Camarillo City Council
May 28, 2025

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
the No Project Alternative would not be consistent with the existing General Plan Circulation Element, and would not realize any of the basic project objectives as indicated in Section 3.4, Project Objectives, and is therefore, not under further consideration.

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 of Camarillo analyzed seven (7) local arterial alignments and interchange configurations with respect to impacts to existing resources and the amount of right-of-way (ROW) that would be required to construct the interchange and local arterial roadways. The "preferred" 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. The following is a brief summary of impacts associated with the PSR alternatives, with the exception of the "preferred alternative" otherwise known as the proposed project within this EIR.

The location of the proposed interchange alternatives are constrained due to the location between the existing Las Posas Road and Central Avenue interchanges. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requires a minimum of a one-mile distance between all intersections within their right-of-way (ROW). As the existing Los Posas Road and Central Avenue interchanges are separated by a distance of approximately two miles, the only location opportunity for any of the proposed interchange alignments is at the current location.

Proposed interchange alternatives within the PSR would result in a greater amount of ROW acquisition and impacts to farmland associated with the construction of the interchange, due to different interchange configurations (i.e., conventional, cloverleaf). As well, construction of the proposed North-South Road alignments would result in the removal of the Scholle farm house. Local arterial alternatives identified within the PSR would not follow existing property lines thereby creating the need for additional ROW requirements.

Conclusion
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, which is 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.

DRAFT El R May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 5-2

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT

5.2 ANNEXATION NO. 83
No Project Alternative
The "No Project" Alternative would result in Annexation No. 83 remaining within the County of Ventura and not 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 five year time frame is a condition mandated by LAFCO for all annexation projects.

Conclusion
The "No Project" Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project, as none of the environmental impacts identified within this EIR for Annexation No. 83 would occur. However, this alternative would not realize any of the basic project objectives as indicated in Section 3.4, 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 No. 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 No. 83 (agricultural resources and aesthetics). However, the magnitude of the impacts would be somewhat reduced for many of the environmental issue areas, since this alternative would result in an approximately 190-acre reduction in the annexation area when compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, 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.

Conclusion
The Reduced Scale Annexation Alternative would result in similar, although generally reduced impacts when compared to the proposed project. 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.

DRAFT El R May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 5-3

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT

5.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Because the No Project Alternative assumes the project area remains in its present condition, it would avoid all of the environmental impacts that would result from the proposed project, it is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. The State CEQA Guidelines require that if the No Project Alternative is determined to be the environmentally superior alternative, then another environmentally superior alternative should be identified. Therefore, the Reduced Scale Annexation Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative.

DRAFT FIR May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 5-4

6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE

PROPOSED PROJECT

6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

6.1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES SHOULD THE PROPOSED

ACTION BE IMPLEMENTED
This Section has been prepared in accordance with Section 15126.2© of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Approval of the proposed project would create irreversible environmental changes and alterations. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the following significant environmental changes (however many of these impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels as discussed in Section 4.0 of this El R):
• Commitment of land which will be used to add additional urban land uses and associated infrastructure;
• Increased in impervious ground surfaces and urban pollutants; • Increased requirements for public services and utilities representing a permanent commitment of these resources;
• Utilization of various raw materials, such as lumber, sand and gravel for construction (Some of these raw materials are already being depleted worldwide. The energy consumed in developing and maintaining the project area for urban uses may be considered a permanent investment. However, the project's demand for these resources is not considered unusually high or otherwise significant);
O The transformation of agricultural land for infrastructure uses is, in essence, an irreversible commitment of the land. The potential to revert back to agricultural uses after being developed becomes highly infeasible due to the large capital investment that will have already been committed.

O A permanent change in site aesthetics would occur due to construction of new infrastructure;
• Incremental increases in traffic volume levels in the local system, resulting in incremental increases in noise levels.
• The principal effect of the interchange and local arterial improvements is a beneficial impact, as well as being consistent with the project's goals of improving traffic flow in the project area and to provide relief for traffic congestion at the Las Posas Road and Central Avenue interchanges with Route 101.

FINAL HR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 6-1

6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

6.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(d), the following discussion identifies ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. According to CEQA, growth-inducing impacts should be assessed in terms of whether a proposed project influences the rate, location, and the amount of growth. Projects that remove obstacles to population growth, or allow or encourage growth that would not otherwise have occurred if the project was not built, would be growth-inducing. Potential growth-inducing impacts are also assessed based on a project's consistency with adopted plans that have addressed growth management from a local and regional standpoint.

Potential growth-inducing impacts from the proposed project are analyzed below as they relate to population, housing and employment factors.

Regional and Local Setting
Population
The City of Camarillo is located in Ventura County, one of the six counties which make up the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. According to the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), the six-county region (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and Imperial Counties) contained a population of 14.6 million persons in 1990. The most recent estimate for the region provided by the Department of Finance (DOF) from January 1, 1998 indicated a population of 16.2 million persons.' The population projection for the year 2015 for the SCAG region is an estimated 20.8 million persons, representing a population increase of approximately 22 percent (approximately 4.6 million persons) between 1998 and 2015.2According to SCAG, the growth in population for the region is a result of natural increase and net in-migration.' As the fifth most populous county in the region, Ventura County's 1998 population was estimated at nearly 730,824 persons, or 4.5 percent of the SCAG region.4From 1990 to 1998, the County population increased from 669,016 persons to 730,824 (8.5 percent increase)5.

California Population and Housing Estimates, Table 2, California Department of Finance, January 1, 1998.
2 Growth Forecast provided by SCAG for region, February 16, 1998. 3 Natural increase: the excess of births over deaths. Netin-migration: the total of people entering the region minus the people leaving the region.
4 California Population and Housing Estimates, Table 2, California Department of Finance, January 1, 1998.
5 Historical City/County Population Estimates, 1991 - 1998, with Census Counts, California Department of Finance, Table 1.

FINAL El R June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 6-2

6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
With the year 2015 population projected to be 861,700 persons, growth in the County over the 17 years between 1998 and 201 5 will be approximately 15 percent or 130,876 persons.

The City of Camarillo was home to 52,297 persons in 1990 and has experienced an 11 percent increase in population (6,503 persons) over the past eight years from 1990 to 1998.6 According to the California DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Table 2), the total population in the City of Camarillo as of January 1, 1998 was 60,187 persons. The City of Camarillo represented approximately 8.2 percent of the 730,824 million persons residing in Ventura County in January 1998.

Housing
In 1990, the SCAG region had a total of 5.3 million housing units and anticipates an additional

1.5 million units (a total of 6.8 million) by the year 2015.7According to the DOF, in January 1998, approximately 5.6 million housing units were estimated within the SCAG region.' The SCAG region has been divided into 15 subregions, each encompassing several cities.

Each subregion was designed to be sufficient unto itself in terms of housing and jobs. The City of Camarillo is located in the Ventura Council of Governments Subregion, which encompasses various jurisdictions including the County of Ventura and Cities of Agoura Hills, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, San Buena Ventura, Santa Clarita, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, and Westlake Village. The 2015 housing forecast for the subregion is 287,500 units, which is an addition of 59,500 units over the 1990 level of 228,000 units.9 California DOF housing estimates for January 1998 indicate that the current housing supply within the City of Camarillo is 20,974 units. Approximately 16,421 units (approximately 78 percent) of the total City dwelling units were single-family units (detached and attached) while 3,511 units (17 percent) were multiple-family units (remaining units were mobile homes).

The overall vacancy rate for the City as of January 1, 1998 was 3.25 percent, representing a total of 20,292 occupied units. The most recent occupancy estimate for Camarillo is 2.922 persons per household.' Vacancy rates of two percent in single-family units and five percent in multiple family units (four percent overall) are considered ideal to provide an adequate 6 !bid, Table 2.
7 Growth Forecast provided by SCAG for region, February 16, 1998. 8 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, California Department of Financejanuary 1, 1998, Table

2. 9 Growth Forecast provided by SCAG for region, February 16, 1998. 10 City/County Population Housing Estimates, California Department of Finance, January 1, 1998, Table

2. FINAL EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 6-3

6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
return for property owners and to provide for adequate "turnover" and mobility within the local market." 12The City of Camarillo's rate is slightly lower than this goal.

Employment
The SCAG region provided approximately 6.6 million jobs in 1994, and is expected to expand its employment base to an estimated 9.8 million jobs by the year 2015.13This represents a projected increase of approximately 33 percent (3.2 million jobs) between 1994 and 2015.

The employment forecast for the Ventura Council of Governments Subregion is 438,200 jobs for the year 2015. This represents an increase of approximately 61 percent or 169,000 jobs added between 1990 and 2015.

PROJECT IMPACTS
In order to determine a balance between jobs and housing, cities should calculate their job/housing ratio and compare it to those of the SCAG subregion and region to which they belong. If a City has a higher ratio (indicating more jobs than housing units) than their subregion or region, then that City can be considered to be "jobs-rich" and "housing-poor." If the City ratio is below the subregion's or regions, then it can be considered "housing-rich" and "jobs-poor." SCAG states that the responsibility in creating a job/housing balance lies with the cities and counties by incorporating into their general plan policies that will meet this objective.

Population, Housing and Employment
The project proposes a 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. The Annexation Area includes the northern portion of the interchange areas, as well as additional unincorporated land to the east and west of the interchange, north of Route 101.

Interchange and Roadways. 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 and Ponderosa Corridor uses. 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 11 According to SCAG, 2% for ownership units and 5% for rental units within each jurisdiction are considered ideal vacancy rates. It should be noted that each jurisdiction's number of single-family and multiple-family units were used in SCAG's Regional Housing Needs Assessment as surrogates for ownership and rental units, respectively.
12 Revised Regional Housing Needs Assessment, Southern California Association of Governments, Page 111-5, December, 1988.
13 Final Growth Forecast, Southern California Association of Governments, May 1995.

FINAL OR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 6-4

6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
improvements would also provide for more efficient east/west access north and south of Route 101. The interchange and roadway improvements would be consistent with the City of Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element and would not create or accommodate additional growth beyond that already planned in the City's General Plan.

Annexation Area
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) resulting in the potential development of up to 7 dwelling units. 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 is a first step toward 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.

It is important to note, however, that there is the potential for development proposals to be considered for the Annexation Area within the next four years. Although the Annexation area would be pre-zoned for agricultural uses and those uses would remain in effect until such time that development proposals are approved by the City of Camarillo, the potential exists for the area to be developed with uses other that the RE-40 pre-zone designation. Thus, Annexing Area No. 83 into the City of Camarillo would be considered potentially growth inducing.

Applicable Regional Plans. An evaluation of the proposed project's relationship to applicable regional plans is required pursuant to Section 15125[d] of CEQA. A discussion of the project's consistency with applicable policies is provided below.

Regional Comprehensive Plan And Guide
The Growth Management Chapter (GMC) of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPD) contains the following policies that are particularly applicable to the Project:

3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review.

FINAL EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 6-5

6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
As noted above, the interchange and roadway improvements would be consistent with the City of Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element and would not create or accommodate additional growth beyond that already planned in the City's General Plan. Therefore, as SCAG's adopted population, housing, and jobs forecasts are reflective of the City's General Plan, implementation of the proposed interchange and roadways is consistent with Policy

3.01. Annexing Area No. 83 into the City of Camarillo would be considered potentially growth inducing, however, since the potential exists for the area to be developed with uses other than the RE-40(Rural Exclusive, 40-acre minimum) pre-zone designation. The City recognizes the need to take into account for the population, housing, and jobs forecast at the time of conversion of any land use changes in the future.

3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies.

The phasing of the interchange construction is discussed in Section 3.6, Project Phasing. The project is consistent with this Policy 3.03.

3.07 Support subregional policies that recognize agriculture as an industry, support the economic viability of agriculture activities, preserve agricultural land, and provide compensation for property owners holding land in greenbelt areas.

The annexation of the 270 acres would include a pre-zone of RE-40 (Rural Exclusive, 40-acre minimum), and any future development proposal would require a change of zone. The immediate intent is for the agricultural uses to remain. There would be an unavoidable impact with interchange construction, given the loss of approximately 13 acres of agricultural land.

The project is partially supportive of Policy 3.07. Right-of-Way acquisition would include compensation for affected property owners.

3.09 Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure of public service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services.

The Draft EIR identifies various arterial streets that would be extended and/or constructed to serve the new interchange. The infrastructure is designed to minimize cost to the maximum extent, supportive of Policy 3.09.

3.78 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause adverse environmental impact.

As noted in Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources, design of the improvements was based upon the goal of minimizing the loss of agricultural land, supportive of Policy 3.18.

3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce FINAL EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 6-6

6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans.

Sections 4.6.2, Biology, 4.6.3, Geology and Soils, 4.6.5, Hydrology and Water Quality, 4.2, Agricultural Resources, and 4.5, Noise, acknowledge all of the major resource constraints addressed by this policy. The project is supportive of Policy 3.23.

Regional Transportation Plan
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) also has policies pertinent to this proposed project.

Among the relevant policies of this chapter are the following:

4.01 Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG's adopted Regional performance Indicators:

Mobility - Transportation Systems should meet the public need for improved access, and for safe, comfortable, convenient and economical movements of people and goods. • Average Work Trip Travel Time in Minutes - 22 minutes • PM Peak Highway Speed - 33 mph
• Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay (All Trips) - 33%
Accessibility - Transportation Systems should ensure the ease with which opportunities are reached. Transportation and land use measures should be employed to ensure minimal time and cost.
• Work Opportunities within 25 Minutes - 88%
Environment - Transportation Systems should sustain development and preservation of the existing system and the environment. (All Trips)
• Meeting Federal and State Standards - Meet Air Plan Emission Budgets Reliability - Reasonable and dependable levels of service by mode. (All Trips) • Transit - 63%
• Highway - 76%
Safety- Transportation Systems should provide minimal risk, accident, death and injury. (All Trips)
• Fatalities Per Million Passenger Miles - 0.008
• Injury Accidents - 0.929
Livable Communities- Transportation Systems should facilitate Livable Communities in which all residents have access to all opportunities with minimal travel time (All Trips) FINAL EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 6-7

6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
• Vehicle Trip Reduction -1.5%
• Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction -10.0%
Equity- The benefits of transportation investments should be equitably distributed among all ethnic, age and income groups. (All Trips)
• Low-Income (Household Income $12,000) Share of Net Benefits - Equitable Distribution of Benefits
Cost-effectiveness - Maximize return on transportation investment. (All Trips) • Net Present Value - Maximum Return on Transportation Investment • Value of a Dollar Invested - Maximum Return on Transportation Investment As noted in Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project would improve traffic flow, provide relief for existing and anticipated future congestion, and provide more efficient access consistent with Policy 4.01.

4.02 Transportation investments shall mitigate environmental impacts to an acceptable level.

Sections 4.1 through 4.6 of this document contain various impacts associated with the interchange construction and annexation, reducing most impacts to less than significant levels.

Two impacts, the loss of 13 acres of agriculture land, and the year 2020 noise level impact on a farm house, remain significant and unavoidable. The project would be generally consistent with Policy 4.02.

4.03 Major Investment Studies and other studies of regional transportation facilities shall include consideration of freight movement.

Implementation of the proposed interchange and roadways would improve traffic flow, provide relief for existing and anticipated future congestion, and provide more efficient access, thereby improving the movement of freight through the area. Accordingly, the project would be consistent with Policy 4.03.

4.07 Projects proposed for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) that do not indicate a reasonable phasing of construction between segments will not be approved.

The proposed interchange is part of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program .

Section 3.6, Project Phasing, details the proposed phasing of the project. The project would be consistent with Policy 4.07.

4.12 New freeway facilities shall be open for goods movement except where safety prohibits this.

FINAL EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 6-8

6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Implementation of the proposed interchange would improve traffic flow, provide relief for existing and anticipated future congestion, and provide more efficient access, thereby improving the movement of goods through the area. Accordingly, the project would be consistent with Policy 4.12.

Air Quality Chapter Core Actions
The Air Quality Chapter core actions related to the proposed project include:

5.11 Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional, air basin, county, subregional and local) consider air quality, land use, transportation and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts.

The Ventura County APCD Guidelines state that 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 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, however, the potential exists that development proposals could be considered for the Annexation Area, but not likely authorized for development within the next four years.

Although the Annexation area would be pre-zoned for agricultural uses and those uses would remain in effect until such time that development proposals are approved by the City of Camarillo, the area would not be developed with uses other that the RE-40 pre-zone designation 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 may be considered inconsistent with the Plan. Consistency with the Plan for each future development project would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Refer to Policy 4.07 above for a discussion of the project's consistency with the RTIP.

6.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
This Section has been included in the EIR to address the cumulative impacts associated with projects currently approved and proposed within the City. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, cumulative impacts shall be discussed when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable as defined in CEQA Section 15130(c). The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great a detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussions should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact. The following elements are necessary in an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts:

FINAL EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 6-9

6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

1. Either:
a. A list of relevant past, present and probable future projects, producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the Agency, or
b. A summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.

2. A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available, and

3. A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project's contribution to any significant cumulative effects.

4. With some projects, the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of ordinance or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-by-project basis.

The faowing is a discussion of cumulative impacts based on a summary of the expected environmental effects in the City of Camarillo's adopted General Plan.

Aesthetics
Development in the vicinity of the Annexation Area includes the buildout of the Spanish Hills Estates to the north, and the Airport North Specific Plan area south of Route 101.

Development guidelines established through the specific plan process for Airport North, as well as other development standards and controls in effect in the City of Camarillo, should ensure that individual developments are aesthetically pleasing. However, future development within the Annexation Area and on nearby properties may result in a visual change in the character of the western Camarillo area. The rural and agricultural nature of the area, which is familiar to both residents and travelers passing through on Route 101, would be permanently altered if allowed to be connected. This alteration, which would reduce the area of open space within the view corridor for the enjoyment of scenic beauty, would therefore, be considered to result in an unavoidable cumulative aesthetic impact associated with the proposed Annexation Area. Due to the their limited size and nature, construction of the proposed interchange and roadways, together with cumulative projects, would not creative significant visual impacts in the surrounding area. However, a significant cumulative aesthetic impact would result from buildout of the General Plan.

FINAL EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 6-10

6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Agricultural Resources
Implementation of the proposed interchange and local arterial improvements would result in the loss of 13.25 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance; thus contributing to the cumulative loss of agricultural soils in Ventura County. This loss would be significant and unavoidable. While annexation of the 270 acres into the City of Camarillo is a first step toward development, the annexation would not provide development entitlements. The area would remain as an agricultural use for a minimum of four years, at the end of which subsequent development could be allowed with the appropriate environmental documentation. Thus, annexing area No. 83 into the City would not result in the loss of agricultural land. The potential individual and cumulative loss of land would therefore occur at a later date and would be analyzed the separate environmental documentation.

Cultural Resources
Impacts to cultural resources from the proposed infrastructure and annexation project would be mitigated to a less than significant level (refer to Section 4.2, CULTURAL RESOURCES).

Impacts to such resources by buildout of the General Plan would be subject to the appropriate environmental review under CEQA and applicable mitigation measures to reduce the significance of such impacts.

Air Quality
A cumulative impact on air quality would be due to increased vehicle travel and fossil fuel consumption associated with on-going development in the project area, combined with development occurring outside of the area and elsewhere within the Air Basin.

According to the Ventura County APCD 1989 Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses (as contained with Appendix G-94 of the 1994 AQMP), any projects with emissions greater than 2 pounds per day of ROC or NO that 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 NO), are not required to assess consistency with the AQMP.14As the project involves a proposed interchange and roadway improvements which would not have the capacity to generate longterm emissions greater than 2 pounds per day of ROC or NOR, and further, are found to be consistent with the Ventura County AQMP (refer to Consistency discussion in Section 4.4, AIR QUALITY), the project would not have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact associated with the proposed interchange and roadways.

Additionally, the Guidelines state that 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.

Inconsistent projects are usually those which cause the existing population to exceed the population forecasts contained in the most recently adopted AQMP beyond 1995.

FINAL EIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 6-11

6.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
With respect to the interchange and roadways, the project would not involve a General Plan Amendment or revision, and would not have the capacity to increase population growth, thus, not resulting in a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact.

With respect to the proposed annexation, however, the potential exists that future development may result in both short-term and long-term significant cumulative air quality impact, since the proposed annexation may involve development within the next five years.

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 involving 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 may potentially 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 cumulative growth in population would occur due to the area's pre-zoning for agricultural uses. Future developments proposing a General Plan Amendment would require an analysis of their potential to result in population growth.

Noise
Implementation of the proposed project, combined with development of cumulative projects, would increase ambient noise levels in the site vicinity. This increase would be due to vehicular traffic noise along the proposed and existing local roadways. The proposed project would exacerbate a current exceedance of the City noise standards at the location of the Scholle farm, thereby, creating a significant and unavoidable project noise impact at that location. This project impact would significantly contribute to the overall cumulative noise levels anticipated under General Plan buildout conditions in the site vicinity. It should be noted, however, that cumulative development projects would still be individually required to reduce noise impacts to below City noise standards and demonstrate adherence to the City of Camarillo Municipal Code requirements.

FINAL FIR June 23, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 6-12

7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The City of Camarillo conducted an Initial Study in March 1999 to determine significant effects of the project. In the course of this evaluation, certain impacts of the project were found to be less than significant. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, the following section provides a brief description of effects found to be less than significant.

The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project identified the following issue areas as having less than significant impacts or no impacts:
• Population and Housing;
• Mineral Resources;
• Public Services;
• Recreation;
• Transportation/Traffic; and
• Utilities/Service Systems.

A copy of the Initial Study is located in Appendix 10.1 of the EIR. Refer to the Initial Study for a more detailed discussion and explanation of the impact determination.

Section 4.6 of this EIR provides a more detailed discussion of impacts identified as "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation" in the Initial Study. Those issues are:
• Land Use and Relevant Planning;
• Biological Resources;
• Geology and Soils;
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and
• Hydrology and Water Quality.

Sections 4.1 through 4.5 of this EIR provide a more detailed description of the project's environmental impacts, proposed mitigation measures and the level of impact significance.

This EIR focused environmental analysis on the following issue areas:
• Aesthetics;
• Agricultural Resources;
• Cultural Resources;
• Air Quality; and
• Noise.

Except for loss of agricultural land and temporary valley fever and noise impacts, the conclusion was reached the either the impacts would not be significant or that with the imposition of available mitigation measures, the impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

DRAFT EIR May 13, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 7-1

8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND

PERSONS CONSULTED

8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED

8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Lead Agency:

City of Camarillo
Planning and Community Development
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, California 93010
Mr. Matthew A. Boden, AICP, Director of Planning and Community Development Mr. Dan Greeley, PE, Director of Engineering Services
Mr. Sonny Murillo, PE
Environmental Document Team:

Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA 92618
Mr. Kevin Thomas, Environmental Services Manager
Ms. Collette Morse, AICP, Project Manager
Mr. Bruce R. Grove Jr., REA, Environmental Analyst
Mr. Rita M. Garcia, Environmental Analyst
ASL Consulting Engineers
900 Avenida Acaso, Suite K
Camarillo, CA 93012-8749
Mr. Earl T. ("Mac") McArthur, PE, Project Director
Mr. Jeffrey Fromhertz, PE, Project Manager
BonTerra Consulting
Ms. Anne Johnston, Senior Biologist
RMW Paleo Associates
Ms. Joan Brown, SOPA
Responsible Agencies:

Caltrans District 7
County of Ventura
Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission
DRAFT El R May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 8-1

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1994 Air Quality Management Plan (Final), SCAQMD, September 1994.

Addendum to Aircraft Hazard and Land Use Risk Assessment, prepared for City of Camarillo, by Heliplanners, April 30, 1997.

Airport North Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, prepared by The Planning Center, 1986.

Biological Constraints Study for Airport North Road/U.S. Route 101 Interchange, prepared for Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, by BonTerra Consulting, January 13, 1999.

CEQA: Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, April 1994.

City and County Population Estimates, Table E-5, Department of Finance, January 1, 1998.

City of Camarillo General Plan, 1989.

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Supplement A, EPA, Volume II, January 1991.

Cultural Resources Reconnaissance, Airport North/U.S. Route 101 Interchange, prepared for RBF, by RMW Paleo Associates, Inc., February 1999.

Phase I Environmental Assessment, prepared for Fugro West, Inc., by ENSR Corporation, August 1998.

Ponderosa Corridor Specific Plan, GPA No. 94-1 Final EIR, prepared for City Camarillo, by Fugro West, Inc., October 1995.

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared for ASL Consulting Engineers, by Fugro West, Inc., July 1998.

Project Study Report Route 101 at Airport North Interchange City of Camarillo, prepared by ASL Consulting Engineers, January 7, 1999.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), Topographical Quadrangle, California, 1980.

DRAFT EIR May 6, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Page 9-1

10.0 APPENDICES

10.1 INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Date March 23, 1999 Signature
Title Dan Greeley, P Director of cineerino Services
Telephone (805) 388-5342
1 Notice of Preparation
I To: (Place label here)
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange and
Annexation No. 83
(Agency)
(Address)
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a
Lead Agency:

Agency Name City of Camarillo
Street Address 601 Carmen Drive
City/State/Zip Camarillo, CA 93010
Contact Dan Greeley, PE, Director of Engin. S
Phone (805) 388-5342
Draft Environmental Impact Report
VS.

Consulting Firm (if applicable):

Firm Name Robert Bein, William Frost (RBF)
Street Address 14725 Alton Parkway
City/State/Zip Irvine, CA 92618
Contact
Phone
Kevin Thomas
(949) 855-3659
The City of Camarillo will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project.
. he project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials.

A copy of the Initial Study ( X is is not ) attached.

Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.

Please send your response to Dan Greeley at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency.

Project Title: ROUTE 101/AIRPORT NORTH AREA INTERCHANGE and ANNEXATION NO. 83 EIR Project Location; Camarillo Ventura County
Project Description (brief: The proposed Route 101/Airport North area 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). The proposed interchange overcrossing would connect to the north with the proposed westerly extension of Ponderosa Boulevard, 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 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.

P.4ference: Californ;a Adrrxiniatrative Code, Title 14, (CEQA) Guidelines) Section 15082(a), 15103, 15375. Revlael October 1989 DRAFT

INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION

ROUTE WI/AIRPORT NORTH AREA
INTERCHANGE & ANNEXATION No. 83
LEAD AGENCY:

City of Camarillo
CONSULTANT:
cltobertcBeirb97Villiam‘Firbst 6& eqssociates
March 24, 1999
DRAFT

INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION
ROUTE 101/AIRPORT NORTH AREA
INTERCHANGE & ANNEXATION NO. 83
LEAD AGENCY:

City of Camarillo
Planning and Community Development Department
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, California 93010
Mr. Matthew A. Boden
Director of Planning and Community Development
(805) 388-5360
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES:

Caltrans
County of Ventura
Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission
CONSULTANT:

GkobenBeiri.4T4illiamchtst c54ssociates
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA 92618-7057
Contact: Mr. Kevin Thomas
(949) 855-3659
March 24, 1999
JN 10.034233
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

1.0 BACKGROUND 1

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 9

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 20

3.1 Aesthetics 20

3.2 Agriculture Resources 22

3.3 Air Quality 23

3.4 Biological Resources 25

3.5 Cultural Resources 28

3.6 Geology and Soils 29

3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 32

3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 34

3.9 Land Use Planning 36

3.10 Mineral Resources 37

3.11 Noise 38

3.12 Population and Housing 39

3.13 Public Services 40

3.14 Recreation 41

3.15 Transportation/Traffic 41

3.16 Utilities and Service Systems 44

3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance 46

4.0 DETERMINATION 48

5.0 REFERENCES 49

6.0 APPENDICES (available for review at the City of Camarillo)

6.1 Biological Impact Report

6.2 Cultural Resources Report

6.3 Initial Site Assessment
City of Camarillo i March 24.1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice ot F'reparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
Page
1 Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary . ........ ....... ...... 43

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
1 Regional Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Site Vicinity _ . . ........ .......... _ . 4
3 Aerial Photograph . . . . . . . . . . ......... . 5
City of Camarillo March 24, 1999

1.0 BACKGROUND
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 1.0 BACKGROUND

INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1.0 BACKGROUND
This Initial Study has been conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and local implementation procedures, in order to provide a preliminary environmental assessmentof design alternatives and to determine the appropriate CEQA document. It should be noted that, based on this Initial Study, review of available information, and consultation with Responsible Agencies, the City of Camarillo has determined that the project requires preparation of a Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR), primarily with respect to issues associated with the proposed Annexation No. 83. The "project" addressed in this Initial Study is based primarily on the Route 101/Airport North Interchange Project Study Report prepared by ASE Consulting Engineers, as well as aerial photos and other reference sources noted in Section 18. The new interchange is addressed in the City of Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element, and the Airport North Specific Plan Final EIR (reference documents and the Project Study Report are available for review at the City of Camarillo Community Development Department). Please refer to the Project Study Report and the associated design plans for detailed information on the project.

Public Review Process. As part of the City's CEQA process, the public will have the opportunity to comment on this Initial Study during a 30-day public review period, and relevant comments will be incorporated into the Draft Focused EIR. The public will have the opportunity to comment on the Draft Focused EIR during a 45-day public review period.

Written responses will be provided to comments received on the Draft Focused EIR, and a public hearing will be held to consider certification of the proposed Final Focused EIR and approval of the project.

1.1. PROJECT TITLE:

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

1.2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:

City of Camarillo
Engineering Services Department
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, California 93010

1.3. CONTACT PERSONS AND PHONE NUMBER:

Mr. Dan Greeley, PE
Engineering Services Director
(805) 388-5342
Mr. Matthew A. Boden, AICP
Community Development Director
(805) 388-5360
City of Camarillo Page 1 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 1.0 BACKGROUND

1.4. PROJECT LOCATION:

This Initial Study 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 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 Avenue/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.

1.5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS:

City of Camarillo
Engineering Services Department
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, California 93010

1.6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:

Ventura County: Open Space (Urban Reserve Overlay) and Agricultural (Urban Reserve Overlay).

City of Camarillo: Agriculture/Urban Reserve, Interchange

1.7. ZONING:

Ventura County: A - E (Agricultural Exclusive, 40 acre minimum lot size) City of Camarillo: R - E 40 (Rural Exclusive) - Pre-Zoning

1.8. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS:

The proposed Route 101/Airport North area 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 Cit‘,/ Page 2 of 50 March 24, 1999
1 AI

RPORT NO
R
TH / ROUTE 101 &
A

NNEXATI
ON NO. 83
Annexation No83 Proposed Road Improvements

Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 1.0 BACKGROUND extension of Ponderosa Boulevard, 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 (see Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity).

1.9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND 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 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 in proposed State rightof-way (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 and east are located within the City of Camarillo.

Surrounding Land Uses
The general land uses in the vicinity of the proposed project consists of commercial/industrial and agricultural properties, with residential areas located north of the proposed annexation area. The following is a brief description of surrounding/adjacent land uses:

North: Agricultural land (row crops currently in production) and multiple and single-family residential units are located north of the project site.

East: Additional agricultural land is located east of the site on both sides of Route 101.

Commercial properties including retail establishments, gasoline service stations, and restaurants are located adjacent to the eastern portions of the proposed project site to the north and south of the Las Posas Road/Route 101 freeway interchange.

City of Camarillo P- -e 6 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 1.0 BACKGROUND South: Agricultural land and commercial/industrial uses are located south of the proposed project site. The Camarillo Airport is located south of the agricultural fields to the south of Route 101, with agricultural land located north of Route 101.

West: Light industrial uses are located west of the proposed freeway interchange, south of Route 101, with agricultural land located north of Route 101.

1.10 EARLIER ANALYSES
Pertinent documents relating to this Initial Study have been cited and incorporated, in accordance with Sections 15148 and 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, to eliminate the need for inclusion of voluminous engineering and technical reports within the Initial Study. Of particular relevance are those previous EIRs which present information regarding descriptions of environmental settings, future development-related growth and cumulative impacts. This Initial Study also incorporates the City of Camarillo General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the County of Ventura General Plan, the Ponderosa Corridor Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Airport North Specific Plan EIR, and the Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission Proposal Questionnaire for Cities and Districts. These EIRs and planning documents include numerous mitigation measures and policies related to the proposed project. This Initial Study also incorporates the preliminary design plans prepared by ASL Consulting Engineers. These documents were utilized throughout this Initial Study and are available for review at the City of Camarillo Community Development Department.

1.11 PROJECT PHASING:

The Annexation No. 83 area would be annexed upon project approval. The new diamond interchange would be constructed in two phases. The following is a brief description of each phase:

Phase 1: Phase 1 consists of constructing the interchange with an interim two-lane configuration for the north/south arterial (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 north/south arterial 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: 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 north/south arterial at the ramp termini.

1.12 PROJECT OBJECTIVES:

The objectives of the proposed interchange and road extensions are to provkle 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 City of Camarillo Page 7 oc March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexati )n No. 83 1.0 BACKGROUND 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 project is consistent with the County of Ventura General Plan, the Sphere of Influence 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.

1.13. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED
(e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

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

Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission - Annexation No. 83 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) - Encroachment Permit 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
City of Camarillo Page 8 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 1.0 BACKGROUND 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 project is consistent with the County of Ventura General Plan, the Sphere of Influence 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.

1.13. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED
(e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

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

Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission - Annexation No. 83 • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) - Encroachment Permit • 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
City of Camarillo Page 8 of 50 March 24, 1999

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Mandatory Findings of Significance t,71
k,T$
1:1
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or a "Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation", as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. These issue areas will be addressed in the Draft Focused EIR:

Aesthetics C."1 Agriculture Resources ei. Air Quality
Biological Resources e Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use/Planning 0 Mineral Resources e Noise C.4 Population/Housing
0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 Transportation/Traffic 0 Utilities/Service Systems
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

2.1 AESTHETICS - - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?

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

City of Camarillo Page 9 of 50 March 24, 1999
a. O 0
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?

2.3 AIR QUALITY - - Where available, the significant
criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
D
O 0
O 0
0 City of Camarillo Page 10 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - - Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as identified by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES - - Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
0 0
0

Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0 No Impact

2.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS - - Would the
project:
0 a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
City of Camarillo Page 12 of 50 March 24, 1999
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0 Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporation Impact No Impact
0 0
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.

Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?

2.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located with an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport of
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
City of Camarillo Page 13 of 50 March 24, 1999
0 0
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wild land are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?

2.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - -
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
City of Camarillo Page 14 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

2.9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - - Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?

2.10 MINERAL RESOURCES - - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
0 0 0
k7:1
City of Camarillo Page 15 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

2.11 NOISE - - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration of
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

2.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING - - Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
0 0
i 4
a
City of Camarillo Page 16 of 50 March 24, 1999
LJQH. 11111.101 y/ I
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

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

Fire protection?
Police protection? k,14
Schools?
Other public facilities?

2.14 RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing 0 0
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?

2.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial
in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
0 0 ka--0 0
City of Camarillo rc,ge 17 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
C) , Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Ccinflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

2.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - - Would
the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlement and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlement
needed?
a a
a
a
a
a
City of Camarillo Page 16 ol 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?

2.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environmental, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
kr4
City of Camarillo Page 19 of 50 March 24, 1999

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts which may result from the development and operation of the proposed project. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist (Section 2) are stated and answers are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. For each question, there are four possible responses, followed by an explanation to each response. They include:

1. No Impact. The project's implementation will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment and no additional analysis is required.

2. Less Than Significant /mnact. The project implementation will have the potential to impact the environment; these impacts, however, will be less than the levels or thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required. This may include consideration of existing ordinances, rules or other regulations that are already in place to reduce the identified potential impact(s).

3. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation. The development will have the potential to generate impacts which will have a significant effect on the environment; however, mitigation measures will be effective in reducing the impacts to levels that are less than significant. This issue will be addressed in the Draft Focused EIR,

4. Potentially Significant Impact. Future implementation will have impacts that are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. This issue will be addressed in the Draft Focused EIR.

It should be emphasized that this Initial Study and corresponding checklist is a preliminary evaluation by City staff, and that the appropriate level of EIR analysis will be refined through the course of continued research and review of relevant data, including responses submitted to the City on this initial Study/Notice of Preparation.

According to CEQA, earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, a potential environmental effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D)).

3.1. AESTHETICS - - Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Potentially significant impact.

Several existing City policies apply to any development proposed at this site, including the Community Design Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan. Although none of the roads in the project vicinity are a designated State Scenic Highway, the City of Camarillo General Plan designates the Ventura Freeway, Las Posas Road and Pleasant Valley Road as Scenic Drives. The project's potential impact upon these scenic drives will be evaluated in the Focused EIR, including architectural treatments of the north/south arterial bridge over Route 101, and appropriate use of landscaping in the interchange and arterial road parkways. In addition, the City of Camarillo Page 20 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of ['reparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Heritage Zone of the Community Design Element applies to developments within 500 feet of the freeway. This project requirement is not considered significant in the construction of the interchange project, although it applies to potential future development in the Annexation No. 83 area. Construction of the proposed project may create temporary aesthetic nuisances associated with construction. Exposed surfaces, construction debris, equipment and truck traffic may temporarily impact views adjacent to the site. These impacts are short-term, would cease upon project completion, and are therefore not considered significant.

As development may occur within the annexation area within the next five years, the potential exists that future development may have an adverse effect. As no development proposals have been allowed at this time and the area will be pre-zoned for agricultural uses, potential development-related impacts are more appropriately addressed though the CEQA document required for future development. The Focused EIR will generally address potential aesthetic impacts of development facilitated by Annexation No. 83.

Additional analysis is required to further identify project-related impacts and recommend mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Potentially significant impact.

There are no "state scenic highways" within the project area, although locally designated scenic roads are present (see Item 3.1.a, above). 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 throughout the interchange and annexation area. The interchange project requires removal of the farm building south of Route 101 (see Item 3.5.a). Future development within the annexation area may adversely affect the McGrath Ranch farm house. In addition, the interchange and future development within the annexation area will 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, can be relocated in the nearby vicinity or within proposed landscaped areas. Displaced farm buildings can, 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 extension), relocation, and/or archival research and photo documentation. These potential impacts will be addressed further in the Focused EIR.
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Potentially significant impact.

Short-term aesthetic impacts could potentially occur due to viewing of the proposed project during construction. However, construction-related visual nuisances would be removed upon project completion. The project proposes a freeway interchange with an associated overpass and several local arterial roadways. The proposed interchange would be located approximately halfway between the existing Las Posas Road interchange to the east and the Central Avenue interchange to the west. Existing views of an agricultural area would be replaced with views of a freeway interchange. It should be noted that the proposed project is in conformance with the City of Camarillo's adopted General Plan and therefore, has been previously analyzed in prior environmental documentation. Refer to Item 3.1.a, above, for additional discussion.

City of Camarillo Page 21 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
As noted in Item 3.1.a, above, potential future development within the Annexation No. 83 area may result in adverse aesthetic impacts, which are more appropriately addressed through the CEQA process for specific development proposals, when submitted to the City. Potential mitigation may include appropriate landscape treatments at perimeters and slope areas.

Additional analysis is required to further identify potential aesthetic impacts and recommend mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than significant impact.

Typical street I ightingwould be introduced into a predominantly agricultural and rural residential portion of the City of Camarillo. However, compliance with local agency lighting ordinances and standard design practices, including the use of directional lighting techniques, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

3.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (7997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Potentially significant impact.

According to the City of Camarillo's General Plan and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey for Ventura County, the proposed interchange project area contains "Prime" Farmlands and Farmlands of Statewide Importance, although none of the agricultural land needed for right-of-way (ROW) is subject to a Williamson Act contract'.

Although the interchange project would affect a relatively small area (estimated at less than 15 acres), and this loss has previously been addressed within previous environmental documents, any project which would result in the direct or indirect loss of five acres of Prime/Statewide soils within the Agricultural General Plan land use designation is considered as having a significant project impact (Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines).

The 270-acre area proposed for annexation may be considered for development within the next four years, although the potential loss of additional agricultural resources would not occur until the land is actually development at a later date. This issue will be discussed further in the Focused El R.
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, oi a Williamson Act Contract? Potentially significant impact.

The portion of the site within Ventura County is zoned A - E (Agricultural Exclusive, 40 acre Class I and II (Prime), II, IV, and VIII soils are found within the annexation area according to the Soil Conservation Service. The annexation area contains "Prime'' Farmlands and Farmlands of Statewide Importance. The annexation area is not presently under the Land Conservation Act (LCA, or "Williamson Act"). The most recent Williamson Act contract, LCA-52.1.1, expired in 1998.

City of C.marillo Page 22 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
minimum lot size). The purpose of the "AE" zone is to preserve and protect commercial agricultural lands and avoid the encroachment of non-related uses which could have detrimental effects upon the agriculture industry. The City of Camarillo portion of the site is zoned R - E (Rural Exclusive). The R - E zone provides for the development of large residential lots varying in size from 10,000 SF to 1 acre or larger. Agricultural zoning designations of the local agencies allow for necessary public facilities such as roadways and street improvements. There are no Williamson Act parcels within the affected areas. The road improvement project would not conflict with existing zoning or agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.

The Annexation No. 83 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. As discussed above in Item 3.2.a, although the annexation is a first step toward development, the annexation would not provide any development entitlement, as potential subsequent development would be subject to a discretionary review process including, at minimum, a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The impacts of future development would be addressed in project-specific CEQA documentation. c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Potentially significant impact.

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 development for the Airport North Specific Plan area. Although the proposed improvements would facilitate future development in the area, it should be noted that the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use associated with potential future development has been addressed in prior documentation including the Airport North Specific Plan E IR. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element, and is an important component for the continued planned development of the City.

As development may occur within the annexation area within the next four years, the potential exists that future development may have an adverse effect. As no development proposals have been submitted at this time and the area will be pre-zoned for agricultural uses, potential development-related impacts are more appropriately addressed though the CEQA document required for future development.

Additional analysis is required to further identify potential impacts associated with the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses and recommend mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

3.3 AIR QUALITY - - Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Potentially significant impact.

The project site is located within the Oxnard Plain Airshed, a sub-basin of the South Central Coast Air Basin and is governed by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD).

City of Camarn; • Page 23 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
In order to assist individuals in the preparation of air quality analysis, the Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses and the CEQA Air Quality Handbook were developed. These documents provide guidelines and contain emission generation factors to calculate air pollutant emissions and to determine compliance with State and Federal air quality standards.

An analysis of the project's effect upon the APCD's 1994 AQMP is required. The analysis will address the extent of the proposed interchange/roadway improvements and annexation's compliance with the AQMP. It should be noted future development within the annexation area will be required to either reduce impacts to less than significant levels, or to obtain air quality credits from the APCD to offset such impacts to less than significant levels.

As development may occur within the annexation area within the next five years, the potential exists that future development may have an adverse effect. As no development proposals have been submitted at this time and the area will be pre-zoned for agricultural uses, potential development-related impacts are more appropriately addressed though the CEQA document required for future development.
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

The proposed project is anticipated to result in overall improved regional and local air emissions (enhanced level of service would reduce vehicle congestion and idle time), and the net local air quality impact is not expected to be significant. Short-term minor impacts associated with the interchange and arterial roads construction phase may result in local nuisances associated with increased dust/particulate levels. This would be a temporary construction impact which would exist on a short-term basis during construction and would cease upon completion of construction. Adherenceto dust control procedures would reduce potential construction-related air impacts. Long-term air quality impacts would occur due to the traffic levels accommodated by the proposed construction when connected with the existing roadway system. As noted above, future development within the annexation area will be required to reduce emissions to less than significant levels.
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

The proposed interchange project does not involve land development and therefore would not have the capacity to generate long-term air emissions. As previously noted, the proposed circulation system improvements are intended to accommodate existing and future traffic volumes. Due to the nature and scope of these proposed improvements, project implementation would not result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant. Also, Refer to Items 3.3a and 3.3h. d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

City of Camarillo Dage 24 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project is located near existing residential uses, which are considered sensitive air quality receptors by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Nonetheless, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant air quality impacts and it is not expected that Ventura County APCD thresholds would be exceeded for construction or operational emissions, following implementation of mitigation measures to control fugitive dust during grading. More detailed analyses will be conducted in the Focused EIR, including a carbon monoxide (CO) hot-spot analysis. Also, refer to Items 3.3a and 3.3b. e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than significant impact.

Construction activities associated with the proposed interchange and arterial road improvement project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. However, this impact would be short-term in nature, and would not cause Ventura County APCD thresholds to be exceeded and existing sensitive receptors would not be significantly impacted. Odor impacts would be short-term and are not anticipated to be significant.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - - Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant impact.

A' Biological Impact Report was prepared by BonTerra Consulting in January 1999, which is included in its entirety in Appendix 7.3, Biological Impact Report. BonTerra Consulting conducted a literature search to identify special status plants, wildlife, and habitats known to occur in the vicinity of the project site. BonTerra also reviewed existing documentation and informally consulted with the resource agencies. The existing documentation included Ponderosa Corridor Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Airport North Specific Plan Final EIR. The project site survey was conducted on September 10, 1998 to describe the vegetation and evaluate the potential of the habitat to support special interest plant and wildlife species. All plant and wildlife species observed were recorded in field notes.

Literature Review. The existing documentation for the area contained minimal information on biological resources. No special status plant or wildlife species were listed for the project site and its immediate vicinity. The major concerns of the resource agencies were impacts to the water quality in Calleguas Creek and Mugu Lagoon, both of which support many special status plant and wildlife species.

Vegetation. The vegetation on the site consists primarily of agricultural fields, disturbed habitat, ornamental landscaping, and willow woodland. Agricultural fields occur to the north and south of U.S. Highway Route 101.

The agricultural fields on the site were being plowed at the time of surveys, but appeared to be strawberry fields. The edges of the agricultural fields consist of ruderal vegetation. There are also two drainages on the site: one on the north side of Route 101 and one on the south side of Route 101. Both of these drainages contain non-native ruderal species including common horseweed (Conzya canadensis), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), common sow-thistle (Sonchus City of Camarillo Page 2s 0( 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
oleraceus), Russian thistle (5a/so/a tragus), hottentot-fig (Carpobrotus edulis), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris).

The ornamental landscaping occurs surrounding the residential area on the south side of the project site. The species present in these areas include Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), date palm (Phoenix sp.),and pittosporum (Pittosporum sp.).

The only native vegetation on the project site occurs adjacent to the spreading basins north of Route 101 and south of Ponderosa Drive. This area can be characterized as willow woodland.

However, it is important to note that many of the species in this willow woodland appear to be planted around the spreading basins and contain plants not typical of willow woodland in the Camarillo area. The species present include arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), narrow leaved willow (Salix exigua), redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), alder (Alnus sp.), cattails (Typha sp.), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), and acacia trees (Acacia sp.).

Wildlife. The project site provides suitable habitat for numerous wildlife species, although few were observed during the survey. Species observed on the site included Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocepephalus) and domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Common small mammals expected to occur include valley pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), vole (Microtus sp.), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audobonii). Larger mammals expected to occur include coyote (Canis latrans), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and opossum (Didelphis virginianus). Amphibians and reptiles are usually inactive in the winter and none were observed during the survey.

Common reptiles that are expected to occur on the site include side blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), and gopher snake ( Pituophismelanoleucus).

Agricultural habitats provide foraging habitat for a number of raptors. Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) and Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperi) are expected to forage on or in the vicinity of the site. Birds present in agricultural areas vary with the crop type and season. During winter months, agricultural fields are used as foraging habitat by a variety of species, including mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), and American pipit (Anthus rubescens).

The willow woodland may provide habitat for a number of riparian bird species including Bullock's oriole (lcterus bullockii), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), black-headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus), blue grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea), warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus), Wilson's warbler (Wilsoniapusilla), and pacific-slope flycatcher (Empidonaxdifficilis). However, the willow woodland it is not dense enough to support southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus) or least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus).

As development may occur within the annexation area within the next five years, the potential exists that future development may have an adverse effect. As no development proposals have been submitted at this time and the area will be pre-zoned for agricultural uses, potential development-related impacts are more appropriately addressed though the CEQA document required for future development. Nonetheless, each project would be evaluated on a case by case basis and mitigation would be implemented to minimize potential impacts to the maximum extent possible.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish City of Camarillo Page 26 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice ot Vreparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
s & Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Plants or animals may be considered "special interest"due to declining populations, vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. Table 1 and 2 of Appendix 7.3, Biological Impact Report, summarizes the special status plant and wildlife species known to occur in the region.

No special interest plant species were observed or are expected to occur on the project site due to lack of suitable habitat and the general lack of native habitats within the project site. No significant impacts to these species are therefore expected and no mitigation would be necessary.

No special interest wildlife species were observed or are expected to occur on the project site because of the lack of, or limited amount of, suitable habitat and low potential for occurrence.

As with the plant species discussed above, no significant impacts to special interest wildlife species are expected. Therefore, no mitigation would be necessary. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as identified by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Wetlands 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). Waters of the United States include navigable coastal and inland waters, lakes, rivers and streams, and their tributaries; interstate waters and their tributaries; wetlands adjacent to such waters; and isolated wetlands and lakes, intermittent sreams and other waters that could affect interstate commerce. The spreading basins and drainages on the project site but not within the proposed State right-of-way for the new interchange, may be under the 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.

BonTerra Consulting recommends that a wetland delineation be conducted to determine if ACOE and/or CDFG jurisdictions are present within the project site. In addition, the resources agencies expressed concerns regarding potential water quality effects on wildlife offsite in Cal leguas Creek and Mugu Lagoon. Potential impacts to wildlife in these area may need to be addressed if it is found through the analysis of the water quality, that these areas would be subject to significant impacts from water quality changes from the project site.

Additional analysis is required to further identify potential biological impacts and recommend mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No impact.

No wildlife corridors or native wildlife nurseries are known to exist in the project area. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No impact.

City of Camarillo Page 27 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Project implementation would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, as no significant biological resources have been identified, other than potential wetland habitat (refer to Item 3.4.c).
f. Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No impact.

Refer to Item 3.4b above.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES - - Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Potentially significant impact.

A cultural resources reconnaissance report of the study area was prepared in February 1999. The report is included in its entirety in Appendix 7.4, Cultural Resources Report. This study was undertaken to determine the level of past cultural resources research within and near the study area, to determine if cultural resources are visible within the portion of the property not recently examined and to formulate appropriate recommendations for any required future research. The study utilized archival resources and field visits to the property by both an archaeologist and a historian.

Major findings of the of the study include the following:

The interchange area contains no visible prehistoric archaeological deposits.

One complex of historic structures has been recorded in the area north of U.S. Route 101. The Primary Number assigned to this complex is 56-150001. • A complex of buildings in the area south of U.S. Route 101 was examined and recorded. The Primary Number assigned to this complex is 56-152749. • 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 (including the McGrath Ranch, CA-VEN-223 and archaeological site "F-1").

All of the study area is within the limits of the 1800s village of Springville.

The reconnaissance has concluded that two of the buildings (the farmhouse and packing plant) within the complex of buildings north of U.S. Route 101 (P.N. 56-150001: "Scholle Farm") are considered to be an important resource and eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places as a Historic District. The farm house and packing house are the most historically important of the buildings (built in the 1890s and associated with the former town of Springville), and will be designed around to the maximum extent practical, as shown in Exhibit 3, Aerial Photo. The complex of buildings south of U.S. Route 101 (P.N. 56-152749: "Friedrich House") has been determined to not be an important resource (these buildings will require displacement for the new interchange). Future development within the western portion of Annexation No., 83 may impact the McGrath Ranch, and archaeological sites CA-VEN-223 and F-1. There are no other known cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the study area.

Additional analysis is required to further identify potential impacts and recommend mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

City of Camarillo Page 28 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Refer to Item 3.5.a above. This issue will be examined further in the Focused HR. c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Project implementation would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource as none were detected as a result of reconnaissance surveys of the project study area.

Also, refer to Items 3.5a and 3.5b above.
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Project implementation would not disturb any known human remains as none were detected as a result of the reconnaissance of the project study area. CA-VEN-223, located in the western portion of the annexation area, has been identified to have a "high potential" for discovering human remains. Also, refer to Items 3.5a and 3.5b above.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS - - Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less than significant impact.
• Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than significant impact. • Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No impact. • Landslides? No impact.

The Ventura region contains numerous regional faults, including the Camarillo Fault to the south, Bailey Fault to the east, and the Springville, Simi/Santa Rosa and Oakridge Faults to the north, - that pose a significant seismic threat. Splays from one or more of these fault system may traverse the proposed project site, particularly with respect to the Springville Fault, which appears to traverse the vicinity of the Ponderosa Drive extension. Studies of the Oak Ridge fault, located about 8 kilometers (5 miles) north of the project site, indicate that the fault has an average sliprate of about 5 mm/yr. The recurrence intervals for earthquakes along the Oak Ridge fault are unknown because the fault is difficult to study due to the presence of the Santa Clara River and landslide deposits along most of the fault terrace. However, because the fault is extensive and has a large average slip-rate, the Oak Ridge fault poses a seismic hazard for the project. The Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated July 1998, performed for the proposed interchange site concluded that the largest median ground motion from a maximum credible earthquake near the site would be a magnitude 6.9 earthquake occurring on the Oakridge Fault system.

City of Camarillo Page 29 of 50 March 24, 1999
Uran Initial 'CUCly/INOTICe Ul rrepdicuivii
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Although there is an active fault located at the base of the Camarillo Hills about 200 to 300 meters (700 to 1,000 feet) north of the proposed interchange location, the proposed interchange site is not located within an area of known fault rupture potential or within an area of slope instability, which reduces the potential for structural damage associated with seismic events.

However, it should be noted that portions of the proposed Ponderosa Road alignment located north of the proposed interchange is situated within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault hazard zone. This has the potential to expose commuters to seismic hazards. With implementation of standard engineering practices (i.e., trenching studies), adherence to required health and safety standards and remedial steps during grading operations potentially significant impacts associated with seismic shaking would be reduced to less than significant levels. In addition, adherence to City of Camarillo and Caltrans design criteria relative to seismic and geologic hazards would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.

Liquefaction is a response to severe ground shaking that can occur in loose soils. On-site soils include Pacheco silty clay loam (Pa), Anacapa sandy loam (AcC), Camarillo loam (Cd) and Hueneme loamy sand (Hm), with the Ponderosa Drive extension west of the proposed north/south arterial potentially affecting Zamora loam (ZmD2). Soil liquefaction is generally defined as a temporary buildout of excess pore water pressure resulting in a condition of near zero effective stress and the temporary loss of strength induced by earthquake ground shaking.

Ground failures from liquefaction are limited to certain geologic and hydrologic conditions and certain types of materials. Soil materials considered to be susceptible to liquefaction include loose, saturated sand and non-plastic silt. Clay soils or sand and silt with more than 15 percent clay-sized particles (particles less than 0.005 mm) are typically considered to be non-liquefiable.

Although no subsurface data is currently available for the area of the proposed structure, the available nearby data suggests that there is an opportunity for shallow ground water (10- 15 feet below ground surface) and loose, granular soils to exist at the site. Liquefaction potential could be manifested as sand boils differential settlement, ground deformations, and reduced vertical and lateral pile capacities. However, with the implementation of standard engineering practices, adherence to required design criteria relative to seismic and geologic hazards and remedial steps during grading operations, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Land/mudslide risk in the area is generally low, however landslides may occur in areas of steep topography. The Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange project area consists of a relatively flat topography and surrounding areas are generally flat with no unusual geographic features.

No impacts related to landslides or mudslides are anticipated.

As development may occur within the annexation area within the next five years, the potential exists that future development may have an adverse effect. As no development proposals have been submitted at this time and the area will be pre-zoned for agricultural uses, potential development-related impacts are more appropriately addressed though the CEQA document required for future development. Nonetheless, each project would be evaluated on a case by case basis and standard engineering practices would be implemented to ensure that impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact.

Although approval of the proposed Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange project, in itself, would have no direct effects, grading required for construction of the proposed interchange and City Page 30 of 50 March 24, 1999 of Camarillo
tJIdIl mina! LUU/INULILI UI rItIJdIdLIUiI
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
associated roadway improvements would result in a minor alteration in topography within Route 101 ROW and surrounding areas. Project compliance with City and State design and construction requirements would further reduce potential impacts in this regard. In addition, implementation of standard erosion control mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts associated with soil erosion to less than significant levels. c. Be /ocated on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than significant impact.

Subsidence or settlement is a loss of elevation of the land surface caused by the rearrangement of individual soil grains into smaller spaces. The more significant natural causes are seismicallyinduced ground shaking, local or regional tectonic settling, and heavy rainfall. Man-induced causes of subsidence include groundwater, oil and gas withdrawal. Seismically-induced settlement or collapse can occur in dry soils that are loose, soft, or moderately dense and weakly cemented. Grading required for the project would occur within Caltrans right-of-way (ROW), as well as grading associated with the construction of the proposed north/south road alignment, relocation of Ventura Boulevard and the extension of Ponderosa Road. Surface material would be removed and soils disrupted and displaced would be compacted during project construction.

It should be noted, however, that it is anticipated that the soils within the 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 a potential for seismically induced settlement and collapse within the alluvium. However, adherence to standard engineering practices and the City of Camarillo and Caltrans design criteria relative to seismic and geologic hazards would t'educe any potential impacts to less than significant levels. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than significant impact.

The proposed project site is situated on the Oxnard Plain within the western Transverse Ranges geomorphic./geologic province. The Transverse Ranges from a west-trending geomorphic province that contains sedimentary rocks ranging in age from Cretaceous to Recent. The Oxnard Plain represents the ancien delta of the Santa Clara River. The delta was formed at the end of the last glacial epoch when the Santa Clara River was part of a much more extensive river system. The proposed project area is underlain by artificial fill and Quaternary age sediments.

Artificial Fill (af): Artificial fill materials in the area are mainly disturbed alluvial deposits and imported materials that are the product of agricultural disturbance and grading for construction of roadways.

Alluvium (Qal): The alluvium within the area of the proposed alignment consists of mixtures of unconsolidated sand, silt, clay and gravel. Those deposits are typically laminated to thinly bedded and lenticular, and are expected to be loose to medium dense and soft to moderatelystiff in the near subsurface. Depth to bedrock is estimated to be in excess of 15 meters (50 feet).

Expansiveness, or the potential to swell and shrink with repeated cycles of wetting and drying, is a common feature of fine-grained (clayey) soils. However, due to development of Route 101, and disturbance due to agricultural activities, the project area is primarily comprised of artificial fill and alluvium. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated in this regard.

City of Camarillo Page 31 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No impact.

Sewers are presently available throughout the project area for the disposal of waste water.

3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - - Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than significant impact.

The proposed project involves roadway improvements which do not have the capacity to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Since Highway 101 serves as a main route for the transport of hazardous materials/waste, the possibility exists that hazardous materials could be accidentally released while transported along the proposed interchange and improvements in route to Highway 101. However, 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 this impact to less than significant levels.

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 spillage 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. Construction workers at the project site could be exposed to potential health and safety impacts associated with onsite contamination from concentrations of agricultural fuels and chemicals. This potential impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with compliance of standard CAL OSHA regulations and procedures. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted for the project prepared by ENSR (August, 1998), which indicated several environmental conditions that warrant further assessment. These include the potential for agricultural pesticides, asbestos-containing materials (ACM's), lead based paint, debris piles, a potential underground storage tank, and various areas indicating the potential for contamination by agricultural-related chemicals/ vehicle oils associated with the single-family farm located immediately south of Route 101 (see 3.7a).

As development may occur within the annexation area within the next five years, the potential exists that future development may have an adverse effect. As no development proposals have been submitted at this time and the area will be pre-zoned for agricultural uses, potential development-related impacts are more appropriately addressed though the CEQA document required for future development.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No impact.

City c'f Camarillo Page 32 of 50 March 24, 1999
111111LIGII 1/4/1 I 1....1.11.1141,1 1/4/11
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project involves an interchange and roadway improvements which do not have the capacity to emit hazardous emissions and do not involve handling hazardous materials.

Refer to Item 3.3, Air Quality, for a discussion of potential air quality impacts.

Refer to Item 2.7a and 2.7b.
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

As noted in item 3.7b, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted for the project which indicated several environmental conditions that warrant further assessment.

Refer to Item 2.7a and 2.7b.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

The Camarillo Airport, formerly known as Oxnard Air Force Base, is located immediately south of the proposed project area. The Ventura County Transportation Commission is also the Airport Land Use Commission (AL UC). 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 objective the AL UC has prepared an Ai rportsComprehensive Land Use Plan Update for 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 uses in each zone identified previously.

The Camarillo Airport land use planning boundary extends beyond U.S. Highway 101 to the north, to Ponderosa Drive to the4 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. It is not anticipated that the project would have the capacity to expose people to excessive noise levels.

As development may occur within the annexation area within the next four years, the potential future development will be required to conform with the CLUP. As no development proposals have been submitted at this time and the area will be pre-zoned for agricultural uses, potential development-related impacts are more appropriately addressed though the CEQA document required for future development.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact.

The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

City of Camarill" Page 33 of 50 March 24, 1999
g
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/AirDort North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than significant impact.

Due to the location and nature of the proposed project, implementation of the proposed Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange and associated roadway improvements would provide needed emergency access to the residences and commercial/light industrial uses in the surrounding area. Therefore, improvements are viewed as having long-term beneficial effects. h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild/and fires, including where wildland are adjacent to urbani2ed areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less than significant impact.

The proposed Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange project would remove the flammable brush and grass within the existing area. Thus, the proposed project would remove such fire hazards and alleviate any further impacts.

3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - - Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than significant impact.

Grading and trenching during the construction phase of the project would increase the potential for erosion; however, implementation of erosion control measuresas required by the City/County and adherence to all requirements set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit required for construction including implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would assist in reducing short-term construction impacts to less than significant levels. Site runoff associated with the roadway development and improvements may contribute additional typical roadway pollutants to drainage facilities.

Typical roadway-related pollutants primarily include oil, grease and related petroleum derivatives, as well as chemicals used to fertilize and maintain landscaped medians and parkways. The Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board administers the NPDES Permit requirements in the County of Ventura. Under the NPDES Permit, all development and significant redevelopment is obligated to implement structural and nonstructural non-point source pollution control measures known as Best Management Practices (BMPs) to limit urban pollutants reaching the waters of the United States to the maximum extent practical. The project would be expected to stabilize existing vacant areas that presently experience sheet flow and associated soil erosion. Appropriate water quality measures would be incorporated into the project, in accordance with the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks/NPDES requirements. As a result of the implementation of the requirements, a less than significant impact would occur with implementation of the Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange project.

As development may occur within the annexation area within the next five years, the potential exists that future development may have an adverse effect. As no development proposals have been submitted at this time and the area will be pre-zoned for agricultural uses, potential development-related impacts are more appropriately addressed though the CEQA document required for future development. Nonetheless, each project would be evaluated on a case by case basis and standard engineering practices would be implemented to ensure that impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

City of Camarillo Page 34 of 50 March 24, 1999
LJIIL II 111.1c11 OLLIUy/1"41J1.11,..e UI FICpC11(11.11JII Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drip to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No impact.

The project proposes an interchange and roadway improvements and would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Project implementation would not intercept an aquifer, and would not decrease the City's overall water supply through increased withdrawals from groundwater. The project would not have the capacity to increase the amount of water consumed regionally through increased withdrawals from groundwater sources. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur in this regard.

Potential impacts of this nature relative to future development in the annexation area are more appropriately evaluated as part of the City's CEQA review process for specific development proposals.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

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 interchange and required roadway improvements. Alteration of absorption rates is not considered significant due to a less than significant replacement ratio of existing permeable surfaces with impermeable road surfaces.

The project would include appropriate surface water drainage/detention facilities, designed in accordance with Caltrans and City requirements.

Additionally, as noted in Item 3.4c, the spreading basins and drainages on the project site, but beyond the proposed State right-of-way, may be under the jurisdiction of ACOE and may be determined to be subject to permit conditions as regulated by the ACOE and may also require a Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1601 of the California Fish and Game Code.

It is recommended that a wetland delineation be conducted to determine if ACOE and/or CDFG jurisdictions are present within the project site. In addition, the resources agencies expressed concerns regarding potential water quality effects on wildlife offsite in Calleguas Creek and Mugu Lagoon.
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? No impact.

The proposed interchange and associated roadway improvements do not have the potential to alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding, due to the project being located away from any large bodies of water and the provision of adequate storm water conveyance facilities within the project area. The project site is not located within the 100-year flood plain.

Therefore, water related hazards would not cause a threat to people or property.

City of Camarillo Page 3 -1. 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than significant impact.

The interchange project will provide for adequate drainage facilities. Potential future development within the annexation area will also be required to provide adequate drainage facilities and protection from upstream flood hazards. Also refer to Item 3.8d above. f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No impact.

The project does not have the capacity to substantially degrade water quality as it involves the construction of an interchange. Refer to Item 3.8a above.

Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No impact.

The proposed road improvements would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as a result of project implementation. Potential future development within the annexation area would be designed for protection against the 100-year flood, which will be evaluated on a project-specific basis.
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No impact.

Project implementation would not involve the placement of structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No impact.

The proposed interchange and improvements do not have the potential to expose people or property to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. As previously noted, the project site is not located within the 100-year flood plain.

Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudf low? No impact.

Due to the location and nature of the proposed project, well-removed from the Pacific Ocean and other large bodies of water, the potential for inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudf low is not anticipated.

3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING - - Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community? Less than significant impact.

The proposed project would not divide the physical arrangement of the community as the proposed roadway improvements would complete an important connection between existing residential developed areas and commercial areas located north and south of Route 101, respectively, as well as provide a through travel route to Ponderosa Drive which would improve local traffic circulation. This is considered a less than significant impact. The g.

City of Camarillo Page 36 of 50 March 24, 1999
1111(1,11 pi I VI I N...• •
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
annexation area is located between the Route 101 freeway and existing residential development, and would therefore represent a continuation of, and not a separation of, an existing community. b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

The project proposes to construct a new interchange approximately half way between the Route 101/Central Avenue interchange and the Route 101/Las Posas Road interchange. Land Use designation for the project site and surrounding land 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 as 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 the north/south arterial, 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 the proposed improvements 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 of the City. Therefore, no impacts in this regard would occur.

The majority of the proposed project is located within the corporate limits of the City of Camarillo. However, portions of the proposed project site located north of Route 101 between Las Posas Drive and Central Avenue are within the County of Ventura's jurisdiction. This area is proposed for annexation, including pre-zoning for the City of Camarillo. Potential future development within this annexation area is likely to require a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, which will be evaluated on a project-specific basis upon the City's receipt of a formal application.
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No impact.

Project implementation would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Also, refer to Item 3.4a above.

3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES - - Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No impact.

Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource due to the nature and scope of the proposed project and since the proposed i mprovements would City of Camarillo Page 37 of 50 March 24 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
occur primarily within an area presently used for agricultural purposes. No significant mineral resource deposits are known to exist adjacent to the project. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No impact.

Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. Further, no sites designated as an area with significant mineral deposits are located within the project limits.

3.11 NOISE - - Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially significant impact.

The major noise generators in the area of the proposed project include traffic noise from Route 101, the Camarillo Airport and local arterial traffic noise. Construction of the proposed interchange and improvements may result in short-term increased noise levels in the immediate project vicinity due to the operation of construction vehicles and other construction activities.

This activity may result in a minor disturbance to existing land uses located along the roadway.

This would be a temporary condition, would cease upon project completion, and is subject to noise ordinance requirements (which is 60 dBA CNEL as stated in the City's General Plan as normally acceptable). Section 10.34.20(F) of the City of Camarillo Municipal code specifically exempts noise generated by construction activities provided these activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and prohibit on Sundays and public holidays.

It should be noted that the proposed project would not significantly affect mainline traffic volumes on Route 101. However, the proposed Ponderosa Drive extension would generate additional traffic volumes near existing residential areas, thereby affecting local noise levels (refer to Item 3.15a and 3.15b). The traffic volumes vary from 5,000 to 21,000 ADT, depending upon the segments studied. Therefore, the project may result in substantial traffic volumes being introduced into a new location due to construction of the proposed interchange and associated roadways (Airport North road).

As development may occur within the annexation area within the next five years, the potential exists that future development may have an adverse effect. As no development proposals have been submitted at this time and the area will be pre-zoned for agricultural uses, potential development-related impacts are more appropriately addressed though the CEQA document required for future development.

Additional analysis is required to further identify project-related impacts and recommend mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration of groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact.

Due to the nature and scope of the proposed interchange and roadway improvements, project implementation would not have the capacity to result in an exposure of persons to or generation

City of Camarillo
OIL II 11(.101 yt I NtJlik..0 1J1 I I CIJCZIOLIVII
Route 101/Airport North Area interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Potential vibration from the Route 101 freeway may affect future development within the annexation area, although this can be accommodated in future development plans by use of buffer zones and designation of appropriate land uses adjacent to the freeway.
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially significant impact.

The project in and of itself does not have the capacity to result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity from stationary sources since the project does not involve land development. However, the project would involve mobile sources of noise (trucks and passenger vehicles) which could potentially increase the ambient noise levels above existing levels.

Refer to Item 3.11a above. The Draft EIR will assess the impacts of project implementation with regards to increases in ambient noise levels.
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than significant.

As noted in Item 3.11a, implementation of the proposed improvements may result in short-term increased noise levels in the immediate project vicinity due to the operation of construction vehicles and other construction activities. This would be a temporary condition which would cease upon project completion and is subject to noise ordinance requirements within the City of Camarillo.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Refer to Item 3.7a.

For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact.

The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not expose people in the project area to excessive noise levels.

3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING - - Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Potentially significant impact.

Due to the relatively small scale of the proposed roadway improvements, the proposed Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange project and additional associated roadway improvements/ expansions are not anticipated to alter the location, distribution, density and growth rate of the human population in the project vicinity. No impacts in this regard are anticipated.

City of Camarillo Page 39 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
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 and Ponderosa Corridor uses. 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. The interchange and roadway improvement project would be consistent with the City of Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element and therefore no growth related impacts are anticipated in this regard.

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. The annexation area is within the City of Camarillo Sphere of Influence. According to Section 3.2 of the County of Ventura General Plan, the Sphere of Influence 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 County of Ventura General Plan Section 3.1.1 promotes the establishment of reasonable boundaries and the prevention of stepout urban development, which is the intent of the annexation and zone change request.

It is anticipated that Annexation No. 83 could accelerate development within the 270-acre area.

An unknown combination of residential, commercial and open space uses could eventually occur in the annexation area, but not within four years as specified by City Council action. The Draft EIR would include a more detailed analysis of the potential for Annexation No. 83 to induce substantial population growth in the area.
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact.

The proposed interchange and roadway improvements would not involve the displacement of "substantial numbers" of housing, other than the identified Schol le farm south of Route 101. c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact.

The proposed interchange and roadway improvements would not involve the displacement of "substantial numbers" of people, other than the Schol le farm south of Route 101.

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

Fire protection? Less than significant impact.

Fire protection in the project vicinity is provided by the Ventura County Fire Prevention District.

The project would improve the level of service along Route 101 and the affected roadways, thus producing a positive affect upon fire protection services within the area.

City of Camarillo Page 40 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice ot Vreparation
Route 1019,irport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Police protection? Less than significant impact.

Police protection for the project area is provided by the City of Camarillo Police Department.

The project would improve the level of service along Route 101 and the affected roadways, thus producing a positive affect upon police protection services within the area.

Schools? No impact.

The project site is located within the Pleasant Valley School District (PVSD), Mesa Union School District (MUSD), and Oxnard Union High School District (OUHSD). The project would not generate students, and therefore, would not result in impacts to school services.

Other public facilities? Less than significant impact.

Neither neighborhood nor regional park facilities would be affected by implementation of the proposed interchange and roadway improvements. Project implementation would require longterm maintenance of the new facilities and roadway extensions. Landscaping associated with medians and parkways would also require long-term maintenance. However, due to the relatively limited scope of the project, adverse physical impacts associated with long-term maintenance are not anticipated. No impacts to other governmental services are anticipated.

3.14 RECREATION
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No impact.

Refer to Item 3.13d above.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No impact.

The project involves an interchange and roadway improvements which do not include recreational facilities. Additionally, the project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

3.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project:
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less than significant impact.

The proposed project would generate vehicular movement in a new location, due to the nature of the project. The primary reasons for pursuing the project would be to accommodate overall circulation demand consistent with the City of Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element, and improve local traffic circulation. Table 1, Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary, summarizes the service level calculations for the General Plan build out with Ponderosa Corridor (Phase 2).

City of Camarillo Page 41 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Column 1 presents the service level calculations for existing conditions. These reflect actual counted traffic volumes and existing street geometries. As shown, all of the seven existing intersections currently operate at LOS C or better. The City policy is to maintain a LOS of C or better on all streets. LOS D is permitted during AM and PM peak hours where improving to LOS C would be unreasonably costly.

Column 2 contains V/C ratios and level of service for the No Project condition (Phase 1). This represents a General Plan buildout without the proposed Airport North Area Interchange. As shown, under the No Project condition, two intersections would be operating at LOS E. The two intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service are Las Posas Road at Daily Drive and Las Posas Road at Route 101 SB ramps during the PM peak hour. Column 3 presents the No Project (Phase 2) conditions, the General Plan buildout with Ponderosa Corridor. Six of the eight studied intersections would be operating at unacceptable levels of service for the No Project (Phase 2) conditions.

Column 4 shows projected peak-hour service level with implementation of the proposed project.

The project proposes the construction of a diamond connector at Airport North and Route 101 (Ventura Freeway). As shown, adverse levels of service at two intersections under the No Project conditions are improved and all the studied key intersections serving the site indicate acceptable levels of service. Proposed project (Phase 2) conditions (Column 5) also indicates all the studied intersections would be operating at acceptable levels of service.

Although the proposed project would result in an increase in the number of daily vehicle trips on surrounding roadways, it would serve to provide for acceptable levels of service over the long-term, and would therefore have a beneficial affect upon local traffic conditions.

As development may occur within the annexation area within the next five years, the potential exists that future development may have an adverse effect. As no development proposals have been submitted at this time and the area will be pre-zoned for agricultural uses, potential development-related impacts are more appropriately addressed though the CEQA document required for future development. Nonetheless, each project would be evaluated on a case by case basis and standard engineering practices would be implemented to ensure that impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No impact.

Refer to Item 3.15a above.
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No impact.

Due to the nature and scope of the proposed improvements, project implementation would not have the capacity to result in a change in air traffic patterns. Also, refer to Item 3.7e. d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than significant impact.

City of Camarillo Page 42 of 50 March 24, 1999
0 0
LOS —Level of Service Note: ICU — Intersection Capacity Utilization Eli
[2] [3]
[4]
151
1996 No Project No Project , With Project
With Project
Existing 2020 Traffic 2020 Traffic 2020 Traffic 2020 Traffic Intersections
Time Condition Volume Volume
(Phase 1)
(
Phase 2)
(Phase 1)
(
Phase 2)
. .

V/C OS L WC OS L V/C LOS WC LOS V/C LOS

1. Central/Route 101 NB Ramps
AM 0.68 B 0.80 C 0.
84 D 0.72 C 0.70 B
PM (0.
61) (B) (0.83) D) ( (0.92) E) ( (0.62) (B) (0.
66) (B)
on (..) 0 u B cc) L..) cc E —
co c...) < < Z cc L...) <U
,--
1/4,0
6 .1-2. N. N.
6 6
,F, N. CO
6 6
.tc., k.r, N.
6 6
alF s.O 00
6 6
,..00-6
r-,
6 6
<tr -1 '
z
r.)
6 6
s f.-,
6 6
.:f*A 1-;"
6 6
co co (,) co r3 cc (...) co E3 co L.) < ---- z rnR uR <E Le) ‘.0
6 0 q: N. N
6 6
ch C--- ‘,0 CO
6 6
ev 1 /4o ...Cs N.
6 6
N. Fi; ‘..9 CO
6 c5
4::) Cr") %0 N.
09 <
.....
z
en -CA'
1/40 In
00 r--. F.') N In
09 c R In
09 0 0 ....„ u Cr- co 63 - c.) CZ co
,
<
z
<
z
<
z -<-

0. 84
c in e", CrN 0 -f-n- cc 6 0 CX) N. cc %.0 a N. 6 Ci' r- ,.c> c-, < z
<
Z
<
z
,
42 6 6
UUU UU <
z
<
z
<
z

2. Central/Ro
ute 101 SB AM 0.61 B 0.74

3. Las Posas/Ponderosa AM 0.
52 A 0.75
PM
(0.54)
(A) (0.75)

4. Las Posas/Da
ily
AM 0.73 C 0.79
PM
(0.75) © 0. ( 91)
_

5. Las Posas/Route 101 NB Ramps
AM 0.74 C 0.72
PM
(0.75) ©
(0.83)

6. Las Posas/Ro
ute 101 SB Ramps AM 0.
56 A 0.77
PM (0.55)
(A) 0. ( 98)

7. Las Posas/VVe
st Ventura
AM 0.
43 A 0.68
PM
(0.48) (A) (0.
84)

8. InterchangeArterial/Ponderosa AM PM N/A
N/A
N/A

9. Interchange Arterial/Ro
ute 101NB AM
Ramps PM
N/A
N/A
N/A

10. Interchange Arteria
l/Route 101 SB AM
Ramps PM N/A
N/A
N/A

11. Verduler Mes a t Ventura
AM 0.44
PM
N/A
N/A (0.
28)
e
Ix) —Column Number
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Interchange and roadway design would be consistent with applicable safety criteria including speed, sight distance, signage and signalization. The proposed traffic improvements meet applicable design standards, provide for improvements in pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and are therefore, not anticipated to result in significant traffic hazards in this regard. e. Result in inadequate emergency access? Less than significant impact.

Due to the location and nature of the proposed project, implementation of the proposed Route 101/Airport North Interchange and associated roadway improvements would provide needed emergency access to existing residences and commercial/light industrial uses in the surrounding area. Therefore, improvements are viewed as having long-term beneficial effects. f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? No impact.

Project implementation would not result in inadequate parking capacity.

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

Short-term impacts to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians may occur due to the increase in construction-related truck trips. However, the designation of a haul route should be established with proper signage to minimize potential hazards. These impacts would terminate upon completion of the improvements. Impacts due to increased traffic hazards during project construction are not anticipated to be significant. It should be noted that a bicycle lane (one in each direction of travel) is incorporated into the project design for the Ventura Boulevard relocation.

Due to the nature of the project, no conflicts with any adopted policies supporting alternative transportation would occur. As noted above, implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of a bicycle lane from the existing westerly end of the recently constructed Ventura Boulevard, located south of the Target Shopping Center east of the proposed interchange) and the existing Ventura Boulevard (west of the new interchange), which would give the residents of Camarillo the opportunity to utilize transportation alternatives. Therefore, significant impacts in this regard are not anticipated.

Potential future development of the annexation area would generate additional traffic, which will require analysis as part of the City's CEQA review process, upon submittal of a formal application.

3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - - Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No impact.

Improvements associated with the proposed project involve and interchange and roadway which do not have the capacity to generate wastewater or exceed wastewater treatment requirements.

Potential future development of the annexation area will result in additional impacts, which will be evaluated as part of the City's CEQA review process. g.

City of Camarillo Page 44 of 50 March 24, 1999
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than significant impact.

Due to the nature and scope of the proposed improvements, project implementation would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. The proposed project may require the relocation and/or adjustment of an existing 304 mm water main which would be performed as determined appropriate. Potential future development of the annexation area will result in additional impacts, which will be evaluated as part of the City's CEQA review process.
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than significant impact.

The proposed project would not affect existing drainage systems. The on-site drainage system is currently being designated as an underground piping system that would accommodate a 50-year design frequency storm per City of Camarillo criteria. Any additional required drainage facilities along this portion of the roadway and/or project components would be constructed as determined necessary by the City and the Preliminary Hydrology Study. Construction activities are not expected to significantly affect existing storm water drainage systems. Potential future development of the annexation area will result in additional impacts, which will be evaluated as part of the City's CEQA review process.
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlement and resources, or are new or expanded entitlement needed? Less than significant impact.

The City of Camarillo provides potable water service within the City limits. Current sources of water to the City include three ground water production wells and northern California surface water supplies purchased from the Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD) and the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). Due to the scope of the proposed project, future irrigation of the medians and parkways is not anticipated to significantly impact existing water supplies.

Potential future development of the annexation area will result in additional impacts, which will be evaluated as part of the City's CEQA review process. e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No impact.

Refer to Items 3.8d and 3.16a.
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No impact.

The proposed interchange and roadway improvements would not have the capacity to generate solid waste and therefore would not impact landfill capacity. Potential future development of the annexation area will result in additional impacts, which will be evaluated as part of the City's CEQA review process.

City of Camarillo Page 45 of 50 March 24, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No impact.

The proposed project does not involve a solid waste generating land use and therefore, would not be subject to federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. Potential future development of the annexation area will result in additional impacts, which will be evaluated as part of the City's CEQA review process.

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

Due to the limited scope of the proposed project, and as the proposed interchange and roadway improvements would occur primarily within the agricultural lands, project implementation would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

Potential future development of the annexation area will result in additional impacts, which will be evaluated as part of the City's CEQA review process. Nonetheless, each project would be evaluated on a case by case basis and mitigation would be implemented to ensure that impacts would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Potentially significant impact.

Due to the relatively limited nature of the proposed interchange and roadway improvements, significant cumulative impacts would not occur, with the exception of the loss of agricultural land.

The interchange project creates a positive regional traffic and air quality effect. Many other effects are isolated to the project area, and have been determined to be less than significant. Although the project may incrementally affect other resources that were determined to be less than significant, the project's contribution to these effects is not considered "cumulatively considerable", in consideration of the relatively nominal impacts of the interchange project.

Potential future development of the annexation area will result in additional impacts, which will be evaluated as part of the City's CEQA review process. The loss of agricultural land resulting from project implementation is considered a significant cumulative impact. The Draft EIR will assess the impacts of project implementation with regards to cumulative impacts upon agricultural resources.

City of Camarillo Page 46 of 50 March 24, 1999
LJ(ciil 111111(11 JI.UUy/ INV1.1%-eUI r I epdl dllUI I
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange
& Annexation No. 83 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on .human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Project implementation may result in environmental effects which may cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Construction-related activities are anticipated to have some minor, temporary impacts (congestion, PM10, noise). Additionally, the potential exists that project implementation may result in long-term impacts, including noise, aesthetics and aircraft hazards, therefore, requiring additional analysis to further identify potential impacts and recommend mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

City of Camarillo Page 47 of 50 March 24„ 1999

4.0 DETERMINATION
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 4.0 DETERMINATION

4.0 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
o
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

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

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

Date: March 24, 1999
Signature
Kevin Thomas, RBF

CITY OF CAMARILLO
For: Dan Greeley, PE., Director of Engineering Services Printed Name
City of Camarillo Page 48 of 50 March 24, 1999
50 REFERENCES
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 5.0 REFERENCES

5.0 REFERENCES

5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PERSONNEL
Lead Agency:

City of Camarillo
Planning and Community Development
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, California 93010
Mr. Matthew A. Boden, AICP, Director of Planning and Community Development Mr. Dan Greeley, PE, Director of Engineering Services
Mr. Sonny Murillo, PE
Environmental Document Team:

Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA 92618
Mr. Kevin Thomas, Environmental Services Manager
Mr. Bruce R. Grove Jr., REA, Environmental Analyst
Mr. Rita M. Garcia, Environmental Analyst
ASL Consulting Engineers
900 Avenida Acaso, Suite K
Camarillo, CA 93012-8749
Mr. Earl T. ("Mac") McArthur, PE, Project Director
Mr. Jeffrey Fromhertz, PE, Project Manager
BonTerra Consulting
Ms. Anne Johnston, Senior Biologist
RMW Paleo Associates
Ms. Joan Brown, SOFA
Responsible Agencies:

Ca!trans District 7
County of Ventura
Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission
City of Cama 110 Page 49 of 50 March )4, 1999
Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 5.0 REFERENCES

5.2 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
1994 Air Quality Management Plan (Final), SCAQMD, September 1994.

Addendum to Aircraft Hazard and Land Use Risk Assessment, prepared for City of Camarillo, by Heliplanners, April 30, 1997.

Airport North Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, prepared by The Planning Center, Date Unknown.

Biological Constraints Study for Airport North Road/U.S. Route 101 Interchange, prepared for Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, by BonTerra Consulting, January 13, 1999.

CEOA: Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, April 1994.

City and County Population Estimates, Table E-5, Department of Finance, January 1, 1998.

City of Camarillo General Plan, 1989.

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Supplement A, EPA, Volume II, January 1991.

Cultural Resources Reconnaissance, Airport North/U.S. Route 101 Interchange, prepared for RBF, by RMW Paleo Associates, Inc., February 1999.

Phase I Environmental Assessment, prepared for Fugro West, Inc., by ENSR Corporation, August 1998. •
Ponderosa Corridor Specific Plan, GPA No. 94-1 Final HR. prepared for City Camarillo, by Fugro West, Inc., October 1995.

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared for ASL Consulting Engineers, by Fugro West, Inc., July 1998.

Project Study Report, Route 101at Airport North Interchange City of Camarillo, prepared by ASL Consulting Engineers, January 7, 1999.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), Topographical Quadrangle, California, 1980.

City of Camarillo Page 50 of 50 March 24, 1999

6.0 APPENDICES

NOTE - THE INIT STUDY APPENDICES,

PROJECT STUDY REPORT AND RELATED

PROJECT TE AS AVAI I LE FOR
PUBLIC REVIEW AT THE CITY OF CA.MA.RILLO
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES.

T C I
Now there's abetter way.-
App 1999
March 25, 1999
Don Greeley
City of Camarillo
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, CA 93010
C .

MAR 3 7
— 1999
ACCOU Ai •—• IV II NG
Pio q'
o 5So, 01-41(960
RE: Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange & Annexation No. 83 Dear Mr. Greeley:

Thank you for sending us the draft EIR for the above-mentioned project. As an FYI I have enclosed our facilities located on Ponderosa Drive from Earl Joseph Drive to Camino Terra Santa.

If this project were approved, TCI of Ventura County would also like to reserve space, within the bridge as well as the approaches, for our telecommunications conduit.

If you have any question please give me a call at (805) 375-5213.

Sincerely,
Steven Waters
Engineering Coordinator
Enclosure: 1
cc: File
TCI of Ventura County 2323 Teller Road
Newbury Park, CA 91320-2219
(800) 427-3731
FAX (805) 375-3176
An Equal Opportunity Employer
APR-22-:.9T., 4 15: 26 PM A -11..RtNIN3
0 C., 0
SO5 654 365.13 - P.04
P. 08

COUNTY OF VENTURA
Planning Division

MEMORANDUM
DATE:

TO;
March 29, 1999
Joseph Elsenhut, Coordinator, Non-County Environmental Document Review
FROM. Nancy Settle anager, Regional Projects Section
Reference No. 99-036 (Comments on Notice cf Preparation [NOP] — Route 101/Airport North Interchange and Annexation #83) The Regional Projects Section has reviewed the above referenced NOP and suggests the following comments should be addressed In a future environmental impact report (EIR). Our review has primarily been confined to potential impacts on existing agricultural operations in and adjacent to the proposed interchange end annexation projects.

The NOP (pages 22 and 23) lists three "pOtentially significant impacts' on agricultural reeOutoes:
• Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency to non- agricu ttu rat u sa • Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract. • Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use.

The Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) will eventually review the Prde and cons of Annexation #83 (270 acres of irrigated farmland). LAFCO'S Cortese-Knox guidelines stale that the annexation of farmland should be permitted only If there are no alternative vacant lands available for future urban development_ Camarillo currently has over 1,000 acres of vacant land located within its city limits — the EIR should thoroughly address the need for the annexation of Irrigated farmland given the City's current Inventory of vacant land,
The ER should also provide specific information on proposed development piens, phasing, infrastructure needs and the growth inducing impacts related to the RE:
;PF-22-199 1526 RMH PLR/4 I NG (5e5 E.54 3E63 P.M
Annexation and the interchange projects. The potential loss of up to 270 acres of irrigated farmland is a significant impact and mitigation options should be provided in the EIR that oculd include, but not be limited to:
* Payment of an In-lieu fee that is equal to or greater than the "development rights' value of the lands to be converted to non-agriculture uses. • Acquire conservation easements on "like-kind' agricultural lands within the Cemarillo/Oxnard Greenbelt. Priority should be given to acquiring ea manta on farmland that adjoin* US 101 and Is located within the Greenbett "narrows" (west of Central Avenue and east Of the Revolon Slough).
• Acceptance of the in-lleu fee and administration of the conservation easement should be the responsibility of a lend conservation agency or organlz.ation that is aoceptable to the City of Camarillo and the County of Ventura.

The Annexation end the proposed Freeway Interchange will also have signIfIcant impacts on other farmland located north and south of US 101. For example, failure to Protect the existing egricuttural corridor between the Greenbelt's Del Norte Unit (north Of US 101) and the Oxnard Plain Unit (south Of US 101) would result in a continuous strip of urbanization torn the base of the Santa Monica Mountains to the Ventura River. Again, the EIR should thoroughly address the growth-Inducing impacts of the proposed Interchange and Annexation projects.

If you have any questions concerning the above comments, please contact Gene Nellberg at 654-245E.
cc: Keith Turner, Planning Director
Arnold Dowdy, Executive Director, LAPCO
2 TOTAL P.05
i.1-m-e-155 1525 PM A PL.ANNING BO5 654 3E.93 PAN

PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY

TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
Traffic and Planning &Administration
MEMORANnUM
March 31, 1999
TO Resource Menagement Agency, Planning Division
Attentioa: Joseph Eisenhet
PROM: Robert B. Brownie, Principal Engineer it po
SUBJECT; Review of Document Number 99-035
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange 'and Annexation Number 83 InCR.

Lead Agency: CITY OF CANIAR[1.1,0
The Transportation Department has reviewed the subject preposed Notice of Preparation of a Draft Envirorunental Impact Report for the Route 101(Airport North Area Interchange and Annexation Number 83 E. The proposed Route 101/Airport North interchange portion of the project would involve the construction of a conventional diamond interchange with a six-lane over crossing, consisting of two through lanes in each direction and dual left turn lanes. The Annexation Number 83 component of the project requests annexation of *approximately 270 acres into the City of Camarillo. We offer the following comments:
1) We concur with the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation for those areas under the purview of the Transportation Department, No direct cumulative traffic or transportation impacts would be expected from the Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange and Annexation Number 83 Elft,
2,) This interchange is not on the County's Regional Road Network. Therefore, thie project may require a General Plan Amendment to the Countie-s' General Plan. 3) Our review of this project i3 limited to the impact., this project may have on the County's Regional Road Network.
r'lea.5e call me at 634-2080 with questions,
c: Richard Herrera
Duane Platen
Carol: Trigg
RE113.1131-DRA4
IMCOLIMON'altAssrorAWn1PLNI4EMOS19S-035.MEst
rZA qA,
1;PR-22-1955 15:25 RMA PLANNING 3915 654 7683 'F.03

COUNTY OF VENTURA

PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY

FLOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT

MEMORANDUM
April 5, 1999
TO: Joseph Elsenhut
Resource Management Agency, Pl&nnip Division
FROM: Alex Sheydayi, Deputy Director
SUBJECT: ROUTE 101/AIRPORT NORTH AREA INTERCHANGE
AND ANNEXATION NO 83 EIR
The Ventura County Flood Control District (District) has reviewed the above mentioned document and has the following comments
We do not agree with the Draft Initial Study/ Notice of Participation (IS/NOP) ehecldist for Hydrology and Water Quality hems a), b), d), e), and f) should all be checked off under Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated, None of these are no-impact issues.

2. Environmental Evaluation, Section 3.8, Item a., line 10 should say California Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, not Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board.

3. Environmental Evaluation Section 3 8, Item c; the discussion about the Army Corp of Englneers (A.COE) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) should be deleted since there are no jurisdictional streams in this area. Also in the last line where water quality impacts are mentioned., the stream names should be Camarillo Hills Drain and Revelon Slough, not Calleguas Creek. The urea drains to Revelon Slough and then directly to Mugu Lagoon,
4, Also under Section 3,13, Item e should discuss that runoff will be limited to the capacity of existing Caltrans drainage facilities except, where they arc reconTtrueted.

5. The responses wilder Section 3.8-do not address surface water quality impacts, In fact, the response under f. only refers to the Interchange and does not address Annexation 83.
•
Redford Open
1099 N. Bedford
482-5116; 388-8593 • Fax
Camarillo Heights
35 Catalina Drive
482-9838; 987-7189 - Fax
Dos Camino,
3635 Appian Way
482-9894
El Descanso
1900 N. Bedford
482-1954; 388-8593 - Fax
El Rancho Structured
550 Temple Avenue
482-4608
Las Colinas
5750 Fieldcrest
484-0461; 482.2443 - Fax
Las Posas
75 Calle La Guerra
482-4606; 388-5431 - Fax
Los Altos Intermediate
700 Temple Avenue
482-4656; 388-9059 - Fax
Los Nogales
1555 Kendall Avenuc
492-1964; 987-4969 - Fax

PLEASANT VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRIC
600 Temple Avenue, Camarillo, CA 93010-4835
Voice: (805) 482-2763, Fax: (805) 987-5511
April 7, 1999
Mr. Dan Greeley
City of Camarillo
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, CA 93010
Dear Mr. Greeley:

RE: Draft Ent: Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange and Annexiato No. .83 EIR
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review the draft EIR for the project above. It appears as if the proposed interchange will provide greater ingress/egress to the freeway and to potential shopping that will eventually occur in the subject project area.

It also appears that your department is attempting to be proactive and look to future land use and provide the infrastructure and traffic mitigation prior to accelerated development. Therefore, I wish to state that we have no objections to the draft environmental impact report as it is stated, Should you have any further questions, please give me a call, Sincerely,
Los Primeros Structured
2222 Ventura Boulevard
484-2811; 482-8921 - Fax
Monte Vista Middle
888 N. Lantana Street
482-8891: 987-8951 - Fax
Santa Rosa
13282 Santa Rosa Road
491-3822; 491-2707 - Fax
Tierra Linda
1201 Woodcreek Road
445-8800; 445-8804 - Fax
Valle Undo
777 Aileen Strect
482-8861; 388-2532 - Fax
Howard M. Hamilton, Ph.D.

Associate Superintendent
ak
Excellence In elementary public education since 1868
Crray Davis

GOVERNOR

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
April 7, 1999
To: Reviewing Agencies
Re: Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange and Annexation No. 83 SCH# 99031099
Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange and Annexation No. 83 draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NO?, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of this notice.

We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process,
Please direct your comments to:

Dan Greeley
City of Camarillo
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, CA 93101
with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project.

If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613.

Sincerely,
tiet &COAL
Mosie Boyd
Project Analyst, State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Lead Agency

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
I40o TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ventura NA and Wildlife Office
2493 Portola Road, Suite B
Ventura, California 93003
April 21, 1999
Dan Greeley, P.E.

Director of Civil Engineering Services
City of Camarillo
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, California 93010
Subject:

Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Route 101/Airport North Area Interchange and Annexation No. 83 Dear Mr. Greeley:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the initial study and notice of preparation (NOP) of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Route 101/Airport North Area interchange and annexation No. 83 into the City of Camarillo (City).

The city is proposing to construct a typical diamond interchange and roadway to connect the western terminus of Ponderosa Road on the north to the easterly extension of Verdulera Street on the south. Annexation No. 83 would add 270 acres to the City to bring this "island" of unincorporated land into the City's boundaries, and to accommodate future land uses north of Route 101. The land within the proposed annexation and where the interchange and road improvements would be located is active agricultural land.

We offer the following information and recommendations to aid you in planning for the conservation of' sensitive wildlife habitats and federally listed species that could occur on the site, and as a means to assist you in complying with pertinent Federal statutes. The following comments are prepared in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and other authorities mandating Department of the Interior concern for environmental values.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) responsibilities include administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), including sections 7, 9, and 10. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the taking of any federally listed endangered or threatened species. Section 3(18) of the Act defines "take" to mean "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." Service regulations (50 CFR Dan Greenley, P.E. 2

17.3) clef= "harm" to include significant habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. Harassment is defined by the Service as an intentional or negligent action that creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The Act provides for civil and criminal penalties for the unlawful taking of listed species. Exemptions to the prohibitions against take may be obtained through coordination with the Service in two ways: through interagency consultation for projects with Federal involvement pursuant to section 7 or through the issuance of an incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

To assist the Service in adequately evaluating the proposed project from the standpoint of fish and wildlife protection, we request that the draft EIR contain the following specific information:

The analysis of biological resources in the environmental evaluation section of the NOP concludes that the only area with native plant species is an area of willow woodland. The Service is aware that there are areas of coastal sage scrub just north of the proposed annexation. Although this habitat may not be within the annexation or footprint of the roadway improvements, we recommend consideration of this habitat due to the likely indirect impacts from the buildout of the annexation (e.g. brush clearance for fire protection). The locations of any natural habitats within and surrounding the project area should be discussed and mapped in the draft EIR. The willow woodland and coastal sage scrub habitats are of particular concern due to the number of sensitive species associated with these habitats and the loss of large areas of such habitats in the region.

2. The environmental evaluation concludes that there is no suitable habitat for sensitive species. However, some listed species in Ventura County are found in what may be considered marginal or typically unsuitable habitat. This is especially true for the endangered least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) which has recently nested in narrow, small riparian areas, perhaps to due to expanding populations. With consideration of the adjacent coastal sage scrub area, the Service recommends focused surveys for the following species during the appropriate season(s):

Verity's dudleya (Dudleya verity!) - federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica callfornica) - federally threatened least Hell's vireo - federally endangered
Although not listed as endangered or threatened, the following species should also be considered in surveys of natural areas:

Blochman's dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae)
Conejo buckwheat (Eriogonum crocatum) - state listed rare coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis) Dan Greenley, P.E.
3 3. The obvious long-range goal of the two project components is to provide for urbanization of the area along the Route 101 corridor. While areas of principally agricultural land are not within the Service's purview, we are concerned about the loss of productive land.

Such land has already been converted from natural habitat to provide for crop production, and to convert it further to urbanization completely removes the area from this secondary role. Once the land is urbanized, it is no longer of use for food production nor can it ever be converted back into natural habitat. Also, the loss of productive agricultural land places more pressure on remaining natural areas to be converted to agriculture. Despite the conclusion in the environmental evaluation that these impacts would be addressed in other CEQA documents, the Service believes that these issues should be addressed in the draft EIR because the road improvements and annexation will encourage future development.

4. The initial study concludes that the project would not interfere with any regional planning efforts. The Service is involved in the Calleguas Creek Watershed Planning effort, which involves the area being addressed in the draft EIR. One of the planning effort goals is to protect and enhance the watershed, while maintaining the current land uses. The ongoing conversion of agricultural land into urbanized areas may not be compatible with the watershed planning goals because it introduces impermeable surfaces into a watershed where freshwater infiltration is needed due to a history of groundwater pumping that has encouraged saltwater intrusion. The impacts of the proposed project and the long-term impacts should be considered in terms of consistency with the goals of the Calleguas Watershed planning effort.

The Service looks forward to reviewing the draft FIR. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please call Rick Farris of my staff at (805) 644-1766.

Sincerely,
Diane K. Noda
Field Supervisor
Dan Greeley, E. S. Director
Camarillo, CA
-5388
th rner
unty Planning Director
p,I RE W.! OE
APR 2 2 1999
CT (W .YULLcJ
15;25 riA

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
county of ventura
BO5 654 7683 F,O1
Planning Division
Keith A Turner
Mrector
April 22, 1999
Subject NOP Regarding Highway 101/ Airport Interchange
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject document.

Attached are the comments that we have received resulting from intra-county review of the subject document.

Your proposed responses to the comments should be sent directly to the commentator, with a copy to Joseph Eisenhut, Ventura County Planning Division, L#1740, 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009.

If you have any questions regarding any of the comments, please contact the appropriate respondent, Overall questions may be directed to Joseph Elsenhut at (805) 854-2484.

Sincerely,
FARAIA WITC1147N1100/tblid43- 'pa eico
Attachment
County RMA Reference Number 99035
BOO South Victoria Avenue, L 01740, Vontura, CA 93009 (8051 654-2481 FAX (806) 664-2609 hwrild an line yerfori
6eacoa8t Amocia
a California general partnership
8eacoa8t Coolir
5eacoast farthbVictoria Villa8e April 2, 1999
Mr. Dan Greeley, Director of Engineering
City of Camarillo
601 Carmen Dr.

Camarillo, CA 93010/"
Re: Airport North Area (Annexation No. 83 EIR)
Dear Mr. Greeley:

I am the Managing Partner of eacoast Associates which is a majority owner (2/3 interest) of Parcels 230-010-185, 230-010-195, 230-010-200 and 230-010- 270 in the "Airport North Specific Plan" area of Camarillo.

I have just received a copy of the attached notice concerning the above mentioned annexation which was mailed to our minority partner in the Property.

Could you please make sure that your records within the City (all departments) reflect that any notices or correspondence concerning the above mentioned parcels needs to be addressed to Seacoast Associates at the address indicated on this Letterhead.

Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated. If you have any question don't hesitate to contact me.

John A. Ferro
Managing Partner,
Seacoast Associates
Jf
Cc Fred J. Ferro, Capital Commercial Real Estate
Mary E. Ferro Trust
183 Monisomery Avenue, Oxnard. California 93030 • Telephone (805) 485-2977 0 FAX (805) 485-1186

10.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY

AUTHOR: Ronald M. Bissell
DATE: February 1999
TITLE: Cultural Resources Reconnaissance, Airport North:U.S. Route 101 Interchange, Camarillo, Ventura County, California
SUBMITTED BY: RMW Paleo Associates
23392 Madero, Suite L
Mission Viejo, California 92691
(949) 770-8042
FAX (949)458-9058
Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates
14725 Alton Parkway
Post Office Box 57057
Irvine. California 92619-7057
SUBMITTED TO:

USGS QUADRANGLE: Camarillo, California. 7.5 Minute Quadrangles. 1950, ACREAGE:

KEYWORDS:

Photoreyised 1967
Approximately 10
Ventura County, Camarillo, 56-150001, 56-152749, Townships 2 North, Range 21 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Management Summary/Abstract iii
Undertaking Information/Introduction 1
Study Area Map 2
Setting 3
Methods 10
Findings 10
DiscussionInterpretation 11
Management Considerations 12
Recommendations 11
References Cited 14
Attachment A: Historical Report
Attachment B: Personnel Resumes
Attachment C: Literature RevieN\ Cover Letter
Bound eparately:

Confidential Attachment D: Site Recording Forms
11 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
Purpose and Scope: Plans are being prepared for the construction of a new freeway interchange on U.S. Route 101 immediately north of Camarillo Airport in Camarillo, Ventura County, California. This study was undertaken to determine the level of past cultural resources research within and near the study area, to examine those portions of the study area not adequately documented during prior studies and to formulate appropriate recommendations for any required future research. The study utilized archival resources and field visits by both an archaeologist and a historian.

Dates of Investigation: A literature review was completed by the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles on 31 August 1998. The author examined other studies at the RBF offices on 22 September 1998. Additional research was accomplished at the library, University of California, Irvine on 25 September 1998. During December 1998 and January 1999, the Project Historian completed additional research in the field, at the Ventura County Assessor's Office, at the library of the Ventura County Museum of History and Art, and at the central branch of the Los Angeles Public Library (Gregory 1999). Pat Maxon, RMW Staff Archaeologist, visited the project area on 7 January 1999, and examined the surface south of U.S. Route 101. The surface north of U.S. Route 101 was examined during an earlier project (Maki 1994). This report was prepared during the last week of January 1999.

This report supersedes an October 1998 report titled Literature Review, Airport North. U.S.

Route 101 Interchange. Camarillo, Ventura County, California, by RMW Paleo Associates.

Major Findings:

The study area contains no visible prehistoric archaeological deposits.

One complex of historic structures has been recorded in the area north of U.S.

Route 101. The Primary Number assigned to this complex is 56-150001. • A complex of buildings in the area south of U.S. Route 101 was examined and recorded. The Primary Number assigned to this complex is 56-152749 A complex of prehistoric archaeological sites is located a short distance to the west of the northern part of the study area.
• All of the study area is within the limits of the 1800s village of Springville.

Evaluation: Two of the buildings (the farmhouse and packing plant) within the complex of buildings north of U.S. Route 101 (P.N. 56-150001) have been determined to be an important resource and eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places as a Historic District. The complex of buildings south of U.S. Route 101 (P.N. 56-152749) has been determined to not be an important resource. There are no other known cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the study area.

Undertaking Effect: Current planning indicates that site P.N. 56-150001, the northernmost of the older building complexes, will not be directly impacted by the proposed construction, but will be significantly impacted by the secondary effects of an altered viewshed and by being iii
bisected by Ponderosa Drive. The southernmost of the two building complexes is not important, and will be destroyed by the proposed project. This impact is not considered significant. No other cultural resources are known to exist on the property.

Constraints on Investigation: No constraints were encountered during the project.

Recommendations Summary:

1. The only known prehistoric sites in the project vicinity lie to the west of the northern part of the study area and well outside the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The sites need not be further considered unless project parameters are so changed to bring them within the APE.

2. The building complex south of U.S. Route 101 (PN 56-152749) need be given no further consideration, since it has been evaluated as not important.

3. The building complex to the north of U.S. Route 101 (PN 56-150001) has been determined to be an important resource. The following recommendations are paraphrased from the historical report (Gregory 1999). Only one of the recommendations need be applied. The recommendations are presented below in order of decreasing desirability:

Redesign the project to reduce the impact to site PN 56-150001. Airport North Road should be moved farther east to provide a buffer between it and the farmhouse's east side. If possible, the extension of Ponderosa Drive should 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, excepting only the farmhouse and packing plant, can be removed, since these are non-contributing elements of the district.

If the roads cannot be relocated, landscaped berms should be constructed to shield site PN 56-150001 from excessive noise and, as much as possible, from visual changes to the site. The packing plant should be disassembled and relocated southward on the remaining acreage of the farm to a site that would be considered historically accurate. Thought should also be given to restoration and adaptation of the farmhouse to a use that would be more consonant with its new surroundings. Again, if necessary, all structures within the complex, excepting only the farmhouse and packing plant, can be removed.

If site P.N. 56-150001 (the farmhouse and packing plant) are to continue in agriculturally related use, they may both be relocated either southeast or southwest of the proposed intersection of Airport North Road and Ponderosa Drive to a site similar to their original location in the midst of fields. If the buildings are moved, their current compass orientation should be maintained.

However, as discussed in Appendix 4 of Attachment A (the Historical Report), iv
relocation of National Register eligible resources is not recommended unless all other alternatives prove to be impossible.

4. An archaeologist should monitor grading for the project. The monitoring archaeologist will record, evaluate and properly treat any historic or prehistoric deposits that may appear. This may require diversion of grading in discreet areas while the necessary archaeological research is completed.

Disposition: No cultural material has been collected from within the study area, either by earlier researchers or RMW Paleo Associates personnel. All documentation generated by RM1A7 personnel during the course of the project is filed at RMW Pale° Associates.

UNDERTAKING INFORMATION/INTRODUCTION
GENERAL: Plans are currently being prepared for the construction of a new freeway interchange on U.S. Route 101 immediately north of Camarillo Airport in Camarillo, Ventura County, California. This study was undertaken to determine the level of past cultural resources research within and near the study area, to determine if cultural resources are visible within the portion of the property not recently examined and to formulate appropriate recommendations for any required future research. The study utilized archival resources and field visits to the property by both an archaeologist and a historian.

The geographic limits of the study area are depicted on the map on the following page.

CONTRACT DATA: Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates (RBF), address on title pace, is accomplishing the planning for the new freeway interchange. RBF contracted R_MVV Paleo Associates, address on title page, to perform the cultural resources reconnaissance for the project.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study are to determine the level of past cultural resources research in and near the study area, to determine if cultural resources are visible within the property, to formulate appropriate recommendations for the future management of any detected resources, and to describe all activities, results and recommendations in a written report.

LEGAL MANDATES: Federal regulations require that projects involving federal funding that may intolve impact to cultural resources be in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation ,4ct (NEPA). NHPA authorizes the maintenance of a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) which facilitates the preservation of properties meeting certain criteria delineated by Section 106 of the NHPA (The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the GSA Interagency Training Center 1994:11-26). Those criteria are:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association and:
(a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
(b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction. . .; or
(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

State Eruidelines for cultural resources studies are included in the California Environmental

55. =
i09
Es.

Springviile

41. 0 X N D A I R FORCE BASE
T E—ST U •
' : •
VV.ell CAMARILLO AIRPORT
In •
„.
=. 7
(SS
MO ON
450 5
. Et f
List •
•
= =
- • r' I H _4
•
. 0

PLEASANT ,
67 T We!I

A STUDY AREA MAP
t.

RMW Paleo Associates
Archaeology
Paleontology
History
Portion of USGS Camarillo (1950,
photorevised 1967), California 7.5 Minute
Quadrangle
Cottonwood Triangular
Projectile Point. Rose
Canyon Variant.
collected by R.NIW Paleo,
1994
1:24,000
North is up
23392 Madero, Suite L
Mission Viejo, CA
92691
(949) 770-8042
FAX (949) 458-9058

RECEIVED
APR 23 1999

ROBERT REIN, WM FROST
Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires that if development is unavoidable, significant impacts to important (CEQA definition) archaeological sites must be reduced to a level of insignificance, through avoidance, preservation or excavation. According to Section 15064.5 of CEQA, ". . . an important archaeological resource" is one which:

A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values;
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Recently (September 1992) the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) was created. Its purpose is to identify the state's historical resources and to indicate which properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change (Office of Historic Preservation 1995:1). The criteria for listing resources on the California Register were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A property must be significant at the local, state or national level under the same (with minor variations) criteria as those for the NRHP (Office of Historic Preservation 1995:3). The criteria are very similar to those previously developed for CEQA. One important difference between CEQA and California Register requirements is that a resource need be only 45 years of age (rather than the CEQA 100 years) to be considered important.

PROJECT PERSONNEL: Ronald M. Bissell was the project Principal Investigator, and completed archival research and authored this report. Mr. Tim Gregory, The Building Biographer, was Project Historian and completed field research, archival research and prepared the historical report, which appears as Attachment A. Pat Maxon, RMW Staff Archaeologist, completed a field examination of the property. Resumes for all three persons are contained in Attachment B.

SETTING
NATURAL: The study area is located within the Oxnard Plain, an alluvial deposit formed at the mouth of the Santa Clara River and other local drainages. The climate of the coastal plains and valleys of southern California is classified as Mediterranean with mild winters of limited precipitation and warm dry summers (Troxell and Hofmann 1954:5). Mean annual temperature 3 for the City of Oxnard, located southwest of the study area, is 16 degrees Celsius and mean annual rainfall is 37.5 centimeters (Elkins 1996). The moderate rainfall is concentrated in the winter months, though summer showers occur when an on-shore air circulation pattern becomes established.

The current climatic conditions did not prevail during the entire span of time that man has been present in the area. Heusser (1978) suggests that pine forests may have occupied the coastal regions from roughly 10,000 to 6,000 Before Common Era (B.C.E.). The climate then became warmer and drier, resulting in replacement of the pine forests by oak woodland and grassland communities. Coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities became pronounced during the few centuries preceding the Common Era (C.E.).

The Oxnard Plain would originally have been covered with grasses and sage scrub growth, now completely replaced with introduced species, the result of decades of use of the area for agricultural purposes.

The Camarillo Hills begin immediately to the north of the study area and the elevations become progressively higher to the north and east. Conejo Mountain lies some distance to the east, and the major drainage in that direction, Calleguas Creek, lies at the foot of the mountains. To the west and south is the nearly featureless extent of the Oxnard Plain, an area of rich and deep agricultural soils.

CULTURAL: The archaeological heritage of California is quite rich, probably more so than any other North American region north of Mexico. However, the archaeology of California is not well known. The native Californians were generally quite peaceful and did not often offer warlike resistance to European settlement. Consequently, they did not gain great notoriety during the settlement period. Also, the original Californians were first under the control of the Spanish and then the Mexican governments and only later, after much of their culture had been destroyed by disease and displacement, did they come under United States government jurisdiction. There was only a minor Native American presence remaining in California when it became a United States possession and massive development began. For tIlis reason, very little interest in the natives and their prehistory was initially generated. It was many years later before the size, complexity and extent of archaeological deposits in the state became apparent.

Ethnographic: The ethnographic Native American group living in the vicinity of Camarillo at the time of Spanish arrival is known as the Chumash. The Chumash territory included several of the Channel Islands and the coastal regions from north of San Luis Obispo to Malibu Canyon. They also controlled a large inland area extending to the Carrizo Plain and Castaic.

The Chumash subgroup residing in the Camarillo vicinity is known as the Ventura° Chumash (those Chumash groups associated with Mission San Buenaventura), the most southerly of the Chumash subgroups. The Ventura° Chumash territory, aside from the level Oxnard Plain, was 4 primarily mountainous and stretched from the headwaters of the Ventura and Santa Clara Rivers and Mt. Piflos in the north to Malibu Canyon to the east. The western boundary is placed immediately east of the headwaters of the Santa Ynez and Cuyama Rivers. To the south was the Pacific Ocean (Grant 1978a:506). The Ventura° Chumash were in contact with the Gabrielino, the people who occupied the area to the east (Bean and Smith 1978:547).

Kroeber (1925) estimated the Chumash population at 8,000 to 10,000 at first contact with the Spanish, which occurred with the arrival of the Cabrillo expedition on 12 October 1542.

Brown (1967 in Grant 1978a) estimates the population at 15,000, while Cook and Heizer (1965.21) believe 18,000 to 22,000 to be the correct figure. The Venturao Chumash population was estimated by King (1969 in Grant 1978b:519) to number between 2,500 and 4,200 in 1770.

The Chumash name originally was applied to a small group living on one of the Channel Islands, but eventually was applied to all persons living in the area described above who spoke one of several dialects belonging to a common language. The Chumash have been divided into several subgroups on the basis of linguistic variation. The language family to which they belong is part of the Hokan linguistic stock. Shipley (1978) divided the Chumash language family into two groups: the island and central groups. The Ventura° Chumash are part of the central language group including the Venturao-Emigdiano language. Barbara° language, Ynezao language and Purisimao language.

Villages were made up of several hemispherical dwellings, storehouses, one or more sweat houses, a cemetery marked off by rows of stones or planks and usually placed away from the living area, a circular ceremonial area of tule mats, and a game field surrounded by low walls (Landberg 1965 in Koerper 1987:12). Houses were sometimes as large as 15 meters in diameter and housed as many as 50-70 individuals. These dwellings were circular, constructed of poles arched together and covered with lavers of woven grass. The houses were divided into rooms and in the sleeping areas were placed beds made of wooden platforms raised above the ground (Kroeber 1925:557-58).

The Chumash fashioned exquisite baskets used for a variety of tasks. They were used as plates and bowls, seed beaters, collecting foodstuffs, straining and leaching, fishing, gambling,storage and ritual purposes. Some of the baskets were woven so tightly that they held water, and when coated with asphaltum could store water for extended periods (Miller 1988:49).

The coastal croups constructed the plank canoe, or tomo/, allowing them to regularly cross to the Channel Islands and maintain an active trade. The separate planks were lashed together and caulked with asphaltum. The canoes held, by some accounts, up to 20 people who probably employed double-bladed paddles to negotiate the sea (Kroeber 1925:558). Complex and advanced equipment for the exploitation of marine resources complemented the plank canoes.

Art flourished in the Chumash area, manifesting itself in the form of elaborate rock paintings and complex, skillfully executed artifacts of shell, bone, stone and wood. Both utilitarian tools as well as ceremonial and ritual objects were highly decorated with various dyes and binding 5 agents. Chumash rock art was the equal of any in the United States. The rock art has been associated with ritual observances and is usually found at remote locations. Cupules - pit and groove petroglyphs - are an ancient art form seen earliest in Asia. Often found near rock art sites, cupules may have been utilized to hold pigment or to serve some non-utilitarian, ritual function (Miller 1988:132-134). Pictographs usually employ a variety of colors and many are of abstract designs, perhaps suggesting that the Chumash were on the verge of a written language (Grant 1978b). Some goods were even produced by guild-like associations of part-time craft specialists (Blackburn 1975 & Hudson 1977 in Koerper 1987:11).

Village chief positions were patrilineal and hereditary, but instances are known of a daughter or sister assuming the position of a chief when no male heir was available. However, the position was always subject to the approval of the people (Grant 1978b:510-511). The power of the chief was strictly limited, usually to functions involving groups from outside the village and presiding at ceremonies. There was, though, careful attention to rank and differential access to some valued goods.

The Chumash religion was well developed and integrated into everyday life. Rituals and ceremonies were observed throughout the year, but the most important were probably those performed around the time of the winter solstice, when a large festival was held in honor of the sun, and the autumn harvest festival - a celebration of the earth as provider of all food and a time of thanksgiving. Ceremonial observances were controlled by a federation of shamans known as the 'Antup (arguably more powerful than the chiefs). This society of astronomers and astrologers was the religious leadership of the community and was responsible for a wide range of activities, including determination of the times for the various festivals and ritual observances, conducting initiation rites, forecasting the future, rainmaking, presiding over funerals and other similar functions. The bodies of deceased persons were given a wake in a sacred enclosure and were then taken by procession to the grave site. There they were buried face down in a flexed position amidst personal objects, effigies, etc. Graves were indicated by stone, wood or bone markers. Chiefs and other eminent person's graves might be decorated by a tall inscribed pole and be opulently decorated (Miller 1988:121-128).

Trade relationships between inland, coastal and island groups were well developed. Island Chumash traded, among other goods, beads, shell, fish bones, otter and seal skins, steatite, chert bifaces and baskets. In return, they would receive acorns, pine nuts, chia sage, deer and rabbit skins, bows and arrows, serpentine bowls, and obsidian from coastal groups. These coastal groups would in turn trade with inland groups who were in contact with foreign tribes to the east Davis 1974 in Miller 1988:112). This trading network increased the diversity of goods available in all Chumash territory, and led to a certain amount of craft specialization.

PREHISTORIC: Humans has been present in the New: World since perhaps 10,000 to 11,000 years B.C.E. There is growing evidence that humans were present long before that date (Dixon 1992). Linguistic and genetic studies suggest a date of 20,000 to 40,000 years ago as being more realistic (LA Times 1998). The evidence of earlier occupation is not yet conclusive, but it is 6 beginning to be accepted by archaeologists. The few generally accepted remains indicate a ‘ersmall, mobile population apparently dependant on hunting of large game animals as the primary subsistence strategy. Other sources were certainly exploited, but the bulk of the traces remaining today are related to game hunting. (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984; Moratto 1984).

Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984) identify the earliest portion of the archaeological sequence (to about 9,000 B.C.E.) as the Pa/co-Indian Period. The surviving material culture of this period consists primarily of large, extremely well made projectile points, and large but crude tools such as scrapers and choppers. Encampments were never permanent, and were probably sited near a major kill Occupation would have persisted only until the resources of that kill were exhausted.

Such an economy, using only a small fraction of the available resources, would not have supported a large population. It is probable that the Paleo-Indians lived in groups no larger than extended families and that contact with other such groups was infrequent.

The cultural sequence of the Chumash precursors has been long studied. Several chronologies have been produced for the area that depend on successive waves of migration to account for perceived rapid changes in material culture. These chronologies were refined after World War II when radiocarbon dating became available. Within recent decades, a reasonably complete chronology has emerged that has abandoned the notion that migration played a significant role in material culture change.

The first useful chronology was developed by Wallace (1955), who described four periods applicable to the southern California coastal region. Wallace's earliest period - Early fan - (Paleo Indian Period) was dated from an unknown time near the end of the Pleistocene to about 5,500 B.C.E. and is described above.

The succeeding period identified by Wallace is labeled the Alillingstone Period- so named because of the predominant lithic tools associated with it. These tools (the mano and metate) were used to process the small, hard seeds associated with the Sage Scrub Ecological Community. Settlement size seems to have increased from the Early Man Period. An annual round of seasonal migrations was likely practiced as movements coincided with ripening vegetal resources. Some formal burials are also evident. This successful adaptation to local conditions persisted essentially unchanged until approximately 3,000 B.C.E.

The Millingstone was followed, in Wallace's scheme, by the Intermediate Period. The major change in the Intermediate was the introduction of the mortar and pestle, allowing for the widespread exploitation of the acorn as a food resource. Population growth was a result of the availability of a wider range of resources.

Wallace's final phase is termed the Late Prehistoric Period. In the Late Prehistoric, groups began to center around trade routes and there was a greater utilization of food resources with more land and sea mammal hunting to complement collecting. The pattern of life in this Late Horizon was more complex. More classes of artifacts were being produced and they exhibited a more sophisticated degree of workmanship. The observation that the bow and arrow was now 7 utilized to a greater extent is based on the recovery of a greater number of small, finely chipped projectile points. Other items include steatite containers, shell fishhooks. perforated stones, bone tools, personal ornaments, asphalt adhesive and elaborate mortuary customs. In addition, the population increased and larger villages evolved (Wallace 1955:223). Late sites contain beautiful and complex objects of utility, art and decoration. Most of the rock art found today in the Chumash sphere is thought to date to this 'period.

Chester King (1981) produced a detailed analysis of Chumash chronology from burial lot seriation. It is based primarily on changes in the frequency of shell artifact types over time.

With some refinement based on new knowledge, it is still valid today.

King proposed a basic three period division - Early, Middle and Late - that he subdivided several times based on discernable changes in artifact typologies over time. The Early Period in King's framework includes Wallace's (1955) Millingstone Horizon and approximately half of the Intermediate Horizon. During its initial phase, hunting continued as the primary subsistence strategy. Projectile points were large, but not as well made as in the Paleo-Indian Period. Many of the tools can be interpreted as those necessary for the exploitation of wood and fibers for use as clothing, shelter and similar utilitarian objects. There was also a reliance on marine resources, as attested by shell mounds in the coastal regions.

Around 5500 B.C.E. a major change in subsistence strategy occurred. Less dependence was placed on animal resources and more on plant resources. Manos and metates appear in large numbers for the first time. Bone awls appear at roughly the same time, perhaps indicating that basketry was then being produced. Marine resources continued to be utilized.

Greater reliance on seeds and ocean resources meant that a given group could follow the same general route from year to year as resources in different areas ripened and became available.

This led to increased isolation from nearby groups and eventually to noticeable differences in artifact typology. The Channel Islands were first colonized to a significant degree at this time The mortar and pestle appeared near the end of this period, allowing utilization of the acorn as a food resource. This plentiful resource accounts for the increase in population. Leisure time also increased, as indicated by growing numbers of non-utilitarian objects of art, ritual and decoration.

Evidence of trade becomes pronounced during the later phases of the Early Period. Steatite from the Channel Islands and obsidian from inland areas are found at most sites.

King's Middle Period, beginning about 1250 B.C.E., comprises the second half of Wallace's Intermediate Horizon and the beginning of the Late Prehistoric Horizon. The period is characterized by an increase in the number and types of shell beads and personal ornaments. Of particular note is the change from rectangular to circular Halioris and Olivellu beads. The annual round settlement pattern was still used in the early Middle Period, but permanently occupied settlements may' have been the norm by the end of the period. 8 King's Lute Period begins about 1100 CE., well into Wallace's Late Prehistoric Horizon (Koerper 1987:21). It saw the introduction of Olive callus beads and dam disk and cylinder beads There was a steady increase in the population during the period, and objects of art and decoration became still more frequent. Shell beads became a medium of exchange during the Late Period and became far more common in burials of persons who were apparently high in the social order.

HISTORIC: It was near Ventura, on 12 October 1542, at the Village of.c'i.co/op (probably the largest and most important of the Ventureno settlements), that Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo first encountered major groups of coastal California Native Americans. He declared the country a possession of the Crown of Spain and named the village Pueblo de las Canoas, after the many canoes that came to meet his arriving ships. The Spaniards were warmly welcomed by the Chumash with a feast and the villagers traded their goods to the Spanish for glass beads (Grant 1978b:518).

The expedition of Gaspar de Portold, the first overland expedition through Alta California, was undertaken in 1769 with the objective of founding a presidio and a mission at San Diego and negotiating a route to the north. San Diego was to be used as a starting point for the establishment of a colony at Monterey. The first of 21 California missions, San Diego de Alcala was founded on 16 July 1769 (Castillo 1978:100). After traveling through Southern California and encountering numerous Native American peoples along the way, Portold's group reached the village of Santa Clara (near Fillmore) and there first met members of the Venturerio Chumash.

As Portold traveled down the Santa Clara River to the coast, he encountered the village of Sdolop and realized it was the same village described by Cabrillo more than 200 years earlier (Grant 1978b:518). In 1782, Mission San Buenaventura, the second of the Chumash missions, was founded by Father Junipero Serra at the site of the village (Koerper 1987).

The Spanish and Mexican governments granted several large local tracts of land to individuals, usually for services rendered. One of these, the Calleguas Rancho, was granted to the Ruiz family, but was acquired by Juan Camarillo. The city of Camarillo is named for this family of early settlers (Sheridan 1926). Strangely, perhaps as a result of surveying errors, a 1,003 acre tract containing the study area, was not part of any of the land grants, so 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 has a post office, hotel, store, blacksmith shop, school and church, as well as numerous residences. The Santa Clara Ditch, which brought water from the river to Rancho Colonia, south of the study area, passed through Springville.

Prominent citizens included Reverend W. W. Wood, the driving force behind construction of the Springville church, and Mr. J. B. Palin, an early noted stock breeder.

Most of Springville had disappeared by 1926. By that date even the church had been abandoned 9 and was in disrepair (Howell-North 1961). Even though only scattered, isolated residences are now found within Springville, the name appears on the current edition of the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle (see page 2).

The Project Historian, Mr. Timothy Gregory, completed additional research relative to the history of Springville. His discussion is found in Attachment A.

METHODS
The project utilized a combination of archival and field research. A literature review of documents filed at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), University of California, Los Angeles was accomplished by Dina Rachal, Assistant Coordinator of the Information Center. The cover letter from the literature search is contained in Attachment C.

The author examined other studies pertinent to the project at the RBF offices and completed other research at the library. University of California, Irvine.

The Project Historian visited the project area and documented the two complexes of historic buildings on and adjacent to the property. He also completed archival research at the Ventura County Assessor's Office, the library of the Ventura County Museum of History and Art and the central branch of the Los Angeles Public Library (Gregory 1999). This report was prepared during the last week of January 1999 and supersedes an October 1998 report titled Literature Review, Airport NortlyU.S. Route 101 lnterchantze. Camarillo, Ventura County, California, by RMW Paleo Associates.

Mr. Pat Maxon, RMW staff archaeologist. visited the site area and examined all open areas south of U.S. Route 101. An examination of the northern areas was not made. since a recent examination of that area is on file (Maki 1994).

FINDINGS
The research for the study led to the following information:

The study area contains no visible prehistoric archaeological deposits. The area north of U.S. Route 101 was examined by Maki (1994), while the area south of U.S. Route 101 was examined by Pat Maxon, RMW Staff Archaeologist.

One complex of historic structures has been recorded in the area north of U.S.

Route 101. The Primary Number assigned to this complex is 56-150001. This complex was first recorded by Maki (1994), and a supplemental record was prepared by Mr. Tim Gregory during the course of the current project.

A complex of buildings in the area south of U.S. Route 101 was examined and recorded. The Primary Number assigned to this complex is 56-152749. The recording was accomplished by Mr. Tim Gregory during the current project. • A complex of prehistoric archaeological sites is located a short distance to the west of the northern part of the study area. Only limited excavation has been accomplished on one discreet portion of these sites.
10 All of the study area is within the limits of the 1800s village of Springville.

DISCUSSION/INTERPRETATION
Within the study area are two known building complexes that are of sufficient age to be considered historic. The first of these lies to the north of U. S. Route 101, and has been recorded (Primary Number 56-150001). The researcher who recorded the site offered no evaluation of the importance of the complex, but did state that some of the buildings may predate 1900 (Maki 1994). The site was visited by Mr. Tim Gregory, Project Historian, during the current project.

Gregory prepared a supplemental site recording form for the site. Copies of both site records are contained in Confidential Attachment D.

Gregory determined that two elements of PN 56-150001 (a farmhouse and a 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 so eligible. A detailed history of the complex is found in Gregory (1999), Attachment A of this report.

PN 56-150001 will not be directly impacted by the proposed project. It will be exposed to significant secondary impacts. The viewshed of the site will be greatly altered by the nearby street construction. The construction of Ponderosa Drive will bisect the property and isolate the two contributing elements of the historic district (the farmhouse and packing plant) from each other.

The other complex lies to the south of U. S. Route 101. Existence of the complex was known from an environmental assessment completed by ENSR Corporation (1998). The ENSR report states that the complex is visible on 1945 aerial photographs 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 feet concrete foundation that was once a storage shed.

The southern building complex was visited by the Project Historian during the current project.

He completed a site record for the complex, completed archival research relative to the site and performed an evaluation. The Primary Number assigned to this resource is PN 56-152749. The site was determined to be not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places due to lack of unique features and important historical associations. Please see Gregory (1999), Attachment A of this report, for further details. The site recording forms are contained in Confidential Attachment D. Current planning for interchange construction indicates that PN 56- 152749 will be destroyed during construction.

A cluster of archaeological sites is known to exist to the immediate west of the northern end of the study area. One excavation project has been completed at these sites. Bissell (1991) concluded that the southern part of the site nearest the study area (CA-VEN-223) was redeposited from up slope (north) and of no importance. The bulk of the site, which has not been excavated, lies slightly farther north in a citrus grove. The importance of the archaeological sites must be considered as not established, given the scant excavation work, 11 excepting only the small portion of CA-VEN-223 explored by Bissell, which has been determined to be not important.

The archaeological sites are an unknown quantity, insofar as their importance is concerned The sites will not be impacted by the proposed project, and require no further consideration unless project parameters are changed in a way that will include the sites within the area to be disturbed by construction.

There may be important remains associated with the prior village of Springville. Most of the area occupied by Springville is in agricultural production, so any intact deposits (privy pits, wells or trash dumps, for example) would have to be below the plow zone and probably not visible from the surface. The same may be true for the Santa Clara Ditch. If this feature was merely filled in when it was abandoned, some portion may be preserved at depth. Unless the ditch was lined, it max' not be distinguishable

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Other than the two existing building complexes (PN 56-150001 and PN 56-152749) no historic or prehistoric remains are visible on the surface of the study area. It is likely that historic remains associated with the once town of Springville exist within the study area, but agricultural activity will certainly have disrupted the upper portions. It is also possible that prehistoric remains exist in the subsurface of the study area.

PN 56-150001 has been determined to be an important resource, eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, ,The site \\ illbe subjected to significant secondar impacts due to street construction.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The only known prehistoric sites in the project vicinity lie to the west of the northern part of the study area and well outside the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The sites need not be further considered unless project parameters are so changed to bring them within the APE.

2. The building complex south of U.S. Route 101 (PN 56-152749) need be given no further consideration, since it has been evaluated as not important.

3. The building complex to the north of U.S. Route 101 (PN 56-150001) has been determined to be an important resource. The following recommendations are paraphrased from the historical report (Gregory 1999). Only one of the recommendations need be applied. The recommendations are presented below in order of decreasing desirability:

Redesign the project to reduce the impact to site PN 56-150001. Airport North Road should be moved farther east to provide a buffer between it and the farmhouse's east side. If possible. the extension of Ponderosa Drive should be 12 moved farther north to avoid bisecting the fail 1 property and isolating the packing plant from its association with the farmhouse. If necessary, all structures within the complex, excepting only the farmhouse and packing plant, can be removed, since these are non-contributing elements of the district.

If the roads cannot be relocated, landscaped berms should be constructed to shield site PN 56-150001 from excessive noise and, as much as possible, from visual changes to the site. The packing plant should be disassembled and relocated southward on the remaining acreage of the farm to a site that would be considered historically accurate. Thought should also be given to restoration and adaptation of the farmhouse to a use that would be more consonant with its new surroundings. Again, if necessary, all structures within the complex, excepting only the farmhouse and packing plant, can be removed.

4. An archaeologist should monitor grading for the project. The monitoring archaeologist will record, evaluate and properly treat any historic or prehistoric deposits that may appear. This may require diversion of grading in discreet areas while the necessary archaeological research is completed.

Ronald M. Bissell, R.P.A.

Principal Investigator

1.3 REFERENCES CITED
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the GSA Interagency Training Center 1994 Introduction to Federal Projects and Historic Preservation Law, Participant's Desk Reference: Legislation, Regulations, Guidelines and Related Information about Historic Preservation Policies and Requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1996.

Bissell, Ronald M.
1991 Test Excavation Completed Near the Southern Boundary of CA-VEN-223, Ventura County, California. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles.

Castillo, Edward, D.
1978 The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement. Handbook of North American Indians: California. Robert F. Heizer, editor, Vol. 8, pp. 99-127.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Chartkoff, Joseph L. & Kerry K. Chartkoff
1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Cook, Sherburne 8z, Robert F. Heizer
1965 • The Quantitative Approach to the Relations Between Population and Settlement Size.

University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 64: 1-97. Berkeley.

Dixon, E. James
1993 Quest for the Origins of the First Americans. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque
Elkins, Gayle
1996 Oxnard Quick Facts (World Wide Web Document). ITRL http://www/ci.oxnard.ca.us/locationand statistics.html.

ENSR Corporation
1998 Airport North Interchange Area, Camarillo, California, Phase I Environmental Assessment, Draft Report. On file at RBF.

Governor's Office of Planning and Research
1998 California Environmental Quality Act Statues and Guidelines. Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Sacramento, California.
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/rev/approved.html
Grant, Campbell.
1978a Chumash: Introduction. Handbook of North American Indians: California. Robert F.

Heizer, editor, Vol. 8, pp. 505-508. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 14 1978b Eastern Coastal Chumash. Handbook of North American Indians: California.

Robert F. Heizer, editor, Vol. 8, pp.509-519. Smithsonian institution, Washington D.C.

Gregory, Tim
1999 Historic Resources Technical Report, Site of Proposed Airport Road/U.S. Route 101 Interchange, Camarillo, California. Attachment A of this report.

Heusser, Linda
1978 Pollen in the Santa Barbara Basin, California: A 12,000 Year Record. Geological Society o Ai whet' Bulletin, Number 89, pp. 673-678.

Howell-North (Publisher)
1961 Reproduction of Thompson and West's History of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, California and Biographical Sketches of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers.

Howell-North, Berkelev.

King, Chester D
1981 The Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before A.D. 1804. PhD.

Dissertation, University of California. Davis.

Koerper, Henry C.
1987 Characterization of Cultural Resources at CA-VEN-782 and an Unrecorded Rock Shelter at Hopetown Village. Simi Valley, California: A Phase Ii Document. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles.

Kroeber, Alfred J.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of Calif( 71U. Dover Publications inc. New York.

Los Angeles Times, Orange County Edition
1998 America's First Immigrants. Article in LA Times, Orange County Edition, 26 March 1998.

Maki, Mary
1994 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of 292 Acres for the Ponderosa Specific Plan, Camarillo, Ventura County, California. On file at the South Central Coastal information Center, University of California, Los Angeles.

Miller, B. W.
1988 Chumash: A Picture of their I.Vorici. Sand River Press, Los Osos, California. 15 Moran°, Michael J
1984 California ArchueolotTv. Academic Press, San Diego.

Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
1994 National Register of Historic Places. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Sheridan, Solomon Neill
1926 History of Ventura County, California. S.J. Clarke Publishing Company, Chicago.

Shipley, W. F.
1978 Native Languages of California. Handbook of North American Indians: California.

Robert F. Heizer, editor, Vol. 8, pp. 80-90. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Troxell, Harold C. and Walter Hofmann
1954 Hydrology of the Los Angeles Region, In: Geology of Southern California:

California Division of Mines Bulletin 170, Chapter VI:5-12.

Wallace, William
1955 A Suggested Chronolog for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal ofAnihropolos,ry, 11: 214-230.
16 ATTACHMENT A

HISTORICAL REPORT

THE BUILDING

BIOGRAPHER
TIM. GUEGOIRY
• Building Histories
• Cultural Resource Studies
• Historic Resources Surveys
• Local, Stale, and National Landrnarking
• Ilistc.nic..-; Pie:.••ervation and Archival Consulting HISTORIC RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT:

SITE OF PROPOSED
AIRPORT NORTH ROAD/U.S. ROUTE 101 INTERCHANGE

CAMARILLO, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

RMW Paleo Associates
23392 Madero, Suite L
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
January 25, 1999
Tel/Fax: (626) 792-7465
[email protected]
400 East Ca1ifon-11u Boulevard, i/3 • Pasadena, California 91106-3763

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Project Description 2
II. Identification of the Resources 2
111. The Historic Context 7
IV. Evaluation of the Historic Significance of the Resources 9 V. Findings of Effect and Recommended Mitigation Measures 10 VI. Sources 12
Appendix 1 CEQA, NHPA, and California Register Requirements (General Information) 15
Appendix 2 Identification of Existing Resources and Their Historic Context (Background) 18
Appendix 3 Evaluation of Historic Resources (Background) 21 Appendix 4 Findings of Effect and Recommended Mitigation Measures (Background) 24
Appendix 5 Maps 26
Appendix 6 Photographs 27
Appendix 7 DPR 523 Forms and Photographs 30
Appendix 7 is located in Confidential Attachment D of main report. 2 I. Project Description
This is a technical report on the historic resources found at the site of the proposed Airport North Road/U.S. Route 101 interchange at the western city limits of Camarillo, Ventura County, California. The client requires an evaluation of the historic resources found there and a summary of any alternatives which may be needed to reduce the project's impacts on these resources.

Note: This report should be consulted in conjunction with the report prepared in October 1998 by RMW Paleo Associates, entitled "Literature Review, Airport North/U.S. Route 101 Interchange, Camarillo, Ventura County, California"(RMW project number 98-1292).

The purpose of this report is to assist RMW Paleo Associates in their determination of the historical significance of the resources and whether any future changes to them will constitute a significant environmental impact as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The five steps necessary in such a study are: 1) identification of the resources; 2) identification of the resources' historic context, 3) evaluation of the historic significance of the resources; 4) determination (findings) of the proposed project's effect on any significant resources; and 5) recommendation of project alternatives or mitigation measures to minimize the project's possible negative effects.
(Please see Appendix 1 for a more detailed discussion of the CEQA and NI-IPA requirements governing this process.)
In summary, this technical report contains the synopsis of the consultant's cultural resources identification and evaluation investigation within the project site, in compliance with CEQA and California Public Resources Code Sec. 5024 and 5024.5 at the State level. Sections of this report discuss the Identification of the Resources, the Historic Context, Evaluation of Historic Resources, Findings of Effect and Recommended Mitigation Measures, and Sources.

Background discussions of the various phases of the CEQA process are appended as are California Historic Resources Inventory (DPR 523) forms prepared as a result of the investigation.

II. Identification of the Resources
(Please see Appendix 2 for a background discussion on the identification and historic context phase of the CEQA process.)
Methodology: A field visit to the project site was carried out on January 19, 1999. Existing structures, traces of earlier structures, and amenities were observed, described, and photogr hed.

Research was undertaken after the site visit in order to further identify the history of the structures and their context. The first step was an investigation of the site's age and a chain of ownership through a search of the "building packets" at the Ventura County Assessor's Office. 3 Further research was conducted at the library of the Ventura County Museum of History and Art located in Ventura, California and at the central branch of the Los Angeles Public Library, the oldest public library collection in Southern California. As many additional resources as possible within realistic time and budget constraints were also investigated and are listed under Sources (Section VI).

The research on the site is reported below and is also summarized on DPR 523 forms appended at the end of this report. In completing the forms, the consultant followed the "Instructions For Recording Historical Resources" issued by the California Office of Historic Preservation in March 1995. Note: The historical resources located at 585 West Daily Drive (APN 157-020-150) were previously recorded on a DPR form in June 1994 and were given a primary number of 56-150001 by the State Office of Historic Preservation. The form for the property included here is intended as an update of that earlier recordation.

Physical Description.

A) The property identified as APN 230-010-200 (incorrectly identified on the map furnished the consultant as 230-001-200) has no street address posted or on record with the Ventura County Assessor. On the north end of the parcel, approximately 75 feet south of Ventura Boulevard (the frontage road south of the U.S. 101 freeway) is a basically rectangular residential building designed in the California Ranch style. It has a side-facing gable roof. There is a small wine projecting at the southeast corner. The roof is covered with corrugated material, underneath which older wood shinales are visible. Vertically-oriented rectangular venting is located in each gable-end. The walls are stucco with a vertical board-and-batten veneer appearing between the windows on the west end of the north (front) facade and along the east facade as a decorative element. Mock wooden shutters appear beside the windows on the east and west ends of the front facade. These shutters have a diamond-shaped raised portion in the center between two cross-pieces. The building's windows are metal casement and have four panes, except for the major window on the front facade that has one large pane with five panes to each side. Smaller multi-paned windows appear on the east and west facades. Three concrete steps lead to the single front door which now has a security screen. The concrete stoop at the door's threshold is unsheltered but has a wooden railing to each side which appears to be an addition. Images of this resource, looking south, can be found in Appendix 6, Photographs 1 and 2.

To the east of the residence are two adjacent rectangular, weathered concrete pads. (Photograph 3) The site is surrounded by a line of mixed pepper, laurel, jacaranda, and date palm trees.

Succulents and potted plants appear closer to the house. Remains of a deciduous orchard appear on the west side of the house. The plot on which the house sits is surrounded by strawberry fields that reach south to the Camarillo Airport and to the east and west for several hundred yards.

B) The property identified as 585 West Daily Drive (APN 157-020-150) contains a cluster of historic resources on an approximately one-acre site located among strawberry fields approximately one-half mile north of a dirt road known as Daily Drive that parallels the 4 northbound (at this point actually westbound) lanes of the U.S. 101 freeway. The cluster of resources is approached by a dirt road that runs directly north off Daily Drive. Photograph 4 in Appendix 6 is a view northwest from the junction of the dirt road with Daily Drive. Photograph 5 shows the view southeastwards from the resources.

The major resource is a basically slightly rectangular one-story farmhouse of 1,700 square feet designed in a style reminiscent of Queen Anne Victorian. It has a steeply-sloped hipped composition roof that is surmounted by a flat area that probably once supported the decorative metal railings of a "widow's walk." There are two tall brick mid-roof chimneys; the one on the east side has a corbeled top, while the other, on the north side, is broken off a foot or two below the top. The roof has a shallow boxed eave with a heavily molded cornice (containing the guttering system) that is supported by decorative carved brackets arranged in groups of three. A continuous band of wood, creating a fascia, surrounds the house just below the eave-line. The walls are clad in tongue-in-groove siding, and the corners are finished with vertical timbers.

Windows, which are wood sash with a mix of plain and multi-paned glass, tend to be narrow and have lintels topped by carved molding
Since the house is built on a slope, the south (front) facade of the house (Photograph 6) sits quite high off the ground above a basement area that has been walled with vertical timbers. The from facade seems currently to be unused as the main entrance to the residence. The former entry porch projects from the main body of the house and has its own set-back gable roof. The recessed gable-end is clad in diamond-shaped shingles, and in the center is a rectangular, framed vent that consists of a mesh of small holes. The front facade is symmetrical, the projecting porch flanked by two plain sash windows at each side on the main body of the house. The porch roof is supported by four doric columns that rise above paneled bases. The porch, once open, has now been enclosed behind multi-paned windows, and a door has been set into the central opening. The porch is approached by nine concrete steps with solid balusters.

The west facade of the house (Photograph 7) has a three-sided projecting bay at its southern end, each wall of the bay having a plain sash window centered in it. To the north of the bay is a single door which has a band of three sash windows immediately adjacent to it to the north. On the rear (north) wall of the house (Photograph 8) is another single door that is off-center to the east, having one window to its east and two to its west. These narrow windows are also sash, but each sash has two vertically-oriented rectangular panes. The door has a projecting gabled and pedimented roof sheltering it. This roof is supported by pairs of turned columns and engaged pilasters. The roof was later extended by a lean-to type of shelter supported by plain wood posts.

Balusters of spindle-work appear at each side of the stoop. The east facade consists of three single sash windows, evenly placed along the wall. Like those on the north facade, these windows have a total of four panes.

Immediately adjacent to the house towards the northeast is a former garage, now used as a residence. This basically square building has a front-facing gabled roof covered in composition material. The eaves are open, with exposed rafter-tails. The walls have tongue-in-groove siding with finished corners. The original opening for automobiles, on the north facade, has been filled 5 in with wood siding into which a window and door have been inserted (Photograph 9). On the east side (Photograph 10) there is a newer window, although the paneled wooden door at its southern end seems to be original. A wooden lean-to carport has been attached to the south side.

A mobile home has been parked very near the east side of the former garage and is also used as a living space.

Immediately adjacent to the house towards the northwest is a guest-house (Photograph 11). It has a front-facing gable, again clad in composition material. The eaves are open with exposed rafter-tails. The walls are clapboard-sided and the corners are finished with vertical timbers. A brick chimney appears on the south side. The single entrance door is on the east side and has one sash window to its north. A concrete-block, flat-roofed structure has been built onto the south side of the guest-house. It has a chimney at its southwest corner. (Photograph 12) Approximately 300 feet north of the farmhouse is a 1 1/2 -story rectangular packing-house, with a dirt floor, measuring approximately 45 by 20 feet. It has a side-facing gabled roof clad in corrugated metal, although the original wood shingles appear underneath in places. The east and west walls are open, while the north and south walls consist of rough-hewn vertical planking.

Openings in each gable-end allowed for ventilation and possible for the entry of produce into a now non-existent second story. The building is supported by a post-and-beam configuration of timbers that is completely open to view. (Photograph 13) Approximately 25 feet southeast of the packing-house is a 1 1/2-story barn, measuring approximately 35 by 20 feet (Photographs 14 and 15). Its front (west) facade is a wall of vertically placed planks, while the other three facades are of board-and-batten construction. The roof is a front-facing gable and is clad in corrugated metal, under which wood shingles are visible.

A shed-roof extension abuts the north end of the main roof, while the south end of the main roof slopes down continuously to a level below that of the north end. A square ventilating hole appears in the gable-end. There are hinged double-doors on each end of the front facade with a single door just to the north of the south set of double-doors. On the interior, the roof is trusssupported. The barn is divided by east-west wooden walls into three equally-sized rooms. The floor of the most southerly room is concrete, the other two being made of wood.

Immediately adjacent to the south of the barn is a cabin-like former residence with tongue-ingroove horizontal siding on its front (west) facade and vertical board-and-batten walls on its other facades. (Photographs 16 and 17) Many of the batten detailing is missing on the south facade.

The roof is a side-facing saltbox aable, the rear of which slopes down further than the front. It is clad in corrugated metal. The front facade is symmetrical, consisting of a central single door flanked by two window openings. The rear of the residence has a door that is exactly opposite the front door. The south facade has a single door with a window opening to its south. There are four rooms in this former residence; the main room has a tongue-in-groove ceiling. This building is basically square, measuring approximately 20 feet on each side.

Both the barn and the former residence are positioned above ground-level and are supported by posts that are newer looking. This may indicate that both structures were moved to this location 6 during recent times.

Approximately 30 feet to the southeast of the former residence is a one-story rectangular workshop building that measures approximately 30 by 18 feet. (Photographs 18 and 19) It is attached to the side of the former residence by a low concrete-block wall atop which is a concrete platform that is now used as a basketball half-court. The workshop has a corrugated metal sidefacing gable roof and board-and-batten side and rear walls, although much of the batten detailing is missing. The rear wall rests on a concrete-block half-wall. The front (south) facade consists of two large openings for vehicles that can be covered with sliding wooden doors, the metal track for which is still evident above the openings. Workbenches and storage shelves appear along the interior walls. The roof is truss-supported, and the floor is concrete.

Between the packing-house and the barn are a sheet-steel water tank (Photograph 20) and an abandoned outhouse (Photograph 21). • The tank is round and has a conical metal roof. It sits on a wooden platform and has a spigot near the bottom. To the south of the tank, resting against a tree. is an upturned concrete pipe still embedded in a concrete base. This may have been a wellhead. The outhouse is a square wooden structure, once painted red, with a shed roof. It is now listing prominently toward the south. It was well-made, with tongue-in-groove siding, finished corners, and screen venting at the top of each wall. The door is framed with a Z-shaped pattern of boards on its inner side. The outhouse still has a concrete commode with a wooden lid. A venting pipe extends from the back of the commode through the roof.

Mature pepper trees dot the site of these buildings. Other structures on the property, not described here, include chicken coops and wooden storage shelters.

History:

A) The residence on A_PN 230-010-200 was built in 1953, according to the Ventura County Assessor, and its architectural style is consistent with that date. The first owner of the house was John D. Friedrich, a descendent of one of the area's founding German immigrant families.

Friedrich no longer owns the property; it now belongs to the Mary E. Ferro Trust, based in Camarillo, and the house is a rental. Improvements appear on the property in a 1904 topographic map and in an aerial photograph taken in 1945. However, these earlier improvements no longer exist, except possibly for the concrete pads easterly of the house that were once the floors of a storage sheds and/or a garage.

B) According to the Ventura County Assessor, the oldest improvements on the property at 585 West Dailey Drive (APN 157-020-150) date from 1904. However, it is the consultant's opinion, based on the architectural style of the farmhouse, that it is somewhat older, possibly dating from the 1890s. The house and some out-buildings do appear on the 1904 topographic map of the area.

Edward Scholle was the owner of the property when the house was built. A deed found in the collection of the Ventura County Museum of History and Art reveals that Scholle, a member of 7 one of the area's early German immigrant families, purchased 153.48 acres from Christopher and Elizabeth Reiman on March 22, 1895. Scholle paid $9,344.19 for Lots 1, 2, 3,4, and 5 in Section 28--the east half of the section. Later he was to own another 81 acres adjacent to the south across Conejo Road (now U.S. 101). The map of the Springville School District contained in the Historical Atlas Of Ventura County indicates Scholle remained the owner of all this property in 1911, the year the atlas was published. Edward Scholle was one of five siblings who emigrated with their parents from Nessellrode, Germany in 1884. The family first purchased 100 acres in what is now El Rio, but eventually each of the children established his own farm. An extant photograph of the Oxnard house of Ignatz Scholle, Edward's brother, shows a great similarity to the house that Edward built on his farm. Since Ignatz' home was constructed in 1897, it can be assumed that Edward's home was built around the same time--a supposition supported by its architectural style.

By the 1970s, the former Scholle property was no longer a family-operated farm. It was previously owned by the Forest Lawn Company of Glendale and, since 1979, by Rancho Associates of Los Angeles. The old farmhouse is rented out to the farm's caretaker, and is in poor but restorable condition.

Although the farmhouse was probably built in the mid-1890s, the years of construction of the other improvements on the former Scholle farm are unknown. It is unclear from the 1904 topographic map whether any of the still-extant structures appear on it. The building file for the property at the office of the Ventura County Assessor contains a photograph of the house dating probably from the 1940s, but its angle is not wide enough to show the other structures. The Assessor's file indicates that a reassessment was made in 1953 for new construction. This was probably when the guest-house and garage were built. As mentioned in the Physical Description section above, the barn and abandoned residence appear to have been moved to their present site and there is no indication of their former location or whether they may even have been brought in from another farm. The packina-house, workshop, and abandoned outhouse are probably over fifty years old, judging from their mode of construction and current physical condition.

HI. The Historic Context
As discussed in Appendix 2, in order to assess previously recorded and as yet unevaluated cultural resources, a historic context must be developed, revolving around a theme, place, and time.

Then, it is possible to evaluate and study the identified cultural resources within the research framework of the historic context.

The archaeological report by RMAN Paleo Associates, cited in Section 1 above, discusses the history of the site during prehistoric and early historic times (Bissell 3-9). This information will not be repeated here.

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 U.S. 101 (historically known as Conejo Road, then Springville Road, and, later, as 8 Ventura Boulevard) Springville was centered around the intersection of Conejo Road and Wood Road, about 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, because of it shape, as "The Gore." Also known by the more attractive name of "Pleasant Valley," the Gore was bounded on the north by Rancho Las Posas, on the south by La Colonia, on the west by Rancho del Norte and on the east by Rancho Calleguas. Before agricultural enterprise transformed it, the landscape was reported to have been covered with "wild mustard standing ten to twelve feet high" (Miedema).

By some accident, this tract, with its fertile soil, was never a part of any Spanish land grant, and so was open to colonization from earliest times by American patent-holders. Springville was founded in the 1870s on ninety acres of farm-land owned by John Sebastian. h probably got its name from the many flowing springs that existed on the adjacent Rancho Las Posas, which means "Ranch of the Springs."
A precise year cannot be given to Sprinaville's start. Christian Borchard, a German immigrant. settled on La Colonia in 1867; W. A. Hughes, the Arnold family, and others arrived between 1868 and 1869. The area, and, in fact, much of the Oxnard Plain was settled extensively by German immigrant families, such as the Borchards, with names like Maulhardt, Friedrich, Scholle, Kohler, Kruckenbera, and Otte. By 1870, the need was felt for the establishment of a commercial area that would include a general store and a blacksmith shop. 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. It is unknown whether this move was made because Springville was a growing community at the time, or whether the move made it a growing community. A post office was established at Springville in 1875 (Ventura Co. Historical Society Quarterly 1972). 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 (Morrison 17). The Springville School District was formed in 1887 and a school-house constructed (Brotherton).

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. Barley, corn, wheat, sheep, and hogs were the principal products, and a few deciduous orchards were set out on a domestic rather than a commercial scale.

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 last enterprise, a blacksmith shop, went out of business 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 9 products springing up around its Southern Pacific rail stop (Sheridan 420). Likewise, the town of Somis. near the center of the former Las Posas arant, became the shipping center for that ranch and the center of activity for the prosperous farmers of the area.

The Springville Baptist Church, built by W. 0. Wood in 1879, was in use for some thirty years.

For another thirty 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 the community had stood reverted to farming, the main crops being lima beans, sugar beets, walnuts, apricots, and citrus (Morrison 18). Post-World War II suburbanization and the growth of the Camarillo Airport have steadily diminished open spaces and agricultural land uses in the area.

Themes of the Historic Context: Aariculture, 1870- , Springville; Agriculture, 1900- Camarillo.

Associated Resource Attributes: Farm'Ranch
IV. Evaluation of the Historic Significance of the Resources (Please see Appendix 3 for a background discussion on the evaluation phase of the CEQA process.)
6 Using the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) which, as Appendix 3 explains, are also commonly accepted by the California Office of Historic Preservation for the California Register of Historical Resources, the consultant must determine the significance of identified resources on the project site
A) APN 230-010-200: The residence. built in 1953, has just reached the 45-year age limit which makes it potentially 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 really has no historical connection to it. Likewise. its original owner, although 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 (association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history). Its architecture, although not radically altered over the interv,enina years, is not unique for its time; there are many houses in the California Ranch style that still exist in the immediate area. Therefore, the building 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).

Summary of Significance:

As a structure: of no local sianificance under NRHP criteria A and C. 10 Integrity: Good
Evaluation code: 6Z (Found ineligible for listing on the National Register) B) 585 West Daily Drive (APN 157-020-150): This cluster of resources is of interest historically.

However, the barn and cabin-like former residence are probably move-ons from another site (and perhaps even from 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 levels of integrity are poor. The workshop is of indeterminate age and is of a style 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, probably in the 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, not 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 of significance. again because it is the only structure of its type surviving in the area. Therefore, these buildings 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).

Summary of Significance:

As structures (farmhouse and packing-house): of major local significance under NRHP criteria A and C.

Integrity: Poor, but intact and restorable
Evaluation code: 3D (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 and appears eligible for listing)
V. Findings of Effect and Recommended Mitigation Measures (Please see Appendix 4 for a background discussion on this phase of the CEQA process.) If the consultant finds that a proposed project will have an adverse effect on any significant 11 resource situated on the project site, he must assess the extent of the effect and recommend possible mitigation measures which could range from "No Project" to architectural documentation before demolition.

A) APN 230-010-200: The proposed project will remove the resources now occupying this site.

Since these resources have been found ineligible for the National Register, no mitigation measures are necessary.

B) 585 West Daily Drive (APN 157-020-150): The farmhouse and packing-house on this property both appear to be eligible for the National Register as a district. The proposed project will indirectly impact the farmhouse, as both the new Airport North Road and the extension of Ponderosa Drive are planned to come within several yards of its east and north sides. The view shed southeastwards from the farmhouse will also be severely impacted. The proposed project will also indirectly impact the packing-house, as the extension of Ponderosa Drive will come within a few feet of its south side and will cut it off completely from the Scholle farm property.

Recommended mitigation measures follow, in decreasing order of desirability:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 41: It is strongly recommended that the project be redesigned to lessen the impact on the farm-site. The Airport North Road should be moved further east to provide a buffer between it and the farmhouse's east side. If possible, the extension of Ponderosa Drive should be moved further north to avoid bisecting the farm property and cutting off the packing-house from its "parent" farm.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 42: If the roads cannot be relocated, landscaped berms should be constructed to shield the farmhouse from excessive noise and, as much as possible, from visual changes to the site. The packing-house should be disassembled and relocated southwards on the remaining acreage of the farm to a site that would be considered historically accurate. Thought should also be given to restoration and adaptation of the farmhouse to a use that would be more consonant with its new surroundings. All the other structures on the existing site can be removed.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 43: If the farmhouse and packing-house are to continue in an aariculturally-related use, it is possible they could both be relocated either southwest or southeast from the proposed intersection of Airport North Road and Ponderosa Drive, to a site recalling their original location in the midst of fields and at the same compass-point orientation.

However, as discussed in Appendix 4, relocation of National Register-eligible resources is not recommended unless all other alternatives prove to be impossible. 12 VI, Sources
General:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National Park Service, Department of the Interior
1986 Working with Section 106: 36 CFR Part 800.Protection of Historic Properties:

Regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Governing the Section 106 Review Process. The Council, Washington, D.C.
1988 Working with Section 106: Identification of Historic Properties: A Decisionmaking Guide for Managers. Primary author, Thomas F. King. The Council, Washington, D.C.

American Association for State and Local History
1991 National Register of Historic Places: 1966-1991. The Association, Nashville Bean. Walton and James J. Rawls
1988 California: An Interpretive History. McGraw-Hill, San Francisco.

Beck, Warren and Ynez Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

California Department of Parks and Recreation
1990 California Historical Landmarks. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento 1992 California Points of Historical Interest Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 1998 The California Register Of Historical Resources: Regulations For the Nomination Of Properties.Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 1995 Instructions For Recording Historical Resources.Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
1997 Proposed CEOA Guidelines: Historical Resource Sections Gebhard, David and Robert Winter
1994 Los Angeles: An Architectural Guide.Gibbs-Smith, Salt Lake City.

Governor's Office, Office of Planning and Research, State of California 1994 CEOA and Historical Resources. (CEQA Technical Advice Series). Sacramento.

Interagency Resources Division, National Park Service, Department of the Interior 1987 Contributions of Moved Buildings to Historic Districts. National Register Bulletin 4.

Washington, D.C.
13 1985 Guidelines for Counting Contributing and Non-contributing Resources for National Register Documentation. National Register Bulletin 14. Washington, D.C. 1991 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

National Resister Bulletin 15. Washington, D.C.
1991 How to Complete the National Register Registration Form.

National Register Bulletin 16A. Washington, D.C.
1991 How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form.

National Register Bulletin 16B. Washington, D.C.

McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester
1984 A Field Guide to American Houses. Knopf, New York.

McClelland, Linda, Carol D. Schull. John Knoerl, Yvonne Stewart, and Alice Crampton 1992 Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Forms. National Register Bulletin 16B. National Park Service, Washington. D.C.

Parker, Patricia
1985 Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning National Register 1, Bulletin 24 National Park Service. Washinaton, D.C.

Rubens, Jack H. and William F. Delvac
1993 A Preservationist's Guide To the California Environmental Quality Act. California Preservation Foundation, Oakland.

Sherfey, Marcella and W. Ray Lice
1979 Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties That Have Achieved Significance within the Last Fifty Years. National Register Bulletin 22. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Project-specific:

Alexander, W. E., comp.
1911 Historical Atlas Of Ventura County California. No publisher or location.

Bissell, Ronald M.
1998 Literature Review. Airport North/U.S. Route 101 Interchange, Camarillo.. Ventura County. California. RMW Paleo Associates.

Brotherton, Ann
1992 "Springville. the Forgotten Town." Camarillo Gazette, July 23, 30. 14 1883 History Of Santa Barbara County, California. Oakland, Thompson & West.

McKean, Patrick
1984 "Springville: Country Community Fades From the Map." Camarillo Daily News, March 4.

McKinnon, Lisa
1993 "Farm Families Share a Past." Ventura County Star-Free Press, March 7.

Miedema, Madeline
1958 "Hueneme As a Grain Port." Ventura County Historical Society Quarterly, III, 2 (February), p. 14.

Morrison, J. H.
1957 "Springville." Ventura County Historical Society Quarterly, 11, 4 (August). p. 17. 1991 "Only a Memory Springville, Ventura County." Camarillo Daily News, July 13.

Sheridan, Solomon Neill
1926 History Of Ventura County, California. Chicago, S. J. Clarke Publishing Company.

Smith. Wally
1970 "Today Nothing Remains Of Springville." Ventura County Star-Free Press, February 27. 1963 "Springville." Ventura County Historical Society Quarterly, IX, 1 (November), p. 22.. 1972 "Springville." Ventura County Historical Society Quarterly, XVII, 2 (Winter), no pa. 15 Appendix 1
CEQA, NHPA, and California Register Requirements (General Information) According to CEQA (§21084.1) "an historical resource is one listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register [of Historical Resources]." The California Register is an authoritative guide in California used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state's significant historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change [PRC §5024.1(a)].

Resources eligible for inclusion in the California Register are based upon National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria [PRC §5024.19b)]. Any properties determined eligible for the National Register (National Register status 1 through 3) and those not eligible or not yet eligible for the National Register (National Register status 4 and 5) may also be considered eligible for inclusion in the California Register. A project that may impact any resource eligible for the California Register will require review under CEQA guidelines.

Similarly, the federal Section 106 Review Process of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (36 CFR 800 and 16 USC ss 470-47-W-6, 1982), requires the identification and evaluation of cultural resources for the NRHP. Those resources eligible for the NRHP and threatened by an "adverse effect" are afforded treatment or data recovery to preserve the research potential which may be lost through change or destruction. If federal funding or permits are used for the proposed project, then the project requires compliance with all of these laws. But if state, local, and/or private funds are the sole source of project funding, then the project must only comply with CEQA.

Regulations for the nomination of properties to the California Register became law on January 1, 1998 Guidelines to the implementation of the regulations are currently under discussion and are scheduled to take effect by October 1998. They will include. 1) a definition of historic resources as being those resources that are eligible for listing on the California Register; 2) a definition of a significant impact as being that which eliminates the resource or alters the characteristics that made the property eligible for the Register; 3) guidance on mitigating impacts by utilizing the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation; 4) a ban on using categorical exemptions when there is a possibility of adverse change; and 5) a provision for local surveys and designations to be added to the Register, including those of archaeological sites. The Guidelines will also provide processes for obtaining: a formal determination of eligibility for the California Register; clarification of eligibility and expedited review; and a non-binding informal opinion of eligibility.

A formal determination of eligibility for the California Register would require a nomination for listing that would be granted when the property cannot be listed solely due to owner objection.

An informal or non-binding opinion may be obtained from the State Historic Preservation Officer regarding whether or not a historical resource may be eligible for nomination or potentially eligible for listing on the California Register. Such informal opinions, however, will not be a substitute for a formal determination or listing and a formal nomination must be submitted within 90 days or the informal opinion expires.
16 As mentioned, "criteria for listing historical resources on the California Register are consistent with those developed by the National Park Service for listing properties on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), but have been modified for state use in order to include a range of historical resources which better reflect the history of California" (Department of Parks and Recreation 1998). In arriving at evaluations using these criteria, this evaluator uses the following steps:

Identification
Federal and state guidelines require that the first step in the review process should be the identification of cultural resources (i.e., historic properties). Various levels of preliminary archival research and on-site survey investigations for cultural resources can be applied during this step.

This evaluator normally chooses a mid-ranee level of archival research to facilitate the preparation of a "historic context" for the project area. This approach is taken in order to facilitate eligibility evaluations for the NRHP and/or California Reaister, the second step in the process The National Park Service (NPS) stipulates that the significance of any historic property should be made within the "historic context" developed for that area (Parker 1985; Interagency Resources Division. Bulletin 16A, 1991). "Historic context" is defined as the sum of information pertaining to an area, organized by theme, place, and time. The historic context is tied to the identified cultural resources by the concept of "property type." Property types are defined as groups of historic properties which share similar characteristics, such as physical composition, temporal affinities, and other contributing elements.

Historic research based on a sound methodology is crucial at this stage of the investigation.

Architectural history and analysis may be necessary for sites with extant buildings and structures Physical characteristics such as site structure, content, and integrity are crucial variables in later evaluation of the resource's NRHP and California Register eliaibility.

Federal guidelines have prescribed a 50 year age for cultural resources generally evaluated for eligibility for the NRHP (36 CFR 60.4) However, there are guidelines and procedures for nominating cultural resources newer than 50 years for eligibility to the NRHP. (In fact, a 45-year age threshold is becoming increasingly acceptable due to delays in project implementation which can often stretch five years or more beyond the evaluation date.) The California Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation defines a site as:
...a location of associated artifacts and features, regardless of temporal placement or complexity. Minimally, a site must consist of at least three associated artifacts or a feature must be at least 45 years of age" (1989:3).

All architectural sites meeting this criteria should be recorded on Historic Resources Inventory forms (DPR 523).
17 Evaluation
Evaluation of sites is the second step in the review process. Evaluation of cultural resources must be undertaken per the criteria for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 60.4). (Again, if cultural resources are reviewed using NITRP criteria, the resulting evaluation is applicable also to the California Register.)
All data gained from the field surveys, architectural analysis, research, and development of the historic context will be assembled and interpreted with respect to each site. In turn, the multidisciplinary data will be used to evaluate the individual site's potential eligibility for the NRHP (and the California Register), as defined under Title 36 Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations (i.e., 36 CFR 60).

This procedure of evaluating, site eligibility for the NRHP has been defined as Determination of Eligibility (DOE).

Findings
Based on the eligibility evaluations for the NRHP and the California Register, a findings of effect (i.e., "no effect", "no adverse effect", or "adverse effect") will be prepared for any sites eligible for the NRHP and/or California Register within the project area. This is the third step of the review process. Sites that will not be adversely affected by the proposed project will be preserved in place and "no effect" or "no adverse effect" will occur. Sites that cannot be preserved in-situ within the project area and that will suffer adverse effects by the proposed project, will require treatment or data recovery to mitigate the loss of that site data. Recommendations for treatment and data recovery are to be proposed for each project. A report containing all germane information relevant to the study is to be prepared and submitted to the lead agency. (In a case where a local historic preservation ordinance has not been enacted. the evaluation report is designed to be of sufficient comprehension, in terms of the identification, evaluation, and treatment of cultural resources, to be of value in the context of any future Ordinance the locality may enact within its jurisdiction.)
18 Appendix 2
Identification of Existing Resources and Their Historic Context (Background) A research methodology is developed to comply with federal and state mandates and guidelines for identifying cultural resources, be they in the form of buildings, sites, structures, objects, or contributors to historic districts. A thorough field visit, including the preparation of a written and photographic record, is the best foundation for identifying and later evaluating any cultural resources found on the project site.

An initial part of that process involves the development of a "historic context" organized by theme, place, and time. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) suggests that "a theme is the equivalent of a research problem, and an historic context is developed by placing the problem in an appropriate setting in both time and space" (Interagency Resources Division, Bulletin 16A, 1991). For instance, a broad historic context might be identified as "Western U.S.

Expansion Mid-19th Through 20th Centuries." A more focused historic context might be "Early to Mid 20th Century Agricultural Development of the (locality)." A "historic context" is associated with identified cultural resources through the concept of a "property type." The NRHP defines property types as a group of individual historic properties that share physical and associative characteristics. Site types, including archaeological sites, are interpreted and evaluated within the realm of the "historic context." For instance, an appropriaie property type for the sites associated with the contexts mentioned above, given the agricultural theme. might be "Farm/Ranch."
Major themes have evolved during the past two decades of cultural resources investigations at various 19th and 20th century sites in southern California. Possible research themes and their associated property types, adapted from the "Areas of Significance" and "Functions and Uses" for eligibility evaluations for the NRHP, are listed on the following page:

EXAMPLES OF POTENTIAL RESEARCH (HISTORIC CONTEXT) THEMES 19 Agriculture
Architecture
Archaeology: Prehistoric
Aboriginal
Non-aboriginal
Art
Chronology
Commerce/Trade
Communications
Community Planning and
Development
Conservation
Defense
Demography
Economics
Education
Engineering
Entertainment/Recreation
Environmental Adaptation
Ethnic Heritage: Asian
Afro-American
European
Hispanic
* NativeAmerican
Pacific
Islander

EXAMPLES OF POTENTIAL ASSOCIATED
Amusement Park
Ancillary Building
Bridge
Canal/Aqueduct
Cemetery
Civic Auditorium
Commercial Building, 1-3
stories
Commercial Building, over 3
stories
Community Center
Dam
Educational Building
Engineering Structure
Ethnic Minority Property
Farm/Ranch
Folk Art
Government Building
Highway/Trail
Hospital
Hotel/Motel
Industrial Building
Exploration
Funerary
Government
Health/Medicine
Industry/Processing/
Extraction
Irrigation
Land Use
Landscape Architecture
Law
Literature
Maritime History
Material Culture
Military
Performing Arts
Philosophy
Politics/Government
Religion
Residential
Science
Settlement Patterns
Social History
Subsistence
Technology
Tourism
Transportation
Other (e.g., Invention)

PROPERTY TYPES
Lake/River/Reservoir
Landscape Architecture
Lighthouse
Military Property
Mine
Monument/Mural/Gravestone
Multiple Family Property
New Deal Public Works Project
Public Utility Building
Railroad Depot
Religious Building
Rural Open Space
Ship
Single Family Property
Stadium/Sports Arena
Street Furniture
Theater
Train
Trees/Vegetation
Urban Open Space
Women's Property
20 More than one research theme might be applicable. Further research within and adjacent to the project area could build on these themes and develop them into a historic context that characterizes the cultural development of the entire community.

Research questions pertaining to the themes are developed prior to and during the course of fieldwork. Other research questions arise during the subsequent analysis of the field and historic research data.

Architectural components of extant or relic buildings, structures, and/or objects within the project area should be sufficiently preserved to contain data for research and interpretation. Ideally, the original design and subsequent alterations should be identifiable as discrete occupational episodes associated with a temporally defined occupation. Architecture should represent identifiable functional association. Archival materials should be available to reconstruct a partial or complete history of the project area.

Many of the research themes are inter-related. The analysis of architectural, archival, and oral history data for one theme will simultaneously address several other themes. For instance, the study of historical material culture (i.e., artifacts) provides a wealth of information concerning subsistence patterns, household composition (e.g., gender, adults, children, infants), socioeconomic status, trade networks and commodity flows (local, regional, national, and international), historical site use and activity, spatial inter-relationships of features and buildings, site evolution, and other themes. The documentary record by itself may not contain sufficient data to provide answers for all the research questions arrived at. Other data generated through architectural, archaeoloaical, oral history and specialized analyses may provide complementary information which will provide answers to these and other research questions.

A multi-disciplinary approach is used during the identification and historic context phase of the cultural resource investigation project. Archival documents and cartographic sources, oral history interviews, as well as field surveys are all used to locate, define, and provide interpretations for the cultural resources within the project area. Furthermore, this data is combined to reconstruct the most accurate picture of the project area. In turn, the research data is useful in the construction of the historic context and in evaluating the significance of the sites identified within and adjacent to the project area.
21 Appendix 3
Evaluation of Historic Resources (Background)
Both CEQA and NHPA mandate that a cultural resource site's significance must be established before project impacts to the cultural resources can be assessed. This is the evaluation process.

The first step, "Identification", has been accomplished through research, development of an historic context, and a field survey of cultural resources within the project area.

Next, the regulations for CEQA and NHPA mandate that all potentially significant cultural resources be evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP or the California Register. In order to accomplish this, evaluative investigations must be undertaken at the sites. Field investigations should document cultural features, site boundaries, and the nature and association of site features within each lot or property of the project area. Tie integrity of the cultural resources (i e., their state of intactness and the extent of alteration from their original appearance either deliberately made or the result of deterioration over time) must also be addressed. Historic research and, where applicable, architectural research must be completed. (It should be noted that while interior modifications of a historic property may affect its integrity, in most cases exterior integrity is considered the main determinant of historic character reflective of significance.) At thAvaluation phase of the investigations, the resources are assessed and evaluated for their potential to address and exemplify important historic themes. The intent of evaluation is to assess the presence/absence of data that is needed to answer research questions. A site that has lost substantial integrity through deterioration or alteration may thereby have lost much of its significance. If similar, more intact, sites have been identified in close proximity to the subject site, the site may be considered of lesser value than if it is the only local such site, and therefore unique. even if of poor integrity.

Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historical Resources An eligibility evaluation for each cultural resources site within the project area should be made under the following criteria that are shared by both the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register:

A. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history and the cultural heritage of California or the United States; and/or
B. Association with the lives of persons important to the nation or to California's past; and/or
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; and/or
22 D. Ability to yield, or the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the state or the nation
Thus, Criterion A is usually associated with "events," Criterion B is associated with "persons," Criterion C is associated with "design/construction," and Criterion D is associated with "information potential." Some historical archaeological sites may be evaluated for eligibility under Criteria A, B, and/or C but most are evaluated under Criterion D.

Criterion A. Events. Major events associated with a specific property are considered important.

Association through the historic context has to be demonstrated. Providing evidence of direct association of the events and the historic property is necessary.

Criterion B. Person. "Persons significant in our past" refers to individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, state, or national historic context. Correlation of an individual within the framework of the historic context is crucial. Also, his/her ties with a specific property and/or an event is important.

Criterion C. Desitzn/Construction Resources represented by extant architecture are evaluated under this criterion. Elements that are important under Criterion C include distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or the work of a master, possessing high artistic value. Integrity of the property is an especially important factor under this criterion.

Criterion D. In order to qualify for eligibility for the NRKP or California Register under this criterion, the archaeological site (i.e., historic property) has to meet two conditions: 1) the site must have yielded or be likely to yield information such as archaeological data or historic data; and this data must have potential to answer research questions; and 2) the information must be important with respect to historical archaeology and other related historic preservation fields.

Related Criteria--Generally, a historic property, to be considered eligible, should be older than 50 years, not be a reconstruction, and have never been moved from its original location. However, the National Park Service and the State Office of Historic Preservation do recognize special sites that have achieved significance within the past 50 years, that have been reconstructed, or that have been carefully relocated (Sherfey and Luce 1979; Interagency Resources Division 1987).

The NRHP has developed a chart of numerical evaluation codes for pinpointing the status of a historic resource. California Register regulations also recognize these codes, of which there are seven:
1 Listed in the NRHP
2 Determined eligible for the NRHP in a formal process involving federal or state agencies
3 Appears eligible for listing in the NRHP in the judgment of the professional evaluator
4 Might become eligible for listing in the NRHP when certain conditions are met
23 5 Not eligible for the NRHP but may be significant at the local level
6 None of the above
7 Undetermined
These numerical codes can be further sub-classified by adding a letter code. Among the most commonly used letter codes are:

S Resource is separately listed in the NRHP
D Resource is included as a contributor to a NHRP-listed district B Both S and D above
M Resource may become eligible as a contributor to a NRHPlisted district when more documentation is found or restoration work performed
Refinements may be made to these alphanumeric codes by adding still more letters and/or digits to cover all categories of actual or potential National Register eligibility. These finer divisions are not listed here in view of space limitations.

As already discussed, any historic resource given a NRHP code of 1 through 3 is eligible for listing on the California Register. A resource given a code of 4 or 5 may be eligible for listing on the California Reaister, but only after undergoing a formal nomination process involving the agreement of the local jurisdiction and the State Historical Resources Commission. In any case, it is recommended that resources with a code of 4 or 5 be given special consideration in local planning.
24 Appendix 4
Findings of Effect and Recommended Mitigation Measures (Background) A project area represents the Area of Potential Effect (APE). As a result of a proposed project, the APE will undergo direct and/or indirect changes with impact on cultural resources that may have been evaluated as eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP and/or the California Register.

The evaluator must determine whether the demolition or alteration of existing architectural features, landscape architecture, and archaeological features constitute an effect ton any significant cultural resources within the project area. If there is an effect, the evaluator must decide whether the effect is adverse or not adverse.

Federal, state, and local historic preservation procedures for assessing effects and mitigation of adverse effects from a proposed project on cultui al resources eliaible for the NRHP or California Register call for prudent and feasible alternatives. Planned construction, an adverse effect, may not always permit in-situ preservation of the historic cultural resources within and directly adjacent to the project area. Therefore, project alternatives or mitigation measures must be proposed to preserve and/or document the significant cultural resources that will be destroyed by construction. CEQA establishes the threshold of "substantial adverse change" as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration activities that would impair the significance of the historic resource. Where there is no local protective ordinance or other reaulation in place or where protective actions such as mitigation measures are insufficient to avoid a "substantial adverse change" in the significant resource, the Lead Agency should conclude that an adverse change will occur (Governor's Office 1994). A full EIR will need to be prepared at this point if not already called for by other environmental impacts of the project.

Project Alternatives or Mitigation Measures
Among the alternatives or mitigation measures which can be considered for a significant site are:

1. No Project (no construction of the planned development); or

2. Mitigation of the Project's Effect on the Cultural Resources by:
2a. Adaptive reuse of the historic resource(s) within the project.Such reuse of building facades and architectural features has become an innovative and highly successful means of mitigating impacts on historic buildings in numerous cities with historic buildings. The facades should be restored in conformance with adopted design guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards,and Preservation Briefs.Adaptive reuse may also involve the construction of new buildings as in-fill between existing historic structures. Guidelines for the design of new buildings should include such concerns as architectural style, materials, height, setbacks, colors, textures, street-scape, patterns, matching of the existing overall rhythm of new development to the surrounding area, structural detailing, signage, and exterior treatments.
25 Various incentives exist for the adoption of this mitigation measure, such as use of the State Historical Building Code (Health and Safety Section 18950, et seq.) instead of the Uniform Building Code; and financial incentives such as local property tax relief through the Mills Act (Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 439 et seq.), the Marks Historical Rehabilitation Act, and federal investment tax credits for the rehabilitation of income-producing property. Other incentives such as facade easements or low-interest construction loans may also be available through the local jurisdictions.
2b. Relocation of the resource(s). This mitigation is a problematical one. The majority of historic buildings will lose their significance when removed from their original setting or context. Relocation is usually preferable to demolition from the purely historic preservation standnoint, but the National Register will rarely maintain a relocated structure's ling and then only if it meets rigid criteria, such as prior application, re-creation of the original setting at the new site, and the retention of the structure's original compass orientation. Buildings that are significant under NRHP Criterion C are the most likely to retain significance after moving
2c. HABS-level architectural documentation. The Historic American Building Survey is a program of the National Park Service that documents historic resources in great detail. It requires measured drawings, intensive historical research, large format photographs. and prescribed procedures for transmission and archival preservation. Published guides to HABS are available from the National Park Service.
2d. Less thorough architectural documentation. This normally includes thorough photographic documentation and a historic structures report. This permanent record shall include documentation of the building itself, adjacent structures, and streetscapes. The record should be made publicly accessible by putting it in the care of a local non-profit organization or a public library. 26 APPENDIX 5
Maps
APPENDIX 5
Maps
26 11'
. '1114:1
:1 • L'
••.
644) •••••'
0 0
0i° NcIV
FT; l'i!1
I 0 -
0 0 - E76
NdY
ON Ed v80
• JO S111111
"a3sOciabsd
1/d—N1/4
ONIOV80 -
JO S111/111
03S0d02:1d
3/1 I el(
-.7177-7
f
1\1 (L4
•• •
27 6 .
\
APPENDIX 6
Photographs

IDENTIFICATION KEY TO PHOTOGRAPHS
APN 230-010-200:
1 North and east facades, looking southwest
2 North and west facades, looking southeast
3 Concrete pads to east of residence, looking south
585 West Daily Drive (APN 157-020-150):
4 Site, looking northwest from West Daily Drive near U.S. 101 5 Site, looking southeast from farmhouse
6 Farmhouse, south facade, looking north
7 Farmhouse. west facade, looking east
8 Farmhouse, north facade, looking south
9 Former garage, north and east facades, looking southwest 10 Former (garage, north and west facades. looking southeast 11 Guest-house. east and north facades, looking southwest 12 Addition to guest-house, west facade, looking east
13 Packing-house, looking northeast
14 Left to right: Packing-house, barn, former cabin-like residence, looking northeast
15 Barn and former cabin-like residence, looking southeast 16 Former cabin-like residence, west and south facades, looking northeast
17 Former cabin-like residence, south and east facades (with barn in background), looking northwest
18 Workshop, south and west facades, looking northeast
19 Workshop, south facade, looking north
28 29
20 Water tank, looking east
21 Abandoned outhouse, looking southeast
I

1 ,;;-;r•
I
;•;,
, ,
4;k1
!:;'• '

14.b7
;"7."*".. •t1
S • • ;
* • ;
A e
•
p•••••••

^

ATTACHMENT B

RESUMES OF PROJECT PERSONNEL
Ronald M. Bissell
RMW Paleo Associates, Inc.

Principal/Certified Archeologist
Professional Experience
1986 - Present.
1983 - 1986.
1976- 1983.
1956- 1976.

Publications
Principal Archaeologist, RMW Paleontological Associates, Incorporated Independent Consultant Archaeologist
Information Specialist and Administrative Services Officer, Leighton and Associates United States Army. Rank at retirement was Major of Field Artillery 1983 Archaeological Site CA-ORA-572, a Two Component Site in Fullerton, California. Master's Thesis on file at the Library, California State University, Fullerton, California 1983 A Previously Unrecognized Grinding Technology from CA-ORA-572. Paper presented to the Southwestern Anthropological Association, April 1983. Expanded version published in the Quarterly of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, Volume 19, Number 3, July 1983
1989 Orange County's First Fairgrounds, 1890-1900. Proceedings of the Conference of Orange County History 1993 Archaeological Site CA-VEN-630: A Solstice Observatory in Simi Valley, Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, Volume 7, Ventura County, California 1994 Archaeological Site CA-ORA-1058: Six Cairns in Orange County, California.

Degrees
1983 Anthropology, M.A., Archaeological Emphasis. California State University, Fullerton, California 1977 Library Science, M.S. California State University, Fullerton, California 1972 Bachelor of Arts, Geology and History, San Diego State University, San Diego, California 1989 Introduction to Federal Projects and Historic Preservation Law. Sponsored by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the General Services Administration Training Center Credentials
Certified by the Register of Professional Archaeologist as a Field Archaeologist.

Certified as an Archaeologist by the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. Also certified by the Counties of Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, Kings, Fresno, Tulare, Madera and San Diego Certified as Open Water Scuba Diver by the Professional Association of Diving Instructors.

Memberships
Register of Professional Archaeologists
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Society for California Archaeology
Southwestern Anthropological Association
California Mission Studies Association
American Library Association
California Library Association
South Coast Geological Society
RESUME
Patrick 0. Maxon
27292 Padilla
Mission Viejo, California 92691
Home: (714) 859-4209
Office: (714) 770-8042

EDUCATION
M.A. Anthropology: 1994, California State University, Fullerton. Concentration in Archaeology.

B.A. Sociology/Psychology: 1987, Towson State University, Maryland.

University of Maryland, Munich Campus, Munich, Germany (one semester) HONORS
Dean's List, National Honor Society for Sociology (1987), Varsity soccer (TSU), Scholar athlete.

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
8-94 - present
7-90 - 8-94
7-89 - 7-90
Staff Archaeologist, RM'W Paleo Associates.

Responsibilities include project management, developing project proposals, conducting research, accomplishing field work (survey, excavation, monitoring) and producing technical reports.

Behavioral Specialist/Job Trainer, Vantage Foundation, Costa Mesa, California. Worked with a group of three developmentally disabled adults teaching daily life and employment skills and managing maladaptive behaviors.

House Manager, Pearlmark group home, Anaheim, California. Oversaw a home of 30-40 mentally ill individuals. Planned daily activities, managed homes employees, and met with residents' social workers, case managers and health professionals.
7-88 - 7-89 Instructor, United Cerebral Palsy, Santa Ana, California. Taught class of 25 developmentally disabled adults basic life skills and community integration.

SELECTED ARC EOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE a
Long Canyon, Simi Valley, California
CA:YEN-477, -477B-622, -623, -624, -625, -626, -627, -628, -629, -629A, -630, -681 & -920 Duties: Field Director; excavation, site preservation/protection, report preparation 2/97-present
Richland Properties, Chino Hills, California
CA-SBR-8694
Duties: Field Director; test excavation, report preparation 2/97 - 6/97
Bryant Ranch, Yorba Linda, California
Primary Number 30-150052
Duties: reconnaissance, excavation, monitoring, report preparation 7/96 - 1/97
Rancho Los Cerritos Adobe
CA-LAN-696
Duties: excavation, monitoring
4/96 - 5/96
Cal State San Bernardino Master Plan, California
CA-SBR-6581H
Duties: Project Manager; reconnaissance, report preparation 3/96 - 4/96
Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California
Duties: Project Manager; monitoring, report preparation 1/96 - 3/96
Marblehead Coastal, San Clemente, California
CA-ORA-MH-1H & MI{
Duties: Project Manager; reconnaissance, report preparation 1/96 - 3/96
Saddleback Meadows, El Toro, California
CA-ORA-710, -711, -713, -714, -715, -1255, 1435H, -1437 Duties: Field Director; excavation, reconnaissance, report preparation 9/95 - 12/95
LaHabra, California
Duties: Project Manager; monitoring, report preparation 7/95 - present
Evans Point, Carlsbad, California
CA-SDI-14140 & CA-SDI-14151
Duties: Project Manager; monitoring, report preparation 6/95 - 1/96
Hopetown, Simi Valley, California
CA-VEN-782
Duties: monitoring, excavation, report preparation
2/95 - 5/95
Rose Canyon, San Diego, California
CA-SDI-12557
Duties: field crew, excavation
9/94 - 2/95
Cal State University, Fullerton, Field School
CA-ORA-35, Los Pinos, California
Duties: field crew, excavation
8/92 - 12/92

SELECTED PALEONTOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE
Paleontological Monitoring:

Chevron Property, PLC Land Company, La Habra, California Home Avenue, T.C. Construction, San Diego, California
Big Canyon, S & S Construction Co., Laguna Niguel, California - Kaufman & Broad, Chino Hills, California
Toll Bros., San Juan Capistrano, California
Home Depot, Laguna Hills, California
Sun Lakes, Banning, California
Paleontological Salvage:

Unocal, West Coyote Hills, California: Bison latifrons salvage Big Canyon, S & S Construction Co.: Baleen whale salvage

SELECTED TECHNICAL REPORTS
Bissell, Ron and Patrick Maxon
1994 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Proposed Sewer Lines and Support Facilities, and Test Excavation of Three Sites in Valley Center, San Diego County, California.

Maxon, Patrick
1995 Archaeological Survey and Impact Assessment of the Proposed Upgrade to the Capistrano Beach Water District Waste Water Treatment Facility. 1995 Archaeological Test Excavation of Cultural Resources Located Within the Saddleback Meadows Planned Development, Orange County, California. 1996 Archaeological Monitoring of Grading for the Evans Point Planned Development, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California.
1996 Archaeological Reconnaissance and Impact Assessment of the Proposed Development of Marblehead Coastal, San Clemente, California. 1996 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance and Impact Assessment of Proposed Development for the California State University, San Bernardino Master Plan 1997 Cultural Resources Investigation at the Bryant Ranch, Yorba Linda, Orange County, California, Tentative Tract 15199.
1997 Summary of Cultural Resources Investigation and Recommendations for Further Work Within the Saddleback Meadows Planned Development, Orange County, California.
1997 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of a Nine Acre Parcel in Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California
1997 Archaeological Test Excavation of a Prehistoric Cultural Deposit at Butterfield Ranch, Tract 14425, Chino Hills, San Bernardino County, California Maxon, Patrick 0. and Edward J. Knell
1996 Archaeological Test Excavation of a Prehistoric Rock Shelter, Excavation and Recovery of Three Historic Deposits, Collection of an Historic Isolate and Monitoring of Grading at Hopetown, Simi Valley, Ventura County, California.

TIMOTHY P. GREGORY
Registered Public Historian & Certified Archivist
400 Fast California Blvd., #3
Pasadena, CA 91106
626-792-7465
E-mail: [email protected]

EDUCATION AND LICENSES
Master of Public History and Historic Preservation, California State University, Dominguez Hills.

Master of Library Science; University of California, Berkeley.

B.A., English; U.C.L.A.

Western Archives Institute, sponsored by the Society Of California Archivists.

Registered Public Historian, specializing in Historic Preservation and Archival Administration, #562; California Council For the Promotion Of History.

Certified Archivist; Academy Of Certified Archivists.

Community College Instructor and Librarian lifetime credentials.

AWARDS
Granted reading privileges at The Huntington Library.
"Altadena Citizen of the Year" (1991), awarded by the Altadena Chamber of Commerce and Civic Association for "major contributions to the improvement of Altadena."
Election to Phi Alpha Theta (History Honorary).

Election to Beta Phi Mu (Library Science Honorary).

EXPERIENCE
1992- Principal, The Building Bio pher, Pasadena, CA
Consult with Realtors and environmental firms on the significance of historic structures and on matters of historic preservation and cultural resources management. Research and write technical reports and property histories.

Please see Cultural Resources-oriented projects listed below. 2 1992- Principal, The Traveling Archivist, ' dena, CA
Consult with businesses and families on the archival preservation of documents, photographs, etc., and on matters of public history. Served as Acting System Archivist for the California State University System (1994-1996) 1991-1994 Archivist (part-time), Pasadena Historical Society & Museum Managed the Archives of the Society and supervised an all-volunteer staff; acquired, accessioned, cataloged, and maintained all materials; indexed and inventoried on computer all existing collections; answered research questions in-person and by phone; cooperated with other local historical organizations; prepared exhibits; managed the move into the new History Center. 1989-1991 Special Projects Manager (part-time), Beverly FfillsPublic Library Managed the Library's automation and retrospective conversion project; assisted architects and interior designers in planning a new 91,000-square-foot facility.
1980-1989 Library Services Manager, Beverly Hills Public Library Administered the library under the general direction of the Director of Community Services; prepared $3 million annual budget; acted as fiscal, personnel and collection development officer; directly supervised an office staff of five, six division heads, and, through them, 108 additional personnel (51.7 FTE); coordinated public relations and publicity; planned a temporary facility and supervised the library's relocation into it; supervised the library's volunteer program.
1976-1980 Librarian 11 (Supervisor of Technical Services and Corona del Mar Branch), Newport I• . ch Public Library
Managed acquisitions, MARC cataloging, processing, fund accounting, and statistics; planned and established automated systems; managed branch library staff, book collection, and programming; served as Acting City Librarian between December 1976 and May 1977.
1986-1991 Chairman of the Board, Altadena Heritage
Served as founding Chairman; worked to expand the group from 12 to 500 members; began fund-raising program that netted $35,000 annually after the second year.
3 CULTURAL OURCE-ORIENTED PROJECTS AND PUBLICATIONS
1992- Over 200 historic property reports for major real estate companies, including CoIdwell Banker; Podley, Caugbey & Doan; Fred Sands; Prudential Co.; Century 21; Jim Dickson Co.; William Wilson Co. (on-going)
1999 IBstoric Resource Evaluation: Airport North Road/U.S. 101 Interchange, Camarillo, CA, prepared for RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, CA, January
1999 Historical Property Studies: Eight schools within the Pasadena Unified School District, Pasadena, CA, prepared for the District pursuant to passage of rehabilitation bond issue, January 1998 Historic Resource Evaluation: Cecil Johnson Property, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, prepared for RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, CA, November
1998 Historic Property Reports for television series on Hollywood homes broadcast on House & Garden cable network, prepared for Cinetel Productions, Los Angeles, CA, October 1998 Historic Resource Evaluation: Entomology and Insectary Buildings, University of California, Riverside, prepared for RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, CA, September 1998 Historic Resource Evaluation: Chocolate Summit Drive, Alpine, CA, prepared for RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, CA, June
1998 Historic Resource Evaluation: Rancho Tapo, Subdivision #3, Simi Valley, CA, prepared for RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, CA, June
1998 Historic Resources Survey: Pasadena Central District, prepared for Planning Consultants ReqP-nrch (PCR), Santa Monica, CA, and the City of Pasadena, May
1998 Historic Resource Evaluation: Fourteen Santa Vista View Gardens Project Site, Vista, CA, prepared for RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, CA, April
1998 Historic Resource Evaluations: several hundred properties associated with the proposed expansion of LAX, prepared for Planning Consultants Research (PCR), Santa Monica, CA, February. 1997 • Docent scripts for the house-tour component of the annual Craftsman Weekend, prepared for PaqRdena Heritage, Pandena, CA, November.
1997 Historic Resources Evaluation: 715 Plymouth Road, Claremont, CA, prepared for Pilgrim Place, Claremont, CA, October.
1997 Historic Resources Survey: Section 14, Palm Springs, CA, prepared for the Agua Caliente Indian band, Palm Springs, and RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, CA, August. 1996 Historic Resources Evaluation: The Oaks at Trabuco, Trabuco Canyon, CA, prepared for RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, CA, November.
1996 History of Old Pasadena alleyways, prepared for Pasadena Heritage, Pasadena, CA, October. 1996 Historic Resources Evaluation: 673 Harrison Avenue, Claremont, CA, prepared for RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, CA, and the City of Claremont, June. 1996 Historic Resources Survey: Artesia Redevelopment District for the City of Artesia, Artesia, CA, January.
4 1995 Historic Resources Evaluation: Proposed Home Depot Site, Riverside, CA, prepared for RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, CA, and the City of Riverside, August. 1995 Historic Resources Evaluation: Trafalgar Canyon, San Clemente, CA, prepared for Ed Almanza 8z.

Associates, Laguna Beach, CA, and CALTRANS, April.
1994 National Register nomination for the Lanterman House, La Canada Flintridge, CA, prepared for the Lanterman Museum Foundation, La Canada Flintridge, CA, June. 1994 How to Research the History of Your Altadena Home, prepared for Altadena Heritage, Altadena, CA, June. 1993 Historic Resources Evaluation: Phillips Block, downtown Santa Ana, CA prepared for the Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency, Santa Ana, CA, August.
1993 Historic Resources Evaluation: Lux Arboretum and Adjacent Properties, Monrovia, CA, prepared for RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, CA, February.
1992 Historic Resources Evaluation: Rancho Lucerne Planned Development, Lucerne Valley, CA, prepared for RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, CA, November.
1992 Historic Resources Evaluation: Pumpbouse Site, Lytle Creek Water 8t Improvement Company, Rialto, CA, prepared for RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, CA, October. 1992 How to Research the History of Your Pasadena House, prepared for the Pasadena Historical Society, Pasadena, CA, September.
19884 Historic Resources Evaluations: Coordinated architectural and historic resources survey of Altadena, CA, 1991 discovering 3,300 buildings eligible for inventory. Wrote the final report on project, prepared for Altadena Heritage, Altadena, CA, December.
1991 A Guide to the Urban Conservation Archives, prepared for the Urban Conservation Section, Planning Division, City of Pasadena, Pasadena, CA, December.
1991 House-moving, an article written for The Bungalow Reader, a publication of the Urban Conservation Section, Planning Division, City of Pasadena, Pasadena, CA, December. 1983 Moved a Victorian house from Pasadena to Altadena and restored it.

I ERS
Altadena Heritage
Altadena Historical Society
American Association for State and Local History;
Associated Historical Societies of Los Angeles County
California Council for the Promotion of History
California Planning and Conservation League
California Preservation Foundation
Los Angeles Conservancy
National Trust for Historic Preservation
Pasadena Heritage
Pasadena Historical Museum
Society of American Archivists
Society of Architectural Historians
Society of California Archivists

ATTACHMENT C

LITERATURE SEARCH COVER LETTER
South Central Coastal Information Center
California Historical Resources Information System
. UCLA Institute of Archaeology
A163 Fowler Building
Los Angeles, California 90095-1510
(310) 825-1980 /FAX (310) 206-4723 / [email protected]
Los Angeles
Orange
Ventura
August 31, 1998
Ron Bissell
RMW Paleo
23392 Madero, Ste. L
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
RE: Records Search Request for Project Location on the Camarillo Quadrangle Dear Mr. Bissell:

As per your request received on August 26, we have conducted a records search for the above referenced project. This search includes a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within a one mile radius of the project area as well as a review of all known cultural resource survey and excavation reports. In addition, we have checked our file of historic maps, the National Register of Historic Places, the California State Historic Resources Inventory, the California Points of Historical Interest, and the listing of California Historical Landmarks in the region. The following is a discussion of our findings for the project area.

PREHISTORIC RESOURCES:

Three prehistoric sites and one isolate have been identified within a one mile radius of the project area (see enclosed map).
56-001205, 56-000223, 56-000224
HISTORIC RESOURCES:
•No historic archaeological sites have been identified within a one mile radius of the project area. One historic building structure or object has been identified within a one mile radius of the project area (see enclosed map).
56-150001
Inspection of our historic maps -- Hueneme 1904 15' series — indicated that the community of Springville was in place and an improved road followed the current path of State Route 101.

The California State Historic Resources Inventory lists no properties that have been evaluated for historical significance within a one mile radius of the project area.

The National Register of Historic Places lists no properties within a one mile radius of the project area.

The listings of the California Historical Landmarks of the Office of Historic Preservation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, indicate that there are no properties within a one mile radius of the project area.

The California Points of Historical Interest identifies no properties within a one mile radius of the project area.

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS:

Twenty one surveys and/or excavations have been conducted within a one mile radius of the project area (see enclosed map and bibliography). Two of these reports are site specific. Sixteen additional investigations are located within the Camarillo quadrangle and potentially within the project area but are not mapped due to insufficient location information.

Please forward a copy of any reports resulting from this project to our office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of site location data, we ask that you do not include record search maps in your report. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please feel free to contact our office at (310) 825-1980.

Invoices are mailed approximately two weeks after records searches are completed This enables your firm to request further information under the same invoice number.

Please reference the invoice number listed below when making inquires. Requests made after invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice with a $15.00 handling fee.

Sincerely,
Dina Rachal
Assistant Coordinator
Enclosures:
(X) Map
*(X) Bibliography
(X) Confidentiality Form
( ) Invoice # 7430

10.3 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
FUGRO WEST, INC.
1 PROJECT STUD -
AIRPORT NORTH/U.S. -

INTERCIZNG PRO /E TS

PRELIMINARY GEOT

CAM RILL CALA ORNIA

ENGINEERING
N[CA
RT
sT FOR
E 101
Prepared for:

CMSULTING ENGINEERS
July 1998
--ru 6 F0 E I% AV:a1Vr''..
r Et_ - wii,,---.1
7ir4g Report, P Report for Airport
FUGRO WEST, INC.

TI RC L
GII
I . ......-2...... iv imaareme-Ni=-
NIL. ABM, - ;-.,'4.

IIMMIIIIPW"-- -
5855 Olives Park Drive
ntura, CA 93003-7672
Tel: (805) 650-7000
Fax: (805) 650-7010
July 2, 1998
Project No. 97-42-2271
ASL Consulting Engineers
One Jenner Street, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92618
Attention: Mr. Earl (Mac) McArthur
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical En
North/U.S. Route 101 Interchan
Dear Mr. McArthur:

Fugro is pleased to
the preparation of the P JekStu tR
U.S. Route 101 Int rehangeNects 1
accordance with our subCtb tract'
January 28, 199 .

Projec amarillo,ki7fornia, Dated July 1998
cal Engineering Report as input to
onsulting Engineers for the Airport North/
, California. This report was prepared in
cement with ASL Consulting Engineers dated
relimina
port by A
ppreciat,s!the oppo to work with you on this interesting project. Please con ct s if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
FUGRO WEST, INC.

John R. Powell, C.E.G.

Senior Engineering Geologist
Thomas F. Blake, G.E., C.E.G.

Geotechnical Services Manager
Copies Submitted: 2
c: RBF, Mr. Steve Huff (1 copy)
lAWF1CGR97-227011-CVRI.111.629
A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world

3.0 SIIE CONDITIONS

4.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

5.0 EARTH MATERIALS re'-''=\

5.1 Artificial Fill (a

5.2 Alluvium (Qa1)

6.0 GROUNDWATER
July 1998
Project No. 97-42-2271

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 EXISTING FACILITY AND PROPOSED IMPROVEME

2.1 Existing Facility

2.2 Proposed Improvements

2.2.1 US101 Airport North Interchange

2.2.2 US101 Widening

2.2.3 Other Roadway Improvements

7.0 GEOLOG SICONSIDEKATIONS

7.1.....osmic Shaking
LiCkib faction \-\ . .....

7.3 eismi&Settlement

8.0 GEO ELCHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 Bridg;b,esign \ ,

8.1.1 Folndation Considerations

8.1.2 Seismic Considerations

8.2 US101 Widening

8.2.1 Roadway Considerations

8.2.2 Drainage Considerations

9.0 ADDITIONAL STUDIES

10.0 CLOSURE
Page
I:WI:11998197-2270 VI-TOC.JUL
- 1 -
July 1998
Project No. 97-42-2271
CONTENTS (continued)
PLATES
Vicinity Map
Proposed Project Map
Plate
1 2
lAWP11998197.727011-TOC JUL
July 1998
Project No. 97-42-2271

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Fugro is pleased to submit this Preliminary Geotechnical Engineeri -elrefiort, as input to preparation of the Project Study Report by ASL Consulting EngineersAL fer widening U.S.

Route 101 (US101) and construction of the Airport North interchan ama: lo, California.

This report was prepared in accordance with our consultant servi stzreezjt WhL ASL dated January 28, 1998.

Our evaluation consisted of the following:
• Review of existing logs of test borings and
overcrossings, undercrossing, overhead and gradeara
that were obtained from CaltranThist 'ct 7.
• Review of geotechnical engineerincreports p
the Camarillo area along US101.
• Review of selecte
areas.
geologit docum s and maps available for the project
• Evaluation() 1.e seisnuc and geologic conditions at the site to estimate seismic data for use ...with Caltrans de method(
eparing,this written ort,t at provides our preliminary opinions and geotechnical nsiderations regardin e proposed project.

2.0 EXISTING FACILITY AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
N. The project generally consists of the construction of a new interchange with a freeway overcrossing and the,widening of US101 between the new interchange and the Las Posas Road interchange in Camarillo, California. The existing Ventura Boulevard will be relocated and extended, and Ponderosa Road will be extended into the project area. The project location is situated midway between Central Avenue and Las Posas Road on US101 and is shown on Plate - Vicinity Map.

2.1 Existing Facility
Within the project limits, US101 is a three-lane divided freeway. The project is approximately 1 mile long between the new Airport North interchange and Las Posas Road.

Ventura Boulevard south of US101 is a two-lane undivided local road in the area of the new interchange. The area along US101 is generally being used for a combination of agricultural and minor commercial/industrial purposes. A single farm residential unit is located south of US101 and another is located north of US101 in the project area. o ation for other nearby
..t,7 tl n structures along US101
ugro for other facilities in
11WF11998%.97-2270,1-RPT.JUL
July 1998
Project No. 97-42-2271
Currently, US101 is paved with a combination of asphaltic and Portland cement concrete pavements and Ventura Boulevard is constructed with asphaltic concrete.

2.2 Proposed Improvements

2.2.1 US101 Airport North Interchange
This portion of the project will involve the constr4ion new in exch. - The interchange will be a conventional diamond configuration "te" a two-lane overcross e new ramps will merge with existing US101 lanes northbound and new lanes so •ound. A sketch showing the proposed project configuration ¶s shown Project Map.

2.2.2 US101 Widening
\,
This portion of the project will generr a y consist of widening US101 from three lanes in both directions to four lanes in both,directionsl)etwe6dilit-newinterchange and Las Posas Road. ,
The widening of the highway_will be accomplshed by adding a new outside lane M both \ \ directions ''‘.
:
.---,..

2.2.3 Other Roadway Improv
\ The neirrite;. -aiange overcrossing- will dead end into a westerly extension of Ponderosa se940 , 4,i'
Boulevard o the north a-4ild cave westerly into Verdulera Street on the south. Ponderosa Boule‘d Will be widened to four Lig from Las Posas Road to the area of the new interchange and trirtkz.extended a few Hundred meters westerly. The existing Ventura Boulevard south of US101 wilrbe relocated. ITfle new Ventura Boulevard will be four lanes with bike lanes and a •,.. -t. if / median, and 'wkl,l cannect-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 VentucAoulevard west of the new interchange.

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed project site is situated on the northeastern edge of the Oxnard Plain where the plain meets the Camarillo Hills within the City of Camarillo, California. Surface elevations in the area vary from about 23 to 30 meters (75 to about 100 feet) above mean sea level (MSL).

Surface grades on the Oxnard Plain are very gentle, with generally uniform slopes that are inclined from about 5 to 9 degrees toward the south and southwest. Surface grades within the northern portion of the project area are slightly steeper as the alignment approaches the hills. The proposed structure and other improvements cross areas of existing roadways or areas of agricultural operations.
as Plate 2 - Proposed
lAW9l1998\97-2270t1-RPT.JUL
July 1998
Project No. 97-42-2271
Drainage in the project area is generally by sheetflow through manmade drainages toward the south or southwest. The climate in the project region is typically characte cool to hot summers, and short, temperate, moderately wet winters. Annual region averages approximately 30 centimeters (12 inches). Coastal fog throughout the late spring and summer as a result of the pro (approximately 19 kilometers [12 miles] southwest). Nightly I v<4 per region rarely fall to near or below freezing in the winter mon e efreeze-th are not likely to affect the project.
by long, dry,
the project
'ttently common
Pacific Ocean
the project
ons

4.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The project site is situated on the Oxnard Plain wit
geomorphic/geologic province. The Trafverse Ranges fo
province that contains sedimentary rocks ranging in'age from Creta estern Transverse Ranges
4'trending geomorphic
p s to Recent. Major eastsion and are characteristic of trending folds and reverse faults reflect regionlPho h-sOlZttogyr‘i the Transverse Ranges.

The Oxnard Plain represents the ancient aim of t e Santa Clara River. The delta was formed at the end of theilasiNaci;), eg41,1 when thenta Clara River was part of a much more extensive river systeri.'The proposid projedt'areirlet;nderlain by artificial fill and Quaternary age sediments.

5.0 EARTIrMA'lL

5.1 Artificial Fill (a))
\
Artiiicial fill, matenals in the area are mainly disturbed alluvial deposits and imported materials that 'are teioduct of agricultural disturbance and grading for construction of roadways.

5.2 Alluvium (Qal)
The alluvium observed in the area of the alignment consists of mixtures of unconsolidated sand, silt, clay, and gravel. Those deposits are typically laminated to thinly bedded and lenticular, and are expected to be loose to medium dense and soft to moderately stiff in the near subsurface.

Depth to bedrock is estimated to be in excess of 15 meters (50 feet).

6.0 GROUNDWATER
The project site is located within the Oxnard Plain Pressure subbasin (County of Ventura, 1986). The depth of groundwater in the Oxnard Plain Pressure subbasin in the vicinity of the project ranges from 24 to 30 meters (80 to 100 feet) below ground surface (bgs). Shallower IAWP 1998‘97.2270‘14iPT.JUL
3 July 1998
Project No. 97-42-2271
perched water is present in the area of the proposed new structure and in most areas of the Oxnard Plain Pressure Basin. On the basis of available data, perched water ma about 3 to 5 meters (10 to 15 feet) below the ground surface in the ar- - 6 improvements. That level should be expected to fluctuate with va irrigation, etc.

7.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS
The main geologic hazard that we expect coulda e. oject area is sei 13.

In association with seismic shaking, there is a potentk; or and seismic ttlernent to 1 occur. Although there is an active fault located at the bae of i n.rillo Ells about 200 to 300 meters (700 to 1,000 feet) north of the proposed struct on, to our knowledge, the site is not within an area of known fault niturepotential or vithin a --afea of slope instability.

Portions of the Ponderosa Road alignment ocatar-north of the pro osed interchange will be within an Alquist Priolo earthquake fault hazAttzo

7.1 Seismic Shaking
Ventura County) t e onl>coMity in southeim alifornia that has not directly experienced the effects of a devastAng IdslOricalefttliquake,on a fault within its borders (Weber et al., 1973).

That quiescence is in clea?'confhcrwiththe active tectonic framework of the county. There are numerous regional an local ad
and
that pose a seismic risk to the region that are present in, ..rry,c44
and extend fir—ough, the C\dunty.
.Qeodetic surveys-indicate fhat the Ventura basin is experiencing crustal shortening in a p north-soiith dire'etion at an annual rate of about 1 centimeter (cm) per year. Based on that crustal shortening rate, A-„Venttu4 region should have experienced the equivalent of two moment- \ magnitude 7.5 duringing the last 200 years. However, no large-magnitude earthquakes have occurred historically along the Oak Ridge, San Cayetano, Simi-Santa Rosa, Ventura, or any other fault in the county. Obviously, portions of Ventura County have been affected by earthquakes occurring in other geographic regions, such as the damage in Fillmore and Simi Valley due to the January 17, 1994, Northridge earthquake (magnitude 6.7). Neverthelesk no earthquakes with magnitudes larger than 6.0 have occurred historically on faults in 'Ventura County.

The relative earthquake quiescence in Ventura County is disconcerting because porti I,s of Ventura County exhibit some of the greatest Quaternary deformation rates in California the world. For instance, the Ventura anticline has exhibited uplift rates of about 6 millimeters per year (rnrn/yr) for the last 40,000 to 100,000 years. That rate compares with typical coastal t ace uplift rates in other areas of California of about 0.1 to 0.5 mm/yr. The high deformation rate implies a high seismic activity rate for the region, which has not historically been experienced.. lAWP1199.9197-227011APT.JUL
as shallow as
e proposed
in precipitation,
July 1998
Project No. 97-42-2271
As noted above, the Ventura region contains numerous regional faults, including the San Cayetano and Oak Ridge faults, that pose a significant seismic threat. Studies4the Oak Ridge fault, located about 8 kilometers (5 miles) north of the site, indicate that the"ult as an average slip-rate of about 5 mm/yr (Yeats and Huftile, 1994). The recurrenc for earthquakes along the Oak Ridge fault are unknown because that fault is difficul the presence of the Santa Clara River and landslide deposits along most of trace.'ower, because the fault is extensive and has a large average slip-rate, the O. ' - I lt clearl srnic hazard for the project.
used significant damage
des Counties. Most of the
ed uring the earthquake
On January 17, 1994, the magnitude 6.7 Nort
to both private and public property throughout Ventura an damage was attributable to the intensity offground shaking th (CDMG, 1994).

We preliminary reviewed the maximurncredible eart qu.ike (MCE) and corresponding peak bedrock acceleration fot.he,site for ulNyit5delltr,aen design methods. Deterministic estimates of horizontal strong -ground -Motion tht (Ould affect the project region were estimated using the computer prograEQFAVLT (Blake, 194),,,nd review of Mualchin and Jones (1992).

EQFAULT found applOxim;lel 5j8 a&ive,and,z_t_extrially faults within a 160-kilometer (100-mile) radius of the site.

On lJie.basis of oiir..faulf search, -thelargest median ground motion from a maximum credible earthqu CE) near the site wOlild beemagnitude (M) 6.9 earthquake occurring on the Oak Ridge \ fault stem, mapped approximately:-/8 kilometers (5 miles) north of the site. The estimated median peak belock aateleration\forIthat MCE is about 0.6g to 0.7g. Because ground motions can vary significantly fromeltirnates made using attenuation relationships, it should be recognized that there is a potential thIt-kc' bedrock accelerations greater than those estimated could occur if an earthquake were topc" c6 rat, or near, the site.

7.2 Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is the temporary buildup of excess pore water pressure resulting in a condition of near zero effective stress and the temporary loss of strength induced by earthquake ground shaking. Soil materials considered to be susceptible to liquefaction include loose, saturated sand and non-plastic silt. Clay soils or sand and silt with more than 15 percent claysized particles (particles less than 0.005 mm) are typically considered to be non-liquefiable.

Although no subsurface data are available for the area of the proposed structure, the available nearby data available suggest that there is an opportunity for shallow ground water and loose, granular soils to exist at the site. Liquefaction potential could be manifested as sand boils, differential settlement, ground deformations, and reduced vertical and lateral pile capacities. lAWP11998‘97.2270‘1-R PTAK 5
July 1998
Project No. 97-42-2271

7.3 Seismic Settlement
Seismically-induced settlement or collapse can occur in dry soils th ar ose, soft, or moderately dense and weakly cemented. The soils at the site above ther‘ el of the perched groundwater probably contain zones of loose to medium dense alludift On e basis of data from nearby sites, there appears to be a potential for seismically in6 d settlemen and collapse within the alluvium.

8.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
On the basis of our review of the available geo
present the following discussion:

8.1 Bridge Design

8.1.1 Foundation Considerations
ation for the area, we
It appears likely that thrn;Ztstructures )roe sup rted on either Class 45 or Class 70 driven or CLDH piles installed actordin-to the Standard Specifications. Pile embedment depths 3 of about 6 to 12 meters (2' to 40feet) or moVnay be needed to achieve the design pile capacities, depending, part, y!:?ri_ the lique action potential at the site. Predrilling or construction v, riALLIDH pil'es,can'belitidereito assist with the pile installation. The designlevel geotecluucal studj%shotild, colisider driven or CIDH piles and also the possibility of supportin.(ew structures (111, spread footing foundations.

8.1. 4Seismit,Considei'-ations
)1 On th basis bf our freliminary review of the seismic conditions at the site, we suspect that an estimated pe)k,horizontal bedrock acceleration of 0.6g to 0.7g should be used with Caltrans design methods. plpreliminary seismic evaluation purposes, we suggest that the AC-32 ARS curves be increased by 20 percent as a safety factor consistent with previous correspondence from Caltrans (Abghari and Singleton, 1996). Using that range of estimated peak bedrock accelerations, the Caltrans Highway Design Manual would require that a seismic approach slab be provided on new structures.

8.2 US101 Widening

8.2.1 Roadway Considerations
It appears likely that grading for the roadway improvements can generally be constructed in accordance with the Caltrans Standard Specifications. lAWP\ 1098 %.97.2270‘1•RPT.M. 6
July 1998
Project No. 97-42-2271
For preliminary planning purposes, embankment slopes constructed of compacted fill materials placed in accordance with the Standard Specifications can likelyAe designed at inclinations of 2h:lv or flatter.

Erosion control systems (such as matting, slope paving, and ce can be used to enhance surficial slope stability and provide for stee be allowed for conventionally graded slopes. Slopes provid measures probably can be designed at inclinations as steep a ement systems)
ope clina. ns than may
ropria ero in control
2h: 1 v.

Fill slopes incorporating slope reinforcem control ancements probably can be designed at inclinations steeper than thos en above. Geosyntheticreinforced embankment (GRE) slopes are designed to inco extile type reinforcements.

Sometimes, GRE slopes can be designed tH clinations of u 1/2h: lv. However, depending on the height of the GRE slope, the slop illation ma d to be limited to reduce the estimated slope deformations. The length reinfo etittusually equal to at least the height of the proposed GRE, should be considecl inplaoing.if'ffic staging. The face of GRE slopes steeper than 1:1 will geffecgi?b, provide h erQof control devices or face treatments that are needed to reduce tlideicol'ent,!al for erosion.

I Where the design slope clinations Ye-no achievable (for example, to reduce potential impacts to the right-of-wa nd c4iN7ironmettall sensitive areas), retaining wall systems can be \ provided. -41;i;my-"-of tand‘-,.cl, nop,5andard and proprietary retaining wall systems can be designed rrdinglp Calt ns req irernedis.

8.2.tQrainge Consideratipns
In general, rainage 4hould be designed such that water does not pond or run over slopes.

Dikes, gutters and do dcains should be designed to reduce the potential for water to run over slopes. Concentrated flows of runoff should be designed with erosion control devices that will dissipate flow velocities to acceptable velocities for the soil conditions at that area.

9.0 ADDITIONAL STUDIES
This Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report is intended to provide general input to the preparation of the Project Study Report. Neither field exploration nor laboratory testing services were provided for this phase of work. Additional geotechnical engineering studies and site-specific exploration and soil testing should be provided as the project progresses into the design and construction phases. The main geotechnical considerations that we expect will need to be addressed by the design study are: foundation types and design; design of embankment slopes with regard to slope stability, erosion, and right-of-way or other constraints; and design of the structural section.
1:1WF11001V7-727 041-R PT.JUL
July 1998
Project No. 97-42-2271

10.0 CLOSURE
Fugro prepared the conclusions and professional opinions prese accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and location this report was prepared. This statement is in lieu implied.
s report in
ctices at the time
es, express or
This report has been prepared for ASL Consultin ngm
agents only. It may not contain sufficient information for th pu uses. If any changes are made in the project as it is ektibed r recommendations contained in this report should not be cAide e changes and modifies and approves in writing the conclusi report.
ers, Inc., and t t•srized
es of other p. or other
ort, the conclusions and
ess Fugro reviews the
ecornmendations of this
This report was prepared based on ou
warranties as to the accuracy of existing inforrnftiO
this report are intended thr, lanrung.,purposes-They are "if . documents, construction ,dra nor s ecincatio
ormation. Fugro makes no
rt and the drawings contained in
ot intended to act as final-design
view of existing:A
sire
lAWFV1998t97-227011-RPT.JUL f• "
July 1998
Project No. 97-42-2271

REFERENCES
Abghari, A. and Singleton, C.E. (1996), Acceleration Response Spec, Seismic Retrofit Bridges, Department of Transportation E Internal Communication, August 13. :

Blake, T.F. (1994), EQFAULT, A Computer Program for t
Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California
al Agency
ervice Center
eak
California Department of Mines and Geology (1994
and Related Land Movement in the City of Simi
Earthquake of January 17, 1994, ORen -File Report 94-
urface Geologic Effects
suiting from the Northridge
County of Ventura, Public Works Agency, lood tTontrol and a r Resources Department (1986), Quadrennial Report of Hydro ottC'Data, pp. ..-23 -VI-25.

Mualchin, L. and Jones, A.L. • 92), -fak Acce ion f rs aximum Credible Earthquakes in California (Rock ant\ Stiff oil Sites), Califprnia Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and GeolOgy. DMG Opeh_kile Repoit 921.

Weber, F.H., Jr., Clevelan essling, E.F., Miller, R.V., Mills, M.F., Morton, D.M,rdiVveclB.,A '(973),NGeology and Mineral Resources Study of Southern Ventura Californiacalifcirnia Difision of Mines and Geology Preliminary Report 14, pp. -16-2
Yeats, R. Hu e, G.J.,land Stitt, L.T. (1994), Late Cenozoic Tectonics of the East Ventura 14. Basin,\Transverse Ranges, California, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, V. 78, no. 7, pp. 1040-1074.
11WRI998187-ZZ7011•RPT.JUL 9

MEINERS
OAKS

FILLMORE

MOORPARK
VIEW

SATICOY

VENTURA

CAMARILLO
-Evy
CAYELtRO

PACIFIC
••\..

NEWBURY
PARK

POTRERO RD
0-st°

PORT HUENEME
Sant
OCEAN
a.

SANTA PAULA
DSDALE
July 1998
Project No. 97-42-2271A

VICINITY MAP
U.S. 101/Airport North Interchange
ASL Consulting Engineers
NORTH 0 5
MILES
DRAF'
PLATE 1
F `61
cc z
1 < z 1_0
cc cc ow
8:
:Fr

VERDULERA
July 1998
Project No. 97-42-2271A
DRAFT
PLATE 2

10.4 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Airport North Interchange Area
Camarillo, California
Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment
Prepared For:

Fugro West, Inc.

Ventura, California
Prepared by:

ENSR Corporation
Camarillo, California
August 1998
Document Number: 2893-022-200
ENS,
Consulting. Engineering. Remediation
Report No. 2893-022-200
September 10, 1998
Fugro West, Inc.
5855 Olivas Park Drive
Ventura, CA 93003
1220 Avenida Acaso
Camarillo, CA 93012
(805) 388-3775
FAX (805) 388-3577
http://www.ensr.com
Attention: Mr. John Powell
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Airport North Interchange Area
Camarillo, California
ENSR Corporation (ENSR) is pleased to provide the results of our Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Airport North Interchange Area located in Camarillo, California. This assessment was authorized on March 13, 1998, and performed in general accordance with 1 the scope of services outlined in our proposal dated November 17, 1997 and with ASTM Standard E1527-97.

This assessment included a site reconnaissance, as well as research and interviews with representatives of the public, property management and regulatory agencies. No environmental sampling was performed at the site. An assessment was made, conclusions stated, and recommendations outlined.

This report was prepared for and can be relied upon by Fugro West, Inc., its affiliates and their respective lenders, successors and assigns, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract between ENSR Corporation and Fugro West, Inc. dated April 2, 1997.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide environmental services to Fugro West, Inc. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can assist you in any other matter, please contact ENSR Corporation at (805) 388-3775.

Sincerely,

ENSR CORPORATION
Christine M. Mount Gerald A. Hels
Environmental Analyst Senior Environmental Engineer
ENZI

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Purpose and Scope 1

1.2 Methodology 1

1.3 Limitations 1

2.0 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION 3

2.1 Property Description 3

2.2 General Land Use in the Property Vicinity 3

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4

3.1 Surface Water Characteristics 4

3.1.1 Surface Water 4

3.1.2 Flood Potential 4

3.1.3 Drainage 4

3.1.4 Wetlands 4

3.2 Geological Characteristics 4

3.2.1 Topography 4

3.2.2 Site Geology 4

3.2.3 Soils 5

3.3 Groundwater Characteristics 5

3.3.1 Hydrogeologic Setting 5

3.3.2 Groundwater Gradient 5

4.0 HISTORICAL SITE INFORMATION 6

4.1 Aerial Photographs 6

4.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps 7

4.3 Historic Topographic Maps 7

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS RESEARCH 9

5.1 Federal/State Listed Regulatory Facilities 9

5.1.1 Superfund Sites 9
August 1998
2893-022-200
EMit
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page

5.1.2 CERCLIS 9

5.1.3 Solid Waste Registration 10

5.1.4 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 10

5.1.5 Underground Storage Tanks 11

5.1.6 RCRIS 12

5.1.7 Emergency Response Notification System 12

5.1.8 California State Hazardous Waste Sites 13

5.2 Local Regulatory Contacts 13

6.0 SITE INSPECTION 14

6.1 Subject Property Observations and Conditions 14

6.2 Storage Tanks 15

6.3 Hazardous Materials 15

6.4 On-Site Records/Documents 16

6.5 Potential PCB-Containing Electrical Equipment 16

6.6 Stained Soil/Stressed Vegetation 16

6.7 Landfill Activities 17

6.8 Manufacturing/Industrial Uses 17

6.9 Oil/Gas Exploration 17

6.10 Solid Waste Disposal 17

6.11 Potentially Hazardous Building Materials 18

6.12 Monitoring Wells 18

6.13 Adjacent Properties 18

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19

7.1 Conclusions 19

7.2 Recommendations 20

8.0 REFERENCES 22
August 1998
2893-022-200
EhtZt
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

APPENDICES
APPENDIX I - Figures Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 — Northwestern Farm Complex Site Plan
Figure 3 — Southwestern Farm House Site Plan
APPENDIX II EDR Report
August 1998
2893-022-200
EMI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by ENSR Corporation (ENSR) at the Airport North Interchange Area located in Camarillo, California (subject property). Work on this project was performed during July 1998 for Fugro West, Inc.

The purpose of the ESA was to identify 'recognized environmental conditions,' as defined by ASTM, associated with the subject property. The scope of work was in compliance with ASTM Practice Standard E 1527-97 and included a site visit, review of regulatory database information, interviews, and preparation of this report.

The subject property is located within a study area that includes an approximate 1-mile area of land between the Las Posas freeway interchange and Wood Road in Camarillo, California. The subject property includes a portion of Highway 101 and the Caltrans proposed right-of-way. In addition, the subject property includes the portion of Ponderosa Drive that lies west of Las Posas Road and a portion of agricultural land in the area of the proposed Ponderosa Drive extension. Additional areas included in this assessment are the portions of agricultural land in the areas of the proposed Verdulera Street and Ventura Boulevard extensions. A farm complex with a farmhouse and several barns is located in the area of the proposed extension of Ponderosa Drive in the northwestern portion of the subject property. ENSR observed agricultural equipment such as aboveground storage tanks, 55-gallon drums, and tractors in this area. An additional farmhouse is located to the south of Highway 101 along Ventura Boulevard at the point of the proposed interchange. To summarize, the subject property consists of strips of land along the various road and freeway improvement shown on Figure 1.

The subject property is bound to the north by single-family residences and gently sloping, undeveloped hillside. To the east is Las Posas Road, with commercial and retail establishments beyond. The subject property is bound to the south by agricultural fields. To the southeast is a commercial/retail center. Beyond the fields and commercial/retail center is the Camarillo Airport. Agricultural fields are located adjacent to the south of the subject property. To the southwest is a light-industrial/commercial area.

A review of historical sources indicates that the majority of the subject property has been utilized for agricultural purposes from at least 1943 to the present. The onsite farm structures appear to have been constructed before 1940. Highway 101 has been located onsite from at least 1904 to the present, with several expansions of the highway occurring in ES-1 August 1998
2893-022-200
Etiat
the mid 1940's, and 1960's. Ponderosa Drive was developed in approximately 1960-62. A temporary irrigation pond was located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Highway 101 and Las Posas Road in the 1960's through 1970's. The presence of the pond does not appear to present an environmental concern to the subject property.

Overall, the subject property appeared to be well maintained. The portion of Highway 101 located within the subject property boundary includes six lanes of concrete-paved area, with a gravel-covered dirt median dividing the east- and westbound sides. The local roadways are asphalt-paved, with concrete drainage gutters along the edges of the roads. The agricultural portions of the subject property were being utilized for row crops at the time of ENSR's site reconnaissance. No evidence of hazardous material storage, use or disposal was observed in these areas. However, there is the potential for the presence of agricultural pesticides in the surface and shallow subsurface soils in agricultural portions of the subject property.

The farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property included three residential structures, three barns, two garages, and several smaller outbuildings/sheds for the storage of agricultural pesticides and equipment. The area surrounding the farm complex is unpaved. An unlined drainage channel is located adjacent to the west and south of the residential structures. A vehicle and wind machine storage area is located in the northwestern portion of the farm complex. Overall, the farm appeared to be poorly maintained, with areas of oil-stained soil and concrete and improper storage of hazardous materials observed throughout the complex.

Two 500-gallon stationary diesel fuel ASTs, one 500-gallon gasoline AST, and one 500- gallon portable diesel fuel AST were observed in the western portion of the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property. An approximately 500 square foot area of soil staining was observed beneath one of the stationary diesel fuel ASTs.

A small storage shed in the western portion of the farm complex is reportedly used to agricultural pesticides. Several hazard warning signs were observed on the exterior of the shed. However, the shed was locked and inaccessible at the time of ENSR's site reconnaissance.

The farmhouse in the southwestern portion of the subject property is a single residential structure, with a small carport and a small storage shed adjacent to the south. An approximately 600 square foot concrete foundation is located to the east of the residential structure. The foundation is all that remains of a former equipment storage shed.

Agricultural equipment including irrigation piping, tractors, trailers, etc. are located to the ES-2 August 1998
2893-022-200
EICR
west, south and east of the residential structure. No hazardous materials were observed in the area of the farmhouse.

The following suspect ACM were observed in the farm complex structures in the northwestern portion of the subject property: roofing materials, lathe/plaster walls, vinyl floor tiles, vinyl sheet flooring, and ceiling tiles. The following suspect ACM were observed in the farmhouse in the southwestern portion of the subject property: roofing materials, sprayapplied ceiling material, vinyl sheet flooring, and exterior stucco. The suspect ACM observed was in good to fair condition at the time of ENSR's site reconnaissance. Although not observed by ENSR, there is the potential for the presence of asbestos-containing insulation material and transite piping in the onsite farm structures. The suspect building materials were not sampled as part of this assessment.
•The exteriors of the northwestern farm complex structures were observed to have minor flaking and peeling paint. The stucco exterior of the southwestern farmhouse was painted and in fair to good condition.

No evidence of USTs was observed onsite during ENSR's site reconnaissance. However, the farmhouse in the southwestern portion of the subject property was identified as an inactive UST site. Two 500-gallon gasoline USTs were removed from the site in approximately 1984 under the supervision of VCEHD. The USTs were reportedly located to the east of the residential structure adjacent to the former equipment storage shed.

ENSR observed evidence of a UST located at the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property. A vent pipe was observed adjacent to one of the smaller residential structures. No other evidence of USTs was observed within the farm complex.

ENSR observed several debris piles in the northeastern portion of the farm complex. Debris observed in the piles included wooden pallets, green waste, irrigation piping, etc. An empty, discarded 550-gallon UST was observed in this area. No significant soil staining was observed beneath the discarded UST.

Regulatory agency databases and other sources were reviewed to identify adjacent and surrounding properties that may have affected the subject property. ENSR identified a Unocal service station on the LUST list. The site is located within 200 feet of the subject property and is currently undergoing assessment to delineate the extent of releases at the site. Based on current regulatory status and/or distance from the subject property, no other offsite sources of concern were identified.

ES-3 August 1998
2893-022-200
E FRIZ
Based on the information obtained during this Phase I assessment, the following recognized environmental conditions or other issues which have the same significance as a recognized environmental condition, were noted:
• Historical aerial photograph review indicated that portions of the subject property to the north and south of Highway 101 have been in agricultural use since at least 1943. There is the potential for the presence of pesticides in the surface and shallow subsurface soils in the agriculturally developed portions of the subject property.
• Several areas of diesel fuel and oil-stained soil were observed within the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property. In addition, new and used motor oil, diesel fuel, and hydraulic oil containers were unlabeled and stored without secondary containment.
• ENSR observed evidence of a UST located at the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property. A vent pipe was observed adjacent to one of the smaller residential structures.
• The small storage shed used for agricultural pesticide storage at the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property was locked and inaccessible at the time of ENSR's site reconnaissance. Therefore, the condition of the interior could not be assessed.
• Several debris piles were observed within the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property. An empty, discarded 550-gallon UST was observed in this area.
• Based on the age of the onsite farm structures (pre-1940's), there is the potential that ACM and lead-based paint are present onsite. Building materials were not sampled as part of this assessment.
• An offsite Unocal service station located within 200 feet of the northeastern portion of the subject property is a LUST site. Additional investigations to determine the limits of contaminant migration have not been performed to date.

It does not appear that the subject property has been impacted. However, until future investigations delineate the extent of subsurface contamination, there is the potential for release from this site to impact the subject property.

ES-4 August 1998
2893-022-200
ENR
• The proposed interchange project is subject to the guidelines and requirements of Caltrans. A soil lead assessment is required by Caltrans and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for the proper identification and management of soils potentially containing total and soluble lead at the subject property proposed interchange. The aerially deposited lead testing procedures are outlined in the memorandum from Caltrans to the DTSC dated September 14, 1995.

Based on the results of the work performed for this assessment, ENSR makes the following recommendations regarding the subject property:
• Any soils excavated in the agricultural portions of the subject property should be analyzed for pesticide and/or herbicide compounds, and if contaminated, be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. • Hazardous materials such as pesticides, diesel fuel, motor oil, and used oil should be properly labeled and stored in an approved storage facility. • The stained soils within the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property should be evaluated and properly disposed of in accordance with the results of the analysis. Confirmatory sampling should be performed following removal of the soils.

A geophysical survey should be performed in the area of the vent pipe observed within the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property to determine if a UST is currently located onsite. If it is determined that a UST is present onsite, it should be properly permitted, if necessary, with the appropriate regulatory agency.
• The storage shed in the western portion of the property used to store agricultural pesticides and herbicides should be inventoried and properly characterized. All chemicals must be identified before any assessment can be performed. • The debris piles located within the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property should be removed and the soils below the piles should be evaluated for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons and pesticides. • Prior to demolition of the onsite farm structures, ACM and lead-based paint surveys should be performed to identify, define, and quantify hazardous building ES-5 August 1998
2893-022-200
EMit
materials. Any disturbance or removal of ACM or lead-based paint should be performed by a licensed and certified asbestos abatement contractor. • The VCEHD file for the offsite Unocal service station LUST case should be periodically reviewed to assess the potential impacts to the subject property.

ES-6 August 1998
2893-022-200
ENSI

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) performed by ENSR Corporation (ENSR) at the Airport North Interchange Area located in Camarillo in, California (subject property).

1.1 Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose of the ESA was to identify 'recognized environmental conditions' associated with the subject property. The project was performed in general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice Designation E 1527-

97. 1.2 Methodology
In conducting the ESA, ENSR assessed the subject property for visible signs of possible contamination, researched public records, and conducted interviews with representatives of the public, property management, and regulatory agencies. No environmental sampling was performed. We accomplished these objectives by conducting a site visit, observing site conditidns, reviewing pertinent documentation, and formulating appropriate conclusions.

All information obtained was assessed to identify ASTM recognized environmental conditions to the subject property.

1.3 Limitations
This report has been prepared to aid Fugro West, Inc. in identifying and addressing environmental site conditions in the area of the Airport North Interchange. This report is prepared for the sole benefit of this entity; reliance by any other person or entity is subject to the terms and conditions of ENSR's contract with Fugro West, Inc. The scope of work of this Environmental Site Assessment included an assessment of current site operations, conditions, and review of regulatory databases pertaining to the subject property.

During this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, ENSR relied on database information and interviews of property owners, regulatory officials, and other private individuals. ENSR has assumed, where reasonable to do so, that the information provided is true and accurate.

If information to the contrary is discovered, our conclusions and recommendations may not be valid.
1 2893-022-200 August 1998
OCR
Certain environmental hazards are impossible to visually identify and their presence can only be verified by testing and analysis. No sampling other than that indicated was performed during this assessment. In addition, ENSR can make no direct inferences as to the subsurface conditions at the site based on the Phase I scope of work, which does not include a detailed investigation of the subsurface.

Conditions other than those observed may exist in inaccessible or unobserved areas of the subject property. During the site visit, materials identified on the subject property were not disturbed and underlying conditions were not observed. Should there be a substantial change in the functional utilization of the property, or if additional improvements are planned, the conclusions presented here may not be valid. If there are changes in the use of the subject property or changes in adjacent property activities or conditions, ENSR should be notified so that we may observe these conditions.

ENSR obtained environmental agency database information from E Data Resources (EDR) of Southport, Connecticut. The databases usually present the location of entities by street address. In many cases, determining the site's position by street address is the only reasonable means by which we may locate a database entry. The actual proximity of a database entry to the subject property may not be accurately indicated by the street address given.

The conclusions and recommendations describe only the conditions present at the time of our assessment, in areas that were observed. The scope of this report is limited to matters expressly covered.
2 2893-022-200 August 1998
Etat

2.0 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION

2.1 Property Description
The subject property, which includes several existing and planned road alignments, is located within an approximately 1-mile study area of land between the Las Posas freeway interchange and Wood Road in Camarillo, California. The subject property includes a portion of Highway 101 and the Ca!trans proposed right-of-way. In addition, the subject property includes the portion of Ponderosa Drive that lies west of Las Posas Road and a portion of agricultural land in the area of the proposed Ponderosa Drive extension.

Additional areas included in this assessment are the portions of agricultural land in the areas of the proposed Verdulera Street and Ventura Boulevard extensions. A Site Location Map is included as Figure 1. A farm complex with a farmhouse and several barns is located in the area of the proposed extension of Ponderosa Drive in the northwestern portion of the subject property. ENSR observed agricultural equipment such as aboveground storage tanks, 55-gallon drums, and tractors in this area. A Site Plan of the farm complex is included as Figure 2. An additional farmhouse is located to the south of Highway 101 along Ventura Boulevard at the point of the proposed interchange. A Site Plan of the farmhouse and adjacent land is included as Figure 3

2.2 General Land Use in the Property Vicinity
The general land use in the vicinity of the subject property consists of commercial, residential and agricultural properties. Multiple- and single-family residences are located to the north and northeast of the subject property beyond Ponderosa Drive. Agricultural fields are located on the north and south sides of Highway 101. Beyond the agricultural fields to the south of Highway 101, is the Camarillo Airport. Light industrial businesses are located to the southwest of the proposed freeway interchange and commercial properties including retail establishments, gasoline service stations, and restaurants are located adjacent to the eastern portions of the subject property to the north and south of the Las Posas Road/ Highway 101 freeway interchange.
3 2893-022-200 August 1998
Etiat

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1 Surface Water Characteristics

3.1.1 Surface Water. The nearest surface water body to the subject property is the Revlon Slough located approximately 1 mile west.

3.1.2 Flood Potential. According to a representative of the City of Camarillo Planning Department, the subject property lies in Flood Zone C, an are of minimal flooding.

3.1.3 Drainage. The ground surface of the subject property consists of level, asphaltpaved roads and their respective right-of-ways. Drainage on the subject property is by surface runoff to storm drains located along Ponderosa Drive, Las Posas Drive, Verdulera Street, and Ventura Boulevard. Drainage on the unpaved portions of the subject property is via sheet flow generally to the south, or infiltration.

3.1.4 Wetlands. Undeveloped land is subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) jurisdiction if mandatory criteria for wetlands identification are present. Wetlands are defined as areas that have a predominance of hydric soils and that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

Based on a review of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Wetlands Inventory Map for the subject property area, no wetlands are located onsite. The nearest wetland area is the Revlon Slough located approximately 1 mile west of the subject property. The presence of this wetland area should not affect site operations.

3.2 Geological Characteristics

3.2.1 Topography. According to the U.S. Geological Survey Camarillo, California 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle, the subject property lies at elevations ranging from approximately 65 ft above mean sea level in the southwestern portions of the subject property to approximately 95 ft above mean sea level in the northeastern portions. The regional topography slopes to the southwest.

3.2.2 Site Geology. ENSR reviewed a site assessment report prepared by Fugro West, Inc. for a site located in the light industrial/commercial area to the southwest of the subject property. According to the report prepared by Fugro West, Inc. the subject property area is located in the Oxnard Plain, a geomorphic province bounded by the Santa Monica Mountains to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the south and west, and the Santa Ynez 4 2893-022-200 August 1998
Eleit
Mountains to the north. The Oxnard Plain consists of alluvial deposits from the Santa Clara River and other creeks (i.e. Beardsley Wash, Revlon Slough, and Conejo Creek). The alluvial section is hundreds to thousands of feet thick in the Oxnard Plain.

3.2.3 Soils. According to the USDA Soil Survey for Ventura County, California, the subject property soils are part of the Mocho-Sorrento-Garretson Association. These soils are generally level to moderately sloping, very deep, well-drained loarns and silty clay loarns. Soils of this association have a low to moderate shrink-swell potential and none to slight soil erosion hazard.

3.3 Groundwater Characteristics

3.3.1 Hydrogeologic Setting. The local aquifer in the subject property area is part of the Pleasant Valley subbasin of the Oxnard Plain Groundwater Basin. The depth to groundwater in the Pleasant Valley subbasin in the vicinity of the subject property ranges from 140 to 160 feet below ground surface. However, shallow, perched groundwater is present. Groundwater monitoring wells located along Wood Road and Aviador Street southwest of the subject property indicate a groundwater depth approximately 10 to 15 feet below ground surface.

3.3.2 Groundwater Gradient. Based on data collected from the groundwater monitoring wells located along Wood Road and Aviador Street, groundwater flow in the subject property area ranges from southwest to southeast. The groundwater gradient is influenced by local agricultural usage.
5 2893-022-200 August 1998
Ehrat

4.0 HISTORICAL SITE INFORMATION
ENSR consulted historical sources to develop a history of the previous uses or occupancies of the subject property and surrounding area, or to identify those uses or occupancies that are likely to have led to recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property. ENSR reviewed standard historical sources to identify uses of the subject property from 1904 to the present.

4.1 Aerial Photographs
ENSR evaluated aerial photographs of the subject property and the surrounding areas.

Aerial photographs taken in 1945, 1960-62, 1970, 1984, and 1989 were reviewed at the Ventura County Public Works Department, Survey Division. Photographs were reviewed for the presence of any suspect environmental features that may have affected the subject property.
• The 1945 photograph shows the majority of the subject property to be developed with agricultural row crops or orchards. Highway 101 and Las Posas Road are two-lane roads. Areas adjacent to the north and south of Highway 101 are developed as agricultural row crops or orchards with scattered farm complexes.

The farm complex located in the northwestern portion of the subject property and the farmhouse located along Ventura Boulevard in the southwestern portion of the subject property are present in the aerial photograph. Ponderosa Drive has not yet been constructed in the northern portion of the subject property. • The 1960-62 photograph shows the subject property and surrounding land uses to be similar to the 1945 photograph. However, Ponderosa Drive has been constructed in the northern portion of the subject property and Highway 101 has been improved. In addition, Las Posas Road appears to have been improved and some singe-family residences have been developed at the northwest and northeast intersections of Las Posas Road and Ponderosa Drive. A temporary irrigation pond is visible at the southwest corner of the intersection of Highway 101 and Las Posas Road. The presence of the pond does not appear to present an environmental concern to the subject property.
• The 1970 aerial photograph is similar to the 1960 photograph, with some commercial development apparent on the east side of Las Posas Road near its intersection with Highway 101. The irrigation pond is present at the southwest corner of the Las Posas/Highway 101 interchange. A few light 6 2893-022-200 August 1998
industrial/commercial buildings have been constructed to the southwest of the subject property along Wood Road, south of Highway 101. • The 1984 photograph shows the subject property uses to be similar to the 1970 photograph. However, Ponderosa Drive has been extended approximately oneeighth mile to the west. Single-family residences have replaced the agricultural areas adjacent to the north of Ponderosa Drive. In addition, the light industrial/commercial area to the southwest appears more extensively developed.
• The 1989 photograph shows the subject property as it appeared during the site visit, with the exception of the commercial/retail center currently located south of Highway 101 at the Las Posas Road interchange.

4.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
According to EDR Sanborn, Inc., no Sanborn maps are available for the subject property area.

4.3 Historical Topographic Maps
s
ENSR evaluated historical topographic maps at the University of California Santa Barbara's Map and Imagery Laboratory in Santa Barbara, California. Historical topographic maps dated 1904, 1943, 1950, and 1967 were reviewed for the presence of any suspect environmental features that may have affected the subject property. • The 1904 topographic map shows the subject property to be undeveloped with scattered residences located along the old Highway 101. The farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property and the farmhouse in the southwestern portion of the subject property appear on the topographic map.

Las Posas Road is present in the eastern portion of the subject property.

Ponderosa Drive does not appear to have been constructed at this time.

Surrounding properties appear mostly undeveloped, with scattered residences along the roadways.
• The 1943 topographic map shows the subject property and surrounding sites to be similar to the 1904 topographic map. Highway 101 and Las Posas Road appear to have been improved. Ponderosa Drive does not appear to have been constructed at this time.
7 2893-022-200 August 1998
Efiat
• The 1950 topographic map shows the subject property to be utilized for agricultural purposes, with the farm complex and farmhouse in the northwestern and southwestern portions of the subject property, or as undeveloped.

Ponderosa Drive appears in the northern portion of the subject property. • The 1967 topographic map is similar to the 1950 topographic map. However, Highway 101 and the Las Posas freeway interchange have been further improved. Several large, commercial buildings are present to the east of Las Posas Road on the north and south sides of Highway 101. Single-family residential development is present at the northwest and northeast corners of the intersection of Las Posas Road and Ponderosa Drive.
8 2893-022-200 August 1998
ENZII

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS RESEARCH
ENSR obtained regulatory agency databases from E Data Resources (EDR) of Southport, Connecticut. The databases were reviewed to identify the notifications, registrations, and documented environmental incidents regarding the subject property and sites in the vicinity of the subject property. Please note that regulatory listings are limited and include only those sites that are known to the regulatory agencies at the time of publication to be contaminated or in the process of evaluation for potential contamination. Due to the size of the subject property, the databases were searched out to a distance of 1 mile to ensure ASTM requirements were met for the entire subject property. The following sections summarize our findings.

5.1 Federal/State Listed Regulatory Facilities
The findings of our review of Federal and State regulatory agency databases are presented below.

5.1.1 Superfund Sites. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) established the National Priorities List (NPL) of federal "Superfund" sites. These are contaminated sites that have been assigned a high ranking, in terms of potential public health effects, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

A review of the EPA NPL identified no Superfund sites on or within a 1-mile radius of the subject property.

5.1.2 CERCLIS. Each region of the EPA produces a CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS) list. The CERCLIS tracks potential hazardous waste sites identified by the EPA.

All sites identified are assessed by the EPA or an appropriate state agency to determine what action, if any, needs to be taken. The EPA also maintains a list of CERCLIS sites where the EPA has concluded that no further action will be taken by their office (CERCLIS NFRAP sites). The identification of a site from the CERCLIS list implies only that the site• has been brought to the attention of the EPA and does not necessarily confirm that an actual health or environmental threat currently exists or has ever existed. The findings of our review are as follows:
• The subject property does not appear on the CERCLIS list. • There are no facilities identified on the CERCLIS list located within 1 mile of the subject property.
9 2893-022-200 August 1998
E Nat

5.1.3 Solid Waste Registration. The California Integrated Waste Management Board maintains the Solid Waste Information System which contains an inventory of active, closed, and inactive solid waste disposal facilities or landfills. In addition, the California State Water Resources Control Board maintains the Waste Management Database. The findings of our review of the solid waste registration listings are as follows:
• No listed permitted landfills or solid waste processing facilities were identified on the subject property or sites within 1 mile of the subject property.

5.1.4 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. The California Water Resources Control Board maintains an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank (LUST) incidents. The LUST database was reviewed and the findings of our review are as follows:
• The subject property does not appear on the LUST database. • Forty-five LUST sites were identified within a 1-mile radius of the subject property. However, based on distance and/or current regulatory status, 42 of the 45 LUST sites do not appear to present an environmental concern to the subject property.

Based on the distance from the subject property, its current regulatory status, and the shallow groundwater in the subject property vicinity, three of the LUST sites have the potential to environmentally impact the subsurface of the subject property. ENSR submitted requests to review the regulatory file for the following sites at the Ventura County Environmental Health Department (VCEHD):
• Unocal Service Station, 672 Las Posas Road, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Las Posas Road and Ponderosa Drive, adjacent to the Ponderosa Drive portion of the subject property.

Based on information provided in the VCEHD file, a baseline soil vapor survey performed in September 1997 identified elevated levels of BTEX and TPH in the upper five feet of the subsurface soils near the USTs and dispenser islands. In addition, a release of unleaded gasoline from a product line breach was discovered during routine pressure testing in November 1997. A subsurface investigation conducted in January 1998 indicated that elevated levels of TPH and BTEX remain in the shallow subsurface soils in the area of the former damaged product line and USTs. The VCEHD is requiring additional investigation to address the areas of concern identified during the soil vapor survey and the additional investigation. Additional investigation to determine the limits of contaminant migration has 10 2893-022-200 August 1998
EINat
not been performed to date. Until future investigations delineate the extent of subsurface contamination, there is the potential for release from this site to impact the subject property. • Chevron Service Station, 522 Las Posas Road, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Las Posas Road and Daily Drive, approximately 100 feet from the eastern portion of the subject site.

According to information provided in the EDR report, this site is an active LUST case with known groundwater impact. According to Mr. Pete Bozek, VCEHD case manager for the site, the extent of contamination has been defined and appears to be limited to Chevron's property boundaries. In addition, the most recent quarterly groundwater monitoring results (Second Quarter 1998) were non-detect for benzene and TPH. Chevron is expected to file for case closure in the near future. Based on the available information, this site does not appear to present an environmental concern to the subject property. • Mobil Service Station, 501 Las Posas Road, located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Las Posas Road and Daily Drive, approximately 100 feet south of the Ponderosa Drive portion of the subject property and 250 feet north of the Highway 101 portion of the subject property.

According to information in the EDR report, this site is an active LUST case with known groundwater impact. According to Mr. David Sulter, VCEHD case manager for the site, the extent of contamination has been defined and appears to be limited to Mobil's property boundaries. Based on the available information, this site does not appear to present an environmental concern to the subject property.

5.1.5 Underground Storage Tanks. The California Water Resources Control Board maintains a list of active and inactive underground storage tanks in their Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database. The list of USTs was reviewed and the following findings documented:
• The farmhouse located in the southwestern portion of the subject property was identified on the state UST list.
• There are six registered UST facilities identified on the UST list that adjoin the subject property.

According to Mr. John Ferro, property owner, two 500-gallon USTs were located to the east of the onsite farmhouse. The USTs were removed in approximately 1984 under the supervision of VCEHD and the UST file was closed by the VCEHD. Based on the available 11 2893-022-200 August 1998
EMT
information, the former onsite USTs do not appear to present an environmental concern to the subject property.

Two of the six offsite UST facilities, R.P. Richards at 934 Verdulera Street and G&H Technology at 750 West Ventura Boulevard, are referenced on the LUST list, but based on current regulatory status, do not appear to present an environmental concern to the subject property. An additional UST facility, Dial Security at 760 West Ventura Boulevard is listed as an inactive UST site and has no reported releases. Therefore, this offsite UST facility does not appear to present an environmental concern to the subject property. The remaining three sites, the Unocal, Chevron, and Mobil Service Stations are discussed in Section 5.1.4 above.

5.1.6 RCRIS. The EPA has jurisdiction over Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites and maintains an Information System (RCRIS) of privately owned and operated facilities for which notifications have been filed as required by RCRA regulations.

The RCRIS serves to track the status of registrations, permits, reports, inspections, and enforcement activities of those facilities regulated under RCRA. Among those facilities listed are generators, transporters, and treatment/storage/disposal (TSD) facilities for hazardous waste. A review of the list of RCRA generator and transporter sites identified the following:
• The subject property does not appear on the RCRIS list. • One adjoining facility, G&H Technology, was identified on the RCRIS list.

Based on the information provided in the EDR database, G&H Technology has no RCRA generator violations. This site is also referenced on the LUST list and is discussed in Sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5.

A review of the list of RCRA TSD facilities identified the following:
• The subject property does not appear on the RCRIS TSD list. • There are no facilities identified on the RCRIS TSD list located within 1 mile of the subject property.

5.1.7 Emergency Response Notification System. The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) list identifies locations of spills and leaks of hazardous substances regulated by CERCLA, and those petroleum products regulated by the Clean Water Act. ENSR reviewed the EPA ERNS report regarding releases of oil and hazardous substances for the vicinity of the subject property. The findings of our review of the ERNS list are as follows:
12 2893-022-200 August 1998
Mal
• The subject property is not identified on the ERNS database. • There are no facilities identified on the ERNS database that adjoin the subject property.

5.1.8 California State Hazardous Waste Sites. State hazardous site records are often similar to the CERCLIS list for the state. The findings of our review are as follows:
• The subject property does not appear on the State hazardous waste sites list. • There is one facility, Camarillo Airport at 555 Airport Way, identified on the State hazardous waste sites list located within a 1-mile radius of the subject property.

The Camarillo Airport hazardous waste site is located approximately % mile southwest of the subject property. According to Mr. John Geroch, of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, it appears that soil and groundwater contamination at the Airport site is limited and does not extend beyond the Airport's property boundaries. Based on the information provided by Mr. Geroch, it does not appear that the Camarillo Airport hazardous waste site would present an environmental concern to the subject property.

5.2 ,Local Regulatory Contacts
The Ventura County Fire Department and the Ventura County Environmental Health Department maintain files by address only. Because no address is currently assigned to the subject property, these agencies were not contacted with regard to the subject property.

However, the Ventura County Environmental Health Department was contacted regarding file reviews for the offsite LUST facilities of concern. The results of the file reviews are discussed in Section 5.1.4 above.
13 2893-022-200 August 1998
lat

6.0 SITE INSPECTION
An environmental professional from ENSR, experienced in environmental site assessments, conducted a site and area reconnaissance of the subject property and vicinity on July 8, 1998. The farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property was assessed on August 4, 1998 and the farmhouse in the southwestern portion of the subject property was assessed on August 6, 1998. The site reconnaissance was performed to obtain information that would indicate evidence of past or present activities that have or could have contaminated the subject property, and the likelihood of identifying recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property. The site reconnaissance was conducted in person by Ms. Christine M. Mount and Mr. Allen Bennett of ENSR.

6.1 Subject Property Observations and Conditions
The subject property consists of an approximately 1-mile area of land between the Las Posas freeway interchange and Wood Road in Camarillo, California. The subject property includes a portion of Highway 101 and the Caltrans proposed right-of-way. In addition, the subject property includes the portion of Ponderosa Drive that lies west of Las Posas Road and a portion of agricultural land in the area of the proposed Ponderosa Drive extension.

Additional areas included in this assessment are the portions of agricultural land in the areas of the proposed Verdulera Street and Ventura Boulevard extensions.

The portion of Highway 101 located within the subject property boundary includes six lanes of concrete-paved area, with a gravel-covered dirt median dividing the east- and westbound sides. No evidence of hazardous materials storage, use or disposal was observed in this area.

The local roadways are asphalt-paved, with concrete drainage gutters along the edges of the roads. No evidence of hazardous materials storage, use or disposal was observed in these areas.

The agricultural portions of the subject property were being utilized for row crops at the time of ENSR's site reconnaissance. No evidence of hazardous material storage, use or disposal was observed in these areas. However, there is the potential for the presence of agricultural pesticides in the surface and shallow subsurface soils in this area.

The farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property included three residential structures, three barns, two garages, and several smaller outbuildings/sheds for the storage of agricultural pesticides and equipment. The area surrounding the farm 14 2893-022-200 August 1998
EFRit
complex is unpaved. An unlined drainage channel is located adjacent to the west and south of the residential structures. A vehicle and wind machine storage area is located in the northwestern portion of the farm complex. Overall, the farm appeared to be poorly maintained, with areas of oil-stained soil and concrete and improper storage of hazardous materials observed throughout the complex.

The farmhouse in the southwestern portion of the subject property is a single residential structure, with a small carport and a small storage shed adjacent to the south. An approximately 600 square foot concrete foundation is located to the east of the residential structure. According to Mr. Ferro, the foundation is all that remains of a former equipment storage shed. Agricultural equipment including irrigation piping, tractors, trailers, etc. are located to the west, south and east of the residential structure. No hazardous materials were observed in the area of the farmhouse.

6.2 Storage Tanks
No evidence of USTs was observed onsite during ENSR's site reconnaissance. However, the farmhouse in the southwestern portion of the subject property was identified as an inactive UST site. As mentioned in Section 5.1.5, two 500-gallon gasoline USTs were removed from the site in approximately 1984 under the supervision of VCEHD. The USTs were reportedly located to the east of the residential structure adjacent to the former equipment storage shed.

ENSR observed evidence of a UST located at the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property. A vent pipe was observed adjacent to one of the smaller residential structures. No other evidence of USTs was observed within the farm complex.

Two 500-gallon stationary diesel fuel ASTs, one 500-gallon gasoline AST, and one 500- gallon portable diesel fuel AST were observed in the western portion of the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property. An approximately 500 square foot area of soil staining was observed beneath one of the stationary diesel fuel ASTs (see Figure 2 --- Northwestern Farm Complex Site Plan).

6.3 Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials currently used at the subject property include agricultural pesticides in the portions of the subject property being utilized to grow row crops. There is a possibility that residual pesticide is present in the surface and shallow subsurface soils. 15 2893-022-200 August 1998
Efiat
In addition, ENSR observed three 500-gallon diesel fuel ASTs, one 500-gallon gasoline AST, approximately 150 gallons of new motor oil and hydraulic oil stored in 55-gallon and 5- gallon containers, approximately 200 gallons of waste oil stored in 55-gallon and 5-gallon containers, and approximately seven 200-gallon propane ASTs at the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property. The diesel fuel ASTs, new and used motor oil, and hydraulic oil containers were unlabeled and stored without secondary containment.

A small storage shed in the western portion of the farm complex is reportedly used to agricultural pesticides. Several hazard-warning signs were observed on the exterior of the shed. However, the shed was locked and inaccessible at the time of ENSR's site reconnaissance.

6.4 On-site Records/Documents
No records or documents are currently maintained onsite.

6.5 Potential PCB-Containing Equipment
The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) regulates all electrical equipment with mineral oil containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in concentrations greater than 50 parts per million (ppm). Such equipment is considered to be PCB-contaminated and requires appropriate remediation should they be found to be stained or leaking.

No electrical transformers, hydraulic lifts, fluorescent light ballasts, or other potential PCBcontaining equipment was observed onsite during ENSR's site visit.

6.6 Stained Soil/Stressed Vegetation
Vegetation at the subject property consists of cultivated row crops in the agriculturally developed portions of the subject property, as well as naturally occurring weeds along the highway and local roadways. No areas of stressed vegetation were observed on the subject property during ENSR's site visit.

An approximately 500 square foot area of stained soil was observed beneath the stationary 500-gallon diesel fuel AST located to the west of the residential structures within the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property.

Significant soil staining was observed in one of the two barns located in the western portion of the farm complex. Waste oil in 5-gallon and 55-gallon containers is stored in this area. 16 2893-022-200 August 1998
Ett
Minor soil staining was observed in the western portion of the farm complex near a metal shed utilized to store motor oil and hydraulic oil.

Minor soil staining was observed within the farm complex in an area south of the converted garage/residential structure. The staining is beneath wooden pallets used to store 5-gallon containers of waste oil.

A vehicle located in the garage to the north of the residential structures within the farm complex appeared to be leaking motor oil and automatic transmission fluid onto the concrete floor.

An approximately 40 square foot area of oil-stained soil was observed in the eastern portion of the farm complex adjacent to the chicken coops.

6.7 Landfill Activities
No obvious signs of past or present landfill activity were observed on the subject property or adjoining properties during the site reconnaissance.

6.8 Manufacturing/Industrial Uses
No manufacturing or industrial uses were noted on the subject property during the site visit.

6.9 Oil/Gas Exploration
ENSR reviewed the State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) Wildcat Map No. 2-1 for oil and/or gas wells located on the subject property. No oil and/or gas wells are located on the subject property or within 1 mile of the subject property.

6.10 Solid Waste Disposal
Solid waste consists of domestic trash at both the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property and the farmhouse in the southwestern portion of the subject property. Domestic trash includes household waste such as paper, plastic, and food, etc. and green waste. Domestic trash is stored in a dumpster at the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property and in 55-gallon plastic bins at the farmhouse in the southwestern portion of the subject property.

In addition to domestic trash, ENSR observed several debris piles in the northeastern portion of the farm complex. Debris observed in the piles included wooden pallets, green 17 2893-022-200 August 1998
EhEat
waste, irrigation piping, etc. An empty, discarded 550-gallon UST was observed in this area. No significant soil staining was observed beneath the discarded UST.

6.11 Potentially Hazardous Building Materials
Asbestos-Containing Materials. Based on the age of the subject property farm structures (pre-1940's), there is the potential for the presence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM).

The following suspect ACM were observed in the farm complex structures in the northwestern portion of the subject property: roofing materials, lathe/plaster walls, vinyl floor tiles, vinyl sheet flooring, and ceiling tiles. The following suspect ACM were observed in the farmhouse in the southwestern portion of the subject property: roofing materials, sprayapplied ceiling material, vinyl sheet flooring, and exterior stucco. The suspect ACM observed was in good to fair condition at the time of ENSR's site reconnaissance. Although not observed by ENSR, there is the potential for the presence of asbestos-containing insulation material and transite piping in the onsite farm structures. The suspect building materials were not sampled as part of this assessment.

Lead-Based Paint. Based on the age of the onsite farm structures, there is the potential for lead-based paint to be present onsite. The exteriors of the northwestern farm complex structures were observed to have minor flaking and peeling paint. The stucco exterior of the southWestern farmhouse was painted and in fair to good condition.

6.12 Monitoring Wells
No monitoring wells were observed onsite during ENSR's site visit, however, three agricultural wells are located within the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property.

6.13 Adjacent Properties
The following sections identify the structures and apparent usage of the properties adjacent to the subject property.

North Single-family residences and gently sloping, undeveloped hillside.

East Las Posas Road, with commercial and retail establishments beyond.

South Agricultural fields. To the southeast is a commercial/retail center. Beyond the fields and commercial/retail center is the Camarillo Airport.

West Agricultural fields. To the southwest is a light-industrial/commercial area. 18 2893-022-200 August 1998
Ettat

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusions
Based on the information obtained during this Phase I assessment, the following recognized environmental conditions or other issues which have the same significance as a recognized environmental condition, were noted:
• Historical aerial photograph review indicated that portions of the subject property to the north and south of Highway 101 have been in agricultural use since at least 1943. There is the potential for the presence of pesticides in the surface and shallow subsurface soils in the agriculturally developed portions of the subject property.
• Several areas of diesel fuel and oil-stained soil were observed within the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property. In addition, new and used motor oil, diesel fuel, and hydraulic oil containers were unlabeled and stored without secondary containment.

ENSR observed evidence of a UST located at the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property. A vent pipe was observed adjacent to one of the smaller residential structures.
• The small storage shed used for agricultural pesticide storage at the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property was locked and inaccessible at the time of ENSR's site reconnaissance. Therefore, the condition of the interior could not be assessed.
• Several debris piles were observed within the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property. An empty, discarded 550-gallon UST was observed in this area.
• Based on the age of the onsite farm structures (pre-1940's), there is the potential that ACM and lead-based paint are present onsite. Building materials were not sampled as part of this assessment.
• An offsite Unocal service station located within 200 feet of the northeastern portion of the subject property is a LUST site. Additional investigations to determine the limits of contaminant migration have not been performed to date. 19 2893-022-200 August 1998
It does not appear that the subject property has been impacted. However, until future investigations delineate the extent of subsurface contamination, there is the potential for release from this site to impact the subject property. • The proposed interchange project is subject to the guidelines and requirements of Caltrans. A soil lead assessment is required by Caltrans and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for the proper identification and management of soils potentially containing total and soluble lead at the subject property proposed interchange. The aerially deposited lead testing procedures are outlined in the memorandum from Caltrans to the DTSC dated September 14, 1995.

7.2 Recommendations
• Any soils excavated in the agricultural portions of the subject property should be analyzed for pesticide and/or herbicide compounds, and if contaminated, be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. • Hazardous materials such as pesticides, diesel fuel, motor oil, and used oil should be properly labeled and stored in an approved storage facility. • The stained soils within the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property should be evaluated and properly disposed of in accordance with the results of the analysis. Confirmatory sampling should be performed following removal of the soils.
• A geophysical survey should be performed in the area of the vent pipe observed within the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property to determine if a UST is currently located onsite. If it is determined that a UST is present onsite, it should be properly permitted, if necessary, or removed with the appropriate regulatory agency.
• The storage shed in the western portion of the property used to store agricultural pesticides and herbicides should be inventoried and properly characterized. All chemicals must be identified before any assessment can be performed. • The debris piles located within the farm complex in the northwestern portion of the subject property should be removed and the soils below the piles should be evaluated for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons and pesticides. 20 2893-022-200 August 1998
Eriat
• Prior to demolition of the onsite farm structures, ACM and lead-based paint surveys should be performed to identify, define, and quantify hazardous building materials. Any disturbance or removal of ACM or lead-based paint should be performed by a licensed and certified asbestos abatement contractor. • The VCEHD file for the offsite Unocal service station LUST case should be periodically reviewed to assess the potential impacts to the subject property. 21 2893-022-200 August 1998
EMS.

8.0 REFERENCES
Aerial Photographs Reviewed at the County of Ventura Public Works Department, 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California.

City of Camarillo Planning Department, Flood Zone Information, 805-388-5360.

E Data Resources, Inc., Southport, Connecticut, 800-352-0050.

Fugro West, Inc., Site Assessment Report, Pacific Beverage Company Facility, dated July 1993. Fugro project no. 92-41-6541.

Historical Topographic Maps Reviewed at the University of California Santa Barbara, Map and Imagery Laboratory.

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, Mr. John Geroch, 213-266-7500.

State of California, Dept. of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, Wildcat Map No. 2-1.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Ventura County, California, issued April 1970.

U.S. Geological Survey, Camarillo, California 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map, photorevised 1967.

Ventura County Public Works, Environmental Health Department, Mr. Dave Sulter and Mr.

Peter Bozek, 805-654-2813.
22 2893-022-200 August 1998
Elgat

APPENDIX I
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Northwestern Farm Complex Site Plan
Figure 3 - Southwestern Farmhouse Site Plan
ukad"
AR
STUDY
AREA
•
• le • ...... •••••• ..... •••.• • • o • •• e‘,.• 0000000000 • 000 SCSI ............ • OXNkRD AIR FORCE BASE
s
Well
.t =
VALLEY
Well
ROAD
000e
Etta SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle, Camarillo, California, photorevised 1967.

LEGEND:
1•••1 Tentative Road Improvements
SCALE
1000 2000
FIGURE 1

SITE LOCATION MAP
Airport North Interchange
Camarillo, CA
FEET
DRAWN: C. MOUNT ;DATE: 07-09-98 ; PROJECT NO:

FILE NO. 2893022a.ds4
; REV.

CHK BY: !2893-022-200
Notto Scale
II
E
...... I—
co
< c
C) ! ,!9--.) c ,_ 0 0 a) Eci: ▪ 0 0 Cf) 0 '5
57) - i 10-3 r a,
0 , 55) u1,7 cir) --v)
In 0 0 5
0 in 0 to
0 n .
5 2
u)
w
Agricultural Fields
I Prcject Number:
2893-022-200
Drawn By. C MOUNT iDate. /98
File Name: figure3 dsA IChecked By:

Ventura Boulevard
Foundation of
Former
Equipment Shed
Agricultural
Equipment
a. piping, trailers, etc.)
Agricultural
Equipment
(i.e. piping, trailers, etc.)
Approximate Location
of Former Gasoline
USTs
Agricultural
Equipment
(i.e. piping, trailers, etc.)
Concrete Pad
for Vehicle
Parking
Highway 101
Residential Structure
Carport/
Storage Shed
FIGURE 3

SITE PLAN
Southwestern Farmhouse
Airport North Interchange Area
Camarillo, California
Not to Scale

APPENDIX II

EDR REPORT
E(51® Environmental
: Data
Resources, Inc.
: an Aedrcompany
The EDR Area Study
Report
Study Area
Airport North Interchange Area
Camarillo, California
July 06, 1998
Inquiry number 269625.1r
The Source
For Environmental
Risk Management
Data
3530 Post Road
Southport, Connecticut 06490
Nationwide Customer Service
Telephone: 1-800-352-0050
Fax: 1-800-231-6802
Internet: www.edrnet.com
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR).

The address of the subject property for which the search was intended is:

AIRPORT NORTH\INTERCHANGE AREA
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ( "reasonably ascertainable ") government records within the requested search area for the following Databases:

NPL. National Priority List
Delisted NPL: NFL Deletions
RCRIS-TSD• • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System AWP: . AWP
Notify 65. Notify 65
Toxic Pits:..-------------- Toxic Pits
CERCLIS• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
CERC-NFRAP: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information • System
CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report
SWF/LF. State Landfill
AST: Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities
RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
WMUDS• WMUDS/SWAT
HMIRS• Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System PADS._ PCB Activity Database System
ERNS:. Emergency Response Notification System
TRIS: • Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCA: . Toxic Substances Control Act
MLTS. Material Licensing Tracking System
NFL Lien: NFL Liens
Ca. BEP: CA Bond Exp. Plan
ROD:. ROD
CONSENT. Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
S Bay Reg. 2:_ South Bay Region 2
Coal Gas: Former Manufactured gas (Coal Gas) Sites.

Unmapped (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.

TC269625 1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Search Results:

Page numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed data on individual sites be reviewed.

Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases.

CAL-SITES: Formerly known as ASPIS, this database contains both known and potential hazardous substance sites. The source is the California Department of Toxic Substance Control.

A review of the Cal-Sites list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there is 1 Cal-Sites site within the searched area.

Site Address Map ID Page
DOD - CAMARILLO AIRPORT 555 AIRPORT 51 56
CHMIRS: The California Hazardous Material Incident Report System contains information on reported hazardous material incidents, i.e., accidental releases or spills. The source is the California Office of Emergency Services.

A review of the CHMIRS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 12/31/1994 has revealed that there are 7 CHMIRS sites within the searched area.

Site Address Map ID Page
Not reported 4040 CENTRAL AVE. 8 5
Not reported CENTRAL AVE. AT DEL NORTE RD. 9 6
Not reported 4418 CENTRAL AVENUE 11 9
Not reported DUREY AIRPORT, CAMARILLO 36 40
Not reported CAMARILLO AIRPORT 36 40
Not reported 305 DURLEY AVENUE 40 43
Not reported LAS POSAS ROAD AT PLEASANT VAL 53 61
CORTESE: This database identifies public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program, sites with USTs having a reportable release and all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known migration. The source is the California Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Emergency Information.

A review of the Cortese list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 16 Cortese sites within the searched area.

Site Address Map ID Page
MOBIL #11-LR4 LAS POSAS RD N. (501) 5 3
CHEVRON #8749 LAS POSAS RD N. (522) 5 3
MARTIN V. SMITH CENTRAL AVE (4040) 8 5
USA PETROLEUM #252 CENTRAL AVE E. (4418) 10 6
MOBIL STATION #11-LR4 LAS POSAS RD (550) 12 10
DIAL SECURITY VENTURA BLVD W. (760) 16 15
G & H TECHNOLOGY INC VENTURA BLVD W. (750) 16 16
W.M. LYLES WOOD RD (210) 26 33
UNOCAL #7056 VENTURA BLVD (2086) 32 37
R P RICHARDS INC VERDULERA ST (934) 34 38
PEPPER TREE DEVELOPMENT CO. LOS POSAS RD S. (158) 35 40 TC269625.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Site Address Map ID Page
CAMARILLO AIRPORT AIRPORT WAY (191) 37 40
CHEVRON #8749 LOS POSAS RD N. (522) 38 41
CAMARILLO AIRPORT AIRPORT WAY / DURLEY AVE (NO 42 49
CAMARILLO AIRPORT TANK FARM WILLIS AVE (385) 49 54
VENTURA COUNTY SUPT. OF SCHOOL AIRPORT WAY (550) 51 58
LUST: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come from the State Water Resources Control Board Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System.

A review of the LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 10/01/1997 has revealed that there are 45 LUST sites within the searched area.

Site Address Map ID Page
MOBIL #11-LR4 LAS POSAS RD N. (501) 5 3
MOBIL LR4-LAS POSAS 501 LAS POSAS RD 5 3
MARTIN SMITH & ASSOCIATES 4040 CENTRAL AVE 8 5
MARTIN V. SMITH 4040 CENTRAL AVE 8 6
TRUCK COUNTRY U.S.A. 1326 DEL NORTE RD 10 7
NATIONAL RV INC 1326 DEL NORTE RD 10 8
CHEVRON STA 9 8749 522 N LAS POSAS RD 12 9
UNOCAL (DBA)/TOSCO #30826 (SIT 672 LAS POSAS RD 12 12
USA PETROLEUM COMPANY #252 4418 E. CENTRAL AVENUE 13 13 G & H TECHNOLOGY INC 750 W VENTURA BLVD 16 15
HALES ENGINEERING 90 WOOD RD 20 20
DIAL SECURITY 760 W VENTURA BLVD. 21 22
HAL WATKINS BMW 411 DAILY DRIVE 22 24
PACIFIC BEVERAGE CO 270 N AVIADOR ST 24 28
PACIFIC BEVERAGE CO 166 N AVIADOR ST 24 29
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 509 E DAILY DR 25 30
BOY SCOUT OFFICE 509 E DAILY DR 25 31
LYLES DIVERSIFIED 210 WOOD RD 26 31
SHELL OIL CO 1604 VENTURA BLVD 29 33
PEPPER TREE DEVELOPMENT CO. 158 S LAS POSAS RD 29 34
LAWRENCE B SCHUCK RANCH 158 S LAS POSAS RD 29 34
UNOCAL #7056 2086 VENTURA BLVD 32 36
R P RICHARDS INC VERDULERA ST (934) 34 38
R. P. RICHARDS, INC. 934 VERDUL ERA ST 34 39
PEPPER TREE DEVELOPMENT CO. LOS POSAS RD S. (158) 35 ao CAMARILLO AIRPORT AIRPORT WAY (191) 37 40
V-CAMARILLO AIRPORT 229 DURLEY AVE 41 46
VENTURA CAMARILLO AIRPORT 229 DURLEY AVE 41 46
V-CAMARILLO AIRPORT AIRPORT WY @ DURLEY 42 49
V-CAMARILLO AIRPORT AIRPORT WY / DURLEY 42 50
V-SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 200 HORIZON WAY 50
V-COUNTY FIRE DEPT-MAINTENANCE 575 AVIATION DR "s:44 51 V.COUNTY FIRE DEPT-MAINTENANCE 575 AVIATION DR 44 51
VENTURA COUNTY DEPT OF AIRPORT 715 AVIATION DR 45 52
CAMARILLO WORK FURLOUGH FACIL 350 WILLIS AVE 48 53
CAMARILLO WORK FURLOUGH FAC 350 WILLIS AVE 48 53
CAMARILLO WORK/FURLOUGH 350 WILLIS RD 48 53
CAMARILLO AIRPORT TANK FARM WILLIS AVE (385) '49 54
V-CAMARILLO AIRPORT-OPERATION 385 WILLIS AVE 49 55
TC269625.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Site Address Map ID Page
GAS S/S VENTURA DEPT AIRPORTS 165 AIRPORT WY 50' 55
VENTURA COUNTY SUPT OF SCH 450 AIRPORT WAY 163 51 58
VENTURA CO SUPT OF SCHOOLS 550 AIRPORT WAY 51 58

FRONTIER HIGH SCHOOL
A. J. THIBODEAUX RES
280 SKYWAY DR
2144 PLEASANT VALLEY RD
52 53
59 60
THIBODEAUX PROPERTY 2144 PLEASANT VALLEY RD 53 60
UST: The Underground Storage Tank database contains registered USTs. USTs are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Aot (RCRA). The data come from the State Water Resources Control Board's Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database.

A review of the UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 10/15/1990 has revealed that there are 44 UST sites within the searched area.

Site Address Map ID Page
VUJOVICH AVOCADO FARM 109 AVOCADO PLACE 1 2
VUJOUICH, BETH 109 AVOCADO PL 1 2
VINCENT A. FRIEDRICH 77 AVACADO PLACE 2 2
JOHN J. MENNE, JR 145 CRESTVIEW AVE 3 2
JOHN J. MYERS 237 CRESTVIEW AVE 4 2
PLEASANT VALLEY CO WATER DIST 154 LAS POSAS RD 6 4
KOTAKE BROTHERS 985 LAS POSAS RD. 7 4
MARTIN V. SMITH 4040 CENTRAL AVE 8 6
MARTIN V. SMITH 1326 DEL NORTE RD 10 8
CHANNEL ISLAND PROP. 1326 DEL NORTE RD 10 8
RONALD R. RICHARDSON #14-737 550 N. LAS POSAS 12 10
SERVICE STATION 5228 672 LAS POSAS RD 12 11
UNOCAL SVC STA #5228 672 LAS POSAS RD 12 12
MARGARET C. REIMANN 4425 CENTRAL AVENUE 13 12
USA PETROLEUM COMPANY #252 4418 E. CENTRAL AVENUE 13 13 98749 522 N LAS POSAS RD 15 14
G AND H TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATE 750W VENTURA BLVD 16 18
GENERAL TELEPHONE 730 PASEO CAMARILLO 18 20
SEACOAST ASSOC./FERRO TRUST 592 W VENTURA BLVD 19 20
HALES ENGINEERING 90 WOOD RD 20 20
KING WELDING, INC. 90 S. WOOD ROAD 20 21
DIAL SECURITY 760W VENTURA BLVD. 21 22
HAL WATKINS BMW 411 DAILY DRIVE 22 24
VILLAGE R V 311 DAILY DR 22 25
HOLIDAY WORLD 311 E DAILY DR 22 27
PACIFIC BEVERAGE CO 270 N AVIADOR ST 24 28
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 509 E DAILY DR 25 30
VENTURA COUNTY COUNCIL, BOY 509 E. DAILY DRIVE 25 30
W.M. LYLES CO. CAMARILLO DIVIS 210 N. WOOD ROAD 26 32
W. M. LYLES CO. 210 WOOD RD 26 32
JORDANO'S INC. 270 N AVIADOR ST 27 33
MOONEY, ART 1800 VENTURA BLVD 28 33
PRADO DE LAS POSAS, LTD. 158 S LAS POSAS RD 29 34
MR. T'S SERVICE CENTER 2001 VENTURA BLVD 30 35
SERVICE STATION - SUITE 830 2086 VENTURA BOULEVARD 32 35 THRIFTY OIL STN. #210 2086 VENTURA BLVD. 32 36
R.P. RICHARDS INC 934 VERDULERA ST. 34 38
R. P. RICHARDS, INC. 934 VERDUL ERA ST 34 39
TC269625.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Site Address Map ID Page

CHANNEL ISLANDS AVIATION INC

CAMARILLO AIRPORT

GSA/CAMARILLO AIRPORT

COUNTY OF VENTURA
V.C. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
THIBODEAUX, A.S.
305 DURLEY AVE
229 DURLEY AVENUE, BUILDING #1
600 AVIATION DR
310 WILLIS AVE
550 AIRPORT WAY
2176 PLEASANT VALLEY RD
Ki 40 44
1\,' 41 46
N 44 51
N 47 52
kJ 51 58
N 53 60
CA FID: The Facility Inventory Database contains active and inactive underground storage tank locations. The source is the State Water Resource Control Board.

A review of the Ca. FID list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 10 Ca. FID sites within the searched area.

Site Address Map ID Page
USA PETROLEUM #252 4418 CENTRAL AVE 11 9
CHEVRON STA 9 8749 522 N LAS POSAS RD 12 0
UNOCAL SVC STA #5228 672 LAS POSAS RD 12 12
KING WELDING 90 N WOOD RD 20 20
STEVE THOMAS B M W INC 411 DAILY DR 22 23
PACIFIC BEVERAGE CO 166 N AVIADOR ST 24 29
R. P. RICHARDS, INC. 934 VERDULERA ST 34 39
MOBIL OIL 11-LR4 550 N LAS POSAS RD 38 41
CAMARILLO AIRPORT 295 DURLEY AVE 40 43
CAMARILLO WORK/FURLOUGH 350 WILLIS RD 48 53
HAZNET: The data is extracted from the copies of hazardous waste manifests received each year by the DTSC. The annual volume of manifests is typically 700,000-1,000,000 annually, representing approximately 350,000-500,000 shipments. Data from non-California manifests & continuation sheets are not included at the present time. Data are from the manifests submitted without correction, and therefore many contain some invalid values for data elements such as generator ID, TSD ID, waste category, & disposal method. The source is the Department of Toxic Substance Control is the agency A review of the HAZNET list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 22 HAZNET sites within the searched area.

Site Address Map ID Page
HARDEN SEA RAY BOATS 1326 DEL NORTE RD 10 6
NATIONAL RV INC 1326 DEL NORTE RD 10 8
G & H TECHNOLOGY INC 750 W VENTURA BLVD 16 15
HALES ENGINEERING CO 18 WOOD RD 16 17
G AND H TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATE 750 W VENTURA BLVD /6 18 STEVE THOMAS B M W INC 411 E DAILY DR 22 23
STEVE THOMAS B M W INC 411 DAILY DR 22 23
CAMARILLO MITSUBISHI 311 E DAILY DR 22 25
HOLIDAY WORLD 311 E DAILY DR 22 26
CAMARILLO MITSUBISHI 311 E DAILY DR 22 27
HOLIDAY WORLD 311 E DAILY DR 22 27
BOB'S AUTOHAUS 150 WOOD RD 23 27
UNOCAL SVC STV 800 2086 VENTURA BLVD 32 35
UNOCAL SVC STV 800 2086 VENTURA BLVD 32 37
TC269625.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Site
1X R P RICHARDS INC
1X SOUTHERN CROSS AVIATION
1X SOUTHERN CROSS AVIATION

VENTURA COUNTY/CAMARILLO AIRPT

GTE FLIGHT OPERATIONS

VENTURA COUNTY OF FIRE PROT DI

VENTURA COUNTY OF FIRE PROT DI

VENTURA COUNTY SUPT OF SCHOOL
Address
934 VERDULERA ST
375 DURLEY AVE
375 DURLEY AVE
295 DURLEY AVE
205 DURLEY AVE
395 WILIS AVE
395 WILLIS AVE
450 AIRPORT WAY # 163
Map ID Page
34 38
39 41
39 42
40 42
41 45
49 54
49 54
51 56
RCRIS: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act database includes selected information on sites that generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Act. The source of this database is the U.S. EPA.

A review of the RCRIS-SQG list, as provided by EDR, and dated 01/01/1998 has revealed that there are 8 RCRIS-SQG sites within the searched area.

Site
CHEVRON STA 9 8749

HALES ENGINEERING

VSE CORP

AGRICULTURAL INSTALLATIONS INC

STEVE THOMAS B M W INC

VILLAGE R V

PACIFIC BEVERAGE CO

CHANNEL ISLANDS AVIATION INC
Address
522 N LAS POSAS RD
18 WOOD RD
760 PASEO CAMARILLO
90 S WOOD RD
411 DAILY DR
311 DAILY DR
270 N AVIADOR ST
305 DURLEY AVE
Map ID Page
12 9
16 16
18 19
20 22
22 23
22 25
24 28
40 44
RCRIS: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act database includes selected information on sites that generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Act. The source of this database is the U.S. EPA.

A review of the RCRIS-LQG list, as provided by EDR, and dated 01/01/1998 has revealed that there are 2 RCRIS-LQG sites within the searched area.

Site Address Map ID Page
G AND H TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATE 750 W VENTURA BLVD
GENERAL TEL OF CA 730 PASEO CAMARILLO DR
16 18
18 19
FINDS: The Facility Index System contains both facility information and "pointers" to other sources of information that contain more detail. These include: RCRIS; Permit Compliance System (PCS); Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS); FATES (FIFRA [Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act] and TSCA Enforcement System, I- I I S [FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System]; CERCLIS; DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial enforcement cases for all environmental statutes); Federal Underground Injection Control (FURS); Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS); Surface Impoundments (SIA); TSCA Chemicals in Commerce Information System (CICS); PADS; RCRA-J (medical waste transporters/disposers); TRIS; and TSCA. The source of this database is the U.S. EPA/NTIS.

A review of the FINDS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/01/1997 has revealed that there are 17 FINDS sites within the searched area.

TC269625 lr EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Site Address Map ID Page
PLEASANT VALLEY CO WATER DIST 154 LAS POSAS RD 6 4
CHEVRON STA 9 8749 522 N LAS POSAS RD 12 9
UNOCAL SVC STA #5228 672 LAS POSAS RD 12 12
HALES ENGINEERING 18 WOOD RD 16 16
G AND H TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATE 750 W VENTURA BLVD 16 18 VSE CORP 760 PASEO CAMARILLO 18 19
GENERAL TEL OF CA 730 PASEO CAMARILLO DR 18 19
AGRICULTURAL INSTALLATIONS INC 90 S WOOD RD 20 22
STEVE THOMAS B M W INC 411 DAILY DR 22 23
VILLAGE R V 311 DAILY DR 22 25
PACIFIC BEVERAGE CO 270 N AVIADOR ST 24 28
HALPIN PROPERTY 270 AVIADOR 27 33
UNOCAL SVC STV 800 2086 VENTURIA BLVD 32 37
CHANNEL ISLANDS AVIATION INC 305 DURLEY AVE 40 44
COUNTY OF VENTURA DEPT AIRPORT 233 DURLEY AV 41 49
VENTURA COUNTY OF FIRE PROT DI 395 WILIS AVE 49 54
VENTURA COUNTY SUPT OF SCH 450 AIRPORT WAY 163 51 58
CA SLIC: SLIC Region comes from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

A review of the CA SLIC list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 2 CA SLIC sites within the searched area.

Site Address Map ID Page
G ANP H TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATE 750W VENTURA BLVD 16 18
DOD - CAMARILLO AIRPORT 555 AIRPORT 51 56
CA BWT: The Business Plan, Hazardous Waste Producers, & Operating Underground Tanks Site Assress List indicates by site address whether EHD has Business Plan (BP), Waste Producer (W), and/or Underground Tank (T) Information.

A review of the Ca. BVVY list, as provided by EDR, and dated 09/25/1997 has revealed that there are 28 Ca. BWT sites within the searched area.

Site Address Map ID Page
MOBIL LR4-LAS POSAS 501 LAS POSAS RD 5 3
CHEVRON #98749-JIM LUPOLD 522 LAS POSAS RD 5 4
USA GASOLINE CORPORATION #252 4418 CENTRAL AVE 11 8
UNOCAL (DBA)/TOSCO #30826 (SIT 672 LAS POSAS RD 12 12
SATICOY BERRY FARMS 585 W DAILY DR 14 14
DIAL SECURITY 760 VENTURA BLVD 16 15
G & H TECHNOLOGY INC BREECH-LO 750 W VENTURA BLVD 16 16 HALES ENGINEERING 18 WOOD RD 16 16
TEXACO ROF-27A 107 W VENTURA BLVD 17 19
STEVE THOMAS BMW 411 E DAILY DR 22 25
HOLIDAY WORLD 311 E DAILY DR 22 26
BOB'S AUTOHAUS 150 WOOD RD 23 27
PACIFIC BEVERAGE CO 270 N AVIADOR ST 24
HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 321 N AVIADOR ST STE 201 27 JEFF'S AUTO REPAIR 270 N AVIADOR ST STE N 27
TC269625.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Site Address Map ID Page
PACIFIC BEVERAGE COMPANY-MAINT 270 N AVIADOR ST 27 33
LAWRENCE B SCHUCK RANCH 158 S LAS POSAS RD 29 34
SWEDISH PERFORMANCE INC 2028 VENTURA BLVD 31 35
AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES 301 WOOD RD 33 37
BARBOUR WELL SURVEYING CORP 934 VERDULERA ST 34 40
Not reported CAMARILLO AIRPORT 36 40
1X SOUTHERN CROSS AVIATION 375 DURLEY AVE 39 42
RO-WING 275 DURLEY AVE 40 42
CHANNEL. ISLANDS AVIATION INC 305 DURLEY AVE 40 44
VENTURA CO FIRE EQUIPMENT REPA 575 AVIATION DR 44 51
CONFEDERATE AIR FORCE EUBANKS / AVIATION ST 46 52
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 2000 PLEASANT VALLEY RD 51 56
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS/CAMARIL 555 AIRPORT WAY 51 56
WDS:California Water Resources Control Board - Waste Discharge System.

A review of the Ca. WDS list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there is 1 Ca. WDS site within the searched area.

Site Address Map ID Page
G AND H TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATE 750 W VENTURA BLVD 16 18 TC269625.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Please refer to the end of the findings report for unmapped orphan sites due to poor or inadequate address information.

TC269625.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Database
NFL
Delisted NFL

RCRIS-TSD
AWP
Cal-Sites
Notify 65
CHMIRS
Cortese
Toxic Pits

CERCLIS

CERC-NFRAP

CORRACTS
State Landfill
LUST
UST
CA FID
AST
RAATS

WMUDS/SWAT
HAZNET
RCRIS Sm. Quan. Gen.

RCRIS Lg. Quan. Gen.

HMIRS
PADS
ERNS
FINDS
TRIS
TSCA
MLTS
NFL Liens

CA SLIC
CA Bond Exp. Plan
ROD

CONSENT
CA BWT
CA WDS
South Bay Region 2
Coal Gas
Total
Plotted
0 0
0 0
1 0
7 16
0 0
0 0
0 45
44 10
0 0
0 22
8 2
0 0
0 17
0 0
0 0
2 0
0 0
28 1
0 0
* Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC269625.1r Page 1 of 61

MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction EDR ID Number
Distance Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
Coal Gas Site Search: No site was found in a search of Real Property Scan's ENVIROHAZ database. 1 VUJOVICH AVOCADO FARM UST
109 AVOCADO PLACE
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State UST:

Facility ID: 37428
Tank Num: 1 Container Num: 1
Tank Capacity: 550 Year Installed: 1984
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: UNLEADED Tank Constrctn: 12 gauge
Leak Detection: GW Monitoring Well
Contact Name: MRS. VUJOVICH Telephone: (805) 482-5624
Total Tanks: 1 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 2 Other Type: FARM

VUJOUICH, BETH UST
109 AVOCADO PL

CAMARILLO, CA
VINCENT A. FRIEDRICH UST
77 AVACADO PLACE
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
6State UST:

Facility ID: 63544
Tank Num: 1 Container Num: 1
Tank Capacity: 280 Year Installed: 1981
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: UNLEADED Tank Constrctn: Not reported
Leak Detection: None
Contact Name: Not reported Telephone: (000) 000-0000
Total Tanks: 1 Regicn: Not reported
Facility Type: 2 Other Type: FARMING
U001579330
N/A
U002243868
N/A
U001579329
N/A
2 3 JOHN J. MENNE, JR UST U001579258
145 CRESTVIEW AVE N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State UST:

Facility ID: 23365
Tank Num: 1 Container Num: 1
Tank Capacity: 280 Year Installed: 1963
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: UNLEADED Tank Constrctn: Not reported
Leak Detection: None
Contact Name: Not reported Telephone: (805) 482-5580
Total Tanks: 1 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: Not reported Other Type: FARMING (AGRICULTURE 4 JOHN J. MYERS UST UO01579259
237 CRESTVIEW AVE N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
TC269625.1r Page 2 of 61
NGs
Map ID
Direction EDR ID Number
Distance Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
JOHN J. MYERS (Continued) UO01579259
State UST:

Facility ID: 28879
Tank Num: 1
Tank Capacity: 500
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: UNLEADED
Leak Detection: Visual
Contact Name: Not reported
Total Tanks: 1
Facility Type: 2
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:
, Other Type
1 Not reported
Not reported
(805) 482-0317
Not reported

FARMING
5 MOBIL #11-LR4 LUST S101305575
LAS POSAS RD N. (501) Cortese NIA
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State LUST:

Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical:

Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Review Date:

Workplan:

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date:

LUST Region 4:

Report Date:

Cross Street:

Lead Agency:

Local Agency:

Substance:

Case Number:

Case Type:

ACTIVE
Los Angeles Region
Gasoline
Local Agency
Other ground water affected
Remediation plan developed
09/16/1996
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
05/16/1991
Not reported
Local Agency
56000
8006619
C-89143
Other ground water affected
Cross Street: Not reported
Qty Leaked: Not reported
Confirm Leak: Not reported
Prelim Assess: 04/22/1992
Remed Plan: 02/23/1996
Monitoring: Not reported
Release Date: 05/16/1991
CORTESE:

Facility ID: 56-000669 Data Source: LTNKA
5 MOBIL LR4-LAS POSAS
501 LAS POSAS RD

CAMARILLO, CA
LUST Region VN:

Facility ID: 89143
Status: Active
Ca. BWT
LUST
S102230279
N/A
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-002011
Information Type: Business Plan, Underground Tank
5 CHEVRON 48749
LAS POSAS RD N. (522)
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
CORTESE:

Facility ID: 56-000668 Data Source: LTNKA
Cortese S101305576
N/A
TC269625 1r Page 3 of 61
Map ID
Direction EDR ID Number
' Distance Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
5 CHEVRON 0198749-JIM LUPOLD Ca. BWT S102230277
522 LAS POSAS RD N/A

CAMARILLO, CA
BVVT
Facility ID: 056-000-001376
Information Type: Business Plan, Underground Tank
6 PLEASANT VALLEY CO WATER DIST
154 LAS POSAS RD
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State UST:

FINDS 1000157935
UST CAD981369713
Facility ID: 34603
Tank Num: 1 Container Num: 3
Tank Capacity: 1000 Year Installed: 1983
Tank Used for: WASTE
Type of Fuel: Not Reported Tank Constrctn: 4 inches
Leak Detection: Visual
Contact Name: LEROY A MILLER Telephone: (805) 482-2119
Total Tanks: 3 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 2 Other Type: AG WATER SUPPLIER
Facility ID: 34603
Tank Num: 2 Container Num: 0000000001
Tank Capacity: 1000 Year Installed. 1983
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: UNLEADED Tank Constrctn: Not reported
Leak Detection: Visual, Stock Inventor
Contact Name: LEROY A MILLER Telephone: (805) 482-2119
Total Tanks: 3 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 2 Other Type: AG WATER SUPPLIER
Facility ID: 34603
Tank Num: 3 Container Num: 2
Tank Capacity: 1000 Year Installed: 1983
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: DIESEL Tank Constrctn: Not reported
Leak Detection: Visual, Stock Inventor
Contact Name: LEROY A MILLER Telephone: (805) 482-2119
Total Tanks: 3 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 2 Other Type: AG WATER SUPPLIER
UST Ventura County Active & Inactive:

Facility ID: D 265
Facility Status: CLOSED
Region: Ventura County
7 KOTAKE BROTHERS UST U001579265
985 LAS POSAS RD. N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
TC269625.1r Page 4 of 61
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
KOTAKE BROTHERS (Continued) U001579265
State UST:

Facility ID: 49702
Tank Num: 1 Container Num: 1
Tank Capacity: 300 Year Installed: Not reported
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: REGULAR Tank Constrctn: Not reported
Leak Detection: None
Contact Name: VALLEY FUEL SUPPLY - OXNARD Telephone: (213) 926-1216 Total Tanks: 1 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 2 Other Type: Not reported
MARTIN SMITH & ASSOCIATES LUST S102433058
4040 CENTRAL AVE N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State LUST:

Facility Type ACTIVE Cross Street: Not reported
Reg Board. Los Angeles Region Qty Leaked: Not reported
Chemical: Gasoline
Lead Agency: Regional Board
Case Type: Soil only
Status: Remediation plan developed
Review Date. 07/28/1997 Confirm Leak: Not reported
Workplan: 05/09/1990 Prelim Assess: Not reported
Pollution Char: 05/29/1991 Remed Plan: 07/22/1996
6 Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported
Close Date: Not reported Release Date: 08/25/1989
LUST Region 4:

Report Date: 08/25/1989
Cross Street: Not reported
Lead Agency: Regional Board
Local Agency: 56000
Substance: 8006619
Case Number: C-89115
Case Type: Soil only
CHMIRS S100275414
4040 CENTRAL AVE. N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
CHMIRS:

OES Control Number: 8910657 DOT ID: 1203
DOT Hazard Class: Flammable liquid
Chemical Name: GASOLINE
Extent of Release: Not reported
CAS Number: 8006619 Quantity Released: Not reported
Environmental Contamination: Ground Property Use: Agricultural Incident Date: 25-AUG-89 Date Completed: 25-AUG-89
8 MARTIN V. SMITH Cortese S100468500
CENTRAL AVE (4040) N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93031
CORTESE:

Facility ID 56-000440 Data Source: LTNKA
TC269625.1r Passe 5 of 61
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
8 MARTIN V. SMITH
4040 CENTRAL AVE

CAMARILLO, CA
LUST Region VN:

Facility ID: 89115
Status: Referred to the L.A. Regional Board for action
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
LUST U003187576

UST N/A
9 CHMIRS 5100222479
CENTRAL AVE. AT DEL NORTE RD. N/A

CAMARILLO, CA
CHMIRS:

OES Control Number,
DOT Hazard Class:

Chemical Name,
Extent of Release:

CAS Number:

Environmental Contamination
Incident Date:
9991368 DOT ID:

Flammable liquid

PAINT REDUCER, ENAMEL
Not reported
Not reported Quantity Released:

None Reported Property Use:
01-JUN-88 Date Completed:
1263
0 County/City Road
01-JUN-88
10 USA PETROLEUM #252
CENTRAL AVE E. (4418)
CAMARILLO, CA 93032
CORTESE:
!, Facility ID: 56-000370 Data Source: LTNKA
Cortese S101305570
N/A
HAZNET S100936631
N/A
10 HARDEN SEA RAY BOATS
1326 DEL NORTE RD
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
HAZNET:

Year:

Gepaid:

Contact:

Gen County:

Tsd Name:

Tsd Address
1993
CAL000108087
Not reported
Ventura
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Kern
1326 DEL NORTE RD
Not reported
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
Unspecified oil-containing waste
Recycler
Tepaid, CAD980883177
Telephone: (009) 000-0000
Tons: Not reported
Tsd County
Mailing Address
Category:

Disposal Method:

TC269625.1r Page 6 otSl
P F1ND1NGS
Map ID
Direction EDR ID Number
Distance Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
HARDEN SEA RAY BOATS (Continued) S100936631
Year:

Gepaid:

Contact:

Gen County:

Tsd Name:

Tsd Address
Tsd County
Mailing Address:

Category:

Disposal Method:

Not reported
CAL000108087
Not reported
Not reported

GIBSON ENVIRONMENTAL

END OF COMMERCIAL DR
Not reported

BAKERSFIELD
Kern
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Unspecified oil-containing waste
Recycler
Tepaid:

Telephone:

Tons:

CAD980883177
Not reported
542
10 TRUCK COUNTRY U.S.A. LUST S102439264
1326 DEL NORTE RD N!A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State LUST:

Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical:

Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Review Date:

Workplan:

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date:

INACTIVE Cross Street: CENTRAL AVENUE
Los Angeles Region Qty Leaked: Not reported
Gasoline
Local Agency
Soil only
Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary Confirm Leak: Not reported
Prelim Assess: Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
07/13/1988
10/28/1992
02/14/1991
Not reported
Not reported
06/06/1991
Remed Plan:

Monitoring:

Release Date:

Cross Street:

Qty Leaked:

Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical:

Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Review Date:

Workplan:

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date:

INACTIVE
Los Angeles Region
Gasoline
Local Agency
Soil only
Signed off, remedial action completed
10/28/1992
02/14/1991
Not reported
Not reported
06/06/1991
or deemed unnecessary
Confirm Leak: Not reported
Prelim Assess: Not reported
Remed Plan: Not reported
Monitoring: Not reported
Release Date: 07/13/1988

CENTRAL AVENUE
Not reported
LUST Region 4:

Report Date:

Cross Street:

Lead Agency:

Local Agency:

Substance:

Case Number:

Case Type:

LUST Region VN:

Facility ID:

Status:
07/13/1988

CENTRAL AVENUE
Local Agency
56000
8006619
C-88078
Soil only
88078
Case Closed
TC269625 1r Page 7 of 61
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
10 MARTIN V. SMITH
1326 DEL NORTE RD

CAMARILLO, CA
UST Ventura County Active & Inactive:

Facility ID: D 138
Facility Status: CLOSED
Region: Ventura County
10 NATIONAL RV INC
1326 DEL NORTE RD
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
LUST Region VN:

Facility ID:

Status:

UST
CAT080011352
(805) 645-0000
Not reported
CAT080011352
Not reported
22 Tepaid:

Telephone:

Tons:

Tepaid:

Telephone:

Tons:

U001965842
N/A
1 S100868851
N/A
1 1
1 97037
Case Closed
1993
CAL000058799

KAHLE , MICHAEL
Ventura
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Unknown
1326 DEL NORTE
Not reported
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
Waste oil and mixed oil
Not reported
Not reported
CAL000058799
Not reported
Not reported

UNKNOWN
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Unknown
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Waste oil and mixed oil
Recycler
HAZNET:

Year:

Gepaid:

Contact:

Gen County:

Tsd Name:

Tsd Address
Tsd County
Mailing Address:

Category:

Disposal Method
Year:

Gepaid:

Contact:

Gen County:

Tsd Name:

Tsd Address
Tsd County
Mailing Address:

Category:

Disposal Method:

HAZNET
LUST
10 CHANNEL ISLAND PROP.
1326 DEL NORTE RD

CAMARILLO, CA
UST U003187600
N/A
11 USA GASOLINE CORPORATION #252
4418 CENTRAL AVE

CAMARILLO, CA
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-002406
Information Type: Business Plan, Waste Product, Underground Tank Ca. BWT S101699509
N/A
TC269625.1r Page 8 of 61
workplan submitted
to allow volatilization of
Confirm Leak:

Prelim Assess:

Remed Plan:

Monitoring:

Release Date:
10/03/1991
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
02/20/1987
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
11 4418 CENTRAL AVENUE
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
CHMIRS:

DES Control Number:

DOT Hazard Class:

Chemical Name:

Extent of Release:
9099157 •
Not Reported

DIESEL FUEL
Not reported
DOT ID. Not reported
CHMIRS S100276307
N/A
CAS Number. Not reported Quantity Released. 20
Environmental Contamination: Ground Property Use: Industrial, Utility Incident Date: 26-APR-90 Date Completed: 26-APR-90
11 USA PETROLEUM #252 Ca. FID S101631194
4418 CENTRAL AVE NIA
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
12 CHEVRON STA 9 8749 Ca. FID 1000597555
522 N LAS POSAS RD RCRIS-SQG CAD983615709
CAMARILLO, CA 93010 FINDS
LUST
RCRIS:

Owner:

Contact:

Record Date:

Classification:

CHEVRON USA INC
(213) 694-7452

JAMES LUPOLD
(805) 484-8217
01/03/92
Small Quantity Generator
Used Oil Recyc: No
Violation Status: No violations found
State LUST:

Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical:

Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Abate Method:

Review Date:

Workplan:

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date:

ACTIVE
Los Angeles Region
Gasoline
Local Agency
Other ground water affected
Preliminary site assessment
Vent Soil - bore holes in soil
contaminants
07/28/1997
02/23/1996
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Cross Street: DAILY
Qty Leaked: 200
TC269625.1r Page 9 of 61
NPINPs,
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
CHEVRON STA 9 8749 (Continued) 1000597555
LUST Region 4:

Report Date:

Cross Street:

Lead Agency:

Local Agency:

Substance:

Case Number
Case Type:

LUST Region VN:

Facility ID:

Status:

FID:

Facility ID:

Reg By:

Cortese Code:

Status:

Mail To:

Contact:

DUNs No:

Creation:

EPA ID:

Comments:
02/20/1987
DAILY
Local Agency
56000
8006619
C-87020
Other ground water affected
87020
Active
56000668
Active Underground Storage
Not reported
Active
Not reported
522 N LAS POSAS RD
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
Not reported
Not reported
10/22/93
Not reported
Not reported
Regulate ID:

Tank Location
SIC Code:

Facility Tel:

Contact Tel:

NPDES No:

Modified:
63139
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
00/00/00
12 MOBIL STATION #11-LR4
LAS POSAS RD (550)
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
CORTESE:

Facility ID: 56-000459 Data Source
Cortese S101305574
N/A
LTNKA
12 RONALD R. RICHARDSON #14-737•
550 N. LAS POSAS
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
UST U001579304
N/A
State UST:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for
Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
39181
1 550
WASTE
WASTE Oft
Stock Inventor
Not reported
4 1
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:
0205
1972
Not reported
(805) 482-1112
Not reported
Not reported
TC269625 1r Page 10 of 61
Map ID
Direction EDR ID Number
Distance Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
RONALD R. RICHARDSON 414-737 (Continued) U001579304
Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks*
Facility Type:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel*
Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name*
Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
39181
2 9940

PRODUCT

UNLEADED
Stock Inventor
Not reported
4 1
39181
3 8000

PRODUCT

REGULAR
Stock Inventor
Not reported
4 1
39181
4 6000

PRODUCT

PREMIUM
Stock Inventor
Not reported
4 1
Container Num:

Year Installed*
Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:

Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:

Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type.
0206
1972
Not reported
(805) 482-1112
Not reported
Not reported
0207
1972
Not reported
(805) 482-1112
Not reported
Not reported
0208
1972
Not reported
(805) 482-1112
Not reported
Not reported
12 SERVICE STATION 5228 UST U001579308
672 LAS POSAS RD N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State UST:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name*
Total Tanks*
Facility Type:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
21303
1 280
WASTE

WASTE OIL
Stock Inventor, Pressure Test

ARCHIE B MAHAN
3 1
21303
2 10000

PRODUCT

PREMIUM
Stock Inventor, Pressure Test

ARCHIE B MAHAN
3 1
Container Num:

Year Installed*
Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type*
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:
5228-4
1964
Not reported
(805) 482-6767
Not reported
Not reported
5228-2
1964
Not reported
(805) 482-6767
Not reported
Not reported
TC269625.1r Page 11 of 61
Ca. FID
FINDS
UST
1000167007
CAD981643471
Regulate ID: CAD000046
Tank Location
SIC Code: Not reported
Facility Tell Not reported
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
SERVICE STATION 5228 (Continued) U001579308
Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
21303
3 10000

PRODUCT

UNLEADED
Stock Inventor, Pressure Test

ARCHIE B MAHAN
3 1
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:
5228-1
1964
Not reported
(805) 482-6767
Not reported
Not reported
12 UNOCAL (DBA)/TOSCO 430826 (SITE)
672 LAS POSAS RD

CAMARILLO, CA
LUST Region VN:

Facility ID: 97041
Status: Active
Ca. BWT
LUST
S102009086
N/A
BWT1
Facility ID: 056-000-001910
Information Type: Business Plan. Waste Product, Underground Tank 12 UNOCAL SVC STA 45228
672 LAS POSAS RD
c,AMARILLO, CA 93010
Facility ID:

Reg By:

Cortese Code:

Status:

Mail To,
Contact:

DUNs No,
Creation:

EPA ID:

Comments:

Contact Tel: Not reported
NPDES No: Not reported
Modified: 00/00/00
56002171
Active Underground Storage
Not reported
Active
Not reported
672 LAS POSAS RD
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
Not reported
Not reported
10/22/93
Not reported
Not reported
State UST:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
56189
1 0
WASTE

WASTE OIL
None
ARCHIE B. MAHAN
1 1
Container Num.

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type.
1 Not reported
Not reported
(805) 482-6767
Not reported
Not reported
13 MARGARET C. REIMANN UST UO01579269
4425 CENTRAL AVENUE N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
TC269625.1r Page 12 of 61
Map ID
Direction EDR ID Number
Distance Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
MARGARET C. REIMANN (Continued) U001579269
State UST:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
28131
1 280

PRODUCT

REGULAR
None
Not reported
2 2
28131
2 280

PRODUCT

PREMIUM
None
Not reported
2 2
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:

Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:
1 Not reported
Not reported
(805) 485-3445
Not reported
FARM
2 Not reported
Not reported
(805) 485-3445
Not reported
FARM
13 USA PETROLEUM COMPANY 4252 LUST U001579326
4418 E. CENTRAL AVENUE UST N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
a State LUST:

Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical: •
Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Review Date:

Workplan:

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date:

LUST Region 4:

Report Date:

Cross Street:

Lead Agency:

Local Agency:

Substance:

Case Number:

Case Type:

ACTIVE
Los Angeles Region
Gasoline
Local Agency
Other ground water affected
Remediation plan developed
09/09/1992
Not reported
08/24/1989
Not reported
Not reported
03/03/1989

DEL NORTE RD
Local Agency
56000
8006619
C-89031
Other ground water affected
Cross Street: DEL NORTE RD
Qty Leaked: Not reported
Confirm Leak: Not reported
Prelim Assess: Not reported
Remed Plan: 0306/1990
Monitoring: Not reported
Release Date: 03/03/1989
LUST Region VN:

Facility ID: 89031
Status: Active
TC269625.1r Page 13 of 61
MAP FINDiNOS
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
USA PETROLEUM COMPANY 4252 (Continued) UO01579326
State UST.

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:

Facility ID.

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
1997
1 8000

PRODUCT

UNLEADED
Stock Inventor

JIM GRIMES
3 1
1997
2 8000

PRODUCT

REGULAR
Stock Inventor

JIM GRIMES
3 1
1997
3 8000

PRODUCT

PREMIUM
Stock Inventor

JIM GRIMES
3 1
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:

Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:

Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:
1 Not reported
1/4 inches
(213) 829-4383
Not reported
Not reported
2 Not reported
1/4 inches
(213) 829-4383
Not reported
Not reported
3 Not reported
1/4 inches
(213) 829-4383
Not reported
Not reported
14 SATICOY BERRY FARMS
585 W DAILY DR

OXNARD, CA
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-002380
Information Type: Business Plan
Ca. BWT S101699635
N/A
15 98749 UST UO01579197
522 N LAS POSAS RD N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State UST:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
63139
1 10000

PRODUCT
Not Reported
Stock Inventor

LUPOLD,JAMES R
4 1
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:
1967
0000250 unknown
(805) 484-8217
Not reported
Not reported
TC269625.1r Page 14 of 61
Map ID
Direction EDR ID Number
Distance Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
98749 (Continued) U001579197
Facility ID: 63139
Tank Num: 2 Container Num: 2
Tank Capacity: 10000 Year Installed: 1967
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: Not Reported Tank Constrotn: 0000250 unknown Leak Detection: Stock Inventor
Contact Name: LUPOLD,JAMES R Telephone. (805) 484-8217
Total Tanks: 4 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 1 Other Type: Not reported
Facility ID: 63139
Tank Num: 3 Container Num: 3
Tank Capacity: 4000 Year Installed: 1967
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: Not Reported Tank Constrctn: 0000170 unknown Leak Detection: Stock Inventor
Contact Name: LUPOLD,JAMES R Telephone: (805) 484-8217
Total Tanks: 4 Region. Not reported
Facility Type: 1 Other Type: Not reported
Facility ID: 63139
Tank Num: 4 Container Num. 4
Tank Capacity: 550 Year Installed: 1967
Tank Used for: WASTE
Type of Fuel: Not Reported Tank Constrctn: 0000100 unknown Leak Detection: Stock Inventor
Contact Name: LUPOLD,JAMES R Telephone: (805) 484-8217
Total Tanks: 4 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 1 Other Type: Not reported
16 DIAL SECURITY
VENTURA BLVD W. (760)
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
CORTESE:

Facility ID: 56-000225 Data Source: LTNKA
Cortese S101305595
N/A
16 DIAL SECURITY
760 VENTURA BLVD

CAMARILLO, CA
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-002870
Information Type: Business Plan, Waste Product
Ca. BWT S100720737
N/A
16 G & H TECHNOLOGY INC HAZNET S100935748
750 W VENTURA BLVD LUST N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
TC269625.1r Pape 15 of 61

P FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
G & H TECHNOLOGY INC (Continued) S100935748
State LUST:

Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical:

Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Review Date:

Workplan:

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date:

LUST Region 4:

Report Date:

Cross Street:

Lead Agency:

Local Agency:

Substance:

Case Number:

Case Type:

HAZNET.

Year:

Gepaid:

Contact:

Gen County:

Tsd Name:

Tsd Address
Tsd County
Mailing Address:

Category:

Disposal Method:

ACTIVE
Los Angeles Region
Perchlorethylene
Regional Board
Soil only
Remediation plan developed
08/31/1995
Not reported
08/19/1992
Not reported
Not reported
Cross Street:

Qty Leaked:

Confirm Leak:

Prelim Assess:

Remed Plan:

Monitoring:

Release Date:

Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
12/17/1991
08/31/1995
Not reported
12/17/1991
CAD000088252
Not reported
3 12/17/1991
Not reported
Regional Board
56000
127184
930100052
Soil only
Not reported
CAD981369655 Tepaid:

Not reported Telephone:

Not reported Tons:

R & R INDUSTRIAL WASTE HAULERS INC
12618 S MAIN ST
Not reported

LOS ANGELES
Los Angeles
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Off-specification, aged or surplus inorganics
Transfer station
16 G & H TECHNOLOGY INC BREECH-LOK Ca. BWT S101701205
750 W VENTURA BLVD N/A

CAMARILLO, CA
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-000988
Information Type: Business Plan, Waste Product
16 G & H TECHNOLOGY INC
VENTURA BLVD W. (750)
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
CORTESE:

Facility ID: 56-000672 Data Source: LTNKA
Cortese S101305594
N/A
16 HALES ENGINEERING Ca. BWT 1000978236
18 WOOD RD RCRIS-SQG CA0000979898
CAMARILLO, CA 93010 FINDS
TC269625.1r Page 16 of 61
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
HALES ENGINEERING (Continued)
RCRIS:

Owner: ROY HALES
(805) 482-7122
Contact: BILLY BELCHER
(805) 484-2736
Record Date: 12/14/94
Classification: Small Quantity Generator
Used Oil Recyc: No
Violation Status: No violations found
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-001184
Information Type: Business Plan, Waste Product
1000978236
16 HALES ENGINEERING CO HAZNET S100863610
18 WOOD RD N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
HAZNET:

Year: 1993
Gepaid: CAL000058900 Tepaid: CAD008252405
Contact: HALES , ROY Telephone: (805) 484-2736
Gen County: Napa Tons: Not reported
Tsd Name: Not reported
Tsd Address Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Tsd County Los Angeles
Mailing Address: 18 WOOD RD
Not reported
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
Category: Unspecified solvent mixture
Disposal Method: Recycler
Year: Not reported
Gepaid: CAL000058900 Tepaid: CAD008252405
Contact: Not reported Telephone: Not reported
Gen County: Not reported Tons: 67
Tsd Name: PACIFIC COAST LACQUER CO
Tsd Address 3150 E PICO BLVD
Not reported

LOS ANGELES
Tsd County Los Angeles
Mailing Address: Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Category: Unspecified solvent mixture
Disposal Method: Recycler
TC269625 1r Page 17 of 61
483
Remediation
95-116
Not reported
Keith Elliot
Not reported
637
1 1000
WASTE
Not Reported
Visual, Stock Inventor
Not reported
2 2
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:

P/N1002
1983
#10 gauge
(805) 484-0543
Not reported

MANUFACTURING
Region: 4
Substance, VOCs • Cross Street: Not reported
Type of Program: Not reported
MAP FINID414GS
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
16 G AND H TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED
750 W VENTURA BLVD
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
CA SUC 1000116668
Ca. WDS CAD981369655
FINDS
HAZNET

RCRIS-LQG
UST
RCRIS:

Owner:

Contact:

Record Date:

Classification:

G & H TECHNOLOGY
(415) 555-1212

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
(818) 233-4567
01/24/86
Large Quantity Generator, Small Quantity Generator
Used Oil Recyc: No
Violation Status: No violations found
HAZNET:

Year:

Gepaid:

Contact:

Gen County:

Tsd Name:

Tsd Address
Tsd County
Mailing Address:

Category:

Disposal Method:

SLIC Region 4:

Facility ID:

Facility Status:

File Number:

Last Action:

Staff:

Summary:

State UST:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
1993
CAD981369655 Tepaid:

SCHAFFTER R Telephone:

Ventura Tons:

Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Los Angeles
750 W VENTURA BLVD
Not reported
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
Off-specification, aged or surplus inorganics
Transfer station
CAD000088252
(818) 233-4567
Not reported
TC269625 1r Page 18 of 61
fer)412'Fil4C4INK:1]$
Map ID
Direction EDR ID Number
Distance Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
G AND H TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED (Continued) 1000116668
Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:

UST Ventura County
Facility ID:

Facility Status:

Region:
637
2 1000
WASTE
Not Reported
Visual, Stock Inventor
Not reported
2 2
Active & Inactive:

D 973
CLOSED
Ventura County
Container Num:

Year Installed.

Tank Constretn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:

P/N1001
1983
#10 gauge
(805) 484-0543
Not reported

MANUFACTURING
17 TEXACO ROF-27A Ca. BWT S102685144
107W VENTURA BLVD N/A

CAMARILLO, CA
18 VSE CORP. RCRIS-SQG 1000857131
760 PASEO CAMARILLO FINDS CA0900058214
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
POP IS
Owner: VSE CORP
(703) 960-4600
Contact: ROBERT LOWE
(805) 987-7811
Record Date: 04/26/94
Classification: Small Quantity Generator
Used Oil Recyc: No
Violation Status: No violations found
18 GENERAL TEL OF CA
730 PASEO CAMARILLO DR
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
RCRIS:

Owner: NOT REQUIRED
(415) 555-1212
Contact: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
(714) 627-6220
Record Date: 10/07/85
Classification: Large Quantity Generator, Small Quantity Generator FINDS 1009214050
RCRIS-LQG CAD980889729
TC269625.1r Page 19 of 61
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
GENERAL TEL OF CA (Continued)
Used Oil Recyc: No
Violation Status: No violations found
1000214050
18 GENERAL TELEPHONE
730 PASEO CAMARILLO

CAMARILLO, CA
UST Ventura County Active & Inactive:

Facility ID: D 480
Facility Status: CLOSED
Region: Ventura County
UST U002169353
N/A
19 SEACOAST ASSOC./FERRO TRUST
592 W VENTURA BLVD

CAMARILLO, CA
UST Ventura County Active & Inactive:

Facility ID: D1241
Facility Status: CLOSED
Region Ventura County
UST U003142363
N/A
20 KING WELDING Ca. FID S101619932
90 N WOOD RD N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
20 HALES ENGINEERING LUST U002097719
90 WOOD RD UST N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State LUST:

Facility Type INACTIVE Cross Street: VERDULERA ST
Reg Board: Los Angeles Region Qty Leaked: Not reported
Chemical: Gasoline
Lead Agency: Local Agency
Case Type: Other ground water affected
Status: Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site
Review Date: 01/22/1997 Confirm Leak: 01/05/1995
Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported
Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: 02/23/1996
Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported
Close Date: 01/22/1997 Release Date: 01/05/1995
TC269625.1r Page 20 of 61

MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction EDR ID Number
Distance Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
HALES ENGINEERING (Continued) UO02097719
Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical:

Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Abate Method:

Review Date:

Workplan:

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date:

LUST Region 4:

Report Date:

Cross Street:

Lead Agency:

Local Agency:

Substance:

Case Number
Case Type:

LUST Region VN:

Facility ID:

Status:

INACTIVE Cross Street: VERDULERA ST
Los Angeles Region Qty Leaked: Not reported
Gasoline
Local Agency
Other ground water affected
Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site
01/22/1997 Confirm Leak: 01/05/1995
Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported
Not reported Remed Plan: 02/23/1996
Not reported Monitoring: Not reported
01/22/1997 Release Date: 01/05/1995
01/05/1995

VERDULERA ST
Local Agency
56000
8006619
C-95003
Other ground water affected
95003
Case Closed
UST Ventura County Active & Inactive:

Facility ID: D1153
Facility Status: CLOSED
Region: Ventura County
20 KING WELDING, INC. UST U00157S263
90 S. WOOD ROAD NIA
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State UST:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
19168
5000

PRODUCT

REGULAR
None
Not reported
2 2
19168
2 2000

PRODUCT
DIESEL
None
Not reported
2 2
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:

Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:
1009
1980
Not reported
(805) 987-3865
Not reported

WELDING
1010
1980
Not reported
(805) 987-3865
Not reported

WELDING
TC269625.1r P.-21 of 61
MAR.,FIt+113it4
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
20 AGRICULTURAL INSTALLATIONS INC
90 S WOOD RD
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
RCRIS:

Owner: JERRY SHELTON
(805) 388-0884
Contact: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
(805) 482-7404
Record Date: 10/20/92
Classification: Small Quantity Generator
Used Oil Recyc: No
Violation Status: No violations found
RCRIS-SOG 1000133325
FINDS CAD981396666
21 DIAL SECURITY LUST U001579234
760W VENTURA BLVD. UST N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State LUST:

Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical:

Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Review Date:

Workplan:

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date:

LUST Region 4:

Report Date:

Cross Street:

Lead Agency:

Local Agency:

Substance:

Case Number:

Case Type:

State UST:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:

ACTIVE
Los Angeles Region
Gasoline
Local Agency
Undefined
No leak action taken by responsible
03/18/1988
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
03/18/1988
Not reported
Local Agency
56000
8006619
003020
Undefined
3455
1 2000

PRODUCT

UNLEADED
None

BILL DUNDAS
2 2
Cross Street:

Qty Leaked:
party after initial report
Confirm Leak:

Prelim Assess:

Remed Plan:

Monitoring:

Release Date:

Container Num:

Year Installed.

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:

Not reported
Not reported
of leak
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
03/18/1988
0000000001
1970
Not reported
(805) 484-3333
Not reported

SECURITY SERVICE
1 TC269625 1r Page 22 0161

P FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction EDR ID Number
Distance Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
DIAL SECURITY (Continued) U001579234
Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
3455
2 500

PRODUCT

UNLEADED
None

BILL DUNDAS
2 2
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:
0000000002
1970
Not reported
(805) 484-3333
Not reported

SECURITY SERVICE
UST Ventura County Active & Inac ve:
.Facility ID: D 696
Facility Status: CLOSED
Region: Ventura County
22 STEVE THOMAS B M W INC
411 E DAILY DR
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
HAZNET:

Year:

Gepaid:

Contact:

Gen County:

Tsd Name:

Tsd Address
Not reported
CAD983635426 Tepaid:

Not reported Telephone:

Not reported Tons:

DEMENNO/KERDOON TRANSPORTATION
2000 N ALAMEDA ST
Not reported

COMPTON
Los Angeles
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Unspecified aqueous solution
Recycler
HAZNET S100945803
N/A
CAT080013352
Not reported
91 Tsd County
Mailing Address
Category:

Disposal Method:
22 STEVE THOMAS B M W INC
411 DAILY DR
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
RCRIS:

Owner: STEVE THOMAS B M W INC
(805) 482-8878
Contact: RICK CARBALLO
(805) 482-8878
Record Date: 05/04/92
Classification: Small Quantity Generator
Ca. FID 1000686292
RCRIS-SQG CAD983635426
FINDS
HAZNET
TC269625.1r Page 23 of 61
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
STEVE THOMAS B M W INC (Continued)
Used Oil Recyc: No
Violation Status: No violations found
1000686292
HAZNET:

Year: 1993
Gepaid: CAD983635426 Tepaid: CAT080013352
Contact: STEVE THOMAS JR Telephone: (805) 482-8878
Gen County: Ventura Tons: Not reported
Tsd Name: Not reported
Tsd Address Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Tsd County Los Angeles
Mailing Address: 411 DAILY DR
Not reported
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
Category: Unspecified aqueous solution
Disposal Method: Recycler
FID:

Facility ID: 56001143 Regulate ID: 9157
Reg By: Active Underground Storage Tank Location
Cortese Code: Not reported SIC Code: Not reported
Status: Active Facility Tel: Not reported
Mail To: Not reported
411 E DAILY DR
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
Contact: Not reported Contact Tel: Not reported
DUNs No: Not reported NPDES No: Not reported
Creation: 10/22/93 Modified: 00/00/00
EPA ID: Not reported
Comments: Not reported
22 HAL WATKINS BMW LUST U001579247
411 DAILY DRIVE UST WA
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State LUST:

Facility Type INACTIVE Cross Street: 101 FREEWAY
Reg Board: Los Angeles Region Qty Leaked: Not reported
Chemical: Gasoline
Lead Agency: Local Agency
Case Type: Soil only
Status: Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site
Review Date: 10/28/1992 Confirm Leak: Not reported
Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported
Pollution Char: 05/25/1989 Remed Plan: Not reported
Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported
Close Date: 01/30/1990 Release Date: 05/10/1989
TC269625.1r Page 24 of 61
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
HAL WATKINS BMW (Continued) U001579247
Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical:

Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Abate Method:

Review Date:

Workplan:

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date.

LUST Region 4:

Report Date:

Cross Street.

Lead Agency:

Local Agency:

Substance:

Case Number:

Case Type:

LUST Region VN:

Facility ID:

Status:

INACTIVE Cross Street: 101 FREEWAY
Los Angeles Region Qty Leaked: Not reported
Gasoline
Local Agency
Soil only
Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary Excavate and Dispose • remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site
10/28/1992 Confirm Leak: Not reported
Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported
05/25/1989 Remed Plan: Not reported
Not reported Monitoring: Not reported
01/30/1990 Release Date: 05/10/1989
05/10/1989
101 FREEWAY
Local Agency
56000
8006619
C-88033
Soil only
88033
Case Closed
State UST:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
9157
1 1000
WASTE

WASTE OIL
None

RON WEBBER
1 2
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:
1977
Not reported
(805) 482-8878
Not reported

AUTOMOBILE DEALER
22 STEVE THOMAS BMW Ca. BWT UO01966717
411 E DAILY DR N/A

CAMARILLO, CA
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-002510
Information Type: Business Plan, Waste Product. Underground Tank 22 VILLAGE R V RCRIS-SOG 1000155432
311 DAILY DR FINDS CAD981982481
CAMARILLO, CA 93010 UST
TC269625.1r. Page 25 of 61
P
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
VILLAGE R V (Continued) 1000155432
RCRIS:

Owner: VILLAGE RV
(805) 483-0969
Contact: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
(805) 484-2756
Record Date: 07/24/91
Classification: Small Quantity Generator
Used Oil Recyc: No
Violation Status: No violations found
State UST
Facility ID: 8927
Tank Num: 1 Container Num: 2
Tank Capacity: 1000 Year Installed: 1973
Tank Used for: WASTE
Type of Fuel: WASTE OIL Tank Constrctn: Not reported
Leak Detection: None
Contact Name: GUY SPEVAK Telephone: (805) 48.4-2756
Total Tanks: 2 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 2 Other Type: AUTOMOBILE DEALER
Facility ID: 8927
Tank Num: 2 Container Num: 1
Tank Capacity: 3000 Year Installed: 1973
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: UNLEADED Tank Constrctn: Not reported
Leak Detection: None
Contact Name: GUY SPEVAK Telephone: (805) 484-2756
Total Tanks: 2 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 2 Other Type: AUTOMOBILE DEALER
22 CAMARILLO MITSUBISHI HAZNET S101699626
311 E DAILY DR N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
22 HOLIDAY WORLD
311 E DAILY DR
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
HAZNET:

Year:

Gepaid:

Contact:

Gen County:

Tsd Name:

Tsd Address
Tsd County
Mailing Address
Category:

Disposal Method:

Tepaid:

Telephone:

Tons:

Ca. BWT
HAZNET
CAD009007626
Not reported
231
S100864122
N/A
Not reported
CAC000917368
Not reported
Not reported

AZUSA LAND RECLAMATION CO INC
1201 W GLADSTONE AVE
Not reported
AZUSA
Los Angeles
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Asbestos containing waste
Disposal, landfill
TC269625.1r Page 26 of 61
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
22 CAMARILLO MITSUBISHI HAZNET S100931795
311 E DAILY DR N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
HAZNET:

Year: Not reported
Gepaid: CAD981982481 Tepaid: CAT000613893
Contact: Not reported Telephone: Not reported
Gen County: Not reported Tons: 12
Tsd Name: SAFETY-KLEEN CORP (7-088-06)
Tsd Address 10625 HICKSON ST#A
Not reported

EL MONTE
Tsd County Los Angeles
Mailing Address: Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Category: Organic liquids (nonsolvents) with halogens
Disposal Method: Transfer station
22 HOLIDAY WORLD
311 E DAILY DR
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
UST Ventura County Active & Inactive:

Facility ID: D1092
Facility Status: CLOSED
Region: Ventura County
HAZNET
UST
0001965822
N/A
23 BOB'S AUTOHAUS
150 WOOD RD
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
HAZNET:

Year:

Gepaid:

Contact:

Gen County:

Tsd Name:

Tsd Address
Tsd County
Mailing Address:

Category:

Disposal Method:

Ca. BWT
HAZNET
CAD099452708
(805) 388-1721
Not reported
S100856654
N/A
Tepaid:

Telephone:

Tons:
1993
CAL000064798

THEISS , BOB
Ventura
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Los Angeles
150 WOOD RD
Not reported
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
Unspecified oil-containing waste
Recycler
TC269625 1r Page 27 of 61
P FfNDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
BOB'S AUTOHAUS (Continued) S100856654
Year
Gepaid:

Contact:

Gen County.

Tsd Name.

Tsd Address
Tsd County
Mailing Address'
Category.

Disposal Method
BWT:
- Facility ID:

Information Type
Not reported
CAL000064798
Not reported
Not reported

INDUSTRIAL SERVICE CO
1700 S SOTO ST
Not reported

LOS ANGELES
Los Angeles
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Unspecified oil-containing waste
Recycler
056-000-002436
Business Plan, Waste Product
Tepaid:

Telephone:

Tons:

CAD099452708
Not reported
22 24 PACIFIC BEVERAGE CO
270 N AVIADOR ST
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
Ca. BWT 1000250750
RCRIS-SQG CAD982504235
FINDS
LUST
UST
Record Date:

Classification:

Used Oil Recyc
Violation Status
State LUST.

Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical:

Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Abate Method:

Review Date:

Workplan.

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date:

LUST Region VN:

Facility ID:

Status:

JORDANOS, INC
(415) 555-1212

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
(805) 964-0611
12/14/89
Small Quantity Generator
No
No violations found
ACTIVE
Los Angeles Region
Gasoline
Local Agency
Other ground water affected
Pollution characterization
Vapor Extraction
08/26/1996
Not reported
07/01/1993
Not reported
Not reported
92041
Active
Cross Street.

Qty Leaked.

Confirm Leak:

Prelim Assess:

Remed Plan:

Monitoring:

Release Date:

VERDULERA ST
Not reported
10/20/1986
10/07/1992
Not reported
Not reported
11/24/1986
RCP'S:

Owner
Contact:

TC269625 1r Page 28 of 61
Map ID
Direction EDR ID Number
Distance Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
PACIFIC BEVERAGE CO (Continued) 1000250750
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-001621
Information Type: Business Plan
State UST:
- Facility ID: 19611
Tank Num: 1 Container Num: 51
Tank Capacity: 10000 Year Installed: 1976
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: REGULAR Tank Constrctn: 1/4 inches
Leak Detection: Visual, Stock Inventor
Contact Name: DON MANLEY BRANCH MANAGER Telephone: (805) 484-2801 Total Tanks: 3 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 2 Other Type: BEER DISTRIBUTOR
Facility ID: 19611
Tank Num: 2 Container Num: 52
Tank Capacity: 10000 Year Installed: 1976
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: UNLEADED Tank Constrctn: 1/4 inches
Leak Detection: Visual, Stock Inventor
Contact Name: DON MANLEY BRANCH MANAGER Telephone: (805) 484-2801 Total Tanks: 3 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 2 Other Type: BEER DISTRIBUTOR
Facility ID: 19611
Tank Num: 3 Container Num: 53
Tank Capacity: 10000 Year Installed: 1976
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: DIESEL Tank Constrctn: 1/4 inches
Leak Detection: Visual, Stock Inventor
Contact Name: DON MANLEY BRANCH MANAGER Telephone: (805) 484-2801 Total Tanks: 3 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 2 Other Type: BEER DISTRIBUTOR
UST Ventura County Active & Inactive:

Facility ID: D1040
Facility Status: CLOSED
Region: Ventura County
24 PACIFIC BEVERAGE CO Ca. FID U001965669
166 N AVIADOR ST LUST N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
LUST Region 4:

Report Date: 11/24/1986
Cross Street: VERDULERA ST
Lead Agency: Local Agency
Local Agency: 56000
Substance: 8006619
Case Number: C-92041
Case Type: Other ground water affected
TC269625.1r Page. 29 of 61
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
PACIFIC BEVERAGE CO (Continued) U001965669
FID:

Facility ID:

Reg By:

Cortese Code:

Status:

Mail To:

Contact:

DUNs No:

Creation:

EPA ID:

Comments:
56001353
Active Underground Storage
Not reported
Active
Not reported
166 N AVIADOR ST
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
Not reported
Not reported
10/22/93
Not reported
Not reported
Regulate ID:

Tank Location
SIC Code.

Facility Tel:

Contact Tel:

NP DES No:

Modified:

CAD000288
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
00/00/00
25 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA LUST U002243945
509 E DAILY DR UST N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State LUST:

Facility Type INACTIVE Cross Street: CARMEN
Reg Board: Los Angeles Region Qty Leaked: 20
Chemical: Gasoline
Lead Agency: Local Agency
Case Type: Soil only
Status: Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site, Remove Free Product - remove floating product from water table Review Date: 06/19/1986 Confirm Leak: Not reported
Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported
Pollution Char, Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported
Remed Action, Not reported Monitoring: Not reported
Close Date, 06/19/1986 Release Date, 06/19/1986
Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical:

Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Abate Method:

Review Date:

Workplan:

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date:

INACTIVE Cross Street: CARMEN
Los Angeles Region Qty Leaked: 20
Gasoline
Local Agency
Soil only
Signed oft, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site, Remove Free Product- remove floating product from water table 06/19/1986 Confirm Leak: Not reported
Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported
Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported
Not reported Monitoring: Not reported
06/19/1986 Release Date: 06/19/1986
UST Ventura County Active & Inactive:

Facility ID: D 122
Facility Status: CLOSED
Region: Ventura County
25 VENTURA COUNTY COUNCIL, BOY UST U001579327
509 E. DAILY DRIVE N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
TC269625.1r Page 30 of 61
MAP FINT:/t14GS
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
VENTURA COUNTY COUNCIL, BOY (Continued)
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
U001579327
State UST:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
30318
1 0

PRODUCT

REGULAR
None
Not reported
0 2
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:
1 Not reported
Not reported
(805) 482-8938
Not reported

BOY SCOUTS
25 BOY SCOUT OFFICE LUST S102860389
509 E DAILY DR N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
LUST Region 4:

Report Date:

Cross Street:

Lead Agency:

Local Agency:

Substance:

Case Number:

Case Type:
06/19/1986
CARMEN
Local Agency
56000
8006619
000091
Soil only
S102432817
N/A
Review Date:

Workplan:

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date:

Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical:

Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Abate Method:

Review Date:

Workplan:

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date:
26 LYLES DIVERSIFIED
210 WOOD RD
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State LUST:

Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical:

Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Abate Method:

LUST
INACTIVE Cross Street: Not reported
Los Angeles Region Qty Leaked: Not reported
Gasoline
Local Agency
Soil only
Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site
06/02/1992 Confirm Leak: Not reported
08/22/1989 Prelim Assess: Not reported
Not reported Remed Plan: 01/16/1990
Not reported Monitoring: Not reported
09/27/1990 Release Date: 11/08/1988
INACTIVE Cross Street: Not reported
Los Angeles Region Qty Leaked: Not reported
Gasoline
Local .Agency
Soil only
Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unneoessary Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site
06/0211992 Confirm Leak: Not reported
08/22/1989 Prelim Assess: Not reported
Not reported Remed Plan: 01/16/1990
Not reported Monitoring: Not reported
09/27/1990 Release Date: 11/08/1988
TC2696251 r Page 31 of 61
Flt,IDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
LYLES DIVERSIFIED (Continued)
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
S102432817
LUST Region 4:

Report Date:

Cross Street:

Lead Agency:

Local Agency:

Substance:

Case Number:

Case Type:

LUST Region VN:

Facility ID:
11/08/1988
Not reported
Local Agency
56000
8006619
C-88167
Soil only
88167
Status: Case Closed
26 W.M. LYLES CO. CAMARILLO DIVIS UST U001579331
210 N. WOOD ROAD N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State UST:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
14696
1 2000

PRODUCT

UNLEADED
Stock Inventor

JOE DACANAY
3 2
14696
2 2000

PRODUCT
DIESEL
Stock Inventor

JOE DACANAY
3 2
14696
3 9940

PRODUCT

REGULAR
Stock Inventor

JOE DACANAY
3 2
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:

Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:

Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:
#1
1969
Not reported
(805) 482-1986
Not reported

CONTRACTOR
#2
1969
Not reported
(805) 482-1986
Not reported

CONTRACTOR
#3
1979
Not reported
(805) 482-1986
Not reported

CONTRACTOR
26 W. M. LYLES CO.
210 WOOD RD

CAMARILLO, CA
UST Ventura County Active & Inactive:

Facility ID: D 764
Facility Status: CLOSED
Region: Ventura County
UST U002244361
N/A
TC269625.1r Page 32 of 61
MAP FINDS •
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
26 W.M. LYLES Cortese S101305599
WOOD RD (210) N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
CORTESE:

Facility ID 56-000311 Data Source: LTNKA
27 HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Ca. BWT S102230221
321 N AVIADOR ST STE 201 N/A

CAMARILLO, CA
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-004118
Information Type Waste Product
27 JORDANO'S INC. UST U002243867
270 N AVIADOR ST N/A

CAMARILLO, CA
27 HALPIN PROPERTY FINDS 1000347714
270 AVIADOR CAD981399413
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
27 JEFF'S AUTO REPAIR Ca. BWT S102523120
?70 N AVIADOR ST STE N N/A

CAMARILLO, CA
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-004255
Information Type: Waste Product
27 PACIFIC BEVERAGE COMPANY-MAINT Ca. BWT S101699381
270 N AVIADOR ST N/A

CAMARILLO, CA
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-002660
Information Type: Business Plan, Waste Product
28 MOONEY, ART
1800 VENTURA BLVD

CAMARILLO, CA
UST Ventura County Active 84 Inactive:

Facility ID: D700
Facility Status: CLOSED
Region: Ventura County
UST U002169502
N/A
29 SHELL OIL CO LUST S102437149
1604 VENTURA BLVD N/A

CAMARILLO, CA
LUST Region VN:

Facility ID: 87027
Status: - Active
TC269625.1r Page 33 of 61
P:FINDf
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
29 PRADO DE LAS POSAS, LTD.
158 S LAS POSAS RD

CAMARILLO, CA
UST Ventura County Active & Inactive:

Facility ID: D 921
Facility Status: CLOSED
Region: Ventura County
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
UST U002169225
N/A
S102435077
N/A
29 PEPPER TREE DEVELOPMENT CO. LUST
158 S LAS POSAS RD
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State LUST:

Facility Type INACTIVE Cross Street: HWY 101
Reg Board. Los Angeles Region Qty Leaked: Not reported
Chemical Gasoline
Lead Agency: Local Agency
Case Type Soil only
Status Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary Abate Method: Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site
Review Date: 12/13/1989 Confirm Leak: Not reported
Workplan: Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported
Pollution Char: Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported
Remed Action: Not reported Monitoring: Not reported
Close Date: 12/11/1989 Release Date: 07/26/1989
Facility Type
Reg Board,
Chemical:

Lead Agency:

Case Type'
Status'
Abate Method:

Review Date:

Workplan:

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date:

INACTIVE Cross Street: HWY 101
Los Angeles Region Qty Leaked: Not reported
Gasoline
Local Agency
Soil only
Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site
12/13/1989 Confirm Leak: Not reported
Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported
Not reported Remed Plan: Not reported
Not reported Monitoring: Not reported
12/11/1989 Release Date: 07/26/1989
29 LAWRENCE B SCHUCK RANCH Ca. BWT S101700063
158 S LAS POSAS RD LUST N/A

CAMARILLO, CA
LUST Region 4:

Report Date:

Cross Street:

Lead Agenoy:

Local Agency:

Substance:

Case Number:

Case Type:
07/26/1989
HWY 101
Local Agency
56000
8006619
C-89049
Soil only
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-001780
Information Type Business Plan
TC269625lr Page 34 of 61
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
30 MR. TS SERVICE CENTER
2001 VENTURA BLVD

CAMARILLO, CA
UST Ventura County Active & Inactive
Facility ID: D 701
Facility Status: CLOSED
Region: Ventura County
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
UST U002244318
N/A
31 SWEDISH PERFORMANCE INC
2028 VENTURA BLVD

CAMARILLO, CA
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-002466
Ca. BWT S101701176
N/A
Information Type: Business Plan, Waste Product
32 SERVICE STATION - SUITE 830
2086 VENTURA BOULEVARD
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State UST:

UST U001579307
N/A
Facility ID: 20369
Tank Num: 1 Container Num: 7056-2
Tank Capacity: 10000 Year Installed: Not reported
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: PREMIUM Tank Constrctn: Not reported
Leak Detection: Stock Inventor, Pressure Test
Contact Name: ALAN DIKES Telephone: (000) 000-0000
Total Tanks: 3 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: Other Type: Not reported
Facility ID: 20369
Tank Num: 2 Container Num: 7056-1A
Tank Capacity: 10000 Year Installed: Not reported
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: UNLEADED Tank Constrctn: Not reported
Leak Detection: Stock Inventor, Pressure Test
Contact Name: ALAN DIKES Telephone: (000) 000-0000
Total Tanks: 3 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 1 Other Type: Not reported
Facility ID: 20369
Tank Num: 3 Container Num: 7056-1B
Tank Capacity: 10000 Year Installed: Not reported
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: UNLEADED Tank Constrctn: Not reported
Leak Detection: Stock Inventor, Pressure Test
Contact Name: ALAN DIKES Telephone: (000) 000-0000
Total Tanks: 3 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 1 Other Type: Not reported
32 UNOCAL SVC STV 800 HAZNET S101701193
2086 VENTURA BLVD N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
TC269625 1r Page 35 of 61
ACTIVE
Los Angeles Region
Gasoline
Local Agency
Soil only
Pollution characterization
Cross Street:

Qty Leaked.

Not reported
50 Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site
01/31/1996 Confirm Leak: 10/09/1989
04/09/1992 Prelim Assess: Not reported
07/09/1992 Remed Plan: Not reported
Not reported Monitoring: Not reported
Not reported Release Date: 10/12/1989

FIN NGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
LUST U002243806
N/A
32 UNOCAL #7056
2086 VENTURA BLVD
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State LUST:

Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical.

Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Abate Method:

Review Date.

Workplan:

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date.

LUST Region 4-
Report Date.

Cross Street:

Lead Agency:

Local Agency:

Substance:

Case Number:

Case Type:

LUST Region VN:

Facility ID:

Status:
10/12/1989
Not reported
Local Agency
56000
8006619
C-89155
Soil only
89155
Active
32 THRIFTY OIL STN. #210 UST U001579322
2086 VENTURA BLVD. N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State UST:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
4704
1 9943

PRODUCT

REGULAR
Stock Inventor
Not reported
4 1
4704
2 9943

PRODUCT

UNLEADED
Stock Inventor
Not reported
4 1
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:

Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:
210-1
Not reported
1/4 inches
(213) 923-9876
Not reported
Not reported
210-2
Not reported
1/4 inches
(213) 923-9876
Not reported
Not reported
TC269625 1r Page 36 of 61
MAP El NOt NIGS
Map ID
Direction EDR ID Number
Distance Site Database(s) EPA 10 Number
THRIFTY OIL STN. #210 (Continued) U001579322
Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel,
Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
4704
3 9943

PRODUCT

PREMIUM
Stock Inventor
Not reported
4 1
4704
4 550
WASTE

WASTE OIL
Stock Inventor
Not reported
4 1
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:

Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:
210-3
Not reported
1/4 inches
(213) 923-9876
Not reported
Not reported
210-10
Not reported
12 gauge
(213) 923-9876
Not reported
Not reported
32 UNOCAL 47056
VENTURA BLVD (2086)
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
CORTESE:

Facility ID: 56-000454 Data Source: LTNKA
Cortese S1013 591
N/A
32 UNOCAL SVC STV 800 FINDS 1000167014
2086 VENTURIA BLVD C A M1644677
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
HAZNET S100877166
N/A
32 UNOCAL SVC STV 800
2086 VENTURA BLVD
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
HAZNET:

Year:

Gepaid:

Contact:

Gen County:

Tsd Name:

Tsd Address
Tsd County
Mailing Address:

Category:

Disposal Method:

Tepaid: CAD099452708
Telephone: Not reported
Tons: 14
Not reported
CAD981644677
Not reported
Not reported

INDUSTRIAL SERVICE CO
1700 S SOTO ST
Not reported

LOS ANGELES
Los Angeles
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Tank bottom waste
Recycler
33 A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES Ca. BWT S102414850
301 WOOD RD N/4

CAMARILLO, CA
TC269625.1r Page 37 of 61

FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES (Continued)
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-003142
Information Type Business Plan
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
S102414850
34 R.P. RICHARDS INC UST U001579292
934 VERDULERA ST. N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State UST:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
12740
1 500

PRODUCT

REGULAR
Visual
Not reported
1 2
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrotn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:
#100
1983
NA unknown
(805) 683-1511
Not reported
Not reported
LUST
Cortese
ACTIVE Cross Street: WOOD RD
Los Angeles Region Qty Leaked: Not reported
Regular Gasoline
Local Agency
Soil only
Post remedial action monitoring in progress
Excavate and Treat - remove contaminated soil and treat (includes spreading or land farming)
09/30/1992
Not reported
Not reported
07/24/1992
Not reported
34 R P RICHARDS INC
VERDULERA ST (934)
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State LUST:

Facility Type
Reg Bcard:

Chemical:

Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Abate Method:

Review Date:

Workplan:

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date:

Confirm Leak: Not reported
Prelim Assess: 11/05/1991
Remed Plan: Not reported
Monitoring: 02/23/1994
Release Date: 11/05/1991
S101305596
N/A
LUST Region 4:

Report Date:

Cross Street:

Lead Agency:

Local Agency:

Substance:

Case Number:

Case Type:

CORTESE:

Facility ID: 56-
11/05/1991

WOOD RD
Local Agency
56000
12032
C-91092
Soil only
000676 Data Source: LTNKA
34 1X R P RICHARDS INC HAZNET S100927744
934 VERDULERA ST N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
TC269625.1r Page 38 of 61
'41 /4AM*I.NDzitt
Map ID
Direction EDR ID Number
Distance Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
1X R P RICHARDS INC (Continued)
HAZNET:

Year: 1993
Gepaid: CAC000641928 Tepaid:

Contact: Not reported Telephone:

Gen County: Ventura Tons:

Tsd Name: Not reported
Tsd Address Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Tsd County Unknown
Mailing Address: 5949 HOLLISTER AVE
Not reported
GOLETA, CA 93117
Category: Other empty containers 30 gallons or more
Disposal Method: Not reported
S100927744
Not reported
(000) 000-0000
Not reported
Not reported
CAC000641928 Tepaid:

Not reported Telephone:

Not reported Tons:

UNKNOWN
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Unknown
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Other empty containers 30 gallons or more
Not specified
Year:

Gepaid:

Contact:

Gen County:

Tsd Name:

Tsd Address
Tsd County
Mailing Address:

Category:

Disposal Method:

Not reported
Not reported
12 56000676
Active Underground Storage
Not reported
Active
Not reported
934 W VERDULERA ST
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
Not reported
Not reported
10/22/93
Not reported
Not reported
Active & Inactive:

D 960
CLOSED
Ventura County
Ca. FID
LUST
UST
12740
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
00/00/00
34 R. P. RICHARDS, INC.
934 VERDULERA ST
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
LUST Region VN.

Facility ID: 91092
Status: Active
FID:

Facility ID:

Reg By:

Cortese Code:

Status:

Mail To:

Contact:

DUNs No:

Creation:

EPA ID:

Comments:

UST Ventura County
Facility ID:

Facility Status:

Region:

Regulate ID:

Tank Location
SIC Code:

Facility Tel:

Contact Tel:

NPDES No:

Modified:

U001966563
N/A
TC269625.1r Page 39 of 61
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
34 BARBOUR WELL SURVEYING CORP
934 VERDULERA ST

CAMARILLO, CA
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-002289
Information Type: Business Plan, Waste Product
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
Ca. BWT S101701238
N/A
35 PEPPER TREE DEVELOPMENT CO.

LOS POSAS RD S. (158)
CAMARILLO, CA 91304
LUST Region VN:

Facility ID: 89049
Status: Case Closed
LUST
Cortese
S101305581
N/A
CORTESE:

Facility ID 56-000428 Data Source: LTNKA
36 DUREY AIRPORT, CAMARILLO
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
CHMIRS:

OES Control Number:

DOT Hazard Class:

Chemical Name:

Extent of Release:

CAS Number
Environmental Contamination:

Incident Date:
9100350 DOT ID:

Not Reported

MEDICAL WASTE
Not reported
Not reported Quantity Released:

Ground Property Use:
22-APR-91 Date Completed:

Not reported
10 Industrial, Utility
22-APR-91
CHMIRS 9100276721
N/A
36 Ca. BWT S100279716

CAMARILLO AIRPORT CHMIRS N/A

CAMARILLO, CA
CHMIRS:

OES Control Number:

DOT Hazard Class:

Chemical Name:

Extent of Release:

CAS Number:

Environmental Contamination
Incident Date:
8990070 DOT ID:

Not Reported

OIL, MOTOR
Not reported
Not reported Quantity Released:

Ground Property Use:
14-JUN-89 Date Completed:

Not reported
100
099
14-JUN-89
37 CAMARILLO AIRPORT LUST S100236634
AIRPORT WAY (191) Cortese N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
TC269625.1r Page 40 of 61

P FIND NGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
CAMARILLO AIRPORT (Continued)
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
S100236634
State LUST:

Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical:

Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Review Date:

Workplan:

Pollution Char:

Remed Action:

Close Date:

LUST Region 4:

Report Date:

Cross Street:

Lead Agency:

Local Agency:

Substance:

Case Number:

Case Type:

CORTESE:

Facility ID: 56-
ACTIVE
Los Angeles Region
Gasoline
Regional Board
Other ground water affected
Pollution characterization
02/07/1992
Not reported
01/22/1992
Not reported
Not reported
05/06/1988

HORIZON CIRCLE
Regional Board
56000
8006619
C-88175
Other ground water affected
000240 Data Source: LTNKA
Cross Street: HORIZON CIRCLE
Qty Leaked: Not reported
Confirm Leak: Not reported
Prelim Assess: Not reported
Remed Plan: Not reported
Monitonng: Not reported
Release Date: 05/06/1988
38 MOBIL OIL 11-LR4
g50 N LAS POSAS RD
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
FID:

Facility ID:

Reg By:

Cortese Code:

Status:

Mail To:
56000459
Active Underground Storage
Not reported
Active
Not reported
550 N LAS POSAS RD
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
Not reported
Not reported
10/22/93
Not reported
Not reported
Ca. FID S101596328
N/A
Contact:

DUNs No:

Creation:

EPA ID:

Comments:

Regulate ID:

Tank Location
SIC Code:

Facility Tel:

Contact Tel:

NPDES No:

Modified:

Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
00/00/00
38 CHEVRON #8749
LOS POSAS RD N. (522)
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
CORTESE:

Facility ID: 56-005833 Data Source: LTNKA
Cortese S101305580
N/A
39 1X SOUTHERN CROSS AVIATION HAZNET S10092E109
375 DURLEY AVE N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
TC269625.1r Page 41 of 61

1..4,AP FIN NOS
Map ID
Direction EDR ID Number
Distance Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
1X SOUTHERN CROSS AVIATION (Continued) S100928109
HAZNET:

Year:

Gepaid.

Contact:

Gen County:

Tsd Name:

Tsd Address
Tsd County
Mailing Address:

Category:

Disposal Method:

Not reported
CA0000236281
Not reported
Not reported

GIBSON ENVIRONMENTAL

END OF COMMERCIAL DR
Not reported

BAKERSFIELD
Kern
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Oil/water separation sludge
Recycler
Tepaid:

Telephone:

Tons:

CAD980883177
Not reported
87 39 1X SOUTHERN CROSS AVIATION Ca. BWT S101699693
375 DURLEY AVE HAZNET N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
HAZNET:

Year: 1994
Gepaid: CAL000123540 Tepaid: CAD008252405
Contact: Not reported Telephone: (000) 000-0000
Gen County: Ventura Tons: Not reported
Tsd Name: Not reported
Tsd Address Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Tsd County Los Angeles
Mailing Address: 375 DURLEY
Not reported
CAMARILLO. CA93010
Category: Unspecified solvent mixture
Disposal Method: Recycler
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-003017
Information Type: Business Plan, Waste Product
40 RO-WING
275 DURLEY AVE

CAMARILLO, CA
BWT:

Facility ID: 056-000-003016
Information Type: Business Plan, Waste Product
Ca. BWT S101699692
N/A
40 VENTURA COUNTY/CAMARILLO AIRPT HAZNET S100877534
295 DURLEY AVE N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
TC269625.1r Page 42 of 61
P FINtGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
VENTURA COUNTY/CAMARILLO AIRPT (Continued) S100877534
1993
CAL000074469 Tepaid:

CHET SETO HMAP NETWORK MANAGEFelephone:

Ventura Tons:

Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Unknown
800 S VICTORIA AVE RISK MANAGE
MENT L#1040
VENTURA, CA 93009
Ott-specification, aged or surplus organics
Not reported
Not reported
CAL000074469 Tepaid:

Not reported Telephone:

Not reported Tons:

UNKNOWN
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Unknown
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Off-specification, aged or surplus organics
HAZNET:

Year:

Gepaid:

Contact:

Gen County:

Tsd Name:

Tsd Address
Tsd County
Mailing Address:

Category:

Disposal Method:

Year:

Gepaid:

Contact:

Gen County:

Tsd Name:

Tsd Address
Tsd County
Mailing Address:

Category:

AZT050010180
(805) 654-3529
Not reported
AZT050010180
Not reported
5 Disposal Method: Not specified
Ca. FID U001966731
N/A
56000739
Active Underground Storage
Not reported
Active
Not reported
295 DURLEY AVE
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
Not reported
Not reported
10/22/93
Not reported
Not reported
40 CAMARILLO AIRPORT
295 DURLEY AVE
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
FID:

Facility ID:

Reg By:

Cortese Code:

Status:

Mail To:

Contact:

DUNs No:

Creation:

EPA ID:

Comments:

Regulate ID:

Tank Location
SIC Code:

Facility Tel:

Contact Tel:

NPDES No:

Modified:

CAD982006
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
00/00/00
40 CHMIRS S100275529
305 DURLEY AVENUE N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
TC269625 1r Page 43 of 61
P F1NDfNS
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
(Continued) S100275529
DOT ID: Not reported
Quantity Released:

Property Use:

Date Completed:

CHMIRS:

OES Control Number:

DOT Hazard Class:

Chemical Name:

Extent of Release:

CAS Number:
9000197
Not Reported

FUEL, AVIATION
Not reported
Not reported 100
Public Assembly
16-FEB-90
Environmental Contamination: Air
Incident Date: 16-FEB-90
40 CHANNEL ISLANDS AVIATION INC Ca. BWT 1000317505
305 DURLEY AVE RCRIS-SOG CAD981687312
CAMARILLO, CA 93010 FINDS
UST
RCRIS:

Owner: OBERMAN MARK & JANE DRISCOLL TOM
(415) 555-1212
Contact: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
(805) 987-1301
Record Date: 10/30/86
Classification: Hazardous Waste Transporter
Used Oil Recyc: No
Violation Status: No violations found
056-000-001485
Business Plan, Waste Product
BWT:

Facility ID:

Information Type:

State UST:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
2009
1 25000

PRODUCT
Not Reported
Visual, Stock Inventor,
Not reported
4 2
1 Not reported
Not reported
(805) 484-8902
Not reported
Not reported
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Sensor Instrument
Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capaoity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
2009
2 25000

PRODUCT
Not Reported
Visual, Stock Inventor, Sensor Instrument
Not reported
4 2
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrotn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:
2 Not reported
Not reported
(805) 484-8902
Not reported
Not reported
TC269625.1r Page 44 of 61
HAZNET S100936456
N/A
Tepaid: CAD008302903
Telephone: (909) 590-6518
Tons: Not reported
hexane, Stoddard, Etc.)
• Tepaid:

Telephone:

Tons:
hexane, Stoddard, Etc.)
CAD008302903
Not reported
33 MAP FINCMGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
CHANNEL ISLANDS AVIATION INC (Continued)
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
1000317505
Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection:

Contact Name
Total Tanks:

Facility Type:

Facility ID:

Tank Num:

Tank Capacity:

Tank Used for:

Type of Fuel:

Leak Detection
Contact Name:

Total Tanks:

Facility Type:
2009
3 10000

PRODUCT
Not Reported
Visual, Stock Inventor,
Not reported
4 2
2009
4 250
WASTE

WASTE OIL
Visual, Stock Inventor
Not reported
4 2
Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Sensor Instrument
Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:

Container Num:

Year Installed:

Tank Constrctn:

Telephone:

Region:

Other Type:
3 Not reported
Not reported
(805) 484-8902
Not reported
Not reported
4 Not reported
Not reported
(805) 484-8902
Not reported
Not reported
41 GTE FLIGHT OPERATIONS
205 DURLEY AVE
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
HAZNET:

Year:

Gepaid:

Contact:

Gen County:

Tsd Name:

Tsd Address
1993
CAL000072924

KIM BRAY COORDINATOR
Ventura
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Los Angeles
PO BOX 725
Not reported
CHINO, CA 91708
Hydrocarbon solvents (benzene,
Recycler
Not reported
CAL000072924
Not reported
Not reported

CHEM WASTE MGR
1704W FIRST ST
Not reported
AZUSA
Los Angeles
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Hydrocarbon solvents (benzene,
Recycler
Tsd County
Mailing Address:

Category:

Disposal Method:

Year:

Gepaid:

Contact:

Gen County:

Tsd Name:

Tsd Address
Tsd County
Mailing Address:

Category:

Disposal Method:

TC269625.1r Page 45 of 61
41 VENTURA CAMARILLO AIRPORT
229 DUR LEY AVE
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
State LUST:

Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical
Lead Agency
Case Type:

Status:

Abate Method
Review Date:

Workplan:

Pollution Char
Remed Action:

Close Date:

INACTIVE Not reported
Los Angeles Region Not reported
Diesel
Local Agency
Soil only
Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary Excavate and Treat - remove contaminated soil and treat (includes spreading or land farming)
10/28/1992
Not reported
12/12/1986
Not reported
12/22/1989
Cross Street:

Qty Leaked:

Confirm Leak.

Prelim Assess:

Remed Plan:

Monitoring:

Release Date:

Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
12/12/1986
LUST
F N
Map ID
Direction
Distance Site
41 V-CAMARILLO AIRPORT
229 DUR LEY AVE

CAMARILLO, CA
LUST Region VN:

Facility ID: 86086
Status. Case Closed
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
LUST S102440716
N/A
S102440872
N/A
Facility Type
Reg Board:

Chemical:

Lead Agency:

Case Type:

Status:

Abate Method:

Review Date:

Workplanl
Pollution Char
Remed Action:

Close Date:

LUST Region 4:

Report Date:

Cross Street:

Lead Agency:

Local Agency:

Substance:

Case Number:

Case Type:

INACTIVE Cross Street: Not reported
Los Angeles Region Qty Leaked: Not reported
Diesel
Local Agency
Soil only
Signed off, remedial action completed or deemed unnecessary Excavate and Treat - remove contaminated soil and treat (includes spreading or land farming)
10/28/1992 Confirm Leak: Not reported
Not reported Prelim Assess: Not reported
12/12/1986 Remed Plan: Not reported
Not reported Monitoring: Not reported
12/22/1989 Release Date: 12/12/1986
12/12/1986
Not reported
Local Agency
56000
12034
C-86086
Soil only
41 CAMARILLO AIRPORT UST UO01579212
229 DURLEY AVENUE, BUILDING 441 N/A
CAMARILLO, CA 93010
TC269625.1r Page 46 of 61
P FIND414r4S
Map ID
Direction EDR ID Number
Distance Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
CAMARILLO AIRPORT (Continued)
State UST:

Facility ID. 56803
Tank Num, 1 Container Num: A-1
Tank Capacity: 25000 Year Installed: Not reported
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: Not Reported Tank Constrctn: 0.25 inches
Leak Detection: Visual
Contact Name: THOMAS B. IVERSEN Telephone: (805) 388-4200 Total Tanks 13 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 2 Other Type: AIRPORT
Facility ID: 56803
Tank Num. 2 Container Num: A-2
Tank Capacity: 25000 Year Installed: Not reported
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: Not Reported Tank Constrctn: 0.25 inches
Leak Detection: Visual
Contact Name: THOMAS B. IVERSEN Telephone: (805) 388-4200 Total Tanks: 13 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 2 Other Type: AIRPORT
Facility ID: 56803
Tank Num: 3 Container Num: A-3
Tank Capacity: 25000 Year Installed: Not reported
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: Not Reported Tank Constrctn: 0.25 inches
Leak Detection: Visual
Contact Name: THOMAS B. IVERSEN Telephone: (805) 388-4200 Total Tanks: 13 Region Not reported
Facility Type: 2 Other Type: AIRPORT
Facility ID: 56803
Tank Num: 4 Container Num: A-4
Tank Capacity: 25000 Year Installed: Not reported
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: Not Reported Tank Constrctn: 0.25 inches
Leak Detection: Visual
Contact Name: THOMAS B. IVERSEN Telephone: (805) 388-4200 Total Tanks: 13 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 2 Other Type: AIRPORT
Facility ID: 56803
Tank Num: 5 Container Num: A-5
Tank Capacity: 2500 Year Installed: Not reported
Tank Used for: PRODUCT
Type of Fuel: Not Reported Tank Constrctn. 0.25 inches
Leak Detection Visual
Contact Name: THOMAS B. IVERSEN Telephone: (805) 388-4200 Total Tanks: 13 Region: Not reported
Facility Type: 2 Other Type: AIRPORT
UO01579212
TC269625.1r Page 47 of 61
Map ID
Direction EDR ID Number
Distance Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
CAMARILLO AIRPORT (Continued) UO01579212
Facility ID: