouse. If necessary, all structures within the complex, except the farmhouse and packing plant, can be removed as they are non-contributing elements of the historic district.

DRAFT EIR May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.3-8

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.3-2. No mitigation measures are required.

4.3-3. Refer to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1, above.

4.3-4. No mitigation measures are required.

4.3-5. An archaeologist shall monitor grading of future development within Annexation Area No. 83. The monitoring archaeologist shall record, evaluate and properly treat any historic or prehistoric deposits that appear. This may require diversion of grading in discreet areas while the necessary archaeological research is completed.

4.3-6. No mitigation measures are required.

UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
No unavoidable significant impacts have been identified.

DRAFT EIR May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.3-9

4.4 AIR QUALITY

4.4 AIR QUALITY
Information in this Section is based on the Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses (as contained in Appendix G-24 of the 1994 Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan), prepared by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), and dated October 24, 1989, the Draft Ventura County 1995 Air Quality Management Plan revision prepared by the Ventura County APCD dated July 1995, the Final Ventura County 1997 Air Quality Management Plan Revision prepared by the APCD dated October 1997.

The purpose of this Section is to identify potential impacts to air quality as a result of project implementation. Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the significance of potential impacts and where appropriate, unavoidable significant impacts are identified.

This Section also addresses the impacts of the potential of Valley Fever to impact human health within the project vicinity. Information in this Section is based on consultation and/or documentation from several authorities on the subject of Valley Fever, including the American Lung Association, the U.S. Center for Disease Control, Kern County Public Health Agency/Valley Fever Task Force, the University of Arizona Valley Fever Center for Excellence, Ventura County APCD, and the Ventura County Health Department (VCHD).

EXISTING CONDITIONS
General Climate and Meteorology
The proposed project is located in the central portion of the Oxnard Plain Airshed, a sub-basin of the South Central Coast Air Basin. The Airshed is characterized by cool winters and moderate, dry summers tempered by cooling sea breezes. Summer, spring and fall weather is generally a result of the movement and intensity of the semi-permanent high pressure area located several hundred miles to the west. Marine influences generally predominate during this period and cause afternoon onshore flow and evening off-shore flow. Winter weather is generally a result of the size and location of low pressure weather systems originating in the north Pacific Ocean.

Ventura County winds are dominated by a diurnal land-sea breeze cycle. This cycle is broken only by occasional winter storms and infrequent strong Santa Ana winds from the northeast.

The sea breeze is generally stronger than the land breeze and results in a net flow from west to east. Westerly sea breezes carry pollutants generated in the coastal areas into the inland valleys where dispersion is restricted. The presence of temperature inversions and westerly transport result in meteorological conditions conducive to ozone formation in the inland valleys.

Regional Air Quality
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California EPA Air Resources Board (CARB) have established health based standards for six criteria air pollutants, including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide(S02), ozone (03), lead, and fine DRAFT El R June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-1

4.4 AIR QUALITY
particulate matter (PM10). These standards are designed to protect human health and welfare with a reasonable margin of safety.

Local Air Quality
The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) maintains nine ambient air quality monitoring stations throughout the County, at which ambient air is sampled. Data collected by the APCD at the El Rio Monitoring Station, located approximately four miles to the west of the project reach at the Rio Mesa School, was used to measure the local air quality at the proposed project site. Local air quality data from 1992 to 1997 for the El Rio Monitoring Station is provided in Table 4.4-1, Local Air Quality Levels. This Table lists the monitored maximum concentrations and number of exceedances of Federal/State air quality standards each year.' The following provides a brief description of the pollutants monitored.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)
CO is a colorless and odorless gas. The automobile and other types of motor vehicles are the main source of this pollutant. CO concentrations are generally higher along roadways, especially in the early mornings, late evenings and winter. The State CO standard is 20 parts per million (ppm), averaged over one hour. The maximum one-hour concentration at the El Rio Monitoring Station has decreased from 5.0 ppm in 1993 to 2.0 ppm in 1996. The CO State standard was not exceeded between 1992 and 1997.

Ozone (03).
03, or photochemical smog, is formed in a complex series of chemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. ROC and NO, are the principal constituents in these reactions. These compounds are emitted from motor vehicles and industrial, commercial, institutional, agricultural and domestic activities. 03is a particular concern because of its high concentrations in Ventura County relative to the levels at which adverse health effects are known to occur.

Air quality at any site is dependent upon the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is primarily a function of basin topography and wind patterns, which tend to contain primary pollutants as they react with each other and sunlight to form secondary pollutants, such as 03.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-2

4.4 AIR QUALITY
Table 4.4-1

LOCAL AIR QUALITY LEVELS MEASURED AT THE
El RIO AMBIENT AIR MONITORING STATION
Pollutant
California
Standard
Federal
Primary
Standard
Year
Maximum'
Concentration
Days (Samples)
State/Federal
Std. Exceeded
1992 2.0 0/0
1993 5.0 0/0
CO 20 ppm
for 1 hour
35 ppm
for 1 hour
1994
1995

3.0 3.0
0/0
0/0
1996 2.0 0/0
1992 2.0 0/0
9 ppm 9 ppm 1993 5.0 0/0
for 8 hours for 8 hours 1994 3.0 0/0
1995 3.0 0/0
1996 1.5 0/0
1992 0.14* 17/3
Ozone 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 1993 0.14 8/1
for 1 hour for 1 hour 1994 0.12 7/0
1995 0.12 7/0
1996 0.12 8/0
1992 0.06* 0/0
1993 0.08 0/0
NO, 0.25 ppm
for 1 hour

0.053 ppm
annual average
1994 0.10 0/0
1995 0.13 0/0
1996 0.11 0/0
1992 57 (3/0)
1993 63 (4/0)
PM102 50 ug/m 150 ug/m
for 24 hours for 24 hours
1994 54 (2/0)
1995 62 (3/0)
1996 64 (1/0)
Notes: 1. Maximum concentration is measured over the same period as the California Standard.

2. Based on 60 samples in 1992; 59 samples in 1993; 57 samples in 1994; 60 samples in 1995 and 61 samples in 1996.

NS = No standard set. NM — Not measured.
ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ppm parts per million Source: Annual Summaries of Gaseous and Pollutant Particles, 1992 through 1996, California Air Resources Board. *Measured at Simi Valley Air Monitoring Station.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-3

4.4 AIR QUALITY
All stations monitoring 03in Ventura County have experienced exceedances of the Federal 03standard. The 03concentrations monitored at the El Rio Station from 1992 to 1997 regularly exceed the State standard (0.09 ppm) and occasionally exceed the Federal standard (0.12 ppm) during the 03season (June through October). The maximum 03concentration dropped from 0.14 ppm in 1992 and 1993 to 0.12 from 1994 to 1996 to 0.10 in 1997. The exceedance of State standards also dropped from 17 days in 1992 to 2 days in 1997.

Oxides of Nitrogen (NO.)
There are a number of NOxcompounds, but only two significantly affect ambient air quality.

These include nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO2is itself a regulated pollutant, but it also reacts with hydrocarbons in the presence of sunlight to form 03and other compounds that make up photochemical smog. NO2, reddish brown and visible in high concentrations, is itself a contaminant and can cause eye and respiratory system irritation. NO2 results from mobile, as well as stationary sources. Seasonal and diurnal patterns in NO2 concentration vary widely between locations, and levels have fluctuated at the El Rio Station, although the State standard of 0.25 ppm (1-hour average) was not exceeded from 1992 to 1997. The maximum one-hour concentration within those years was 0.13 ppm measured in 1995.

Particulate Matter (TSP, PM10)
Atmospheric particulates are made up of liquids or fine solids, such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Particulates can form by natural processes, such as wind blown dust and dirt, wildfires, and salt from sea spray; they can also arise from human activities such as construction, demolition, quarrying, and agricultural operations. In addition, particulates may be emitted directly from automobiles and industrial sources, or may be created in the atmosphere by the photochemical process. A large portion of the total suspended particulate matter (TSP) in the atmosphere is finer than 10 microns (PM10). PM10tends to lodge deeply in lung tissue and is therefore considered more of a health hazard than larger particles with which the body's natural defenses deal with more readily. As a result, both State and Federal standards have been set for PM10. The State 24-hour standard for PM10is 50 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). At the El Rio Station, the number of samples that the State standard for PM10was exceeded has decreased from 4 samples in 1993 to 1 sample in 1996. PM10 concentrations monitored at the El Rio Station occasionally exceeded the State 24-hour standard but did not exceed the Federal 24-hour standard.

Sulfur Dioxide (502/
SO2is a lung irritant and combines in the atmosphere to form sulfates, which are irritating to the eyes and lungs. SO2also can cause significant property damage and is a contributor to acid fog and rain. SO2results from mobile and stationary sources, and has complex diurnal concentrations that are typically higher at night. Air districts impose strict controls on the sulfur level of fuels which can be burned in vehicles and power plants. As a result, the Basin DRAFT ER June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4,4-4

4.4 AIR QUALITY
has relatively low SO2 concentrations, as no station in Ventura County has ever exceeded the Federal standard of 0.14 ppm (24-hour average).2The SO2concentrations monitored at the El Rio Station during this period are substantially below the State air quality standards.

Lead (not monitored at the El Rio Station)
Lead concentrations are typically highest in late fall and winter due to vehicle emissions being trapped by early-morning surface inversions. Lead concentrations vary diurnally with CO, peaking in the early mornings and late evenings. Lead in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. Atmospheric lead concentrations have been reduced substantially in recent years due to the lowering of average lead content in gasoline. The State air quality standard for lead is a monthly average of 1.50 ug/m3.

Regulatory Setting
Amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) required each APCD to submit an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for approval by the CARB and the EPA. The goal of the AQMP was to reduce pollutant concentrations below the Federal standards.

Assembly Bill 2595 (known as the California Clean Air Act or CCAA) took effect on January 1, 1989 with major amendments effective in 1990. The goal of this bill was to attain the California air quality standards (CAQS) by the earliest practicable date. Ventura County is currently classified as a non-attainment area for 03(State and Federal standards) and PM10 (State standard only).3 The non-attainment designation means that there are exceeded State and Federal standards for a specific pollutant. A 1 991 AQMP was prepared by the Ventura County APCD to meet the requirements of the CCAA and was adopted by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors on October 8, 1991.

The APCD has approved numerous AQMPs since 1987 (including those prepared in 1979, 1982, 1987, 1991, 1994, 1995 and 1997). The primary purpose of the Ventura County 1994 Air Quality Management Plan was to satisfy the long-range planning requirements of the 1 990 Federal CAA amendments and to outline a strategy for meeting the Federal 03clean air standard by 2005, while accommodating a reasonable and inevitable amount of growth. The requirements addressed by the 1 994 AQMP were: 1) attainment of the Federal 03standard by 2005; 2) a post-1996 Rate-of-Progress demonstration; 3) contingency measures; 4) an updated 1990 baseline emission inventory; and 5) a revised 1990-1996 Rate-of Progress emission reduction calculations which would decrease despite increases in vehicle use. The 1994 AQMP also satisfied the requirements of the CCAA to submit a triennial progress report and revisions to the 1991 AQMP by the end of 1994.

Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses, Ventura County APCD October 24, 1989,

Page 4 ends

Proposed Amendments to the Area Designations for State Air Quality Standards and Proposed Maps of the Area Designations for the State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards, November 1997.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-5 2 3

4.4 AIR QUALITY
The purpose of the 1995 AQMP Revision (adopted by APCD on December 19, 1995) is to update information presented in the 1994 AQMP to reflect changes that have occurred since the original Plan was adopted on November 8, 1994. These changes include: 1) actions taken by the GARB in November 1994 to approve additional control strategies for inclusion in the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Federal 03standard; 2) rejection by the GARB of the District's request for a centralized motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program for Ventura County; 3) promulgation of the EPA Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) on February 14 ,1995, and its later rescission as part of a Department of Defense appropriations bill on April 11, 1995; and 4) significant changes to the photochemical modeling by GARB and District staff to comply with EPA and GARB modeling guidance, correct model inputs and reflect updated future year emission forecasts.

Based on the emission control strategy proposal in the 1995 AQMP Revision, the District will be able to attain the Federal 03standard in 2005, as mandated by the Federal CAA. However, the District will need to adopt and implement additional emission control strategies to attain California's more stringent health-based ambient 03standard.

The 1994 AQMP and 1995 AQMP Revision do not specifically address attainment of the State PK°standard. However, many of the control measures contained in the AQMPs would result in substantial reductions in PM10emissions.4
The 1997 AQMP Revision extended adoption and implementation dates for nine Alternative 2 control measures identified in the 1995 AQMP Revision. Alternative 2 control measures were those measures proposed for adoption after the date the 1995 AQMP Revision was adopted. Alternative 1 measures were measures that had already been adopted by the APCD Board.

Other Planning Programs
In addition to the air quality planning documents, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has prepared regional plans which outline a coordinated strategy for all areas in the six-county SCAG region to meet specific goals relative to air quality, transportation and housing, as a result of anticipated growth by the year 2010. These documents also identify specific goals for local agencies in terms of balancing employment opportunities and housing by the year 2010. Refer to Section 7.2, Growth-Inducing Impacts, for additional information on SCAG documents.

Air Quality Sensitive Receptors
The CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and people with 4 It should be noted that a district with an area redesignated as non-attainment for PM10 is not subject to any specific statutory planning requirements. However, such districts must adopt and enforce rules and regulations to expeditiously attain the California standard. (Source: lipid, page 7.) DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-6

4.4 AIR QUALITY
cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema and bronchitis.

Sensitive land uses identified in the Ventura County APCD Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses (1989) include residences, schools, and hospitals.

Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
The Friedrich House presently exists immediately south of the terminus of the existing Ventura Boulevard. However, this home would be removed as part of the proposed interchange project. No other sensitive receptor is situated within the construction limits of the proposed interchange.

Local Arterial Roadways
Sensitive receptors potentially affected by the proposed roadways include the Scholle Farm, which is located immediately west of the northern terminus of the proposed North-South Road and the townhomes and single-family residences situated along the north side of Ponderosa Drive, between Earl Joseph Drive and Las Posas Road.

Annexation No. 83
Three farm residences, including the Schol le Farm and Friedrich House noted above, and the McGrath Ranch, which supports a produce stand, exist within the proposed Annexation Area.

Additionally, the Annexation Area abuts a private residential development and golf course/country club, condominiums and townhouses to the north, and apartments to the east.

Valley Fever
Valley Fever (coccidiomycoses) is a disease caused by the inhalation of the spores of the fungus, Coccidioides immitis, which grows in the soil of the southwestern United States. The spores are endemic to the lower Sonoran Life Zone, and therefore are found throughout the southern parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Cases of the disease have been recorded in the San Joaquin Valley of California since 1894. Transmission of Valley Fever is primarily caused by naturally occurring winds and dust storms, and secondarily by dust-creating activities on undeveloped soils, earth moving (land development) and other man-made dust raising activities. Virgin topsoil as deep as 12 inches predominantly harbors the spores, while developed or agricultural soils are rarely infected with the spores due to microbial competition .5
Residents of areas in which Valley Fever occurs often acquire a lifelong immunity to the disease, following limited exposure. However, field workers (such as archaeologists and surveyors) and construction workers are at risk because of their exposure to soil dusts which 5 Kern County Valley Fever Task Force Report on the Control of Coccidioides immitis, R. Talbot et al., Kern County Health Department, 1997.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-7

4.4 AIR QUALITY
may contain spores.' The American Lung Association has found that approximately 30 to 40 percent of the 4 million people who live in areas where the fungus is known to dwell have had Valley Fever in the past. According to the Arizona Valley Fever Center for Excellence, further exposure of the fungal spores to someone already infected with Valley Fever cannot lead to further infections, only to possible irritation of the current infection.

Persons between the ages of 25 and 55 are most likely to develop symptoms of the disease, although people of all ages can have symptoms. It is estimate that approximately one percent of white patients and ten to twenty percent of dark-skinned patients who are infected develop the disseminated, or more severe, form of the disease. Those at increased risk of disseminated disease are persons who are immune system deficient or currently immunicompromised due to organ transplants, Hodgkin's disease, diabetes, pregnancy (third trimester) or chronic coricosteroid therapy.

Approximately 60 to 70 percent of people who are exposed initially have no symptoms and develop an immunity to the disease. Where symptoms occur after exposure, however, an initial influenza-like respiratory condition in evident. The majority of such cases recover with bed rest. Less than 0.2 percent of all cases progress to a stage involving other areas of the body, including meningitis and other serious disorders. At this more progressive stage, however, mortality rates of infected individuals increase to 50 to 90 percent over a period of years.

In 1994, the reports of Valley Fever in the Ventura County area drastically increased due to the Northridge Earthquake. According to A Coccidioidomycosis Outbreak Following the Northridge, California, Earthquake large dust clouds were reported to hover over the Simi Valley area in Ventura County, primarily due to the cause of landslides from the earthquake and aftershocks. As shown in Table 4.4-2, Ventura and Kern County Reported Cases of Valley Fever, Valley Fever is shown to have decreased in recent years with the exception of 1994 in Ventura County, due to the Northridge Earthquake. Furthermore, no case studies have shown that rodents which inhabit soils known to host the spores that cause Valley Fever do not increase the risks of transmittal of the disease, nor do they aid in the spreading of the spores.' 6 Outbreaks of Coccidioidomycosis Associated with Field Work, (Recommendations for Prevention from the California State Department of Public Health), September 1972. 7 Based on telephone conversation with Dr. Don Galgiani, Ph.D., Valley Fever Center for Excellence on August 17, 1998.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-8

4.4 AIR QUALITY
Table 4.4-2

VENTURA AND KERN COUNTY REPORTED CASES OF VALLEY FEVER
Location
Cases Reported per Year
992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Ventura County 61 53 243 24 13 9
Kern County 3,342 2,608 1,304 621 448 332
Sources: Weekly Morbidity Report, Ventura County Public Health Department facsimilied January 1998; and Reported Cases of Coccidiomycoses, Kern County Public Health Laboratory, facsimilied January 1998.

IMPACTS
Significance Criteria
Impacts relating to air quality are grouped below according to topic. Mitigation measures at the end of this Section directly correspond to the impact categories below.

A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• "Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located;" or
• "Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations."
According to the Ventura County APCD 1989 Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses (as contained with Appendix G-94 of the 1 994 AQMP), projects meeting any of the following criteria are considered to have potentially significant adverse air quality impacts.8
la. Any general development project located in the Ojai Valley GAO area and Ventura 1 Nongrowth area capable of daily emissions of ROC or NOxof 5 pounds/day. lb. Any general development project in the 03non-attainment area of the County capable of daily emissions of ROC or NOxof 25 pounds/day, which would individually and 8 Tests of significance are not limited to the criteria listed above. Other factors, especially those related to the location of the project, should be examined. These include proximity of the project to sensitive receptors; proximity of the project to other pollutant sources; and projects with potential land use conflicts.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-9

4.4 AIR QUALITY
cumulatively jeopardize attainment of the 03standard and thus have a significant adverse impact on air quality in the County (page 2-2 of the Guidelines).

2. A project which may cause an exceedance of any air quality standard (State or Federal), or makes a substantial contribution to an existing exceedance of an air quality standard.

Substantial is defined as making measurable worse an existing exceedance of a state of federal ambient air quality standard.

3. Any project with emissions greater than 2 pounds per day of ROC or NOxthat are found to be inconsistent with the Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) will have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact. Projects with emissions below 2 pounds per day of ROC and NOxare not required to assess consistency with the AQMP.9

4. Any General Plan Amendment or revision which would provide directly or indirectly for increased population growth above that forecasted in the most recently adopted AQMP will have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact.

It should be noted that construction-related emissions of ROC and NOx are not counted toward the two aforementioned significance thresholds since these emissions are only temporary (page 5-8 of Guidelines). Impacts relating to air quality are grouped below according to topic.

Mitigation measures at the end of this Section directly correspond to the impact categories below.

Valley Fever
As the spores that cause Valley Fever are considered harmful airborne particles, impacts would be significant if dust suppressant measures were not implemented to minimize airborne spores.

Short-Term/Construction Emissions

4.4-1 Short-term air quality impacts would occur during site preparation and project construction. Significance: Less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures for asbestos containing materials and fugitive dust; less than significant for ROC and NO from construction equipment emissions (although mitigation measures are still required by the Ventura County APCD).

4.4-1 Discussion: The following discussion addresses all short-term impacts on air quality associated with construction activities, including site preparation and construction of new facilities. These temporary impacts would include:
9 Inconsistent projects are usually those which cause the existing population to exceed the population forecasts contained in the most recently adopted AQMP beyond 1995.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 701/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.410

4.4 AIR QUALITY
• Demolition, clearing, grading, excavating, using heavy equipment or trucks creates large quantities of fugitive dust, and thus PM10;
• Heavy equipment required for demolition, grading, and construction generates and emits exhaust emissions;
• The vehicles of commuting construction workers and trucks hauling equipment generate and emit exhaust emissions;
• Emissions at the power plant serving the site, as temporary power lines are needed to operate construction equipment;
Emissions from the stationary construction equipment used on-site.

Construction emissions (PM10, ROC, CO, and NOR) are estimated for the following types of emissions:
demolition;
site grading equipment exhaust
site grading fugitive dust;
construction worker vehicle trips;
asphalt paving;
stationary equipment;
mobile equipment; and
architectural coatings.

An estimate of emissions associated with demolition, site grading equipment exhaust, fugitive dust, asphalt paving and mobile equipment exhaust would be required in order to assess potential project impacts. Appendix 10.6, Air Quality Data, details the assumptions used to estimate construction-related emissions. Construction emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS7G Computer Program.

Demolition
Soil that would be disturbed by the demolition of a building or roadway is a source of fugitive dust which would generate PM10. Fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the project vicinity. Fugitive dust can also cause material damage and adversely effect agricultural crops. Because of the presence of asbestos-containing materials, demolition activities have the potential to significantly impact local air quality in the immediate project vicinity. APCD Rule 62.7, asbestos-demolition and renovation governs activities related to demolition and renovation of buildings with asbestos-containing materials. This rule establishes the notification and emission control requirements for demolition activities.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-11

4.4 AIR QUALITY
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
Implementation of the proposed interchange would require demolition of the existing Ventura Boulevard and the Friedrich House. Demolition of this roadway and home would be a source of fugitive dust, thereby, generating PM10. However, according the Guidelines, it is not necessary to estimate the amount of fugitive dust that would be generated by project construction (Page 5-8). It is necessary, however, to institute measures to prevent excessive amounts of fugitive dust. Accordingly, the mitigation measures outlined below would be applied as necessary during all phases of project construction, thereby, reducing any demolition-related air quality impacts to less than significant levels. As noted in Section 4.6.4, Hazardous Materials, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted for the project which indicated the potential for asbestos-containing materials (ACM's) (also refer to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment included in Appendix 6.5 of Appendix 10.1, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation). As a result, the proposed demolition of the Friedrich House has the potential to impact local air quality in the immediate project vicinity.

Local Arterial Roadways
The demolition of structures would not be required for development of the proposed roadways. However, with implementation of the provisions of Rule 62.7, requiring the removal of all ACM's from a facility being demolished before any activities begins that would break up, dislodge, or similarity disturb the ACM, asbestos-related air quality impacts are expected to be less than significant.

Site Grading Equipment and Mobile Equipment Exhaust
Grading and mobile equipment exhaust would also contribute to short-term air quality impacts. Primary sources of short-term ROC and NOxemissions are gasoline and dieselpowered heavy-duty mobile equipment used during site grading. The majority of the equipment used today is diesel-powered (approximately 90 percent of the heavy construction machinery), which tends to be more efficient than gasoline-powered equipment, producing lower CO and hydrocarbon emissions. However, diesel engines emit much higher amounts of NON, SOxand particulates per hour of activity.

Exhaust from heavy-duty equipment is difficult to quantify because of the day-to-day variability in construction activities and equipment used. According to the Ventura County Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality impact Analyses, at typical fuel consumption rates, ROC and NOxemissions associated with heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment range from

0.04 to 4.16 pounds per hour per piece of equipment, and between 0.32 to 0.79 pounds per hour for gasoline-powered equipment.'
Grading and mobile equipment exhaust emissions are based on emission factors developed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the area being graded/constructed, the 10 lbid, Table 5-1.

DRAFr EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-12

4.4 AIR QUALITY
quantity and type of equipment used on a daily basis, and the hours per day for each equipment type operated.

Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
Table 4.4-3, Project Construction Emissions (Interchange), outlines project-related ROC, NOR, and PM10 emissions from site grading equipment exhaust for the proposed interchange.

Exhaust emissions during project construction would vary from day to day as construction activity levels would change. Construction-related emissions of ROC and NO are not counted towards the two APCD significance thresholds, since these emissions are only temporary.11 However, if estimates of ROC and NO emissions from the heavy-duty construction equipment anticipated to be used for a particular project exceed 25 pounds per day in the ozone non-attainment area of the County, appropriate mitigation measures to reduce such emissions should be identified.' As detailed in Table 4.4-3, emissions from heavy duty construction equipment used for implementation of the proposed interchange would result in 22 lbs/day of ROC, 231 lbs/day of NO and 23 lbs/day of PM10. Since the estimated NO emissions of ROC and NOx would exceed the 25 lbs/day threshold, mitigation would be required as part of the proposed interchange improvements. Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below would reduce this impact to less than significant levels.

Local Arterial Roadways
Table 4.4-4, Project Construction Emissions (Roadways), outlines project-related ROC, NOx, and PM10 emissions from grading and mobile equipment exhaust for the proposed roadways.

As detailed in Table 4.4-4, emissions from heavy duty construction equipment used for implementation of the proposed roadways would result in 31 lbs/day of ROC, 320 lbs/day of NO and 30 lbs/day of PM,o. Since the estimated ROC and NOx emissions would exceed the 25 lbs/day threshold, mitigation would be required as part of the proposed roadway improvements. Implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below would reduce this impact to less than significant levels.

Fugitive Dust Emissions
The primary sources of construction-related dust emissions are grading and excavation operations, road construction and building construction. Fugitive dust from grading and construction is expected to be short-term and would cease following project completion.

Additionally, most of this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources, which are more harmful to health. Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Implementation of the specified mitigation measures related to the 11 Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses, Ventura County APCD, October 24, 1989, page 5-8, as contained within Appendix G-24 of the 1994 Ventura County APCDs AQMP. 12 Ibid.

DRAFT El R June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-13

4.4 AIR QUALITY
Table 4.4-3

DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
(Interchange)
Emissions Source
Pollutant (lbs/clay)1
ROG NOx PM10
Demolition NA NA 6
Site Grading Equipment Exhaust 17 169 19
Fugitive Dust NM NM NM
Asphalt Paving 1 NA NA
Mobile Equipment Exhaust 5 62 4
i
Total Construction Emissions 23 231 29
Daily Significance Thresholds 25 25 NA
Are thresholds exceeded? No No' No
Mitigated Construction Emissions
Grading
- Watei-active areas 2x/day (34%) (10)
- Stabilize inactive soil piles (30°/o) (9)
- Cover trucks or provide freeboard (7%) (2)
Paved Roads
Construction Equipment
Net Construction Emissions 23 231 8
Daily Significance Thresholds 25 25 NA
Are thresholds exceeded? No No' No
1 Refer to the worksheets in Appendix 10.6, Air Quality Data, for detailed assumptions. 2Construction-related emissions of ROC and NO are not counted towards the two APCD significance thresholds, since these emissions are only temporary.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-44

4.4 AIR QUALITY
Table 4.4-4

DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
(Roadways)
Pollutant (lbs/day)1
Emissions Source ROG NO PM10
Demolition NA NA 0
Site Grading Equipment Exhaust 22 207 22
Fugitive Dust NM NM NM
Asphalt Paving 1 NA NA
Mobile Equipment Exhaust 9 113 8
Total Construction Emissions 32 320 30
Daily Significance Thresholds 25 25 NA
Are thresholds exceeded? No' No' No
Mitigated Construction Emissions
Grading
- Water active areas 2x/day (34%) (10)
- Stabilize inactive soil piles (3001o) (9)
- Cover trucks or provide freeboard (7%) (2)
Paved Roads
Construction Equipment
Net Construction Emissions 32 320 9
Daily Significance Thresholds 25 25 NA
Are thresholds exceeded? No' No' No
Refer to the worksheets in Appendix 10.6, Air Quality Data, for detailed assumptions. 2 Construction-related emissions of ROC and NOx are not counted towards the two APCD significance thresholds, since these emissions are only temporary.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No, 83 Page 4.4-15

4.4 AIR QUALITY
control of fugitive dust would reduce short-term construction-related dust impacts to less than significant levels. As previously noted, "it is not necessary to estimate the amount of fugitive dust that will be generated by project construction. It is necessary, however, to institute measures to prevent excessive amounts of fugitive dust" (refer to recommended mitigation measures).1 3
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Local Arterial Roadways It should be noted that fugitive dust generated during project construction is not anticipated to create significant adverse impacts to surrounding agricultural crops on adjacent properties recommended mitigation measures would reduce the amount of dust generated to the maximum extent.

Of a particular health concern is the amount of PM10(particulate matter smaller than 10 microns) generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions. As previously discussed, PM10 poses a serious health hazard, alone or in combination with other pollutants. The Ventura County APCD currently does not provide threshold criteria for determining the significance of PM10, emissions, however, the South Central Coast Air Basin is designated non-attainment for PM„0.

Therefore, any construction activities generating PM10would result in a significant adverse cumulative air quality impact associated with PM10emissions unless the impact was mitigated to a non-significant level. It should be noted that emissions generated during construction are considered temporary and would cease following project completion. In addition, as previously stated, the specified short-term mitigation measures would decrease short-term fugitive dust emissions from project construction, thereby reducing impacts from resultant PM10emissions to less than significant levels, both on an individual and cumulative basis.

Asphalt Paving
Emissions from asphalt paving are estimated based upon the procedure identified in the SMAQMD Manual (Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 1994) which utilizes the total area being paved and the number of days the paving activity would occur.

Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
As detailed in Table 4.4-3, Project Construction Emissions (Interchange), emissions from asphalt paving at the proposed interchange would result in 1.02 lbs/day of ROC.

Local Arterial Roadways
As detailed in Table 4.4-4, Project Construction Emissions (Roadways), emissions from asphalt paving at the proposed roadways would result in 1.16 lbs/day of ROC. 13 Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses, adopted by the Ventura County ARCD, October 24, 1989, page 5-8, as contained within Appendix G-24 of the 1994 Ventura County APED AQMP.

DRAFT ER June 23,1999,
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4:446

4.4 AIR QUALITY
Total Construction Emissions
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
Pursuant Table 4.4-3, construction-related activities associated with implementation of the proposed interchange would result in a total of 23 lbs/day of ROC, 231 lbs/day of NOxand 29 lbs/day of PM10.

As the proposed interchange does not satisfy any of the following criteria, implementation of this project would not have a potentially significant adverse impact on air quality. • No: The interchange project is not capable of daily emissions of ROC or NOxof 25 pounds/day since , construction-related emissions of ROC and NOxare not counted toward the APCD significance threshold, and due to its nature and scope, would not individually or and cumulatively jeopardize attainment of the 03standard. • No: The proposed project does not involve land development and therefore would not have the capacity to generate long-term air emissions. The proposed interchange and bridge are intended to accommodate existing and future traffic volumes. Due to the nature and scope of these proposed improvements, project implementation would not cause an exceedance of any air quality standard (State or Federal), or make a substantial contribution to an existing exceedance of an air quality standard. • No: As the project is a proposed interchange which would not have the capacity to generate long-term emissions greater than 2 pounds per day of ROC or NOx, and further, is found to be consistent with the Ventura County AQMP (refer to Consistency discussion below), the project would not have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact.
• No: The project would not involve a General Plan Amendment or revision.

Local Arterial Roadways
Pursuant Table 4.4-4, construction-related activities associated with implementation of the proposed roadways would result in a total of 32 lbs/day of ROC, 320 lbs/day of NOxand 30 lbs/day of PM10.

As the proposed roadway improvements do not satisfy any of the following criteria, implementation of the project would not have a potentially significant adverse impact on air quality.
• No: Development of the proposed roadways would not be capable of daily emissions of ROC or NOx of 25 pounds/day since construction-related emissions of ROC and NOx are not counted toward the APCD significance threshold, and due to their nature DRAFT El R June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-17

4.4 AIR QUALITY
and scope, would not individually or cumulatively jeopardize attainment of the 03 standard.
• No: The proposed project does not involve land development and therefore would not have the capacity to generate long-term air emissions. The proposed roadways are intended to accommodate existing and future traffic volumes. Due to the nature and scope of these proposed improvements, project implementation would not cause an exceedance of any air quality standard (State or Federal), or make a substantial contribution to an existing exceedance of an air quality standard. • No: The project would not have the capacity to generate long-term emissions greater than 2 pounds per day of ROC or NO since it involves the development/extension of roadways. Further, the project is found to be consistent with the Ventura County AQMP, and would therefore not have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact.
• No: The project would not involve a General Plan Amendment or revision.

Annexation No. 83
As the proposed annexation may involve development within the next five years, the potential exists that future development may have result in adverse construction-related impacts.

However, as no development proposals have been submitted at this time, and the area would be pre-zoned for agricultural uses, potential construction-related impacts for each development project would be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Valley Fever

4.4-2 Project site preparation and construction activities may increase the level of exposure risk to construction workers and nearby residents depending on weather conditions during construction. Significance: Temporary significant and unavoidable impact.

4.4-2 Discussion: Project construction would generate fugitive dust due to site preparation, grading and facility installation. There is a risk that the fungal spores that cause Valley Fever may be present in the topsoil during construction, and because there is no accurate or feasibte means of testing for evidence of such spores, a potential impact exists." The most significant threat would be to construction workers who do not have an acquired immunity to the disease and would be in proximal contact with fugitive dust. Secondly at risk would be the nearby residents near the construction site who may be exposed to spores when any dry topsoil is released into the atmosphere. Both the Kern County Valley Fever Task Force 14 Based on phone conversation with Dr. Ron Talbot, Ph.D., of the Kern County Valley Fever Task Force on January 14,1998.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4A-118

4.4 AIR QUALITY
and the Arizona Valley Fever Center for Excellence concur that impacts would occur more in construction workers of the project, with less chance of surrounding residents being impacted.

Implementation of recommended dust control measures such as watering the site during grading operations and suspending grading activities during high wind conditions would reduce potential impacts of spores spreading to the atmosphere to the maximum extent possible.' Face dust masks are also recommended for construction workers on-site during construction. Applicable mitigation measures as specified by the Ventura County APCD and City of Camarillo's Air Quality Permit Conditions are also recommended.

As previously discussed, Valley Fever spores are located in the top 12 inches of soil which allows spores to travel by wind significant distances in a single day. Thus, testing of on-site soil for evidence of the spores that cause Valley Fever would not be accurate nor feasible and is also not required by the Ventura County APCD.

Since on-site testing for the presence of spores would not be accurate and even with implementation of dust control measures, the potential for release of spores known to cause Valley Fever still exists as there is not a tested method to fully mitigate for their potential release. As such, project construction activities would result in a temporary significant and unavoidable impact in this regard.

Long-Term/Operational Emissions
Carbon Monoxide

4.4-3 Project-related traffic would not result in a measurable increase in localized CO emissions at surrounding intersections. Significance: Not significant. The project would not cause Federal or State CO standards to be exceeded at the analyzed intersections.

Significance: Less than significant.

4.4-3 Discussion: Sensitive receptors who are in proximity to localized sources of carbon monoxide (CO) are of particular concern since they are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than are the population at large. The primary source of CO in Ventura County is motor vehicles. An analysis of potential effects to sensitive receptors is warranted when the sensitive population would be located adjacent to a significant source of CO, such as a freeway or a major intersection. High levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and with idling or slow-moving vehicles. Depending on existing background concentrations of CO, traffic-congested intersections have the potential to result in localized high levels of CO.

These localized areas of elevated CO concentrations are termed CO "hot spots".16 15 Ibid.
16 CO hot spots are defined as locations where ambient CO concentrations exceed the State Ambient Air Quality Standards (20ppm, 1-hour; 9ppm, 8-hour).

DRAFT HR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-19

4.4 AIR QUALITY
According to the Guidelines, a CO hot spot screening analysis should be conducted for any project with indirect emissions exceeding 25 pounds per day of ROC or NO which may significantly impact roadway intersections which are currently operating at, or which are expected to operate at, Levels of Service D, E, or F, or at any project-impacted roadway intersection at which there may be a CO hot spot. It is especially important to conduct such an analysis if a proposed project will either create or contribute to a CO hot spot which may impact sensitive receptors (i.e., residences, worksites, schools, playgrounds, parks, athletic facilities, rehabilitation centers, child care centers, retirement homes, convalescent centers, and hospitals).

Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
The proposed interchange and overcrossing is located on Route 101 between the existing interchanges at Las Posas Road and Central Avenue. A CO hot spot screening analysis would not be warranted with respect to this improvement since the project involves a transportation improvement which would not have the capacity to result in indirect emissions exceeding 25 pounds per day of ROC or NON. Additionally, all of the interchange intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better under future peak hour conditions and no sensitive receptor would be located within the construction limits of the proposed interchange.' Local Arterial Roadways
AGO hot spot screening analysis would not be warranted with respect to the proposed road extensions. The sensitive receptors potentially affected by the proposed road extensions include the Schol le Farm, which is located immediately west of the northern terminus of the proposed North-South road and the townhomes and single-family residences situated along the north side of Ponderosa Drive, between Earl Joseph Drive and Las Posas Road.

As with the proposed interchange improvements, the proposed roadways and extensions would not have the capacity to result in indirect emissions exceeding 25 pounds per day of ROC or NON. Additionally, the intersection of the proposed North South Road and the proposed extension of Ponderosa Drive is proposed to curve adjacent to the Scholle Farm.

Due to the anticipated relatively low ADT volumes and the absence of idling or slow-moving vehicles at this location, a CO hot spot is not anticipated at this location. Further, according to Figure 11 of the Project Study Report, the two nearest intersections (the intersection at the northbound on/off ramps and the intersection of Las Posas and Ponderosa Drive) are projected to operate at LOS C or better under future with project conditions.

The intersection of Las Posas and Ponderosa Drive which is located nearest to the town homes and single-family residences situated along the north side of Ponderosa Drive, between Earl Joseph Drive and Las Posas Road is projected to operate at LOS C under future with project conditions.
17 The Friedrich House would be removed as part of the proposed interchange project.

DRAFT El R June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-20

4.4 AIR QUALITY
Annexation No. 83
As previously noted, the proposed annexation may involve development within the next five years. Thus, the potential exists that future development may have an adverse long-term effect on air quality from both stationary and mobile emission sources. However, as no development proposals have been submitted at this time, and the area would be pre-zoned for agricultural uses, potential development-related impacts for each development project would be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Future development projects in the annexation area satisfying any of the following criteria, would be capable of resulting in a significant impact:
e Any general development project in the 03 non-attainment area of the County capable of daily emissions of ROC or NOx of 25 pounds/day, which would individually and cumulatively jeopardize attainment of the 03 standard and thus have a significant adverse impact on air quality in the County.

A project which may cause an exceedance of any air quality standard (State or Federal), or makes a substantial contribution to an existing exceedance of an air quality standard.

Any project with emissions greater than 2 pounds per day of ROC or NOxthat are found to be inconsistent with the Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) will have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact.

Any General Plan Amendment or revision which would provide directly or indirectly for increased population growth above that forecasted in the most recently adopted AQMP will have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact. It should be noted that while the proposed Annexation involves a General Plan Amendment, it is not anticipated that a significant growth in population would occur due to the area's prezoning for agricultural uses. Future development proposing a General Plan Amendment would require an analysis of its potential to result in population growth.

Consistency With The AQMP

4.4-4 The proposed interchange and roadways are considered consistent with the AQMP.

Future development projects in the annexation area would have to be assessed on a case-bycase basis to determine consistency with the Plan. Significant: Less than significant.

4.4-4 Discussion: According to the Ventura County APCD 1989 Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses (as contained in Appendix G-94 of the 1994 AQMP, Page 3-6), any General Plan Amendment that will result in population growth above that forecasted in the most recently adopted AQMP is inconsistent with the Plan. With respect to the interchange and roadways, the project would to not involve a General Plan Amendment and would not have the capacity to increase population growth, and is therefore considered consistent with the AQMP. With respect to the proposed annexation, the potential exists that DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-21

4.4 AIR QUALITY
development proposals could be considered for the Annexation Area within the next four year, however, are not authorized by the City Council. Although the Annexation area would be prezoned for agricultural uses and those uses would remain in effect until such time that development purposes are approved by the City of Camarillo, that however would not allow development within the next four years. Future development projects in the annexation area involving any General Plan Amendment which would provide for increased population growth above that forecasted in the most recently adopted AQMP would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine consistency with the Plan.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The mitigation measures listed below directly correspond to the identified impact statements above.

Short-Term/Construction Emissions

4.4-1a. A comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be developed and approved by the APCD prior to commencement of grading and excavation operations.

The plan shall include all feasible, but environmentally safe, dust control methods. If a particular dust control method is determined or believed not to be feasible, or if it would conflict with other regulations, justification for not including the subject method shall be provided at the time the Fugitive Dust Control Plan is submitted to the APCD. The Plan shall identify all fugitive dust sources, the means by which fugitive dust from each identified source will be minimized, and the schedule or frequency that each dust control method will be applied for each identified source. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall include, at minimum, the following dust control measures:

The area disturbed by demolition, clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• Pre-grading activities shall include watering the area to be graded prior to any land clearing and excavation operations. Application of water (preferably reclaimed, if available) should penetrate to the depth of the proposed cuts.
• Throughout grading and construction operations, fugitive dust shall be controlled with the use of water trucks or other suitable means, generally at east three times a day (except during and immediately after rainfall).

All water used on the site for fugitive dust suppression shall be reclaimed water whenever possible.
• Dust produced during grading and construction activities shall be controlled by the following activities:

DRAFT E1R June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-22

4.4 AIR QUALITY
a) All exposed soil areas including unpaved on-site roadways and material stockpiles shall be watered and/or treated with environmentally-safe soils stabilization materials and roll compacted unless recent rainfall provides sufficient dust control.

Completed grading shall be monitored weekly for dust
stabilization.
b) All trucks exporting fill from the site shall use tarpaulins to cover the load in compliance with State Vehicle Code §23114.

Material transported in trucks off-site shall comply with State Vehicle Code §23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2), and (e)(4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions.

All material transported on-site shall be sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust.
d) All active portions of the construction site, including unpaved onsit roadways shall be sufficiently watered and/or treated with environmentally-safe soil stabilization additives to prevent excessive fugitive dust.
e) All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered or treated to prevent excessive generation of dust.
0 All inactive portions of the construction site should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or treated with environmentally-safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust.
• Signs shall be posted on-site limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. • Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll compaction, and environmentally-safe dust control agents, shall be applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. • During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site. The site superintendent shall use his/her discretion in conjunction with the APCD in determining when winds are excessive.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-23

4.4 AIR QUALITY

4.4-1b.
• Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads.
• Employees involved in grading operations should be advised to wear face masks during dry periods to reduce dust inhalation.

These control techniques will be indicated on project grading plans.

Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic site inspections.

Project grading plans will indicate that for the duration of construction, ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment vehicles shall be controlled by using the following procedures:
• Equipment engines will be maintained in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturer's specifications;
• During the smog season (May through October), the construction period may be lengthened so as to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time; and
• Construction activities will utilize new technologies to control ozone precursor emissions as they become available and feasible.

Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic inspections.

4.4-1c All trucks carrying soil to and from the site shall use tarpaulins to cover the load.

Furthermore, all trucks that will haul excavated or graded material off site shall comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2) and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads.

Valley Fever

4.4-2a. Refer to Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a and 4.4-1b, which would reduce fugitive dust emissions to less than significant levels.

4.4-2b. Additionally, the following mitigation measure is recommended for construction worker safety, but is not required by law at this time: Face dust masks are to be used by all employees involved in grading or excavation operations during dry periods to reduce inhalation of fugitive dust.

CO Hot Spot
DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-24

4.4 AIR QUALITY

4.4-3 No mitigation measures are required. However, the following temporary unavoidable adverse has been identified.

SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No long-term unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality have been identified. However, the following temporary unavoidable adverse impact has been identified:

DRAFT FIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.4-25

4.5 NOISE

4.5 NOISE
The purpose of this Section is to describe the existing noise environment within the project vicinity, analyze potential noise impacts from implementation of the proposed project. This section is also based on the City of Camarillo Genera/ Plan, dated 1989.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing Noise Environment
Regional Setting
The primary sources of noise in the City of Camarillo include vehicle traffic on local roads and highways, train operations on the Southern Pacific Transportation Company rail line, the Camarillo Airport, and stationary sources (i.e., industrial, commercial land uses). A major contributor to traffic noise within the Camarillo area is the Ventura Freeway (Route 101) which traverses the City in an east-west direction. Noise levels on segments of this Freeway have been estimated to exceed 70 dBA within 98 feet of the roadway centerline.' Local Setting
The noise sources within the vicinity of the project area are characterized primarily by roadway, and airport traffic (Camarillo Airport located immediately south of the project area).

Other Major noise sources are agricultural activities including cultivation and harvesting equipment, water pumps and anti-frost equipment (wind-machines). Route 101 is by far the greatest noise source affecting the project site. Table 4.5-1, Noise Levels Adjacent to Route 101, below, indicates the existing noise levels that Route 101 currently generates within the project vicinity, as well as projected noise levels in the year 2020 under General Plan buildout conditions. Exterior noise levels exceed the 60 dBA CNEL (the normally acceptable level for residential development) along Route 101 from Ponderosa Drive to Central Avenue.

In most of the project area, noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL. By 2020, the increase in daily traffic on Route 101 from General Plan buildout will increase noise levels within the entire project area. Nearly the entire project area will experience noise levels in excess of the 60 dBA CNEL City standard by year 2020. The projected noise level immediately adjacent to Route 101 (100 feet from roadway centerline) will rise about 1.0 dBA by 2020, to an estimated 76.1 dBA CNEL.

Land currently located within the County of Ventura north of Route 101 (Annexation #83) is currently experiencing noise levels between 60 dBA CNEL and 70 dBA CNEL. The residential area adjacent to Ponderosa Drive within the vicinity of the proposed project is currently within the 60 CNEL noise contour as identified within the City's General Plan. The existing agricultural areas located south of Route 101 (Airport North Specific Plan) are generally located within the 60 and 65 CNEL contours.

City of Camarillo General Plan Noise Element, updated 1989, page 405.

DRAFT E I R June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.5-1

4.5 NOISE
Table 4.5-1
NOISE LEVELS ADJACENT TO ROUTE 101
Year Distance to CNEL Contour (feet from roadway centerline) CNEL at 100 feet from roadway
centerline
f
60 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
70 dBA
CNEL
1998 1,484 689 320 75.2
2020 1,673 776 360 76.1
NOTE Roadway configuration data derived from information contained in Table 6 within the Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element. Average daily traffic (ADT) obtained from Project Study Report (PSR).

Existing Plans and Policies
The City of Camarillo General Plan Noise Element (1989 update) contains goals and policies for the compatibility of sensitive land uses with noise. The purpose of these goals and policies is to reduce the various potential effects of noise on sensitive receptors. The Noise Element seeks to protect the quality of life by minimizing the impact of new noise sources and requiring noise-sensitive uses to be protected from unacceptable noise levels.

Noise Sensitive Receptors
The Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines identifies residences, hospitals, schools, churches and libraries as noise sensitive uses. Noise sensitive land uses presently located in proximity to the project area include:

Interchange: The Friedrich House presently exists immediately south of the terminus of the existing Ventura Boulevard. However, this home would be removed as part of the proposed interchange project. No other sensitive receptors are situated within the construction limits of the proposed interchange.

Local Arterials: Sensitive receptors potentially affected by the proposed arterial roadways include the Scholle Farm, which is located immediately west of the northern terminus of the proposed North-South Road (approximately 546 feet north of Route 101) and the town homes and single-family residences situated along the north side of Ponderosa Drive, between Earl Joseph Drive and Las Posas Road.

Annexation Area #83: Three farm residences, including the Scholle Farm and Friedrich House noted above, and the McGrath Ranch, which supports a produce stand, exist within the proposed Annexation Area. Additionally, the Annexation Area abuts a private residential development and golf course/country club, condominiums and townhouses to the north, and apartments to the east.

Noise Scales and Definitions
DRAFT HR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.5-2

4.5 NOISE
Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.

Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In general, a 1 dBA change in the sound pressure levels of a given sound is detectable only under laboratory conditions. A 3 dBA change in sound pressure level is considered to be a "just detectable" difference in most situations. A 5 dBA change is readily noticeable and a 10 dBA change is considered a doubling (or halving) of the subjective loudness. It should be noted that, generally speaking, a 3 dBA increase or decrease in the average traffic noise level is realized by a doubling or halving of the traffic volume; or by about a 7 mile per hour (mph) increase or decrease in speed.

For each doubling of distance from a point noise source (a stationary source, such as a loudspeaker or loading dock), the sound level will decrease by 6 dBA. In other words, if a person is 100 feet from a machine, and moves 200 feet from that source, sound levels will drop approximately 6 dBA. For each doubling of distance from a source of noise, like a roadway, the noise levels are reduced by 3 to 4.5 dBA, depending on the ground cover between the source and the receiver. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; 20 dBA higher four times as loud; and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud).

Examples of various sound levels in different environments are shown in Table 4.5-2, Sound Levels and Human Response.

The predominant community noise rating scale used throughout the State of California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL reading represents the average of 24 hourly readings of equivalent levels, known as Leq's, based on an A-weighted decibel with upward adjustments added to account for increased noise sensitivity in the evening and night periods. These adjustments are + 5 dBA for the evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.), and + 10 dBA for the night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). CNEL may be indicated by "dBA CNEL" or just "CNEL".

The Leq is the sound level containing the same total energy over a given sample time period.

The Leq can be thought of as the steady (average) sound level which, in a stated period of time, would contain the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level during the same period. Leq is typically computed over 1, 8 and 24-hour sample periods.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.5-3 100
Loud Power Mower
Jet Takeoff (2000 ft.)
Garbage Truck
Heavy Truck (50 ft.)
Pneumatic Drill (50 ft.)
Very Annoying
Hearing Damage
(Steady 8-Hour Exposure)
Freeway Traffic (50 ft.) 70 Telephone Use Difficult
Light Auto Traffic (100 ft.) Quiet
Living Room 40
Bedroom
20 0
Library
Soft Whisper (15 ft.)
Broadcasting Studio
Very Quiet
Just Audible
Threshold of Hearin
June 23, 1999

Page 4 ends

DRAFT EIR
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83

4.5 NOISE
Table 4.5-2

SOUND LEVELS AND HUMAN RESPONSE
Carrier Jet Operation 140 Harmfully Loud
30 Pain Threshold
120
Jet Takeoff (200 ft.)
Discotheque
Unmuffled Motorcycle
Auto Horn (3 ft.)
Rock'n Roll Band
Riveting Machine
Maximum Vocal Effort
Physical Discomfort
Noise Source Response
dB(A)
Noise
Level
Alarm Clock
Freight Train (50 ft.) 80 Annoying
Vacuum Cleaner (10 ft.)
Dishwashers Intrusive
Air Conditioning Unit (20 ft.) 60

4.5 NOISE
Another commonly used method for assessing land use compatibility is the day/night average level or Ldn. The Ldn is a measure of the 24-hour average noise level at a given location.

It was adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for developing criteria for the evaluation of community noise exposure. It is based on a measure of the average noise level over a given time period called the [eq. The Ldn is calculated by averaging the Leq's for each hour of the day at a given location after penalizing the "sleeping hours" (defined as 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.), by a 10 dBA to account for the increased sensitivity of people to noises that occur at night. The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event is typically expressed as Lmax. The sound level exceeded over a specified time frame can be expressed as Ln (i.e., L90, L50, L10, etc.). L50 equals the level exceeded 50 percent of the time. The City of Camarillo utilizes CNEL or Ldn for determining noise sources within the city limits.

People are subject to a multitude of sounds in the urban environment. Typical noise level of indoor/outdoor environments and public response to these sounds are indicated in Table

4.5-2, Sound Level and Human Response, below. Many of these sounds are by-products of desirable and necessary day-to-day activities. However, some sounds such as the thunder of jet craft, and the roar of automobiles, are undesirable. Excessive noise can not only be undesirable, but may also cause physical and/or psychological damage. The amount of annoyance or damage caused by noise is dependent primarily on three factors: the amount and nature of the noise, the amount of ambient noise present before the intruding noise, and the activity of the person working or living in the noise source area.

The difficulty in relating noise exposure to public health and welfare is not of the major obstacles in determining appropriate maximum noise levels. Although there has been some dispute in the scientific community regarding the detrimental effects of noise, a number of general conclusions have been reached:
• Noise of sufficient intensity can cause irreversible hearing damage; • Noise can produce physiological changes in humans and animals; • Noise can interfere with speech and other communication; and • Noise can be a major source of annoyance by disturbing sleep, rest, ad relaxation.

Noise Standards
It is difficult to specify noise levels which are generally acceptable to everyone. What is annoying to one person may be unnoticed by another. Standards may be based on documented complaint activity in response to documented noise levels, or based on studies on the ability of people to sleep, talk, or work under various noise conditions. All such studies, however, recognize that individual responses vary considerably. Standards usugly address the needs of most of the general population. With this caution in mind, noise standards for planning purposes examine both outdoor and indoor noise levels acceptable for different uses. The standards relate to existing conditions in a City so that they are realistically enforceable and consistent with a City's General Plan objectives.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1 9
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 43-5

4.5 NOISE
Federal Noise Standards
The United States Noise Control Act of 1972 (NCA) recognized the role of the federal government in dealing with major commercial noise sources in order to provide for uniform treatment of such sources. As Congress has the authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, regulation of noise generated by such commerce also falls under congressional authority. The Federal government specifically preempts local control of noise emissions from aircraft, railroad and interstate highways.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified acceptable noise levels for various land uses, in order to protect public welfare, allowing for an adequate margin of safety, in addition to establishing noise emission standards for interstate commerce activities.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has established policies for granting financial support for the construction of dwelling units in noise impacted areas.

State Noise Standards
The State of California has also identified acceptable noise levels for various land uses, in order to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. State requirements specify that interior noise levels resulting from exterior sources are not exceed 45dBA CNEL. This standard applies to all noise-sensitive land uses, which include:
residential units, transient lodgings, hospitals, churches, nursing homes and educational facilities. The State Aeronautics Act uses 65 dBA CNEL as the criterion airports must meet for exterior areas of residential communities.

The California Office of Noise Control has developed criteria and guidelines for local governments to use when setting standards for human exposure t noise and preparing noise elements. These guidelines include noise exposure levels for both exterior and interior environments. The outdoor maximum permitted noise standard varies with the land use.

City of Camarillo Noise Standards
The Federal government specifically preempts local control of noise emissions from interstate highways, railroads and aircraft. The State of California has established guidelines for acceptable community noise levels which are based on the CNEL rating scale. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of "normally acceptable," "conditionally acceptable," and "clearly unacceptable" noise levels for various land use types. In addition to Federal and State noise standards, the City of Camarillo has adopted noise standards in its General Plan. These noise standards include Land Use Compatibility for community noise and permissible noise levels for noise sources not operating on a public right-of-way. As shown in Table 4.5-3, Community Noise Exposure Levels, residential units are "normally acceptable" in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and "conditionally acceptable" up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries and churches are "normally acceptable" up to 70 CNEL, and office buildings and business, commercial and professional uses are "normally acceptable" up to 70 CNEL. As indicated in Table 4.5-3, many noise-sensitive land uses such DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.5-6 -V. •-/ I NI
Table 4.5-3

COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL

LAND USE CATEGORY

COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE
idn or CNEL dBA
Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Residential - Low Density Single-Family, 50 - 60 65- 70 70 - 75 75 - 85 Duplex, Mobil Homes
Residential - Multiple Family 50 - 65 55-70 70 - 75 75 - 85 Transient Lodging - Motel, Hotels 50 - 65 60- 70 70 - 80 80 - 85 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, 50 - 70 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 85 Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, NA 50 - 70 65-85 NA
Amphitheaters
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50 - 75 70-85 NA Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 - 70 NA 67.5 - 75 72.5 - 85 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water 50 - 75 NA 70-80 80 - 85 Recreation, Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business Commercial
and Professional
50 - 70 67.5 - 77.5 75 - 85 NA
Industtial, Manufacturing, Utilities, 50 - 75 70 - 80 75 - 85 NA Agriculture
Source: Modified from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Guidelines and State of California Standards as contained on Figure 4 within the Camarillo General Plan Noise Element.

Notes: NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE
Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design.

Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Outdoor environment will seem noisy.

NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements needed to mitigate the unacceptable noise levels must be made and needed noise insulation features must be included in the design. Outdoor areas must be shielded.

CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE
New construction or development clearly should not be undertaken. Construction costs to make the indoor environment acceptable would be prohibitive and the outdoor environment would not be useable.

NA: Not applicable.

DRAFT HR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.5-7

4.3 INkJIJE.
as residential areas, schools, churches, hospitals, etc., use a daily noise level value of 60 dBA as the dividing line between a "conditionally acceptable" and a "normally acceptable" noise environment.

Local agencies may regulate noise levels of most sources not regulated by the Federal government; may provide standards for insulation of noise receivers either within the structure or by placement of noise barriers such as walls; and, through land use decisions, may reduce noise impacts by separating noise generators from noise sensitive uses. To provide a satisfactory noise environment and to minimize complaints about community noise, the City of Camarillo has adopted State standards for evaluating the compatibility of land uses with respect to outdoor and certain indoor noise levels. The purpose of the land use compatibility analysis is to screen projects which may require specific design considerations to mitigate noise impacts. The General Plan's noise exposure contours are used in conjunction with the noise standards indicated on Table 4.5-3, Community Noise Exposure Levels, to make such a determination.

The impact of construction noise which occurs during the daytime is considered minimal for no more than two or three months of activity. However, late night and weekend disturbance caused by construction noise may cause a significant impact when experienced at nearby residential locations. As such, the City of Camarillo has adopted a noise ordinance pursuant to the goals and implementation policies set forth in the City's General Plan. Section

10.34.120 of the noise ordinance states that permissible construction hours for the City of Camarillo are from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction permitted on Sundays or public holidays.

Noise Insulation Standard (California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4) also requires that indoor noise levels in multi-family residences do not exceed a CNEL of 45 dBA.

IMPACTS
Significance Criteria
A project is considered to have a significant noise impact where it causes an adopted noise standard to be exceeded for the project site or for adjacent sensitive receptors. In addition to being concerned about the absolute noise level that might occur when a new source is introduced into an area, it is also important to consider the existing noise environment. If the existing noise environment is quiet and the new noise source greatly increases the noise exposure, even though a criterion level might not be exceeded, some impact may occur.

Lacking adopted standards for evaluating such impacts, general rules of thumb for community noise environments are that a change of over 5 dBA is readily noticeable and, therefore, is considered a significant impact (refer to Table 4.5-4, Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure), below.' Changes from 3 to 5 dBA may be noticed by some individuals and 2 Assessment of Noise with Respect to Community Response, ISDR 1996, International Standardization, Switzerland.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.5-8

4.5 NOISE
are, therefore considered to constitute an adverse environmental impact since under these conditions sporadic complaints may occur. Changes in community noise levels of less than 3 dBA are normally not noticeable and are therefore considered less than significant.3 Adverse impacts would result if increases in noise levels are audible (increases equal to, or greater than 3 dBA), although the noise level may not exceed the significant impact criteria specified above. Short-term noise impacts are considered significant if project related construction would cause a continuous accedence of the "normally acceptable" noise levels presented in Table 4.5-3,above, for a period of six months or longer.

Table 4.5-4

SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN CUMULATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE
Ambient Noise Level Without Project
(CNEL)
Significant Impact Assumed to Occur if the Project
Increases Ambient Noise Levels By:
< 60 dBA +5.0 dBA or more
60-65 dBA +3.0 dBA or more
> 65dBA +1.5 dBA or more
Sources: FICON, FHWA, and Caltrans as applied by Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc., 1997.

The City of Camarillo Noise Element provides exterior and interior noise standards for various types of land uses. These standards are indicated in Table 4.5-5, Noise Standards. A significant noise impact would occur if noise levels exceeded the exterior or interior ambient noise standards. However, Section 10.34.20(F) of the Code specifically exempts noise generated by construction activities from adhering to these noise standards, providing construction activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and prohibited on Sundays and any public holiday.

Table 4.5-5

GENERAL PLAN NOISE STANDARDS
City General Plan
Land Use Designation
Exterior Level Interior Level
Residential Properties 60 dBA 45 dBA
Commercial/Office Properties 45 dBA
Industrial Properties — 45 dBA
Source: City of Camarillo General Plan Noise Element, Page 415, 1989. 3 Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1973.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.5-9

4.5 NOISE
Project-related noise should also be compared to City of Camarillo noise performance standard as stated in Table, 4.5-3, Community Noise Exposure Levels, above. Impacts associated with project implementation and are separated into three separate project components which include: Route 101 Interchange, Local Arterials, and Annexation Area #83 and are analyzed below for potential short-term construction and long-term operations (Year 2020). Mitigation measures are provided at the end of this section to minimize the significance of identified impacts.

Route 101 Interchange
Short-Term Construction Noise

4.5-1. Short-term construction noise during construction of the proposed Route 101/NorthSouth Road interchange would result in an increase in ambient noise levels within the vicinity of the proposed project. Significance: Less than significant with adherence to City Noise Ordinance requirements.

Discussion 4.5-1: Potential noise impacts that would result from project construction would primarily be short-term. Construction-related impacts include temporary increases in noise levels as a result of site preparation and construction of the interchange. The City of Camarillo Noise Ordinance (City Municipal Code) provides exterior and interior noise standards for various types of land uses and specifically exempts noise generated by construction activities from adhering to these noise standards, providing all construction activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and prohibited on Sundays and any public holiday.

Short-term construction noise would primarily result from the construction of the proposed conventional diamond interchange with a six-lane overcrossing, consisting of two through lanes in each direction and dual left turn lanes. New on- and off-ramps would be constructed to merge with the existing Route 101 northbound and southbound travel lanes. The proposed interchange overcrossing would connect to the north with the proposed westerly extension of Ponderosa Drive, and to south would connect with the proposed easterly extension of Verdulera Street.

Noise produced by construction equipment varies substantially depending upon the type of equipment being used, and its operation and maintenance (refer to Table 4.6-6, Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels). Construction noise is generally of relatively short duration, lasting from a few days to a period of months. Noise impacts associated with construction activities would typically occur in several distinct phases, each with its own noise characteristics. The first phase, site preparation, is generally the noisiest and has the shortest duration. Activities that occur during this phase include earthmoving and compacting of soils. High noise levels are created during this phase from the operation of heavy duty trucks, backhoes, and front end loaders. Noise levels typically range from 73 to 96 dBA at 50 feet from individual pieces of equipment.' The figures indicated in Table 4.5-6, Typical 4 United States EPA, 1971.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.5-10

4.5 NOISE
Construction Equipment Noise Levels, below, represents the "worst-case" day in which all equipment used during a given phase is operating. Because all equipment would not be operating on most days during construction, actual noise levels would, on many days, be lower than present in the Table.

Table 4.5-6

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Type of Equipment Maximum Level dBA 0 50 Feet
Scrapers 88
Bulldozers 87
Heavy Trucks 88
Backhoe 85
Pneumatic Tools 85
In addition, temporary construction vehicle noise on-site and traffic noise along access routes to the site from the movement of equipment and workers onto the site would occur. The major pieces of heavy equipment are expected to be moved on to the site once during construction then staged on-site or on adjacent parcels. Thus, heavy equipment transport noise would be minimized.

As previously discussed above, the Friedrich House presently exists immediately south of the terminus of the existing Ventura Boulevard (south of Route 101). This home would be removed prior to construction of the proposed interchange. As no additional sensitive receptors are situated within the construction limits of the proposed interchange, as well as project compliance with City Noise Ordinance requirements, short-term construction noise associated with the proposed interchange would be less than significant.

Long-Term Noise Impacts

4.5-2. Implementation of the proposed Route 707/North-South Road interchange would not create significant long-term noise impacts on existing or future uses. Significance: Not Significant.

Discussion 4.5-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in vehicular related noise impacts within the vicinity of the interchange, as the area is currently experiencing noise level associated with Route 101 in excess of City standards. The area located south of Route 101 is located within the Airport North Specific Plan and is designated for non-sensitive commercial, retail, and business park uses. However, noise impacts within the Specific Plan area associated with Route 101 were previously analyzed as part of the Airport North Specific Plan DR. Future development proposals within the Airport North Specific Plan area would be assessed on a project-by-project basis and would be subject to applicable noise standards DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.5-11

4.5 NOISE
for the intended use (either by incorporation of noise attenuation measures and/or setbacks).

As well, Annexation Area #83 is located north of Route 101 and is currently experiencing noise levels in excess of City standards (refer to discussion 4.5-6, below). Future uses within Annexation Area #85 would be required to incorporate sound attenuation measures into project design. Therefore, no additional vehicular related noise impacts within the Airport North Specific Plan area or Annexation Area #83, beyond those previously anticipated, would occur with implementation of the Route 101/North-South Road interchange portion of the proposed project.

Local Arterials
Short-Term Construction Noise

4.5-3. Short-term construction activities associated with the proposed local arterial roadways (i.e., Ponderosa Drive extension, North-South Road, Verdulera Street, and Ventura Boulevard) would result in an increase in ambient noise levels within the vicinity noise sensitive land uses. Significance: Less than significant impact with adherence to City Noise Ordinance requirements.

Discussion 4.5-3: Noise sensitive land uses located within proximity of the project site that would be affected by construction equipment operations include the Schol le farm house and the existing residential area located along the north side of Ponderosa Drive, east of Joseph Earl Road. As previously described, the City of Camarillo Noise Ordinance (City Municipal Code) provides exterior and interior noise standards for various types of land uses and specifically exempts noise generated by construction activities from adhering to these noise standards, providing all construction activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and prohibited on Sundays and any public holiday.

Construction noise would result from the widening of Ponderosa Drive from two lanes to four lanes from Las Posas Road to the new interchange and associated north/south arterial. The existing Ventura Boulevard south of Route 101 would also be relocated. Construction of the new Ventura Boulevard would consist of four travel lanes with bike lanes and a median, and would connect to the existing westerly end of the recently constructed Ventura Boulevard located south of the Target Shopping Center (to the east of the new interchange) and the existing Ventura Boulevard (west of the new interchange).

Actual noise levels would depend upon the number of pieces of equipment in operation at any given time. Because all equipment would not typically operate simultaneously, actual noise levels would likely be lower than presented in Table 4.5-6, above. Nevertheless, worstcase noise levels at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source would for exceed the normally acceptable levels for the Scholle farm house and the existing residential area located along the north side of Ponderosa Drive, east of Joseph Earl Road. However, it is anticipated that construction activities within the vicinity of these residences would be only fora two to three month duration. Thus, the existing adjacent residential uses would experience temporary noise annoyance as a result of construction activity along North-South Road north of Route 101 and along Ponderosa Drive. These impacts, however, are temporary, would be limited to the DRAFT HR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.5-12

4.5 NOISE
hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday, and would cease upon project completion. In addition, refer to short-term construction impact discussion 4.5-1, above under Route 101 Interchange.

Long-Term Noise Impacts

4.5-4. Future (Year 2020) traffic conditions result in an excedence of City noise standards along the General Plan approved North-South Road within the area of the Scholle farm located north of Route 101. Significance: Significant and unavoidable for future conditions along North-South Road, north of Route 101 without mitigation incorporated.

Discussion 4.5-4: Implementation of the proposed project would result in the extension of Ponderosa Drive and the construction of North-South Road, Verdulera Street, and Ventura Boulevard, within in the vicinity of Route 101 consistent with the City of Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element. However, future (Year 2020) traffic conditions would result in an excedence of City noise standards along North-South Road within the area of the Schol le farm (refer to Table 4.5-7, 60 CNEL Projections). It should be noted that the anticipated increase in traffic volumes associated with buildout of Annexation Area #83 were considered within the anticipated future (Year 2020) traffic forecasts utilized in the following analysis.

Table 4.5-7
60 CNEL PROJECTIONS
(Based on Vehicular Generated Noise)
Roadway Segment
Distance From Centerline to 60 CNEL
(Feet)
CNEL at 100 Feet
From Centerline
Existing Future With
Project
(Year 2020)
Change2 Existing Future With
Project
(Year 2020)
Change
Ponderosa Drive:

Las Posas Road to Joseph 49 312 +263 52.2 66.2 + 12.0
Earl Road
North-South Road:

Route 101 Interchange to NA 353 353 NA 67.0 NA
Ponderosa Drive
NOTES/ASSUMPTIONS:

1. Existing and Future (Year 2020) average daily traffic (ADT) derived from peak hour traffic data as contained within Project Study Report (PSR) for Route 101 at Airport North interchange, dated January 1999.

2. Difference between existing and future (Year 2020) traffic scenarios.

3. Figures are based on the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108, using posted speeds of 45 mph for existing conditions and 50 mph for future (Year 2020) conditions , observed and planned road geometry, and "soft" site.

4. Existing with project traffic conditions were not provided in the Project Study Report.

5. Estimates do not adjust for any existing noise barriers, and are for traffic noise only.

6. CNEL is a 24-hour time-weighted average noise level. Noise which occurs during sensitive time periods is weighted more heavily.

Ponderosa Drive: Las Posas Road to Joseph Earl Road (Less than significant impact) Comparing existing noise levels to future (Year 2020) noise conditions, results in a maximum DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.5-13

4.5 NOISE

12.0 dBA CNEL increase in vehicular generated noise beyond existing conditions and an increase of approximately 6.2 dBA CNEL above the City standard of 60 dBA CNEL (Las Posas Road to Joseph Earl Road) (refer to Table 4.5-7, 60 CNEL Projections, above). The estimated increase in CNEL is due in part to the addition of through travel lanes and associated higher daily traffic capacity, as well as bringing travel lanes closer to existing land uses. In community noise assessment changes, noise levels greater than 5 dBA are often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dBA would not be discernible to local residents. The

12.0 CNEL increase is above the generally accepted threshold of a 5 dBA change in ambient noise levels. However, the sensitive receptors along this roadway consist of residential units that are part of master-planned communities, where existing sound/privacy walls provide additional noise attenuation. Thus, a projected noise level of 66.2 dBA CNEL under future conditions would require a 6.2 dBA CNEL reduction in order meet the exterior noise standard of 60 CNEL. This would be accomplished by the existing 6' and 8' sound walls located along this segment. Therefore, no significant vehicular noise impacts along Ponderosa Drive would occur.

North-South Road: Route 101 Interchange to Proposed Ponderosa Drive Extension (Significant and unavoidable impact)
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of North-South Road from Route 101, north through open farmland to the extension of Ponderosa Drive introducing additional vehicular generated noise into an agricultural area consistent with the City of Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element. It should be noted, however, that the agricultural areas located north and south of Route 101, respectively, are currently experiencing substantial vehicular noise (65 dBA CNEL) in excess of the 60 dBA CNEL standard due to traffic associated with Route 101. The Schol le farm house located at the northern extent of the North-South Road segment (approximately 546 feet north of Route 101), would experience an increase in noise levels beyond existing conditions associated with the introduction of vehicular traffic.

Future (Year 2020) traffic conditions with implementation of the proposed project would result in a maximum 67.0 CNEL within the vicinity of the Scholle farm house (refer to Table, 4.5-7, 60 CNEL Projections). This increase itself is not considered significant as the 2.0 dBA increase is below the 3.0 dBA threshold as identified in Table 4.5-4, Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure. However, the traffic accommodated by the proposed roadway would increase existing noise levels thereby exacerbating a previously identified accedence of City noise standards at this location. No existing noise attenuation features are in place along this segment. If this portion of the proposed project was constructed and operating at anticipated 2020 traffic levels while this farm house was in place, a significant and unavoidable adverse impact would occur to the resident since an existing excedence of City standards would be exacerbated.

Although ultimate development of this portion of the proposed project (Annexation Area #83) has yet to be determined, future development proposals within the Annexation Area would be required to incorporate sound attenuation measures (i.e., sound walls, berms) into project DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.5-14

4.5 NOISE
design on a project-by-project basis in order to reduce the significance of on- and off-site noise impacts associated with future development to less than significant levels. However, it should be noted that sound attenuation for the Schol le farmhouse may be infeasible due to a significant visual impact which could occur resulting from the construction of sound wall or berm.

Additional Local Arterials Associated with the Proposed Project. Significance: Less than significant.

From Route 101, North-South Road continues south along its General Plan approved alignment to its terminus at the intersection of Ventura Boulevard. As previously mentioned above, areas located south of Route 101 are experiencing vehicular noise associated with Route 101 traffic (65-70 dBA CNEL). Future noise levels along North-South Road (south of Route 101), Verdulera Street and Ventura Boulevard were previously analyzed within the Airport North Specific Plan. Future business park and retail use proposals within the Specific Plan area would be assessed on a project-by-project basis and would be required to meet the applicable noise standard for the intended use (either by incorporation of noise attenuation measures and/or setbacks). Therefore, no additional impacts beyond those previously anticipated for the Airport North Specific Plan Area would occur.

Annexation Area #83
Short-Term Construction Noise

4.5-5. Short-term construction noise during construction activities associated with future development projects within Annexation Area #83 would result in an increase in noise levels within the vicinity noise sensitive land uses (Scholle farm house). Significance: Less than significant impact with adherence to City Noise Ordinance.

Discussion 4.5-5: The Annexation Area #83 component of the project would result in the annexation of approximately 270 acres into the City of Camarillo. Construction of future development projects within Annexation Area #83 would be subject to Chapter 10.34.120(f) of the Camarillo Municipal Code (Noise Ordinance) thereby reducing potential noise impacts to less than significant levels.

Refer to short-term construction impact discussion 4.5-1 and 4.5-3, above.

Long-Term Noise Impacts

4.5-6. Buildout of Annexation Area #83 would result in increased noise levels beyond existing conditions. Significance: Less than significant impact.

Discussion 4.5-6: Annexation Area #83 abuts a private residential development and golf course/country club, condominiums and townhouses to the north. Future development within Annexation Area #83 would increase the overall noise levels adjacent to these areas.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.5-15

4.5 NOISE
Therefore, individual future development proposals within Annexation Area #83 would be assessed on a project-by-project basis and would be required to meet the applicable noise standard for the intended use (either by incorporation of noise attenuation measures and/or setbacks) in addition to providing off-site attenuation measures (if determined necessary). As previously discussed above, sound walls are currently in place along the north side of Ponderosa Drive which would provide some sound attenuation from buildout of the Annexation Area. However, these walls may be determined insufficient (through future environmental review) and may be required to be raised at a later date in order to meet City CNEL standards. With the incorporation of both on-site and off-site sound attenuation measures as part of future development projects within Annexation Area #83, the increase in noise would be considered less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Route 101 Interchange
Short-Term Construction Noise

4.5-1. In order to minimize construction-related noise, construction and grading activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and prohibited on Sundays and any public holiday recognized by the City of Camarillo, pursuant to Chapter 10.34.120(f) of the Camarillo Municipal Code (Noise Ordinance). Days/hours of construction shall be indicated on project construction plans.

Long-Term Noise Impacts

4.5-2. None have been identified.

Local Arterials
Short-Term Construction Noise

4.5-3a. Refer to Mitigation Measure 4.5-1, above.

4.5-3b. Project construction plans shall indicate that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, will be in proper operating condition and fitted with standard factory silencing features, in order to minimize construction-related noise. In areas where construction equipment (such as diesel generators and air compressors) is left for more than one day within 300 feet of the Schol le farm house, a temporary portable noise structure (noise blanket) shall be erected. These barriers shall be located between the piece of equipment and sensitive use.

Long-Term Noise Impacts

4.5-4. No mitigation measures are feasible.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.5-16

4.5 NOISE
Annexation Area #83
Short-Term Construction Noise

4.5-5. Refer to mitigation measure 4.5-1, above.

Long-Term Noise Impacts

4.5-6. None have been identified.

UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Year 2020 traffic levels within the vicinity of the Scholle farm house would result in a significant and unavoidable adverse noise impact due to an existing excedence of City noise standards.

DRAFT EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.547

4.6 ISSUES WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION

4.6 ISSUES WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATION

INCORPORATION
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (refer to Appendix 10.1) identified the estimated impact level for 17 environmental categories. Sections 4.1 through 4.5 of this HR analyze issues identified as "Potential Significant Impacts" in the Initial Study. This section of the EIR addresses issues identified as "Less Than Significant With Mitigation" in the Initial Study. For the issues in this section, the Initial Study provided a quick overview of the impact and recommended mitigation measures, however, specific mitigation measures were not identified in the Initial Study. This section of the EIR provides a synopsis of the impact, including a statement of the impact, a discussion of the impact, and mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less than significant.

4.6.1 Land Use and Relevant Planning

IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.6.1-1. The proposed project may conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.6.1-1 Discussion: Land use designation for the project site is designated as agricultural and rural to the north, and Research and Development to the south within the City of Camarillo's General Plan. The affected land is zoned primarily a agricultural and residential to the north of the proposed project site, and Limited Manufacturing and Professional Office to the South (Airport North Specific Plan). The proposed project would accommodate overall circulation demand consistent with the Circulation Element of the City of Camarillo General Plan, provide a through travel way to Ponderosa Drive and improve local traffic circulation. Proposed alignments for Airport North road, Ponderosa Drive extension and Ventura Boulevard realignment have been based, in large part, on the goal of minimizing loss of land for existing agricultural parcels, and in consideration of planned development for the Airport North Specific Plan area. Although proposed development would facilitate future development in the area, it should be noted that the development-related environmental impacts in the project area have been addressed in the Ponderosa Corridor Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Airport North Specific Plan EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element, and is an important component for the continued planned development for the City. Therefore, no impacts in this regard would occur.

Portions of the proposed project site are located North of Route 101 between Las Posas Drive and Central Avenue and are within the County of Ventura's jurisdiction. This area is proposed for annexation, including pre-zoning by the City of Camarillo. Annexation Area No. 83 is surrounded on all sides by the City of Camarillo and would be considered an island.

FINAL EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.6-1

4.6 ISSUES WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION
The annexation would eliminate the island area, and allow for the proposed interchange and related arterial improvements to be entirely within the City of Camarillo. The annexation area is within the City of Camarillo Sphere of Influence, and the City anticipates development within the annexation area within the next four years. The proposed annexation is consistent with Section 3.2 of the County of Ventura General Plan, which states that the Sphere of Influence line is the "probable ultimate boundary of a city." Section 3.2 of the County of Ventura General Plan goes on further to state, "the urban reserve overlay designation is applied to all unimproved land within a city's adopted Sphere of Influence." In addition, the proposed annexation is consistent with the County of Ventura General Plan Section 3.1.1, which promotes the establishment of reasonable boundaries and the prevention of step-out urban development.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures directly correspond to the numbered impact statements in the previous Impact Analysis Discussion.

4.6.1-1a. Subsequent development within Annexation Area No. 83 will be subject to the specific conditions and measures identified throughout the CEQA review and entitlement approval processes as imposed by the lead and responsible agencies, as well as the Camarillo City Council.

4.6.2 Biological Resources

IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.6.2-1. The project may have an adverse effect on federally protected wetlands.

Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.6.2-1 Discussion: Wetland and "Waters of the United States" are protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and are under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Water of the United States include navigable waters, lakes, rivers and steams, and their tributaries; interstate waters and their tributaries; wetlands adjacent to such waters; and isolated wetlands and lakes, intermittent streams and other waters that could affect interstate commerce. The spreading basins and drainages located on the project site may be under jurisdiction of ACOE and may be determined to be subject to permit conditions as regulated by the ACOE. These drainages may also require a Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1601 of the California Fish and Game Code.

There is the potential for the proposed project to create water quality impacts on off-site wildlife in Calleguas Hills Drain and Revelon Slough. Refer to Section 4.6.5, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY, for a discussion of stormwater runoff impacts and mitigation measures.

FINAL EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.6-2

4.6 ISSUES WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION

MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures directly correspond to the numbered impact statements in the previous Impact Analysis discussion.

4.6.2-1a. A wetlands delineation shall be conducted to determine if ACOE and/or CDFG jurisdictions are present within the project area. If impacts to on-site irrigation drainages are determined to be jurisdictional, the applicant shall develop a habitat restoration program in the required ratio identified in the applicant's ACOE and CDFG permit/agreement for the proposed project.

4.6.3 Geology and Soils

IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.6.3-1. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to expose people to ground shaking impacts. Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation.

4.6.3-1 Discussion: Ventura County contains numerous regional faults, including the Camarillo Fault to the south, Bailey Fault to the east, and Springville, Simi/Santa Rosa and Oakridge Faults to the north. The Oakridge fault, located approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) north of the proposed interchange, has an average slip-rate of about 5mm/year. Though the recurrence intervals for earthquakes along the Oak Ridge fault are unknown, the fault poses a seismic hazard, because the fault is extensive and has a large average slip-rate. The Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Fugro West Inc. (July 1998), concluded that the largest median ground motion from a maximum credible earthquake near the site would be a magnitude 6.9 occurring on the Oakridge Fault system. Also, portions of the proposed Ponderosa Drive alignment located north of the interchange are within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault hazard zone. This has the potential to expose commuters to seismic hazards.

Although there is an active fault located at the base of the Camarillo Hills approximately 200 to 300 meters (700 to 1,000 feet) north of the proposed interchange location, the proposed site is not located within an area of known fault rupture potential of within an area of slope instability.

4.6.3-2. Grading for the proposed interchange and local arterials would alter the existing site topography. Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.6.3-2 Discussion: Although approval of the proposed Route 101/Airport North Interchange project, in itself, would have no direct effects, grading required for construction of the proposed interchange and associated roadway improvements would result in a minor alteration in topography within Route 101 right-of-way (ROW) and surrounding areas.

FINAL EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.6-3

4.6 ISSUES WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION

4.6.3-3. The proposed project has the potential to be subject to seismically-induced settlement impacts. Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.6.3-3 Discussion: Grading for the project would occur within Caltrans right-of-way (ROW), as well as grading associated with the construction of the proposed Airport North road alignment, relocation of Ventura Boulevard and extension of Ponderosa Drive. Surface materials would be removed and soils disrupted and displaced would be compacted during project construction. It is anticipated, that the soils within the project site above the level of the perched groundwater probably contain zones of loose to medium dense alluvium. On the basis of data from nearby sites, there appears to be potential for seismically induced settlement and collapse within the alluvium.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures directly correspond to the numbered impact statements in the previous Impact Analysis discussion.

4.6.3-1a. All development shall adhere to standard engineering practices (i.e., trenching studies), required health and safety standards and remedial steps during grading.

4.6.3-lb. All development shall adherence to City of Camarillo and Caltrans design criteria relative to seismic and geologic hazards.

4.6.3-2a. All development shall comply with City and State design construction requirements. In addition, standard erosion control mitigation measures (such as matting, slope paving, and cellular confinement systems) shall be applied.

4.6.3-3a. All development shall adhere to standard engineering practices and the City of Camarillo design criteria relative to seismic and geologic hazards.

4.6.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.6.4-1. The proposed project may create a significant hazard to the public or the environment though reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Significance: Less than significant.

4.6.4-1 Discussion: Due to the historical use of the project area, it is likely that agricultural chemicals and fuels are and have been stored throughout the project area. The storage of these fuels and chemicals may have resulted in accidental slippage and possible accumulation of these materials in the soil. Additionally, the continual usage of agricultural chemicals in the area is likely to have resulted in the accumulation of such materials in the soils.

FINAL EIR June 23, 3999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.6-4

4.6 ISSUES WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION
A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted for the project prepared by ENSR (August 1998), which indicated the potential for agricultural pesticides, asbestoscontain ing materials (ACM's), lead based paint, debris piles, a potential underground storage tank (UST), and various areas indicating the potential for contamination by agricultural-related chemicals/vehicles oils associated with the single-family farm located immediately south of Route 101. As development may occur within the annexation area within the next four years, the potential exists that future development may have an adverse effect.

The implementation of design practices such as the separation of roadway from existing and future uses by a buffer zone, sound wall or other means, as well as compliance with the County's Hazardous Materials Response Plan in the event of an accidental spill, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. As no development proposals have been submitted at this time and the area would be pre-zoned as RE-40, potential development-related impacts are more appropriately addressed though the CEQA document required for future development.

4.6.4-2. The project mat result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area due to the proposed project's close proximity to an airport. Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.6.4-2 Discussion: The Camarillo Airport, formerly known as Oxnard Airforce Base, is located immediately south of the proposed project area. The Ventura County Transportation Commission is also the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The purpose of the ALUC is to protect public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within and around public airports. To accomplish these objectives the ALUC has prepared an Airports Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update for the Ventura County (CLUP, November 1990). The CLUP establishes aircraft noise exposure zones, building height restriction limits, air safety zones, a planning boundary and land use guidelines specifying the acceptability level of various land use in each zone identified previously. The Camarillo Airport land use planning boundary extends beyond Route 101 to the north, to Ponderosa Drive to the east, to Carmen Drive and below Pleasant Valley Road to the west to the Oxnard city limits. The project site is within the planning boundaries of the Airport as designated in the CLUP. The proposed project involves an interchange and roadway improvements and does not involve the development of housing or businesses.

As no development proposals have been submitted at this time and the area will be pre-zoned for agricultural uses, potential development impacts are more appropriately addressed through the CEQA document required for future development.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures directly correspond to the numbered impact statements in the previous Impact Analysis Discussion.

FINAL EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.6-5

4.6 ISSUES WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION

4.6.4-1a. The applicant shall be required to notify the APCD prior to the issuance of demolition permits or the demolition of any of the onsite structures. All demolition activities shall be in full compliance with APCD Rule 62.7.

4.6.4-2 a. Future development within the annexation area shall be required to conform with the CLUP.

4.6.4-2b. Future development projects within the annexation shall be subject to further environmental analysis as determined by the City of Camarillo.

4.6.5 Hydrology and Water Quality

IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.6.5-1. The project could alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a steam or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Significance: Less than significant with mitigation.

4.6.5-1 Discussion: The proposed project may result in changes in the rate and amount of surface runoff due to the introduction of impervious surfaces with the installation of the diamond interchange, required roadway improvements, and future development within the annexation area. These impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures identified below.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures directly correspond to the numbered impact statements in the previous Impact Analysis Discussion.

4.6.5-1a. The proposed interchange and local arterials projects shall include appropriate surface water drainage facilities, designed in accordance with Caltrans and City requirements.

4.6.5-lb. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, a detailed erosion control plan shall be concurred with and approved by the City Engineer.

4.6.5-1c. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Notice of Intent shall be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed and implemented on-se in compliance with the California General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit, as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations.

FINAL ER June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.6-6

4.6 ISSUES WITH LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION

4.6.5-1d. To protect water quality in Calleguas Creek, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
a. Material and waste Best Management Practices (BMPs) during site grading and construction shall be strictly enforced;
b. A water quality management plan shall be prepared that addresses potential water pollutant issues for the proposed project site and related areas. The report shall be prepared prior to the issuance of any grading permits;
c. Permanent structural BMPs, such as infiltration trenches, fossil filters and/or water separators, shall be installed and maintained at all on-site storm drain inlets; and
d. Non-structural post-construction BMPs, such as a public education program (providing signage at all drainage inlets prohibiting dumping of any kind) shall be implemented.

NOTE: Water Quality issues are addressed in the Initial Study, Section 3.8 (Appendix

10.1).

Traffic and Circulation issues are addressed in the Initial Study, Section 3.15 (Appendix 10.1), as well as in the Project Study Report (available for review at the City of Camarillo, as noted in Section 2.5, Incorporation by Reference).

FINAL HR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 4.6-7

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15126.6, the following discussion addresses alternatives to the proposed project. CEQA states that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must address "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The analysis focuses on alternatives capable of eliminating significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to less than significant levels, even if these alternatives would impede, to some degree, the attainment of the project objectives. The proposed project is separated into two distinct project components, the Interchange/Local Arterials and Annexation No. 83. The following alternatives were analyzed in this Section: (1) Interchange/Local Arterials: No Project Alternative and Alternative Interchange Configuration/Local Arterial Alignments; and (2) Annexation No. 83: No Project Alternative and Reduced Scale Annexation Alternative. Although these two components have been considered and analyzed as a single project within this EIR, they have been assessed independent of each other for the purposes of the following alternatives analysis.

5.1 INTERCHANGE/LOCAL ARTERIALS
No Project Alternative
Under the "No Project" Alternative, the proposed interchange and local arterial roadways would not be constructed. Access to Route 101 would continue to be provided at Central Avenue and Las Posas Road. The "No Project" Alternative would include ultimate improvements to the Central Avenue and Las Posas Road Interchanges. However, without the proposed interchange, Ponderosa Drive and Ventura Boulevard would not be extended from their existing termini. This alternative would not result in any of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed construction and operation of the interchange and the associated arterial roadways. Short-term impacts during the construction phases of the proposed project would not occur. In addition, this alternative would avoid potential impacts resulting from conversion of agricultural land to a permanent developed condition and impacts to cultural resources. It is important to note that adjacent intersections are forecast to operate at or below capacity under the "No Project" Alternative, thereby resulting in a reduced Level of Service (LOS). Due to the reduced LOS, regional impacts associated with traffic, air quality, and noise would not be avoided under the "No Project" Alternative.

Conclusion
The "No Project" Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project, as the project-related environmental impacts identified within this EIR would not occur.

However, regional traffic, air quality, and noise impacts would not be avoided. Therefore,

DRAFT EIR
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 May 6, 1999

Page 5 ends

Camarillo City CouncilMay 28, 2025

Camarillo City Council
May 28, 2025