View 8: View of other/commercial construction on Ventura Boulevard east of the Project Site.
Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates. 2006.
CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Planning and Research
Figure IV-4 Views of Surrounding Uses
Views 7-8
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-7
The project site is located within the Airport North Specific Plan area within the City of Camarillo.
Implementation of the specific plan involves the conversion of agricultural uses to commercial and light industrial uses with a phased buildout. Consequently, the project site is currently being used for agricultural purposes and adjacent uses are commercial. The Ventura Freeway and Ventura Boulevard are designated as scenic drives in the Scenic Highway Element of the City of Camarillo General Plan.
Development and construction within a scenic corridor must undergo architectural and site plan review.
There are no scenic resources, such as native California trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings on, or in close vicinity to, the project site. The only valued public view in the area would be of the Santa Monica and Guadalasca Mountains to the southeast and east. As these mountain ranges are at a higher elevation than the project, views of them from the scenic routes would not be obstructed by project buildings on the project site. Consequently, the project would not damage and/or remove any scenic resources within a State scenic highway, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a project introduces incompatible visual elements on the project site or visual elements that would be incompatible with the character of the area surrounding the project site.
The project site is relatively flat and undeveloped, currently being used for agricultural purposes to grow row crops. There are no oak trees or indigenous species found on the project site. Recently some construction and grading activities have occurred on the eastern side of the project site in relation to the construction of municipal drainage facilities (see Figure IV-4, View 8).
The project site is located within a commercially developed area of the City of Camarillo. There are no surface water features, parks or open space areas in the immediate vicinity. The implementation of the Airport North Specific Plan the 1986 Airport North Specific Plan allowed the conversion of agricultural uses in the Specific Plan area to urban uses and specifically designates the principal land uses for development within the Specific Plan area as limited to those listed in the Professional Office (PO), Commercial Planned Development (CPD), and Limited Manufacturing (LM) zones, and additionally:
corporate offices and offices, research and development, mixed-use centers, commercial uses and hotel uses. Accordingly, the Airport North Specific Plan EIR identified the loss of agricultural views as a significant impact which could be mitigated to an acceptable level by consistency with the design regulations in the Specific Plan. The Airport North Specific Plan continues the planned/approved orderly conversion of all lands within the Specific Plan area that are currently used for agriculture, although agricultural production is expected to continue on the remaining portions of the Specific Plan area as it develops. This is the case with the project site, which is currently being used for row crops. Therefore, the co-existence of agricultural uses and urban commercial uses is a part of the phased buildout and not considered discordant by the City.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-8
The project site is located within the City’s Heritage Zone which requires developments to have particular design themes. The proposed structures would be designed to be consistent with the predominant character and scale of the nearby commercial areas. The buildings would incorporate Mediterranean/European Spanish architectural styles which would be consistent with the architectural styles required by the Airport North Specific Plan. The types of building materials would include the use of stucco, wood, glass, tile, textured blocks, and other similar materials. Consequently, views of the project site from the U.S. 101 Freeway would change of the project site, yet views of the site would be consistent with the character of the project vicinity and the design guidelines in the Airport North Specific Plan and impacts to the existing visual character of the project site would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
AES-1 The project building and landscaping design shall conform to all development regulations and design standards in the Airport North Specific Plan.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a project introduces new sources of light or glare on the project site, which would be incompatible with the areas surrounding the project site or would pose a safety hazard to motorists utilizing adjacent streets or freeways.
Light
The project site is located in proximity to a well-lit urban area where there are medium levels of ambient nighttime lighting including street lighting, architectural and security lighting, indoor building illumination (light emanating from the interior of structures which passes through windows), and vehicle headlight.
Night lighting for the project would be provided in order to illuminate walkways, building entrances, parking areas, and driveways, largely to provide adequate night visibility for visitors to the commercial businesses and to provide a measure of security. The project site is currently not lighted as it is used for agricultural purposes. Although the project would introduce new light sources into a currently unlit area, the lighting plan would be very similar to the lighting at the Camarillo Town Center to the east. The nearest residential uses with views of the project site are located approximately one third of a mile to the north, and are separated from the project site by the Ventura Freeway. However, to the south, the Camarillo Airport is in close proximity to the Project Site and, due to the nature of the airport operations, is considered a sensitive use. Consequently, the majority of lighting would be directed towards the interior of the project site, directed away from the neighboring residential land uses and the airport, and would be fitted with directional shields to direct lighting down towards the ground and help minimize the City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-9
overspill of light to areas beyond the immediate Project Site. Further, the proposed building would incorporate a variety of materials that would minimize the transmission of light from building materials.
Impacts associated with light would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-2.
Mitigation Measure
AES-2 Outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed in accordance with regulations in the Airport North Specific Plan, Section IV. Design Guidelines, E. Lighting:
• Project lighting should be concentrated at the main entries and along major plazas or architectural features or landscape features;
• Decorative lights standards that complement the architectural elements of the building design shall be used;
• Buildings and tree groves shall be up-washed with light to emphasize architecture; • Low-intensity, energy efficient parking lot lighting shall be used. Parking lot lights should ve secondary to the illumination of buildings and landscaped features, and; • Low-level, direct lighting shall be used on pedestrian walkways.
Glare
Glare is a common phenomenon in the southern California area due mainly to the occurrence of a high number of days per year with direct sunlight and the highly urbanized nature of the region, which results in a large concentration of potentially reflective surfaces. Potential reflective surfaces in the project vicinity include, automobiles traveling and parked on streets in the vicinity of the project, exterior building windows, and surfaces of brightly painted buildings in the project vicinity. Excessive glare not only restricts visibility but increases the ambient heat reflectivity in a given area.
The exterior portions of the proposed building would incorporate a variety of non-reflective material that would minimize the transmission of glare from building materials. As such, the building materials would be expected to minimize potential glare effects along the surrounding streets, the Ventura Freeway and the Camarillo Regional Airport to the south. The nearest residential uses with views of the project site are located approximately one third of a mile to the north, and are separated from the project site by the Ventura Freeway, and therefore are not expected to be impacted by glare from the project site. Impacts associated with glare would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-3.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-10
Mitigation Measure
AES-3 The exterior of the proposed buildings shall be constructed of materials such as tinted nonreflective glass and pre-cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces.
Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant Impact. Increased development associated with buildout of the related projects would alter the visual image of each area surrounding those sites. Development of the project in conjunction with other development in the project area would result in an intensification of land uses in the City of Camarillo. However, the intensification of land uses on the project site is part of the implementation of the Airport North Specific Plan and therefore has already been taken into consideration in the City of Camarillo General Plan. As required by the City of Camarillo, the project design for each of the related projects would be reviewed by the City of Camarillo Community Development Department for consistency with applicable City codes and regulations prior to final approval. Therefore, cumulative aesthetic impacts would be less than significant, and the contribution of the project to this impact would not be considerable.
2. AGRICULTURE
a) Would the project 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?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project were to result in the conversion of statedesignated agricultural land from agricultural use to another non-agricultural use. The project site is located within the Oxnard Plain, which is one of the most productive agricultural areas in the United States. The project site is identified in the Environmental Impact Report prepared in conjunction with the 1986 Airport North Specific Plan as Prime Farmland (Class II soils) and Farmland of Statewide Importance on the U.S. Soils Conservation Service important Farmland Inventory of Ventura County, 1982.1
The implementation of the Airport North Specific Plan the 1986 Airport North Specific Plan allowed the conversion of agricultural uses in the Specific Plan area to urban uses and specifically designates the principal land uses for development within the Specific Plan area as limited to those listed in the Professional Office (PO), Commercial Planned Development (CPD), and Limited Manufacturing (LM) zones, and additionally: corporate offices and off ices, research and development, mixed-use centers, commercial uses and hotel uses.
1 Airport North Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, City of Camarillo, May 1986.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-11
Accordingly, the Airport North Specific Plan EIR identified the individual and cumulative loss of farmland in the Oxnard Plain as a significant adverse impact. Findings and facts indicated that certain social and economic factors outweighed the significant adverse impacts associated with conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was thereby adopted. The Airport North Specific Plan continues the planned/approved orderly conversion of all lands within the Specific Plan area that are currently used for agriculture, although agricultural production is expected to continue on the remaining portions of the Specific Plan area as it develops. This is the case with the project site, which is currently being used for row crops. Therefore, the conversion of the project site from agricultural to non-agricultural uses has already been approved and the potential impacts overridden by the City. No new impact would occur.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project were to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with a Williamson contract. The zoning of the project site has been re-designated for office, commercial and light industrial uses per the Airport North Specific Plan. As such, although land within the Specific Plan area is currently being used for agriculture, the land is no longer zoned for agricultural uses.
The size, soil quality and water availability are such that the land within the Specific Plan area was qualified for contracted Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) preserve status. A Williamson Act contract existed between the land owners of a part of the Specific Plan area (McGrath property) and Ventura County. These contracts remain in effect for ten years and automatically roll forward each year unless a notice of non-renewal is filed with the County. Such a notice for the McGrath property was filed in 1984, which means that the development restrictions remained in effect until 1994.2 After this date, the
Williamson Act contract was terminated and restrictions will no longer apply to the Airport North Specific Plan area. Therefore no impacts associated with existing zoning or Williamson Act contract conflicts will occur.
c) Would the project 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 Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Please refer to Section 2(a) above.
2 Airport North Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, City of Camarillo, May 1986.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-12
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact. The Airport North Specific Plan EIR identified the cumulative loss of farmland in the Oxnard Plain as a significant adverse impact. However, findings and facts indicated that certain social and economic factors outweighed the significant adverse impacts associated with conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was thereby adopted. Therefore, the conversion of the project site from agricultural to non-agricultural uses has already been approved and the potential cumulative impacts overridden by the City. No new impact would occur.
3. AIR QUALITY
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project is not consistent with the applicable air quality plan or would in some way represent a substantial hindrance to employing the policies or obtaining the goals of that plan.
In the case of projects proposed within Ventura County, the applicable plan is the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that is prepared by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD). The VCAPCD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the County. To that end, the VCAPCD, a regional agency, works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Ventura County Transportation Commission, and local governments, and cooperates actively with all State and federal government agencies. The VCAPCD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures though educational programs or fines, when necessary.
The VCAPCD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). The most recent of these was adopted by the Governing Board of the VCAPCD in 1997.
This AQMP, referred to as the 1997 AQMP Revision, was prepared to comply with the federal and State Clean Air Acts and amendments, to accommodate growth, to reduce the high pollutant levels of pollutants in the Basin, to meet federal and State air quality standards, and to minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. It identifies the control measures that will be implemented to reduce major sources of pollutants. These planning efforts have substantially decreased the population’s exposure to unhealthful levels of pollutants, even while substantial population growth has occurred within the County. A proposed 2004 AQMP Revision is currently available for public review.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-13
The future air quality levels projected in the 1997 AQMP Revision are based on several assumptions. For example, the VCAPCD assumes that general new development within the County will occur in accordance with population growth and transportation projections identified by County staff.
For general development projects, the VCAPCD recommends that consistency with the current AQMP be determined by comparing the population generated by the project to the population projections used in the development of the AQMP. Inconsistency with these projections is could jeopardize attainment of the air quality conditions projected in the AQMP and is considered to be a significant impact.
The projections in the 1997 AQMP Revision are based on residential population growth within the various growth and non-growth areas of the County. The project is a commercial project that would not result in the direct growth of population within the Camarillo Growth Area. The project is proposed to serve the local population. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the 1997 AQMP Revision and, as such, would not jeopardize attainment of State and national ambient air quality standards in Ventura County. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A project may have a significant impact where project-related emissions would exceed regional standards or thresholds, or where projectrelated emissions would substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The City of Camarillo utilizes the following thresholds for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction.
Construction Emission Thresholds
Construction–related activities are generally short-term in duration, and the VCAPCD does not recommend any thresholds of significance for their associated emissions. Instead, the VCAPCD bases the determination of significance on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented. If all appropriate emissions control measures recommended by the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines are implemented for a project, then construction emissions are not considered significant.
Operational Emission Thresholds
The VCAPCD currently recommends that projects located everywhere in Ventura County outsides of the Ojai Planning Area with operational emissions that exceed any of the following emissions thresholds should be considered significant.
• 25.0 pounds per day of reactive organic compounds (ROC) • 25.0 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides (NOx)
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-14
Construction–Related Impacts
As discussed above, construction–related activities are generally short-term in duration and the VCAPCD does not recommend any thresholds of significance for construction-related emissions. Instead, the VCAPCD bases the determination of significance on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented. If all appropriate emissions control measures recommended by the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines relating to construction activities are implemented for a project, then construction emissions are not considered significant. Conversely, if all of the appropriate emissions control measures recommended by the VCAPCD are not implemented, then construction emissions are considered significant.
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 include appropriate dust control measures recommended by the VCAPCD. According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Air Quality handbook, these types of measures would reduce by at least 50 percent the amount of fugitive dust generated by excavation and construction activities.3
Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would reduce the
emissions generated by heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment operating at the project site and by construction workers traveling to and from the project site. Therefore, construction-related air quality impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are recommended to address air quality impacts associated with construction activities:
AQ-1 The project developer shall implement fugitive dust control measures in accordance with VCAPCD recommendations. The project developer shall include in construction contracts the control measures required and recommended by the VCAPCD at the time of development.
Examples of the types of measures currently required and recommended include the following:
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized on a daily basis to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be graded or excavated before commencement of grading or excavation operations. Application of water should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. • All trucks shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle Code §23114.
3 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993, pages 11-15 and 11-16.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-15
• All graded an excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally-safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll-compaction, as appropriate.
Watering shall be done as often as necessary.
• Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored by a Citydesignated person at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll-compaction, and environmentally-safe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four consecutive days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally-safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust. • Signs shall be posed on-site limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. • During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site. The site superintendent/supervisor shall use his/her discretion in conjunction with the VCAPCD in determining when winds are excessive.
• Adjacent paved streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to the adjacent paved streets and roads. • Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors, should be advised to wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations.
AQ-2 The project developer shall implement measures to reduce the emissions of pollutants generated by heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment operating at the project site throughout the project construction phases. The project developer shall include in construction contracts the control measures required and recommended by the VCAPCD at the time of development. Examples of the types of measures currently required and recommended include the following:
• Keep all construction equipment in proper tune in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.
• Limit truck and equipment idling time to five minutes or less. • Utilize alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) to the extent that the equipment is readily available and cost effective in Ventura County (meaning that it does not have to be imported from another air basin, that the procurement of the equipment would not cause a delay in construction City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-16
activities of more than two weeks, that the cost of the equipment use is not more than 20 percent greater than the cost of standard equipment).
• Lengthen the construction period during the smog season (May through October) to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.
Operational Impacts
Operational emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources would result from normal day-today activities on the project site after occupation. Stationary area source emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices and cooking appliances, and the operation of landscape maintenance equipment. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site.
The analysis of daily operational emissions has been prepared utilizing the URBEMIS 2002 computer model recommended by the VCAPCD. The results of these calculations are presented in Table IV-2. As shown, the project would generate daily emissions that exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the VCAPCD. This is a potentially significant impact.
Table IV-2
Estimated Daily Operational Emissions
Emissions in Pounds per Day
Emissions Source 2008 2009 2010
ROC NOx ROC NOx ROC NOx
Water and Space Heating and Cooking Appliances 0.35 4.82 0.35 4.82 0.35 4.82 Landscape Maintenance Equipment 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.01 Architectural Coatings 3.50 -- 3.50 -- 3.50 --
Mobile (Vehicle) Sources 88.33 89.65 82.10 82.79 75.78 75.73 Total Emissions 92.28 94.48 86.05 87.62 79.71 80.57
VCAPCD Thresholds 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
Significant Impact? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Note: Subtotals may not appear to add correctly due to rounding in the URBEMIS 2002 model.
NT = No threshold of significance.
Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2006. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-3 The project developer shall include in construction and building management contracts the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective:
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-17
• Use solar or low-emission water heaters in the commercial buildings. • Require that commercial landscapers providing services at the common areas of project site use electric or battery-powered equipment, or other internal combustion equipment that is either certified by the California Air Resources Board or is three years old or less at the time of use, to the extent that such equipment is reasonably available and competitively priced in Ventura County (meaning that the equipment can be easily purchased at stores in Ventura County and the cost of the equipment is not more than 20 percent greater than the cost of standard equipment).
• Provide bus stops with shelters at locations along the project frontage with Ventura Boulevard. The number of bus stops shall be determined in consultation with Camarillo Area Transit.
Many of the measures that the VCAPCD currently recommends to reduce the significant operational impacts of proposed project are features of the proposed project. Only about two percent of the vehicle trips associated with the project would be generated by employees commuting to and from the site and there is really no way to reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with the delivery vehicles and customers traveling to and from the site. The only remaining measure recommended by the VCAPCD that would reduce the operational impacts of the proposed project to less-than-significant levels is the contribution to a City-managed transportation demand management (TDM) fund. This fund is used by the City to implement trip reduction programs throughout the City.
AQ-4 The project developer shall contribute a total of $667,502 to a TDM fund managed by the City of Camarillo.
The calculation used to determine the contribution to the City-managed TDM fund is provided in Appendix B to this Initial Study.
c) Would the project 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 threshold for ozone precursors)?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Cumulative development in the Camarillo Growth Area is not expected to result in a significant impact in terms of conflicting with, or obstructing implementation of, the 1997 AQMP Revision. The 1997 AQMP Revision was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within Ventura County, to return clean air to the region, and to minimize the impact on the economy. Growth considered to be consistent with the 1997 AQMP Revision would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AQMP. Consequently, as long as growth in the Camarillo Growth Area is within the projections for growth identified in the AQMP, implementation of the 1997 City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-18
AQMP Revision will not be obstructed by such growth. As growth in the Camarillo Growth Area has not exceeded these projections, this impact would not be cumulatively considerable. Additionally, since the proposed project is consistent with growth projections under the 1997 AQMP Revision, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact regarding conflict with or obstruction of the implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Cumulative development within the City of Camarillo would continue to implement dust control and equipment emissions mitigation measures during construction in accordance with City practices.
Consequently, cumulative development within the City is not expected to cause a significant impact associated with construction activities. Because the project would implement all appropriate mitigation measures during construction, the contribution of the project to any cumulative air quality impact would not be considerable.
Because Ventura County is currently in nonattainment for ozone, related projects could exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. With regard to determining the significance of the proposed project contribution, the VCAPCD neither recommends quantified analyses of cumulative operational emissions nor provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess cumulative construction or operational impacts. Instead, the VCAPCD recommends that a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts should be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project specific impacts. Therefore, this Initial Study assumes that individual development projects that generate operational emissions that exceed the VCAPCD recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts would also cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the County is in nonattainment. As discussed previously, operational daily emissions associated with project development would exceed VCAPCD significance thresholds for ROC and NOx. Therefore, the emissions generated by project would be cumulatively considerable regarding a substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation. This would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels by Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4.
d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur where a project would generate pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive receptors. The VCAPCD currently recommends that impacts to sensitive receptors be considered significant when localized carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations at sensitive receptors located near congested intersections exceed the national or State ambient air quality standards.
Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO.
Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed national and/or state standards for CO are termed CO “hotspots.” The VCAPCD considers CO as a localized problem requiring additional analysis when a project is likely to subject sensitive receptors to CO hotspots. Land uses such as primary and secondary City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-19
schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be sensitive receptors to poor air quality because the very young, the old, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air quality-related health problems than the general public. Residential uses are considered sensitive because people in residential areas are often at home for extended periods of time, so they could be exposed to pollutants for extended periods. Recreational areas are considered moderately sensitive to poor air quality because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory function.
The VCAPCD recommends the use of CALINE4, a dispersion model for predicting CO concentrations, as the preferred method of estimating pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptors near congested roadways and intersections. For each intersection analyzed, CALINE4 adds roadway-specific CO emissions calculated from peak-hour turning volumes to ambient CO air concentrations. For this analysis, localized CO concentrations were calculated based on a simplified CALINE4 screening procedure developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and accepted by the VCAPCD.
The simplified procedure is intended as a screening analysis, which identifies a potential CO hotspot.
This methodology assumes worst-case conditions and provides a screening of maximum, worst-case CO concentrations. However, the emission factors used in the analysis have been updated to EMFAC 2002 by the Initial Study consultant.4
The simplified CALINE4 screening procedure was used to predict future CO concentrations at the studyarea intersections in the vicinity of the Project site in the year 2008 with cumulative development projects. The results of these calculations are provided in Table IV-3. The national and State 8-hour ambient air quality standard is 9.0 ppm.
Table IV-3
Predicted Future (2008) With Project Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 8-Hour CO Concentrations in Parts Per Million Intersection Roadway Edge 25 Feet 50 Feet
Las Posas Road & Ponderosa Drive 4.7 4.3 4.1
Las Posas Road & Daily Drive 5.5 4.8 4.5
Las Posas Road & Ventura Boulevard 6.0 5.1 4.8
Note: National and state standard is 9.0 ppm
Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2006. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. Based on year 2008 emission factors.
4 The emission factors used in the BAAQMD’s localized CO screening procedure are based on EMFAC7G, which is out of date by several years and has been superceded by newer emission factor models, the current version of which is EMFAC 2002.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-20
As shown, future CO concentrations near these intersections would not exceed the national and State ambient air quality standards for CO. Therefore, implementation of the project and cumulative development would not expose any sensitive receptors located in close proximity to these intersections to substantial pollutant concentrations. This would be a less-than-significant impact. e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if construction or operation of the project would result in generation of odors that would be perceptible in adjacent sensitive areas.
Odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes, as well as sewage treatment facilities and landfills. The project would provide commercial uses, and would not contain any of the above-listed odor producing uses. In addition, there are no sensitive uses such as residences or schools in close proximity to the project site. Therefore, no impact associated with objectionable odors would occur.
During the construction phase, paving of the Project site would entail the application of asphalt that would produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites. Such odors would be a temporary and intermittent. As such, impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Section 3(c) for a discussion of cumulative air quality impacts.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. A significant impact would occur where the project would remove or modify habitat for any species identified or designated as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation, or by the state or federal regulatory agencies cited. The existing project site has been utilized for agriculture for an extended period of time and therefore, any natural habitat or sensitive species on the project site have already been removed or modified. Therefore, the project would not have an impact on any sensitive species or habitat.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-21
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. A significant impact would occur where riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community identified locally, regionally, or by the state and federal regulatory agencies cited were to be adversely modified without adequate mitigation. The project site has been modified and utilized for agricultural purposes for many years. No riparian or other sensitive habitat areas are located on or adjacent to the project site. The Camarillo Hills Drain which runs to the south of the project site will be separated from the site by the extension of Ventura Boulevard. The Camarillo Hills Drain is subject to the California Department of Fish and Game 1603 permit procedures, however, no alteration to the drain is proposed as part of the project, or as part of the Airport North Specific Plan.5 Therefore,
implementation of the project would not result in any adverse impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. A significant impact would occur where federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would be modified or removed without adequate mitigation. The project site has been completely modified with agricultural uses. No federally protected wetlands exist on the project site. Therefore, no project impacts to riparian or wetland habitats would occur. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project would interfere or remove access to a migratory wildlife corridor or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The project site is situated between the U.S. 101 (Ventura) highway to the north and the Camarillo Regional Airport to the south. To the east is the Camarillo Town Center West (Home Depot) development. Further to the north and east are the developed areas of the City of Camarillo and south of the airport is more agricultural land. It is unlikely that the project site is an established migratory wildlife corridor given these nearby restrictions and the general absence of large areas of natural open space in the vicinity. Consequently, impacts to wildlife migratory corridors are anticipated to be less than significant.
5 Airport North Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, City of Camarillo, May 1986.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-22
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if the project would cause an impact which is inconsistent with local regulations pertaining to biological resources. There are no local ordinances protecting biological resources. Thus, the project site would not affect any local policies or ordinances protecting or preserving biological resources. No project impacts to locally protected biological resources would occur.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. A significant impact would occur where a project would be inconsistent with mapping or policies in any conservation plans of the types cited. The project site and its vicinity are not part of any draft or adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan. No project impacts to any adopted habitat or conservation plans would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact. As the development of the project will have no impact on biological resources, the project cannot combine with other development in the area to form a cumulative impact on biological resources.
Therefore, no cumulative impact with respect to biological resources would occur.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
No Impact. Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a historical resource as: (1) a resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) a resource listed in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting certain state guidelines; or (3) an object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California, provided that the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if the project would adversely affect an historical resource meeting one of these definitions.
The project site has been modified and utilized for agricultural purposed for many years and no structures exist on site. Therefore, no project impacts to historical resources would occur.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-23
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines significant archaeological resources as resources which meet the criteria for historical resources, as discussed above, or resources which constitute unique archaeological resources. A projectrelated significant adverse effect could occur if the project were to affect archaeological resources which fall under either of these categories.
The project site has been modified and utilized for agricultural purposes for many years. It is likely that any surface archeological remains that might have once occurred one the project site would have long since been eliminated by past agricultural activities. However, there is a remote possibility that archeological resources exist below the surface, and that these remains could be encountered during site preparation. While no further evaluation of this issue is recommended, periodic monitoring during construction is recommended, consistent with standard City of Camarillo Conditions of Approval, to identify any previously unidentified archeological resources uncovered by project construction activity.
This would ensure that project impacts would remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
CR-1 The project developer shall include in construction contracts the requirement that the project be halted if any archaeological materials are encountered during the course of project development.
The services of an archaeologist shall be secured by contacting the Center for Public Archaeology – California State University Fullerton, or a member of the Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) or a SOPA-qualified archaeologist to assess the resources and evaluate the impact. Copies of the archaeological survey, study, or report shall be submitted to the UCLA Archaeological Information Center.
c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if grading or excavation activities associated with the project would disturb paleontological resources or geologic features.
The project site has been modified and utilized for agricultural purposes for many years and therefore it is likely that any surface paleontological remains have long since been eliminated by past agricultural activities. Nevertheless, there is a remote possibility that unsuspected paleontological resources exist below the ground surface and could be encountered during construction. While no further evaluation of this issue is recommended, periodic monitoring during construction is recommended, consistent with standard City of Camarillo Conditions of Approval, to identify any previously unidentified City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-24
paleontological resources uncovered by project construction activity. This would ensure that project impacts would remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
CR-2 The project developer shall include in construction contracts the requirement that the project be halted if any paleontological materials are encountered during the course of project development.
The services of a paleontologist shall be secured by contacting the Center for Public Paleontology, which can be found at the following universities; USC, UCLA, California State University at Los Angeles, California State University at Long Beach or the County Museum, to assess the resources and evaluate the impact.
d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if grading or excavation activities associated with the project would disturb previously interred human remains. The project site has been modified and utilized for agricultural purposes for many years. Nevertheless, there is a remote possibility that unsuspected human remains exist below the ground surface and could be encountered during construction. While no further evaluation of this issue is recommended, periodic monitoring during construction is recommended, consistent with standard City of Camarillo Conditions of Approval, to identify any previously unidentified human remains uncovered by project construction activity. This would ensure that project impacts would remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
CR-3 The project developer shall include in construction contracts the requirement that the project be halted if any human remains are encountered during the course of project development and the City of Camarillo Public Works Department and County Coroner shall be immediately notified.
If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains.
Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project in conjunction with other development in the City would result in further development in an already urban area. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that archaeological and paleontological resources exist on the surface of other development sites in the project area. Nevertheless, there remains the remote possibility that unknown subsurface archaeological and paleontological remains could be encountered during other development in the project area. Therefore, periodic monitoring during construction is recommended, consistent with standard City of Camarillo City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-25
Conditions of Approval, to identify any previously unidentified archaeological and paleontological resources uncovered by project construction activity. This should be sufficient to reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. With respect to historic resources, no significant historic resources are known to occur on any of the other development sites in the project area.
Therefore, cumulative impacts to historic resources are anticipated to be less than significant and cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section incorporates by reference the Preliminary Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation, 50 Acres Agricultural Property, South of 101 Freeway and Bajo Agua, Camarillo, by Geolabs-Westlake Village, December 20, 2005. A full copy of this report can be found in Appendix C of this Initial Study. a) Would the project 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 AlquistPriolo 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. The project site is located in the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province of Southern California. The Transverse Ranges are essentially east-west trending elongate mountain rages and valleys that are geologically complex. Structurally, the province reflects the northsouth compressional forces that are the result of a bend in the San Andreas Fault. As the Pacific Plate, the westerly side of the fault, and the North American Plate, on the easterly side, move past one another along the fault the bend causes a deflection which allows for large accumulations of compressional energy.
Some of these forces are spent in deforming the crust into roughly east-west trendgin folds and secondary faults. The most significant of these faults are typically reverse or thrust faults, which allow for the crustal shortening taking place regionally. The project site lies in the northern portion of the province, in the City of Camarillo.
According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, the bedrock of the subject site consists of Tertiary to Pleistocene formations; Lower Topanga Formation, Conejo Volcanics, Las Posas San, and the Saugus Formation. The surficial sediments are late Holocene alluvial fan deposits consisting of loose Sand, Silty Sand and minor clay soils.
According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site contains no active or potentially active faults, nor is it within an Earthquake Fault Zone designated along faults judged sufficiently active and well City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-26
defined by the State Geologist. Additionally, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone according to the Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Map in the City of Camarillo General Plan.6
Therefore, the potential for ground rupture is considered to be very low and impacts would be less than significant.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project represents an increased risk to public safety or destruction of property by exposing people, property or infrastructure to seismically induced ground shaking hazards that are greater than the average risk associated with locations in the southern California region.
As with all properties in the seismically active Southern California region, the project site is susceptible to ground shaking during seismic events produced by local faults. While it is likely that the project site will be shaken by future earthquakes produced in southern California, modern, well-constructed buildings are designed to resist ground shaking through the use of shear panels and reinforcement.
While the understanding of seismic activity grows over time, and additional faults are discovered, the site currently is not included in a City-designated Fault Rupture Study Zones or State-designated AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones (see Section VI (a) i, above). Potential impacts from seismic ground shaking are present throughout Southern California and would not be higher at the project site than for most of the City of Camarillo or elsewhere in the region. Also, the Uniform Building Code contains construction requirements to assure habitable structures are built to a level of acceptable seismic risk.
Based upon the above considerations, the risks from seismic ground shaking are considered less than significant.
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Liquefaction is a condition where the soil undergoes deformation at a constant low residual stress due to the build-up of high porewater pressures. The possibility of liquefaction occurring at a given site is dependent upon the occurrence of a significant earthquake in the vicinity; sufficient groundwater to cause high pore pressures; and on the grain size, relative density and confining pressures of the soil at the site. The project site is underlain by alluvium consisting of alternating layers of Silt, Clay, Silty Sand and poorly-graded Sand layers to the maximum depth explored in the Geotechnical Investigation of 50 feet. Groundwater was encountered in all site borings ranging in depth from 4 to 7 feet below the surface.
6 City of Camarillo General Plan, Safety Element, 2000.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-27
Based upon the soundings and borings performed as part of the geotechnical investigation, and a review of published data, groundwater is present on the site within the upper fifty feet of the soil profile. The subsurface soils of the site are predominantly silts and clays; however, the soils 8 to 30 feet below ground surface (bgs) contain sand layers. This, coupled with the likelihood of significant ground shaking, and the history of the site determined that further evaluation of the liquefaction potential was needed. Further geotechnical analysis determined that the potential settlement due to a design-level earthquake would be on the order of one inch mainly due to a thin sand layer existing in depth ranging from 10 to 20 feet. The balance of the site is underlain by fine-grained silts and clays which cannot be analyzed for liquefaction settlement in the same way.
The liquefaction-induced lateral spreading analysis in the geotechnical investigation indicates a potential for lateral spreading as great as 5 to 6 feet towards the flood channel to the south of the project site. This lateral spread is for unimproved areas. There is also a potential for surface manifestations if shallow liquefaction occurs. Consequently, the impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, are potentially significant. The geotechnical investigation contains recommendations and procedures relevant to the project which would mitigate these potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. With the incorporation of this mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 The project shall comply with the recommendations listed on pages 15 through 26 of the Preliminary Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation, 50 Acres Agricultural Property, South of 101 Freeway and Bajo Agua, Camarillo by Geolabs-Westlake Village, December 20, 2005. (iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The project site is essentially flat with a gentle slope to the southwest with a gradient of approximately 0.007 feet per foot. No large geomorphic features which could pose a landslide threat exist on or near the project site. Additionally, the project site is not located in an existing landslide zone according to the City of Camarillo Safety Element.7
No impacts would occur.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project exposes large areas to the erosional effects of wind or water for a protracted period of time. The project site is currently agricultural land with row crops and exposed soil. Project implementation would cover the site with impermeable surfaces, reducing the area of soil exposed to potential soil erosion. However, project development also
7 City of Camarillo General Plan, Safety Element, 2000. Hazards Plate IV, Seismic and Safety Elements, October 1974.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-28
has the potential to result in minor erosion of soils during site preparation and construction activities.
This potential for erosion would be reduced by implementation of stringent erosion controls imposed during grading and via building permit regulations. However, the potential for soil erosion during the ongoing operation of the project is relatively low due to the generally level topography of the development area and the fact that the area would be almost entirely paved over. All grading activities require grading permits from the Public Works Department, which include requirements and standards designed to limit potential impacts to acceptable levels. With implementation of the applicable grading and building permit requirements and the application of Best Management Practices, a less than significant impact would occur related to erosion or loss of topsoil. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is built on unstable soils without proper site preparation or design features to provide adequate foundations for project buildings, thus posing a hazard to life and property. The preliminary geotechnical investigation found the potential for hydroconsolidation to be low on the project site. In addition, the potential for unsuitable soils to create settlement problems for structures, roads, and utility lines through vertical or lateral movement would be eliminated through soils re-engineering (i.e., remediation) during excavation and construction as stipulated in mitigation measure GEO-1, above. As part of the construction permitting process, the City requires completed reports of soil conditions at construction sites to identify, and recommend treatment for, potentially unsuitable soil conditions. Therefore, impacts related to unstable soils would be considered less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as identified in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is built on expansive soils without proper site preparation or design features to provide adequate foundations for project buildings, thus posing a hazard to life and property. According to the City of Camarillo Safety Element, the project vicinity is not located within an expansive soil zone. 8 The potential for unsuitable soils to create
settlement problems for structures, roads, and utility lines through vertical or lateral movement would be eliminated through soils re-engineering (i.e., remediation) during excavation and construction as stipulated in mitigation measure GEO-1, above. As part of the construction permitting process, the City requires completed reports of soil conditions at construction sites to identify, and recommend treatment
8 Hazards Plate VI, City of Camarillo Safety Element, Update 2000.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-29
for, potentially unsuitable soil conditions. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be considered less than significant.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. This question would apply to the project only if it were located in an area not served by an existing sewer system. The project site is located in an area of the City of Camarillo, which is served by a wastewater collection, conveyance and treatment system operated by the Camarillo Sanitary District. No septic tanks or alternative disposal systems are necessary, nor are they proposed. No impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact. Development of the project in conjunction with other projects in the project vicinity would result in the further intensification of various land uses in the City of Camarillo. Geotechnical hazards are generally site-specific in nature and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between development of the project and other projects in the project vicinity. As such, construction of other projects in the project vicinity is not anticipated to combine with the project to cumulatively expose people or structures to geologic hazards such as landslides and unstable soils, increase the potential for soil erosion and the loss of topsoil, or expose additional people to seismic hazards. Therefore, no significant cumulative geological impacts are anticipated from implementation of the project and other projects in the project vicinity.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section incorporates by reference the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the 48-acre Pearson Property, 384 West Ventura Boulevard, Camarillo, by Anacapa Geoservices, September 16, 2005. A full copy of this report can be found in Appendix D of this Initial Study. a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project involves use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of its routine operations and would have the potential to generate toxic or otherwise hazardous emissions that could adversely affect sensitive receptors. The project is the development of a commercial center which would not use or sell hazardous materials. Other than typical cleaning solvents used for janitorial purposes, no hazardous materials would be used, transported or disposed of in conjunction with the routine day-to-day operations of the project. No impact would occur.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-30
b) Would the project create significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project involves use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of its routine operations and would have the potential to generate toxic or otherwise hazardous emissions that could adversely affect sensitive receptors. There are no sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Other than typical cleaning solvents used for janitorial purposes, no hazardous materials would be used, transported or disposed of in conjunction with the routine day-to-day operations of the proposed commercial development and no impact would occur. c) Would the project 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. A significant impact may occur if a project utilizes substantial quantities of hazardous materials as part of its routine operations and could potentially pose a hazard to nearby sensitive receptors under accident or upset conditions. There are no sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site and the nearest school, Frontier High School, is over half a mile away, south of the Camarillo Regional Airport. Other than typical cleaning solvents used for janitorial purposes, no hazardous materials would be used, transported or disposed of in conjunction with the routine day-to-day operations of the proposed commercial development and no impact would occur. d) Would the project 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? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires various state agencies to compile lists of hazardous waste disposal facilities, unauthorized releases from underground storage tanks, contaminated drinking water wells and solid waste facilities from which there is known migration of hazardous waste and submit such information to the Secretary for Environmental Protection on at least an annual basis. A significant impact may occur if a project site is included on any of the above lists and poses an environmental hazard to surrounding sensitive uses.
According to the County of Ventura Water Resources Division, there are no water wells existing within the property. Anacapa GeoServices produced a Phase I ESA for the project site, dated September 15, 2006. No hazardous environmental conditions were identified on site or as a result of the database search.
One potential non-ASTM environmental condition was identified: the normal, legal application of farmrelated pesticides, herbicides and other farm chemicals may have resulted in the creation of soil that could be considered a hazardous waste if it is disposed of. The other potential ASTM environmental conditions that were sampled and evaluated are summarized below.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-31
Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs)
ACMs are typically associated with older buildings or structures, since no structures exist on the project site, no ACM survey was conducted. The Phase I ESA concluded that ACMs do not represent an environmental concern to the project site.
Mold
Mold is typically associated with older buildings or structures, since no structures exist on the project site, no Mold survey was conducted. The Phase I ESA concluded that mold does not represent an environmental concern to the project site.
Lead-Containing Paint (LCP)
LCPs are typically associated with older buildings or structures, since no structures exist on the project site, no LCP survey was conducted. The Phase I ESA concluded that LCPs do not represent an environmental concern to the project site.
Radon Gas
The Phase I ESA review of published (State of California, 2002) radon data indicates that the project site is located in a generalized area of very low propensity (8.2% in zip code 93010) with regard to the potential for elevated levels of radon gas. No radon tests were therefore conducted and the ESA concluded that radon gas is unlikely to represent an environmental concern to the project site.
Lead in Drinking Water
The Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD) would provide water to the project site and the ESA confirmed that CMWD drinking water meets or exceeds all drinking water standards. Therefore, as drinking water for the project site would be provided from the CMWD, no tests for lead in the drinking water were performed, as it is unlikely to represent an environmental concern to the project site.
The project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites and no hazardous environmental conditions were found. However, the potential exists that the agricultural soil on the project site has accumulated pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and other chemical to concentrations that may exceed federal, state and/or local regulations. Therefore, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1 Prior to project development the project applicant/developer shall perform soil tests to determine if farm-related chemicals are present in the soil and at concentrations that exceed federal, state City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-32
and/or local regulations, per the recommendations in the Phase I ESA. Any contaminated soils shall be remediated in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant project-related impact may occur if a project were placed within a public airport land use plan area, or within two miles of a public airport, and subject to a safety hazard.
The project site is located within the northern portion of the Airport North Specific Plan area, less than a quarter of a mile from Camarillo Airport. Although the height restrictions established by the Specific Plan will ensure that the transition slope clearance easement is not violated by buildout of uses in the Specific Plan area, any development near an airport involves some risk to aircraft and inhabitants/occupants of the development. The Specific Plan locates higher density, job-intensive office and commercial uses in the northern portion of the Specific Plan area where the height restrictions allow for two story buildings. More restrictive height and land use designations regulate development in the southern portion of the Specific Plan area. The project site is located within the 2-story airport building height zone, which specifies a maximum height for two-story buildings, exclusive of architectural elements such as towers, cupolas, etc., of 35 feet. The maximum building elevations, excluding various architectural features, on the project site would be approximately 34 feet and therefore in compliance with the height zone. As a commercial development, the project is unlikely to include uses that could conflict with airport operations, electronic communications or navigational aids that could potentially be associated with research and development activities as detailed in the Specific Plan EIR. Consequently, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, impacts related to airport safety hazards would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
HAZ-2 Prior to project development all building plans must be submitted to the City of Camarillo Department of Building and Safety to review for consistency with all applicable avigational easements.
HAZ-3 Any electronic equipment to be operated on-site which might interfere with airport operations will require a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) permit. Prospective users of such equipment would have to eliminate any interference through the use of insulation materials or other means approved by the City.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-33
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? Less than Significant Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Camarillo Regional is located immediately to the south, less than a quarter of a mile away. Please refer to Section 7(e) for further discussion of airport hazards. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to interfere with roadway operations used in conjunction with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan or would generate sufficient traffic to create traffic congestion that would interfere with the execution of such a plan.
As discussed in Sections 15 (a) and (e), the project would not generate sufficient traffic to create severe traffic congestion, nor would it interfere with emergency access to the site. The project would extend Ventura Boulevard from its current terminus west of the Camarillo Town Center to Bajo Agua, approximately three-quarter miles west of the project site. Access to the project would be via two driveways on Ventura Boulevard and two driveway connections to the Camarillo Town Center. The Ventura Boulevard extension and the project driveways would be designed in accordance with all City regulations, including those pertaining to emergency access and would actually improve emergency access to the project site and other uses in the vicinity. Consequently, impacts to emergency access would be less than significant.
h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is located in proximity to wildland areas and poses a potential fire hazard, which could affect persons or structures in the area in the event of a fire.
The project site is located within a developed area and there are no adjacent wildlands. To the north of the project site is the Ventura Freeway and to the south is the Camarillo Regional Airport. To the east is the Camarillo Town Center and to the west are agricultural uses. There are no adjacent wildlands and the project site is not located in a fire hazard zone.9
No impacts would occur.
9 City of Camarillo General Plan, Update 2000. Safety Element, Hazards Plate VIII.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-34
Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project in combination with other projects in the project vicinity would have the potential to increase the release of hazardous materials into the environment. With implementation of the mitigation measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3, identified above, the potential impact associated with the project would be reduced to a less than significant level. With respect to the presence of hazardous substances associated with the related projects, each related project would be evaluated for potential threats to public safety. This would occur for each individual project affected, in conjunction with development proposals on these properties. Furthermore, local municipalities are required to follow local, State, and federal laws regarding hazardous materials.
Therefore, assuming compliance with local, State, and federal laws pertaining to hazardous materials, cumulative impacts would be considered less than significant.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a project would discharge water which does not meet the quality standards of agencies which regulate surface water quality and water discharge into stormwater drainage systems. Significant impacts would occur if a project does not comply with all applicable regulations with regard to surface water quality as governed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These regulations include compliance with the Stormwater Quality Urban Impact Mitigation Plan (SQUIMP) requirements to reduce potential water quality impacts.
Construction-Related Impacts
Construction activities associated with the project would be subject to City of Camarillo Public Works Department rules and regulations. Any construction work would be required to meet the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for storm water quality. The contractor would also be required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion control. In addition, the contractor would be required to file a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to any construction activity. Implementation of the BMPs in the project’s SWPPP and compliance with the City’s discharge requirements would ensure that the project construction would not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Three general sources of potential short-term construction-related stormwater pollution associated with the project are: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and 3) earth moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion and transportation, via storm runoff or mechanical equipment.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-35
Generally, routine safety precautions for handling and storing construction materials may effectively mitigate the potential pollution of stormwater by these materials. These same types of common sense, “good housekeeping” procedures can be extended to non-hazardous stormwater pollutants such as sawdust and other solid wastes.
Poorly maintained vehicles and heavy equipment leaking fuel, oil, antifreeze, or other fluids on the construction site are also common sources of stormwater pollution and soil contamination.
In addition, grading activities can greatly increase erosion processes. Two general strategies are recommended to prevent construction silt from entering local storm drains. First, erosion control procedures should be implemented for those areas that must be exposed. Secondly, the area should be secured to control offsite migration of pollutants. These BMPs are outlined in greater detail in the following Mitigation Measures section and would be required in the SWPPP to be prepared prior to commencement of project construction. When properly designed and implemented, these “goodhousekeeping” practices are expected to reduce short-term construction-related impacts to a less-thansignificant level.
Operational Impacts
With respect to the operation of the project, a SQUIMP would be implemented which would ensure that potential impacts associated with water quality would be less than significant. Furthermore, the project would not include industrial discharge to any public water or wastewater system.
Activities associated with operation of the project would generate substances that could degrade the quality of water runoff. The deposition of certain chemicals by cars in the parking areas and the internal roadway surfaces could have the potential to contribute metals, oil and grease, solvents, phosphates, hydrocarbons, and suspended solids to the storm drain system. However, impacts to water quality would be reduced since the project must comply with water quality standards and wastewater discharge BMPs set forth by Ventura County, the City of Camarillo and the SWRCB. Furthermore, required design criteria, as established in the SQUIMP for Ventura County, would be incorporated into the project to minimize the off-site conveyance of pollutants. Compliance with existing regulations would reduce the potential for water quality impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
HYD-1 During construction, the project applicant shall implement all applicable and mandatory Best Management Practices (BMPs) in accordance with the SWPPP prepared for the project and the Ventura County / City of Camarillo Stormwater Management Program. These BMPs shall include, but not be limited, to the following:
• Erosion control procedures shall be implemented for exposed areas.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-36
• Appropriate dust suppression techniques, such as watering or tarping, shall be used. • Construction entrances shall be designed to facilitate removal of debris from vehicles exiting the site.
• Truck loads shall be tarped.
HYD-2 All construction equipment and vehicles shall be inspected for leaks of hazardous materials (including oil and gasoline) and all such leaks repaired according to a regular schedule, specified in the Grading Plan approved by the City of Camarillo Public Works Department.
HYD-3 The project shall be designed to comply with all applicable requirements of the Ventura County SQUIMP pertaining to the detention, treatment, and/or discharge of stormwater. b) Would the project 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)?
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project included deep excavations which had the potential to interfere with groundwater movement or included withdrawal of groundwater or paving of existing permeable surfaces important to groundwater recharge.
The City of Camarillo is located in the Pleasant Valley Basin at the western end of the Santa Clara River Valley. This river flood plain forms a groundwater drainage system composed of nine identifiable groundwater basins, including the Pleasant Valley Basin (Basin). Historically, groundwater within this network flows westward from basin to basin. Successive basins in the network chain depend on the preceding basins for part or all of their natural recharge. In the past, the Pleasant Valley Basin has been replenished by subsurface inflows from the Oxnard Plain Basin, the East and West Las Posas Basins and the Santa Rosa Basin, however recent drought conditions and overpumping have lowered the water tables in some of the upstream basins such that the only flows currently adding to the Pleasant Valley Basin are the Oxnard Plain Basin and the East Las Posas Basin.
Most of the groundwater within the Pleasant Valley Basin is contained within alluvial deposits and the Fox and Grimes Canyon aquifers. The alluvial deposits in the upper strata of the Basin average 400 feet in thickness and consist of waterbearing sands and gravels separated by impervious clay lenses. The Fox Canyon aquifer is within the bottom of the San Pedro formation, which underlies these alluvial deposits.
The San Pedro formation varies in thickness from 400 to 1,500 feet and is effectively sealed from percolation of water from above by the impervious materials located at the bottom of the alluvial deposits.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-37
The Grimes Canyon Aquifer lies in the Santa Barbara formation, which is seated below the San Pedro formation.10
Although the project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on the site, direct groundwater recharge via infiltration of direct precipitation, either natural or artificial (i.e. irrigation), within the Basin is insignificant for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, the project would not interfere with groundwater recharge of the Fox Canyon or Grimes Canyon aquifers in any significant way. In addition, the project would not involve the construction of substructures at depths which could significantly impair or alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater (refer to Geotechnical Report, Appendix C).
The project would involve the construction of new commercial and retail uses on the project site and there would be an increase in water demand. However, it is not anticipated that the added water demands of the project would exceed current supply (see Section 16, Utilities and Service Systems for a full discussion of this issue).
Therefore project would not contribute to groundwater depletion or interfere with groundwater recharge to an environmentally significant degree and a less than significant impact would occur. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project resulted in a substantial alteration of drainage patterns that resulted in a substantial increase in erosion or siltation during construction or operation of the project.
The two primary factors controlling drainage across the project site are the freeway to the north and the Camarillo Hills Drain to the south. The freeway acts as a barrier to the normal passage of runoff which concentrates and collects surface flows. The Camarillo Hills Drain has a drainage area which encompasses a large portion of the City of Camarillo. It flows southerly, crossing the freeway just east of Las Posas Road and then westerly crossing Las Posas Road. The Camarillo Hills Drain is part of the “red-line” channel system and is therefore, under the jurisdiction of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District. There are no natural watercourses on the project site, and the site does not drain toward a natural watercourse. Currently runoff on the project site flows southwesterly as sheet flow and is collected along an agricultural drainage channel flowing westerly along the southerly boundary of the project site.
10 City of Camarillo Water System Master Plan Update, December 1999.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-38
As discussed in Section 8.a) above, required erosion and/or siltation control measures would be introduced and implemented during construction and operation of the project. Therefore, the impact of any alteration of drainage patterns resulting in a substantial increase in erosion or siltation during construction or operation of the project would be less than significant. d) Would the project 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 offsite? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project resulted in increased runoff volumes during construction or operation of the project that would result in flooding conditions affecting the project site or nearby properties.
There are no natural watercourses on the project site, and the site does not drain toward a natural watercourse. Currently runoff on the project site flows southwesterly as sheet flow and is collected along an agricultural drainage channel flowing westerly along the southerly boundary of the project site.
Runoff from the project site would continue to flow in the same general direction.
The City of Camarillo, Public Works Department has published a Master Plan of Drainage (Drainage Plan). Further, the City has determined that the storm drain system developed under the Plan will meet engineering and planning criteria based upon a 50-year frequency storm and will also provide an acceptable level of protection when combined with certain constraints to mitigate serious flooding in a 100-year storm.11
Although the project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on the site, and therefore increase the amount of surface runoff, the project was anticipated in the 1998 Update of the Master Plan of Drainage and would tie into the major storm drain facilities proposed under the Drainage Plan. Thus, the project’s potential to create or contribute surface runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or result in flooding on- or off-site would be less than significant.
11 City of Camarillo, Public Works Department, Master Plan of Drainage, 1984. Updated April 1998, prepared by Hawks and Associates.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-39
e) Would the project 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. A project would normally have a significant impact on surface water quality if discharges associated with the project would create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in Section 13050 of the California Water Code (CWC) or that cause regulatory standards to be violated, as defined in the applicable National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit or Water Quality Control Plan for the receiving water body. For the purpose of this specific issue, a significant impact may occur if the volume of storm water runoff from the project site were to increase to a level which exceeds the capacity of the storm drain system serving the project site. A project-related significant adverse effect would also occur if the project would substantially increase the probability that polluted runoff would reach the storm drain system.
Currently runoff on the project site flows southwesterly as sheet flow and is collected along an agricultural drainage channel flowing westerly along the southerly boundary of the project site. Runoff from the project would continue to flow in the same direction. The City of Camarillo, Public Works Department has published a Master Plan of Drainage (Plan) and the project would tie into the major storm drain facilities proposed under this Plan. The City has determined that the storm drain system developed under the Plan will meet engineering and planning criteria based upon a 50-year frequency storm and will also provide an acceptable level of protection when combined with certain constraints to mitigate serious flooding in a 100-year storm.12
The project is anticipated to generate pollution constituents in surface water runoff that are generally similar to existing urban conditions, and as discussed in Section 8.a) above, required water quality control measures would be introduced and implemented. The project’s potential to create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff would therefore be less than significant. f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project includes potential sources of water pollutants that would have the potential to substantially degrade water quality.
12 City of Camarillo, Department of Public Works, Master Plan of Drainage, 1984. Updated April 1998, prepared by Hawks and Associates.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-40
Other than the sources discussed above under Section 8.(a, the project would not include other potential sources of contaminants which could potentially degrade water quality. Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade water quality and a less than significant impact would occur. g) Would the project 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. This question would apply to the project only if it were placing housing in a 100-year flood zone.
The project is the development of a commercial center and does not include any housing. Further, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, no impact would occur. h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project were located within a 100-year flood zone, and would impede or redirect flood flows.
The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area,13 and no impacts would occur. i) Would the project 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. A significant impact could occur if the project would expose large numbers of people to a flooding hazard associated with dam or levee failure.
The project site is not located near to any large bodies of water, water storage facilities or flood control channels which utilize a levee system. Therefore, the project would not 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 and no impact would occur
13 City of Camarillo, Department of Public Works, Master Plan of Drainage, 1984. Updated April 1998, prepared by Hawks and Associates.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-41
j) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. Topographically, the project site and surrounding area are flat and not susceptible to mudflows, further the site is not located near any inland bodies of water or water storage facilities that would be considered susceptible to seiche. In low-lying areas such as the Oxnard Plain, the hazard zone for tsunamis can extend up to approximately one mile inland from the Pacific Ocean.14 However, the City of Camarillo and the project site are located approximately ten miles inland from the Pacific Ocean.
Therefore there would be no impacts related to loss, injury or death involving inundation at the project site by seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project in combination with other developments in the City would result in further development in a rapidly developing area, which contains large tracts of permeable surfaces. Even with implementation of appropriate BMPs for individual projects in the project area, related project impacts to hydrology and water quality could be potentially significant. However the City of Camarillo has designed and is in the process of implementing a Master Plan of Drainage which is designed to accommodate a storm recurrence interval of one hundred (100) years. It is likely that most, if not all, of the related projects would also drain to this system. Therefore, cumulative impacts to the existing or planned stormwater drainage systems would be less than significant. In addition, development on each site would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards that are designed to ensure water quality and hydrological conditions are not adversely affected. All of the related projects would be required to implement BMPs and to conform to the existing NPDES water quality program.
Therefore, cumulative water quality impacts would also be less than significant.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Airport North Specific Plan area has been designated for commercial, office and light industrial uses.
The project site is currently being used for agriculture and no residences exist on the site. To the east of the project site is the Camarillo Town Center and to the west is an approximately 80 acre farm which extends west to Bajo Agua. To the west of Bajo Agua are commercial and light industrial uses. To the north of the project site is the Ventura (101) Freeway and to the south is the Camarillo Airport. As such,
14 City of Camarillo General Plan, 2000 Update. Seismic and Safety Element.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-42
no established community exists on the project site, or in the project vicinity, and thus, project development would not physically divide an established community and no impacts would occur. b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project is inconsistent with the General Plan designations or zoning currently applicable to the project site and would cause adverse environmental effects, which the General Plan and zoning ordinance are designed to avoid or mitigate.
The General Plan of the City of Camarillo provides general guidance on land use issues and planning policy for the entire City. All development activity on the project site is also subject to the land use regulations of the Airport North Specific Plan and the Planning and Zoning Section of the City of Camarillo Municipal Code (CMC), which are intended to guide local land use decisions and development patterns. Furthermore, the Project Site is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin and, therefore, is within the jurisdiction of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD).
Airport North Specific Plan
The Airport North Specific Plan was adopted by the City in June 1986 and most recently amended by the City Council in April 2003. The Specific Plan pertains to a 337-acre site made up of various different properties located on the south side of the Ventura Freeway (U.S. 101) westerly of Las Posas Road. The land use on the property is currently designated agricultural with an urban reserve overlay. This designation from the General Plan is intended to be used as an interim designation prior to the conversion from its current designation to the designations proposed by the Specific Plan. This conversion may only occur with the introduction of a Specific Plan. The main objectives of the Specific Plan include, but are not limited to:
• Increase the employment base of the City;
• Increase revenues to the city’s tax base;
• Provide much-needed infrastructure at little or no cost to the City; • Create a high-quality visual window of the built environment in the City of Camarillo along this freeway link;
• Create a coordinated road system through parcels providing multiple road frontages; • Create uniform high standards on properties which will be attractive to potential business and corporate users;
• Ensure that both large single users and smaller multiple users can be accommodated; • Use comprehensive planning to reduce incremental development costs and processing time; City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-43
• Vary the existing topography and add new vegetation to create interest and diversity in the plan; • Enhance all project entries with quality landscaping, and; • Develop the land use plan to allow maximum high-quality office, corporate and mixed-use architecture to be visible from the freeway “window.”
The project is composed of large and small retail and office buildings and would provide employment opportunities and tax revenues to the City upon completion. In addition, it would extend Ventura Boulevard, providing continuous roadway access from Las Posas Road to Central Avenue and provide multiple road frontages. As discussed in Section 1(c) the project would provide views from the US 101 freeway that are consistent with the established character of the area, with the Camarillo Town Center to the east, fulfilling the final objective listed above. Thus, the project would be consistent with the Airport North Specific Plan and impacts would be less than significant.
Land Use Designations and Zoning
The current land use designations for the project site are Office and General Commercial, and the underlying zoning designations are LM (Light Manufacturing), PO (Professional Office), and CPD (Commercial Planned Development).
The project applicant is requesting approval from the City of Camarillo to amend the City of Camarillo General Plan Land Use Map and Airport North Specific Plan to change the designation of approximately
19.5 acres of the project site from Office to General Commercial and to build out the site with retail buildings and related parking and landscaping. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a commercial center with up to 499,000 square feet of building coverage. The current site plan envisions a mix of 429,469 square feet of retail space, 29,531 square feet of restaurant space, and 40,000 square feet of office space, which would be provided in buildings ranging from 2,400 square feet to 196,645 square feet along the perimeter of the site. The office space would be provided in second stories above two of the smaller retail spaces in the southwest corner of the site. Most of the parking would be provided in a parking field in the center of the site. The buildings would be connected by a series of pedestrian paths.
According to the applicant, the actual building shapes and sizes would be determined during the building plan review process, but the total size of building space at the site would not exceed 499,000 square feet.
With the approval of the requested amendments listed in Section II. Project Description, Discretionary Actions and Approvals, the project would be consistent with all site zoning and General Plan designations and impacts would be less than significant.
Based on the above discussion, the project would not conflict with applicable regional plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project and would result in a less-than-significant impact.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-44
c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact. A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if the project site were located within an area governed by a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No such plans exist which govern any portion of the project site. The project is consistent with the Airport North Specific Plan which implements the conversion of agricultural land to commercial and light industrial uses in the Specific Plan area. Therefore the project would not conflict with such plans and no impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project in conjunction with other projects in the project vicinity would result in further infilling of uses in the City of Camarillo. Based on information available regarding the related projects, it is reasonable to assume that development of the related projects would implement and support local and regional planning goals and policies. It is expected that most of the related projects would be compatible with the zoning and land use designations for each of the related project sites and their surrounding properties. Furthermore, with the implementation of the mitigation measure identified above, the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to land use and planning. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulative land use impact, and cumulative land use impacts would be considered to be less than significant.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is located in an area used or available for extraction of a regionally-important mineral resource and the project converted an existing or potential future regionally-important mineral extraction use to another use or if the project affected access to a site used or potentially available for regionally-important mineral resource extraction.
No oil extraction or mineral extraction activities have historically occurred or are presently conducted on the project site.15 No adverse project impacts would occur.
15 City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, Navigate LA, website: http://navigatela.lacity.org/index01.htm, May 1, 2006.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-45
b) Would the project 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. A significant impact may occur if a project is located in an area used or available for extraction of a locally-important mineral resource extraction and the project converted an existing or potential future locally-important mineral extraction use to another use or if the project affected access to a site used or potentially available for locally-important mineral resource extraction.
There is no known locally-significant resource on the site; thus no locally-designated resources would be affected, and no impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
No Impact. As the development of the project will have no impact on mineral resources, the project cannot combine with other development in the area to form a cumulative impact on mineral resources.
Therefore, no cumulative impact with respect to mineral resources would occur.
11. NOISE
Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (“dBA”) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady “background” noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources.
Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from, for example, traffic on a major highway.
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people.
Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people is largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows:
• Leq – The equivalent energy noise level is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-46
community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.
• CNEL – The Community Noise Equivalent Level is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA “penalty” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM, and an additional 5 dBA penalty during the hours of 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL.
Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day, night, or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels below 60 dBA are generally considered low, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated natural settings that can provide noise levels as low as 20 dBA, and quiet suburban residential streets that can provide noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of low-moderate level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with more noisy urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA).
Under controlled conditions, in an acoustics laboratory, the trained healthy human ear is able to discern changes in sound levels of 1 dBA, when exposed to steady, single frequency “pure tone” signals in the mid-frequency range. Outside of such controlled conditions, the trained ear can detect changes of 2 dBA in normal environmental noise. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear, however, can barely perceive noise level changes of 3 dBA. Changes from three to five dBA may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dBA increase as a doubling of sound.
Noise levels from a particular source generally decline as distance to the receptor increases. Other factors such as the weather and reflecting or shielding also help intensify or reduce the noise level at any given location. A commonly used rule of thumb for roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source, the noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA at acoustically “hard” locations (i.e., the area between the noise source and the receptor is nearly complete asphalt, concrete, hard-packed soil, or other solid materials) and 4.5 dBA at acoustically “soft” locations (i.e., the area between the source and receptor is normal earth or has vegetation, including grass). Noise from stationary or point sources is reduced by about 6 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance at acoustically hard and soft locations, respectively. Noise levels are also generally reduced by 1 dBA for each 1,000 feet of distance due to air absorption. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures – generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The manner in which older homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 dBA with closed City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-47
windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer homes is generally 30 dBA or more with closed windows.
a) Would the project result in 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur where a project would not comply with the City of Camarillo General Plan Land Use Compatibility Standards for Noise or the City of Camarillo Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code section 10.34.120).
Construction
Section 10.34.120 of the Camarillo Municipal Code regulates noise from demolition and construction activities in residential areas. Exterior demolition and construction activities in residential areas that generate noise are prohibited between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM Monday through Saturday, and at any time on Sundays and all federal holidays.
The project site is located in a commercial area of the City and is not located in close proximity to any sensitive uses such as residences or schools. Therefore, demolition and construction activities associated with the project would conflict with the Municipal Code requirements.
Operation
The City of Camarillo allows new commercial and office buildings to be constructed where the average exterior noise environment is up to 77 dBA CNEL, provided that the buildings are constructed using conventional design and that fresh air supply systems or air conditioning are provided to allow windows to be kept closed. According to the Noise Element of the City of Camarillo General Plan, future noise levels in the northern part of the project site would not exceed 75 dBA CNEL and noise levels in the southern part of the site attributable to Camarillo Airport would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL. Noise levels along the new extension of Ventura Boulevard would be greater than the average noise levels from Camarillo Airport and would be substantially less than those generated by the Ventura Freeway. As such, future noise levels at the project site would not exceed City standards for commercial and office uses.
This would be a less than significant impact.
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundborne noise. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in inches per second and in the U.S. is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB).
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-48
The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 VdB. The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximately dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration velocity level, and 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings.
Construction activities that would occur at the project site have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. Table IV-4 identifies various vibration velocity levels for the types of construction equipment that would operate at the Project site during construction.
Table IV-4
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Approximate VdB Equipment 25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet Large Bulldozer 87 81 79 77 75
Loaded Trucks 86 80 78 76 74
Jackhammer 79 73 71 69 67
Small Bulldozer 58 52 50 48 46
Source: Federal Railroad Administration 1998 and Christopher A. Joseph Associates 2006.
The City of Camarillo has not adopted any thresholds for groundborne vibration impacts. Therefore, this analysis uses the Federal Railway Administration’s vibration impact thresholds for sensitive buildings.
These thresholds are 80 VdB at residences and buildings where people normally sleep (e.g., nearby residences). No thresholds have been adopted or recommended for commercial and light industrial uses.
Construction activities would primarily affect the existing commercial buildings at the Camarillo Town Center West located to the immediate east of the Project site. The buildings are located approximately 60 feet from the edge of the proposed construction area. Based on the information presented in Table IV-4, vibration levels could exceed 81 VdB at the commercial structures. These structures are not considered to be sensitive to groundborne vibration and the resulting levels would not exceed any adopted standards for similar uses. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-49
c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project were to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above existing ambient noise levels without the Project. As discussed previously, a noise level increase of 3 dBA is barely perceptible to most people, a 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, and a difference of 10 dBA would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. Based on this information, the following thresholds would apply to permanent increases in noise due to the operational characteristics of the project:
• Less than 3 dBA: not discernable: not significant
• Between 3 dBA and 5 dBA: not significant if noise levels remain below the City of Camarillo General Plan noise level standards; significant if the noise increase would meet or exceed the City of Camarillo General Plan noise level standards.
• 5 dBA or greater: significant.
Locations in the vicinity of the project site could experience slight changes in noise levels as a result of an increase in motor vehicle trips. All of the uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site are commercial and are not sensitive to noise. The nearest homes are located along Las Posas Road north of Daily Drive. Las Posas Elementary School is located along Las Posas Road north of Ponderosa Drive.
The changes in future noise levels associated with the project at residential and educational locations along Las Posas Road are identified in Table IV-5. As shown, the project would increase roadway noise levels by a maximum of 0.2 dBA CNEL, which is inaudible/imperceptible to most people and would not exceed the identified thresholds of significance. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Table IV-5
Roadway Noise Impacts – Proposed Project
Noise Levels in dBA CNEL
Roadway Roadway Segment Future (2008)
Without Project
Traffic Volumes
Future
With
Project
Traffic
Volumes
Increase Significance
Threshold
north of Daily Drive 69.8 70.0 0.2 3.0 Las Posas Road
north of Ponderosa Drive 69.0 69.2 0.2 5.0
Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2005. Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix E.
New stationary sources of noise, such as mechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment would be installed at the proposed buildings. This equipment would be shielded and City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-50
appropriate noise muffling devices installed to reduce noise levels that affect nearby uses. The type of HVAC equipment currently installed on new commercial buildings generates noise levels that average around 66 dBA Leq on the air inlet side and 62 dBA Leq on the other sides when measured at 50 feet from the source. The shielding installed around the new equipment reduces these noise levels by around 15 dBA. The resulting equipment noise levels of less than 51 dBA Leq at nearby uses would be substantially less than the existing noise levels at these locations.
Noise would also be generated by activities within the project site. Sources of noise would include tires squealing, engines accelerating, doors slamming, car alarms, and people talking. Noise levels within the parking lot areas would fluctuate with the amount of automobile and human activity. Noise levels would be highest during the day and evening when the largest number of retail customers would enter and exit the site. These conditions are very similar to the existing conditions at the adjacent Camarillo Town Center West. These activities with the parking lots would not increase ambient noise levels at the nearby adjacent commercial center by 5 dBA CNEL or more.
Based on this information, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above existing ambient noise levels without the Project. This is a less-than-significant impact.
d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the Proposed Project were to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels at an sensitive use above existing ambient noise levels without the project.
Project development would require the use of heavy equipment for demolition, site grading and excavation, and building construction. Development activities would also involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise. During each stage of development, there would be a different mix of equipment operating and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of the activity.
As discussed previously, the project site is located in a commercial area of the City and is not located in close proximity to any sensitive uses such as residences or schools. Construction activities would primarily affect the existing commercial buildings at the Camarillo Town Center West located to the immediate east of the project site. The buildings are located approximately 60 feet from the edge of the proposed construction area. These structures are not considered to be sensitive to noise. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-51
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 Impact. The project site is located to the north of Camarillo Airport. According to the Noise Element of the City of Camarillo General Plan, future noise levels in the southern part of the site attributable to Camarillo Airport would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL. These average noise levels would not exceed the City’s 77dBA CNEL standards for commercial and office uses. This would be a less than significant impact.
Higher noise levels would occur when individual aircraft fly over the project site. These aircraft are nearly all propeller airplanes and helicopters. These noise levels would primarily affect people walking within outdoors within the site. These people would not be sensitive to noise and short-term noise exposures would not be significant. It is possible that one or more of the restaurant uses within the site may offer outdoor dining. If so, the people eating outdoors would be subject to noise from the individual flyover events. Although the noise levels would not exceed any adopted standards or be significant, it would be up to the individual restaurant establishments to determine whether the events and noise levels would disturb their clients.
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? No Impact. This question would apply to a project only if the Project site were in the vicinity of a private airstrip and would subject area employees and customers to substantial noise levels from aircraft operations.
The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. No such facilities are located in the vicinity of the Project site. No impact would occur
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the project and other projects within the study area. Therefore, cumulative traffic-generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the difference between existing roadway noise levels and future (2008) noise levels with the project and cumulative development. The noise levels associated with existing traffic volumes and future traffic volumes with the project are identified in Table IV-6.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-52
Table IV-6
Roadway Noise Impacts – Cumulative Projects
Noise Levels in dBA CNEL
Roadway Roadway Segment Existing
Traffic
Volumes
Future
(2008)With
Project Traffic
Volumes
Increase Significance
Threshold
north of Daily Drive 69.4 70.0 0.6 3.0 Las Posas Road
north of Ponderosa Drive 69.0 69.2 0.2 5.0
Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2006. Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix E.
As shown, cumulative development along with the project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 0.6 dBA CNEL, which would not exceed 3.0 dBA CNEL and not be substantial. This would be a less-than-significant cumulative impact.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to locate new development such as homes, businesses or infrastructure, with the effect of substantially inducing growth that would otherwise not have occurred as rapidly or in as great a magnitude. Implementation of the project would result in the development of 499,000 square feet of new commercial space.
Population
The project site is located within the City of Camarillo which is located within the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG) jurisdiction, which is a subregional organization associated with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). VCOG and SCAG facilitate cooperative subregional and regional planning, coordination and technical assistance on issues of mutual concern.
According to the VCOG/SCAG estimates based on the U.S. Census, the City of Camarillo had a permanent population of approximately 63,179 persons in 2005. By 2020, VCOG/SCAG forecasts an increase to approximately 76,842 persons. This represents an increase of 13,663 persons, or a 21.6 percent increase, from the 2005 population estimate for the City of Camarillo. Table IV-7 provides population growth projections for the City of Camarillo from 2005 to 2020.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-53
Table IV-7
City of Camarillo Population Forecasts
Population Percent Change City 2005 2010 2015 2020 2005-2020 City of Camarillo 63,179 67,507 72,207 76,842 21.6
Source: Ventura Council of Governments/SCAG Regional Transportation Plan 2004.
Housing
According to the VCOG/SCAG estimates based on the U.S. Census, the City of Camarillo had a housing stock of approximately 23,282 units in 2005. By 2020, VCOG/SCAG forecasts an increase to approximately 29,794 units. This represents an increase of 6,512 units, or a 28 percent increase, from the 2005 housing unit estimate for the City of Camarillo. Table IV-8 provides housing growth projections for the City of Camarillo from 2005 to 2020.
Table IV-8
City of Camarillo Population Forecasts
Housing Percent Change
City 2005 2010 2015 2020 2005-2020
City of Camarillo 23,282 25,403 27,580 29,794 28
Source: Ventura Council of Governments/SCAG Regional Transportation Plan 2004.
The project does not include the construction of housing units and therefore would not generate any direct housing or population growth.
Employment
Construction
Construction of the project would result in increased employment opportunities during the project’s construction period. However, the employment opportunities provided by the construction of the project would not likely result in household relocation by construction workers to the vicinity of the project site for various reasons, including the following:
• Construction employment has no regular place of business. Rather, construction workers commute to job sites that may change several times a year; • Many construction workers are highly specialized (e.g., crane operators, steel workers, masons) and move from job site to job site as dictated by the demand for their skills; and City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-54
• The work requirements of most construction projects are also highly specialized, and workers are employed on a job site only as long as their skills are needed to complete a particular phase of the construction process.
Additionally, construction workers would likely be drawn from the construction employment labor force already resident in the surrounding communities. It is not likely that construction workers would relocate their place of residence as a consequence of working on the project. Since construction workers would not relocate to the area, such workers would not cause an increase population or housing.
Operation
According to Table IV-9 below, the project would generate approximately 899 new employees upon completion.
Table IV-9
Estimated Project Employee Generation
Land Use Size (sf)
Generation Factor
(employees/1,000 sf) a Total Employees
Commercial Center 499,000 1.8 899
Total 899
a Generation factor provided Table 11, Project Generated Employment in the Airport North Specific Plan EIR, City of Camarillo, May 1986, page III-48.
Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, August 2006.
The Airport North Specific Plan EIR estimated that implementation of the Specific Plan would generate approximately 11,961 employees over the period of buildout. The EIR analysis estimated that 15 to 20 percent of the projected labor force generated as a result of implementation of the Specific Plan would actually relocate to Camarillo in response to the employment generated with the remainder being provided from the labor force already resident within the City and commuter employees from nearby cities and areas.16 As such, this analysis assumes that 25 percent of the 899 employees generated by the project would create a concurrent demand for new housing. Assuming that each new employee requires one dwelling unit, this means that the project would create demand for 225 new housing units in the City of Camarillo.
As shown in Table IV-8 above, approximately 2,121 new housing units are estimated to be built in the City of Camarillo between the years of project implementation; 2005 to 2010. The housing demand created by the project would not exceed this forecast, constituting approximately 11 percent.
16 Airport North Specific Plan EIR, City of Camarillo, May 1986. Housing/Growth Inducement, pages III-48-49.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-55
Infrastructure
The project would extend Ventura Boulevard from its current terminus west of the Camarillo Town Center to Bajo Agua, approximately three-quarter miles west of the project site. This extension would replace the existing Ventura Boulevard connector and is in accordance with the Airport North Specific Plan and would not constitute an unforeseen growth-inducing impact.
Impacts associated with population and housing growth, employment generation and indirect growth through infrastructure would be less than significant.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would result in displacement of existing housing units, necessitating construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
There are no housing units on the project site and therefore none would be displaced as a result of the project. No project impact would occur.
c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. A project-related significant adverse affect could occur if the project would result in displacement of existing occupied housing units.
As there are no existing occupied housing units on the project site, no project impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. Population and housing growth is not considered to be a direct effect on the environment under CEQA. Secondary or indirect impacts, such as increased traffic or noise, may be significant and may result in physical changes cause by population and housing growth. Other projects in the project vicinity would contribute to population and employment growth in the project vicinity.
However, these projects would be constrained to the same restrictions as the project and are anticipated to be in accordance with the City of Camarillo General Plan. Generally, projects that conform to the General Plan have been taken into account in future infrastructure and service projections. As such, no significant cumulative impact is anticipated to occur. The project is also consistent with the General Plan and the Airport North Specific Plan and would not constitute a cumulatively considerable impact.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-56
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government 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 objective for any of the following public services:
Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project created the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objective.
The project site receives fire protection and emergency services from the Ventura County Fire Department through contract with the City of Camarillo. There are five Ventura County fire stations which serve the City with 19 sworn personnel active at these stations. The closest fire station to the project site is the Camarillo Airport station, located at 189 Las Posas Road. The Airport Fire Station is currently the District's hazardous materials response station with a tractor-trailer unit for hazardous materials response (HazMat 4). It is staffed daily by 3 firefighters and houses a 2000 American LaFrance pumper (Engine 50) and a 1974 Oshkosh crash truck (Crash 50).17 As shown in Section 12(a) above, would not generate substantial unforeseen employment or population growth. The Airport North Specific Plan EIR determined that impacts to fire protection services resulting from the implementation of the Specific plan, i.e. the conversion of agricultural land to commercial and light industrial purposes would be less than significant in the Initial Study stage of the document. No mitigation measures were provided in the Specific Plan EIR. Therefore, as the project is consistent with the Airport North Specific Plan impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant.
Incorporation of the recommended mitigation measure below will further ensure that these impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
PUB-1 The recommendations of the Ventura County Fire Department relative to fire safety shall be incorporated into the building plans, which includes the submittal of a plot plan for approval by the VCFD either prior to the recordation of a final map or the approval of a building permit.
17 Ventura County Fire Department website, Division One, Station 50 webpage:
http://fire.countyofventura.org/departmentservices/operations/divisionone/station_50.html, August 30, 2006.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-57
PUB-2 The applicant shall comply with all applicable fire codes and pay any applicable fees to the Ventura County Fire Department prior to the recordation of a final map or the approval of a building permit.
Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. The project, in combination with other projects in the project vicinity, would increase the demand for fire protection services in the project area. Specifically, there would be increased demands for additional VCFD staffing, equipment, and facilities over time. This need would be funded via existing mechanisms (e.g., property taxes, government funding, and developer fees) to which the project and other projects in the project vicinity would contribute. Similar to the project, other projects in the project vicinity would be individually subject to VCFD review and would be required to comply with all applicable fire safety requirements of the VCFD in order to adequately mitigate fire protection impacts. On this basis, it is expected that cumulative impacts on fire protection would be less than significant.
Police protection?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if the project created the need for new or physically altered police facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objective.
The project site is under the jurisdiction of the Camarillo Police Station, located at 3701 East Las Posas Road. This police station serves the greater Camarillo area. There are 48 sworn officers assigned to the Camarillo Police Station which is staffed through contract with the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department for a ratio of approximately one officer to every 1,350 citizens. This ratio is considered to meet the desired service ratio standard of the Camarillo Police Station, and the current level of service to the project area meets current city needs. No new facilities would be required.18 It is possible that additional officers may be required to preserve police ratios and levels of service. As shown in Section 12(b) above, the project would generate approximately 225 new residents and create demand for approximately 0.16 new officers to maintain the officer to citizen ratio. However, the addition of personnel on a limited basis is not likely to create the need for the construction of new police facilities, and therefore would not create a significant impact under CEQA.
In addition, the Airport North Specific Plan EIR determined that impacts to police protection services resulting from the implementation of the Specific plan, i.e. the conversion of agricultural land to
18 Written correspondence from Mike Lewis, Station Commander, Camarillo Police Department, August 24, 2005.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-58
commercial and light industrial purposes would be less than significant in the Initial Study stage of the document. No mitigation measures were provided in the Specific Plan EIR. However, the Camarillo Police Department states that implementation of the project will result in an increase in calls for service to this area and therefore has recommended the following mitigation measures to ensure that impacts remain less than significant.19 Therefore, as the project is consistent with the Airport North Specific Plan impacts to police protection services would be less than significant with incorporation of this mitigation.
Mitigation Measure
PUB-2 The environmental design recommendations of the Camarillo Police Department shall be included in the review process and incorporated into the building plans to reduce opportunities for the commission of crimes.
Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. The project, in combination with other projects in the project vicinity, would increase the demand for police protection services in the project area. Specifically, there would be an increased demand for additional staffing, equipment, and facilities over time. This need would be funded via existing mechanisms (e.g., sales taxes, government funding, and developer fees), to which the project and other projects in the project vicinity would contribute. In addition, all of the other projects in the project vicinity would be individually subject to Camarillo Police Department review and would be required to comply with all applicable safety requirements of the Police Department and the City of Camarillo in order to adequately address police protection service demands. Furthermore, other projects in the project vicinity would likely install and/or incorporate adequate crime prevention design features in consultation with the Police Department, as necessary, to further decrease the demand for police protection services. Therefore, a less-than-significant cumulative impact on police protection services would occur.
Schools?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if the project includes substantial population growth, which could generate demand for school facilities that exceeds the capacity of the school district responsible for serving the project site. As discussed in Section 12(a), the project would generate approximately 225 new residents and therefore new students would also be generated by the project. However, the Airport North Specific Plan EIR determined that impacts to school services resulting from the implementation of the Specific plan, i.e. the conversion of agricultural
19 Ibid.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-59
land to commercial and light industrial purposes would be less than significant in the Initial Study stage of the document. No mitigation measures were provided in the Specific Plan EIR.
Under CEQA, impacts to schools are mitigated through payment of developer fees to the school district to offset the effects of population increase. Incorporation of the required mitigation measure below would ensure that impacts to schools remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
PUB-3 Pursuant to Section 65595 of the Government Code, the project applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all applicable schools fees to the school district serving the project site to offset the impact of additional student enrollment at schools serving the Project area.
Cumulative Impacts
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A cumulative increase in the demand for school services is expected to occur with development of the project in combination with the development of other projects in the project vicinity. In addition, it is likely that some of the students generated by other development in the project area would already reside in areas served by the project school district and would already be enrolled in schools. Therefore, new or expanded schools may be needed as a result, and a potentially significant impact would occur. However, as mandated by State law, the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (SB 50) sets a maximum level of fees a developer may be required to pay to mitigate a project’s impact on school facilities. As such, the applicants of other development projects, in addition to the project, would be required to pay a school fee to the school district to help reduce any impacts they may have on school services. The provisions of SB 50 are deemed to provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts. With payment of these fees, cumulative impacts on public schools would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project included substantial employment or population growth that could generate demands for public park facilities that exceed the capacity of the park department responsible for serving the project site.
Community parks in the City of Camarillo are managed by the Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District (PVRPD) which is located in and around the city of Camarillo, approximately 10 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. The District was formed in 1962 under the State Public Resources Code of California and serves an area of approximately 44 square miles. Within the District, a variety of City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-60
recreational facilities exists, including: swimming pools (indoor and outdoor), lighted ball fields, tennis courts, racquetball courts, a running track, children's play equipment, picnic shelters and barbecues.20 As discussed in Section 12(a), the project would generate approximately 225 new residents, who would increase demand for park facilities. However, the Airport North Specific Plan EIR determined that impacts to park services resulting from the implementation of the Specific plan, i.e. the conversion of agricultural land to commercial and light industrial purposes would be less than significant in the Initial Study stage of the document. No mitigation measures were provided in the Specific Plan EIR. As shown in Section 12(a) above, the project would not generate substantial unforeseen employment or population growth and therefore the population growth has already been accommodated in future scenarios through consistency with the General Plan and the Airport North Specific plan and impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project in conjunction with other developments in the project vicinity would result in an increase in permanent residents residing in the project area. The increase in residential population by other related projects in the vicinity of project site, as well as the project, would, in the absence of mitigation, lower the City’s existing parkland to population ratio. To alleviate the demand on City parks and recreational facilities, the City requires residential developers to pay a public open space fee, as permitted under the Quimby Act. The purpose of the Quimby fees is to acquire necessary land and/or develop new neighborhood and community parks or recreation facilities.
Therefore, each residential development project is expected to comply with payment of either Quimby or Parks and Recreation fees. With payment of the applicable Quimby and Parks and Recreation fees on a project-by-project basis, the cumulative park impacts related to parks and recreational facilities would be reduced to less-than-significant level.
Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project includes substantial employment or population growth which could generate a demand for other public facilities (such as libraries) which exceeds the capacity available to serve the project site.
The City of Camarillo provides library services through contract agreement with the Ventura County Library. The Camarillo Library is located at 3100 Ponderosa Drive and has a collection of 125,000 books and materials.21 As shown in Section 12(a) above, as a commercial development, the project would not
20 Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District website: http://www.pvrpd.org/, August 30, 2006. 21 Ventura County Library website, Camarillo Library webpage: http://www.vencolibrary.org/, August 30, 2006.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-61
generate substantial unforeseen employment or population growth. In addition, the City of Camarillo is planning the construction of a new, larger library to replace the current to help meet demand for library facilities in the City. This new library would upgrade the current facilities to provide 0.69 feet of library space and 2.8 volumes of library materials for every citizen of the City. The new library is scheduled to open in early 2007 and would therefore have adequate space to meet the library needs of future new residents indirectly generated by the project. Impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. The development of the project as well as other developments in the project area would generate additional residents, who could increase the demand upon library services.
However, the new expanded library is already under construction and has been designed to accommodate short-term future growth in the City. As such, this new facility would provide library services for the cumulative residential increase generated by the project and the related projects and therefore impacts would be less than significant.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project includes substantial employment or population growth that could generate demands for public park facilities that exceed the capacity of existing parks and cause premature deterioration of the park facilities.
As discussed in Section 12(a) above, the project would not generate substantial unforeseen employment or population growth and therefore would have a less than significant impact on existing neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities.
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. A significant impact may occur if a project includes the construction or expansion of park facilities and such construction would have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
The project does not involve the construction or expansion of recreational facilities and therefore, no impacts would occur.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-62
Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project in conjunction with other projects in the project vicinity would result in an increase in permanent residents residing in the City of Camarillo. This increase would, in the absence of mitigation, lower the existing parkland to population ratio in the City.
However, other development projects which include residential uses are expected to comply with payment of Quimby and other required City fees which mitigate these impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the project’s cumulative recreation impacts would be less than significant.
15. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a) Would the project 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)?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur where adopted City of Camarillo traffic thresholds for a significant project impact are exceeded for roadways and intersections that will carry project-generated traffic.
The following analysis is based on the Camarillo Commercial Center Project Traffic and Circulation Study, dated May 23, 2006, prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers. A copy of this study is included in this document in Appendix E.
This traffic report analyzed the traffic impacts of the project’s 499, 000 square feet of commercial space and also an additional 161,700 square feet of light industrial uses on a separate parcel from the project site, south of Ventura Boulevard. The inclusion of the light industrial uses was for City analytical purposes and represents a theoretical build-out for that parcel. However, this parcel is not part of the project site and this parcel is not included in any other part of the project analysis, with the exception of Sections 3 and 11, Air Quality and Noise, both of which utilize traffic generation numbers in the air quality and noise emissions models. Consequently, the traffic report analyzes a larger development than is actually proposed on the project site and must therefore be considered conservative.
Based on consultations with City staff, the traffic consultant included the following intersections in the project study-area:
• Las Posas Road and Ponderosa Drive
• Las Posas Road and Daily Drive
• Las Posas Road and U.S. Highway 101 Northbound Ramps
• Las Posas Road and U.S. Highway 101 Southbound Ramps
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-63
• Las Posas Road and Ventura Boulevard
• Las Posas Road and Pleasant Valley Road
• Central Avenue and U.S. Highway 101 northbound Ramps
• Central Avenue and U.S. Highway 101 southbound Ramps
Thresholds of Significance
In evaluating intersection operation conditions, “Level of Service” (LOS) A through F are applied, with LOS A indicating very good operating conditions and LOS F indicating poor conditions, see Table IV-10, below. The City of Camarillo considers LOS C acceptable for intersections. The City if Camarillo’s General Plan does allow Level of Service D for short periods of time during peak hour periods at selected locations.
Table IV-10
Level of Service and Volume to Capacity (V/C) Discussion Signalized Intersections Unsignalized
Intersections
LOS Delay1 V/C Ratio Definition
Control Delay
Seconds per
Vehicle
A < 10.0 < 0.60
Conditions of free unobstructed flow, no delays and all signal phases sufficient in duration to clear all
approaching vehicles. < 10.0
B 10.1 – 20.0 0.61 – 0.70
Conditions of stable flow, very little delay, a few phases are unable to handle all approaching vehicles. 10.1 – 15.0 C 20.1 – 35.0 0.71 – 0.80
Conditions of stable flow, delays are low to moderate,
full use of peak direction signal phase(s) is experienced. 15.1 – 25.0 D 35.1 – 55.0 0.81 – 0.90
Conditions approaching unstable flow, delays are
moderate to heavy, significant signal time deficiencies are experienced for short durations during the peak
traffic period. 25.1 – 35.0
E 55.1 – 80.0 0.91 – 1.00
Conditions of unstable flow, delays are significant,
signal phase timing is generally insufficient, congestion exists for extended duration throughout the peak period. 35.1 – 50.0 F > 80.0 > 1.00
Conditions of forced flow, travel speeds are low and
volumes are well above capacity. This condition is
often caused when vehicles released by an upstream
signal are unable to proceed because of back-ups from a downstream signal. > 50.0 1 Average control delay per vehicle in seconds.
Source: Camarillo Commercial Center Project Traffic and Circulation Study, dated May 23, 2006, prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-64
Project impacts are significant and must be mitigated if they exceed the threshold criteria listed in Table IV-11. Mitigation measures must provide a level of service equal to or better than base conditions (existing plus approved projects scenario).
Table IV-11
Thresholds of Significance
Existing plus Approved Projects
(cumulative) plus Project Level of
Service
Per Lane Critical Project-Added Peak
Hour Trips
LOS D 30 trips
LOS E 20 trips
LOS F 10 trips
Source: Camarillo Commercial Center Project Traffic and Circulation Study, dated May 23, 2006, prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers.
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the project were calculated using weekday trip generation rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. As shown in Table IV-12, below, the project is estimated to generate 19,306 average daily trips (ADT), with 411 trips during the AM peak hour and 1,809 trips during the PM peak hour.22
Table IV-12
Estimated Project Trip Generation
Land Use Size Average
Daily Trips AM Peak PM Peak
Shopping Center1 499,000 square feet 19,306 411 1,809 1 ITE’s equation rate used for Shopping Center: 38.69 per 1,000 square feet.
Source: Camarillo Commercial Center Project Traffic and Circulation Study, dated May 23, 2006, prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers.
22 These estimates do not include trip generation for the 161,700 square feet of light industrial uses included in the traffic study.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-65
Tables IV-13 and IV-14 show the traffic impacts in the AM and PM peak hours from traffic generated by the Project. The addition of project traffic would not create any significant intersection impacts in the AM peak hour.
Table IV-13
Project Traffic Condition Impacts – AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Existing +
Approved
Projects
Existing +
Approved
Projects +
Project
ProjectAdded
Critical
Trips
Significant
Impact?
Las Posas Rd./Ponderosa Rd.
0.72 LOS C
0.74 LOS C N/A No
Las Posas Rd./Daily Dr.
0.72 LOS C
0.73 LOSC N/A No
Las Posas Rd./U.S. 101
Northbound ramps
0.60 LOS A
0.65 LOS B N/A No
Las Posas Rd./U.S. 101
Southbound ramps
0.69 LOS B
0.74 LOS C N/A No
Las Posas Rd./Ventura
Boulevard
0.43 LOS A
0.45 LOS A N/A No
Las Posas Rd./Pleasant Valley
Rd.
0.47 LOS A
0.49 LOS A N/A No
Central Ave./U.S. 101
northbound ramps
0.52 LOS A
0.53 LOS A N/A No
Central Ave./U.S. 101
southbound ramps
0.43 LOS A
0.44 LOS A N/A No
Source: Camarillo Commercial Center Project Traffic and Circulation Study dated May 23, 2006, prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers.
The addition of project traffic would result in significant traffic impacts, according to the thresholds of significance detailed above in Table IV-11, at four of the study-area intersections: Las Posas Road and Daily Drive; Las Posas Road and U.S. 101 northbound ramps; Las Posas Road and U.S. 101 southbound ramps; and Las Posas Road and Ventura Boulevard, see Table IV-14. This is a potentially significant impact.
Future Traffic Conditions
Year 2025 (buildout) traffic conditions were assessed for the study-area intersections based on traffic volume data and level of service data provided by the City. The Year 2025 traffic volumes were developed using the Camarillo Traffic Analysis Model (CTAM) which assumes buildout of the land uses contained in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Year 2025 analysis also assumes that the following Long Range Circulation Improvements are completed:
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-66
Table IV-14
Project Traffic Condition Impacts – PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Existing +
Approved
Projects
Existing +
Approved
Projects +
Project
ProjectAdded
Critical
Trips
Significant
Impact?
Las Posas Rd./Ponderosa Rd.
0.68 LOS B
0.72 LOS C N/A No
Las Posas Rd./Daily Dr.
0.82 LOS D
0.86 LOS D 38 PHT Yes
Las Posas Rd./U.S. 101
northbound ramps
0.81 LOS D
0.96 LOS E 241 PHT Yes
Las Posas Rd./U.S. 101
southbound ramps
0.84 LOS D
1.04 LOS F 323 PHT Yes
Las Posas Rd./Ventura
Boulevard
0.72 LOS C
0.85 LOS D 199 PHT Yes
Las Posas Rd./Pleasant Valley
Rd.
0.61 LOS B
0.67 LOS B N/A No
Central Ave./U.S. 101
Northbound ramps
0.47 LOS A
0.53 LOS A N/A No
Central Ave./U.S. 101
Southbound ramps
0.45 LOS A
0.51 LOS A N/A No
Source: Camarillo Commercial Center Project Traffic and Circulation Study, dated May 23, 2006, prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers.
• The extension of Central Avenue as a secondary arterial to Verdulera Street located southeast of the U.S. 101/Central Avenue interchange;
• The construction of a new interchange with U.S. Highway 101 between the Central Avenue interchange and the Las Posas Road interchange. The new interchange would connect to Ponderosa Drive north of U.S. Highway 101 and Ventura Boulevard south of the U.S Highway 101, thereby providing an additional connection between the freeway and the City, and the commercial uses south of the freeway. This would be the Springville Interchange which is currently under design.
• The extension of Ventura Boulevard as a secondary arterial between the Camarillo Town Center and Central Avenue per the Airport North Specific Plan.
Development of the project would result in a change in traffic volumes under the Year 2025 conditions compared to the traffic volumes derived from the CTAM used to calculate the existing conditions traffic volumes. The project is the development of 499,000 square feet of commercial uses on the project site.
The land use for the project site in CTAM is 350,000 square feet of commercial uses and 150,000 square City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-67
feet of research and development uses. Consequently, the traffic volumes generated by the project site in the Future 2025 scenario would be different than the CTAM forecasts for 2025, as shown in Table IV-15.
Table 15
Trip Generation Comparison - Camarillo Traffic Model Land Use vs. Project AM Peak Hour
Trips
PM Peak Hour
Trips
Land Use Size ADT
In Out Total In Out Total
Camarillo Traffic Model
Shopping Center
R&D Center
TOTAL
350,000 s.f.
150,000 s.f.
15,331
1,406
16,737
202
165
367
129
34 163
331
199
530
687
58 715
744
157
901
1,431
185
1,616
Proposed Project
Shopping Center 499,000 s.f. 19,306 250 161 411 869 940 1,809 Net Difference +2,539 -117 -2 -119 +154 +39 +193
Source: Camarillo Commercial Center Project Traffic and Circulation Study, dated May 23, 2006, prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers.
As shown above, the project would generate 2,539 average daily trips and 193 PM peak hour trips more, and 119 AM peak hour trips less than the land uses incorporated in the CTAM. These net changes would result in the following V/C ratios and LOS at the study-area intersections in the Future 2025 scenario as shown in Table IV-16.
In the future scenario six of the eight study-area intersections would operate below the City’s LOS C standard in either or both the AM and PM peak hours. This is a potentially significant impact.
The City of Camarillo and Ventura County have executed a “Reciprocal Traffic Mitigation Agreement” wherein the City and the County agree that a pro-rate share of the cost of the mitigations will be collected by each agency for identified traffic impacts in the other jurisdiction. The project would be consistent with the Ventura County General Plan by complying with the terms of the agreement between the City and Ventura County.
Table IV-16
Year 2025 AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Year 2025 ICU/LOS Significant
Impact?
Intersection AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM
Peak
Hour
PM
Peak
Hour
Las Posas Rd./Ponderosa Rd. 0.78 0.77 No No
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-68
Table IV-16
Year 2025 AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Year 2025 ICU/LOS Significant
Impact?
Intersection AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM
Peak
Hour
PM
Peak
Hour
LOS C LOS C
Las Posas Rd./Daily Dr.
0.75 LOS C
0.86 LOS D No Yes
Las Posas Rd./U.S. 101
northbound ramps
0.74 LOS C
1.03 LOS F No Yes
Las Posas Rd./U.S. 101
southbound ramps
0.93 LOS E
1.08 LOS F Yes Yes
Las Posas Rd./Ventura Boulevard
0.62 LOS B
0.81 LOS D No Yes
Las Posas Rd./Pleasant Valley Rd.
0.82 LOS D
0.90 LOS D Yes Yes
Central Ave./U.S. 101 Northbound
ramps
0.83 LOS D
0.69 LOS B Yes No
Central Ave./U.S. 101 Southbound
ramps
0.59 LOS A
0.79 LOS C No No
Source: Camarillo Commercial Center Project Traffic and Circulation Study, dated May 23, 2006, prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers.
Mitigation Measures
TRA-1 The developer shall pay the Traffic Mitigation Fee as established by Camarillo Municipal Code (CMC) § 11.68. Payment of this fee reflects a pro-rata (fair share) of traffic mitigation measures within the City of Camarillo including, but not limited to, the widening of Las Posas Road between Ventura Boulevard and Daily Drive to add a northbound travel lane across the U.S. 101 Freeway overpass. The amount of fees to be paid shall be those in effect at the actual time of payment of such fees. Administrative Policy and Procedure No. 8.12 shall apply to capital facility fees.TRA-2 The project applicant shall design, dedicate right-of-way, and construct intersection improvements to the Las Posas/Ventura Boulevard intersection to provide for the ultimate northbound approach cross section and appropriate transition to existing lane configurations and medians located south of Camarillo Center Drive. The ultimate cross section of Las Posas for the northbound approach to the Ventura Boulevard intersection shall include:
• a total of three (3) 12-foot northbound through lanes; • a 5-foot northbound bike lane;
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-69
• one (1) dedicated 12-foot-wide northbound right-turn lane to provide 200 feet of storage and a 120-foot taper;
• two (2) 11-foot-wide northbound left turn lanes (i.e., dual left-turn lanes) to provide 200 feet of storage per lane and a 120-foot taper; and,
• a 14-foot raised median that aligns both northbound and southbound traffic lanes.
The project applicant shall be reimbursed for the total cost of this project by the CPG Partners, L.P., or subsequent developer of the project site for CPD-197M(1).
TRA-3 The project applicant shall design and construct the project to widen U.S. 101 Freeway northbound off-ramp at Las Posas Road to provide a dual-left turn and separate right-turn lane including associated traffic signal modifications. The project applicant shall be reimbursed for thirty-three percent (33%) of the cost of this project by the City of Camarillo when the conference center develops, and reimbursed an additional thirty-three percent (33%) of the cost of this project by the CPG Partners, L.P., or subsequent developer of the project site for CPD-197M(1).
TRA-4 The developer shall coordinate the design and construction of all project improvements with the city’s Capital Improvement Project (CIP) ST-01-02, Springville Interchange. The developer shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the Springville Interchange project including Springville Drive.
TRA-5 The developer shall dedicate sufficient roadway right-of-way and construct the West Ventura Boulevard extension from the existing Home Depot Driveway to Springville Drive. The crosssection of the West Ventura Boulevard extension shall be designed and constructed to be four (4) through lanes with designated left and right turn bays according to City of Camarillo standards.
TRA-6 The developer shall construct the West Ventura Boulevard extension from Springville Drive to Bajo Agua Avenue. The cross-section of the West Ventura Boulevard extension shall be designed and constructed to be four (4) through lanes with designated left and right turn bays according to City of Camarillo standards. The total cost of this project shall be completely (100 percent) reimbursed from future development.
TRA-9 The developer shall design and install traffic signage and striping to guide traffic traveling westbound on Daily Drive to the appropriate lane at the approach to the Las Posas Road/Daily Drive intersection.
With incorporation of the above mitigation measures, the potentially significant impacts associated with the project would be reduced to less than significant levels.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-70
b) Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Camarillo and Ventura County have executed a “Reciprocal Traffic Mitigation Agreement” where in the City and County agree that a pro-rata share of the cost of mitigation fees will be collected by each agency for identified traffic impacts in the other jurisdiction.
The project would be consistent with the Ventura County General Plan by complying with the terms of the agreement between the City of Camarillo and Ventura County. c) Would the project 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. As discussed in Section 9(b) development of the project would be consistent with the Airport North Specific Plan. This would ensure that the project would not include any elements that could pose any potential risks to operations at Camarillo Airport to the south. In addition, the project does not include any aviation-related uses. Therefore, the project would have no airport traffic impact. d) Would the project 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. A significant impact may occur if a project includes new roadway design or introduced a new land use or project features into an area with specific transportation requirements and characteristics that have not been previously experienced in that area, or if project access or other features were designed in such a way as to create hazard conditions. The project would extend Ventura Boulevard from its current terminus west of the Camarillo Town Center to Bajo Agua, approximately three-quarter miles west of the project site. Access to the project would be via two driveways on Ventura Boulevard and two driveway connections to the Camarillo Town Center. Two additional driveways located along Ventura Boulevard are intended to accommodate delivery trucks.
The Ventura Boulevard extension and the project driveways would be designed in accordance with all City regulations, including those pertaining to emergency access. In addition, the project is the development of commercial uses adjacent to the Camarillo Town Center, which is similar in scale and use to the project, and agricultural land uses to the west. These extant land uses are currently compatible; the Airport North Specific Plan anticipated that agricultural and commercial uses would co-exist during the buildout of the Specific Plan area. The development of the project would not introduce any unusual or potentially hazardous uses, and therefore, is expected to also be compatible in this setting and impacts would be less than significant.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-71
e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would extend Ventura Boulevard from its current terminus west of the Camarillo Town Center to Bajo Agua, approximately three-quarter miles west of the project site. The existing two-lane segment of Ventura Boulevard along the northern property boundary would be removed in accordance with the plans for the U.S. 101/Springville Drive Interchange and the vehicles currently traveling west from in front of the Camarillo Center West would be directed into the center of the Project site. The extension to Bajo Agua is would provide continuous roadway access from Las Posas Road on the east to Central Avenue on the west. Access to the project would be via two driveways on Ventura Boulevard and two driveway connections to the Camarillo Town Center. Two additional driveways located along Ventura Boulevard are intended to accommodate delivery trucks. The Ventura Boulevard extension and the project driveways would be designed in accordance with all City regulations, including those pertaining to emergency access. Consequently, impacts to emergency access would be less than significant.
f) Result in inadequate parking
g) capacity?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project resulted in inadequate parking capacity based upon City Code requirements. Based on City Code requirements , the 499,000 square feet of commercial uses on the project site would require 2,301 parking spaces. The project would provide 2,496 parking spaces which is 195 more than required by code and therefore, no impacts with regard to inadequate parking capacity will occur.
g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would conflict with adopted polices or involve modification of existing alternative transportation facilities located on- or off-site. The project is not expected to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Implementation of the project involves the development of a commercial center, and whilst the project does not include any facilities for alternative transportation, it does not remove, replace or preclude the use of public transportation by future occupants or visitors to the project site. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative traffic impacts are included in the traffic counts as “Approved Projects” and therefore are discussed throughout the section.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-72
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
No Impact. A significant impact would occur if the project exceeds wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
This question would typically apply to properties served by private sewage disposal systems, such as septic tanks. Section 13260 of the California Water Code states that persons discharging or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, shall file a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) containing information which may be required by the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB then authorizes a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that ensures compliance with wastewater treatment and discharge requirements.
The Los Angeles RWQCB enforces wastewater treatment and discharge requirements for properties in the project area. The project is located within the Calleguas Creek Watershed of the RWQCB jurisdiction. Wastewater from the project would be treated by the Camarillo Sanitary District, which operates and maintains the Camarillo Sanitary District Water Reclamation Plant located on Howard Road near Conejo Creek. The project will convey wastewater via municipal sewage infrastructure maintained by the Camarillo Sanitary District to the Camarillo Wastewater Treatment Plant (CWTP).23 The CWTP is a public facility, and, therefore, is subject to the State’s wastewater treatment requirements. As such, wastewater from the project site is treated according to the wastewater treatment requirements enforced by the RWQCB, and no impact would occur.
(b) Would the project 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a project would increase water consumption or wastewater generation to such a degree that the capacity of treatment facilities and infrastructure currently serving the project site would be exceeded.
Water Treatment Facilities and Infrastructure
The Airport North Specific Plan area is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Camarillo Water Division. The City Water Division obtains water from its own wells and imports water from the
23 Correspondence from Lucy McGovern, City of Camarillo Division of Public Works, August 11, 2006.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-73
Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD).24 The City Water Division groundwater wells have a combined capacity of 6 million gallons per day (mgd) and CMWD can provide up to 23 mgd of potable water for a total City water system capacity of 29 mgd.25 The current average water consumption in the City is approximately 6.51 mgd.26 Therefore, the City has a remaining supply capacity of approximately
22.49 mgd. As discussed in Section 16(d) below, the project would consume approximately 47,904 gallons per day (gpd) of water, or 0.2 percent of the existing remaining water supply. Consequently, implementation of the project is not expected to measurably reduce the City’s available water supply and impacts would be less than significant.
Water conveyance infrastructure is available in the vicinity of the project site, consisting of a 12-inch water main at Ventura Boulevard from Wood Road to Bajo Agua. In addition, a 12-inch main water transmission crosses the freeway west of Las Posas Road at the future Springville Road intersection.27 If water main or infrastructure upgrades are required, the project developer would pay for such upgrades. In the event that water main and other infrastructure upgrades are required, it is not expected to create a significant impact to the physical environment because (1) any disruption of service would be of a shortterm nature, (2) replacement of the water mains would be within public rights-of-way, and (3) any foreseeable infrastructure improvements would be limited to the immediate project vicinity. As such, with incorporation of the mitigation measures below, impacts to water supply infrastructure would be less than significant.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Infrastructure
The Camarillo Sanitary District (CSD) provides sewer service to the project area. Sewage from the project site is conveyed via sewer infrastructure to the Camarillo Wastewater Treatment Plant (CWTP).
The CWTP currently treats about 4.0 m, with a maximum capacity of 6.75 mgd.28 In addition to the treatment plant, the district maintains nearly 158 miles of underground sewer lines and four pump stations.
This translates into a remaining capacity of 2.75 mgd of wastewater that can be treated at the CWTP. As discussed in Section 16(e) below, the project would generate approximately 39,920 gpd of wastewater;
24 Airport North Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, City of Camarillo, May 1986. 25 City of Camarillo Water System Master Plan Update, December 1999. 26 Table 3-2, Water Consumption Data, City of Camarillo Water System Master Plan Update, December 1999. 27 City of Camarillo Water System Master Plan Update, December 1999. 28 City of Camarillo Wastewater System Master Plan Update, November 1999.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-74
approximately 1.45 percent of the remaining capacity at the CWTP. Consequently, implementation of the project is not expected to measurably reduce this facility’s capacity; therefore, the CWTP would have adequate capacity to serve the project. With incorporation of the mitigation measures below, impacts would be less than significant.
Wastewater infrastructure is located in the adjacent streets. The existing system consists of a 15-inch gravity sewer in Bajo Agua, an 18-inch forced main running along the southern boundary of the Specific Plan area, closely aligned with the location of Ventura Boulevard and a 24-inch line located in Las Posas Road. The project’s wastewater plans would be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Camarillo Sanitary District in accordance with standard City procedures. The system design would provide for the connection by gravity sewer to a lift station at Wood Road. A Mello Roos Community Facilities District has been formed to develop the sewer infrastructure needed to accommodate the anticipated buildout of the Airport North Specific Plan area. The project would be required to participate in this District.
As an intensification of land uses is being proposed, there is a possibility that an increase in wastewater generation might exceed the capacities of the existing collection facilities. If sewer line or infrastructure upgrades are required, the project developer/applicant would pay for such upgrades. In the event that sewer line and other infrastructure upgrades are required, it is not expected to create a significant impact to the physical environment because (1) any disruption of service would be of a short-term nature, (2) replacement of the sewer lines would be within public rights-of-way, and (3) any foreseeable infrastructure improvements would be limited to the immediate project vicinity. Potential impacts upon, or resulting from, water or wastewater infrastructure improvements would be less than significant. As no new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities would be required to serve the project, a lessthan-significant would occur, with incorporation of the mitigation measures below.
Mitigation Measure
UTL-1 Before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final map, the developer/project applicant shall guarantee the construction of a domestic water system and an irrigation system for landscaping in conformance with applicable City standards UTL-2 Water improvement plans shall be approved by the Fire Department, the City Engineer and the Calleguas Municipal Water District.
UTL-3 Sewer plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and the Camarillo Sanitary District. Before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final map, the developer/project applicant shall enter into an agreement with the District which specifies the funding mechanism for all wastewater conveyance facilities.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-75
UTL-4 All industries proposing to connect to or discharge into the local sewer system shall first obtain the appropriate permit from the Camarillo Sanitary District.
UTL-5 Restaurant and commercial uses shall install grease interceptors. c) Would the project 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?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the volume of storm water runoff from the project increases to a level exceeding the capacity of the storm drain system serving the project site. d) Would the project have significant water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to increase water consumption to such a degree that new water sources would need to be identified, or that existing resources would be consumed at a pace greater than planned for by purveyors, distributors, and service providers.
The City of Camarillo Water Division is responsible for providing water service to the project site. The Division can generally supply water to developments within its service area, except under extraordinary circumstances. Generally speaking, to the extent a project is consistent with the underlying zoning and the Airport North Specific Plan land use designations, its water demands have already been accounted for in the City’s Water System Master Plan.
State Water Code Sections 10910-10915 state that any project with over 500 residential units, commercial businesses over 500,000 square feet of space and employing over 1,000 people or industrial businesses over 250,000 square feet and employing over 1,000 people are required to request a water availability assessment. Based on the size of the project, a water availability assessment is not required.
Nevertheless, the project’s anticipated water demands are estimated in Table IV-17.
Table IV-17
Estimated Water Consumption – Proposed Project
Land Use Size Consumption Rate
Daily Water
Consumption (gpd)
Commercial 499,000
square feet 96 gallons/1,000 s.f./day 47,904
Total 47,904
Source: City of Los Angeles, Draft L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, May 14, 1998. Water consumption assumed to be 120% of wastewater generated for a given land use. Consumption rate approved for use in this analysis by the City of Camarillo Division of Public Works: Lucy McGovern, written correspondence, August 11, 2006.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-76
Water consumption for the project was estimated from wastewater generation factors. In order to present a conservative analysis, water consumption is assumed to be 120 percent of the wastewater generated for a given land use, as determined by wastewater generation rates approved by the City of Camarillo. With the construction of the proposed 499,000 square feet of commercial space, the project would consume 47,904 gpd of water. As discussed above, in Section 16(b), the City can meet this water supply without any shortfall. With the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measure below, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
UTL-6 Drought-resistant vegetation shall be used in landscaping to reduce the demand for irrigation water. Water-conserving features, such as low volume water closets and lavatory faucets with limiting-flow valves, shall be installed in all project buildings. e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the project would increase wastewater generation to such a degree that the capacity of facilities currently serving the Project Site would be exceeded.
With the construction of the proposed 499,000 square feet of commercial space, the project would generate 39,920 gpd of wastewater (see Table IV-18).
Table IV-18
Estimated Wastewater Generation – Proposed Project
Land Use Size Generation Ratea
Daily Wastewater
Generation (gpd)
Commercial 499,000 square feet 80 gallons/1,000 s.f./day 39,920 Total 39,920
Source: City of Los Angeles, Draft L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, May 14, 1998. Generation rate approved for use in this analysis by the City of Camarillo Division of Public Works: Lucy McGovern, written correspondence, August 11, 2006.
As discussed in Section 16(b), the current remaining capacity of the CWTP is 2.75 mgd. Therefore, the CWTP would have adequate capacity to treat the 39,920 gpd of wastewater generated by the project, in addition to its existing commitments, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-77
f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to increase solid waste generation to a degree that existing and projected landfill capacity would be insufficient to accommodate the additional solid waste.
The City of Camarillo has an Exclusive Agreement with E.J. Harrison & Sons trash company for regular day-to-day refuse service.29 Refuse from the project would also be subject to this agreement as the project site is within the City of Camarillo. Trash from the City is taken to the following landfills and transfer stations:
• Calabasas Landfill, 5300 Lost Hills Road, Calabasas, CA. • Chiquita Canyon Landfill, 29201 Henry Mayo Drive, Valencia, CA. • Simi Valley Landfill, 2801 Madera Road, Simi Valley, CA. • Toland Landfill, 3500 North Toland Road, Santa Paula, CA. • Gold Coast Recycling and Transfer Station, 5275 Colt Street, Ventura, CA.
The existing capacities of these landfills are shown in Table IV-19. As shown, the five landfills have approximately 1,817 tons of remaining capacity per day.
As shown in Table IV-20, the project would generate approximately 2,495 pounds (approximately 1.25 tons) of solid waste per day during operation. All solid-waste-generating activities within the City of Camarillo would continue to be subject to the requirements set forth in California Assembly Bill (AB) 939, which requires each city and county to divert 50 percent of its solid waste from landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling, and composting. This would also apply to construction waste, however, as the project site is currently used for agriculture and no structures exist on the project site, construction-generated waste would be minimal. Thus, approximately 0.625 tons of solid waste per day (1,250 pounds) could reach the five landfills that serve the project site as a result of project implementation. This would not exceed the remaining capacity of any single landfill or of the total landfill space remaining. Additionally, the City of Camarillo has indicated that these existing landfills would be able to accommodate solid waste from the project30 and therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
29 Email correspondence from Roger Pichardo, Management Assistant, Solid Waste, Office of the City Manager, City of Camarillo, August 10, 2006.
30 Email correspondence from Roger Pichardo, Management Assistant, Solid Waste, Office of the City Manager, City of Camarillo, August 10, 2006.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-78
Table IV-19
Landfill Capacity and Intakea
Landfill
Facility
Estimated
Closure Date
Permitted
Daily Intake
(tons per day)
Average Daily
Intake
(tons per day)b
Remaining
Permitted
Daily
Intake
(tons per
day)
Remaining
Total
Capacity
(cubic
yards)
Calabasas 1/1/2028 3,500 2,127 1,373 16,900,4001
Chiquita
Canyon 11/24/2019 6,000 5,958 42 26,024,3602
Simi Valley 1/1/2034 3,000 2,799c 201 9,473,131
Toland 5/31/2027 1,500 1,299 201 20,796,998
Gold Coast
Recycling and
Transfer
N/A 440 N/A N/A N/A
Total 1,817
Source: 2005 Landfill Summary Tonnage Report, Integrated Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Facility Information System: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Landfills/Tonnages/, August 28, 2006.
Average Daily Intake is calculated by dividing year totals from the 2005 Landfill Summary Tonnage Report by 260 days, assuming 5 day a week operation for a worse case scenario.
The Simi Valley Landfill and the Toland Road Landfill operate 6 days a week, therefore, the average daily intake is divided by 312 instead of 260.
Remaining capacity estimated on October 14, 2004.
Remaining capacity estimated on June 15, 2001.
Remaining capacity estimated on June 15, 2001.
Remaining capacity estimated on June 1, 2001.
Table IV-20
Estimated Solid Waste Generation – Proposed Project
Land Use Size Generation Ratea
Total Daily Solid Waste
Generation (lbs/day)
Commercial 499,000 sf 5 lbs/1,000 sf/day 2,495
Total 2495
Total in tons 1.25
Notes:
sf = square feet; lbs = pounds
a
Source: City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, Solid Waste Generation, 1981. Waste generation includes all materials discarded, whether or not they are later recycled or disposed of in a landfill. Generation factor approved by Tom Chiorodit, EJ Harrison & Sons per Roger Pichardo, August 29, 2006.
Although, a less-than-significant operational waste impact would occur, implementation of the following mitigation measure would further reduce this impact and aid compliance with AB 939.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-79
Mitigation Measure
UTIL-7 Recycling bins shall be provided at appropriate locations to promote recycling of paper, metal, glass, and other recyclable material.
g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would generate solid waste that was not disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Solid waste generated onsite by the project would be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, related to solid waste, such as AB 939. In addition, as analyzed in Section 16(d), the combined remaining daily intake of the landfills serving the project site would be able to accommodate the solid waste generated by the project and no exemptions with respect to solid waste disposal would be needed nor are they requested.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
Water Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the project in combination with the other development in the project area would further increase demands for water supplies in the City of Camarillo Water Division service area. In terms of the City’s overall water supply condition, the water demands for any project that is consistent with the City’s General Plan has been taken into account in the planned growth of the water system. Furthermore, for projects that meet the requirements established in Sections 10910-10915 of the State Water Code, a Water Supply Assessment demonstrating sufficient water availability is required on a project-by-project basis. Additionally, similar to the project, each additional development in the project area would be required to comply with city and State water conservation programs. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to water supply service would be less than significant.
The CMWD has a remaining supply capacity of approximately 22.49 mgd of water. As shown Table-IV21, the cumulative water supply demand including the proposed project would be approximately 1,014,422 gpd, or 1.01 mgd. This represents approximately 4.5 percent of the remaining CMWD supply capacity. Therefore, the CMWD has adequate capacity to supply the water demanded by the project in addition to other development in the project area, and as such, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
In addition, the potential need for the other development projects to upgrade water lines to accommodate their water needs is site-specific and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the project and other development projects within the area. Therefore, no cumulative water infrastructure impacts are anticipated from the development of the project and other development projects within the area.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-80
Table IV-21
Estimated Water Consumption – Cumulative Projects
Land Use Size Consumption Rate1 Daily Water
Consumption (gpd)
Residential 2,651 du 276/du/day2 731,676
Commercial 1,139,702 square feet 96 gallons/1,000
s.f./day 109,411
Industrial 1,134,514 square feet 96/1,000 s.f./day 108,913 Institutional/Other 172,083 square feet 96/1,000 s.f./day3 16,520 Total Related Projects Water Consumption 966,520
Proposed Project 499,000 square feet 96 gallons/1,000
s.f./day 47,904
Total Related Projects Plus Proposed Project Water Consumption 1,014,424 Source: City of Los Angeles, Draft L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, May 14, 1998. Water consumption assumed to be 120% of wastewater generated for a given land use. Consumption rate approved for use in this analysis by the City of Camarillo Division of Public Works: Lucy McGovern, written correspondence, August 11, 2006.
Wastewater Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the project in combination with the other development in the Project area would further increase the generation of wastewater within the Project area. The CWTP currently treats about 4.0 m, with a remaining capacity of 2.75 mgd. As shown in Table IV-22, the cumulative wastewater generation would be 845,354 gpd, including the proposed project. This represents approximately 30 percent of the remaining treatment capacity at the CWTP. Therefore, the CWTP would likely have adequate capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the project as well as other development in the project area. Consequently, cumulative impacts on sewer service would be less than significant. In addition, the potential need for other development projects to upgrade sewer lines to accommodate their wastewater needs is site-specific and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the project and other development in the project area. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to sewer service would be less than significant.
Solid Waste Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the project in combination with the other development in the project area would further increase regional demands on landfill capacities. Similar to the project, other developments in the project area would participate in regional source reduction and recycling programs (i.e., AB 939), further reducing the amount of solid waste to be disposed of at the landfills described above.
The remaining daily capacity of the landfills serving the City is 1,817 tons. The cumulative solid waste generation including the proposed project is estimated at 40.1 tons per day as shown in Table IV-23. This City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-81
represents approximately 2.2 percent of the remaining daily landfill capacity. Therefore the landfills serving the City of Camarillo are anticipated to have adequate capacity to accommodate the cumulative operational demand of the project as well as other development in the project area. As such, a less-thansignificant impact with respect to solid waste services would occur.
Table IV-22
Estimated Wastewater Generation – Cumulative Projects
Land Use Size Generation Rate1 Daily Wastewater
Generation (gpd)
Residential 2,651 du 230/du/day2 609,730
Commercial 1,139,702 square feet 80 gallons/1,000 s.f./day 91,176 Industrial 1,134,514 square feet 80/1,000 s.f./day 90,761 Institutional/Other 172,083 square feet 80/1,000 s.f./day3 13,767 Total Related Projects Wastewater Generation 805,434
Proposed Project 499,000 square feet 80 gallons/1,000 s.f./day 39,920 Total Related Projects Plus Proposed Project Wastewater Generation 845,354 Source: City of Los Angeles, Draft L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, May 14, 1998. Generation rate approved for use in this analysis by the City of Camarillo Division of Public Works: Lucy McGovern, written correspondence, August 11, 2006.
1 Generation rate approved for use in this analysis by the City of Camarillo Division of Public Works: Lucy McGovern, written correspondence, August 11, 2006. 2
Assumed to be 3 bedroom single family residential for a worse case scenario. 3 In the absence of a specific rate; based in the rate for Library uses.
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. A significant impact would occur only if the project would have an identified potentially significant impact to any of the above issues, as discussed in the preceding sections.
The project is located in a generally urban area on land that has previously been modified by agricultural use. The project would have no significant impacts with respect to biological resources and cultural resource. The project would not degrade the quality of the environment, reduce or threaten any fish or wildlife species (endangered or otherwise), or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-82
Table IV-23
Estimated Solid Waste Generation – Cumulative Projects
Land Use Size Generation Rate1
Total Daily Solid Waste
Generation (lbs/day)
Residential 2,651 du 10 lbs/du/day2 26,510
Commercial 1,139,702 square feet 5 lbs/s.f./day 5,698,510 Industrial 1,134,514 square feet 62.5/s.f./day 70,907,125 Institutional/Other 172,083 square feet 7 lbs/s.f./day3 1,204,581 Total Related Projects Solid Waste Consumption
77,836,726 lbs
(38.9 tons)
Proposed Project 499,000 square feet 5 lbs/1,000 s.f./day 2,495 (1.2 tons)
Total Related Projects Plus Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation 77,994,893 lbs
(40.1 tons)
Notes:
sf = square feet; lbs = pounds
Source: City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, Solid Waste Generation, 1981. Waste generation includes all materials discarded, whether or not they are later recycled or disposed of in a landfill. 1 Generation factor approved by Tom Chiorodit, EJ Harrison & Sons per Roger Pichardo, August 29, 2006. 2 Assumed to be single-family residential for a worse case scenario. 3 In the absence of a specific rate; based on the rate for Pre-school uses. 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)? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project, in conjunction with other projects in the area of the project site, would result in impacts that are less than significant when viewed separately, but would be significant when viewed together.
Although there are other past, current, and probable future projects in the area surrounding the project site, the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative traffic, air quality, noise, and other impact areas would be less than significant. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be considered cumulatively considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact would occur if the project has the potential to result in significant impacts, as discussed in the preceding sections.
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-83
As noted in the evaluations above, with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in any unmitigated significant impacts. Thus, the project would not have the potential to result in substantial adverse effects on human beings.
Paseo Camino Real Preparers of Initial Study and Persons Consulted Draft MND Page V-1
V. PREPARERS OF INITIAL STUDY AND PERSONS
CONSULTED
Environmental Consultant
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates
30851 Agoura Road, Suite 210
Agoura Hills, California, 91301
(818) 735-8838
Michael Brown, Principal
Helen Crofoot, Associate Environmental Planner
David Benjamin, Graphics Coordinator
CEQA Lead Agency
City of Camarillo
Department of Community Development
601 Carmenr Drive
Camarillo, CA 93011
(805) 388-5360
Robert W. Burrow, Director of Community Development
David Anderson, Assistant Director of Community Development
Project Applicant
Selleck Properties
5655 Lindero Canyon Boulevard
Suite 301
Westlake Village, CA 91362-4045
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real Technical Appendices
Draft MND
APPENDIX A
RELATED PROJECTS DATABASE
June 2006 Monthly Report
INDUSTRIAL
PROJECT
NUMBER DEVELOPER LOCATION
MAP
SITE/ACRES PARKING No.
UILDING
TRACT/LOT SQ. Ft
CAMARILLO
RANCH T-5118/LoT 18 18,886
1 PROJECT COMPLETED IN 2006
PROJECTS COMPLETED SINCE JANUARY 11_2006
18,886
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
MAP
TRACT/LOT SQ. FT. SITE/ACRES PARKING NO.
79,461 7 _AP-D-301 VC STAR CAMARILLO
CENTER 1-4172-10
---t(T-352
1PD-362
ID-363
,,y1,PD-364
SPRINGVILLE
STORAGE
PACIFIC
PROPERTIES
STEIN
TOLD
VENTURA BLVD
CALLE PIANO
VENTURA BLVD,
FLYNN RD.
LOT 3/60PM53
LD 472
79,846
97,440
49,163
138,396
2.64 161 4
3.56 3.0
12.88 224
200
366
5 4
15 ,1.1515-374 CAMARILLO
RANCH
VENTURA INV. 1-5118/L0T 17 66,180 2.18 87 2
6 PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION 510,486 24.26 1,038
601 Carmen Drive • Camarillo CA 93010 !! 805.388.5360 805.361.5388 fcat Page
CITY OF CAMARILLO
Community Development Department Monthly-Report June 2006
PROJECTS APPROVED
SITE!
ACRES
MAP
DEVELOPER PARKING NO.
PROJECT
NUMBER
BUILDING
LOCATION TRACTi OT SQ. FT.
RIDGE
3.16 PD-359
1PD-360
124
140
49,322
53,450
1-5118/LoT 5 3.16
T-5118/LoT 9
CAMARILLO
RANCH
CAMARILLO
RANCH RIDGE
1PD-373 0.3 CAMARILLO
STREET CSK PROPERTIES
1PD-376 INTEGRATED CAPITAL CALLE CARGA T-2878-4 18,368 1.01 36 4f3D-378 INTEGRATED CAPITAL CALLE CARGA 1-2878-2 16,427 1.18 38 5 SUBTOTAL OF APPROVED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS 386,967 26.51 1,070 199
—n1 TI
NMI
SUBTOTAL OF ONGOING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS 198,299
12 TOTAL PROJECTS APPROVED 585,266 26,51 1,269
RIDGE CAMARILLO
RANCH PD-361 T-5118/Lor 6 48,576 2.94 122
T & R DAWSON 1-1185/LoT 13 15,314 .96 39
IPD-370 LD-408/L0T 4 129,000 10.79 389 CAMARILLO
CENTER HIJI
D-372 T-5118/LoT 8 36,706 2.0 140 CAMARILLO
RANCH
CAMARILLO RANCH
LLC
IPD-377 INTEGRATED CAPITAL CALLE CARGA. 19,804 1.01 42
LATER PHASES OF ONGOING INDUSTRIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS RyNNII-Iwy 101
FLYNN RD.
4091/5-8 133,435
TOLD 64,864
2 14
15 1PD-367
T-2878-3
ONE PROJECT PENDING
BUILDING MAP
DEVELOPER LOCATION TRACT/LOT SO. FT. SITE/ACRES PARKING NO.
EPPINK VERDULERA T-2081/LOT 14 19,876
19,876
ev,ki T1- 6 ENTM6 oAmARILLo NMNiCIPAL, COD,E
f-fTTPWWWW.C,E.eAMAR,ILt,a,GA.RS
MY OF CAMANLLO
Community Development Department Monthly Report June 2006
PENDING PROJECTS
INDU T 1 =;=A.MzM1`0 PR, . clErg§ 1,178,514 51215 2,425
PROJECTS APPROVED
BUILDING
SQ. FT.
13,600
SITE/ACRES PARKING
MAP
NO.
15 18,174 1.45 10 1
51,600 2.23 142 16
13,250 1.77 65 16
96,624 5.45 217
CPD-139M DONAHUE/SCHRIBER
CPD-220 JIFFY LUBE
'I PD-365 FOUNDATION
1PD-366 FOUNDATION
PARDEE PLAZA
DAILY DRIVE
VERDUGO
VERDUGO
°CATION
PROJECT
NUMBER DEVELOPER
4 PROJECT UNDER CONSTRUCTION
305 6
1,973 IIN
CPD-221 SHEEHAN
"CPD-222 7-11
'CUP-241 THOMAS
CUP-268 TAFr
CARMEN DRIVE 2,394 .50
CEDAR/VENTURA BLVD. 10,480 .25
VENTURA BLVD. 26,682 .36
389,2700 38.25
1,416
210
9 14
1,672
3 4
305
242,474 29.41
17,286
8 TOTAL PROJECTS APPROVED
299,316 34.05 SUBTOTAL OF APPROVED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS 5,170
TEYSSIER 78,440 4.20
VENTURA PACIFIC CAMARILLO SPRINGS
ADOLFO ROAD
LATER PHASES OF ONGOING COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
CAMARILLO CENTER DRIVE
SUBTOTAL
`CPD-69
CPD-161
CPD-171M 6,344
89,954 4.20
MIMI=
8 LOCATION!
BuILD1NG
SQ. FT. SITdACRES PARKING
MAP
No.
PROJECT
NUMBER
VENTURA BLVD./LAS POSAS
CAMARILLO BUSINESS CENTER
CPD-219 LSS/LCC
CPD-224 FARAG
/CPD-225 HIJI
-CPD-226 SELLECK
PROJECT
NUMBER DEVELOPER
4 PENDING PROJECTS
LOCATION
PICKWICK
SQ. FT. SITE/ACRES PARKING NO.
13,898 1.06 60 9
CARMEN 12,000 .74 45
VILLAGE AT THE PARK 89,088 3.58 138
AIRPORT NORTH 499,000 44.84 2,526 4
613,986 50.22 2,769
BUILDING
• CITY OF CAMAR1140
Community Development Department Monthly Report June 2006
COMMERCIAL
PROJECTS COMPLETED SINCE JANUARY 1, 2006
BUILDING
SQ. FT.
39,822
39,822
PROJECT
NUMBER DEVELOPER LOCATION
DAVENPORT CAMARILLO BUSINESS CENTER
1 PROJECT COMPLETED IN 2006
MAP
SITE/ACRES PARKING No.
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
PENDING PROJECTS
IAL 10
0 PROJECT
NUMBER DEVELOPER OCATION
BUILDING
SQ. FT. SITE/ACRES
CUP-257 YMCA VILLAGE AT THE PARK 13,900 4.98 136
1 PROJECT COMPLETED IN 2006 13,900 4.98 136
MAP
PARKING No.
1111
BUILDING MAP
SQ. FT, SITE/ACRES PARKING No.
1 PROJECT UNDER CONSTRUCTION 65,823 10.0 253 •
DEVELOPER LOCATION
CUP-226 LIBRARY LAS POSAS 65,823
PROJECT
NUMBER
BUILDING
SQ. FT, SITE/ACRES
10.0 PARKING
253
MAP
No.
PROJECTS APPROVED
PENDING PROJECTS
PROJECT
NUMBER DEVELOPER LOCATION
11•1111•111 3
• 11111111111111 7Z360
72,360
BUILDING
SQ. FT. SITE/ACRES
MAP
PARKING NO.
SUBTOTAL OF APPROVED INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS - NONE
ATER PHASES OF ONGOING INSTITUTIONAL PERMITS
PADRE SERRA
PEACE LUTHERAN
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
UPLAND ROAD
LOMA DRIVE
TEMPLE AVENUE
45,108
9,520
11111111M1111111 CUP-136
SUP-2117M
SUP-2714M 17,732
SUBTOTAL OF ONGOING INSTITUTIONAL PERMITS
3 TOTAL PROJECTS APPROVED
111111111•11 NO PROJECTS PENDING
PROJECT
NUMBER DEVELOPER °CATION
CITY OF CANMAILLO
Community Development Department Monthly Report June 2006
INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER
PROJECTS COMPLETED SINCE JANUARY 1„ 2006
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER TOTAL 5 PROJECTS 152,083 14,98 389
LDG SQ. FT
• SITE ACRES
INDUSTRIAL
APPROVED
1,038
EMI= 1111•11111113
510,486
96,624
65,823
24.26 5.45
10.0 COMMERCIAL
INSTITUTIONAL
1,269
1,973
0 585,266 26.51
38.25 0 INSTITUTIONAL
INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL
STATUS/TYPE NG
COMPLETED IN 2006
INDUSTRIAL
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
18,886
39,822
13,900
93 145
4.98 136
PENDING
19,876
613,986
0 2,446,299
1.18 50.22
45 2,769
0 162.94 7,938
1.50 0.59
INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL
INSTITUTIONAL
TOTAL
389,270
92,360
COMMERCIAL
INSTITUTIONAL
GUY OF CAMIIRLO
Community Development Department Monthly .Report June 2006
PROJECT SUMMARY
PERMITS ISSUED IN 2006
INDUSTRIAL (FOUR) 266,575 4.82 367
COMMERCIAL (Two) 64,850 4.0 207
INSTITUTIONAL (NoNE) 0 0 0
COMPLETED SINCE JANUARY 1, 1982: 11,924,566 SQUARE FEET (INDUSTRIAL: 8,569537; COMMERCIAL: Z783,167; INSTITUTIONAL: 5711862)
LOT 1 1
T-4227 SPANISH HILLS LOT 108
T-5248 THE PINNACLE LOT 35, 95-99
T-5367 ADDISON LANE LOTS 1, 5, 27-34, 61-66
T-5367 EASTON CROSSING LOTS 159-166, 185-193
T-2290 PASEO NOCHE
T-3318 BELLA VISTA
T-5368 CEDAR CREEK LOTS 33-35
T-5369 HAMPTON ROAD LOTS 17-21, 41, 42,55, 59, 68-76
T-5407 TUSCAN GROVE LOTS 6- 8, 10
1-5409 COURTYARDS LOT 1-3, 7-10, 19, 20, 22,27, 30-32, 34, 35 T-5412 CAMDEN LOTS 29-44
T-5446 CHARTER OAK Lars 1-6
1-5486 WICKFORD Lois 125-148, 197-205, 238-246, 309-317, 352-355, 357-360
RPD-158 AVALON BAY BUILDING 1, 2, 4, 5, 7
3 UNITS =El
1111311111MIMMIIII
RPD-142 DR. LING
2ND DWELLING
UNIT MISCELLANEOUS
LOT 1 ME1111111111
111•11 13
19 54
430 11
10 58
13 64
19 189
977
8 13
13 8
9 10
13 1
6 16
17 3
18 4
20 16
6 59
172
TOTAL DWELLINGS COMPLETED SINCE JANUARY 1, 2006
CIT OF CAMARITID
.CommunityPOTakipplept Department itfontilly.Repart June 2006
RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED SINCE JANUARY 1.2006
CITY . OF CAMARILLO
Community Development Department Monthly Report June 2006 LEGEND
SFD SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING COMP COMPLETED
ASFD ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING U/C UNDER CONSTRUCTION COND CONDOMINIUMS REM. REMAINING
TOWNH TOWNHOUSES POP. POPULATION
MH MOBILEHOME ALLOT. ALLOTMENTS
APT APARTMENT EX. EXEMPT
LS LOT SALES (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE)
APPROVED • UNDER CONSTRUCTION • DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENTS
'85 32
'84 32
T-39901
T-4372
0597
06 99
0 72
EX 6
04 29
T-3318
BELLA VISTA
LS 64 49 12 3 48 64 3 4
'86 12
'85 3
EX 1
LA MARINA
LS 15 13 2 0 6 15 0 0 5
T-4104-1 GARNIDALE
LS 16 11 1 4 16 16 '88 16 4 0 1
'92 29
'91 90
'90 25
T-4227 SPANISH HILLS
LS/SFD 156 154 0 2 6 156 2 0 6
DR HORTON
BROOKSHIRE
CONDOS
T-5572/
RPD-170 189 0 189 0 458 189 0 0 13
T-5572
CUP-279
DR HORTON
MIXED USE 13 0 0 13 33 13 06 13 13 0 13
LENNAR
ADDISON LN
SFD
Ex 3
03 134
04 47
05 64
06 19
T-53671
RPD-155 82 55 27 0 86 82
0 13 STANDARD PACIFIC
EASTON CROSSING
SFD
1-5367/
RPD-155 188 126 0 62 230 188
Ex 3
03 133
06 38
WESTERN PACIFIC
CEDAR CREEK
SFD
1-5368/
RPD-156 174 105 28 41 221 174 41 0 13
DR HORTON
HAMPTON ROADS
SFD
03 133
05 30
06 59
T-5369/
RPD-157 228 119 109 0 349 228 0 0 13
T-5403/
RPD-160
MULBERRY PL.
MULBERRY
PLACE
SFD
19 14 5 0 16 19 05 80 0 0 14
TRIMARK PACIFIC
TUSCAN GROVE
SFD
T-5407 10 4 6 0 19 10 04 10 0 0 8
PINNACLE
COURTYARDS
SFD
F-5409/
RPD-162 35 24 11 0 35 35 0 0 9
04 48
06 2
Ex 2
DR HORTON
CAMDEN
SFD
T-5412/
RPD-163 52 37 15 0 48 52 0 13
CITY OF CAMARILLO
Community Development Department Monthly Report June 2006 OLSON
TESORO WALK
TOWNHOMES
EX 13 r-5455/RPD-165 120 0 120 0 300 120 0 0 11 05 107
JEr-SKI
CORDOVA
SFD
1-5549 12 0 0 12 38 12 06 12 12 0 18
1-5477/
RPD-169
DR HORTON
CAMDEN SFD
05 24 52 24 28 0 90 52 0 0 13 06 28
DR HORTON
WICKFORD
TOWNHOMES
T-5486
RPD-164
EX 29 138 135 3 0 10 138 0 0 13 04 109
MENTA LANE
LS LD-289 4 3 0 1 3 12
POPRAWSKI
LS LD-328 4 0 0 4 13
VALLEY VISTA
SFD LD-344 1 0 1 0 3
VISTA DEL MAR
LS LD-335 4 2 0 2 6
LIN
LS LD-357 4 0 0 4 13
MC HALE
SFD LD-454 3 1 2 0 6
CASTRO
SFD LD- 457 0 1 0 3 1
MCCARTHY
SPD LD-495 2 0 0 2 3
PRAY
SFD LD-503 1 0 0 1 3
EX 37
04 132
05 78
AVALON BAY
APTS RPD-158 249 172 77 0 193 249 0 0 11
CALLE LA RODA
APTS RPD-167 13 0 0 13 42 13
MATHIS
APTS RPD-168 2 0 0 2 6
HIJI
APTS
RPD-174 06 58 92 0 0 92 208 92 58 13 EX 34
KRAGZEZ
APT CUP-267 2 0 0 2 6 16
THOMAS
APTS CUP-241 6 0 0 6 12 16
TAFr
APT CUP-268 06 10 12 0 0 12 25 10 10 0 16 EX 2
34 TOTAL PROJECTS 1,963 1,048 637 278 2,716 215 0
*EXEMPT FROM DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT
Page
CITY OF CeliVARfilD
Community Development Department Monthly Report June 2006
PENDING RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
*EXEMPT FROM DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENTS
" IDa scev Fr. CimAxiiii3O"
citiq Jur vwcum want wirx
The CAMARI LLO moNrhity
R.5paRT Is ON
CAMARILLO WEB.Stre
p-wwww at CAMAR Q aA Lets
CITY OF G4M4fiULLO
Community Development Department Monthly Report June 2006
RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
ESTIMATED TOTAL DWELLING UNITS (DECEMBER 31, 2005)**:
DWELLINGS COMPLETED IN JUNE: 60
ESTIMATED TOTAL DWELLING UNITS (JUNE 30, 2006):
24,259
344
24,603
457
2 TOTAL DWELLINGS COMPLETED IN 2006:
DWELLINGS PERMITTED IN JUNE: 32
DWELLINGS DEMOLISHED IN JUNE: 0
POPULATION
ESTIMATED POPULATION (DECEMBER 31, 2005)**:
POPULATION ADDED IN JUNE: 164
ESTIMATED POPULATION (JUNE 20061
TOTAL DWELLINGS PERMITTED IN 2006:
TOTAL DWELLINGS DEMOLISHED IN 2006:
-64,034
TOTAL POPULATION ADDED IN 2006: 977
CAMARILLO'S CITY BOUNDARIES INCLUDE 19.93 SQUARE MILES (12,753.78 ACRES) AIR QUALITY MGMT PLAN 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 ANNUAL GROWTH AREA/CITY POP. ALLOC. 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 POPULATION ALLOTTED BASED ON PERMITS 1,097 938 1,085 945 1,157 2,046 1,196 POPULATION REMAINING 253 412 265 405 193 0 154
PERCENT POPULATION ALLOTTED 81% 69% 80% 70% 86% *152% 89% NUMBER OF UNITS PERMITTED 379 283 409 300 429 710 457
NUMBER OF UNITS COMPLETED 331 494 332 393 225 598 344
*THIS INCLUDES POPULATION RESERVED IN THE AQMP BANK.
**DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 2006
ZONING CLEARANCES ISSUED
'
June Year-to-Date
2006
Air Conditioning Units 10 26
Patio Covers/Enclosures 19 116
Room Additions 6 55
Pools & Spas 17 55
Wall/Fences 4 25
Solar Panel 1 8
Accessory Building 15 80
Second Dwelling Unit 0 4
Miscellaneous
_
22 152
,
..,,
LL: (FACOMMON FOLDER1COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTIMONTHLY REPORT 2006WONTHLY REPORT JUNE 2006) P ge 15
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real Technical Appendices
Draft MND
APPENDIX B
AIR QUALITY DATA
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real Technical Appendices
Draft MND
Operational Emissions
EXPLANATION OF CHANGES MADE TO DEFAULT SETTINGS IN URBEMIS 2002 Project Name: Camarillo Commercial Center Project
nalysis Scenario: Proposed Project - 2008
Vehicle Trip Rates
Vehicle Fleet Mix
State-Wide Vehicle Type Total
Automobiles 55.0%
Light-Duty Trucks <3,750 pounds 15.0%
Light-Duty Trucks 3,751-5,750 pounds 16.2%
Medium-Duty Trucks 5,751-8,500 pounds 7.2%
Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks 8,501-10,000 pounds 1.1%
Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks 10,001-14,000 pounds 0.4%
Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks 14,001-33,000 pou 1.0%
Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks 33,001-60,000 poun 0.9%
Line-Haul Vehicles 0.0%
Urban Buses 0.2%
Motorcycles 1.7%
School Buses 0.1%
Motor Homes 1.2%
ITE
Code Project Land Use: Truck % ADT Truck #
820 Shopping Center 2.10% 19,306 405
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
Project Totals: 19,306 405
Project Truck %: 2.10%
Vehicle Type Total
The following pages include the printed results of the air pollutant emissions modeling for one of the land use components of the proposed project. The air emissions modeling was conducted using the URBEMIS 2002 for Windows computer program developed for the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District in May 2003.
URBEMIS 2002 is programmed with EMFAC 2002 emission factors developed by the California Air Resources As part of this analysis, changes have been made to several of the default values programmed into URBEMIS 2002. These changes were made to more accurately reflect the nature of the proposed land use. Each of The default vehicle trip rate values were changed to be consistent with the traffic impact analysis prepared URBEMIS 2002 is programmed with the following state-wide average vehicle fleet mix:
However, this state-wide average fleet mix is not appropriate for the majority of land use analyses. The project land use assessed in this analysis is identified below along with the total percentage of trucks (medium and heavy) that are expected for this land use. The following vehicle mix was calculated based on the percentage of trucks associated with this land use. The percentage of trucks for each land use were
10.60% Total Truck
URBEMIS 2002 Changes - 2008 Christopher A. Joseph Associates 12/7/2006 EXPLANATION OF CHANGES MADE TO DEFAULT SETTINGS IN URBEMIS 2002 Project Name: Camarillo Commercial Center Project
nalysis Scenario: Proposed Project - 2009
Vehicle Trip Rates
Vehicle Fleet Mix
State-Wide Vehicle Type Total
Automobiles 54.9%
Light-Duty Trucks <3,750 pounds 15.1%
Light-Duty Trucks 3,751-5,750 pounds 16.1%
Medium-Duty Trucks 5,751-8,500 pounds 7.3%
Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks 8,501-10,000 pounds 1.1%
Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks 10,001-14,000 pounds 0.3%
Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks 14,001-33,000 pou 1.0%
Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks 33,001-60,000 poun 0.9%
Line-Haul Vehicles 0.0%
Urban Buses 0.2%
Motorcycles 1.6%
School Buses 0.1%
Motor Homes 1.4%
ITE
Code Project Land Use: Truck % ADT Truck #
820 Shopping Center 2.10% 19,306 405
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
Project Totals: 19,306 405
Project Truck %: 2.10%
Vehicle Type Total
However, this state-wide average fleet mix is not appropriate for the majority of land use analyses. The project land use assessed in this analysis is identified below along with the total percentage of trucks (medium and heavy) that are expected for this land use. The following vehicle mix was calculated based on the percentage of trucks associated with this land use. The percentage of trucks for each land use were
10.60% Total Truck
The following pages include the printed results of the air pollutant emissions modeling for one of the land use components of the proposed project. The air emissions modeling was conducted using the URBEMIS 2002 for Windows computer program developed for the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District in May 2003.
URBEMIS 2002 is programmed with EMFAC 2002 emission factors developed by the California Air Resources As part of this analysis, changes have been made to several of the default values programmed into URBEMIS 2002. These changes were made to more accurately reflect the nature of the proposed land use. Each of The default vehicle trip rate values were changed to be consistent with the traffic impact analysis prepared URBEMIS 2002 is programmed with the following state-wide average vehicle fleet mix:
URBEMIS 2002 Changes - 2009 Christopher A. Joseph Associates 12/7/2006 EXPLANATION OF CHANGES MADE TO DEFAULT SETTINGS IN URBEMIS 2002 Project Name: Camarillo Commercial Center Project
nalysis Scenario: Proposed Project - 2010
Vehicle Trip Rates
Vehicle Fleet Mix
State-Wide Vehicle Type Total
Automobiles 54.7%
Light-Duty Trucks <3,750 pounds 15.2%
Light-Duty Trucks 3,751-5,750 pounds 16.2%
Medium-Duty Trucks 5,751-8,500 pounds 7.3%
Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks 8,501-10,000 pounds 1.1%
Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks 10,001-14,000 pounds 0.3%
Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks 14,001-33,000 pou 1.0%
Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks 33,001-60,000 poun 0.9%
Line-Haul Vehicles 0.0%
Urban Buses 0.2%
Motorcycles 1.6%
School Buses 0.1%
Motor Homes 1.4%
ITE
Code Project Land Use: Truck % ADT Truck #
820 Shopping Center 2.10% 19,306 405
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
Project Totals: 19,306 405
Project Truck %: 2.10%
Vehicle Type Total
However, this state-wide average fleet mix is not appropriate for the majority of land use analyses. The project land use assessed in this analysis is identified below along with the total percentage of trucks (medium and heavy) that are expected for this land use. The following vehicle mix was calculated based on the percentage of trucks associated with this land use. The percentage of trucks for each land use were
10.60% Total Truck
The following pages include the printed results of the air pollutant emissions modeling for one of the land use components of the proposed project. The air emissions modeling was conducted using the URBEMIS 2002 for Windows computer program developed for the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District in May 2003.
URBEMIS 2002 is programmed with EMFAC 2002 emission factors developed by the California Air Resources As part of this analysis, changes have been made to several of the default values programmed into URBEMIS 2002. These changes were made to more accurately reflect the nature of the proposed land use. Each of The default vehicle trip rate values were changed to be consistent with the traffic impact analysis prepared URBEMIS 2002 is programmed with the following state-wide average vehicle fleet mix:
URBEMIS 2002 Changes - 2010 Christopher A. Joseph Associates 12/7/2006
MITIGATION OF LONG-TERM PROJECT GENERATED EMISSIONS
Mitigating Emissions Through an On-Site TDM Program and Contribution to an Off-Site TDM Fund Project Name: Camarillo Selleck Properties
Proposed Project Emissions
Year of Project Completion: 2008
Percent of Daily Emissions
Emissions Source ROC NOx ROC NOx ROC NOx ROC NOx
Proposed Shopping Center 92.3 94.5 86.1 87.6 79.7 80.6 100.0% 100.0% Total Project Emissions 92.3 94.5 86.1 87.6 79.7 80.6 100.0% 100.0% Less Existing Development Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 92.3 94.5 86.1 87.6 79.7 80.6
Less On-Site TDM Program Credit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 92.3 94.5 86.1 87.6 79.7 80.6
Less Significance Threshold 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Total Significant Emissions (A) 67.3 69.5 61.1 62.6 54.7 55.6 Emission were calculated using the URBEMIS 2002 computer model.
Unit Cost Calculations
Annual CPI Change (D) = C - B / Years between B & C
Future CPI (E) = B + ( D x years between B and E )
Future Unit Cost per Pound per Day (G) = F x ( E / B )
BCD
January January Annual Predicted Predicted Predicted
Current 2000 2005 CPI 2008 2009 2010
Year CPI CPI Change CPI CPI CPI
2005 167.9 195.4 5.5 211.9 217.4 222.9
ROC NOx ROC NOx ROC NOx ROC NOx
Unit Cost of Pound of Pollutant Reduced $5.18 $7.54 $6.54 $9.52 $6.71 $9.76 $6.88 $10.01 CPI = Consumer price index value for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, California region.
Calculation methodology from Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, Section 7.5.3.
Number of Days per Year of Project Operation
Number of Days per year of Operation (J) = Total I / Total H HI
Vehicle Days of Vehicle
Trips Operation Trips
Proposed Land Use per Day per Year per Year
Proposed Shopping Center 19,306 365 7,046,690
Totals 19,306 7,046,690
Number of Days per Year of Project Operation (weighted average) (J) 365 TDM Fund Calculations
Annual Cost of Pollutants Reduced = A x G x J
ROC NOx ROC NOx ROC NOx
Daily Emissions Over Significance Threshold in Pounds per Day (A) 67.3 69.5 61.1 62.6 54.7 55.6 Cost per Unit of Pollutant Reduced (G) $6.54 $9.52 $6.71 $9.76 $6.88 $10.01 Number of Days per Year of Project Operation (J)
Annual Cost $160,542 $241,326 $149,457 $223,144 $137,325 $203,032 ROC NOx
Total Cost for 3 Years per Pollutant - TDM Fund Contribution is the Higher of the Two $447,324 $667,502 Calculation methodology from Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, Section 7.5.3. 2008
Emissions in Pounds per Day
2008 2009 2010
F
2000 2008 2009
365
G
E
2010
Analysis Year
2008 2009 2010
AQ Mitigation Christopher A. Joseph Associates 12/7/2006 City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real Technical Appendices
Draft MND
Future CO Concentrations
SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Camarillo Commercail Center Project
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: El Rio
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 3.5
Persistence Factor: 0.6
Analysis Year: 2008
Roadway Data
Intersection: Las Posas Road & Daily Drive
Analysis Condition: Future (2008) With Project Traffic Volumes No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.
North-South Roadway: Las Posas Road At Grade 6 15 10
East-West Roadway: Daily Drive At Grade 2 15 10
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes NN
32 1,506 57 44 1,023 63
W <v> E W <v> E
41 ^ ^ 32 84 ^ ^ 68
33 > < 33 23 > < 45
84 v v 444 93 v v 693
<^> <^>
92 701 444 116 1,514 561
SS
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 3,271 N-S Road: 4,000
E-W Road: 1,043 E-W Road: 1,453
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 BC
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2 E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,271 6.37 1.98 1.27 1.02 0.73 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 1,043 6.37 0.25 0.18 0.15 0.11 Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations 2 Las Posas at Daily Christopher A. Joseph Associates
SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Camarillo Commercail Center Project
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: El Rio
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 3.5
Persistence Factor: 0.6
Analysis Year: 2008
Roadway Data
Intersection: Las Posas Road & Ponderosa Drive
Analysis Condition: Future (2008) With Project Traffic Volumes No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.
North-South Roadway: Las Posas Road At Grade 6 15 15
East-West Roadway: Ponderosa Drive At Grade 4 15 15
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes NN
11 1,053 131 12 744 112
W <v> E W <v> E
11 ^ ^ 21 11 ^ ^ 121
90 > < 30 80 > < 90
185 v v 307 113 v v 273
<^> <^>
84 505 146 253 1,012 421
SS
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 2,280 N-S Road: 2,816
E-W Road: 725 E-W Road: 1,097
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 BC
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2 E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,280 6.37 1.38 0.89 0.71 0.51 East-West Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 1.7 725 6.37 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.08 Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations 1 Las Posas at Ponderosa Christopher A. Joseph Associates SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Camarillo Commercail Center Project
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: El Rio
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 3.5
Persistence Factor: 0.6
Analysis Year: 2008
Roadway Data
Intersection: Las Posas Road & Ventura Boulevard
Analysis Condition: Future (2008) With Project Traffic Volumes No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.
North-South Roadway: Las Posas Road At Grade 6 15 10
East-West Roadway: Ventura Boulevard At Grade 4 15 10
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes NN
417 1,096 151 617 755 485
W <v> E W <v> E
248 ^ ^ 54 1,122 ^ ^ 432
62 > < 53 188 > < 223
159 v v 70 364 v v 192
<^> <^>
165 635 73 405 1,231 118
SS
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 2,601 N-S Road: 4,642
E-W Road: 1,104 E-W Road: 2,919
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 BC
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2 E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,601 6.37 1.57 1.01 0.81 0.58 East-West Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,104 6.37 0.23 0.18 0.15 0.12 Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations 3 Las Posas at Ventura Christopher A. Joseph Associates City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real Technical Appendices
Draft MND
Appendix C
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Preliminary Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation,
50 Acre Agricultural Property,
South of 101 Freeway and Bajo Agua,
City of Camarillo, California
W.O. 9017
December 20, 2005
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE DESCRIPTION 2
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 2
PROPOSED PROJECT 2
FIELD INVESTIGATION 3
GEOLOGIC SETTING 4
FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 5
PROBABILISTIC "SIMPLE PRESCRIBED PARAMETER VALUE" (SPPV). 6 SEISMIC DISCUSSION 6
EARTH MATERIALS 7
ALLUVIUM (Qal) 7
GROUNDWATER 8
LABORATORY TESTING 8
MOISTURE-DENSITY 9
COMPACTION AND EXPANSION TESTS 9
SHEAR TEST 9
CONSOLIDATION TEST 9
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS 10
LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX 10
COMPACTION AND EXPANSION TESTS 10
RESISTIVITY 11
SOLUBLE SULFATES 12
pH 13
HYDROCONSOLIDATION POTENTIAL 13
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 13
GENERAL DISCUSSION 14
DISCUSSION OF LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ASSESSMENT 14
Liquefaction-Induced Settlement Potential 14
Lateral Spreading and Surface Manifestations 15
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15
REMOVALS 15
TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS 16
COMPACTION STANDARDS 17
GRADING - ENGINEERED FILLS 17
UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL 19
FOUNDATION SYSTEMS 19
Conventional Foundations and Slab-on-Grade 20
SETTLEMENT 22
RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS 23
FACTORS OF SAFETY 23
CORROSION POTENTIAL 24
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTIONS 24
DRAINAGE 24
CONSTRUCTION MONITORING 25
CLOSURE /6
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
3 ENCLOSLTRE LIST:
Reference List Plate R
Location Map Plate 1.1
Plot Map Plates 1.2 (in pocket)
Cross Sections Plates 1.3 (in pocket)
Boring Logs Plates B13 to B22
CPT Sounding Logs Plates CPT6 to CPT10
Laboratory Test Summary Plate LS.1 to LS.4
Particle Size Analysis Plate PS.1
Shear Test Diagrams Plates S-B14.5 to S-B22.10
Consolidation Diagram Plates C-B13.2.5 to C-B22.25
Atterberg Limits Results Plate AL
Seismicity Analyses Appendix A
Corrosivity Results Appendix B
Seismic Settlement Analyses Appendix C
Referenced Report Data Appendix D
Typical Details Appendix E
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
ECDL.A.BS-WESTLAKE VILLAE
Foundation and Soils Engineering, Geology
31119 Via Colinas, Suite 502 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Voice: (818) 889-2562 (805) 495-2197
Fax: (818) 889-2995 (805) 379-2603
December 20, 2005
W.O. 9017
Selleck Properties, Inc.
5655 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 301
Westlake Village, California 91362
Attention: Mr. David Ghirardelli
SUBJECT: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Property, South of 101 Freeway, and Bajo Aqua,
City of Camarillo, California.
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, our firm has undertaken a study of the geotechnical conditions at the subject property (Plate 1.1). Our purpose was to evaluate the distribution and engineering characteristics of the earth materials that occur at the site so that we might assess their impact upon the proposed development of the property.
The scope of work for this project included the following tasks:
• mapping of the site and its immediate vicinity;
• logging of 5 Cone Penetrometer Tests (CPT) soundings; • logging and sampling of 10 exploratory borings excavated with either a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger, or rotary wash rig;
• selected laboratory testing of the retrieved samples; • review of previous work which was judged both pertinent to our purpose and readily available to our office;
• soil engineering analysis of the assembled data;
• preparation of this report.
Field data and the approximate locations of exploratory excavations are shown on the enclosed Plot Map (Plate 1.2). Descriptions of the materials encountered in the exploratory excavations are provided on the enclosed logs (Plates B13 to B22, CPT6 to CPT 10). Cross sections A-A' to D-D' are included in Plate 1.3. Pertinent laboratory test results are also Selleck Properties, Inc. 2 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
provided herein. Our findings are presented in the following sections, followed by a discussion of these findings and geotechnical recommendations.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The property consists of nearly 50 acres located east of Bajo Aqua Road, south of the 101 Freeway, and north of the Camarillo airport. The property is currently covered with newly planted crops by the existing tenant farmer. The surface gently slopes to the southwest at about
0.007 ft/ft. Site access is limited due to agricultural activities, therefore, several roads were designed through the property previous to planting crops. The fields are watered by surface sprinklers and drip lines throughout the subject site.
According to the County of Ventura Water Resources Division, there are no water wells existing within the property limits. Drainage for the property may currently be accomplished by the use of tile drains, which is common for this type of land use in this area.
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
There have been previous investigations in the vicinity of the subject site. Adjacent investigations include Earth Systems (July 26, 2002) and Geolabs-Westlake Village (December 16, 2005) conducted geotechnical investigations for commercial Phase 1 development of the easterly adjacent agriculture field, Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. (October 26, 2000) conducted an investigation of the nearby Home Depot site, and Geolabs-Westlake Village conducted a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation of the property westerly adjacent. These reports were used for reference and comparison of the subject site characteristics and findings of our investigation.
PROPOSED PROJECT
Specific buildings are not known at this time; however, the proposed development of the property consists of one to two-story commercial buildings with associated parking areas (see GEOLABS - ‘VESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 3 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
Figure 1.2). For purposes of this report we have assumed the following anticipated commercial foundation loading:
• Columns single story <80 Kips (maximum)
• Mezzanine 150 Kips (maximum)
• Walls <6,000 lbs./ft
The grading of the subject site is currently unknown, but is anticipated to be minor assuming that there will be no basements; therefore, conventional grading equipment can be used. Maximum cuts and fills are anticipated to be less than 5 feet. There is a potential for truck wells to be incorporated with some of the proposed commercial buildings. This may be cause for localized cuts that are deeper than 5 feet.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our office selected several exploratory locations in order to characterize the nature of the earth materials throughout the site. To limit crop destruction the field activities were conducted in locations where crops were not planted and in the three north-south orientated center roads created between the planted rows.
The subsurface exploration began on August 31, 2005 with 5 cone penetration test (CPT) soundings CPT6 to CPT10. The soundings were performed using a 23-ton truck-mounted CPT rig provided by Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. The cone tip has a cross-sectional area of 10 square centimeters. The CPT is capable of obtaining tip pressure and side friction data at 2 inch (0.05 meter) intervals. The cone tip was pushed to a depth of fifty feet.
Exploratory borings were performed by two types of drill rigs. A rotary wash drill rig was used for borings B-13, B-16, B-18, and B-19 to a depth of 50 feet. Samples were driven with a 140 lb. automatic safety hammer lifted 30 inches. The estimated efficiency of the automatic hammer is approximately 90 percent. Drilling rod was used to allow the hammer to remain above
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 4 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
the auger. The boring diameter was approximately six inches (outer diameter). The samplers consisted of both a SPT split spoon sampler and a lined California split spoon sampler (2.375 inch ID.).
Borings B-14, B-15, B-17, B-20, B-21, and B-22 extend to a depth of 25 feet. These borings were performed with a hollow-stem auger drill rig. Samples were driven with a 140 lb. automatic safety hammer lifted 30 inches. The estimated efficiency of the automatic hammer is approximately 90 percent (Kovacs et.al. 1978). The boring diameter was approximately eight inches (outer diameter). The samplers consisted of a SPT Split Spoon Sampler and a lined California split spoon sampler (2.375 inch id.).
Both disturbed (bulk) and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained from each boring. These samples were secured and transported to our laboratory for testing.
A field investigation, conducted by Earth Systems in July 2002, of a previous subject site investigation was reviewed and compared with the findings of our investigations for this report.
The attributed boring logs are included as Appendix C of this report. Pertinent adjacent property investigations were also reviewed and used for data comparison.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The site is located in the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province of Southern California.
The Transverse Ranges are essentially east-west trending elongate mountain ranges and valleys that are geologically complex. Structurally, the province reflects the north-south compressional forces that are the result of a bend in the San Andreas fault. As the Pacific Plate (westerly side of the fault) and the North American Plate (easterly side) move past one another along the fault the bend creates a deflection which allows for large accumulations of compressional energy.
Some of these forces are spent in deforming the cmst into roughly east-west trending folds and secondary faults. The most significant of these faults are typically reverse or thrust faults, which
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Sell eck Properties, Inc. 5 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
allow for the crustal shortening taking place regionally. The site lies in the northern portion of the province, in the City of Camarillo.
According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, the bedrock of the subject site consists of Tertiary to Pleistocene formations; Lower Topanga Formation, Conejo Volcanics, Las Posas Sand, and the Saugus Formation (SHZR, 2002). The surficial sediments are late Holocene alluvial fan deposits consisting of loose Sand, and Silty Sand and minor clay soils labeled as Qyf2 on SHZR, 2002, Plate 1.1 (Appendix A).
FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
The subject site contains no known active or potentially active faults, nor is it within an Earthquake Fault Zone designated along faults judged sufficiently active and well defined by the State Geologist. Therefore, the potential for ground rupture is considered to be very low.
However, the property is situated within the seismically active Southern California region and ground shaking is likely to occur due to earthquakes caused by movement along nearby faults.
One method of seismic design is to utilize the Static Force procedure (structures less than five stories) presented in the California Building Code (C.B.C.), which can be used to estimate base shear/on-site acceleration based upon site location, occupancy classifications, and the planned structural system. For the 2001 C.B.C. this site has a Seismic Zone Factor, Z of 0.4 (Tbl 164). The Soil Profile Type is considered SD (Tbl 16-J). The Seismic Source Type is considered B (Tbl 16-U) for the Simi-Santa Rosa fault, and the Near Source Factors are estimated as Naof
1.3 and N, of 1.6 (Tbl 16-S & 16-T).
Another method of seismic design is to assess the potential on-site ground acceleration based upon a site's proximity to specific, known faults. This relies upon prediction of a maximum earthquake for each fault considered, relationships that characterize the diminution of ground response with distance from the causative event, and relationships that assess impact of
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 6 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
site-characteristics upon ground response. Two commonly used methods of estimating possible on-site accelerations are the deterministic seismic hazard analysis method (DSHA) and the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis method (PS HA). The deterministic method is of interest in evaluating how individual faults affect the site, and when a design is based on a deterministic analysis (such as a Caltrans structure). The probabilistic methods are of interest in evaluating the design-basis earthquake as prescribed by the C.B.C.. The probabilistic type analyses can be further separated into a site specific PSHA and a probabilistic analysis using the "Simple Prescribed Parameter Value" Method (SPPV). The results of probabilistic analyses using these methods are discussed below. Analysis summaries are attached in the Seismicity Appendix, Appendix A.
PROBABILISTIC "SIMPLE PRESCRIBED PARAMETER VALUE" (SPPV).
We have employed the "Simple Prescribed Parameter Value" Method (SPPV) for estimating the peak ground acceleration (PGA) for a 10 percent exceedance probability for an exposure period of 50 years (C.B.C. Design-Basis Earthquake, 475 year return period). As discussed in CGS Seismic Hazard Evaluation Reports, the attenuation relationships of Boore et.al. (1997), Campbell (1997), Sadigh et.al. (1997), and Youngs et.al. (1997) were utilized to generate PGA maps. We have reproduced Figure 3.3 of Open File Report SHZR-054 (for the Camarillo 7.5 Minute Quadrangle) in Appendix A to illustrate the project location with respect to SPPV PGA values for Alluvium conditions. A peak ground acceleration of 0.65g is estimated for a C.B.C. design-level event. A design earthquake magnitude of is the predominant earthquake, per Figure 3.4 of Open File Report SHZR-054.
SEISMIC DISCUSSION
The methodology in the Uniform Building Code has been to protect and preserve life and limb. Building designs using previous C.B.C. codes (pre-1997) has apparently been successful
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 7 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
in that regard. With the acceptance of the 1997 C.B.C., the seismic design of structures has generally become more conservative. On that basis, we recommend minimum structural design be in compliance with the seismic design provisions of the C.B.C. Though still not performance based, this most recent Building Code will enhance performance over designs based on previous codes.
Design per the C.B.C. (and hence adoption of the philosophy that life and limb need be protected) is commensurate with the local building ordinance. Being that higher standards of design (i.e. that intend to minimize property damage in the case of a much less likely event) have not been adopted by the governing agency (which is responsible for setting such standards), use of a higher acceleration (than provided by the C.B.C.) is discretionary.
EARTH MATERIALS
The subject property is underlain by alluvium consisting of alternating layers of Silt, Clay, Silty Sand, and poorly-graded Sand layers to the maximum depth explored of 50 feet (see Plates B13 to B22 and CPT6 to CPT10). Cross sections for the site are presented in Plate 1.3. A brief description of each material encountered in our exploration if provided in the following sections.
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
This unit was explored in all of the borings. In general the subgrade soils consist primarily of alternating and combined layers of soft to medium stiff silt and clay having average values of moisture content of 32 percent and dry density of about 88 pcf. Locally these materials have hard zones.
There are two continuous sand units encountered in all the borings. The upper sand unit consists of medium dense to dense silty sand and sand with top elevations ranging from 68 to 75 ft-msl and bottom elevations ranging from 64 to 79 ft-msl having an approximate thickness
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 8 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
ranging from 2 to 8 feet. This upper sand unit has average values of moisture content of 20 percent and dry density of 104 pcf. The lower sand unit consists of silty sand and sand with clay and silt lenses with approximate top elevations ranging from 57 to 62 ft-msl and bottom elevations ranging from 47 to 52 ft-msl. This lower sand unit has average values of moisture content of 21 percent and dry density of 99 pcf having an approximate thickness ranging from 10 to 14 feet. A discontinuous sand layer consisting of clayey sand and sand exists at the top at an elevation of 32 ft-msl and bottom elevations ranging from 27 to 37 ft-rnsl with approximate thickness of about 5 feet. This discontinuous sand unit has moisture content in the range of 17 percent.
The laboratory results are presented in the boring log Plates B13-B22, and the laboratory summary tables (Plates PL.1 to PL.4)
GROUNDWATER
The groundwater was encountered in all site borings ranging in depth from 4 to 7 feet below the ground surface (ft-bgs). Local state well data, obtained from the Ventura County Public Works Department, Historically high groundwater levels are from 10 to 20 ft-bgs according to Seismic Hazard Zone Report 054 from 2003 (See Appendix A, Plate 1.2).
According to the County of Ventura Water Resources Division there are no water wells existing within the property limits, however historical high water level depths in local state wells range from 19 to 170 feet in wells screened from 253 to 1000 ft-bgs.
LABORATORY TESTING
Undisturbed and bulk samples of soil and rock materials encountered at the site were collected during the course of our fieldwork. Selected laboratory tests completed on the retrieved samples are described below. A comprehensive summary of laboratory test results is provided in Plates LS.1 to LS.4.
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 9 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
MOISTURE-DENSITY
The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each undisturbed sample. Dry unit weight is expressed in pounds per cubic foot and the moisture content represents a percentage of the dry unit weight. This test data is presented in the attached boring logs B13 to B22.
COMPACTION AND EXPANSION TESTS
To determine the compaction characteristics of the onsite materials, compaction tests are performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557-00. The maximum dry density is reported in pounds per cubic foot and the optimum moisture content as a percentage of the maximum dry density. Expansion index tests were performed in accordance with the criteria in C.B.C. 18-2.
SHEAR TEST
Shear tests were performed in a Direct Shear Machine of the strain control type. The rate of deformation is approximately 0.01 inches per minute. Shearing occurred under a variety of confining loads in order to determine the Coulomb shear strength parameters. The test was performed on undisturbed samples in an artificially saturated condition. The test results are presented graphically on Plates S-B14.5 to S-B22.10.
CONSOLIDATION TEST
Settlement predictions of the soil's behavior under load are made on the basis of consolidation tests. A one-inch high sample is loaded in a geometric progression and the resulting deformation is recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are placed in contact with the sample (top and bottom) to permit addition and release of pore fluid. The sample is inundated at a selected load during the progression. Selected samples had data recorded at timed intervals for specific loads to obtain data for time-rate evaluations. Results are plotted on the enclosed Consolidation-Pressure Curves (Plates C-B13.2.5-C-B22.25).
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 10 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
The distribution of various particle sizes in selected representative samples were determined using both mechanical sieves and hydrometer tests. The percentage and distribution of particles larger than a #200 sieve (0.075 mm) are determined using mechanical processes.
Particle distributions for fine-grained soils are determined using hydrometer methods. The particle distribution is presented as the relative percentages of sand, silt and clay particles in each sample tested. The results are presented in Table 1 below and Plate PS.1.
Laboratory Test Data - Table 1
Gravel Sand Silt Clay
Sample Description (oh) (%) (%) (%)
B14@1Oft Sand 0 85 6 9
[email protected] Silty Sand 0 62 25 13
[email protected] Clay 0 9 48 43
[email protected] Silty Sand 0 70 18 12
[email protected] Sand 0 90 7 3
B21@0-5ft Clay 0 17 45 38
B22@5ft Sandy Silt 0 46 44 10
LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX
The Liquid Limit, Plasticity Limit, and Plasticity Index for selected cohesive soil samples were determined in the laboratory. The Standard Test Method (ASTM D4318-84) was utilized.
These parameters are used in the classification of cohesive soils.
A cohesive plastic soil may go through four consistency states as the moisture content of the soil is increased. These states are the solid state, the semisolid state, the plastic state, and the liquid state. The limits between these consistency states are the Shrinkage limit, Plastic limit, and the Liquid Limit (respectively). These limits are often referred to as the Atterberg limits.
The Plasticity Index is defined as the numeric value of the Liquid limit minus the numeric value of the Plastic limit (see Plate AL).
COMPACTION AND EXPANSION TESTS
To determine the compaction characteristics of the onsite materials, compaction tests are
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 11 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557-00. The maximum dry density is reported in pounds per cubic foot and the optimum moisture content as a percentage of the maximum dry density. Expansion index tests were performed in accordance with the criteria in C.B.C. 18-2.
The results of these tests are included in Table 2.
Laboratory Test Data — Table 2
Maximum Optimum
Dry Moisture
Density Content Expansion
Sample Description (PCF) (%) Index
B14@0-5' Silt w/ Clay 117 12 67
B21@0-5' Clay 113 16 59
RESISTIVITY
The laboratory test for resistivity is performed in order to determine the relative quantity of soluble salts present in a specific soil. It is most often used as a method to determine the likelihood of corrosion potential for steel pipe, pile, or reinforced concrete structures. The resistivity test is also a means for determining the necessity of further chemical analysis of the soil or water for pH, sulfate and chloride-ion content.
A representative sample of the earth materials encountered at the site was delivered to M.J.Schiff & Associates, Inc. where it was tested for resistivity. The test method utilized is in conformity with the procedures outlined in California Test 532/643. Resistivity of soils is inversely proportional to corrosiveness. Thus, the analysis helps in determining whether the soils may have a deleterious affect on underground metallic structures. The laboratory results from the westerly adjacent agricultural land (GWV, December 16, 2005, W.O. 9016) are included in Appendix B and a summary of the laboratory results is provided in Table 3 below.
A generally accepted correlation between resistivity and soil corrosiveness toward metals is provided below:
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 12 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
Resistivity
(Ohm-Centimeter) Corrosiveness
<1,000 Severely Corrosive
1,000 - 2,000 Corrosive
2,000 - 10,000 Increasingly Moderate
> 10,000 Increasingly Mild
Laboratory Test Results-Table 3
Resistivity
Sample Description Status (ohm-centimeter)
B1@0-5ft Clay as-received 570,000
Saturated 680
SOLUBLE SULFATES
A sample was taken from each lot and submitted to our laboratory for a soluble sulfate analysis. Please refer to Table 4 for a list of the results. When test results exceed 150 ppm, special considerations for concrete design are appropriate per C.B.C. Table 19-A-4. This table contains specific requirements for concrete that is exposed to sulfate.
TABLE 19-A-4 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE
EXPOSED TO SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS
SULFATE
EXPOSURE
WATER-SOLUBLE
SULFATE (SO4) IN
SOIL,
PERCENTAGE BY
WEIGHT
SULFATE (SO4 )
IN WATER, ppm
CEMENT
TYPE
Maximum WaterCementitious
Materials Ratio, by
Weight, NormalWeight Aggregate
Concrete'
Minimum F'c
Normal Weight and
Lightweight
Aggregate
Concrete, psi'
x 0.00689 for MPa
Negligible 0.00- 0.10 0- 150 -- -- --
Moderate 0.10- 0.20 150- 1,500 II, IP(MS),
IS(MS)
0.50 4,000
Severe 0.20- 2.00 1,500- 10,000 V 0.45 4,500
Very severe Over 2,00 Over 10,000 V plus
pozzolan3
0.45 4,500
2 A lower water-cementitious materials ratio or higher strength may be required for low permeability or for protection against corrosion of embedded items or freezing and thawing (Table 19-A-2).
Seawater
Pozzolan that has been determined by test or service record to improve sulfate resistance when used in concrete containing Type V cement.
Laboratory Test Results-Table 4
Sample Description Soluble Sulfates n ty wt.)
B1@0-5ft Clay 0.05
In summary the near surface soil conditions were found to be negligible to moderately deleterious to concrete.
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 13 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
pLEI
The pH of a selected sample was tested indicating a slightly basic result of 7.5.
HYDROCONSOLIDATION POTENTIAL
Hydroconsolidation is a condition where dry or moist soils undergo settlement upon being wetted. In many cases no additional surcharge load is necessary to trigger the hydroconsolidation.
The potential for hydroconsolidation has been evaluated based upon the results of consolidation tests performed on samples taken from the excavated borings. In general, the consolidation tests indicate less than or equal to one percent hydroconsolidation. The exception is in boring B2 at 12.5 feet, where 2.5 percent hydroconsolidation was indicated. Based on our data, and considering the groundwater conditions, we consider the alluvial materials to have a low potential for hydroconsolidation.
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Liquefaction is a condition where the soil undergoes continued deformation at a constant low residual stress due to the build-up of high porewater pressures. The possibility of liquefaction occurring at a given site is dependent upon the occurrence of a significant earthquake in the vicinity; sufficient groundwater to cause high pore pressures; and on the grain size, relative density, and confining pressures of the soil at the site.
As part of our analyses of the liquefaction potential on the site, we have performed 5 CPT soundings and 10 borings to obtain subsurface data. Based upon our subsurface iVormation and review of published data, groundwater is present on the site within the upper fifty feet of the soil profile. The subsurface soils of the site are predominantly silts and clays; however, from 8 to 30 ft-bgs contains sand layers. This, coupled with the likelihood of significant ground shaking, and the history of the site, was cause to perform further evaluation of the liquefaction potential at the
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 14 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
site.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
During liquefaction the sedimentary soils, primarily recently deposited sands and silts, below the water table lose strength and behave as a viscous liquid rather than a solid. This occurs when these soils undergo continued deformation at a constant low residual stress due to the build-up of high porewater pressures.
In the liquefied condition, soil may deform with little shear resistance. The amount of soil deformation following liquefaction depends on the looseness of the material, the depth, thickness, and areal extent of the liquefied layers, the ground slope, and the distribution of loads applied by structures. When liquefaction is accompanied by ground displacement or ground failure, it can be destructive. Adverse effects of liquefaction can include ground oscillation, lateral spreads, flow failures, loss of bearing strength, settlement, and increased pressures on retaining walls.
DISCUSSION OF LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ASSESSMENT
As part of our analyses of the liquefaction potential on the site, we have performed several CPT soundings and borings to obtain subsurface data for use in analyses. Based upon our data, coarse-grained sedimentary soils and groundwater are present on the site within the upper fifty feet of the soil profile.
To address the possible impacts of liquefaction, the practice of geotechnical engineering currently has methods of approximating the potential liquefaction-induced settlement, lateral spreading, and the possibility of surface manifestations.
Liquefaction-Induced Settlement Potential
The potential for liquefaction-induced settlement has been evaluated using the procedures proposed by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). Our analysis indicates the potential settlement due to a
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 15 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
design-level earthquake would be on the order of 1 inch, mainly due to a thin sand layer existing in depth ranging from 10 to 20 feet. The balance of the site is underlain by fine-grained silts and clays. This methodology does not apply to these materials. Currently, the practice of geotechnical engineering does not have effective means to estimate seismic settlement of finegrained materials. Recommended design settlement values are discussed subsequent to the Foundation Systems section of this report.
Lateral Spreading and Surface Manifestations
Our liquefaction-induced lateral spreading analysis indicates a potential for lateral spreading as great as 5 to 6 feet towards the flood channel to the south. This is similar to the 2 feet estimated for Home Depot using a smaller earthquake magnitude (pre- seismic hazard report). This lateral spread is for unimproved areas. The zone to improve is between depths of 10 and 15 feet. There is also a potential for surface manifestations if shallow liquefaction occurs.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Data from our field exploration, laboratory testing, reference reports, and engineering analyses, coupled with inferred conditions about our exploratory excavations, is the basis for the following discussion. Recommendations, based upon the presently available data, are presented for your consideration.
REMOVALS
Surface soil removals will need to be as deep as possible. Deeper removals allow for an increase in bearing capacity. Removals to 15 ft-bgs would be beneficial for highly loaded buildings and lightly loaded buildings to accommodate lateral spreading, loading and settlement criteria. Sand layers are present over most of the site from about 10 feet to 20 feet. These could possibly be compacted using removal and replacement combined with in-place compaction using vibratory roller if dewatered.
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 16 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
Shallower removals may be appropriate for lightly loaded buildings. These removals may be on the order of 7 feet. However, liquefaction/lateral spreading issues may drive the need for more extensive ground improvement. The suitability of these shallower removals will need address on a case-by case basis.
Dewatering may be necessary for deeper removals or removals performed in wet season.
This may require a point well system with Baker tanks to treat water, and permits to pump water offsite.
Various techniques can be utilized to remediate the limited bearing capacity of the surface soils. For heavier loads options include removals to 15 feet for a 2500 psf pad footing bearing capacity for column and wall loads; or using a pile foundation with structural or floating floor; or stone columns (proprietary system). Each would be focused on transferring foundation loads to depths below 17 to 20 feet bgs. The need for improvement is driven by the poor consolidation characteristics of the soil and the potential for lateral spreading during a design level earthquake. Ground improvement could be accomplished by the use of grading (remove and recompact), piles, stone columns, or other appropriate system. The improvement scheme needs to both increase the vertical capacity of the soil and reduce the potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading. When considering grading removals for remediation, lightly loaded buildings may need the deeper removals (15 feet as opposed to 7 feet) to incorporate the ground improvement necessary to reduce the potential for lateral spreading.
TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS
Temporary excavations (such as backcuts for stability fills and retaining wall excavations) may be considered stable if cut vertical, providing they are restricted to a maximum of 5 feet in height, are provided with permanent support as soon as possible, and they are protected from erosion and saturation. Portions of temporary excavations in excess of 5 feet high
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 17 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
should be laid down to 1.5:1 unless specific alternative treatments, such as shoring or shielding are evaluated and found acceptable.
COMPACTION STANDARDS
The on-site materials are suitable for use as engineered fill. All roots, organic matter, and other deleterious material should be hand-picked from the soils prior to their use as engineered fill. These materials should be moistened and/or air-dried to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90% of their maximum density as determined using the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D 1557-00).
GRADING - ENGINEERED FILLS
The following recommendations pertain to the placement of, and preparation for, engineered fills;
1. The on-site soils are suitable for use as structural fill. Any import materials that are to be used as structural fill should be approved by this office prior to placement. It may be beneficial to use soil in the 0-20 El range for the upper portion of building pads (upper 4 feet).
2. Shrinkage refers to the lesser volume of fill resulting from a given volume of excavation.
The shrinkage of the alluvial materials for shallow excavations is anticipated to be between 20 and 30 percent, while deep excavations is between 15 and 20 percent.
3. Subsidence includes the general lowering of the ground due to in-place compaction by construction equipment. Subsidence is anticipated to range from 1.0 to 3.0 tenths of a foot in the alluvial areas.
4. All vegetation, trash debris or other deleterious material should be stripped from the area to be graded. Soils bearing sparse grasses may be thoroughly mixed with at least ten parts clean soil and incorporated into the engineered fill. Other materials should be
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 18 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
wasted from the site.
5. Compressible soils that lie within the areas to receive engineered fill should be removed to relatively incompressible material, moisture conditioned, and replaced as properly compacted fill. Portions of the compressible materials that are sufficiently thin may be scarified, watered or air dried to approximately the material's optimum moisture content, and compacted in-place. A combination of removal and recompaction in-place may be used, providing the recommended compaction is obtained throughout the recommended depth interval. Based upon the materials exposed in our exploratory excavations, we anticipate the removals plus recompaction to extend to depths of 7 to 20 feet and are dependent upon the footing design utilized with associated settlement criteria. Final removal bottoms must be field verified by a representative of the geotechnical consultant.
6. Exposed surfaces should be scarified, moistened or air dried as appropriate, and compacted to the appropriate percentage of the material's maximum dry density prior to placement of fill (see COMPACTION STANDARD section).
7. We recommend a uniform blanket of compacted fill be created for support of structural footings. The fill cap should extend to at least four feet below the base of proposed footings and five feet beyond their perimeter. Special consideration should be paid to locations where property lines or existing improvements (buildings, retaining walls, fences, power poles, etc.) interfere with the creation of the desired fill cap. Such conditions should be brought to the attention of this office so that the specific site conditions may be evaluated and recommendations provided. Depending upon the circumstances, special excavating techniques may be employed (i.e. slot cutting), alternative foundation designs may be used (i.e. grade beams supported by pad footings or piles), or the compaction standard may be increased.
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 19 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
8. Areas that are to be paved should have the upper 3 to 4 feet of farmer disturbed materials removed. In deep cut areas, and at the bottom of removals, the exposed soil should be scarified to at least 12 inches below the existing or rough grade (whichever is deeper), brought to near the material's optimum moisture content, and compacted to the appropriate relative compaction of 90 percent.
9. Fill materials should be placed in thin lifts, watered to near the material's optimum moisture content, and compacted to the appropriate relative compaction prior to placing the next lift.
10. All grading should comply with the grading specifications and requirements of the local governing agency.
UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL
Backfill for utility trench excavations should be compacted the appropriate relative compaction (see COMPACTION STANDARD section). Where installed in sloping areas, the backfill should be properly keyed and benched.
FOUNDATION SYSTEMS
For planning purposes, this section provides preliminary foundation recommendations for both conventional and post-tension. Once specific building types and locations are known, project specific foundation recommendations can be prepared. It may be necessary to include bottom stabilization typically consisting of rock and fabric, or cement/lime treatment.
Dewatering may reduce the need for stabilization. Grading for the site will include soil improvement below the buildings. Settlement estimates are 1 inch for 7 foot removals with 1200 psf bearing and a maximum of 35 kip column load; 1 inch for 10 foot removals with a 1200 psf bearing and a maximum 80 kip column load; 1 inch for 15 foot removals with a 2500 psf bearing capacity and a maximum 150 kip column load, and 1 inch for 7 foot removals with a 1200 psf bearing and a maximum 2500 lb per linear foot wall load.
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 20 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
Conventional Foundations and Slab-on-Grade
Continuous or pad footings may be used to support the proposed structures. In order to achieve the capacities specified below, they should be founded a minimum of 12 inches into bedrock or engineered fill (not partially into each), with the concrete placed against in-place, undisturbed material. Foundation design criteria are based, in part, upon the expansive properties of the materials anticipated to be present near the finished pad grade. Laboratory testing to verify the expansive properties of the near-pad-grade materials should be performed at the completion of rough grading. Some types of commercial buildings, such as tilt-up construction, are not conducive to the use of pre-saturation (due to the typical need for the newly poured concrete slab to support crane loads). It may be beneficial to use non-expansive materials or treated materials within the upper four feet of pad grade to eliminate the need for presaturation.
Pre-saturation guidelines are presented in the following table. Pre-saturation of the foundation soils should be initiated well before concrete is scheduled to be placed. Care should be taken to see that the water has properly penetrated the soil. Last minute flooding is not a good practice. Excess water remaining in the target pre-saturation zone at the time of concrete placement will penetrate further into the soil, possibly causing additional expansion and uplift of the curing concrete. A bearing capacity of 1200 psf for pad and continuous foundations can be used when removals are less than 15 feet, and 2500 psf for removals of 15 feet.
Anticipated Expansion Index Range 21 - 90
Pre-saturation 18" (El 21-50)
21" (El 51-90)
Footings
Lateral Resistance 250 PSF/Ft(2) (3)
Maximum Lateral Resistance 2500 PSF(2) (3)
Coefficient of Friction 0.3
Minimum Embedment Into Foundation Material 12 inches
Minimum Embedment Below Adjacent Grade) 24 inches
Minimum Reinforcement 2 #4 bars, 1 near top, 1 near bottom
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 21 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
Slabs-On-Grade
Bedding 4" of clean sand(5)
Thickness at least full 4"
Minimum Reinforcement(6) #4 bars @ 16" ac., e.w.
(1) Bearing portions of all footings should be at least five feet (measured horizontally) from the face of adjacent, descending slopes. All footings should bear at least three feet below an imaginary plane projected upward at 1.5:1 from the toe of locally over-steepened slopes. Pad footings should be at least 24 inches square. (2) May be increased by 1/3 for short duration loading such as by wind or seismic forces. (3) Decrease by 1/3 when combined with friction.
(4) Applies to exterior footings.
(5) Place vapor barrier (10 mil. visqueen) one inch below top of sand layer beneath all areas where moisture penetration of the slab is undesirable and sand is deemed necessary. (6) Dowel slab to exterior footing using #3 bars @ 32" on center, bent 3' into slab for El=51-90.
Concrete slabs-on-grade should be at least 4 inches thick, and be designed to support the anticipated loading. Reinforcement should consist of no less than #4 reinforcing bars placed at 16 inches on-center each way positioned at the midheight of the slab. The structural engineer may require increased concrete thickness or reinforcement to meet project specific design loads. For elastic design of the concrete slabs, a modulus-of-subgrade reaction of 100 PSI/IN may be used.
This value is a unit value for use with a 1-foot-square mat. The modulus should be reduced in accordance with the following equation when used with a larger mat:
[B+12 Ks=K1
2B
Where: Ks=Reduced subgrade modulus
K1 =Unit subgrade modulus
B =Foundation width in feet
The slab-on-grade should have engineered fill as a subgrade. The subgrade should be presaturated (when necessary) prior to placing underlayments such as a vapor barrier or vapor retarder (membrane). The subgrade soils should be pre-saturated to the recommended depth below the lowest adjacent grade.
The project architect should determine the necessity for a membrane beneath the slab-on-- grade. If a membrane is used, it should have a minimum thickness of at least 10 mil. The
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 22 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
American Concrete Institute (ACI) indicates that plastic vapor retarders should meet the performance requirements set forth in ASTM E 1745. Laps or seams should overlap at least 6 inches or as specified by the manufacturer. Joints or penetrations should be sealed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
The need for sand above the membrane should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For slabs that will have moisture sensitive floor coverings, ACI indicates that placing concrete directly upon the membrane will eliminate the potential for water being trapped within the sand course (ACI 302.1R-04). However, concrete placed directly upon the membrane has an increased risk of curling or cracking. ACI suggests, "...each proposed installation be independently evaluated as to the moisture sensitivity of subsequent floor finishes, anticipated project conditions, and the potential effects of slab curling, crusting, and cracking. The anticipated benefits and risks associated with the specified location of the vapor retarder should be reviewed with all appropriate parties before construction."
SETTLEMENT
For planning purposes, structural foundations designs should consider total settlement on the order of 1 inch with differential settlement on the order of 2/3 inch over a distance of 30 feet.
This settlement magnitude is dependent upon foundation load and site preparation (grading) as previously discussed.
Total settlement due to ground shaking during a design level earthquake is anticipated to be on the order of one inch. In areas where the deeper removals are performed, the grading results in anticipated total seismic settlement reduced to about 1/4 inch. Differential seismic settlement can be assumed to be on the order of V2 of the total seismic settlement applied over a horizontal distance of 30 feet.
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 23 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
Retaining walls may be included in the development plans. Foundation design criteria are provided in the preceding section. Lateral loading criteria for cantilevered wall designs are presented in the table below. Recommendations for unyielding walls (basement braced, etc.) and walls constructed prior to placement of the fill that the wall is to support may be provided if such are utilized in the project.
Lateral Desio(1)
Slope of Equivalent Fluid
Backfill Density 1PCF)
Level 30
2:1 43
(1) Special design required for wall height in
excess of fifteen feet.
All retaining walls should be provided with adequate backdrainage systems. Either weep holes or a pipe outlets should be installed. Free draining material should be used behind weep holes or about pipe drains. Care should be exercised to see that weep holes are installed and maintained above the finish grade adjacent to the face of the wall.
Backfill for retaining walls should be properly compacted. An impervious cap should be provided at the top of the backfill to retard infiltration of water.
Additional surcharge, such as that due to proposed structures, traffic, or other loading, should be included in the wall design. Use of expansive soil as backfill for retaining walls will result in a surcharge to the wall, the magnitude of which is dependent upon the expansion index of the backfill. This may be avoided by using sand or gravel as backfill adjacent to the wall.
Our typical retaining wall recommendations are illustrated in Appendix E.
FACTORS OF SAFETY
The factor of safety for the allowable bearing pressure provided is greater than three. The allowable passive pressure provided is based upon a factor of safety of 1.5. The factor of safety
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 24 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
for the sliding friction is one. The factor of safety for the active pressure is one.
With regard to retaining walls, the Uniform Building Code calls for a 1.5 factor of safety for both sliding and overturning. We defer to the Uniform Building Code and the project structural engineer on this matter.
CORROSION POTENTIAL
Preliminary testing of samples obtained from our borings indicates the on-site soils have negligible to moderate levels of sulfates-indicates a negligible to moderate corrosion potential for concrete. Resistivity tests indicate the soils are mild to severely corrosive to ferreous metals.
Near the completion of grading additional testing should be performed to verify the corrosion potential of the soils.
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTIONS
Preliminary plans indicate improvements will include constructing parking lots and streets. It will be required to remove and recompact the upper 3 to 4 feet of farmer-disturbed soil. All drainage and irrigation systems will need to be removed or crushed in place.
For preliminary planning purposes, using an anticipated traffic index of 4 IA to 5 for parking stalls and 6 for drive areas and an estimated R-Value of 16, the parking stalls streets should be designed using 3 inches of asphaltic concrete on 6.5 inches of base. The driveways should be designed using 3 inches of asphaltic concrete on 11.5 inches of base.
The upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. Base materials should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction.
R-value tests should be performed at the completion of grading and final pavement section designs developed at that time.
DRAINAGE
Positive drainage should be established to carry pad waters away from structures and
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 25 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
foundations, and to prevent uncontrolled or sheet flow over manufactured slopes. We recommend as steep a gradient as practical be established around the structures, to the street or other non-erosive drainage devices. Fine-grade fills placed to create pad drainage should be compacted in order to retard infiltration of surface water.
Preserving proper surface drainage is also important. Planters, decorative walls, plants, trees or accumulations of organic matter should not be allowed to retard surface drainage. Area drains and roof gutters (if present) should be kept free of obstruction. Roof gutters (if present) and/or condensation lines from air conditioners should outlet to a non-erodible device, i.e., walkways, patios, driveways, drain lines or splash blocks that direct the water away from the structure. Swales and/or area drains should outlet to the street or acceptable non-erodible device.
Positive drainage along the backs of retaining walls should be maintained. Any other measures that will facilitate positive surface drainage should be employed.
CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
During design grading plans and foundation plans should be submitted to this office. The project Civil Engineer should incorporate the removal recommendations into the grading plans.
Additional recommendations may be provided at that time of our review, if such are considered warranted.
Placement of all fill and backfill should be monitored by representatives of this office.
This includes our observation of prepared bottoms prior to filling. All excavated slopes, both temporary and permanent, should be observed by a representative of this office. Supplemental recommendations may prove warranted based upon the materials exposed in the actual excavations.
Foundation excavations should be observed by representatives of this office to see if the recommended penetration of proper supporting strata has been achieved. Such observations
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
cr) MIL \‘'
?WESs/0
cO
354441;1)
rl ng
Zr"
s e\ l c 9,:30/
07 -s RED 04-
G. 1047
R C.E. 35444
C A L
Respectfif4 submitted,
GEOLA :WES
Selleck Properties, Inc. 26 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
should be made prior to placing concrete, steel or forms. This office should be notified at least 24 hours prior to placing concrete.
CLOSURE
This geotechnical report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices at this time and location. No other warranties, either express or implied, are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of our agreement and included in this report.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions regarding this report.
XC: (6) .NXiiiiittssee RONALD 2. SHMERLING61
NO. 1047 -cP--
*
CERTIFIED
0. ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST *
••,''
CA l5
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
Selleck Properties, Inc. 27 December 20, 2005
W.O. 9016
REFERENCE LIST:
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 2002; Seismic Hazard Evaluation of Camarillo-7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Ventura County, California. Open File Report OFR 054
Earth Systems (July 26, 2002), Geotechnical Engineering Report for GVD Commercial-Phase 1, Camarillo, California, VT-22690-01.
Geolabs-Westlake Village, (April 20, 2001), Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Parcels A, B, and C of Map LD-181, South of Ventura Boulevard, West of Bajo Aqua Avenue, Camarillo, California, W.O. 8763.
..., (December 16, 2005), Preliminary Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation, 50 Acre Agricultural Property, South of 101 Freeway and 1/2 Mile West of Las Posas Road, City of Camarillo, California, W.O. 9016.
Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. (October 26, 2000), Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Home Depot NWC Ventura Boulevard and West Ventura Boulevard, Camarillo, California, GPI Project No. 1656.1.
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
arn ari 1 lo 778-8
52 W 0 <lori
_
••`•
DEL.
90 1
/4,
12'30-
178
.11
1°.
uPG,a 48
ti?
5.‹ • et r ick
Geolabs — festlake
czoLocy AND SO IL ENG INE ER INC
DATE
3,85
B
z
z
Re: USGS (1950), 7.5 Minute Camarillo Quadrangle
(TOPOGRAPHIC), Scale 1:24,000, CI=20feet.
35 ,
Lfr.,
EDT
SUBSURFACE DATA LOG OF BORING B13
CLIENT: Selleck PROJECT: Commercial Development W.O.: 9017 LOCATION: Camarillo ELEVATION: 72.2 DATE: 9/21/05 .
RIG TYPE: 6" Rotary Wash HAMMER WEIGHTS: 140 lbs. DROP: 30"
N U B M DD DESCRIPTION FATTITUDES
(CL) Clay, dry to moist, dark brown, sparse coarse sands. 6/7/12 C 20.8 101.0 ©2.5' - (CL) Same as above with silt, stiff. 0/0/1 S (ML) Silt with clay, brown, wet, very soft.
0/2/3 C 3.3 88.4 @7.5' - (CL) Clay with silt, soft, brown, wet. 10 0/0/4 S (CL) Clay, brown, wet, soft.
10/20/22 C 17.4 107.0 ©12.5' - (SP) Sand, fine grained, light brown, wet, medium dense. 15 0/4/9 S (CL) Clay, light brown, some sands (fine grained), wet, stiff. ©16.5' - (SM) Silty Sand, light brown, wet, loose.
5/10/15 C 21.7 101.0 ©17.5' - (ML) Silt, brown, wet, very stiff. 20 5/7/17 S (CL) Sandy Clay, medium sands, grayish brown, wet, very stiff. ©21' - (SP) Sand, grayish brown, wet, fine to medium grained, medium 6/16/20 C dense.
©22.5' - (ML) Silt, dark gray to black, wet, very stiff. 25 4/7/11 C 15.1 108.0 (CL) Sandy Clay, orange to dark brown, moist to wet, very stiff. 14/17/30 C 15.9 104.0 ©27.5' - (CL) Same as above, very stiff. 30 4/11/11 S (SP) Sand, fine grained, orange to dark brown, wet, medium dense. 25/50-5" C 16.7 113.0 ©32.5' - (SP) Same as above, dense to very dense. than 1/4" gravel in tip.
©34' - Coarse Sand and 1/4" gravel.
35 20-25-35 5 (SW) Sand, fine to coarse grained with 1/4" gravel, light brown, wet, very dense.
40/50-3" C ©37.5' - (SW) Same as above, pushed 3" gravel in tip. 12/25/35 5 (SW) Same as above, with increased coarse sand and gravel content, very dense.
40 12/30/30 C 20.6 97.3 ©42.5' - (CH) Clay, brown, moist, hard. 45 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: C = California Modified Sampler - -- S = Standard Penetration Test
Note: Sand catcher used on CAL & SPT samples
Logged by: JB Geolabs-Westlake Village PLATE B13,.1
A LOG OF BORING B13
CLIENT: Selleck PROJECT: Commercial Development W.O.: 9017 LOCATION: Camarillo ELEVATION: 72.2 DATE: 9/21/05
RIG TYPE: 6" Rotary Wash HAMMER WEIGHTS: 140 lbs. DROP: 30"
N U B M DD DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES
40 45 4/8/6 S (MH) Clayey Silt, moist to wet, brown, stiff. 10/15/45 C @47.5' - No recovery.
50 3/8/17 S (CL) Clay, brown, wet, very stiff.
55 Total Depth - 50'
60 65
70 75
80 85
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
_
Logged by: JB Geolabs-Westlake Village PLATE B13.2
LOG OF BORING B14
CLIENT: SeHeck PROJECT: Commercial Development W.O.: 9017 LOCATION: Camarillo ELEVATION: 70.9 DATE: 9/12/05
RIG TYPE: 8" HSA HAMMER WEIGHTS: 140 lbs. DROP: 30"
N U B M DD DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES —
0 X
X
(CL) Clay with sparse coarse sand and 1/4" gravel, dark brown, dry to moist (roadway), well compacted.
3/5/7 S 28.7 90.4 @2.5' - (CL) Same as above with silt, no sand or gravel, stiff.
X
X
5 3/4/7 C X (ML) Silt with clay, brown, moist, medium stiff. 4/4/5 S @7.5' - (ML) Same as above, stiff.
@8.5' - (SM-SP) Silty Sand, light brown, wet, loose.
10 1/5/11 C 21.1 108.0 (SM-SP) Same as above, loose.
0/1/3 S @12.5' - (CL) Clay, dark gray to black, highly plastic, wet, soft. 15 3/5/17 C 20.9 101.0 (CL) Clay, same as above, medium stiff. @17' - (SP) Sand, fine to medium grained, light brown, wet, medium 10/13/16 S dense.
(SP) Same as above.
20 6/9/13 C 30.0C 93.7 (ML) Silt, light brown, wet, stiff. 0/2/4 S @22.5' - (CL) Clay, black, wet, highly plastic, medium stiff. —
_
@23.5' - Becomes siltier (ML) greenish gray.
25 4/8/9 C 29.0 94.5 (CL) Clay with silt, greenish gray to black, wet, high plasticity, very stiff.
30 Total Depth - 25'
Groundwater at 5.1'
35 40
45 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Logged by: JB Geolabs-Westlake Village PLATE B14
SUBSURFACE DATA LOG OF BORING B15
CLIENT: Selleck PROJECT: Commercial Development W.O.: 9017 LOCATION: Camarillo ELEVATION: 69.8' DATE: 9/12/05
RIG TYPE: 8" HSA HAMMER WEIGHTS: 140 lbs. DROP: 30"
N I U B M DD DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES
_
(CL) Clay with silt, sparse 1/4" gravel and coarse sand, brown, dry to moist (roadway), well compacted.
4/8/9 C 28.7 79.3 @2.5' - (CH) Clay, brown, medium plastic, stiff. 1/3/4 5 (ML) Silt, light brown, moist to wet, medium stiff. 3/5/9 C 18,2 99.0 @7.5' - (SM) Silty Sand, light brown, wet, loose. 10 5/7/4 5 (SP) Sand, fine grained, wet, light brown, medium dense. 0/2/2 C 44.5 78.0 @12.5' - (CH) Clay with silt and fine sand (SP) lenses, brown, wet, soft.
15 4/15/20 S (SP) Sand, fine to medium grained, light brown, wet, dense. 9/20/19 C 20.5 112.0 @17.5' - (SP) Same as above, medium dense. 20 3/6/5 5 (ML) Silt, light brown,wet, medium dense.
@21.5' - (CL) Clay, black, high plasticity, wet, stiff. 2/4/6 C 34.8 87.5 @22.5' - (CL) Same as above, medium stiff. 25 2/4/6 S (ML) Silt with clay, greenish gray to black, wet, highly plastic, stiff. 30 Total Depth - 25'
Groundwater at 5.1'
35 40
45 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
,
Logged by: JB Geolabs-Westlake Village PLATE B1$
SUBSURFACE DATA LOG OF BORING 816
CLIENT: Selleck PROJECT: Commercial Development W.O.: 9017 LOCATION: Camarillo ELEVATION: 71' DATE: 9/21/05
RIG TYPE: 6" Rotary Wash HAMMER WEIGHTS: 140 lbs. DROP: 30"
N U B M DD DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES
(CL) Clay, highly plastic, dark brown, moist.
0/3/4 S @2.5' - (CL) Same as above, medium stiff.
2/3/4 C 37.6 81.6 (CH) Clay, dark brown to brown with white mottling, soft. 3/4/6 S @7.5' - (SM) Silty Sand, brown, wet, loose.
10 7/15/20 C 14.4 114.0 (SP) Sand, fine to medium grained, light brown, wet, dense. 2/2/2 S @12.5' - (ML/CL) Silty Clay, wet, brown, soft.
15 3/3/4 C 38.9 83.7 (CL) Sandy Clay, brown, wet, fine sands, soft. 4/10/20 S @17.5' - (SP) Sand, fine grained, light brown, wet, medium dense. 20 12/13/15 C 23.8 95.0 (SM) Silty Sand, light brown, wet, medium dense. 5/7/10 S @22,5' - (SM) Same as above, becomes black at 23.5'. 25 12/12/20 C 16.0 114.0 (SM) Same as above, black.
5/15/30 S @27.5' - (SP) Sand, fine to medium grained, grayish brown, wet, dense.
30 20/50-5" C 14.4 112.0 (SP) Same as above, dense to very dense. 15/30/30 S @32.5' - (SP) Same as above, fine grained, grayish to light brown, wet, very dense.
35 25/50-4" C 17.5 108.0 (SP) Same as above, light brown. 17/17/25 S @37.5' - (SP) Same as above, dense, gray.
@39' - (ML) Silt, brown, moist to wet.
40 30/50-4" C 17.5 112.0 (SP) Sand, fine to medium grained, gray, wet, very dense. 25/50-6" S @42.5' - (SM) Silty Sand, greenish gray, wet, very dense. 45 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: C = California Modified Sampler S = Standard Penetration Test
Note: Sand catcher used on CAL & SPT samples
Logged by: JB Geolabs-Westlake Village PLATE B16.1
RFACE DATA LOG OF BORING B16
CLIENT: Selleck PROJECT: Commercial Development W.O.: 9017 LOCATION: Camarillo ELEVATION: 71' DATE: 9/21/05
RIG TYPE: 6" Rotary Wash HAMMER WEIGHTS: 140 lbs. DROP: 30"
N U B M DD DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES --
40 45 30/50-4" C 27.1 98.6 (ML) Silt, greenish gray, wet, very dense. 11/17/25 S @47.5 -(ML) Silt, black, moist to wet, hard. @48.5' - (CL) Clay, dark gray, moist to wet.
50 25/30/30 C 14.8 109 (ML) Silt, greenish gray, moist to wet, hard. 55 Total Depth - 50'
60 65
70 75
80 85
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Logged by: JB Geolabs-Westlake Village PLATE B16.2
SUBSURFACE DATA LOG OF BORING B17
CLIENT: Selleck PROJECT: Commercial Development W.O.: 9017 LOCATION: Camarillo ELEVATION: 72.2 DATE: 9/12/05
RIG TYPE: 8" HSA HAMMER WEIGHTS: 140 lbs. DROP: 30"
N U B M DD DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES
(ML) Silt with clay (roadway material) well compacted, dark brown, moist.
4/5/8 C 24.1 94.5 @2.5' - (CL) Clay with silt, medium stiff, brown. 1/2/3 5 (SM) Silty SAND with clay, brown, moist to wet, loose. 3/5/10 C 19.6 101.0 @7.5' - (SM) Same as above.
10 3/8/6 S (SP) Sand, fine grained, light brown, wet, medium dense. 0/1/3 C 37.2 84.5 @12.5' - (CL) Clay with silt and fine sand, brown, wet, soft.. @13.5' - (SP) Sand, fine to medium grained, light brown, wet, loose. 3/3/2 S (CL) Clay with silt and (SP) Sand, fine to medium grained lenses, brown, wet, medium stiff.
15 2/10/25 C 17.9 112.0 @17.5' - (ML) Silt, brown, wet, very stiff. 20 9/15/22 S (SP) Sand, fine grained, gray to light brown, wet, dense. 10/9/14 C 20.5 101.0 @22.5' - (SM) Silty Sand, light brown, wet, medium dense. 25 7/11/20 S (SM) Silty Sand, greenish gray, wet, dense. 30 Total Depth - 25'
Groundwater at 7.1'
35 40
45 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Logged by: JB Geolabs-Westlake Village PLATE B17
SUBSURFACE DATA LOG OF BORING B18
CLIENT: Selleck PROJECT: Commercial Development
____
W.O.: 9017
LOCATION: Camarillo ELEVATION: 74.1' DATE: 9/22/05
RIG TYPE: 6" Rotary Wash HAMMER WEIGHTS: 140 lbs. DROP: 30" N U_ B M DD DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES
(CL) Clay, dark brown, moist, with some silts and fine sands. 2/2/5 C 28.4 92.5 @2.5' - (ML) Silt with clay, dark brown to brown, wet, soft. @3.5' - (SP) Sand, fine grained, brown, wet.
0/0/2 S (ML) Silt with clay, brown, wet, soft.
0/3/4 C 33.9 83.3 @7.5' - (ML) Same as above.
@8.5' - (SP) Sand, fine to medium grained, light brown, wet, loose. 10 5/10/13 5 (SP) Same as above, very stiff.
10/20/15 C 16.3 113.0 @12.5' - (SP) Same as above.
15 0/0/7 S (CL) Clay, brown, wet, medium stiff.
2/2/4 C 32.3 90.2 @17.5' - (CL) Same as above, with white mottling. 20 0/0/7 S (CL) Same as above with sand, fine grained, soft. @21.5' - (SP) Sand, fine grained, brown, wet, loose.
30/50-6" C 18.5 108.0 @22.5' - (SP) Same as above, very dense. 25 14/16/17 S (SM) Silty Sand, greenish gray with white mottling, wet, hard. 30/50-6" C 17.9 99.8 @27.5' - (SM/ML) Silt with (SM) lenses as above, very dense. 30 0/0/0 5 (CL) Clay with fine sands, black, moist to wet, very soft. 8/10/14 C 37.7 82.6 @32.5' - (CL) Clay with silt, grayish brown, wet, stiff. 35 5/6/7 S (CL) Clay with silt, grayish brown with white mottling, wet, stiff. 0/7/12 C 37.7 82.6 @37.5' - (CL) Clay, grayish brown with blue-gray mottling, wet, stiff 40 3/5/8 S (CL) Same as above.
8/26/30 C 18.6 100.0 @42.5' - (ML) Silt, brown with gray blue mottling, wet, hard. 45 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: C = California Modified Sampler S = Standard Penetration Test
Note: Sand catcher used on CAL & SPT samples
Logged by: JB Geolabs-Westlake Village PLATE B18.1
SURFACE DATA LOG OF BORING B18
U
W.O.: 9017
DATE: 9/22/05
DROP: 30"
ATTITUDES
40 12/25/30
30/30/25
30/25/30
N B M DD
(SP) Sand, fine grained,greenish gray, wet, very dense.
DESCRIPTION
Total Depth - 50'
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Logged by: JB Geolabs-Westlake Village PLATE B18.2
CLIENT: Selleck PROJECT: Commercial Development
LOCATION: Camarillo ELEVATION: 74.1'
RIG TYPE: 6" Rotary Wash HAMMER WEIGHTS: 140 lbs.
SUBSURFACE DATA LOG OF BORING B19
CLIENT: Selleck _ PROJECT: Commercial Development W.O.: 9017 LOCATION: Camarillo ELEVATION: 77.5' DATE: 9/16/05
RIG TYPE: 6" Rotary Wash HAMMER WEIGHTS: 140 lbs. DROP: 30" N U B M DD _ DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES
(CL) Clay with silt, moist to dry, dark brown, medium plastic. @2.5' - (ML) Silt with clay, wet, brown, soft.
(ML) Same as above, very soft.
@7.5' - No recovery.
(SP) Sand, fine grained, light brown, wet, medium dense. @12.5' - No recovery.
(ML) Silt with clay lenses, brown, wet, very soft.
@17.5' - (ML) Silt, light brown, wet, hard.
@18.5' - (SM) Silty Sand, light brown, wet, dense.
(SP) Sand, fine to medium grained with coarse lenses, light brown, wet, medium dense.
@22.5' - Same as above, dense.
(SP) Same as above, loose.
@26' - (ML) Silt, greenish gray, wet, soft.
@27.5' - (ML) Same as above, dense.
(MH) Clayey Silt with sparse fine sands, black to dark gray, wet, very soft.
@32.5' - (SM) Silty Sand, light grayish green, wet, medium dense. (CH) Clay, greenish gray with brown mottling, 1" calcite nodules, wet, medium stiff.
@37.5' - (CH) Same as above.
(SC) Clayey Sand, gray with brown mottling, wet, loose, fine grained sand.
2/3/4 C 8.6 94.0
0/0/0 S
3/4/6 C
10 3/12/15 C 21.5 103.0
10/3/3 C
15 0/0/0 S
7/14/35 C 18.8 110.0
20 3/8/12 S
12/30/38 C 11.0 124.0
25 4/2/2 S
12/25/30 C 25.3 91.5
30 0/0/0 S
13/18/24 C 20.5 102.0
35 0/0/6 S
3/5/8 C 39.7 77.2
40 1/2/8 5
45 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Note: @20' began using catcher for CAL & SPT sampling
_
Logged by: JB Geolabs-Westlake Village PLATE B19.1
SUBSURFACE DATA LOG OF BORING B19
CLIENT: Selleck PROJECT: Commercial Development W.O.: 9017 LOCATION: Camarillo ELEVATION: 77.5 DATE: 9/16/05
RIG TYPE: 6" Rotary Wash HAMMER WEIGHTS: 140 lbs. DROP: 30"
N U B M DD DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES
0 25/50-5" C 18.5 107.0 @42.5' - (SP) Sand, fine grained, light brown to tan, wet, dense. 45 25/30/40 S (SP) Same as above, very fine grained, very dense. 15/26/40 C 24.5 101.0 @42.5' - (CL) Sandy Clay, orange brown, moist, hard. 50 12/12/12 S (MH) Clayey Silt, orange brown, moist, very stiff. 55 Total Depth - 50'
60 65
70 75
80 85
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Logged by: JB Geolabs-Westlake Village PLATE B19.2
LOG OF BORING B20 , ... ,
CLIENT: Selleck PROJECT: Commercial Development W.O.: 9017 LOCATION: Camarillo ELEVATION: 75.9' DATE: 9/9/05
RIG TYPE: 8" HSA HAMMER WEIGHTS: 140 lbs. DROP: 30"
N U B M DD DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES
(CL) Clay with silt, brown, moist, medium plastic.
2/3/4 C 43.3 84.2 @2.5' - (CL) Same as above, soft.
0/0/1 5 (SM) Silty Sand with clay, brown, wet, very loose. 5/5/5 C 15.5 106.0 @7.5' - (SM-SP) Sand, fine to medium grained, light brown, wet, loose. 3/10/13 5 10 (SM-SP) Same as above, fine grained, medium dense. @12.5' - No recovery (gravel in tip).
15 2/2/2 5 (CL) Clay with silt and fine sands, brown, wet, soft. 5/5/7 C 26.7 97.9 @17.5' - (CL) Clay, same as above, medium stiff. 8/15/14 5 (SP) Sand, fine to medium grained, light brown, wet, medium dense. 20 10/7/8 C 15.3 106.0 @22.5' - (SP) Same as above, loose. 25 6/7/7 S (SM) Silty Sand, greenish gray, wet, medium dense. 30 Total Depth - 25'
Groundwater at 5.6'
•
35 40
45 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: •
Logged by: JB Geolabs-Westlake Village PLATE B20
RFACE DATA LOG OF BORING B21
CLIENT: Selleck PROJECT: Commercial Development W.O.: 9017 LOCATION: Camarillo ELEVATION: 75' DATE: 9/12/05
RIG TYPE: 8" HSA HAMMER WEIGHTS: 140 lbs. DROP: 30"
N U B M DD DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES
(CL) Clay, moist to dry, dark brown, slightly plastic.
2/2/4 C 29.0 89.2 @2.5' - (CL) Same as above, brown, soft, highly plastic. 5 0/0/0 S (SM) Silty Sand with clay, light brown, wet, very loose. 3/3/4 C 20.5 100.0 @7.5' - (SM) Same as above, soft.
10 4/7/9 S (SP) Sand, fine grained, light brown, wet, medium dense. 1/3/4 C 41.4 79.2 @12.5' - (CL) Clay, highly plastic, wet, light brown, soft. 15 3/6/5 S (CL) Same as above, stiff.
(ML) Silt, brown, stiff.
3/9/17 C 15.3 109.0 @17.5' - (SP) Sand, fine to medium grained, light brown, wet, medium dense.
20 9/15/18 S (SP) Same as above, dense.
9/26/50 C 17.1 111.0 @22.5' - (SM) Silty Sand, light brown, wet, dense. 25 6/4/5 S (SM) Same as above, loose.
30 Total Depth - 25'
Groundwater at 4.6'
35 40
45 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
—
Logged by: JB Geolabs-Westlake Village PLATE B21
SUBSURFACE DATA LOG OF BORING B22
CLIENT: Selleck PROJECT: Commercial Development W.O.: 9017 LOCATION: Camarillo ELEVATION: 73' DATE: 9/9/05
RIG TYPE: 8'! HSA HAMMER WEIGHTS: 140 lbs. DROP: 30"
N U B M DD DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES
(CL) Clay with silt, moist, low plasticity, dark brown. 0/0/0 @2.5' - (CL) Clay with silt, same as above, brown, very soft. 1/2/2 C 26.7 97.5 (ML) Sandy Silt with clay, wet, brown, very loose. 2/5/9 S @7.5' - (ML) Same as above, medium dense.
10 12/19/10 C 14.9 114.0 (SP) Sand, fine to medium grained, light brown, wet, medium dense. 0/0/0 S @12.5' - (CL) Clay with silt and fine sands, wet, brown, very soft. , 15 1/5/5 C 31.8 93.2 (CL) Same as above, medium stiff.
5/9/9 S @17.5' - (SM) Silty Sand, light brown, wet, medium dense. 20 11/19/20 C 12.1 113.0 (SP) Sand, fine to medium grained, light brown, wet, medium dense. 7/18/20 S (SM) Silty Sand, greenish gray, wet, dense.
25 4/5/6 C 28.4 94.5 (CL) Clay with silt, black, highly plastic, wet, medium stiff. 30 Total Depth - 25'
Groundwater at 4.1'
35 40
45 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
-- -
•
Logged by: ,IB Geolabs-Westlake Village PLATE B22
Soil Behavior Type*
Job Number: 9017
FrictionRatio
Depth Increment = 0.164 feet
CY)
co
EIMI I
I
III
III
IMISME I
MEM
'I •1111
'r MI
SEIM
ME
• I
II :
II•
II ,
MI I
1•1
R
I
IMI I
I I I=
11111
II I,
IIIMIE , 'ElINIME
MI I EIIM=MMI I
cNi
ii
00 (i)
Operator: ES-VO
`Zr
3 3 0 u_
(/) o 0
MaximumDepth = 50.36 feet
Tip Resistance
SPTbased on data fromUBC-1983
N
261 •
("1
*Soil behaviortypea
PLATE CPT 6
Soil Behavior Type*
Job Number: 9017
Friction Ratio
Depth Increment = 0.164 feet
-ii. U.
IMIN • • •
_ III IN • II
111111L' NM , ,=-.2,M111111 El I II • • II
IN '- . M IN ,- ' - l' NI IN I E El II •
MI = NO NI I MMIll IN u.. •
M , - MINIM II I , I M II I II
11 II , I._ II B I I _I I I 1 k,}04 ,J
It)
co
PLATE CPT 7
•cr
0 IL u.
Co U0
U.
Tip Resistance
Maximum Depth= 50.36 feet
Co
C.)
*Soil behavior type and SPTbased ondatafrom UBC-1983
cr)
Soil Behavior Type*
Location: Ferro
Job Number: 9017 CPT Dategime: 813112005 1:52:30 PM
Friction Ratio
Depth Increment = 0.164 feet
I Mill INV
Elm im
II
iiii II
c., co 0,
a
Co
C
NJ
0 Co
0 A it
"—MEW
it 1
\
ri
Co Co
(NI <$. Co
Co
*Soil behavior type and SPT based on datafromUBC-1983
PLATE CPT 8
Operator: ES-VO
Tip Resistance Local Friction
co
CO
Maximum Depth = 50.52 feet
0 r\
Soil Behavior Type*
Job Number: 9017
Friction Ratio
Depth Increment
NINE. III
• MN
• MO I=I
MIN OM 1 MI
C') co
CO
0 0
co
\J\Nif JA%
Local Friction
Maximum Depth = 50.52 feet
*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 0
• ' 0 ▪ 0
PLATE CPT 9
Tip Resistance
CO
Friction Ratio
5 LL
0 Job Number: 9017
LC)
C
C)
Ell MN 1==Mill
IIMI MN I mum son mu I
=111 1111 M
=mow.
.71'li• . '
— :
MEM
=MI
ii um
A =II
5 II
I
a
I
•
•
•
MI NI
umus
• $ I 1•
E. 1
II
N
tl
ILI
0 Soil Behavior Type*
LO IL)
14)
PLATE CPT 10
Local Friction TipResistance
Depth Increment = 0.164 feet Maximum Dep
th = 50.69 feet
*Soil behavior type and SPTbased on datafrom UBC-1963
,
pf-f4v fv47'
1 WI
cNi
--
WI
O.:
--.
.__.
I
U
I
U
XI
o
V',
N
VD v-1
In
-
on
vj
‘.0
4 In
r
..o.
N
In
r.: VD vn N VD N N N VD
0 00
,t 0, N s.0
v-1 0
In :-. In N In In In In
N oo so In In --. N 1-- N .-. N N N N rn -.
so In 00 N N
.0- In In In on
V0 0 0 0 0 0
so ch so VD In
6 -,
6 oo
6 N
6 In
00 .cr
00 oo
00 .,:t C--•
0,
r".•
'Cr
CT
1--• C-
.--,
0 ":1-
0.6 0 0
00 0
Cr
0 In •-•
C4)
•-' 00
0,
0 N en N — N ,r; —
;.,-; — ,c; — 6 N
Clayw/ Silt
Sand
Sandy Clay
Sand
cr.)
u
10 Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
_
< Alluvium
._
= <
Alluvium
WI — WI — - In vn
N: (-4 1;z;
p.; gl.
0?
cn Sample Description
C-7
ea Ca ;1•4
1/1 14
-1 tr) 0 VI C4
VC
cq N r‘i
WIW In
ForabbreviationexplanationseeLegend on PLATE LS 4
GEOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE
PLATE LS. 1
In
WI
00 In
Cfl In
ce
00 N
csi
00 'or fl In
00 "°.
In
oo
cr:i
Li
--.00
an o
v.,
rn 00 —
CO
C.)
122 59.5
CN
.zi
In
,
r-..
CV ,c; In
•-,
6 r00
6 r-
--. r,i In -•
c-,i In
•-•
6 I--
r--.
6 VD
N •-•
In
C.1
0, •-• rn
C.1
c.-)
01 In
--. -.4
In
--•
01 r A 01 00 CC "Zi- .o- cr.
-.
In CV
In
6 C)
6 Cn
6 ,C)
6 6 6 6
In
6 6 6
o
! —
-:
0.,
6 vo
6 In
6 co
c::;
rA
—;
CV
—;
C....
00 0 1---
oo m
.zr Cr, 00 ON 0,
c,
...
--. C:fl —. r."-
co 6 0, al 01 01 Cr r". c,
In
0%
0.1 oo
,e,
.—
-'
CN
6,
c0
--.
00 oN
,.0
ri oo c‘ri co ,C, 000
--. a.
.1.
az r4
ON
r•-i m
c•-,
,ci
.—
r.-,
ni cn
tr,
GO —.
0,
r: —C".
r
r:
r.
r: c•-)
..r,
GO —,
—
r-: r4
—.. ...— — —.. — ...... — ..—
>, CC
u
-.••
,..
= v.)
,
-c?")
Sand
> o -0 u
>
>,
u
Silt
Alluvium Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
L
Alluvium
<
Alluvium
Alluvium
..n r4 ‘rt N C4
v., v.,
r:
v-, Ri l
v-, crz.; In f•-•ni
Ii'. Cr..
v-, q..i
vn
!;--i:
PLATE LS. 2
GEOLABS-WESTLAICE VILLAGE
ForabbreviationexplanationseeLegendonPLATE LS 4
LID
C.)
CCI
rq
CN 4:1
OA
C.7
o0
C.
‘0.
MaxOptEl
(I) SampleDescription
5 v..
N
TS7B19.42.5i
N:
rn
0:
-
U
tr.
cr,
,..a .::. •.a ‘.0 co
rn .1.
kr.
N ...0
N
N ,0
CO
6 .r.
-
a N.
rn
ri ,0
co
--
ON N N rn
Cr. N CD
nn
rn
-.
rn
rn
,0 N
....,
.--.
,r, - N N't N. r'l
,r.
-
rfl N CO 0 N. N V) N
0, el.
6 _
CO .1-
rn rn
a 6
vo
6 Cr,
6 N C.
6 ,r
6 ,C,
co
kr. Cr,
1 6 L__
ri ‘0.
co
N Lr,
6 kr.
rn
6 rn 00
6 ,r,
,,C.
6 N •-•
.-
,..0 ,r,
6 ‘0 ,..0
6 CO
cr N N. 0, .1. Co N
co
Cr. Co --.
C1
co
00 Cr,
CP.
Co
0 'Cr V, N N N .-.
rn
rri -cO r.4 —. ,r,
,r) 6 r4 (-4 C.
cn
Co —
4 (-4
5 .......,
5 ....., .._... ...., ...... 5. 5. 5.
a,55, a
...., ....., — ....„
r.,., c.,
---
:_...,
Co
Sand
Silt w/ Clay
Sand
....
Silty Sand
>, ..
g Co
Sandy Clay
Alluvium
Alluvium
EE
a
.5
_
<
a
'5
=
< Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium Alluvium
v.
N N: NI NNNNNN NI cn rn
Cr. ,r) N
tr.
CO
N
5 rn
C-B20.17.5
ON
5' 5
5 .2
Co
5 >,
CC CO
0 NC
Co
0,
5 N .
5 ON CO
. .
V)
N C N
NC
rn
,0 ,0
CO
5 NC
ci
N
00 C
co
NC
Co
In
0,
ON
‘rr
ci)
PLATE LS. 3
kt,
rn fol
6 6
Cr,
0,
5' 5
oz. g
C.) Er)
E E
=
a
7 -7
CCCC
Cf)
cf) Sample Description
CC
...' .1...
.....
i... ea
=
•-•-• .-cs o >-.
:.1 -
e 4ca -
o
II II II II II il II
,—
,—• el.) = CI 1::1 =
)— A" C/1 grA
* Sample Types:(U)=relativelyUndisturbed; (S) = SPT; (B) = Bulk CI)
co)
"0
=
L
tIO
0 T
..-..
6•
........
-,—.
= 4.0
=
U
0 C.' C.J
..._,,
c., .= C. ed)
......, ....,
..= ZD
°
.
...., ....T.
...."
= .3.0
...
U C
U.
SampleDescription
PLATE LS. 4
= = = = 0 ir)
c\J o
C CV Cro LI-co clo co oo m
ffi
>-
0 10111.11141411111 Ali 1 ili Al
...................
. . ....... ..... P.W.1.1 s......................mil..g. . .E.IPPINI 1 .................... .... A .mommummomm milymmilm,m
-o c PIE11111111111011AAA R . Imillumplakilimulli Ipm413111, parip i'm prigialiniliiiliCadatigapilll mm ..gairam . illilll m .1imp! iiimPoiliagim 0... mil .„.......1 .moggiiii 0 PlidemliiiiiIIIIIIM1laill111111111111 2 A r trivilliglial01111 l 16111 RPM
co r4;164111r4baularadepossam
PILI 1 1 111111 11111
u
I
H
I 1,111 II 111 I AgermoirEmarAMMIII
11111111111111 "111111111111
MillibrimmIAMMINMENSTRIN
.. ............. .........,............ Ampoormplammuomom MOO
1 IN I
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
Grain Size(mm)
GEOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE
0 co LCD -cr C\J
BU!SSBd 1UO3.10d
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
e 3000
a.)
2500
a.)
2000
1500
1000
500
0 • ultimate
• Peak
• Residual
00"
00.•
• •
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Normal Pressure (psf)
Friction Angle Cohesion
Ultimate Shear Strength: 25 deg 300 psf
Peak Shear Strength: 24 deg 375 psf
Residual Shear Strength:
Displacement Rate: 0.01 in/min
Sample Location: B14
Sample Depth: 5 ft.
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Silt w/ Clay
GEOLABS-WESTLAICE VILLAGE
4000 4500 5000
Dry Density: 90.4 pcf
Moisture: 0 %
PLATE S-B14.5
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
• Ultimate
• Peak
• Residual
•
A
A
•
• /
z
• •
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Normal Pressure (psi)
Friction Angle Cohesion
Ultimate Shear Strength: 41 deg 250 psf
Peak Shear Strength: 52 deg
Residual Shear Strength:
Displacement Rate: 0.01 in/min
Sample Location: B19
Sample Depth: 42.5 ft
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Sand
GEOLABS-WESTLAICE VILLAGE
4000 4500 5000
Dry Density: 106.9 pcf
Moisture: 0 %
PLATE S-B19.42.5
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
cc
2000
1500
1000
500
0 • Ultimate
• Peak
• Residual
•
• •
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Normal Pressure (psf)
Friction Angle Cohesion
Ultimate Shear Strength: 48 deg 425 psf
Peak Shear Strength: 63 deg 250 psf
Residual Shear Strength:
Displacement Rate: 0.01 in/min
Sample Location: B22
Sample Depth: 10
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Sand
GEOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE
4000 4500 5000
Dry Density: 114.2 pcf
Moisture: 0 %
PLATE S-B22.10
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 •
3 2 •
1 0 •
1. 2 •
3 4
:.-- = 1.) 0
..,
... 1.) 6
------"T\ •
ca.
= 7 o *-0 cl 8
— 13 9
0 0 10 ---..
(..)
11 •
12 13
14 •
15 16
17 18
19 20
100
Sample Inundated
. • 4 • •
1000
At Normal Pressure of 1000
• •
Normal Pressure (ps f)
psf
10000
• • lee
100000
Sample Location: B13
Sample Depth: 2.5
Initial Moisture: 20.8 %
Init. Dry Density: 100.8 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Clay w/ Silt
GEOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE PLATE C-B13.2.5
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 3 •
2 1 •
0 •
1 •
2 0.
3 •
4 to- 5
u L.. 0 6
c
= 7 ©
.41
ct 8
.t:,
.-
"8 9
=
0 10 •----
11 •
---.
12 13
14 •
15 •
16 •
17 18
19 20
100
Sample Inundated
• • • • •
1000
At Normal Pressure of 1000
Normal Pressure (psi)
psf
10000 100000
Sample Location: B13
Sample Depth: 7.5 ft.
Initial Moisture: 33 %
Init. Dry Density: 88.4 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Clay w/ Silt
GEOLABS-WESTLAICE VILLAGE PLATE C-B13.7.5
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 •
3 2 •
1 0 •
1 2
3 •
4 ei-- 0 5 0 ed
... 0 6 C.
C 7 0-- .......
0 *-0
ea 8 • ^o
. _
75 9 .1 C
3 10
11 12
13 •
14 15
16 17 •
18 19
20 100
Sample Inundated
. I II • • • •
At Normal Pressure of
1000
. • II • • • • •
Normal Pressure (ps f)
1750 psf
10000
. • • • •
100000
Sample Location: BI3
Sample Depth: 17.5 ft.
Initial Moisture: 21.7 %
Init. Dry Density: 100.9 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Silt
GEOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE PLATE C-B13.17.5
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 3
2 1 •
0 1
2 3
4 = a) 0 a) I.., a) 6
rs.
= 7
aD *-0
as 8
"2
75 9
=
0 10 U
11 12 ,
13 ----.
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 100
Sample Inundated At Normal Pressure of
i
1000
1500
Normal Pressure (ps f)
psf
10000 100000
Sample Location: B14
Sample Depth: 15 ft.
Initial Moisture: 20.9 %
Init. Dry Density: 100.8 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Clay
GEOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE PLATE C-B14.15
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 •
3 •
2 •
1 0 •
1 •
2 •
3 •
4 •-...,-• =
0) 3
U
L. 04 6 a.
= 7
a *4.- 03 8-
10 C..)
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20 e • •
100
Sample Inundated
. . 4 • • 14 • #
1000
At Normal Pressure of 2500
4 10000
Normal Pressure (psi)
psf
100000
Sample Location: B14
Sample Depth: 25
Initial Moisture: 29 %
Init. Dry Density: 94.5 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Clay w/ Silt
GEOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE PLATE C-B14.25
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 3 •
2 •
1 •
0 •
1 2
3 , 4
i 5.
c.,
...
cp 6
a
c 7.
o 1.-.
ca 8
-a
. -
-6 9 • 1,--- ...... .)
c
c 10 C ..)
11 •
12 •
13 14 •
15 16 •
17 18
19 20 •
100
Sample Inundated
. • 4 • • 1 • •
1000
At Normal Pressure of 1000
• • a • • •
Normal Pressure (psi)
psf
10000
• • • • • •
100000
Sample Location: B16
Sample Depth: 5 ft.
Initial Moisture: 37.6 %
Init. Dry Density: 81.6 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Clay
GEOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE PLATE C-B16.5
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 3
2 1
0 1 •
2 3
, 4
t a> 5
u L..
a> 6
a
a 7
o
z.:
a 8 1:3
(.,
=
0 10 • U
11 12
13 •
14 •
16 —_
17 18
19 20
100
Sample Inundated
• •
At Normal Pressure
.- • • •
1000
of 1500
• • • • 1 6 • •
Normal Pressure (ps t)
psf
10000
• • • •
100000
Sample Location: B16
Sample Depth: 15 ft.
Initial Moisture: 38.9 %
Init. Dry Density: 83.7 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Sandy Clay
GEOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE PLATE C-B16.15
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 3
2 •
1 0 -
1 •
2. 3
4 •
„
c. 5
v V v
v 6
a
c 7
o
...7)
c 8 lz,
-— a 9
c
0 10 • C.)
11 12 •
13 14 •
15 •
16 -
17 18
19 20 • • • . • .
100
Sample Inundated
• • • • •
1000
At Normal Pressure of 1000
Normal Pressure (psi)
psf
10000
4 ir. • I t • •
100000
Sample Location: B17
Sample Depth: 2.5 ft.
Initial Moisture: 24.1 %
Init. Dry Density: 94.5 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Silty w/ Clay
GEOLABS-WESTLAICE VILLAGE PLATE C-B17.2.5
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 3
2 1 •
0 1 •
2 •
3 •
4 • ,
S.- . 0 j
Cd
L. 0 6
a
0 7 0 ••0 0 8 ^0
.-
.3 9
0 0 10 ( -)
11 --..
12 --..
ilk
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20 a . .
100
Sample Inundated At Normal Pressure of
1000
Normal Pressure (ps f)
1500 psf
10000
I •
100000
Sample Location: B17
Sample Depth: 12.5 ft.
Initial Moisture: 37.2 %
Init. Dry Density: 84.5 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Clay w/ Silt
GEOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE PLATE C-B17.12.5
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 3
2 1 •
0 1
2 3.
4 •
•
•:•.'
e 5 eu u L.
CU 6 0..
e 7
o
=
ca 8
nz
w, e 0 10 • C.)
11 12
13 14
15 16 •
17 e.—
, —...
18 19
20 100
Sample Inundated
• • • • .- • • r • • • • • • • 6
1000 1 0
Normal Pressure (psi)
At Normal Pressure of 1000 psf
• • • •
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Sample Location: B18
Sample Depth: 2.5 ft.
Initial Moisture: 28.4 %
Init. Dry Density: 92.5 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Silt w/ Clay
GEOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE PLATE C-B18.2.5
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 3
2 •
1 •
0 •
1 2
3 •
4 :-....-
=
a
c .
cl)
(..)
i..
cu 6
cs.
= 7
o
..=
= 8 1:3 —
rn
=
0 10 C../
11 12 •
13 •
14 15 •
16 17
18 19 •
20 100
Sample Inundated
, • 6 . 0 •--II 11.-• -4 • • é*- 11.1 • • • I • • • •
1000 10000 100000
Normal Pressure (psi)
At Normal Pressure of 1750 psf
Sample Location: B18
Sample Depth: 17.5 ft.
Initial Moisture: 32.3 %
Init. Dry Density: 90.2 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Clay
GEOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE PLATE C-B18.17.5
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 3 •
2 • 111 • uuuuuu
1 •
0 1
111
1 2
3 4
:-,...- 1111
e 5
o
o 6.
o 6
o.
e 7
o
:,...
e 8
-o
31 b.. 9
a
0 10 C.)
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
100 1000 10000 100000
Normal Pressure (psi)
Sample Inundated At Normal Pressure of 3250 psf
Sample Location: B18
Sample Depth: 32.5 ft.
Initial Moisture: 37.7 %
Init. Dry Density: 82.6 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Silty w/ Clay
GEOLABS-WESTLAICE VILLAGE PLATE C-B18.32.5
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 3
2. 1
0 1
2 3
r,
4 •
'4..-
c a) °
CJ
I. a.) 6
c.
c 7
0 .-
'....'....
1:3
.- Z 9
'.s.N4,.
,#)
c
0 10
\
C..)
11 12
13 14
15 .....
-..,
.....
16 17 •
18 19
20 100
Sample Inundated
6 • • & 6 • -...- • $
1000
At Normal Pressure of 1000
• • • • • •
Normal Press ure (ps 0
psf
10000
• 4 • • • • • • •
100000
Sample Location: B19
Sample Depth: 2.5 ft.
Initial Moisture: 33.3 %
Init. Dry Density: 86 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Silt w/ Clay
GEOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE PLATE C-B19.2.5
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 3
2 1
0-
I
2 • 1 1.11M11111
3 (
4 ty u i. ty 6
a.
...,
a 7 a
ca 8 -a
3 4 ...
a (5) 10 •
11 •
12 13
14 15
16 •
17 •
18 •
19 • '
20* 4. . . .
100
Sample Inundated
1000
At Normal Pressure of 3750
Normal Pressure (psi)
psf
10000
. . -
100000
Sample Location: B19
Sample Depth: 37.5 ft.
Initial Moisture: 39.7 %
Init. Dry Density: 77.2 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Clay
GEOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE PLATE C-B19.37.5
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 I
3 1
2 1
0 1 •
2 •
3. 4 •
'..,-
C e
61 .3
61 L.
ea 6
a.
c 7.
c
=
ea 8 7z
...' Z 9
cl)
C
0 10
U
1 1 .
12 13
14 15 •
16 ,
17 18
19 20
.
i
•
100 1000 10000 100000
Normal Pressure (psi)
Sample Inundated At Normal Pressure of 1000 psf
Sample Location: B20
Sample Depth: 2.5 ft.
Initial Moisture: 43.3 %
Init. Dry Density: 84.2 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Clay w/ Silt
GEOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE PLATE C-B20.2.5
Se!leek Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 3
2 1
0 1 0---
2 •
3 t.
w 5
r.J
L.
W 6
o.
= 7
o
7..
ca 8
'V
ct" U 10.
11 12
13 14 •
15 16
17 18
19 20 a e . . . . • .
100
Sample Inundated
1000
At Normal Pressure of 1750
Normal Pressure (ps 0
psf
10000 100000
Sample Location: B20
Sample Depth: 17.5 ft.
Initial Moisture: 26.7 %
Init. Dry Density: 97.9 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Clay w/ Silt
EOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE PLATE C-B20.17.5
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 3
2 1
0 1
2 •
3 , 4
.5' 0 5 u I. 0 6
T.: ip
al.
a 7 © z.' ea 8
-a
.-- -6 9 - 0 a 0 10 (..)
11 12
, —...
......
13 14
15 16
17 •
!
18 •
19 I
20 1
• .
100
Sample Inundated
. ,
At Normal Pressure of 1250
000
Normal Pressure (psf)
psf
10000
t
100000
Sample Location: B21
Sample Depth: 12.5 ft.
Initial Moisture: 41.4 %
Init. Dry Density: 79.2 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Clay
GEOLABS-WESTLAICE VILLAGE PLATE C-B21.12.5
Sefleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 3
2 1
0 1
2 •
3 °.-------........0,...N...._
, _ 4
.5 0 5 c., L. 0 6
•—.. —.. —11 ....%.NI
0. 0 7 — 0
73 8 \
"0 — 73 9 0
0 10 C..)
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
100
Sample Inundated
• • 4- I
1000
At Normal Pressure of 1500
• • • •
Normal Pressure (ps f)
psf
10000
•
100000
Sample Location: B22
Sample Depth: 15 ft.
Initial Moisture: 31.8 %
Init. Dry Density: 93.2 pef
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Clay w/ Silt
GEOLABS-WESTLAICE VILLAGE PLATE C-B22.15
Selleck Properties, Inc. W.O. 9017
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Undisturbed Sample
-5
4 •
3 2
1 -
0 1
2 3
, 4 •
f 0 5
c., L. 0 6
c.,
c 7 0
=
c 8 • ^o
Z 9
. 0
0 10 -
11 •
C.)
12 13 -
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 •
100
Sample Inundated At Normal Pressure of
•
1000
2500
Normal Pressure (psf)
psf
10000 100000
Sample Location: B22
Sample Depth: 25 ft.
Initial Moisture: 28.4 %
Init. Dry Density: 94.5 pcf
Geologic Unit: Alluvium
Material: Clay w/ Silt
GEOLABS-WESTLAKE VILLAGE PLATE C-B22.25
60 50
10 20
CH or OH
. /
. / •
./ •
/•
/ •
/ •CL or OL
• / • •
•
•
CL-ML
ML'or OL
MH or OH
ATTERBERG 'BUTS TEST RESULTS
Plasticity Chart
10 20 30 40 50 60
Liquid Limit (LL)
70 80 90 100
Location Depth (ft) LL PI Classification
[email protected] 7.5 43 20 CL
[email protected] 17.5 29 4 ML
[email protected] 27.5 28 14 CL
[email protected] 2.5 58 39 CH
[email protected] 12.5 56 33 CH
B16@5ft 5 67 44 CH
[email protected] 12.5 38 22 CL
[email protected] 2.5 35 14 CL
[email protected] 12.5 48 32 CL
[email protected] 17.5 38 18 CL
[email protected] 32.5 31 12 CL
B19@15ft 15 44 24 CL
B19@30ft 30 31 12 CL
[email protected] 37.5 66 48 CH
[email protected] 17.5 36 13 CL
B21@0-5ft 0-5 45 30 CL
B22@15ft 15 38 21 CL
Geolabs — Westlake Village
GEOLOGY AND SOIL. ENGINEERING
JAB BY
12-0L-05 9017 DAV= W.0
PLATE AL
ffirnf
COMMMMIIIMMCOMMM [NJ —a NJ rsj NJ
N) (0 (0 CD 41.• NJ —‘• CTI 01 -P.
t'Sd
Percent Passing
C—Ss 0 CD 0 0
CO
"I'MGO 11111111""111.1111121111111111111111111111 II,
iIII
IIIIMMIMM • e III,
17 "11 11111" "IMIIIIIIIIIII
11 ummIll m1111 11 III II m IIIIIIIIII I IIIIIIII
ill III Ili .11 mmommommmommumm mmmmwmmmmmmmwmmmmmmmmmmmm 111111111 1111111111
mu mmmmmmmmsmmmmmmNmmmmmmmmmm MO 00 00 00 0 MilragralEIMMUlui ilit IN
opummom milloomm
mompoomont ....... .................................,... ...................„:„..„ ,....................,,,,,.......„, ...
puirp,ii
.. ...Imp: ,„...„ P... -0.444 f i,...----0Amorigvild
1111 11 111100114111 ..-- ---10.4011811
INE11111111111 -
.44P-191 -!-----0--10P--0,0- " r
-
0 in
rsmumwaWnimmemsmalsonamorporton mourimmom mwogigameg_temmun immilsimu. Mel 11 1111111161111511111111111111111111111111111
1106B0 II EMS I MEDNIIME am
110141111111111111111211111111111111111
1 14014111Ohlan1110 lialayALSAIRMEAMOGOJIMMOMATMOCIORIMMICASISI wwi mie immoimmommommuou mmmmmmmmmmmummom IMENINEWAWLIMMEM1111111111111 Mk Ma i rnitibIR-UNIUMISINIUMPIMPIIMUNHIMMIN_ Infill MN WM
nuturnIFill II I or I t I 11 1 I
p,
I! :11: i. 4/
C)
SISA1VNIV 32IS
39V1IIAMIVI1S3M-SIIV1039
(um') ozmu!eio
CI) CO
aT.
r
A -.3 A
NJ
,...)
--a
l., 3,./
L.'
LALALALAO LALALA LA
NJ
-...1
N
N.,
,--
-...I
,
'-'
"A
N
>
,<.
E
3 C^
Alluvium
-e. E.
>>
32 E
e E.
Alluvium
>
c
< E.
3 >
0 e E.
3 ,
>
a
<
E .
3 >
a
e E.
3 Alluvium
>
c
< E.
9 Cl)
0 a, -
0_
Clay
Silty Sand
,
.<
ar
Clay
2 - . Cl.)
Sand ,
;..- •
n
ar
‘-<
Sand
Silt w/ Clay
a aC
„
CA CC c -. -, C.
„
a C -,
NJ
LA
-
00 LA
,J
VD
j
N.)
0 i_A
NJ LA
1....
.--.
'-- 00
NJ
LA
Loa
,....
i..,
o
,_.
0 -.3
-.,1
---,
1J
,_
0 1,...)
,t)
....
LA
,_.
"
A
,_.
,_,
0 .--
0 l.../
'ID
VD
00 00
‘0
.-.
00 LA
CO
N.)
00 A.
VD
--1
‘0
NJ
0,
01 La
A
CC
,-..
NJ
NJ
0 .0,
ca,
0 LA
c-,
•-•
:-.
-...3
0 .0,
LA
0 bc.
lo.k
0 Lo
LA
0 LA
NJ
i:N.
L.,
09 Co
in
0,
0 i.., 0,
0,
irk
A
0 ick
La .0.
CD
LA
0 .3,3
Os
0 L.,
A
0 .,....3
00 0
ID.
s.0
N3
tA
NJ
....1
0 CO
NJ
!....3
.-.
l.A
l...1
,...]
lk..1
—
NJ
LA
.-
.-
LA
.--.
NJ
0,
.....
La
Lo,
....
,—
,.....3
.--.
la
0 .....
N.)
LA
.-.
A
L.,
1-.
La
N..)
..-.
N.) ,0
.-.
,--
CO
0,
1...,
La
-..3
C)
.--,
LA 0,
.00
Ol
--I
....,
01 N.)
LA
DO
'--.
ON ,
0 j
0,
0.'
LA
LA
LA
10)
C-B19.37.5
C-B19.2.5
S-B19.42.5 I
La
00 N.) 0,
1-
La
LA La ,„ ,0 00
0 0
00 00
CD
.0,
La
N.)
La
NJ
Na NJ La
NJ
NJ
Lo.k
NJ
LA
LA
CC
Ui
Cr)
0, LA ,0 La
NJ
Lt,
'a
-2 'a
NJ
LA
LA
LA
La
0,
Loa
0 LA
,C) 00 00
ci
La 1r> La
NJ
kra
NJ NJ
NJ
NJ La
01 k-• 00
La
NJ
LA
NJ
LA
CD 0
LA
La
,0 00 ,0
01 LA
La
0 LA
LA
La
NJ
OP
La
-A LA
L., NJ
0 0,
LA, La La
N.) ,0
0 La
NJ
uo9dpasauaiduies
Cl)
fD
For abbreviation explanation see Legend on PLATELS 4
0 TI
0 LA LA
9 LA
LA
z.
>>
NJ N.) --u i NJ
LA LA LA
> >
C C C
322
300
to rlt
;-/, to
-7--
"
LA
1 --...)
id) to
[
LA
"
to
Alluvium
Alluvi um
Alluvium Alluvium
Alluvi um
I
>
Alluvi um Clay w/Silt
3— <
C'
3 3
1 r) , w ,
Sand
n
,
Sil t
Sandy Clay
Sand
, a
...... a
..... — c_-. — c
...... — — c
......
, .... __. ._ ,.., _. NJ
0 0, LA Ln la c,,
0, Li '0-
.--.1 .0: 00
,0 00 ---1 .- 0 0
00 0 0
--I
00 :tN
0 .--
1 -4 ,0 -.J -4 00 00 0 00
-.4
4, 0 A Co A
•0 to
NJ
00 .-•
.0
NJ
0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0
NJ 00
•-• LA 0, CM 0) 0'
0 0 0 0 C) 0 0
i..0 'L.) • i...)
.4). • _,.
NJ NJ 00 VI
0, -4 -
N N NJNJ
-4 NJ .- to L•.3 0' 00 ts)
0 LA 0'
,...),.)-)l..01.),N1...),-
-4 ,0 -0. 00
t„,
0 ON -4 -.J ---1 Ch -4 to al
-4
in
NJ
4,
t...,
in
.40
Cr.
CN
L.,
,-•
i...,
C.,,
"cn
-4
L.,
(")
la
'C-B13.7.5
C-B13 2.5
;_.
-.4
LA
to
C) CI •-O
NJ
NJ NJ
NJ
a9VTIIA
For abbrevi ation explanation see Legend on PLATELS4
NJ
‘40
‘40
to
NJ
C)
•-•
C)
00 C)
C) C)
00 to
00 ,0 to
to
Cn 0,
NJ
NJ
NJ
1-•
NJ
0 NJ ,C)
NJ NJ
LA 0
> >
2 C/)
7-7
l/1
to ,0
NJ
to
to
00 S1171E1-0 I Z./.9
0,
C.)
Kimmunslso Kimulocieg
uopdpasaa*hues
eo
0 0
00 •—•
r--
0 •-r, 0
I
,-P, 1 0
1 1
ul 0 crk
I
12 _ _
_ Alluvi um
0 > —
= < E.
a
5 Alluvium
>
C < E.
3 >
— ^- Z .
c
2 > —
= E.
5 >
«.
a
E
3 >
a < E.
3 >
a <
a.
'
All uvium
...... >
a < _.
c
2 Silt
Sand
Sand
Sand Sand
Silty Sand
Sandy Clay
n
AT
cr) n
—
CCCCCCCV,
---", e•-• ,-... .---.
C
00 ,-- ' LA LA :14,. 1 cr'
NJ
bo
LA
sc .i" ,
LA
ON
so
6,
—
NJ
--
00 --
NJ
._.
A
_ 'I'
00 :_j
-- 00
OS
.--
0 s-C,
.A.
00 00 CT ....1
SO
VD
NJ
00 4..
.--.
0 00
Li,
I.0
CS
CO ...../
0 US
L.,
c::,
--,
0 LA
LA
0 IA
'C
0 .4,
...../
,--•
0 0
0 ....,
.--•
6 t.,,
0 (...J
US
0 Ir.,.
—
0 i...,
LA
0 i..,
LA
0 i...,
NJ
0 li,
LA
•
L.
0 i...,
NJ
t,,,
.--
•-•
NJ CS
,--
NJ
LA
NJ
......)
NJ
co
(...J
L.,
.--•
co
—I
0,
,--
L.,
0 ..--
.—
t•-)
LO
CO
NJ
L.-,
W 4, LL,
00 LA
0 NJ
0 -O. CO
.--
VI
-.I
LA
.—
0 0
'L.)
....J
.--
A
....J
Ln *ON
....1
LO
IA.
Cr,
'LA
LA L...1
CS
v.
NJ
N.)
C-B16.15
95 -
LA
pO
-J
NJ
US
L.../ LA
PP
Z, 0o
LA 0
LA
0 ON
"SI aidla
19VTIIA Txrusgm-sarloaD
For abbreviation expl anation see Legend on PLATE LS 4
cn
C.
C/1
LA
CO
.L0
00 CO
00 LA
LA .00
LA
o•-•
NJ
LA
t-A
LA
NJ r
ZZ LA LA "Ln LA
NJ
LA LA LA 'LA
LA
> >
<.
E E
3 Fe
3 CCCa
-C 'a
-a
LA
LA
CO
00 LA '
00 'NJ
PP
00 LA
oc.
LA
Oc.
LA
00 NJ
0 LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
Lo
LA
CO
7 LA
NJ
LA -LO
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
L.!
CD uopcipasaaalcitu es
C.00
tri
Cl,
uow
ip
asau
al c
hugs
13 3
d0
xEiA
l
s
t:J
t:J
39V111AaMVIISIM-StIV1019
CM 0
APPENDIX A
SEISMICITY ANALYSES
GEOLABS - WESTLAKE VILLAGE
9017.0uT
***********************
UBCSEIS *
* version 1.03
*
***********************
COMPUTATION OF 1997
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
JOB NUMBER: 9017 DATE: 09-26-2005
JOB NAME: Selleck Commerc
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: s:\engr\ubcseis\CDMGUBCR.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 34.2200
SITE LONGITUDE: 119.0900
UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4
UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD
NEAREST TYPE A FAULT:
NAME: SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture
DISTANCE: 68.4 km
NEAREST TYPE B FAULT:
NAME: SIMI-SANTA ROSA
DISTANCE: 1.3 km
NEAREST TYPE C FAULT:
NAME:
DISTANCE: 99999.0 km
SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS:
Na: 1.3
NV: 1.6
Ca: 0.57
cv: 1.02
Ts: 0.716
To: 0.143
******************************************************************** * CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are limited in number and have been digitized from smallscale maps (e.g., 1:750,000 scale). consequently, the estimated fault-site—distances may be in error by
several kilometers. Therefore, it is important that
the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and
adjusted as needed, before they are used in design.
**************.***************************4*****************,*******