Attachment 2 - CC Resolution No. 2024-9 — Camarillo City Council, May 28, 2025 (part 1 of 15)

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-9

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CAMARILLO DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S ADOPTION

APPROVING SECOND SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) 2023-4 FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A COSTCO WHOLESALE WITH OFFSALES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND FREESTANDING FUEL FACILITY, LOCATED SOUTH OF U.S. 101, NORTH OF WEST VENTURA BOULEVARD
APPROXIMATELY 980 FEET EAST OF SPRINGVILLE
DRIVE
The City Council of the City of Camarillo resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Camarillo finds and declares as follows:

A. On September 12, 2007, the City of Camarillo City Council adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 2006-17 for General Plan Amendment (GPA 2006-2); Change of Zones (CZ-297 and CZ-298); Commercial Planned Development Permit (CPD-226); and Conditional Use Permit (CUP-294) on 44.84 acres, located at the northeast corner of Springville Drive and West Ventura Boulevard. The project involved a GPA from Office to General Commercial; Change of Zones from Limited Manufacturing and Professional Office to CPD; and the development of up to 499,000 square feet of building area. With the implementation of mitigation measures, all potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

B. On February 15, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted an Addendum to MND 2006-7 for a modification to the Commercial Planned Development Permit [CPD226M(1)] on the 44.84-acre site. The modification included changes to the site layout but the overall type and amount of development at the site continued to be less than 499,000 square feet of commercial center building space and the site access points remained unchanged.

C. On April 19, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted Subsequent MND 2016- 1 for a modification to the Commercial Planned Development Permit for the Amara Shopping Center project on the 44.84-acre site [CPD-226M(3)] for changes to the layout of the project site plan and changes to the building elevations. The Subsequent MND evaluated the development of up to 499,000 square feet in order to provide flexibility in the subsequent site plan development for the project.

D. An application was submitted by MG2 (Architects) on behalf of Costco Wholesale for a modification to the Commercial Planned Development Permit for changes to the site plan and building for the development of approximately 20 acres of the 44.84-acre site into a 163,397-square-foot retail warehouse and the construction of a free-standing fuel facility located south of U.S. 101/Ventura Boulevard, north of West Ventura Boulevard, east of Springville Drive, and west of Home Depot. (”Project”) Resolution No. 2024-9 Second Subsequent MND 2023-4

Page 2 of 5 ends

E. A Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 2023-4 has been prepared for the Project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Camarillo Environmental Guidelines.

F. Draft Second Subsequent MND 2023-4 was circulated for a 20-day public review period beginning on November 9, 2023, and ending on November 28, 2023. A Notice of Availability and Intent to File a Second Subsequent MND (NOI) was distributed to public agencies, interested parties, local Tribal Groups, and property owners and occupants within a 600-foot radius of the property. The NOI was advertised in a newspaper of general circulation within the area (Ventura County Star), posted at City Hall, and the City’s website.

A sign was posted on the subject property. A copy of the Draft Second Subsequent MND was made available for public review at City Hall and posted on the City’s website.

G. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission for the City of Camarillo on December 5, 2023, at which time testimony was heard on the proposed Project and the Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Second Subsequent MND 2023-4 and approved the Project (4-1, Commissioner Limon dissenting).

H. On December 14, 2023, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), represented by the law office of Lozeau Drury LLP. The basis of the appeal is as further described in their appeal and the City’s Agenda staff report.

I. On December 15, 2023, a second appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by Darshann M. Wienick, Esq. on behalf of Ventura County Citizens Against Mega Gas (VCCAMG). The basis of the appeal is as further described in their appeal and the City’s Agenda staff report.

J. Under CMC sections 19.26.260 and 19.62.090, the timely filing of an appeal will stay the decision of the Planning Commission to which the appeal relates pending the City Council action on the matter.

K. On February 12, 2024, the City received a letter from Lozeau Drury LLP, representing SAFER, withdrawing their appeal.

L. A duly noticed public appeal hearing was held by the City Council for the City of Camarillo on February 14, 2024, to conduct an independent review and a de novo appeal hearing as to the appeal by VCCAMG, at which time testimony was heard from all interested parties under the procedure stated in the Agenda Staff report on the appeal of the Project and the Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4.

M. On February 14, 2024, the City Council opened the public appeal hearing to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the appeal of the Project, including without limitation, information provided to the City Council by, staff, the City’s environmental consultant Cadence and the response to comments, public testimony the applicant, appellant and the public.

Resolution No. 2024-9 Second Subsequent MND 2023-4

Page 3 of 5 ends

N. The City Council independently considered the information provided by staff, the City’s environmental consultant Cadence and the response to comments, public testimony, the applicant, and Appellant. This Resolution, and its findings, are made based upon the evidence presented to the City Council at its February 14, 2024, hearing including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Director of the Community Development Department and its attachments thereto.

O. The City Council has independently considered the appeal matters and finds that the Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 adequately complies with the requirements of CEQA.

P. The City Council has reviewed Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4, and the document reflects the independent judgment of the Council.

SECTION 2. Based on the above findings, the City Council of the City of Camarillo denies the appeal and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission to approve and adopt Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 as shown on Exhibit A, copies of which are on file with the Department of Community Development. All proposed mitigation measures identified in Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 are hereby adopted by reference. Additionally, although not a mitigation measure, the Applicant agrees that the project will employ the sustainable design features to reduce energy use described in the Supplemental Energy Analysis prepared by Ramboll, dated February 5, 2024, including entering into a Retail Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) directly with a clean energy retailer to provide 100 percent clean power.

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

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

SECTION 5. Limitations. The City Council’s analysis and evaluation of this matter is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating the matter that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the matter will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the matter is the City Council’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions.

Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City’s ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 6. Preservation. This Resolution does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this Resolution’s effective date. Any such amended part will remain in full Resolution No. 2024-9 Second Subsequent MND 2023-4

Page 4 of 5 ends

force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Resolution.

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

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

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

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

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED month day, year.
________________________________
Mayor
Attested to on _________________
_____________________________
City Clerk
I, Kristy Buxkemper, City Clerk of the City of Camarillo, certify Resolution No. 2024-9 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Camarillo at a regular meeting held February 14, 2024, by the following vote:

YES: Councilmembers: Kildee, Martinez-Bravo, Santangelo, Tennessen, Trembley NO: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
__________________________
City Clerk
03 / 01 / 2024
Resolution No. 2024-9 Second Subsequent MND 2023-4

Page 5 of 5 ends

EXHIBIT A
To access the Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4, please visit the City’s website at:
https://cityofcamarillo.org/departments/community_development/pending_projects.php

FINAL SECOND SUBSEQUENT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2023-4
Camarillo Costco
Commercial Planned Development Modification CPD-226M(5); Conditional Use Permit CUP-422
December 2023
Prepared by:

FINAL SECOND SUBSEQUENT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2023-4
Camarillo Costco
Commercial Planned Development Modification CPD-226M(5); Conditional Use Permit CUP-422
Prepared for:

City of Camarillo
Department of Community Development
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, CA 93010
805-388-5360
Contact: Jaclyn Lee, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared by:

Cadence Environmental Consultants
Camarillo, CA 93010
December 2023
The City of Camarillo has independently reviewed and approved the information presented in this document.

RESOLUTION NO. PC 2023-28

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF CAMARILLO APPROVING SECOND

SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(MND) 2023-4
The Planning Commission of the City of Camarillo resolves as follows:

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

A. On September 12, 2007, the City of Camarillo City Council adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 2006-17 for General Plan Amendment (GPA 2006- 2); Change of Zones (CZ-297 and CZ-298); Commercial Planned Development Permit (CPD-226); and Conditional Use Permit (CUP-294) on 44.84 acres, located at the northeast corner of Springville Drive and West Ventura Boulevard. The project involved a GPA from Office to General Commercial; Change of Zones from Limited Manufacturing and Professional Office to CPD; and the development of up to 499,000 square feet of building area. With the implementation of mitigation measures, all potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

C. On April 19, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted Subsequent MND 2016-1 for a modification to the Commercial Planned Development Permit for the Amara Shopping Center project on the 44.84-acre site [CPD-226M(3)] for changes to the layout of the project site plan and changes to the building elevations. The Subsequent MND evaluated the development of up to 499,000 square feet in order to provide flexibility in the subsequent site plan development for the project.

D. An application was submitted by MG2 (Architects) on behalf of Costco Wholesale for a modification to the Commercial Planned Development Permit for changes to the site plan and building for the development of approximately 20 acres of the 44.84- acre site into a 163,397-square-foot retail warehouse and the construction of a freestanding fuel facility located south of U.S. 101/Ventura Boulevard, north of West Ventura Boulevard, east of Springville Drive, and west of Home Depot. ("Project") E. A Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 2023-4 has been prepared for the Project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Camarillo Environmental Guidelines.

Resolution No. PC 2023-28 Second Subsequent MND 2023-4

Page 1 of 3 ends

F. Draft Second Subsequent MND 2023-4 was circulated for a 20-day public review period beginning on November 9, 2023, and ending on November 28, 2023. A Notice of Availability and Intent to File a Second Subsequent MND (N01) was distributed to public agencies, interested parties, local Tribal Groups, and property owners and occupants within a 600-foot radius of the property. The NOI was advertised in a newspaper of general circulation within the area (Ventura County Star), posted at City Hall, and the City's website. A sign was posted on the subject property. A copy of the Draft Second Subsequent MND was made available for public review at City Hall and posted on the City's website.

H. The Planning Commission considered the information provided by staff, public testimony, and the applicant. This Resolution, and its findings, are made based upon the evidence presented to the Planning Commission at its December 5, 2023, hearing including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Director of the Community Development Department.

I. The Planning Commission finds that the Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately complies with the requirements of CEQA.

J. The Planning Commission members have reviewed the Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the document reflects the independent judgment of the Commission.

SECTION 2. Approval and Adoption of Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4. Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission of the City of Camarillo approves and adopts Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 as shown on Exhibit A, copies of which are on file with the Department of Community Development. All proposed mitigation measures identified in Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 are hereby adopted by reference.

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

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

SECTION 5. Limitations. The Planning Commission's analysis and evaluation of this matter is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating the matter that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the Resolution No. PC 2023-28 Second Subsequent MND 2023-4

Page 2 of 3 ends

matter will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the matter is the Planning Commission's lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues.

The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 6. Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Planning Commission intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 7. Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 8. Office of Record. The record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is located in the Department of Community Development, which is the office of record for the matter.

SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Resolution is effective upon adoption.

SECTION 10. The Planning Commission Chair, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix their signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the Planning Commission of the City of Camarillo, and the Planning Commission Secretary is directed to attest thereto.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED on December 5, 2023, by members of the Planning Commission voting as follows:

AYES: Chair Vandermeulen, Vice-Chair Edsall, Commissioner Murphy and Davidson
NOES: Commissioner Limon
ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:
490
Secretary
Resolution No. PC 2023-28 Second Subsequent MND 2023-4

Page 3 of 3 ends

Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 7 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ........................................................................ 20 Aesthetics and Scenic Resources ........................................................................... 21 Agriculture Resources............................................................................................. 25 Air Quality................................................................................................................ 29 Biological Resources................................................................................................ 43 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................ 50 Energy........................................................................................................................ 58 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................... 61 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................... 69 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................... 75 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................... 81 Land Use and Planning........................................................................................... 88 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................. 108 Noise and Vibration .............................................................................................. 110 Population and Housing....................................................................................... 118 Public Services and Recreation............................................................................ 120 Transportation........................................................................................................ 124 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................... 133 Wildfire ................................................................................................................... 138 Mandatory Findings of Significance................................................................... 140 Table of Contents
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
ii
Appendices
Appendix A – Mitigated Negative Declaration 2006-17
Appendix B –Air Quality Impact Evaluation
Appendix C – TDM Fund Contributions
Appendix D – Human Health Risk Assessment
Appendix E – Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix F – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix G – Water Impact Study
Appendix H – Daily Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Memorandum Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
1 INTRODUCTION

PROJECT HISTORY
On September 12, 2007, the Camarillo City Council approved General Plan Amendment GPA 2006-2, Change of Zone CZ-297 and CZ-298, Commercial Planned Development CPD-226, and Conditional Use Permit CUP-294 for the Paseo Camino Real commercial center project at a 44.84-acre site located within the Airport North Specific Plan area. This project involved a General Plan Amendment from Office to General Commercial, Changes of Zone from Limited Manufacturing and Professional Office to Commercial Planned Development, and the development of up to 499,000 square feet of building coverage with an assumed 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. As is typical for many proposed developments, the actual building shapes and sizes would be determined during the building plan review process. However, the total amount of building space for the project would not exceed 499,000 square feet. CUP-294 allowed an increase in building height above 35 feet and up to 65 feet for certain tower elements. The original approved site plan for CPD-226 is illustrated in Figure 1.

The potential environmental impacts associated with the Paseo Camino Real commercial center project were evaluated in a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (MND 2006-17) that was circulated for a 20-day public review period. The MND evaluated the impacts of GPA 2006-2, CZ-297 and CZ-298, CPD226, and CUP 294 for the development of a 499,000-square-foot commercial center rather than a mix of individual retail, restaurant, and office uses. At the end of the public review period, the written comments that the City received were responded to, a Mitigation Monitoring Program was prepared, and this information was presented as a Final MND to the City of Camarillo Planning Commission and City Council, which ultimately adopted the MND when it approved the Paseo Camino Real commercial center project.

The Paseo Camino Real commercial center project included an extension of Ventura Boulevard from its previous terminus (at the eastern project site boundary) to West Ventura Boulevard (previously Bajo Agua Avenue), which is approximately 3⁄4 mile west of the project site. A previous two-lane segment of Ventura Boulevard along the northern property boundary was removed in accordance with the plans for the U.S. 101/Springville Drive Interchange and the vehicles traveling west from Overland Road would be directed into the center of the project site. The extension to West Ventura Boulevard (previously Bajo Agua) was needed to provide continuous roadway access from Las Posas Road on the east to Central Avenue on the west. The four-lane extension of Ventura Boulevard from the eastern project site boundary to West Ventura Boulevard was completed in 2008 with funding provided by the Paseo Camino Real commercial center project applicant.

Introduction
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
2 FIGURE 1 - ORIGINAL SITE PLAN - CPD-226
Introduction
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
3 In 2011, the City of Camarillo Planning Commission approved a Major Modification to the project [CPD226M(1)]. The overall type and amount of development at the site under the Major Modification continued to be less than 499,000 square feet of commercial center building space and the site access points remained unchanged. A Tentative Tract Map was also proposed at that time but was not acted upon by the City. The environmental impacts associated with CPD-226M(1) were evaluated in an Addendum to MND 2006-17.

In 2016, the City of Camarillo Planning Commission approved another Major Modification [CPD-226M(3)] to change the layout of the project site plan and changes to the allowed building elevations. The proposed site plan showed a total amount of building space of 487,239 square feet under this modification, which assumed a mix of 234,356 square feet of retail space, 57,082 square feet of in-line and freestanding restaurant space, and 38,000 square feet of health club space. The impacts of the Major Modification were evaluated in a Subsequent MND (Subsequent MND 2016-1 for the Amara Shopping Center). The Subsequent MND assumed the development of up to 499,000 square feet in order to provide flexibility in the subsequent site plan development for the project. The project also included a conditional use permit (CUP-372) to exceed the 35-foot maximum building height in the CPD zone, as well as conditional use permits (CUP-374 and CUP-375) for the sale of alcoholic beverage for off-site consumption. Tentative Tract Map TT-5880 was also requested to subdivide the approximately 45-acre property into eight (8) lots although the applicant did not move forward with the Tentative Tract Map and it was never approved by the City. The approved site plan for CPD-226M(3) is illustrated in Figure 2. Subsequent MND 2016-1 is incorporated as Appendix A to this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4.

Although no development of the property under any of the previous approvals has occurred to date, CPD226M(3) represents the current approval for development of the overall property.

PROPOSED PROJECT
MG2 Corporation is now requesting approval of a Major Modification to CPD-226M(3) to allow the development of a new 163,177-square-foot, one-story Costco Wholesale retail building and free-standing fuel facility with 16 dispensers (i.e., 32 fueling positions) and a parking lot consisting of approximately 901 stalls on the eastern 20 acres of the project site (proposed project). The applicant is also requesting approval of a CUP for the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Costco warehouse for off-site consumption and to permit building heights greater than 35 feet for the Costco warehouse. Although the City has entertained potential developments within the western portion of the property, no actual applications have been filed to date and the proposed project does not include a request to exceed the 499,000 square feet of building space approved for the entire property. The future second phase of the Amara Shopping Center would include the remaining 335,823 square feet of building area of the approved 499,000 square feet of commercial space in the western portion of the project site. No modification to the remaining western 24.84 acres of the project site is requested as part of the proposed project. The areas of the project site that would be occupied by the proposed Costco project and the future second phase of the Amara Shopping Center are illustrated in Figure 3.

Introduction
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
4 FIGURE 2 - SITE PLAN FOR CPD-226M(3)
Introduction
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
5 FIGURE 3 – PROJECT SITE DEVELOPMENT AREAS

STANDARDS FOR SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Sections 15162 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines) addresses the situation of when an MND has previously been adopted for a project and the issue of whether a subsequent environmental document needs to be prepared. A subsequent EIR is required: when substantial changes are proposed for a project which require major revisions to the previously adopted MND due to new potentially significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified potentially significant effects; when substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous MND due to new potentially significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified potentially significant effects; or when there is new information of substantial importance not known at the time of the previous MND’s approval. If none of these criteria for a subsequent EIR are met, then the lead agency may decide whether to prepare a subsequent ND/MND, an addendum, or no further documentation. An addendum to an adopted MND may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred.

Introduction
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
6 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
As stated above, the requested actions involve an amount of development that is within the project impact analysis presented in the adopted Subsequent MND 2016-1 for CPD-226M(3). The existing entitlements for the development of up to 499,000 square feet of building coverage under CPD-226M(3) represent the current approvals for development of the project site. As such, the analysis of impacts in this document tiers off of the analysis presented in the adopted Subsequent MND 2016-1. However, there have been substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken in that the State of California has also adopted thresholds of significance for energy, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire impacts and these impacts were not evaluated in the adopted Subsequent MND 2016-1. In addition, the Camarillo City Council adopted its City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines in May 2020 to assist City staff process proposed projects under CEQA. The evaluation of impacts in this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 is based upon the thresholds of significance formally adopted in the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines.

Based on this information, the City of Camarillo has determined that the appropriate environmental document to address the potential impacts associated with the proposed project is this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4. The new information presented in this document is substantial to a level that the document should be circulated for public review (something that is not required of an addendum to an adopted MND). However, no new significant impacts have been identified that would require the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report.

Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Subsequent MND shall be given the same kind of public notice and public review as is given to a Draft MND. Therefore, the Draft Second Subsequent MND will be circulated to the public for a minimum of 20 days prior to consideration by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission.

Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project Site Location
The project site is located within the City of Camarillo in Ventura County. As shown in Figure 4, the City of Camarillo is located in southern Ventura County along the U.S. Highway 101 (Ventura Freeway) corridor. U.S. Highway 101 bisects the City along an east-west alignment. The City is surrounded by unincorporated county land. The City of Thousand Oaks is located to the east and the cities of Oxnard and San Buenaventura (Ventura) are located to the west.

FIGURE 4 - REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
Regional vehicular access to Camarillo is obtained primarily from U.S. Highway 101 and State Route 34 (Lewis Road). Other regional access routes located close to Camarillo include State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) and State Route 118.

The project site is located north of the Camarillo Hills Drain and Camarillo Airport, south of U.S. Highway 101, east of Springville Drive, and west of the Camarillo Town Center West (Home Depot) development as illustrated in Figure 5. The project site is a portion of the 338-acre Airport North Specific Plan (Specific Plan) area approved by the Camarillo City Council in 1986 and amended most recently in 2016.

Project Description
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
8 FIGURE 5 - LOCAL VICINITY MAP
Project Site Characteristics
The approximately 44.84-acre project site is vacant and relatively flat, and slopes gently to the south at a rate of approximately 0.007 foot in height to one foot of distance. The site was previously used for the agricultural production of row crops from at least 1927 but has not been cultivated since 2007. The ground cover at the site is comprised of non-native grasses. Vegetation growth at the site was recently controlled by a tribe of goats that are transported to the site for this purpose. Access to the site is restricted by a perimeter chain link fence with five gates.

Applicable Land Use Plans
The City of Camarillo General Plan land use designation for the site is General Commercial and the underlying zoning is CPD (Commercial Planned Development).

The project site is also located within the planning area of the Airport North Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City in June 1986 and most recently amended by the City Council in 2016. The Specific Plan pertains to a 337-acre area made up of various different properties located along the south side of the Ventura Freeway (U.S. 101) westerly of Las Posas Road. 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; Project Description
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
9 • 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; • 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.”
Surrounding Land Uses
The areas to the east and west of the project site are located within the Airport North Specific Plan area.

The properties to the east of the site are developed with the Camarillo Town Center and Camarillo Town Center West developments. The Camarillo Town Center is developed with approximately 370,000 square feet of commercial uses anchored by a Target store. The Camarillo Town Center West development site is located adjacent to the project site and is anchored by a Home Depot. Both of these developments are designated Commercial and zoned CPD.

Springville Drive is located to the immediate west of the project site. Beyond Springville Drive is a 47-acre property that is presently vacant, but TT-5812 Mod was approved in 2016 that anticipates the development of up to 268,500 square feet of commercial uses and 198,767 square feet of industrial and/or office uses.

Ventura Boulevard is located to the immediate south of the project site. A 3.64-acre property located to the south of Ventura Boulevard is designated for Research and Development in the General Plan and zoned LM. To the south of this area is the Camarillo Hills Drain, which services a larger area of the City and is under the jurisdiction of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District. South of the Camarillo Hills Drain is Camarillo Airport, which is a public use airport with only general aviation operations.

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
MG2 Corporation is requesting approval of a Major Modification to CPD-226M(3) to allow the development of a new 163,177-square-foot, one-story Costco Wholesale retail building and free-standing fuel facility with 16 dispensers (i.e., 32 fueling positions) and a parking lot consisting of approximately 901 stalls on the eastern 20 acres of the project site (proposed project) as shown previously in Figure 3. The preliminary site plan for the proposed Costco facility is illustrated in Figure 6. In comparison, the site plan that was approved with the 2016 Subsequent MND for Major Modification CPD-226M(3) assumed that this area of the overall 44.84-acre commercial site would be developed with up to approximately 208,000 square feet (see Figure 2). The future second phase of the Amara Shopping Center would include the remaining 335,823 square feet of building area of the approved 499,000 square feet of commercial space in the western portion of the project site. No modification to the remaining western 24.84 acres of the project site is requested as part of the proposed project.

Project Description
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
10 FIGURE 6 - PRELIMINARY COSTCO SITE PLAN
Project Description
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
11 Building Design
The Costco retail warehouse would have one customer entrance to the main store located at the building’s northwest corner. The building would include a bakery, pharmacy, optical center with optical exams and retail optical sales, hearing aid testing exam and retail hearing aid fitting and sales center, indoor food court, and a photo center along with the sales of over 4,000 products. The building would also include a tire center, which would be approximately 5,318 net square feet with member access via the inside of the main retail building. The tire center would provide tire sales and tire installation with up to five tire installation bays that face west.

The truck loading dock is located at the northeastern side of the building. The loading dock area would be depressed 4 feet below the site grades to accommodate larger delivery truck and include four individual side-by-side loading bays. The bay doors would be equipped with sealed gaskets to limit unloading noise levels. A smaller on grade door is located on the east side of the building. This door is to receive bread delivery and Federal Express type trucks. A transformer and two fully enclosed trash compactors would also be located along the east side of the building. The transformer and compactors would be enclosed by a 10-foot-high screen wall to block views from Ventura Boulevard to the south and the loading dock area to the north. A backup generator is planned to be located on the roof of the warehouse. The backup generator is proposed to be powered by natural gas.

The building is proposed to be consistent with the City’s Heritage Zone Design Guidelines. The proposed design of Mission/Early of Mission/Early California style architecture uses arches along an entry colonnade, a sloped roof at the main entry, hipped roof towers, and materials that include clay roof tiles, textured exterior walls, and earth tones of brown and red color palette. The proposed Costco building elevations are illustrated in Figure 7.

Gas Station
The gas station would be located in the northwestern portion of the Costco development. The gas station includes an 11,000-square-foot canopy and would dispense regular and premium grades of fuel at each fuel pump. The fuel facility includes a 187-square-foot controller enclosure which is located within a planting island. This small, prefabricated structure would house the control equipment for the gas station.

The controller enclosure would be built with steel walls and finished with paint to match the warehouse building colors. There would be four covered fueling bays, each with four gas pumps which fuel two cars each. This results in 16 fueling dispensers that would provide a fueling capacity for 32 cars at a time. A proposed stacking area provides space for an additional 42 cars waiting to get to a fueling position. The gas station is located at the most remote area of the site which is specifically designed to avoid traffic and queuing conflicts with the warehouse. The pumps would be fully automated and self-service for Costco members only, with an attendant present to oversee operations and assist members with issues. The proposed detail site plan for the gas station is illustrated in Figure 8 while the proposed stacking plan is illustrated in Figure 9 and the proposed elevations for the gas station are illustrated in Figure 10.

Project Description
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
12 FIGURE 7 - PROPOSED COSTCO BUILDING ELEVATIONS
Project Description
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
13 FIGURE 8 - GAS STATION DETAIL SITE PLAN
Four underground fuel tanks would be installed with the gas station. Specifically, there would be two 40,000-gallon regular gas tanks, one 40,000-gallon premium gas tank, and one 1,500-gallon fuel additive tank.

Landscaping is proposed around all four sides of the gas station which would screen the pump area along with controller and gas tank vent stack and air separator equipment. LED flush lens lights would be recessed into the canopy and provide both lighting during operating hours and a lower level of security lighting after hours. There is no outside retail associated with this fuel station.

Site Access
Vehicular access to the Costco facility would be provided via two driveways along Ventura Boulevard and a connection to Overland Road at the northeastern corner of the project site. Truck deliveries to the retail warehouse would use Overland Road to access the site while truck deliveries to the gas station would access the site from Ventura Boulevard.

Project Description
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
14 FIGURE 9 - GAS STATION STACKING PLAN
Site Parking
General retail uses must provide a minimum of one parking space for every 250 square feet of floor area (i.e., 4/1,000 square feet). Outlet centers and superstores are required to provide one space per 200 square feet of floor area (i.e., 5/1,000 square feet). Based on these standards, 740 parking spaces are required for the majority of the retail warehouse building (149,879 square feet at 1/200 square feet) while 37 spaces are required for the tire center (5,318 square feet at 1/250 square feet) and 11 spaces are required for the hearing/optometrist area of the building (2,045 square feet at 1/200 square feet). This equates to a total requirement of 788 spaces.

The preliminary site plan provides a total of 901 parking stalls, including 19 handicapped accessible stalls and 181 stalls for electric vehicles. Of the 181 electric vehicle stalls, 46 stall would provide electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) at first occupancy while the remaining 135 stalls would provide electrical infrastructure for the future installation of EVSE.

Landscaping
Approximately 19% of the Costco portion of the project site would be landscaped, which is consistent with the requirements of the CPD zone. The proposed landscaping palette includes a mix of drought tolerant shrubs and grasses and a variety of shade and ornamental trees to be used throughout the parking field.

The preliminary landscape plan for the Costco development is illustrated in Figure 11.

Project Description
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
15 FIGURE 10 - GAS STATION ELEVATIONS
Project Description
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
16 FIGURE 10 - PRELIMINARY COSTCO LANDSCAPE PLAN
Project Description
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
17 Lighting
Parking and site lighting would incorporate the use of cutoff lenses to keep light from overflowing beyond the project site boundaries. The main parking lot would be illuminated with standard downward pointing lights, each containing LED bulbs affixed to a maximum 35-foot light pole. The lighting fixtures are proposed of a contemporary minimalistic flush lens style with the height of the pole providing the optimum light distribution to reduce the total number of pole mounted fixtures required to safely illuminate the site for pedestrians and vehicles. Lighting for the parking lot would be controlled by an energy management system to minimize lighting after the warehouse has closed and employees are gone from the warehouse.

This is typically one hour after the warehouse has closed for business. Parking lot lighting would only remain on to provide security and emergency lighting only along the main driveways.

At the main building entry, lighting would not be attached to the building. Illumination onto the building would be provided by adjacent pole lights in the parking area. Wall sconce fixtures would also be used and located every 40 feet around the exterior of the building to provide safety and security.

Utilities and Infrastructure
The proposed project would connect to existing water, sewer, storm drain, electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure located within the Ventura Boulevard right-of-way easements.

Drainage
The proposed stormwater system would be developed in accordance with the City’s Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No. R4-2021-0105) and related Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual. Stormwater for the Costco development is proposed to discharge to an underground detention system. Runoff would be collected via multiple storm drain inlets located throughout the Costco development area. The water quality flow rate for each inlet would be treated with a tributary biofiltration system before discharging to a single underground detention system. The underground detention system would discharge offsite to an existing 66-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) stub at the corner of Springville Drive and West Ventura Boulevard before ultimately discharging to the Camarillo Hills Drain. The connection to the existing 66- inch pipe would require a drainage easement. The easement would be dedicated to Costco as part of the purchase to sale agreement and Costco per the agreement would be responsible for the maintenance of the proposed connection pipe.

Project Operations
Costco is a membership-only retail/wholesale business, selling national brands and private label merchandise for commercial and personal use. The retail warehouse and tire center hours are anticipated to be: Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., Saturday from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The gas station hours are anticipated to be daily from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Costco anticipates an average of about ten trucks delivering goods on a typical weekday. The trucks would range in size from 26 feet long for single-axle trailers to 70 feet long for double-axle trailers. Deliveries are staggered based on jurisdictional restrictions, but typically take place in the early morning, with most of the deliveries completed before the 10:00 a.m. opening time. Deliveries to the warehouse are made primarily in Costco trucks from its freight consolidation facility in Mira Loma, California.

Project Description
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
18 The tire center typically would receive shipments of tires one to two times per week in single- or doubletrailer trucks of up to 70 feet in length and the same delivery truck would pick up old tires for recycling.

Deliveries to and pickups from the tire center would be scheduled for pre-opening hours, typically about 6:00 a.m.

Costco estimates that fuel would be delivered to the gasoline facility in three to five trucks per day, as needed. The largest fuel trucks are approximately 70 feet long. While delivering the fuel, the truck would be parked adjacent to the underground tanks on the west side of the gas station and outside of the pump and stacking areas. The truck would not block access to any of the fueling positions.

REQUESTED ACTIONS AND APPROVALS
The City of Camarillo is the lead agency for the proposed project. The following discretionary approvals are required for the proposed project.
• Commercial Planned Development Permit Major Modification CPD-226M(5): The project applicant is requesting approval of CPD-226M(5) to change the layout of the approved site plan for the eastern 20-acre portion of the project site. No modification to the remainder of the project site is requested as part of the proposed project.
• Conditional Use Permit CUP-422: The project applicant is requesting approval of CUP-474 to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption and tasting within the Costco Wholesale retail building, and to permit building heights greater than 35 feet for the Costco Wholesale retail building.

The non-discretionary actions anticipated to be taken by the City at the staff level as part of the proposed project include:
• Approval and implementation of a Post Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSMP) by the Camarillo Public Works Department to address post-construction stormwater flows produced by the project.

Other agencies that may provide approvals and permits include:
• State Water Resources Board.
• County of Ventura Department of Environmental Health. • Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.

REFERENCES
Camarillo, City of. Department of Community Development. October 8, 2003. City of Camarillo General Plan Land Use Element.
https://cms7files.revize.com/camarilloca/Departments/Community%20Development/General%20Plan /landuse.pdf.

Camarillo, City of. Department of Community Development. January 2023. General Plan Land Use Map. https://cms7files.revize.com/camarilloca/GenPlan_Jan2023_24x53_AOIinsert_NAD83.pdf.

Project Description
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
19 Camarillo, City of, Information Systems Division. April 25, 2022. City of Camarillo Zoning Map. https://cms7files.revize.com/camarilloca/Departments/Administrative%20Services/GIS/Zoning_April 25_22_24x52_wall.pdf.

Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
20 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the proposed project in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in environmental impact significance conclusions different from those found in the 2016 Subsequent MND 2016-1. This section includes the full range of environmental issues and subject areas identified in the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines. The column titles of the checklists have been modified from the Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines presentation to help answer the questions to be addressed pursuant to Public Resources Code 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental issue, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact analyzed in Subsequent MND 2016-1. For instance, the environmental issues might be answered with a “No” in the checklist because the impacts associated with the proposed project were adequately addressed in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and the environmental impact significance conclusions of Subsequent MND 2016-1 remain applicable. The purpose of each column of the checklist is described below.

Was Impact Evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1?
This column states whether the environmental issue (or the similar issue that was in effect at the time) was evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts?
The significance of the changes proposed to the approved Amara Shopping Center, as it is described in the adopted Subsequent MND 2016-1, or the changes in the circumstances, is indicated in the columns to the right of the environmental issues.

Any New Information Requiring New Analysis?
This column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time that Subsequent MND 2016-1 was adopted as complete is available, requiring an update to the analysis of Subsequent MND 2016- 1 to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid.

Do Subsequent MND 2016-1 Mitigation Measures Resolve Impacts? This column indicates whether Subsequent MND 2016-1 provides mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. In some cases, the mitigation measures have already been implemented. A “Yes” response will be provided in either instance. If “Updated” is indicated, the mitigation from Subsequent MND 2016-1 has been updated. If “NA” is indicated, this review concludes that there was no impact, or the impact was less than significant and, therefore, no mitigation measures are needed.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
21 IMPACT ANALYSIS

AESTHETICS AND

SCENIC RESOURCES
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista that is
visible from a City scenic
corridor?
Yes No No NA
b. Substantially alter or damage a
scenic resource that is visible
from a City scenic corridor?
Yes No No NA
c. Conflict with applicable
General Plan policies or zoning
regulations governing scenic
quality?
No No Yes NA
d. Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Yes No No Yes
Background Information
Scenic resources refer to aesthetically pleasing natural and man-made physical features. Scenic resources are addressed in the Camarillo Urban Restriction Boundary, Land Use, Circulation, Open Space & Conservation, and Community Design Elements of the City of Camarillo General Plan.

Important scenic resources in and around Camarillo include hillsides, agricultural areas, waterways, and historic properties. These resources are preserved through the designation of these areas as Agriculture, Natural Open Space, Historic Sites, and Waterways. Scenic vistas are viewsheds that include scenic resources. The Community Design Element establishes four scenic corridors for the preservation of public views of important scenic resources. The following routes are intended to highlight, promote, and preserve the community’s scenic and environmental characteristics and help reflect the community’s character:
• U.S. Highway 101
• Lewis Road
• Las Posas Road/Upland Road
• Pleasant Valley Road/Santa Rosa Road
Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista that is visible from a City scenic corridor?
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
22 The existing visual character of the surrounding locale is highly influenced by the proximity of U.S.

Highway 101 and Camarillo Airport. The project site is a flat area of formerly agricultural land located between U.S. Highway 101 and the airport (see Figure 4). To the east the site is bordered by the Camarillo Town Center West (Home Depot) development. Views towards the project site from the Camarillo Town Center West are obstructed by a line of Cypress trees lining the western edge of the Camarillo Town Center West. Views in the vicinity of the project site are largely constrained by adjacent structures and the area’s relatively flat topography.

Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have less than significant impacts related to effects on a scenic vista. Development of the project would replace the existing flat land with a commercial center with 17 differently sized retail buildings no more than 35 feet in height and associated at-grade parking areas. As such, views of the project site would be very similar to the existing Camarillo Town Center West immediately to the east. Short-range views looking south across the project site of Camarillo Airport would be screened with construction of the project. However, views of the airport are not considered scenic vistas. Long-range views of the Santa Monica and Guadalasca Mountains to the southeast and east are generally available due to their elevation; however, the flat topography of the site and the intervening buildings to the east may prevent these views from some portions of the project site.

Consequently, no other scenic vistas currently exist in the areas around the project site and construction of the project would not block any scenic vistas.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would also not change the location, type, or maximum height, massing, or square footage of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project site is located adjacent an established City scenic corridor, but the project does not eliminate the permanent view from the scenic corridor of historic sites or large areas designated for agriculture, open space, or waterways. Although the project site is located along U.S. Highway 101, it is designated for commercial uses. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. b. Would the project substantially alter or damage a scenic resource that is visible from a City scenic corridor?
Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have less than significant impacts related to effects on scenic resources. There are no scenic resources at 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.

Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and approved by the City of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
23 Camarillo City Council. As such, the site-specific impacts of the Amara Shopping Center would be no different from those evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and no new impacts associated with scenic resources would occur at the project site.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project site is located adjacent an established City scenic corridor, but the project does not change to urban uses in areas designated for agriculture, open space, historic sites, or waterways. Although the project site is located along U.S. Highway 101, it is designated for commercial uses. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. c. Would the project conflict with applicable General Plan policies or zoning regulations governing scenic quality?
Final MND 2006-17 and Subsequent MND 2016-1 did not evaluate the site development’s potential to conflict with applicable General Plan policies or zoning regulations governing scenic quality under the topic of Aesthetics since this was not a threshold of significance at that time. However, the Land Use sections of those documents concluded that the potential for the project to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect was determined to be less than significant. This included the policies associated with scenic quality.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project will be consistent with Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 6, Policy 7, and Policy 8, and Community Design Element policies CD-1.2.1, CD- 1.2.1, CD-1.2.3, CD-1.3.1, CD-1.4.1, CD1.4.2, RA-1.5.1, RA-1.7.3, RA-1.7.4, RA-2.1.2, CA-1.1.1, PQPF-1.1.1, GSC-1.1.1, GSC-1.1.2, GSC-1.1.3, SC1.1.2, SC-1.1.3, SC-1.1.4, SC-1.2.1, SC- 1.2.2, SC-1.2.3, SC-1.2.4, and S-2.4, as applicable to the project. As discussed in the Land Use and Planning section of this Second Subsequent MND (impact b), the proposed project would not conflict with any of the City of Camarillo General Plan policies applicable to the site.

Therefore, the proposed project would continue to have a less than significant impact. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The 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. Camarillo Airport is in close proximity to the project site and, due to the nature of the airport operations, is considered sensitive to nighttime light.

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, exterior building windows, and surfaces of brightly Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
24 painted buildings. Excessive glare not only restricts visibility but increases the ambient heat reflectivity in a given area.

Final MND 2006-17 determined that potential impacts associated with light and glare would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures AES-2 and AES-3.

Subsequent MND 2016-1 revised mitigation measures AES-2 and AES-3 as follows to be consistent with then-current City recommendations:

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 should be up-washed with light to emphasize architecture; • Low-intensity, energy efficient parking lot lighting shall be used. Parking lot lights should be secondary to the illumination of buildings and landscaped features, and; • Low-level, direct lighting shall be used on pedestrian walkways.

AES-3 The exterior of the proposed buildings shall be constructed of materials such as tinted nonreflective glass and pre-cast concrete, stucco, or fabricated wall surfaces.

Temporary sources of lighting may be employed during the construction phase of development. Exterior lighting may be provided for nighttime security. Unlike permanent lighting installations, temporary construction illumination is often unshielded. This lighting would be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the project site, which is already illuminated at night by the exterior lighting of the adjacent commercial development and street lights and traffic along U.S. Highway 101, Ventura Boulevard, and Springville Drive. This lighting would not substantially affect nighttime views of the area.

When operational, nighttime sources of light would include parking lot lighting and security lighting at the building. This source of light would be very similar to the existing lighting within the surrounding commercial properties. Compliance with Camarillo Zoning Ordinance standards would ensure that there will not be excessive nighttime lighting beyond that necessary for function and safety. Exterior lighting would be located and designed to minimize direct spill beyond the site property.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
25 In accordance with Title 24 as implemented through City codes and standard conditions of approval, all lighting would be shielded and focused on the project features and directed away from the adjacent properties, highway, and roadways. Blinking, flashing, or unusually high intensity lighting would be prohibited in accordance with Camarillo Zoning Ordinance standards. As such, lighting at the project site would not adversely affect aircraft flights into or out of Camarillo Airport and Naval Base Ventura County.

Sources of glare that typically cause daytime glare include exterior building materials such as glass walls and highly reflective façade materials and finishes. These types of materials are typically utilized for office building projects and are not proposed to be utilized for the proposed retail warehouse building and gas station.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project would comply with all applicable City standards for building materials and lighting.

Based on the information provided above, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to light and glare. As such, the site-specific impacts of the project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. The proposed project has been designed to comply with mitigation measures AES-2 and AES-3.

AGRICULTURE

RESOURCES
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide
Importance, or Unique
Farmland (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California
Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
Yes No No NA
b. Conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
Yes No No NA
c. Involve other changes in the
existing environment which,
due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural
use?
Yes No No NA
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
26 Background Information
California Department of Conservation Farmland Classifications The California Department of Conservation has developed a Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program that classifies the different agricultural soil types related to their ability to sustain agricultural crops. The soil type classifications are Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, Grazing Land, Urban and Built-up Land, Other Land, and Water. The classifications that are applicable to this analysis are defined as follows:

Prime Farmland: Prime Farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Farmland of Statewide Importance: Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime Farmland but with some minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Unique Farmland: Unique Farmland consists of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as sound in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Farmland of Local Importance: Farmland of Local Importance is land of importance to the local economy, as defined by each county’s local advisory committee and adopted by its Board of Supervisors. Farmland of Local Importance is either currently producing, or has the capability of production, but does not meet the criteria of Prime, Statewide or Unique Farmland. Authority to adopt or to recommend changes to the category of Farmland of Local Importance rests with the Board of Supervisors in each county.

Urban and Built-up Land: Urban and Built-up Land is occupied by structures with a building density of a least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. Common examples include residential, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures.

Williamson Act Contracts
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (the “Williamson Act” – California Government Code Section 51200 and following) recognizes the importance of agricultural land as an economic resource that is vital to the general welfare of society. The enacting legislation declares that the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land is necessary to the conservation of the state’s economic resources and is necessary not only to the maintenance of the agricultural economy of the state, but also for the assurance of adequate, healthful, and nutritious food for future residents of the state and the nation.

Intended to assist the long-term preservation of prime agricultural land in the state, Williamson Act contracts provide the agricultural landowner with a substantial property tax break for keeping land in agricultural use. When under contract, the landowner no longer pays property tax for an assessed valuation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
27 based upon the property’s urban development potential. The Williamson Act stipulates that for properties under contract, “the highest and best use of such land during the life of the contract is for agricultural uses.” Therefore, property under contract is assessed and taxed based upon its agricultural value. Williamson Act contracts remain in effect for ten to twenty years unless the property owner files for a notice of non-renewal with the county. To qualify for a Williamson Act contract, the property must be a minimum of 100 acres.

Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The project site was previously used for the agricultural production of row crops from at least 1927 but has not been cultivated since 2007. At the time that Final MND 2006-17 was prepared and adopted by the City of Camarillo, the project site was designated by the U.S. Soils Conservation Service Important Farmland Inventory of Ventura County as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance. However, the implementation of the 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 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 nonagricultural use and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was thereby adopted. Therefore, Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have no new impact regarding the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland).

The project site is no longer irrigated and has not been used for agricultural production since at least 2007.

The California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Interactive Web Maps:

Important Farmland Series (https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/agriculture/) now designates the project site as Farmland of Local Importance.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, or the project is an agricultural use. Therefore, no impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? At the time that Final MND 2006-17 was prepared and adopted by the City of Camarillo, the project site was zoned for office, commercial and light industrial uses per the Airport North Specific Plan. A previous Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
28 Williamson Act contract that applied to the project site and other properties within the Airport North Specific Plan area was terminated in 1994. Therefore, Final MND 2006-17 and Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that no impacts associated with existing zoning or Williamson Act contract conflicts would occur.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project site is not zoned Agricultural Exclusive and is not subject to an existing Williamson Act contract. The underlying zoning for the project site is now CPD (Commercial Planned Development) and, as discussed above, the site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impact would occur and the sitespecific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
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? As discussed above, the impacts associated with the conversion of agricultural land in the vicinity of the project site was evaluated in the Airport North Specific Plan EIR. All agricultural activity within the Airport North Specific Plan area has ceased and the undeveloped areas are now designated as Farmland of Local Importance, which is not Farmland. Therefore, Final MND 2006-17 and Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that approval and implementation of the project would not result in the conversion of any Farmland within the Airport North Specific Plan area.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the properties adjacent to the project site are not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, no impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
29 AIR QUALITY
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the current
Ventura County Air Quality
Management Plan?
Yes No No NA
b. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of ROC
and/or NOx emissions?
Yes No Yes Updated
c. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations of fugitive dust,
carbon monoxide, toxic air
contaminants, and/or San Joaquin
Valley Fever spores?
Yes and No No Yes Yes
d. Result in other emissions that
create objectionable odors
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Yes No No NA
Background Information
The City of Camarillo is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin (Basin), which includes all of Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Ventura County portion of the Basin. The VCAPCD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary air emissions sources.

Although the VCAPCD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate the air quality issues associated with plans and new development projects within the county. Instead, the VCAPCD has used its expertise and prepared the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines to indirectly address these issues in accordance with the projections and programs of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The purpose of the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines is to assist lead agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties, in evaluating potential air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the county. Specifically, the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines explains the procedures that the VCAPCD recommends be followed during environmental review processes required by CEQA. The Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines provides direction on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, how to determine whether these impacts are significant, and how to mitigate these impacts. The City of Camarillo relies upon the expertise of the VCAPCD and utilizes the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
30 Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the current Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan?
The VCAPCD Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines states that any general plan amendment that will result in population growth above that forecasted in the most recently adopted AQMP is inconsistent with the AQMP. This is because the projected growth rate in population is used as an indicator of future emissions from population-related emission categories in the AQMP. Inconsistency with these projections could jeopardize attainment of the air quality conditions projected in the AQMP and is considered a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact.

Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have a less than significant impact regarding a conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality management plan. 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 could jeopardize attainment of the air quality conditions projected in the AQMP and is considered to be a significant impact. The project is a commercial project that would not result in the direct growth of population within the Camarillo Growth Area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the AQMP and, as such, would not jeopardize attainment of State and national ambient air quality standards in Ventura County.

Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. The number of vehicle trips and associated air pollutant emissions associated with the project would not change. As such, the impacts of the Amara Shopping Center would be no different from those evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and no new air quality impacts would occur.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. The development would remain as a commercial project that would not result in the direct growth of population within the Camarillo Growth Area. According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project generates an increase of two (2) pounds per day or more of reactive organic compounds (ROC) and/or nitrogen oxides (NOx) but does not generate an increase in population that exceeds regional growth projections for Camarillo. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ROC and/or NOx emissions?
The VCAPCD currently recommends that projects located everywhere in Ventura County outside of the Ojai Planning Area with operational emissions that exceed any of the following emissions thresholds should be considered to have significant individual project and cumulatively considerable impacts:
• 25.0 pounds per day of ROC
• 25.0 pounds per day of NOx
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
31 The VCAPCD Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines state that these thresholds are only applied to unpermitted, non-stationary sources of emissions. Emissions from equipment requiring VCAPCD permits, specifically stationary equipment, are not counted towards these air quality significance thresholds.

Page 5 ends

emissions are not counted towards the two 25 pounds per day thresholds for ROC and NOx since these emissions are temporary. Instead, the VCAPCD recommends that construction emissions be quantified and mitigated if the emissions would exceed one or both of the 25 pounds per day thresholds for ROC and NOx. 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.

Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project could violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and 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. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the construction-related air quality impacts.

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 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.

Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the operational air quality impacts to a less than significant level.

AQ-3 The project developer shall include in construction and building management contracts the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective:
• 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
32 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.

AQ-4 The project developer shall contribute a total of $667,502 to a TDM fund managed by the City of Camarillo.

Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. The number of vehicle trips and associated air pollutant emissions associated with the project would not change. As such, the impacts of the Amara Shopping Center would be no different from those evaluated in Final MND 2006-17, the mitigation measures identified above would be applicable to the revised project, and no new air quality impacts would occur.

Although approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission, it would provide a free-standing fuel facility that was not envisioned for the Amara Shopping Center. In addition, the vehicle trip generation characteristics of the proposed Costco are different than the trip generation assumptions for a shopping center as evaluated in Final MND 2006- 17 and Subsequent MND 2016-1 and the URBan EMISsions (URBEMIS) model used to estimate air pollutant emissions in Final MND 2006-17 has been replaced with the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Therefore, the average daily emissions associated with the proposed project have been evaluated in an Air Quality Impact Evaluation that is incorporated as Appendix B to this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4.

The average daily emissions estimates for project construction are shown in Table 1. According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a potentially significant impact would occur if the project generates an increase of 25 pounds per day or more of construction-related emissions of ROC and/or NOx.

As shown, the maximum daily emissions of ROC and NOx generated during construction would exceed 25 pounds per day. Therefore, mitigation measure AQ-2 would continue to be applicable to the proposed project. As discussed previously, the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines do not require that mitigation bring construction emissions to below 25 pounds per day – only that mitigation reduce construction emissions to the extent feasible. 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. Mitigation measure AQ-2 would reduce the ROC and NOx emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment. Therefore, mitigation measure AQ-2 would continue to reduce the construction-related impact of the project and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
33 Table 1 – Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions for Project Construction Development Phase Year
Emissions in Pounds Per Day
ROC NOx
Costco 2024 47.8 36.1
Regional Shopping Center
2024 3.7 36.1
2025 1.6 13.2
2026 88.3 12.5
Source of table data: Rambol, September 6, 2023.

Operational emissions generated by area sources, energy sources, mobile sources, and point sources would result from normal day-to-day activities within the project site after occupation. Area sources are those emissions that are generally too small to be uniquely identified as point sources and are thus generally aggregated as a group and include landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings. Energy sources include the use of natural gas for heating and cooking. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site.

Final MND 2006-17 estimated that the original project would generate approximately 92.28 pounds per day of ROC and 94.48 pounds per day of NOx.

Point sources applicable to the proposed project include the operational gasoline transfer and dispensing at the free-standing fuel facility, and a stationary back-up generator for the Costco building. Table 2 summarizes the daily operational emissions for the proposed project. As discussed previously, the VCAPCD thresholds of significance are only applied to unpermitted, non-stationary sources of emissions.

Emissions from equipment requiring VCAPCD permits, specifically stationary equipment, are not counted towards these air quality significance thresholds. The Costco building back-up generator and gasoline dispensing facility would be subject to individual permits from the APCD. Therefore, the emissions from these sources are not counted towards the VCAPCD thresholds of significance but they are identified in Table 2 for the purpose of disclosure.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a potentially significant impact would occur if the project generates an increase of 25 pounds per day or more of operational emissions of ROC and/or NOx. As shown in Table 2, the daily operational emissions of both ROC and NOx would exceed 25 pounds per day. Therefore, the air quality impact of the proposed project would continue to be potentially significant and mitigation measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 would continue to be applicable. However, the TDM fund contribution required under mitigation measure AQ-4 has been recalculated based on the proposed changes to the project. The TDM fund contribution calculations are provided in Appendix C to this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4. The Costco project would generate approximately 37.4% of the daily ROC emissions while the remainder of the commercial development would generate approximately 62.6% of the daily ROC emissions. Therefore, mitigation measure AQ-4 is revised as follows:

AQ-4 The project developer(s) shall contribute a total of $651,222 to a TDM fund managed by the City of Camarillo. The developer of the Costco project shall contribute $243,557 (37.4%) of this total and the developer of the remaining commercial project shall contribute the remaining $407,665. The Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
34 developer of the remaining commercial project may request that the City reduce the amount owed if the amount of development in the western portion of the overall project site is less than 335,600 square feet. The City will then have the TDM contribution for the remaining commercial project calculated based on the actual amount of building space that is developed.

Table 2 – Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions for Project Operations Emissions Source
Emissions in Pounds Per Day
ROC NOx
Costco
Area Sources 5.0 0.06
Energy Sources 0.02 0.3
Mobile Sources 25.4 26.2
Natural Gas Back-up Generator 0.0001 0.005
Gasoline Dispensing Facility 42.1 --
Total Emissions 72.5 26.5
Total Non-Stationary Source Emissions 30.4 26.5
Regional Shopping Center
Area Sources 10.1 0.1
Energy Sources 0.03 0.5
Mobile Sources 40.7 23.1
Total Emissions 50.8 23.8
Total Non-Stationary Source Emissions 50.8 23.8
Total Project
Total Non-Stationary Source Emissions 81 50
VCAPCD Thresholds of Significance 25 25
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes
Source of table data: Rambol, September 6, 2023.

Implementation of mitigation measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 would reduce the cumulative air quality impacts of the proposed project to a less than significant level. c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of fugitive dust, carbon monoxide, toxic air contaminants, and/or San Joaquin Valley Fever spores? Fugitive Dust
Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would generate fugitive dust emissions during construction activities. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the construction-related air quality impacts to a less than significant level.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
35 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. • All graded and 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.
• Material stockpiles shall be enclosed, covered, stabilized, or otherwise treated, to prevent blowing fugitive dust offsite.
• 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 posted 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.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project generates increased emissions of construction-related emissions of fugitive dust but Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
36 implements fugitive dust programs consistent with VCAPCD rules and regulations. CalEEMod assumes that these types of measures incorporated as mitigation measure AQ-1 would reduce by at least 61 percent the amount of fugitive dust generated by grading activities. Therefore, mitigation measure AQ-1 would continue to be applicable to the proposed project and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Carbon Monoxide
Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized concentrations levels of carbon monoxide (CO). Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed national and/or state standards for CO are termed CO “hotspots.”
CO hotspots used to be a concern in Ventura County when this area was designated as a nonattainment area for State and national CO standards. The county is now in attainment of all applicable State and national standards for CO and CO concentrations are no longer monitored in the county. This is due to substantial reductions in CO emissions from motor vehicles. The greatest potential for a CO hotspot to occur in Ventura County today is at the roadway edge of a very congested intersection.

In order for a receptor to be exposed to a CO hotspot, that person would have to remain in a location where the total CO concentration exceeds the State and national eight-hour standard for an entire eight-hour period or greater. For that to occur, the ambient (background) CO concentration would have to be very high and an intersection would have to be highly congested for a period of eight-hours or greater.1 Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project have a less than significant impact regarding the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (regarding localized CO concentrations.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project generates an increase in local traffic volumes but does not cause localized CO concentrations at sensitive receptors near congested intersections to exceed State ambient air quality standards. None of the intersections in the vicinity of the project site currently operate or are projected to operate at LOS F. As such, no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the study-area intersections would be exposed to CO hotspots in the future with traffic generated by the proposed project. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
1 The intersection would need to operate at LOS F for several hours per day.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
37 Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) refer to a diverse group of air pollutants that can affect human health but have not had ambient air quality standards established for them. This is not because they are fundamentally different from the pollutants discussed above, but because their effects tend to be local rather than regional.

TACs generally consist of four types: organic chemicals, such as benzene, dioxins, toluene, and percholorethylene; inorganic chemicals such as chlorine and arsenic; fibers such as asbestos; and metals such as mercury, cadmium, chromium, and nickel. TACs are produced by a great variety of sources, including industrial facilities such as refineries, chemical plants, chrome plating operations, and surface coating operations; commercial facilities such as dry cleaners and gasoline stations; motor vehicles, especially diesel-powered vehicles; and consumer products. TACs can be released as a result of normal industrial operations, as well as from accidental releases during process upset conditions.

Adverse effects on people tend to be either acute (short-term) or chronic (long-term). Many TACs can have both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects.

The VCAPCD currently recommends that projects with TAC emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds should be considered to have significant individual project and cumulatively considerable impacts:
• Lifetime probability of contracting cancer is greater than 10 in one million • Ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic toxic air pollutants would result in a Hazard Index of greater than 1
Potential impacts associated with TACs were not evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 or Subsequent MND 2016-1 because the proposed retail uses were not a source of substantial TACs.

The proposed project would include a free-standing fuel facility with 16 fueling dispensers that would provide a fueling capacity for 32 cars at a time. The gasoline transfer and dispensing would be a source of TACs. Therefore, the potential for the project to cause a significant health risk to nearby residential and worker receptors has been evaluated in a Human Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that is incorporated as Appendix D to this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4. The HRA also evaluates the potential TAC impacts associated with diesel particulate matter (DPM) from Costco delivery trucks and transport refrigeration units (TRUs), and the emergency back-up generator.

The AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) (Version 22112) was used to estimate the ambient air TAC concentrations. AERMOD has been approved for use in various regulatory applications by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and VCAPCD.

AERMOD uses mathematical equations to simulate the movement and dispersion of air contaminants in the atmosphere. For each receptor location, the model generates air concentrations (or air dispersion factors as unit emissions were modeled) that result from emissions from multiple sources.

The following assumptions were used to calculate emissions from gasoline transfer and dispensing:
• Annual throughput of 30.0 million gallons per year.
• Maximum hourly throughput of 4,835 gallons per hour.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
38 The regulatory default option, rural dispersion coefficient, and 1-hour and PERIOD averaging times were selected based the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA’s) guidance. Dispersion model averaging times are specified based on the averaging times of ambient air quality standards and the VCAPCD’s thresholds of significance. For the HRA, the 1-hour averaging time was used to evaluate acute (short-term) effects and the PERIOD averaging time (average concentration for the 5-year meteorological data set) was used to evaluate chronic (long-term) health effects. For the project operational analysis, warehouse delivery trucks and TRUs are expected to operate at the site between 2:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.

Emissions from passenger vehicle idling and associated fuel facility emissions sources that include gasoline refueling, hose permeation, and spillage were modeled from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. based on the anticipated operating schedule of the gas station. Emissions from tire center delivery trucks are expected to occur within a one-hour timeframe at 6:00 a.m.

The fuel facility emission sources were modeled as point sources (loading and breathing emissions) and volume sources (refueling, hose permeation, and spillage). DPM emissions from delivery trucks and TRUs on the roadway links within 0.25 mile of the site boundary were modeled as line-area sources. Area sources were used to represent on-site idling for fuel delivery trucks, warehouse delivery trucks, tire center delivery trucks, and passenger vehicles in queue at the fuel facility. The back-up generator was modeled as a point source. The locations of the modeled sources are shown in Figure 11.

Analyzing impacts of receptors close to sources of TACs is important in determining cancer and non-cancer health risk impacts. Receptor exposure to emission sources is greatest nearest to the emission source. To evaluate health impacts to off-site receptors, including nearby residential and worker receptor populations, the geographic scope of this assessment was extended to 0.25 mile from the modeled project sources.

Receptors around the project development were covered in a polar grid of receptors, with the following characteristics:
• Fine Grid 20 meters x 20 meters up to 200 meters from modeled project sources; • Coarse Grid 50 meters x 50 meters from 200 meters to 500 meters from the project; and • Discrete sensitive receptors.

Grid receptors were classified as residential or worker based on the existing characteristics of these areas.

The VCAPCD requires inclusion of sensitive receptors in a health risk analysis and identifies the following as sensitive receptors: schools, hospitals, daycare centers, playgrounds, retirement homes, and convalescent homes. Non-residential sensitive receptor locations were identified within the modeling domain, based on Google Earth Pro. Based on the aerial search, one sensitive receptor, Mel Vincent Park, was identified within the modeling domain. Residential receptors were identified within the modeling domain to the north of the site and U.S. Highway 101 within the Springville Specific Plan area. The locations of the modeled receptors are shown in Figure 12.

The HRA used the CARB’s Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) Air Dispersion and Modeling and Risk Tool (ADMRT) to calculate the health risks associated with emissions from projectrelated mobile sources. HARP2 has been developed by the CARB for estimating health risk values and it incorporates the requirements of the latest version of the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Risk Assessment guidelines.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
39 FIGURE 11 – HRA MODELED SOURCE LOCATIONS
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
40 FIGURE 12 – HRA MODELED RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
41 Lifetime cancer risk, chronic hazard index (HIC), and acute hazard index (HIA) were calculated at each receptor. To estimate these impacts, the following runs were performed for the project: residential cancer risk, residential non-cancer chronic risk, worker cancer risk, worker non-cancer chronic risk, and noncancer acute risk. The health risk assessment options chosen for these runs were based on the OEHHA’s 2015 Guidance for HRAs.

A summary of the maximum health risk impacts is shown in Table 3. As shown in this table, the emissions associated with operation of the proposed Project are less than the VCAPCD significance thresholds.

Table 3 – Health Risk Assessment Results for Project Operations Receptor Type
Maximum Estimated
Cancer Risk
(in a million)
Maximum Estimated
Chronic Hazard Index1
Maximum Estimated
Acute Hazard Index
Resident 5.8 0.02 0.4
Sensitive 1.0 0.00 0.1
Off-Site Worker 1.2 0.03 0.6
VCAPCD Thresholds
of Significance 10 1 1
Exceeds Threshold? No No No
1 Chronic hazard index shown as 0.00 is a non-zero value; however, it is below a meaningful reporting level for this analysis.

Source of table data: Rambol, June 20, 2023.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project generates an increase in toxic air contaminants that does not cause a lifetime probability of contracting cancer of more than 10 in one million or does not result in a Hazard Index of greater than 1.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

San Joaquin Valley Fever
San Joaquin Valley Fever (formally known as Coccidioidomycosis) is an infectious disease caused by the fungus Coccidioides immitis. San Joaquin Valley Fever is also known as Valley Fever, Desert Fever, or Cocci. Infection is caused by inhalation of Coccidioides immitis spores that have become airborne when dry, dusty soil or dirt is disturbed by wind, construction, farming, or other activities such as fire and earthquakes. The Valley Fever fungus tends to be found at the base of hillsides, in virgin, undisturbed soil.

It usually grows in the top few inches of soil but can grow down to 12 inches. The fungus does not survive well in highly populated areas because there is not usually enough undisturbed soil for the fungus to grow.

Additionally, the fungus is not likely to be found in soil that has been or is being cultivated and fertilized.

This is because manmade fertilizers, such as ammonium sulfate, enhance the growth of the natural microbial competitors of the Valley Fever fungus. Infection is most frequent during summers that follow a rainy winter or spring, especially after wind and dust storms. Valley Fever infection is common only in arid and semiarid areas of the Western Hemisphere. In the United States, it is mostly found from Southern California to southern Texas. In Ventura County, the Valley Fever fungus is most prevalent in the county’s dry, inland regions such as Simi Valley, Piru, and Fillmore.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
42 Potential impacts associated with San Joaquin Valley Fever were not evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 or Subsequent MND 2016-1.

The Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines state that there is no recommended threshold for a significant San Joaquin Valley Fever impact. (See Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, p. 6-3.) However, listed below are factors that may indicate a project’s potential to create significant Valley Fever impacts:
• Disturbance of the top soil of undeveloped land (to a depth of about 12 inches). • Dry, alkaline, sandy soils.
• Virgin, undisturbed, non-urban areas.
• Windy areas.
• Archaeological resources probable or known to exist in the area (Native American midden sites). • Special events (fairs, concerts) and motorized activities (motocross track, All Terrain Vehicle activities) on unvegetated soil (non-grass).
• Non-native population (i.e., out-of-area construction workers).

The project site is presently vacant but was previously used for the agricultural production of row crops but has not been cultivated since 2007. The fungus is not likely to be found in soil that has been or is being cultivated and fertilized. This is because manmade fertilizers, such as ammonium sulfate, enhance the growth of the natural microbial competitors of the Valley Fever fungus. As such, the potential risk to people at the commercial uses or nearby residents to be exposed to Valley Fever spores during earth moving activities at the project site is very low.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project generates increased emissions of construction-related San Joaquin Valley Fever spores but implements fugitive dust programs consistent with VCAPCD rules and regulations. As discussed previously, mitigation measure AQ-1 would be implemented to control dust during project construction.

This would be a less than significant impact. This same impact would occur with the approved Amara Commercial Center.
d. Would the project result in other emissions that create objectionable odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have a less than significant impact regarding the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project generates odors associated with operational activities that are consistent with nearby sensitive receptors. The proposed project consists of the development of a new Costco warehouse building and a free-standing fuel facility. Retail uses and commercial gas stations are Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
43 not typically associated with odor complaints. As the proposed uses involve no elements related to industrial projects, no objectionable odors are anticipated to be generated by the proposed project.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modification, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Yes No No NA
b. Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Yes No No NA
c. Have a substantial adverse effect
on state or federally regulated
and/or protected wetlands
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
Yes No No NA
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
Yes No No NA
Background Information
The City of Camarillo and its Sphere of Influence contains a variety of biological communities that provide habitat for both rare and common species. These habitats are mostly human-modified habitats, with the vast majority of the City including mostly urban or agricultural production areas. Native habitats exist mostly on the edges of the City (i.e., the Arroyo Las Posas, Conejo Creek, Camarillo Hills, and Santa Monica Mountains).

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
44 The City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines defines a sensitive biological resource as follows:
• A plant or animal that is currently listed by a state or federal agency as endangered, threatened, rare, protected, sensitive, a Species of Special Concern, or federally listed critical habitat; • A plant or animal that is currently listed by a state or federal agency as a candidate species or proposed for state or federal listing; or
• A habitat that is under the jurisdiction of a state or federal resource agency that is responsible for resource protection (e.g., California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service).

Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have no impact regarding 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 (now the California Department of Fish and Wildlife) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project site had been utilized for agriculture since at least 1927 and any natural habitat or sensitive species on the project site have already been removed or modified.

Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definition in the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants and animals, and allows a public agency to undertake a review to determine if a significant effect on a species that has not yet been listed by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (i.e., species of special concern) would occur. Whether a species is rare, threatened, or endangered can be legally significant because, under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, an agency must find an impact to be significant if a project would “substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species.” Thus, CEQA provides an agency with the ability to protect a species from a project’s potential impacts until the respective government agencies have an opportunity to designate the species as protected, if warranted.

Special-status wildlife species include taxa designated as follows:
• Threatened, endangered, or candidate for listing under the FESA; • Threatened, endangered, or rare under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); • CDFW species of special concern or fully protected species.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
45 Special-status plant species include taxa designated as follows:
• Threatened, endangered, or candidate for listing under the FESA; • Threatened, endangered, or rare under the CESA;
• Species with CRPRs as described below (CNPS 2022):
o 1A – Plants presumed extinct in California.
o 1B – Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. o 2 – Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

Critical habitat is a term defined and used in the FESA to specify geographic areas that contain features essential to the conservation of an endangered or threatened species, and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat may also include areas that are not currently occupied by the species but will be needed for its recovery.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. An updated Biological Resources Assessment was prepared in May 2022 to assess the potential for special-status plant and wildlife species and sensitive natural communities to occur within the Costco portion of the project site and surrounding area. This Biological Resources Assessment provides the methods and results of a field survey, including vegetation communities and land cover types present within the study area, special-status plant and wildlife species detected or determined to have potential to occur within the study area, the presence of wildlife movement corridors or federally designated Critical Habitat within or adjacent to the study area, and any additional focused surveys necessary to further evaluate potential impacts to biological resources within the project site. The Biological Resources Assessment is incorporated as Appendix E to this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4.

Special-status plant and wildlife species present or potentially present within or adjacent to the study area were initially identified through a desktop literature review using the following sources: the USFWS Information, Planning, and Consultation (IPaC) Trust Resource Report; the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants. Additionally, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Web Soil Survey (WSS) was queried to determine soil types that exist within the boundary of the study area, as well as the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database. The CNDDB and CNPS database searches included the 7.5-minute USGS Camarillo quadrangle and the IPaC search included the study area and a two-mile buffer surrounding the Costco project site. Special-status species include those that are considered threatened, endangered, candidate for listing, species of special concern or fully protected by the USFWS, the CDFW, or the CNPS. California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 and 2 plant species were included in the CNPS search. Following a review of these resources, relevant life history information on those species documented as occurring in the region, including habitat type, soils, and elevation preferences were reviewed.

A field survey was performed on April 25, 2022, to evaluate botanical and wildlife resources within the study area, including habitat suitability for special-status species. The survey consisted of walking through the project area and along its periphery, where possible, to map and characterize vegetation communities, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
46 collect data on the relative quality of, and potential for, existing habitats to support the special-status species identified during the preliminary database and resources review, and to identify any other sensitive biological resources present or potentially present within the site. An aerial photograph and georeferenced mobile map with an overlay of the project boundary was utilized to map vegetation communities and record any special-status or sensitive biological resources while in the field. Protocol-level surveys for special-status plant and wildlife species were not conducted during this time; however, any incidental observations of such species were documented.

The ground cover at the site is comprised of non-native annual grassland, consisting primarily of ruderal species and non-native annual grasses. This vegetation community is generally dominated by non-native species, including introduced forbs. Native grasses and forbs may be present, but usually constitute less than 10 percent relative cover in the herbaceous layer. Species that were observed in this vegetation community during the field survey include wild oats (Avena sp.), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), ricegrass (Piptatherum sp.), brome (Bromus sp.), mustard (Brassica sp.), wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum), cheeseweed (Malva sp.), chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum sp.), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), epizote (Dysphania ambrosioides), Russian thistle (Salsola sp.), and castor bean (Ricinus communis). Just outside of the eastern boundary of the project site, there is a row of large ornamental landscape trees within the Home Depot lot. Vegetation growth at the site is controlled on a regular basis by a tribe of goats that are transported to the site for this purpose.

Results of the CNDDB and IPaC searches indicated 14 special-status wildlife species known to occur within the one-quad/two-mile search radius of the project site. Of these, 13 species are not expected to occur or have a low potential to occur within the project site due to a lack of suitable habitat, or the site is outside of the species’ known range; therefore, these 13 species were removed from further consideration. The remaining species, burrowing owl, has a moderate potential to occur at the site and is discussed further below.

Burrowing owl utilizes abandoned California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows in open habitats, grasslands, and disturbed areas, typically on levees, mounds or areas where there are unobstructed views of possible predators such as raptors or foxes. Prey items include insects, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Although no California ground squirrel burrows were detected during the survey, there is suitable foraging habitat in the vicinity of the project site, and there are five documented occurrences of this species within 1.3 miles of the project site, one of which is located within the northwestern portion of the project site.

No raptor nests, wildlife dens, or burrows were incidentally observed during the field survey.

Results of the CNDDB and CNPS searches indicated 12 special-status plant species known to occur within the one-quad/two-mile search radius of the project site. None of these species are expected to occur within or adjacent to the project site due to a lack of suitable habitat, a lack of occurrences in the vicinity of the project site, or the project site is outside of the species’ known range; therefore, special-status plants are not discussed further in this document.

The project site does not fall within or adjacent to Critical Habitat limits for any listed plant or wildlife species.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
47 Five bird species were detected during the field survey, including red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota, which were observed nesting on the southern wall face of the existing Home Depot), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). Numerous red-winged blackbirds were observed feeding throughout the site on seeds of some of the weedy vegetation and were displaying potential nesting behavior; however, no nests were detected during the field survey. No common mammals, amphibians, or reptiles were detected during the field survey.

Common wildlife species adapted to life in proximity to human development, such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) are likely to move through the study area on a regular basis to find food and cover. Several common native and non-native bird species are likely to use the study area for nesting and foraging.

To address the potential for burrowing owl or other native nesting birds to occur on the site and to comply with and implement the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the provisions of Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, the Biological Resources Assessment has recommended a preconstruction nesting bird survey be performed by a qualified biologist no earlier than one week prior to any construction during the nesting season (generally February 15 through August 31 but variable based on seasonal and annual climatic conditions) to determine if any native birds are nesting on or near the site including a 250-foot buffer for burrowing owl and other raptors. Because compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code is mandatory, this recommendation will be included as a Condition of Approval and would ensure that the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on burrowing owl or native nesting birds protected by the MBTA or California Fish and Game Code.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant no impact would occur if the project does not removes or modify modifies any habitat associated with one or more any candidate, sensitive, or special status species , but implements habitat preservation/restoration programs consistent with CDFW and/or USFWS regulations, as applicable. As discussed above, compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code is mandatory and a preconstruction nesting bird survey will be included as a Condition of Approval. Therefore, no a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. This same impact would occur with the approved Amara Commercial Center.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have no impact regarding 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 (now the California Department of Fish and Wildlife) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No riparian or other sensitive habitat areas were located on or adjacent to the project site. The Camarillo Hills Drain, which runs to the south of the project site, was to 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 was proposed as part of the original project, or as part of the Airport North Specific Plan.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
48 Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the original project would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. As such, the impacts of the Amara Shopping Center would be no different from those evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and no new impacts on biological resources would occur.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. The ground cover at the site is comprised of non-native annual grassland, consisting primarily of ruderal species and non-native annual grasses. Vegetation growth at the site is controlled on a regular basis by a tribe of goats that are transported to the site for this purpose. The updated Biological Resources Assessment includes a constraints-level analysis for potentially jurisdictional wetlands and waters based on current and historic aerial photography signatures and field observations. The analysis was based on criteria provided by the following agencies:
• Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). • Wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act). • Wetlands under the jurisdiction of the CDFW, pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Although a formal wetland delineation was not performed during the field survey, no aquatic features were observed within the study area that are likely to fall under jurisdiction of the ACOE, CDFW, or RWQCB. Additionally, the NWI did not depict any aquatic resources within or adjacent to the study area.

The Biological Resources Assessment concludes that there are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities at the project site.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project does not remove or modify any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, no impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally regulated and/or protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have no impact regarding a substantial adverse effect on state or federally regulated and/or protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. The project site has been completely modified due to previous agricultural uses. No federally protected wetlands exist within the project site.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
49 Planning Commission. The ground cover at the site is comprised of non-native annual grassland, consisting primarily of ruderal species and non-native annual grasses. Vegetation growth at the site is controlled on a regular basis by a tribe of goats that are transported to the site for this purpose. As discussed above, tThe Biological Resources Assessment concludes that there are no wetlands at the project site.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project does not remove, fill, or interrupt any state or federally regulated and/or protected wetlands. Therefore, no impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
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?
Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have a less than significant impact regarding a substantial interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeding the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The project site is situated between U.S. Highway 101 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.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project site is not a part of an established migratory wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery site. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
50 CULTURAL RESOURCES

AND TRIBAL CULTURAL

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

In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the City shall consider
the significance of the resource
to a local California Native
American tribe?
No No Yes Updated
d. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Yes No No Updated
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
51 Background Information
Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, the term “historical resources” includes the following:
• A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. • A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. • Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources including the following:
a. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
b. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or d. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. • The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources, or identified in an historical resources survey does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource.

The City of Camarillo addresses the preservation of historic resources in Chapter 16.42 of the City of Camarillo Municipal Code.

The City of Camarillo lies within the territory of the Native American group known as the Chumash. The Chumash occupied the region from San Luis Obispo County to Malibu Canyon on the coast and inland as far as the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, and the four northern Channel Islands.

Prior to the release of an ND, MND, or EIR for a project, Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 requires lead agencies to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project if: (1) the California Native American tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe, and (2) the California Native American tribe responds, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification, and requests the consultation.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
52 Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have no impact regarding a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project site had been modified and utilized for agricultural purposes for since at least 1927 and no structures exist on site.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project does not affect any historical resource or its immediate surroundings. Therefore, no impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? The project site has been modified and utilized for agricultural purposes since at least 1927. 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 resources could be encountered during site preparation.

Final MND 2006-17 determined that potential impacts to archaeological resources that might be encountered during site preparation would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1.

Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. As such, the site-specific impacts of the Amara Shopping Center would be no different from those evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and no new impacts associated with archaeological resources would occur at the project site. Subsequent MND 2016-1 revised Mitigation Measure CR-1 to provide better clarification regarding the handling of discovered archaeological resources and to be consistent with then-current City mitigation:

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project does not result in the demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of an Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
53 archaeological resource. Because there are no known prehistoric archeological resources at the project site, no impacts to known archaeological resources would occur with the proposed project. However, there is a remote possibility that archeological resources exist below the ground surface and that these resources could be encountered during site grading and trenching. While no further evaluation of this issue is recommended, Julie Tumamait-Stenslie, the Chairperson of the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians has expressed her concern to the City regarding the ability of construction crews to identify artifacts and human remains or their willingness to stop activities if any such artifacts are discovered in the absence of an archaeologist. In response, the City is revising mitigation measure CR-1 as follows:

CR-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent/developer shall retain a professional archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Standards for Archaeology (U.S. Department of Interior, 2012; Registered Professional Archaeologist preferred) and having at least five years of experience in Chumash territory. The primary task of the consulting archaeologist shall be to monitor the initial ground-disturbing activities at the subject site for the identification of any previously unknown archaeological and/or cultural resources.

Selection of the archaeologist shall be subject to the approval of the City of Camarillo Director of Community Development and no ground-disturbing activities shall occur at the site until the archaeologist has been approved by the City.

The archaeologist shall be responsible for monitoring all site clearance, grading, and excavation activities, maintaining daily field notes and a photographic record, and for reporting all finds to the developer and the City of Camarillo in a timely manner. The archaeologist shall be prepared and equipped to record and salvage cultural resources that may be unearthed during grounddisturbing activities and shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert ground-disturbing equipment within a 50-foot radius of the find to allow time for the recording and removal of the resources. Work may continue outside the 50-foot radius.

In the event that archaeological resources are discovered at the project site, the handling of the discovered resource(s) will differ, depending on the nature of the find. Consistent with California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b) and Assembly Bill 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), avoidance shall be the preferred method of preservation for Native American/tribal cultural/archaeological resources. However, it is understood that all artifacts, with the exception of human remains and related grave goods or sacred/ceremonial/religious objects, belong to the property owner. The property owner shall commit to the relinquishing and curation of all artifacts identified as being of Native American origin. All artifacts, Native American or otherwise, discovered during the monitoring program shall be recorded and inventoried by the consulting archaeologist.

If any artifacts of Native American origin are discovered, all activities in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 50-foot radius) shall stop and the project proponent and project archaeologist shall notify the City of Camarillo Community Development Department and the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians (Chumash). A designated Native American representative from the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians shall be retained to assist the project archaeologist in the significance determination of the Native American as deemed appropriate. The designated Chumash tribal representative shall be given sufficient time to examine the find. The significance of Native American resources shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and shall consider the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
54 Chumash. If the find is determined to be of sacred or religious value, the Chumash tribal representative will work with the City and consulting archaeologist to protect the resource in accordance with tribal requirements as may be feasible. All analysis will be undertaking in a manner that avoids destruction or other adverse impacts.

In the event that human remains are discovered at the project site, Mitigation Measure CR-3 shall immediately apply and all items found in association with Native American human remains shall be considered grave goods or sacred in origin and subject to special handling.

Any Native American artifacts that are relocated/reburied at the project site would be subject to a fully executed relocation/reburial agreement with the assisting Chumash representative. This shall include, but not be limited to, an agreement that artifacts will be reburied on-site and in an area of permanent protection, and that reburial shall not occur until all cataloging and basic recordation have been completed by the consulting archaeologist.

Native American artifacts that cannot be avoided or relocated at the project site shall be prepared for curation at an accredited curation facility within the Chumash region that meets federal standards (per 36 CFR Part 79) and is available to archaeologists/researchers for further study. The project archaeologist shall deliver the Native American artifacts, including title, to the identified curation facility within a reasonable amount of time, along with applicable fees for permanent curation.

Non-Native American artifacts shall be inventoried, assessed, and analyzed for cultural affiliation, personal affiliation (prior ownership), function, and temporal placement. Subsequent to analysis and reporting, these artifacts will be subjected to curation, as deemed appropriate, or returned to the property owner.

Once grading activities have ceased and/or the archaeologist, in consultation with the designated Chumash representative, determines that monitoring is no longer warranted, monitoring activities can be discontinued following notification to the City of Camarillo Community Development Department.

A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of artifacts, shall be prepared upon completion of the tasks outlined above. The report shall include all data outlined by the Office of Historic Preservation guidelines, including a conclusion of the significance of all recovered, relocated, and reburied artifacts. A copy of the report shall also be filed with the City of Camarillo Community Development Department, the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton, and the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians.

This revised mitigation measure would be applicable to all future development within the overall property.

Therefore, the impact of the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation and the sitespecific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
55 c. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:

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

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the City shall consider the significance of the resource to a local California Native American tribe?
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) established a formal consultation process for California Native American tribes as part of CEQA and equates significant impacts on tribal cultural resources with significant environmental impacts (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21084.2). AB 52 consultation requirements went into effect on July 1, 2015 for all projects that had not already published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, or published a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report prior to that date (Section 11 [c]). Specifically, AB 52 requires that “prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project, the lead agency shall begin consultation” (21808.3.1 [a]), and that “the lead agency may certify an environmental impact report or adopt a mitigated negative declaration for a project with a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource only if” consultation is formally concluded (21082.3[d]).

Final MND 2006-17 and Subsequent MND 2016-1 did not evaluate the site development’s potential to impact tribal cultural resources since this was not a CEQA threshold of significance at that time.

There are no known tribal cultural resources at the project site and it is likely that any surface tribal cultural resources that might have once occurred at the project site would have long since been eliminated by the past agricultural activities.

The City submitted letters to the following Native American tribes informing them of the project and providing them 30 days from receipt of the letter to request consultation:
• Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians
• Chumash Council of Bakersfield
• Coastal Band of the Chumash
• Northern Chumash Tribal
• San Luis Obispo County Chumash Council
• Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians
The City received a letter response from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians stating that the Elders’ Council requests no further consultation on this project. City staff also conducted an email exchange with Julie Tumamait-Stenslie, the Chairperson of the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians. Staff provided Mitigation Measure CR-1 from Subsequent MND 2016-1 and Ms. Tumamait-Stenslie requested Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
56 that it be revised to address the ability of construction crews to identify artifacts and human remains or their willingness to stop activities if any such artifacts are discovered in the absence of an archaeologist.

Staff provided an updated mitigation measure and Ms. Tumamait-Stenslie requested some minor revisions. Mitigation Measure CR-1 identified above has been revised to address Ms. Tumamait-Stenslie’s comments. No responses from the other Native American tribes were received by the end of the 30-day period to request consultation.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project does not result in the demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of a tribal cultural resource. Because there are no known tribal cultural resources at the project site, no impacts to known tribal cultural resources would occur with the proposed project. However, there is a remote possibility that tribal cultural resources exist below the ground surface and that these resources could be encountered during site grading and excavation. As discussed above, Mitigation Measure CR-1 would require monitoring of all site clearing, grading, and excavation activities to ensure that the proposed project would be halted if any archaeological and or tribal cultural resource materials are encountered during the course of project development. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation.

This same impact would occur with the approved Amara Commercial Center. d. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
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 unsuspected human remains exist below the surface, and that these resources could be encountered during site preparation. Final MND 2006-17 determined that potential impacts to human remains that might be encountered during site preparation would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation measure CR-3.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project does not result in the disturbance of human remains at the project site. As discussed above, there is a remote possibility that unsuspected human remains exist below the surface, and that these resources could be encountered during site preparation. While no further evaluation of this issue is recommended, Julie Tumamait-Stenslie, the Chairperson of the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians has expressed her concern to the City regarding the ability of construction crews to identify artifacts and human remains or their willingness to stop activities if any such artifacts are discovered in the absence of an archaeologist. In response, the City is revising Mitigation Measure CR-3 as follows:

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
57 CR-3 In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during ground-disturbing activities, the construction contractors, project archaeologist, and/or designated Chumash tribal representative shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. Work outside of the 100-foot radius may continue. The project proponent shall then inform the Ventura County Coroner and the City of Camarillo Community Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b).

If the coroner determines that the remains are of Native American origin, the coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will identify the “Most Likely Descendent” (MLD). Despite the affiliation with any Chumash tribal representative(s) at the site, the NAHC’s identification of the MLD will stand. The MLD shall be granted access to inspect the site of the discovery of Native American human remains and may recommend to the project proponent means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.

The disposition of the remains will be determined in consultation between the project proponent and the MLD. In the event that there is disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains, State law will apply and mediation with the NAHC will make the applicable determination (see Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)). Work may recommence after disposition of the remains.

The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials will be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public. The locations will be documented by the consulting archaeologist in conjunction with the various stakeholders and a report of findings will be filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).

This revised mitigation measure would be applicable to all future development within the overall property.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
58 ENERGY
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Consume energy resources in a
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary amount during
project construction and/or
operation?
No No Yes NA
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
No No Yes NA
Background Information
California is one of the nation’s leading energy-producing states and per capita energy use is among the nation’s most efficient. The three commercial sources of energy for general development projects in Camarillo are electricity and natural gas for site uses, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips.

Electricity is provided to customers in Camarillo by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE provides electric power to more than 14 million persons in 15 counties and in 180 incorporated cities, within a service area encompassing approximately 50,000 square miles. SCE derives electricity from varied energy resources including fossil fuels, hydroelectric generators, nuclear power plants, geothermal power plants, solar power generation, and wind farms. SCE also purchases from independent power producers and utilities, including out-of-state suppliers.

Natural gas is provided to customers in Camarillo by the Southern California Gas Company. Most of the natural gas used in California comes from out-of-state natural gas basins. In 2012, California customers received 35% of their natural gas supply from basins located in the Southwest, 16% from Canada, 40% from the Rocky Mountains, and 9% from basins located within California. The Southern California Gas Company owns and operates several natural gas storage fields that are located in northern and southern California. These storage fields, and four independently owned storage utilities – Lodi Gas Storage, Wild Goose Storage, Central Valley Storage, and Gill Ranch Storage – help meet peak seasonal natural gas demand and allow California natural gas customers to secure natural gas supplies more efficiently.

California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Since then, Title 24 has been amended with a recognition that energy-efficient buildings that require less electricity and reduce fuel consumption. The current 2022 Title 24 standards (effective as of January 1, 2023) were adopted to respond, amongst other reasons, to the requirements of AB 32 to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, new development projects constructed within California after January 1, 2023 are subject to the mandatory planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
59 efficiency, and environmental quality measures of the California Green Building Standards (CalGreen) Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11).

Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. Would the project consume energy resources in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary amount during project construction and/or operation?
Final MND 2006-17 and Subsequent MND 2016-1 did not evaluate the site development’s potential energy impacts since this was not a CEQA threshold of significance at that time.

Implementation of the approved and proposed projects would result in the consumption for energy resources during both construction and long-term operation. In both cases, all energy demand would be subject to all statewide regulations for the purchase and use of fuels, equipment, vehicles, and appliances.

Construction-Related Energy Use
Construction-related energy demand includes energy and fuel used by construction equipment, construction worker vehicles, and construction vendor/hauling vehicles, coupled with construction energy efficiency/conservation measures. This construction equipment use of energy and fuel would be typical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the project’s construction process that are unusual or energy-intensive. Construction energy consumption would also represent a “single-event” demand and would not require on-going or permanent commitment of energy resources. Project development would also not necessitate the use of construction equipment and processes that are less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites.

Construction equipment used for project construction would conform to applicable California Air Resources Board (ARB) emissions standards, which promote equipment fuel efficiencies. Project development would involve construction contractors that practice compliance with applicable ARB regulations regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of diesel off-road construction equipment.

California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits the idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Compliance with anti-idling and equipment emissions regulations would result in an efficient use of construction-related energy and the minimization or elimination of wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy.

Indirectly, construction energy efficiencies and energy conservation would be achieved through the use of bulk purchase, transport and use of construction materials. Use of materials in bulk reduces energy demands associated with preparation and transport of construction materials and the transport and disposal of construction waste and solid waste in general, with corollary reduced demands on area landfill capacities and energy consumed by waste transport and landfill operations.

Based on this information, the approved and proposed project’s construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

Operational Energy Use
The project would promote building energy efficiency through compliance with all applicable energy efficiency standards of Title 24 and the CalGreen Code that are in effect at the time of project development.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
60 The project also reduces potential vehicle fuel usage due to compliance with regulatory programs and its location that reduce VMT (see the Transportation section of this Subsequent MND). AB 1493 ("the Pavley Standard") requires reductions in GHG emissions from non-commercial passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks of model year 2009 and thereafter. The Advanced Clean Cars program, introduced in 2012, combines the control of smog, soot causing pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025.

While the project would result in the consumption of energy resources, the use of these resources would not occur in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary amount.

Impact Conclusion
According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project utilizes modern equipment for construction and complies with California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: Energy Efficiency Standards and the CalGreen Code for building construction.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. This same impact would occur with the approved Amara Commercial Center.
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
There are currently no adopted State or local plans for renewable energy that are applicable to the proposed project. As discussed above, the construction and operational activities would be subject to the applicable energy efficiency requirements of Title 24 Part 6 and the CalGreen Code that are in effect at the time of development.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project complies with California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: Energy Efficiency Standards and the CalGreen Code for building construction. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. This same impact would occur with the approved Amara Commercial Center.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
61 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving rupture
of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
Yes No No NA
b. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving strong
seismic ground shaking?
Yes No No NA
c. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction?
Yes No No NA
d. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving
landslides?
Yes No No NA
e. Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil during project
construction and/or operation?
Yes No No NA
f. Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
onsite or offsite landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
Yes No No NA
g. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
Yes No No NA
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
62 h. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Yes No No NA
i. Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
Yes No No Yes
Background Information
The City of Camarillo, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active region.

Faults and earthquakes present direct hazards from fault rupture and ground shaking as well as indirect hazards. Faults located within Camarillo include the Simi/Santa Rosa Fault and the Bailey Fault. Other faults are also located in the vicinity of Camarillo. To assist cities and counties in avoiding the hazard of surface fault rupture, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act requires the State Geologist to establish Earthquake Fault Zones around the surface traces of active faults. The State has identified three Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within Camarillo.

Ground shaking can induce secondary seismic hazards such as liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, ground fissuring, and landslides. Liquefaction of saturated cohesionless soils can be caused by strong ground motion resulting from earthquakes. A large portion of the City, primarily the western half, lies within a liquefaction hazard zone per the State of California. The process of liquefaction may also produce lateral spreading of soils on properties adjacent to creeks and drainages, such as Calleguas Creek and Conejo Creek.

There are many types of soils within Camarillo. Generally, the soils in Camarillo are expansive in nature and have a high shrink-swell potential. Highly expansive soils are present in the east and west ends of the City. Less expansive soils are present in the core of the City. The expansive soils present potential hazards in Camarillo because they expand when wet and collapse or shrink when dry. The change in volume due to high shrink-swell potential can exert detrimental stresses on buildings and cause structural damage.

Some areas of the City are also subject to potential earthquake-related landslides. These areas are the southern, eastern and western margins of the Camarillo Hills and the southwestern Santa Rosa Hills. A few significant landslides are known to exist within those areas, and many slopes are only marginally stable. As in most other hilly terrain, landsliding can be caused by construction activities, unless stability considerations are incorporated in the design of development. Additionally, the potential for rock fall due to a seismic event or natural weathering and instability is also present in properties at the base of hillsides where rocks and boulders exist.

These potential geotechnical hazards are discussed in further detail in the City of Camarillo Safety Element 2013.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
63 Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? The Geotechnical Investigation prepared for Final MND 2006-17 determined that 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 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. Therefore, Final MND 2006-17 determined that the potential for ground rupture was considered to be very low and impacts would be less than significant.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would also not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. The Camarillo Fault Map (Exhibit 11-2) of the Camarillo Safety Element 2013 and updated geotechnical investigations prepared in December 2013 and December 2015 confirm that the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone as designated in the City of Camarillo Safety Element. As such, no impact would occur.
b. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? 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. Therefore, Final MND 2006-17 determined that impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
64 Approval and implementation of the proposed project would also not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the proposed structures comply with the Uniform Building Code and all recommendations from project soils report. The updated geotechnical investigations prepared in December 2013 and December 2015 include seismic design considerations that would be incorporated into the proposed project grading and building plans. As such, a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. c. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
The project site is underlain by alluvium consisting of alternating layers of Silt, Clay, Silty Sand and poorlygraded Sand layers to the maximum depth of 50 feet explored in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for Final MND 2006-17. Groundwater was encountered in all site borings ranging in depth from 4 to 7 feet below the surface. Therefore, Final MND 2006-17 determined that the potential impact associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, was potentially significant. Mitigation measure GEO-1, which required compliance with the recommendations listed in the 2005 Geotechnical Investigation would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.

The Amara Shopping Center would be subject to the current building standards and recommendations from these more-recent geotechnical investigations. Compliance with these recommendations is both proposed and mandatory, and, as such, mitigation measure GEO-1 is no longer applicable to the Amara Shopping Center.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project site includes soils that are capable of liquefaction but the project implements all applicable soil recommendations from project soils report. The updated geotechnical investigations prepared in December 2013 and December 2015 include seismic design considerations that would be incorporated into the proposed project grading and building plans. As such, a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
65 d. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Final MND 2006-17 and Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the original project and Amara Shopping Center would have no impact regarding the exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. 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.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project site is not located within an earthquake induced landslide hazard zone as designated in the City of Camarillo Safety Element. As such, no impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. e. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during project construction and/or operation?
Project site development would cover the site with impermeable surfaces, reducing the area of soil exposed to potential soil erosion. However, project development also 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 site development 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. Final MND 2006-17 determined that implementation of the applicable grading and building permit requirements and the application of Best Management Practices would reduce potential impacts related to erosion or loss of topsoil to a less than significant level.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would also not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. The potential for erosion would be controlled by implementation of stringent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion controls imposed during construction activities via grading and building permit regulations.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project involves disturbance of topsoil but complies with NPDES requirements. As such, a less Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
66 than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. f. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
The Geotechnical Investigation prepared for Final MND 2006-17 found the potential for hydroconsolidation to be low at the project site. 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. 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, Final MND 2006-17 determined that impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant.

Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. As such, the site-specific impacts of the Amara Shopping Center would be no different from those evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and no new impacts related to unstable soils would occur at the project site. However, updated geotechnical investigations were prepared in December 2013 and December 2015 and reviewed by the City of Camarillo. The Amara Shopping Center would be subject to the current building standards and recommendations from these more-recent geotechnical investigations. Compliance with these recommendations is both proposed and mandatory, and, as such, mitigation measure GEO-1 is no longer applicable to the Amara Shopping Center.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project site is located within a hazard area designated in the City of Camarillo Safety Element or identified in the project soils report but the project implements all applicable soil recommendations from project soils report. The updated geotechnical investigations prepared in December 2013 and December 2015 include seismic design considerations that would be incorporated into the proposed project grading and building plans. As such, a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. g. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? 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. 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, Final MND 2006-17 determined that impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
67 Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. As such, the site-specific impacts of the Amara Shopping Center would be no different from those evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and no new impacts related to expansive soils would occur at the project site. However, updated geotechnical investigations were prepared in December 2013 and December 2015 and reviewed by the City of Camarillo. The Amara Shopping Center would be subject to the current building standards and recommendations from these more-recent geotechnical investigations. Compliance with these recommendations is both proposed and mandatory, and, as such, mitigation measure GEO-1 is no longer applicable to the Amara Shopping Center.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project site is located on expansive soils but the project implements all applicable soil recommendations from project soils report. The updated geotechnical investigations prepared in December 2013 and December 2015 include seismic design considerations that would be incorporated into the proposed project grading and building plans. As such, a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
h. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The project site is located in an area of the City of Camarillo that 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. Therefore, Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would have no impact regarding soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project would connect to the City sewer system and not use septic tanks. The proposed project would connect to the existing sewer infrastructure located within the Ventura Boulevard right-of-way easement. As such, no impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
i. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The project site has been modified and utilized for agricultural purposes for many years. It is likely that any surface paleontological 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
68 paleontological resources exist below the surface, and that these resources could be encountered during site preparation. Final MND 2006-17 determined that potential impacts to paleontological resources that might be encountered during site preparation would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2.

Subsequent MND 2016-1 revised Mitigation Measure CR-2 as follows to include the City in the reporting of any paleontological resources that might be discovered at the project site:

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, or California State University at Long Beach, to assess the resources and evaluate the impact. Copies of the paleontological survey, study, or report shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project does not result in the destruction of paleontological resources or unique geologic features at the project site. Because there are no known paleontological resources at the site or within Camarillo, no impacts to known paleontological resources would occur with the proposed project.

However, there is a remote possibility that paleontological resources exist below the ground surface and that these resources could be encountered during site trenching. While no further evaluation of this issue is recommended, mitigation measure CR-2 would continue to be applicable to the proposed project. The site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated and no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
69 GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
Yes No No NA
b. Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Yes No No NA
Background Information
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions refer to a group of emissions that are believed to affect global climate conditions. These gases trap heat in the atmosphere and the major concern is that increases in GHG emissions are causing global climate change. Global climate change is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, most agree that there is a direct link between increased emission of GHGs and long-term global temperature. What GHGs have in common is that they allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere but trap a portion of the outward-bound infrared radiation and warm up the air. The process is similar to the effect a greenhouse has in raising the internal temperature, hence the name greenhouse gases. Both natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature; however, it is the scientific consensus that emissions from human activities such as electricity generation and motor vehicle operations have elevated the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. This accumulation of GHGs has contributed to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and contributed to global climate change.

The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and water vapor (H2O). CO2 is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant greenhouse gas emitted. To account for the varying warming potential of different GHGs, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e).

According to the 2022 Scoping Plan For Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan), the major source of GHGs in California is transportation, contributing approximately 40 percent of the state’s total GHG emissions. Industrial sources are the second largest generator, contributing approximately 15 percent of the state’s GHG emissions. Residential and commercial sources contribute approximately 10 percent of the State’s GHG emissions. Agriculture contributes approximately eight percent of the state’s GHG emissions.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
70 There are several unique challenges to analyzing greenhouse gas emissions and climate change under CEQA, largely because of climate change’s “global” nature. Typical CEQA analyses address local actions that have local – or, at most, regional – impacts, whereas climate change presents the considerable challenge of analyzing the relationship between local activities and the resulting potential, if any, for global environmental impacts. Most environmental analyses examine the “project-specific” impacts that a particular project is likely to generate. With regard to global warming, however, it is generally accepted that while the magnitude of global warming effects may be substantial, the GHG emissions from a single general development project would have no noticeable effect on global climate.

Global climate change is also fundamentally different from other types of air quality impact analyses under CEQA in which the impacts are all measured within, and are linked to, a discrete region or area. Instead, a global climate change analysis must be considered on a global level, rather than the typical local or regional setting, and requires consideration of not only emissions from the project under consideration, but also the extent of the displacement, translocation, and redistribution of emissions. In the usual context, where air quality is linked to a particular location or area, it is appropriate to consider the creation of new emissions in that specific area to be an environmental impact whether or not the emissions are truly “new” emissions to the overall globe. When the impact is a global one, however, it makes more sense to consider whether the emissions really are new emissions or are merely being moved from one place to another. For example, the approval of a new developmental plan or project does not necessarily create new automobile drivers - the primary source of a land use project’s emissions. Rather, due to the “relocation” factor, new land use projects sometimes merely redistribute existing mobile emissions; accordingly, the use of models that measure overall emissions increases without accounting for existing emissions will substantially overstate the impact of the development project on global warming. This makes an accurate analysis of GHG emissions substantially different from other air quality impacts, where the “addition” of redistributed emissions to a new locale can make a substantial difference to overall air quality.

Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
For greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, there is not, at this time, one established, universally agreed-upon “threshold of significance” by which to measure an impact. While the California Air Resources Board (ARB) published some draft thresholds in 2008, they were never adopted, and the ARB recommended that local air districts and lead agencies adopt their own thresholds for GHG impacts.

As discussed under the Air Quality topic of this Initial Study, the City of Camarillo relies upon the expert guidance of the VCAPCD regarding the methodology and thresholds of significance for the evaluation of air quality impacts within Ventura County. GHG emissions are air pollutants that are subject to local control by the VCAPCD. As such, the City looks to the VCAPCD for guidance in the evaluation of GHG impacts.

In September 2011, the Ventura County Air Pollution Control Board requested that VCAPCD staff report back on possible GHG significance thresholds for evaluating GHG impacts of land use projects in Ventura County under CEQA. VCAPCD staff responded to this request by preparing a report entitled Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance Options for Land Use Development Projects in Ventura County. This report presents a number of options for GHG significance thresholds and summarizes the most prominent Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
71 approaches and options either adopted or being considered by all other air districts throughout California.

Similar to other air districts, VCAPCD staff members are considering a tiered approach with the main components involving consistency with a locally adopted GHG reduction plan followed by a bright-line threshold for land use projects that would capture 90 percent of project GHG emissions. VCAPCD staff members are also exploring an efficiency-based metric (e.g., GHG emissions per capita) for land use projects and plans. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has also been considering these strategies for land use projects.

Given that Ventura County is adjacent to the SCAQMD jurisdiction and is a part of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, VCAPCD staff currently believes that it makes sense to set local GHG emission thresholds of significance for land use development projects at levels consistent with those set by the SCAQMD and the SCAG region. VCAPCD staff currently believe that adopting harmonized regional GHG emission thresholds would help streamline project review and encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout most of Southern California.

The SCAQMD has been evaluating GHG significance thresholds since April 2008. In December 2008, the SCAQMD adopted an interim 10,000 metric tons CO2e (MTCO2e) per year screening level threshold for stationary source/industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead agency. The SCAQMD has continued to consider adoption of significance thresholds for residential and general development projects.

The most recent proposal issued in September 2010 uses the following tiered approach to evaluate potential GHG impacts from various uses:

Tier 1 Determine if CEQA categorical exemptions are applicable. If not, move to Tier 2.

Tier 2 Consider whether or not the proposed project is consistent with a locally adopted GHG reduction plan that has gone through public hearings and CEQA review, that has an approved inventory, includes monitoring, etc. If not, move to Tier 3.

Tier 3 Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of screening thresholds for individual land uses. The 10,000 MTCO2e/year threshold for industrial uses would be recommended for use by all lead agencies. Under option 1, separate screening thresholds are proposed for residential projects (3,500 MTCO2e/year), commercial projects (1,400 MTCO2e/year), and mixed-use projects (3,000 MTCO2e/year). Under option 2 a single numerical screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year would be used for all non-industrial projects. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable screening threshold, move to Tier 4.

Tier 4 Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of applicable performance standards for the project service population (population plus employment). The efficiency targets were established based on the goal of AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions by 2020 and 2035.

The 2020 efficiency targets are 4.8 MTCO2e per service population for project level analyses and 6.6 MTCO2e per service population for plan level analyses. The 2035 targets that reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels are 3.0 MTCO2e per service population for project level analyses and

4.1 MTCO2e per service population for plan level analyses. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable efficiency targets, move to Tier 5.

Tier 5 Consider the implementation of CEQA mitigation (including the purchase of GHG offsets) to reduce the project efficiency target to Tier 4 levels.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
72 The thresholds identified above have not been adopted by the SCAQMD or distributed for widespread public review and comment, and the working group tasked with developing the thresholds has not met since September 2010. The future schedule and likelihood of threshold adoption is uncertain.

In the absence of other thresholds of significance promulgated by the VCAPCD, the City of Camarillo has been using SCAQMD’s draft thresholds for the purpose of evaluating the GHG impacts associated with proposed general development projects.

Final MND 2006-17 did not evaluate greenhouse gas emissions since the MND was prepared and approved before the State CEQA Guidelines were amended in 2010 to include thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would generate GHG emissions that exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e/year Tier 3 threshold but the emissions would be 1.44 MTCO2e of GHGs per service population member. The GHG emissions per service population member would be substantially less than the SCAQMD’s year 2020 draft threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population. Therefore, Subsequent MND 2016-1 concluded that the GHG emissions generated in association with the Amara Shopping Center would not have a significant impact on the environment.

Although approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission, it would provide a free-standing fuel facility that was not envisioned for the Amara Shopping Center. In addition, the vehicle trip generation characteristics of the proposed Costco are different than the trip generation assumptions for a shopping center as evaluated in Final MND 2006- 17 and Subsequent MND 2016-1 and the version of CalEEMod that was used to estimate GHG emissions in Subsequent MND 2016-1 has been updated. Therefore, the annual GHG emissions associated with the proposed project have been evaluated in an Air Quality Impact Evaluation that is incorporated as Appendix B to this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4.

The average annual operational GHG emissions estimates for the proposed project are shown in Table 4.

As shown, the average annual operational GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e/year Tier 3 threshold. Therefore, the analysis moves to Tier 4.

Consistent with the analysis methodology in Subsequent MND 2016-1, the Air Quality Impact Evaluation determined that the total project emissions would equate to an efficiency metric of 0.93 MTCO2e per service population, which is less than the original project's 1.44 MTCO2e of GHGs per service population member.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project generates an increase in GHG emissions that do not exceed the SCAQMD Tier 3 or Tier 4 standards. The GHG emissions per service population member would be substantially less than the SCAQMD’s year 2035 draft threshold of 3.0 MTCO2e per service population. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and the impact of the proposed project would be less than those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
73 Table 4 – Average Annual GHG Emissions
Emissions Source
GHG Emissions in MTCO2e/year
Costco Regional Shopping
Center
Area Sources 2 5
Energy Sources 404 727
Mobile Sources 6,144 6,741
Water and Wastewater 31 62
Waste Disposal 222 110
Refrigerants 0.1 0.3
Back-up Generator 6 --
Operational Subtotals 6,810 7,644
Amortized Construction Emissions 13 36
Total Emissions 6,823 7,681
Total Project Emissions 14,503
Source of table data: Rambol, September 6, 2023.
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Final MND 2006-17 did not evaluate greenhouse gas emissions since the MND was prepared and approved before the State CEQA Guidelines were amended in 2010 to include thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. This is because the SCAQMD’s Tier 4 draft 4.8 MTCO2e per service population efficiency target was established based on the goal of AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and because the development would also be subject to the energy efficiency requirements of the Title 24 CalGreen Code.

The 2022 Scoping Plan is the most recent plan adopted by the ARB to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. The strategies from the 2022 Scoping Plan are applicable to state, regional, and local agencies in the development of plans to reduce GHG emissions but are not applicable to each and every new general development project. The general intent of these plans, however, is to reduce statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. Strategies and measures have also been implemented on the state level by example of the new Title 24 CalGreen Code and on the local level by the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance.

Although not originally intended to specifically reduce air pollutant emissions, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Since then, Title 24 has been amended with a recognition that energy- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
74 efficient buildings require less electricity and reduce fuel consumption, which in turn decreases GHG emissions. The 2022 Title 24 standards (effective as of January 1, 2023) were adopted to respond, amongst other reasons, to the requirements of AB 32. Specifically, new development projects constructed within California after January 1, 2023 are subject to the mandatory planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and environmental quality measures of the CalGreen Code.

The environmental documents for larger projects that are of regional significance are also subject to review by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties: Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial. As the designated MPO, the federal government mandates that SCAG researches and prepares plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality.

The SCAG regional council adopted Connect SoCal 2020, the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, which seeks to improve mobility, promote sustainability, facilitate economic development and preserve the quality of life for the residents in the region. The long-range vision plan balances future mobility and housing needs with goals for the environment, the regional economy, social equity, and environmental justice, and public health. The goals included in Connect SoCal 2020 are meant to provide guidance for considering projects within the context of regional goals and policies.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project does not conflict with any policies from the current ARB Climate Change Scoping Plan Update or, for regionally significant projects, the SCAG RTP/SCS, that are applicable to the project. Based on the preceding information, the proposed project would not conflict with the current ARB Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. The project is also not of regional significance and subject to a consistency review with Connect SoCal 2020. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and the impact of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
75 HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Yes and No No Yes NA
b. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Yes No No NA
c. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
Yes No No NA
d. Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Yes No No Yes
e. Not comply with the Adopted
Land Use Compatibility Standards
in the Safety Zones of the Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for
Ventura County and/or the
Height Restriction Zones for
Camarillo Airport?
Yes No No Yes
f. Substantially physically interfere
with the City’s designated
evacuation routes?
Yes No No NA
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to significant
risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires?
Yes No No NA
Background Information
A hazardous material is any substance that may be explosive, flammable, poisonous, corrosive, radioactive, reactive, or any combination thereof, because of its quantity, concentration, or characteristics. Hazardous materials require special care in handling due to the hazards they pose to public health, safety, and the environment. Potential hazards associated with hazardous materials include fires, explosions, and leaks.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
76 Releases of hazardous materials can be damaging when they occur in highly populated areas or along transportation routes.

Hazardous materials are transported through the City, and businesses within the City handle, transport, and/or store hazardous materials. Other sources of hazardous materials include agricultural operations, illegal drug manufacturing, and clandestine dumping.

Existing Federal, State, and local laws regulate the use, transport, disposal, and storage of hazardous materials within Camarillo.

Aircraft flights associated with Camarillo Airport are another potential source of noise and hazards for areas within Camarillo. On July 7, 2000, the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) adopted the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Ventura County (ACLUP). The ACLUP included the four airports located in the County. Exhibit 11-8 of the City of Camarillo Safety Element 2013 presents the approved compatibility map associated with Camarillo Airport. The compatibility map defines several zones and provides recommended land uses. In 2005 the ACLUP was amended to have the study areas also be known as the “Sphere of Influence,” which sets boundaries for the review of development projects.

Projects located around the airport are reviewed for land use compatibility in accordance with the ACLUP.

Evacuation routes in Camarillo are dependent upon the event and need for evacuation. During a breach of the Bard Reservoir, the only required evacuation route would be the movement onto high ground out of the flood plain, which is generally north of Ponderosa Road, westerly of Ponderosa and Las Posas Roads and easterly of Calleguas Creek northerly of U.S. Highway 101. In the event of a major chemical spill or other significant disaster, the City would be evacuated using U.S. Highway 101 for east and westerly traffic or Lewis Road for evacuating the residents to the north or south.

Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have no impact regarding the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or the creation of significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Although approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
77 Camarillo Planning Commission, it would provide a free-standing fuel facility that was not envisioned for the Amara Shopping Center. The fuel facility would involve the routine transport, storage, and dispensing of gasoline which is a hazardous material. The transport, storage, and dispensing of the gasoline would be required to comply with all standard practices and applicable regulations.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project transports, uses, or disposes of hazardous materials as part of construction-related and operational activities, but these activities comply with standard practices and applicable regulations.

Therefore, like the original project, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. 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? Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have no impact regarding the release of hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

The closest existing schools to the project site are ACE Charter High School and Frontier High School which are both located over a half a mile away to the south of Camarillo Airport. No new schools are proposed within one-quarter mile of the project site.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, no impact would occur and the impact of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
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?
Final MND 2006-17 determined that the project site was not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was also prepared to identify any potentially hazardous environmental conditions at the site. Only one potential non-ASTM environmental condition was identified: the normal, legal application of farm- related pesticides, herbicides and other farm chemicals may have resulted in the creation of soil that could be Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
78 considered a hazardous waste if it is disposed of. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the construction-related air quality impacts to a less than significant level.

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 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.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would also not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. The Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database was searched on October 7, 2023 and the project site and surrounding properties are still not included on a list of hazardous material sites as compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. An updated Phase I ESA was also conducted for the project site that is incorporated as Appendix E F to this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4. The May 4, 2022 Phase I ESA concluded that the potential of residual pesticides from the previous agricultural activities remaining in the soil is low but the surface soils should be sampled and analyzed to assess the appropriateness for reuse or disposal. Therefore, mitigation measure HAZ-1 would continue to be applicable to the proposed project. The May 4, 2022 Phase I ESA also identified a concrete standpipe along the eastern boundary of the project site. There may be buried irrigation lines connected to this standpipe. Based on the age of the standpipe, this structure and potential buried lines may contain asbestos containing materials and should be tested prior to removal.

Implementation of new mitigation measure HAZ-4 would ensure that potential impacts associated with the release of asbestos containing materials are reduced to a less than significant level.

HAZ-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant/developer shall perform soil tests to determine if the concrete standpipe located along the eastern boundary of the project site and any attached buried line contain any asbestos containing materials. Any asbestos containing materials shall be remediated in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no impact would occur. While no further evaluation of this issue is recommended, mitigation measure HAZ-1 would continue to be applicable to the proposed project along with new mitigation measure HAZ-4. The site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
e. Would the project not comply with the Adopted Land Use Compatibility Standards in the Safety Zones of the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Ventura County and/or the Height Restriction Zones for Camarillo Airport?
The project site is located within the northern portion of the Airport North Specific Plan area, less than a quarter of a mile north of Camarillo Airport. Although the height restrictions established by the Specific Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
79 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, Final MND 2006-17 determined that impacts related to airport safety hazards would be reduced to less than significant levels.

HAZ-2 Prior to project development all building plans must be submitted to the City of Camarillo Department of Community Development 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.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would also not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. The southern portion of the project site is located within the Height Restriction Zone (HRZ) for Camarillo Airport while the northern portion is in the Outer Safety Zone (OSZ).

Commercial retail uses are allowed within the OSZ provided that the maximum lot coverage must be no more than 25 percent and an avigation easement is recommended and a fair disclosure agreement and covenant shall be recorded by developer and owner of the property. The amount of development associated with the proposed project would be consistent with the limitations of the OSZ.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project is consistent with the Adopted Land Use Compatibility Standards in the Safety Zones and/or the Height Restriction Zones and height easements for Camarillo Airport. While no further evaluation of this issue is recommended, mitigation measures HAZ-2 and HAZ-3 would continue to be applicable to the proposed project. The site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
80 f. Would the project substantially physically interfere with the City’s designated evacuation routes?
Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have a less than impact regarding emergency access. The original project would extend Ventura Boulevard from its current terminus west of the Camarillo Town Center West 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 West. 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.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would also not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. The approved extension of Ventura Boulevard and the project driveway access points have already been constructed by the applicant for the original project. Access would continue to be provided from Ventura Boulevard and the Camarillo Town Center West.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project does not provide any physical impediments to any of the City’s designated evacuation routes. Therefore, no impact would occur. The site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have no impact involving wildland fires.

There are no adjacent wildlands and the project site is not located in a fire hazard zone.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would also not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. According to the City of Camarillo Safety Element 2013, the project site is not located within or near a High Fire Hazard Zone. The project site is also not located within a fire hazard severity zone area as designated by Cal Fire.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project site is not located within or immediately adjacent to a High Fire Hazard Zone as designated in the City of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
81 Camarillo Safety Element. Therefore, no impact would occur. The site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

HYDROLOGY AND

WATER QUALITY
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
Yes No Yes Yes
b. Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Yes No No NA
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation onsite or
offsite?
Yes No No NA
d. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would substantially
increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding onsite or
offsite?
Yes No No NA
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
82 e. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would create or contribute
runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of pollutant runoff?
Yes No No NA
f. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
Yes No No NA
g. Be located in a flood hazard zone
and risk the release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
Yes No No NA
h. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
No No No NA
Background Information
Projects that include grading of more than one acre require a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (Construction General Permit) from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) prior to the start of construction. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requires that a Notice of Intent (NOI) be filed with the SWRCB. By filing an NOI, the project developers agree to the conditions outlined in the General Permit. One of the conditions of the General Permit is the development and the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP identifies which structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented, such as sandbag barriers, temporary desilting basins near inlets, gravel driveways, dust controls, employee training, and general good housekeeping practices.

New and redevelopment land use projects are also required to meet the requirements of the Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit for Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (CAS004004, Order R4-2021-0105) or current permit in effect, and related requirements of the Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (TGM) that are in effect at the time of building development. Projects will be required to develop a Post Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSMP) in accordance with the City’s Municipal Stormwater Permit. The PCSMP shall address the project’s mitigation of pollutants and stormwater runoff volume from impervious surfaces through infiltration, reuse, evapotranspiration, bioretention, or biofiltration as required by the City’s Municipal Stormwater Permit.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
83 The Calleguas and Conejo Creeks are both located within the eastern portion of the City of Camarillo, and the Beardsley Wash/Revolon Slough is located west of the City. Although extensive channel improvements have been constructed within the City, there are continuing efforts to reduce the flood risk east of Somis Road and off of Howard Road, along with building greater community resiliency through flood control project partnerships with the City and the Ventura County Watershed Protection District. Uses in the hazard areas are largely agricultural, with some residential and industrial development. Sections of U.S.

Highway 101 and rail lines of the Southern Pacific Railroad are also in the hazard zone. The Ventura County Watershed Protection District has jurisdictional authority over all redline channels in accordance with County Ordinance WP-2. Calleguas and Conejo Creeks and Beardsley Wash/Revolon Slough are classified as VCWPD jurisdictional red line channels within the current Camarillo city limits.

Flooding in special risk areas can occur rapidly or slowly, depending on the heaviness and severity of rainfall. According to the Ventura County General Plan Hazards Appendix, much of Camarillo lies outside identified 100-year flood zones. This has also been confirmed on the most recent FEMA Maps dated January 7, 2015.

Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground 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.

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.

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 the Construction General Permit and the City's Municipal Stormwater Permit.

Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction and operation. Implementation of mitigation measures HYD-1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
84 through HYD-3 would reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation measure HYD-2 is as follows:

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.

Subsequent MND 2016-1 revised mitigation measures HYD-1 and HYD-3 to be consistent with then-current City recommendations:

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would also not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. The project would be required to comply with a Construction General Permit (either Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ (ss amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) or Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ).

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project generates new sources of polluted stormwater runoff and complies with stormwater runoff requirements for construction (a Storm Water Pollution Control Plan for sites less than one acre and a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit for larger sites) and post construction runoff by providing a Stormwater Quality Management Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. Mitigation measures HYD-1 and HYD-3 are revised as follows to be consistent with current City recommendations:

HYD-1 During construction, the project applicant shall implement all applicable and mandatory Best Management Practices (BMPs) in accordance with the Construction General Permit and related SWPPP prepared for the project and the City's Municipal Stormwater Permit. These BMPs shall be installed in accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) fact sheets and shall include, but not be limited, to the following:
• Erosion and sediment control procedures shall be implemented for exposed areas. • 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.
• Material management BMPs shall be implemented.

HYD-3 The project shall be designed to comply with all applicable requirements of the City’s Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No. R4-2021-0105) and related stormwater quality mitigation requirements pertaining to the detention, treatment, and/or discharge of stormwater.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
85 b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The proposed project site is located within the service area of the Camarillo Water Division, which provides potable water for urban and agricultural uses to the majority of the City. The City sources its water supply from a combination of groundwater and purchased imported water. Historically, the blended water has consisted of approximately 41% groundwater and 59% imported water and has been necessary to manage the concentration of dissolved solids in the groundwater. While the City’s water supply portfolio from 2016 to 2020 was consistent with its historical split of imported versus groundwater, beginning in 2023 the City’s water supply portfolio is expected to change. The North Pleasant Valley (NPV) Desalter Facility began making deliveries of treated groundwater starting in 2023. With the NPV Desalter Facility online, the majority of the City’s water supply comes from groundwater. The City is working with neighboring agencies and the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) to ensure the sustainability and reliability of the groundwater basin in the future.

The City of Camarillo adopted its Water Conservation Ordinance (City Municipal Code Chapter 14.12) to prohibit wasteful water practices. The Water Conservation Ordinance requires that applicants for new potable water service must prepare a water impact study. In order for new such service to be approved, the water impact study must demonstrate that the proposed project will not create additional demand on the City’s water system. An example of such non-impact would be if the proposed project does not require an increase in water usage from that historically used on the same site.

Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would increase water demand although it is not anticipated that the added water demands of the project would exceed current supply. Therefore, the original 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.

Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. As such, the site-specific impacts of the Amara Shopping Center would be no different from those evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and no new impacts associated with groundwater depletion or recharge would occur at the project site. On August 18, 2016, the City of Camarillo Public Works Department provided the owner of the Amara Shopping Center with a Water Availability Letter stating that the project is eligible to participate in the City’s Water Demand Credit Program and that potable water will be made available upon compliance with the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would also not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. The water demand associated with the proposed project has been evaluated in a Water Impact Study that is incorporated as Appendix F G to this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4. The Water Impact Study concludes that the proportionate water demand for the proposed Costco project would be within the approved water demand credit for the Amara Shopping Center.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project requires the delivery of groundwater but complies with local requirements for water Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
86 supply. The proportionate water demand for the proposed Costco project would be within the approved water demand credit for the Amara Shopping Center. This complies with the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance requirements for new development projects. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and the site-specific impacts of the project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
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 or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? 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 through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite? e. 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 through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff?
f. 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 through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? The two primary factors controlling drainage across the project site are U.S. Highway 101 to the north and the Camarillo Hills Drain to the south. U.S. Highway 101 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 U.S. Highway 101 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 Flood Control District. There are no natural watercourses within 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 by existing drains within Ventura Boulevard. The drainage system within Ventura Boulevard has been designed to meet engineering and planning criteria based upon a 50-year frequency storm and also provide an acceptable level of protection when combined with certain constraints to mitigate serious flooding in a 100-year storm based on the City’s Master Plan of Drainage.

Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on the site and, therefore, increase the amount of surface runoff. However, the drainage system was designed to accommodate this increase consistent with the City’s Master Plan of Drainage. Therefore, the drainage impacts of the original project were determined to be less than significant impact.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
87 Approval and implementation of the proposed project would also not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. The proposed stormwater system would be developed in accordance with the City’s Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No. R4-2021-0105) and related Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual. Stormwater for the Costco development is proposed to discharge to an underground detention system. Runoff would be collected via multiple storm drain inlets located throughout the Costco development area. The water quality flow rate for each inlet would be treated with a tributary biofiltration system before discharging to a single underground detention system. The underground detention system would discharge offsite to an existing 66-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) stub at the corner of Springville Drive and West Ventura Boulevard before ultimately discharging to the Camarillo Hills Drain. The connection to the existing 66-inch pipe would require a drainage easement.

The easement would be dedicated to Costco as part of the purchase to sale agreement and Costco per the agreement would be responsible for the maintenance of the proposed connection pipe.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project changes the existing drainage pattern of the site but complies with local stormwater runoff requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
g. Would the project be located in a flood hazard zone and risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation?
According to the City of Camarillo Safety Element 2013 and the FEMA Floodplains Effective 1/8/15 map, the project site and surrounding area are not located within a FEMA floodway. The site and surrounding area is also not located within the dam inundation areas for Bard Dam and Pyramid Dam.

Final MND 2006-17 determined that no flooding impacts would occur since the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project site is not located in a flood hazard zone. Therefore, no impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
88 h. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Final MND 2006-17 and Subsequent MND 2016-1 did not evaluate the site development’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan under the topic of Hydrology and Water Quality since this was not a threshold of significance at that time.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project requires the delivery of groundwater but complies with local requirements for water supply. As discussed above, the proportionate water demand for the Costco project would be within the approved water demand credit for the Amara Shopping Center. This complies with the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance requirements for new development projects. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

LAND USE AND

PLANNING
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
neighborhood or community? Yes No No NA
b. Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation
or applicable goal or policy from
the City of Camarillo General Plan
that was adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Yes No Yes NA
Background Information
As discussed in the Introduction to the City of Camarillo General Plan, planning is the continuous process of guiding land development in accordance with established policy and towards predetermined goals and objectives. It represents a conscious effort to shape the physical environment for the welfare of those who live and work in the community.

The California Government Code mandates that every county and city within the state adopt a long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or City and of any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning. The City of Camarillo General Plan is a series of goals and policies for the City to implement in guiding both public and private decision‐making on existing and proposed planning issues relevant to the City and its environs. The General Plan is a dynamic document consisting of nine elements. There are currently the Camarillo Urban Restriction Boundary (“CURB”), Land Use Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
89 Element, Circulation Element 2014, 2021-2029 Housing Element, Recreation Element, Open Space & Conservation Element, Community Design 2012, Safety Element 2013, and Noise Element 2015.

While all of the goals and policies adopted in the City of Camarillo General Plan are applicable to the overall development of the City, they are not all applicable to each and every new development project. In addition, the City’s adopted threshold of significance addresses the goals and policies that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. Would the project physically divide an established neighborhood or community? At the time that the original project was proposed, the project site was being used for agriculture and no residences existed on the site. To the east of the project site is the Camarillo Town Center West and to the west was an approximately 80-acre farm which extended west to Bajo Agua. To the west of Bajo Agua are commercial and light industrial uses. To the north of the project site is U.S. Highway 101 and to the south is the Camarillo Airport. As such, no established community exists within the project site or in the project vicinity. For these reasons, Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would not physically divide an established community and no impacts would occur.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project does not divide an established neighborhood that relies on interconnected activity. The proposed project would not divide an established neighborhood. Therefore, no impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation or applicable goal or policy from the City of Camarillo General Plan that was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original 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.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
90 According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project is consistent with all goals and policies from the City of Camarillo General Plan that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and that are applicable to the project. Therefore, the evaluation of this potential impact is based on the consistency of the proposed project with the policies and goals from the City of Camarillo General Plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect that are applicable to the proposed project. This comparison is provided in Table 5. As shown, the proposed project would be consistent with each of the applicable policies and goals. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and the land use and planning impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Land Use Element
Residential Uses
To identify residential neighborhood patterns as a
means of assisting in their planning and
protection.

To provide each neighborhood with adequate and
convenient public facilities and amenities,
particularly park and recreation facilities.

To protect residential property values and privacy
by ensuring compatible development with
surrounding land uses and by preventing the
intrusion of incompatible land uses.

To discourage through traffic in order to promote
safe neighborhoods.

Encourage adequate recreation facilities to serve
the population expected to reside in cluster
residential projects which may include recreation
equipment for children, swimming pools, tennis
courts, etc.

Consider residential opportunities for properties
being studied for reuse potential.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include the development of residential uses.

Commercial and Office Uses
To achieve a balance of commercial areas that will
provide for the retail business, professional and
service needs of the residents of Camarillo, as well
as attracting customers from the surrounding
service areas.

The project site has already been approved for the
development of the Amara Shopping Center. The
proposed Costco project would provide a retail
use that is not currently provided in Camarillo.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
91 Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Provide adequate land and proper location for the
various types of commercial activities so that they
can provide optimum service to the community
and surrounding service area.

The project site has already been approved for the
development of the Amara Shopping Center.

Encourage and promote the overall improvement
of efficiency and visual appeal of all commercial
areas in keeping with the Heritage Zone policy of
the City as set forth in the Community Design
Element.

Consistent. The Costco building is proposed to be
consistent with the City’s Heritage Zone Design
Guidelines. The proposed design of
Mission/Early of Mission/Early California style
architecture uses arches along an entry colonnade,
a sloped roof at the main entry, hipped roof
towers, and materials that include clay roof tiles,
textured exterior walls, and earth tones of brown
and red color palette.

Alleviate the problems of traffic congestion and
require adequate off-street parking geared to each
of the types of commercial activity and the
promotion of on-site pathways with interconnects
to adjoining areas.

Consistent. The parking provided by the
proposed project would exceed the City’s
requirements. The proposed project parking area
would connect to the adjacent Camarillo Town
Center West.

Ensure compatibility by preventing the intrusion
of incompatible uses within commercial areas.

Improve the relationship between commercial
areas and adjacent noncommercial land through
landscape buffers which will insure the protection
of adjacent residential land from annoyance by
undue noise, light, traffic and other activities
generated by intensive commercial use.

The project site has already been approved for the
development of the Amara Shopping Center. The
nearest residential uses are located to the north of
U.S. Highway 101.

Maintain a proper balance of commercial
activities between the various commercial areas
so that business opportunities and support will be
at an optimum.

Consistent. The proposed Costco project would
provide a retail use that is not currently provided
in Camarillo.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
92 Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Encourage the development of grouped
neighborhood convenience shopping facilities to
serve the needs of the adjacent residential areas.

Require the development of landscaped
pedestrian ways, bike paths, adequate parking
and safe access from adjacent thoroughfares.

Consistent. The City of Camarillo General Plan
land use designation for the site is General
Commercial and the underlying zoning is CPD
(Commercial Planned Development). The
proposed project is the development of a
commercial use on a site that is consistent with
these existing land use and zoning designations. It
would provide group shopping facilities to serve
the needs of nearby residential areas. The project
site has already been approved for the
development of the Amara Shopping Center. The
nearest residential uses are located to the north of
U.S. Highway 101. Bicycle lanes are located along
Ventura Boulevard and Springville Drive and
sidewalks would be provided along the project
site frontage with Ventura Boulevard.

Promote improved architectural appearance of
commercial buildings and structures and require
adequate setbacks and properly landscaped sites
and means for proper maintenance.

Consistent. The building is proposed to be
consistent with the City’s Heritage Zone Design
Guidelines. The proposed design of
Mission/Early of Mission/Early California style
architecture uses arches along an entry colonnade,
a sloped roof at the main entry, hipped roof
towers, and materials that include clay roof tiles,
textured exterior walls, and earth tones of brown
and red color palette. The building setbacks
would meet or exceed City standards.

Provide adequate municipal services for all
commercial areas, including the improvement of
street appearance, through a program of street
tree planting, suitable street lighting and the
relocation of unsightly wires and utility poles.

There should be careful regulation of signs and
outdoor advertising to prevent unsightly
proliferations which confuse rather than inform or
identify uses.

Consistent. The proposed project would connect
to existing water, sewer, storm drain, electrical,
natural gas, and telecommunications
infrastructure located within the Ventura
Boulevard right-of-way easements.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
93 Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Industrial Uses
The least intensive industrial uses should be
located as a transition between the heavier uses
and adjacent residential or other more restrictive
uses.

Access to manufacturing districts should not be
through or along the border of a residential area.

Traffic should collect on industrial streets located
within an industrial district and then be routed to
external areas by way of major highways and
freeways.

Interior industrial subdivision circulation should
be simple and functional and built to industrial
standards.

Where possible, access to railroad lines, by way of
spur trackage, should be available to those
industries desiring this type of service.

Large setbacks and landscaped front yards should
be required to improve the visual quality of the
industrial environment.

All storage and waste areas should be screened
from view and enhance the quality of the
environment.

That uses which involve hazardous materials be
reviewed with regard to impacts on adjoining
residential uses and in accordance with the Safety
Element of the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include the development of industrial uses.

Public Uses
Locate facilities where they provide maximum
service with the greatest efficiency.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include the development of public uses.

Schools
Protect school plant investments by preserving
the character and quality of residential
development which surround school facilities and
by prohibiting objectionable uses from
encroaching into immediate service areas.

Assist in the coordination of school and park
authorities to develop education/recreational
complexes throughout the community, thereby
providing mutual benefit of service, safety,
convenience, efficiency, and economy.

Promote the safety of children by requiring safe
sidewalks, bikeways, and crossings in areas
adjoining and leading to school sites.

Coordinate with school authorities to make
schools, by their design and location, contribute to
the identities of the communities which they
serve.

Consistent. The proposed project would not
adversely impact the character and quality of
residential development which surround school
facilities and would not encroach into school
service areas. The proposed project would
support school facilities through the payment of
school fees.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
94 Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Circulation Element 2014
Policy 1.1.1. Residential areas shall be protected
from unsafe or incompatible traffic from other
land uses so as to maintain quality residential
areas through proper land use planning.

Discourage parking of non-residential vehicles on
residential streets.

The project site has already been approved for the
development of the Amara Shopping Center. The
nearest residential uses are located to the north of
U.S. Highway 101. The proposed project would
not result in unsafe or incompatible traffic in this
area. Further, the proposed project would provide
sufficient onsite parking to meet its parking
needs.

Policy 1.1.2. Land use plans shall be designed to
improve alternative modes of transportation,
provide direct routes between uses, and strive to
reduce the total vehicle miles traveled.

Consistent. The proposed project would be
located along Ventura Boulevard and Springville
Drive in close proximity to the U.S. Highway
101/Springville Drive interchange. As discussed
in the Transportation section of this Second
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
proposed project and remaining shopping center
would result in fewer daily vehicle miles traveled
than the previously approved Amara shopping
center.

Policy 1.1.4. At time of development application
submittal, traffic shall be analyzed. A traffic study
may be required to evaluate traffic impacts and
any potential mitigation measures.

Consistent. A Daily Trip Generation and Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis has been prepared
for the proposed project. The results of the
analysis are discussed in the Transportation
section of this Second Subsequent Mitigated
Negative Declaration.

Policy 1.2.1. A system of local and collector streets
which serve residential neighborhoods should be
established while protecting them from intrusion
of cut through traffic.

Policy 1.2.2. Residential neighborhood streets
should be designed to avoid creating local streets
which will ultimately function as collectors.

Policy 1.2.3. Direct residential driveway access
onto arterial streets should be avoided.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
involve the development of residential uses and is
not located in close proximity to existing or
planned residential uses. The nearest residential
uses are located to the north of U.S. Highway 101.

Policy 1.2.7. Design of circulation infrastructure
shall consider minimizing environmental impacts
including those related to adjacent land uses,
habitat, and visual resources.

Consistent. Vehicular access to the proposed
Costco development would be provided via two
driveways along Ventura Boulevard and a
connection to Overland Road at the northeastern
corner of the site.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
95 Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Policy 1.2.8. A project shall be responsible for
providing improvements immediately adjacent to
and between the limits of the project in
accordance with the City’s pave-out policy. A
project is also responsible for its fair share of
improvements at other intersections, roadways,
and highways where significant impacts are
created or where the project contributes to
cumulative impacts.

Consistent. Vehicular access to the proposed
Costco development would be provided via two
driveways along Ventura Boulevard and a
connection to Overland Road at the northeastern
corner of the site. Ventura Boulevard has already
been improved by the applicant of the original
project.

Policy 1.2.9. On-site circulation patterns shall be
examined to ensure that traffic will flow in a
reasonable manner and not interfere with normal
traffic movement adjacent to the project or on the
subject site.

Consistent. Vehicular access to the proposed
Costco development would be provided via two
driveways along Ventura Boulevard and a
connection to Overland Road at the northeastern
corner of the site.

Policy 1.3.1. The City shall estimate air quality
impacts of motor vehicle trips generated by land
use changes in accordance with Ventura County
Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)
guidelines.

Policy 1.3.2. The City shall identify and evaluate
measures that will reduce the air quality impacts
of motor vehicle trips that are consistent with
regional air quality and transportation plans.

Policy 1.3.3. New development shall mitigate air
quality impacts, based on the amount of
emissions that must be reduced to bring the
project below the thresholds established by the
VCAPCD, through contribution of funds toward a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
plan.

Consistent. The air quality impacts associated
with the proposed project have been evaluated in
accordance with the procedures recommended by
the VCAPCD in the Ventura County Air Quality
Assessment Guidelines. The impacts of the
proposed project are evaluated in the Air Quality
section of this Second Subsequent Mitigated
Negative Declaration. The proposed project
would contribute to a TDM Fund, which would
mitigate its air quality impacts to a less than
significant level.

Policy 2.1.2. Streetscapes shall be improved to
enhance access, lighting, safety, and the overall
experience for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit
users, and vehicles.

Consistent. The proposed project has been
designed to meet City standards for appearance,
access, lighting, and safety for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and vehicles. Public transit services are
currently available via a stop within the Camarillo
Town Center West to the east of the project site.

Policy 2.1.4. New developments shall provide for
safe and efficient roadway operations through
careful control of access, and overall street and
development design. Strive to operate new and
existing streets and intersections at accident rate
levels below statewide averages.

Consistent. Vehicular access to the proposed
Costco development would be provided via two
driveways along Ventura Boulevard and a
connection to Overland Road at the northeastern
corner of the site. The proposed parking area has
been designed to operate safely.

Policy 5.1.1. Provide for streetscapes which
present an aesthetically pleasing appearance and
promote ease of use for pedestrian and bicycle
traffic while also ensuring public safety.

Consistent. The proposed project has been
designed to meet City standards for appearance,
access, lighting, and safety for pedestrians and
bicyclists while also ensuring public safety.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
96 Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Policy 5.1.3. Commercial, industrial, and
residential areas shall provide walkways and
trails to promote walking where appropriate and
consistent with the neighborhood character.

Retrofit existing facilities where applicable and
possible.

Consistent. Bicycle lanes are located along
Ventura Boulevard and Springville Drive, and
sidewalks would be provided along the project
site frontage with Ventura Boulevard.

Policy 5.2.2. Where pedestrian facilities are
provided, they shall be accessible to persons with
disabilities.

Consistent. All pedestrian facilities provided
within the project site would be required to
comply with applicable Americans with
Disabilities Act requirements.

Policy 5.2.4. Provide connections between
residential and non-residential areas to encourage
walking and biking.

Consistent. The nearest residential uses are
located to the north of U.S. Highway 101. Bicycle
lanes are currently provided between the project
site and the nearest residential uses. Sidewalks
will ultimately connect these areas as well when
the Amara Shopping Center is completed.

Policy 5.3.2. Facilities for bicycle travel shall be
developed as shown in Figure 5-8, Bikeway
Network and the Camarillo Bikeways Master
Plan.

Consistent. Bicycle lanes are located along
Ventura Boulevard and Springville Drive.

Policy 5.3.3. Planting plans for street trees shall
take into consideration shade and comfort for
pedestrians and bicyclists. Tree types that
significantly lift sidewalks should be avoided.

Consistent. Shade trees are proposed within the
pedestrian area along Ventura Boulevard.

Policy 5.3.4. Businesses, public facilities, and
multi-family residential developments should
provide bicycle parking facilities.

Consistent. Bicycle parking facilities would be
provided as required by the Camarillo Municipal
Code and the CalGreen Code.

Policy 6.1.2. Bus turnouts should be considered in
newly developed areas to allow for minimal
disruption to traffic.

Policy 6.2.3. The City shall encourage new
developments to include transit facilities such as
bus shelters, pads or turnouts, where appropriate,
within or in proximity to their development.

Consistent. Mitigation measure AQ-3 requires the
developer of the Amara Shopping Center to
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.

Policy 7.2.1. The City shall continue to participate
in efforts to ensure compatibility through
compliance with the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan and involvement in
monitoring noise impacts upon the City.

Consistent. Consistency of the proposed project
with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is
evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous
Materials section of this Second Subsequent
Mitigated Negative Declaration. Potential
impacts would be less than significant.

Policy 10.1.4. Undergrounding of utilities shall be
provided in accordance with City standards.

Consistent. All utilities serving the proposed
project would be located underground.

Policy 10.1.5. New transmission corridors shall be
identified to the extent warranted in all master
plans and specific plans created for new growth
areas.

Not Applicable. The proposed project involves
the development of new commercial uses within a
portion of the approved Airport North Specific
Plan area.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
97 Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Policy 10.1.6. Wireless telecommunication
facilities within the public right-of-way shall be
designed to blend in with the surrounding
environment and minimize visual impact.

Antennas shall be installed on existing utility or
light poles wherever feasible.

Not Applicable. Wireless telecommunication
facilities are not proposed as part of the proposed
project.

Policy 10.1.7. Utilities and wireless
communication facilities located within the public
right-of-way shall be designed so as to not
adversely impact the use of the public right-ofway including the movement and visibility of vehicles and pedestrians.

Consistent. The utilities that would serve the
proposed project are located within the right-ofway of Ventura Boulevard. 2013-2021 Housing Element
Policy 1. Preserve the high quality of the City’s
existing housing stock and residential
environment.

Policy 2. Meet the City’s local housing needs
commensurate with its fair share of regional
needs, including housing that is affordable to all
income groups, to the maximum extent feasible.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include the development of housing units.

Recreation Element
As a general standard, the Pleasant Valley
Recreation and Park District and the City of
Camarillo recommends that for each 1,000
persons, a total of 2½ acres of neighborhood parks
and 2½ acres of community parks should be
required for a combined total of 5 acres of
parkland per 1,000 residents.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include the development of housing units that
would increase the demand for public parks.

Open Space and Conservation Element
Policy 5. Encourage private and quasi-private
landowners to provide open space for recreation,
landscaping, and preservation of natural land
features where feasible.

Not Applicable. The City of Camarillo General
Plan land use designation for the project site is
General Commercial and the underlying zoning is
CPD (Commercial Planned Development). The
proposed project is the development of a
commercial use on a site that is consistent with
these existing land use and zoning designations.

The project site has already been approved for the
development of the Amara Shopping Center. The
project site is not designated for open space or
recreational uses.

Policy 6. Identify and limit the extent and
intensity of uses and development in hazardous
areas such as, but not limited to, unstable or
erosive soil, steep terrain, streambeds or seismic
fault zones.

Consistent. As discussed within this Second
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration,
the project site is not located within a
hazardous area.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
98 Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Policy 7. Identify and protect natural watersheds,
natural drainage beds and water recharge areas to
achieve recovery of local water and the
preservation of natural plant and animal habitat.

The project site does not support natural
watersheds, natural drainage beds, or water
recharge areas.

Policy 8. Preserve the natural features and general
environmental characteristics of the hillside areas
with minimum disturbance to native plants and
animals. Establish open space areas that maintain
and enhance the hillsides and provide a buffer
between developments and open space and
agriculture.

Consistent. The project site is not located within a
hillside area of the City.

Policy 10. Encourage development in areas where
services and facilities already exist and are
underused. Promote efficient extension of utilities
and services.

Consistent. The utilities that would serve the
proposed project are located within the right-ofway of Ventura Boulevard.

Community Design Element 2012
Overall Community Character Policies
Policy CD-1.2.1. Through community engagement
and design review, ensure that new development
and redevelopment is of high-quality design, is
aesthetically pleasing and contributes to a positive
image for Camarillo.

Consistent. The proposed Costco building is
designed to be consistent with the City’s Heritage
Zone Design Guidelines. The proposed design of
Mission/Early of Mission/Early California style
architecture uses arches along an entry colonnade,
a sloped roof at the main entry, hipped roof
towers, and materials that include clay roof tiles,
textured exterior walls, and earth tones of brown
and red color palette. The proposed project,
including its design, is subject to the public
review process.

Policy CD-1.2.3. Require that the architecture and
site design of new developments are compatible
with the surrounding context.

Policy CD-1.3.1. Require new developments to
create pleasing transitions to surrounding
development.

Policy CD-1.4.1. All new development and
redevelopment shall adhere to the basic principles
of quality and timeless architecture, urban design
and landscape architecture, including but not
limited to human- scaled design and pedestrian
orientation where appropriate, interconnectivity
of street layout and siting buildings to hold
corners.

Consistent. The proposed Costco building is
designed to be consistent with the City’s Heritage
Zone Design Guidelines. The proposed design of
Mission/Early of Mission/Early California style
architecture uses arches along an entry colonnade,
a sloped roof at the main entry, hipped roof
towers, and materials that include clay roof tiles,
textured exterior walls, and earth tones of brown
and red color palette. Similar design elements of
the City’s Heritage Zone Design Guidelines are
provided in the adjacent Camarillo Town Center
West.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
99 Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Policy CD-1.4.2. Enhance design for all new
development and redevelopment through
application of materials and design elements
including:
a. Richness and authenticity of material surface
and texture
b. Muted earth tone colors (such as off-whites,
ochres, siennas, umbers, beiges, tans, browns
or other similar subdued colors) for primary
building surfaces, with more intense colors
limited to accents
c. Significant wall articulation (insets, canopies,
wing walls, trellis features, arcades,
colonnades)
d. Full-sloped roofs, multi-planed roofs
(combination of pitched and flat roofs)
e. Roof overhangs, articulated eaves and
parapets
f. Window configurations compatible with the
design of the building
g. Articulated building mass and form
h. Landscape elements, which include plantings
and hardscape that complement the style of
architecture, enhance building and site design
and are integrated into the surrounding
context
i. Timeless designs, colors and materials
j. Utilization of 360-degree architecture
(articulation of all facade elevations) when
visible from a public street or other property
k. Allow for architectural and landscape
variation between neighborhoods, but
maintain common citywide street furnishings
and street signage
Consistent. The proposed Costco building is
designed to be consistent with the City’s Heritage
Zone Design Guidelines. The proposed design of
Mission/Early of Mission/Early California style
architecture uses arches along an entry colonnade,
a sloped roof at the main entry, hipped roof
towers, and materials that include clay roof tiles,
textured exterior walls, and earth tones of brown
and red color palette.

Residential Area Policies
Policy RA-1.5.1. Encourage walkable
neighborhoods with sidewalks, street trees and
linkages to common areas.

Policy RA-1.7.3. Create common open space areas
and enhanced landscaped focal points.

Policy RA-1.7.4. Provide high-quality architecture
with emphasis on facades that are visible from
public streets.

Policy RA-2.1.1. Integrate new in-fill development
into the existing neighborhood pattern and, where
applicable, extend or complete the existing street
network.

Policy RA-2.1.2. Workforce and affordable
housing shall be well designed and attractive and
is to be compatible with surrounding properties.

Policy RA-3.1.2. Increase density around transit
stations.

Not Applicable. The project site is not within a
residential area and the proposed project does not
include the development of residential uses.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
100
Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Commercial Area Policies
Policy CA-1.1.1. Building architecture along
Highway 101, primary collectors and secondary
collectors shall be of the highest quality.

Industrial Area Policies
Policy IA-1.6.1. The industrial performance
standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance are
to be complied with to insure that the use will not
be detrimental to other adjoining land uses.

Policy IA-1.6.3. Orient openings to maximize
northern and southern exposure.

Policy IA-1.6.4. Orient openings to maximize
natural cross-flow ventilation.

Policy IA-1.6.5. Provide landscaping that will
provide shade throughout the summer and allow
for the use of winter sun.

Not Applicable. The project site is not within an
industrial area and the project does not include
the development of industrial uses.

Public and Quasi-Public Policies
Policy PQPF-1.1.1. Public buildings should
present a good architectural character based on
style, color, material and texture.

Not Applicable. The project site is not within an
industrial area and the project does not include
the development of industrial uses.

Open Space Areas Policies
Policy OSA-1.1.1. New developments should
incorporate appropriate public open space into
site designs.

The project site has already been approved for the
development of the Amara Shopping Center. The
proposed project has not been designed to
incorporate public open space into a commercial
area.

Policy OSA-1.1.2. Integrate bicycle and pedestrian
trails adjacent to open spaces to enhance
connectivity throughout the City and the region.

Not Applicable. The project site is not adjacent to
an open space area.

Policy OSA-1.2.1. Ensure new development is
consistent with City greenbelt agreements,
including the City of Camarillo General Plan
CURB Element and SOAR initiative.

The project site is not located within an area of the
city that is subject to the CURB Element and
SOAR initiative.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
101
Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Gateways, Streets and Corridors Policies
Policy GSC-1.1.1. Preserve the visual and physical
connections to agriculture by protecting views
from streets, parks and open spaces to agriculture
and hillsides. Where new streets are extended
adjacent to agriculture, encourage hillside and
open space views by maintaining agricultural
activities at the road edge.

Consistent. No agricultural uses are located in the
immediate vicinity of the project site. The nearest
hillsides are located to the north of U.S. Highway
101 and Ponderosa Drive. As discussed in the
Aesthetics and Scenic Resources section of this
Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration, although the project site is located
along U.S. Highway 101, which is a designated
scenic corridor, the site is designated for
commercial uses and the proposed project would
not result in significant impacts to public views.

Policy GSC-1.1.2. Use public streets or pathways
to form the edge of developed areas, allowing
views of open space from streets.

Not Applicable. The project site is not located at
the edge of the developed area of Camarillo. The
site is surrounded by existing and planned
development.

Policy GSC-1.1.3. Buildings located adjacent to
Highway 101 should be aesthetically pleasing and
in conformance with the Heritage Zone
requirements. Parking areas that are visible from
Highway 101 should be screened to the extent
possible.

Consistent. The proposed Costco building is
designed to be consistent with the City’s Heritage
Zone Design Guidelines. The proposed design of
Mission/Early of Mission/Early California style
architecture uses arches along an entry colonnade,
a sloped roof at the main entry, hipped roof
towers, and materials that include clay roof tiles,
textured exterior walls, and earth tones of brown
and red color palette. The parking area would be
partially screened by landscaping including trees.

Policy GSC-1.2.3. Encourage use of “complete
street” strategies for new streets and redesign of
older, existing streets. Complete streets are
roadways designed and operated to enable safe,
attractive, and comfortable access and travel for
all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists,
motorists, and public transport users of all ages
and abilities.

Not Applicable. Vehicular access to the proposed
Costco development would be provided via two
driveways along Ventura Boulevard and a
connection to Overland Road at the northeastern
corner of the site. The proposed parking area has
been designed to operate safely. No new or improved
roadways are required or proposed.

Policy SC-1.1.1. The following roadways shall be
maintained and preserved as major or minor
scenic corridors with key entry points as shown in
Figure 10.12:
a. Highway 101
b. Lewis Road
c. Las Posas Road/Upland Road
d. Pleasant Valley Road/Santa Rosa Road
Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include or require any changes to the City’s
designated scenic corridors.

Policy SC-1.1.2. Bridges, culverts, drainage ditches
and other roadway ancillary elements shall be of
an appropriate design quality for visual corridor
functions.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include or require any bridges, culverts, or
drainage ditches. Roadway ancillary elements
would only affect Ventura Boulevard which is not
one of the City’s designated scenic corridors.

Policy SC-1.1.3. Side slopes, walls, and earthen
berms adjacent to roadways shall be natural in
appearance to minimize visual impacts along
scenic corridors.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include or require any side slopes, walls, and
earthen berms adjacent to roadways.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
102
Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Policy SC-1.1.4. All landscaping located within
designated scenic corridors shall be designed in
accordance with established design guidelines
herein as well as the Street Median and Parkway
Master Plan.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include or require any landscaping located within
designated scenic corridors.

Policy SC-1.2.1. Development shall provide
compatible landscaping themes with the visual
character of the designated scenic corridors.

Consistent. The project site is located along U.S.

Highway 101. The parking area would be
partially screened by landscaping including trees.

Policy SC-1.2.2. Review the heights and setbacks
of all structures to ensure the preservation of
visual corridors and the maintenance of an open,
scenic quality within each corridor.

Consistent. The proposed Costco building would
comply with the Height Restriction Zone (HRZ)
for Camarillo Airport. The Costco building
setbacks would meet or exceed City standards.

Policy SC-1.2.3. Review the size, height, numbers
and type of on-premise signs to minimize their
impact to scenic corridors.

Consistent. The on-premise signage for the
proposed project would be reviewed during the
planning process.

Policy SC-1.2.4. Locate new and relocated utilities
underground when possible. All others should be
placed and screened when feasible to minimize
public viewing.

Consistent. All utilities that would serve the
proposed project would be located underground.

Sustainable Design Policies
Policy S-1.1. Encourage development within and
near existing communities or public
transportation infrastructure to reduce vehicle
trips and induce pedestrian activity.

Consistent. The City of Camarillo General Plan
land use designation for the project site is General
Commercial and the underlying zoning is CPD
(Commercial Planned Development). The
proposed project is the development of a
commercial use on a site that is consistent with
these existing land use and zoning designations.

The project site has already been approved for the
development of the Amara Shopping Center. The
nearest residential uses are located to the north of
U.S. Highway 101. Sidewalks will ultimately
connect these areas as well when the Amara
Shopping Center is completed.

Policy S-1.2. Promote neighborhoods that are
physically connected to each other to foster
community and connectedness beyond the
individual project.

Not Applicable. The project site is not within a
residential area and the proposed project does not
include the development of residential
neighborhood uses.

Policy S-1.3. Minimize erosion to protect habitat
and reduce stress on natural water systems by
preserving steep slopes in a natural, vegetated
state.

Not Applicable. The project site is relatively flat
and does not include any steep slopes.

Policy S-1.4. Design parking to increase the
pedestrian orientation of projects and minimize
the adverse environmental effects of parking
facilities (locate parking at the side or rear of
buildings leaving building frontages and
streetscapes free of parking facilities where
feasible).

Consistent. Vehicle parking would be provided at
the front and side of the proposed Costco
building. No parking would be provided between
the building and Ventura Boulevard.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
103
Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Policy S-2.1. Encourage the design of projects that
incorporate high levels of internal connectivity
and connections to surrounding development to
promote a variety of travel options.

Consistent. The project site would connect to the
adjacent Camarillo Town Center West. Bicycle
lanes are currently provided along Ventura
Boulevard and Springville Drive. Sidewalks will
ultimately connect these areas as well when the
Amara Shopping Center is completed.

Policy S-2.2. Provide direct and safe connections
for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers to key
components of a project, local destinations and
neighborhood centers.

Consistent. Vehicular access to the proposed
Costco development would be provided via two
driveways along Ventura Boulevard and a
connection to Overland Road at the northeastern
corner of the site. Bicycle lanes are located along
Ventura Boulevard and Springville Drive, and
sidewalks would be provided along the project
site frontage with Ventura Boulevard.

Policy S-2.3. Encourage the design and
construction of buildings to utilize green building
practices.

Consistent. As discussed in the Greenhouse Gas
Emissions section of this Second Subsequent
Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed
project would be subject to the mandatory
planning and design, energy efficiency, water
efficiency and conservation, material conservation
and resources efficiency, and environmental
quality measures of the CalGreen Code.

Policy S-2.4. Preserve existing tree canopy, native
vegetation and pervious surfaces.

Consistent. The project site has already been
approved for the development of the Amara
Shopping Center. There are no existing trees at
the site that would be removed for development
of the proposed project.

Policy S-2.5. Preserve community livability,
transportation efficiency and walkability.

Consistent. Vehicular access to the proposed
Costco development would be provided via two
driveways along Ventura Boulevard and a
connection to Overland Road at the northeastern
corner of the site. Bicycle lanes are located along
Ventura Boulevard and Springville Drive, and
sidewalks would be provided along the project
site frontage with Ventura Boulevard.

Policy S-2.6. Provide appealing and comfortable
pedestrian street environments in order to
promote pedestrian activity.

Consistent. Landscaping and shade trees are
proposed within the pedestrian area along
Ventura Boulevard.

Policy S-2.7. Promote bicycling and transportation
efficiency.

Consistent. Bicycle lanes are located along
Ventura Boulevard and Springville Drive. Bicycle
parking facilities would be provided as required
by the Camarillo Municipal Code and the
CalGreen Code.

Policy S-3.1. Encourage the design and
construction of energy-efficient buildings to
reduce air, water and land pollution and
environmental impacts from energy production
and consumption.

Consistent. The proposed project would be
subject to the mandatory planning and design,
energy efficiency, water efficiency and
conservation, material conservation and resources
efficiency, and environmental quality measures of
the CalGreen Code.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
104
Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Policy S-3.2. Reduce the impact of “heat islands”
by providing shade structures and trees that can
produce large canopies to provide shade. In
addition, choose roof and paving materials that
possess a high level of solar reflectivity.

Consistent. Approximately 19% of the Costco
development area would be landscaped, which is
consistent with the requirements of the CPD zone.

The proposed landscaping palette includes a mix
of drought tolerant shrubs and grasses and a
variety of shade and ornamental trees to be used
throughout the parking field. The roof of the
proposed Costco building would be light in color
to provide solar reflectivity.

Policy S-3.3. Achieve enhanced energy efficiency
by creating the optimum conditions for the use of
passive and active solar strategies.

Consistent. While solar panels are not proposed
at the present time, the north-south orientation of
the proposed Costco building and the flat roof
would provide the optimum conditions for the
use of passive and future active solar strategies.

Safety Element 2013
Policy SAF-1.1b. Review public safety
infrastructure and staff resources as new
development is planned or proposed within the
City of Camarillo Planning Area.

Consistent. Potential impacts to public safety
infrastructure are addressed in the Public Services
and Recreation section of this Second Subsequent
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The potential
impacts of the proposed project would be less
than significant.

Policy SAF-1.1c. Encourage the dedication of open
space areas where potential hazards (fault zones,
floodplains, fire hazard areas, etc.) may be
located.

No Applicable. As discussed within this Second
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration,
the project site is not located within a
hazardous area.

Policy SAF-2.1a. Minimize geologic hazards by
identifying and addressing potential hazards
during the planning and engineering of proposed
development and/or improvement projects.

Consistent. Potential impacts associated with
geological hazards are addressed in the Geology
and Soils section of this Second Subsequent
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The potential
impacts of the proposed project would be less
than significant.

Policy SAF-2.1b. Require the preparation of a
geologic/geotechnical investigation (performed
by a Certified Engineering Geologist and/or
Geotechnical Engineer) for all new development
or redevelopment projects located in areas of
potential hazards. That investigation should
include adequate analysis and appropriate
mitigation of potential hazards to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer or their designee. Special
consideration should be given to terrain, soils,
slope stability, and erosion issues, where
applicable.

Consistent. As discussed in the Geology and Soils
section of this Second Subsequent Mitigated
Negative Declaration, geotechnical studies
have been prepared for the development of the
project site.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
105
Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Policy SAF-2.2a. Review development projects
involving construction within Earthquake Fault
Hazard Zones (as depicted on the State of
California, Earthquake Fault Hazards Map for
County of Ventura in accordance with the
requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act and the policies and criteria
established by the State).

Consistent. As discussed in the Geology and Soils
section of this Second Subsequent Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the project site is not
located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone.

Policy SAF-2.2c. Design roadways, streets,
highways, utility conduits, and oil and gas
pipelines, to avoid crossing active faults where
feasible. When such location is unavoidable, the
design should include measures to reduce the
effects of any fault movement as much as
possible.

Consistent. Development of the proposed project
would not require the design of any new off-site
infrastructure improvements.

Policy SAF-2.2d. Locate new critical facilities,
special occupancy structures, or hazardous
materials storage facilities outside of active fault
zones unless demonstrated that the facility is not
subject to fault rupture hazard.

Consistent. Development of the proposed project
would not require the design of any new critical
facilities.

Policy SAF-2.2g. Require additional analysis for
development within areas susceptible to
secondary seismic impacts (liquefaction,
landsliding, subsidence, etc.) to determine the
potential risk to these hazards and identification
of mitigation measures, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer or their designee.

Consistent. The potential impacts associated with
secondary seismic activities are evaluated in the
Geology and Soils section of this Second
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
potential impacts of the proposed project would
be less than significant.

Policy SAF-3.1b. Prevent incompatible land uses
and development within the 100-year and 500-
year floodplains and prohibit residential
development within the regulatory floodway.

Consistent. The project site is not located within a
100-year flood hazard area. The drainage system
within Ventura Boulevard has been designed to
meet engineering and planning criteria based
upon a 50-year frequency storm and also provide
an acceptable level of protection when combined
with certain constraints to mitigate serious
flooding in a 100-year storm based on the City’s
Master Plan of Drainage.

Policy SAF-3.1g. Promote low impact
development techniques such as pervious paving,
on-site groundwater recharge, rainwater
harvesting, minimization of building footprints,
and bioretention to improve defensive measures
against storm events and storm water pollution.

Consistent. Stormwater is proposed to discharge
to an underground detention system. Runoff
would be collected via multiple storm drain inlets
located throughout the project site. The water
quality flow rate for each inlet would be treated
with a tributary biofiltration system (EcoPure
Biofilter) before discharging to a single
underground detention Best Management
Practice (BMP). The underground detention
system would discharge offsite to an existing 66-
inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) stub at the
corner of Springville Drive and West Ventura
Boulevard before ultimately discharging to the
Camarillo Hills Drain.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
106
Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Policy SAF-3.2c. Discourage critical and essential
uses within designated dam inundation areas.

Not Applicable. The project site and surrounding
area is not located within the dam inundation
areas for Bard Dam and Pyramid Dam.

Policy SAF-4.1a. Ensure that new and existing
developments have an adequate water supply
and access for fire protection and evacuation
purposes.

Consistent. The water demand associated with
the proposed project has been evaluated in a
Water Impact Study. The Water Impact Study
concludes that the proportionate water demand
for the proposed Costco project would be within
the approved water demand credit for the Amara
Shopping Center. Therefore, the proposed project
would have adequate water supply.

Policy SAF-4.1b. Include fire-resistant building
materials, fire-resistant vegetation, cleared
firebreaks, and/or a long-term comprehensive
fuel management program into the design of any
project in a fire hazard area.

Not Applicable. The project site and surrounding
area is also not located within a fire hazard area.

Policy SAF-4.1c. Require that all new residential
subdivisions provide adequate access for
emergency vehicles and resident evacuation.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include the development of residential uses.

Policy SAF-4.1d. Assess all new developments
located in or adjacent to wildland areas to
determine their vulnerability to fire and/or
potential as a source of fire.

Not Applicable. The project site and surrounding
area is also not located within or adjacent to a
wildland area.

Policy SAF-4.2e. Encourage the use of
development features such as roads and fuel
modification zones to buffer homes from
wildland fire.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include the development of residential uses.

Policy SAF-5.1g. Review new development or
redevelopment projects located on sites with
known and/or potential hazards to ensure
hazards have been identified and remediated in
accordance with applicable regulatory
requirements.

Policy SAF-5.2a. Require new development that
will generate hazardous wastes or utilize
hazardous materials to identify hazardous waste
reduction, recycling, and storage areas on site
plans.

Policy SAF-5.2b. Ensure that land uses involved in
the production, storage, transportation, handling,
or disposal of hazardous materials are located and
operated to reduce risk to other land uses.

Consistent. The potential impacts associated with
hazards and hazardous materials are evaluated in
the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and
the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of
this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The potential impacts of the
proposed project would be less than significant.

Policy SAF-5.2f. Require that new pipelines and
other channels carrying hazardous materials
avoid residential areas and other sensitive land
uses to the greatest extent possible.

Consistent. The gasoline pumps, tanks, and other
facilities would only be located within the project
site. They would not be located within any
residential or other sensitive areas.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
107
Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Policy SAF-6.1b. Review development and
redevelopment projects for consistency with the
Ventura County Comprehensive Airport Land
Use Plan (ACLUP).

Policy SAF-6.1c. Refer discretionary development
within the Airport Hazard Zones to the Airport
Land Use Commission (also known as the
Ventura County Transportation Commission) and
the County of Ventura Department of Airports for
consistency review with the Ventura County
Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ACLUP),
as applicable per the study area boundaries
shown on Exhibit 11-10a, Camarillo Airport Study
Area.

Consistent. Consistency of the proposed project
with the ALUCP is evaluated in the Hazards and
Hazardous Materials section of this Second
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
proposed project would be consistent with the
ALUCP.

Policy SAF-6.1d. Require development projects
within the Airport Hazard Zones to comply with
Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(objects affecting navigable airspace).

Consistent. Mitigation measure HAZ-2 requires
the project building plans to be submitted to the
City of Camarillo Department of Community
Development to review for consistency with all
applicable avigational easements.

Noise Element 2015
Policy 1.1.2. Where a potential noise conflict may
occur, developers should submit noise assessment
reports during the project planning process to
identify potential noise impacts to their own
developments and on nearby residential uses and
other noise-sensitive land uses. New
developments should incorporate appropriate
noise mitigation measures in their project designs
in order to meet the standards contained in this
Element and the Camarillo Municipal Code.

Consistent. The potential noise impacts of the
proposed project are evaluated in the Noise and
Vibration section of this Second Subsequent
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The potential
impacts of the proposed project would be less
than significant.

Policy 1.1.3. State noise insulation standards
should be applied for exterior-to-interior and for
party walls and floor/ceiling noise control to new
single-family and multi-family structures.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include the development of residential uses.

Policy 1.1.4. Ensure the compatibility of land uses
when making land use planning decisions by
requiring noise-reducing design features for
projects that are adjacent to major roadways, the
railroad, and the airport.

Consistent. The noise compatibility of
commercial uses at the project site were evaluated
in Final MND 2006-17 and Subsequent MND
2016-1. No noise-reducing design features are
required to meet State noise insulation standards.

Policy 1.1.5. The City should encourage the use of
soundwalls, berms and/or other noise attenuation
measures in the design of residential uses and
other noise-sensitive land uses that are adjacent to
and impacted by major roads, rail lines,
commercial and industrial areas.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include the development of residential uses or
other noise-sensitive land uses.

Policy 2.1.3. Contractors should incorporate
appropriate noise mitigation measures, such as
limiting the hours of construction, into new and
upgraded roadway projects adjacent to nearby
noise-sensitive land uses.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include or require any roadway improvements.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
108
Table 5 – General Plan Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Principals Project Consistency Evaluation
Policy 2.1.5. Developers of new residential
projects located in the vicinity of Camarillo
Airport should inform potential residential
property owners of airport generated and
overflight noise.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include the development of residential uses.

Policy 3.1.6. Design and construction features
should be incorporated into residential and
mixed-use projects to shield residents from
excessive noise.

Policy 3.1.7. The placement of noise-generating
sources such as gathering places, loading bays,
parking lots, and trash enclosures should be
considered in mixed-use developments to ensure
compatibility with residential uses.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not
include the development of residential or mixeduses.

MINERAL RESOURCES
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of
a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
Yes No No NA
b. Result in the loss of availability of
a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
in the City of Camarillo General
Plan, specific plan, or other
applicable land use plan?
Yes No No NA
Background Information
According to the Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of Southern Ventura County (1993) published by the California Department of Conservation, the land within the City of Camarillo does not contain any significant aggregate mineral deposits. The Department of Conservation is unable to evaluate mineral resource significance for the Camarillo Hills from available data, however, there are no areas located within the boundaries of the City of Camarillo that are designated as mineral resources recovery areas in the City of Camarillo General Plan, a City specific plan, or any other land use plan applicable to the City.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
109
Areas of Camarillo have also been used for the recovery of oil resources. There are three oil fields located within the boundaries of the City. One of these is in the Camarillo Springs area. Another small field is located in the central area of the City along Lewis Road. The eastern tip of a large oil field is located in the southwestern portion of the City. This oil field includes the western portion of Camarillo Airport and a portion of the industrial area along Ventura Boulevard, and it extends to the west into the City of Oxnard.

Oil and gas leases may exist within these oil fields.

Explanation of Checklist Answers
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 oil extraction or mineral extraction activities have historically occurred or are presently conducted on the project site. Therefore, Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would not 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 and no impacts would occur.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project site does not contain any known mineral resources that could be extracted for commercial purposes. The project site is not known to contain any mineral resources that could be extracted for commercial purposes.

Therefore, no impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in the City of Camarillo General Plan, specific plan, or other applicable land use plan?
There is no known locally-significant resource within the project site. Therefore, Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would not 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 and no impacts would occur.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
110
Approval and implementation of the proposed project would also not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project site is not within a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in the City of Camarillo General Plan, specific plan, or other applicable land use plan. The project site is not within a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in the City of Camarillo General Plan, any specific plan, or any other applicable land use plan. Therefore, no impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

NOISE AND VIBRATION
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Generate construction noise levels
that exceed the Noise Ordinance
exterior or interior noise standards
at residential properties during the
hours specified in Section 10.34.120
of the City of Camarillo Municipal
Code?
Yes No No NA
b. Generate a substantial temporary
(non-construction) or permanent
increase in noise levels at existing
sensitive receptors in the vicinity
of the project site?
Yes No No NA
c. Generate excessive ground-borne
vibration? Yes No No NA
b. Expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive
noise levels from aircraft
operations from Camarillo
Airport?
Yes No No NA
Background Information
Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
111
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 is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady ambient noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources, such as an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise sources like 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 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 P.M. to 7:00 A.M., and an additional 5 dBA penalty during the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. 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.

When evaluating changes in 24-hour community noise levels, a difference of 3 dBA is a barely perceptible increase to most people. A 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, while a difference of 10 dBA would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. Because decibels are logarithmic units, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one source generates 50 dBA, two units would not generate 100 dBA; they would generate 53 dBA. A doubling of sound energy is needed to increase sound levels by 3 dBA. An increase of 5 dBA requires more than a tripling of sound energy.

Noise levels from a particular source 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 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 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 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer homes, hotels, and commercial buildings is generally more than 30 dBA.

Fundamentals of Ground-borne Vibration
Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Vibration can result from a source (e.g., train operations, motor vehicles, machinery equipment, etc.) causing the adjacent ground to move, thereby, creating Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
112
vibration waves that propagate through the soil to the foundations of nearby buildings. This effect is referred to as ground-borne vibration. Ground-borne vibration is measured as peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second. The general human response to different levels of ground-borne vibration velocity levels is described below in Table 6. Ground-borne vibration levels that could induce potential damage to buildings are identified in Table 7.

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 ground-borne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible.

Table 6 – Human Response to Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration Human Response
Maximum PPV in Inches per Second
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely Perceptible 0.4 0.01
Distinctly Perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly Perceptible 0.9 0.1
Severe 2 0.4
Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls.

Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crackand-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Source of table data: California Department of Transportation, 2013.

Table 7 – Ground-Borne Vibration Damage Potential Criteria Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV in Inches per Second
Transient
Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely Fragile Historic Buildings, Ruins, Ancient
Monuments 0.12 0.08
Fragile Buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and Some Old Buildings 0.5 0.25
Older Residential Structures 0.5 0.3
New Residential Structures 1 0.5
Modern Industrial/Commercial Buildings 2 0.5
Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls.

Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crackand-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Source of table data: California Department of Transportation, 2013.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
113
City of Camarillo Noise Standards
The City of Camarillo has adopted a Noise Ordinance (Section 10.34 of the Camarillo Municipal Code), which identifies noise standards for various sources, specific noise restrictions, exemptions, and variances for sources of noise within the City. The Noise Ordinance applies to all noise sources with the exception of any vehicle that is operated upon any public highway, street or right-of-way, or to the operation of any offhighway vehicle, to the extent that it is regulated in the State Vehicle Code, and all other sources of noise that are specifically exempted. The Noise Ordinance exterior noise standards are identified in Table 8.

Table 8 – City of Camarillo Exterior Noise Standards
Noise Zone Designated Noise Zone Land Use 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. 9 p.m. to 7 a.m.

I Agricultural and Open Space Properties 55 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq II Residential Properties 55 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq
III Commercial/Office Properties 65 dBA Leq 55 dBA Leq
IV Industrial Properties 65 dBA Leq 55 dBA Leq
Unless otherwise provided in Section 10.34 of the Camarillo Municipal Code, no person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the City, or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the noise levels when measured on any other property to exceed the following standards:

Standard No. 1 is the applicable ambient exterior noise level as set forth above plus five dBA for a cumulative period of more than 20 minutes in any hour.

Standard No. 2 is the applicable ambient exterior noise level as set forth above plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 10 minutes in any hour.

Standard No. 3 is the applicable ambient exterior noise level as set forth above plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more one minute in any hour.

Pursuant to Section 10.34.120(F) of the City of Camarillo Municipal Code, construction noise levels are exempted from these standards provided that the noise is not generated between the hours of 7:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day or at any time on Sunday, or at any time on any public holiday.

Source of table data: City of Camarillo.

The Noise Ordinance interior noise standards are identified in Table 9. The Noise Ordinance does not identify any interior noise standards for non-residential dwelling units.

Section 10.34.120 of the City of Camarillo Municipal Code regulates noise from the construction of buildings and structures adjacent to or within any residential zone. Exterior construction or repair work that could generate noise levels that exceed the Noise Ordinance exterior or interior noise standards at residential properties is prohibited between the hours of 7:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day or at any time on Sunday, or at any time on any public holiday.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
114
Table 9 – City of Camarillo Interior Noise Standards
Noise Zone Designated Noise Zone Land Use 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. 9 p.m. to 7 a.m.

I Agricultural and Open Space Properties 55 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq All Common Wall & Freestanding Residential
Dwellings 45 dBA Leq 40 dBA Leq
No person shall operate or cause to be operated within a dwelling unit any source of sound or allow the creation of any noise which causes the noise level when measured inside a neighboring receiving dwelling unit to exceed the following:

Standard A is the applicable ambient exterior noise level as set forth above plus five dBA for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour.

Standard B is the applicable ambient exterior noise level as set forth above plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour.

Source of table data: City of Camarillo.

Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. Would the project generate construction noise levels that exceed the Noise Ordinance exterior or interior noise standards at residential properties during the hours specified in Section

10.34.120 of the City of Camarillo Municipal Code?
The project site is located in a commercial area of the City. At the time that the original project was proposed, the nearest homes to the project site were located along Las Posas Road north of Daily Drive.

Therefore, Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have a less than significant impact regarding the generation of construction noise that could result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. However, the nearest residential uses are now located to the north of U.S. Highway 101 within the Springville Specific Plan area and an earthen barrier reduces noise levels from the freeway at the residential areas.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would require the use of heavy equipment for site grading, infrastructure construction, and building construction. Noise from smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise would also be associated with construction of the proposed structures. 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.

Construction activities are expected to occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project does not generate construction noise levels that exceed the Noise Ordinance exterior or Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
115
interior noise standards at residential properties during the hours specified in Section 10.34.120 of the City of Camarillo Municipal Code. Pursuant to standard City practice in which construction activities are a regular source of noise at times throughout Camarillo, restricting construction activities to daylight hours when residents are less sensitive to noise would reduce the potential impacts of typical construction noise to less than significant levels. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. b. Would the project generate a substantial temporary (non-construction) or permanent increase in noise levels at existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site? The primary source of noise associated with the proposed project would be the traffic traveling to and from the site. All of the uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site are commercial and are not sensitive to noise. At the time that the original project was proposed, the nearest homes to the project site were located along Las Posas Road north of Daily Drive. Las Posas Elementary School is located along Las Posas Road north of Ponderosa Drive. Final MND 2006-17 estimated that the original project would generate approximately 19,306 average daily vehicle trips and determined that these vehciles would generate an increase in noise levels of 0.2 dBA along Las Posas Road. This increase is inaudible/imperceptible to most people and would not exceed the City’s identified thresholds of significance.

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 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, Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above existing ambient noise levels without the Project. The impact was determined to be less than significant.

Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. The number of vehicle trips and associated traffic noise levels associated with the project would not change. As such, the operational noise impacts of the Amara Shopping Center would be no different from those evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and no new impacts would occur.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
116
Planning Commission. However, the nearest residential uses are now located to the north of U.S. Highway 101 within the Springville Specific Plan area and an earthen barrier reduces noise levels from the freeway at the residential areas.

The primary source of noise associated with the proposed project would continue to be the traffic traveling to and from the site. As discussed in the Transportation section of this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4, the proposed project would generate more daily pass-by and diverted trip ends but fewer daily primary vehicle trips ends than the approved Amara Shopping Center. The pass-by and diverted trips would primarily occur south of U.S. Highway 101 in the immediate vicinity of the project site where there are no sensitive receptors. The primary trips would occur within the immediate vicinity of the project site as well as elsewhere along the roadways leading to the project site. Because the proposed project would generate fewer daily primary trip ends than the approved Amara Shopping Center, it would also generate less vehicular noise along the roadways where sensitive receptors are located.

Noise would also be generated by activities within the site. These noise levels would be associated with customer and commercial vehicles, people communicating, landscape maintenance, tire facility operations, and nighttime deliveries of retail items and fuel. These sources and levels of noise would be similar to those existing within the adjacent Camarillo Town Center West.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project generates temporary (non-construction) or permanent noise levels of less than 3 dBA.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. c. Would the project generate excessive ground-borne vibration? Grading and construction activities that would occur at the project site may have the potential to generate low levels of ground-borne vibration. Table 10 identifies various vibration velocity levels for the types of construction equipment that would operate at the project site during construction.

Table 10 – Vibration Levels for Typical Construction Equipment Equipment Reference PPV at 25 Feet
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Source of table data: California Department of Transportation, 2013.

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 construction area and are not considered to be sensitive to ground-borne vibration.

Therefore, Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. The impact was determined to be less than significant.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
117
Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. As such, the construction-related ground-borne vibration impacts of the Amara Shopping Center would be no different from those evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and no new impacts would occur.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. Ground-borne vibration levels generated during project construction would continue to primarily affect the existing commercial buildings at the Camarillo Town Center West located to the immediate east of the project site. As shown in Table 10, vibration levels could reach as high as approximately 0.089 inches per second PPV within 25 feet of an operating large bulldozer.

The proposed project does not include uses that are expected to generate measurable levels of groundborne vibration during operation. The greatest regular source of operational project-related ground-borne vibration would be from delivery and garbage trucks. The vibration levels associated with these trucks would be less than the levels associated with large construction equipment.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project would generate ground-borne vibration from construction-related and/or operational activities that does not exceed Caltrans standards for human annoyance and/or potential building damage.

The maximum vibration level of 0.089 inches per second PPV would be below the thresholds for both potential building damage and human annoyance. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
d. Would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft operations from Camarillo Airport?
The project site is located 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 65 dBA CNEL. These average noise levels do not exceed the City’s 77 dBA CNEL standard for commercial uses. Therefore, Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have a less than significant impact regarding people residing or working in the project area being exposed to excessive noise levels.

Higher noise levels 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.

Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and approved by the City of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
118
Camarillo City Council. As such, the aircraft-related noise impacts of the Amara Shopping Center would be no different from those evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and no new impacts would occur.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a potentially significant impact would occur if the project would place land uses near Camarillo Airport where the noise level would exceed the noise standard as described in the City of Camarillo Noise Element Figure 2, Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix standard for the proposed use. (e.g. noise that exceeds 70 dBA CNEL for office/commercial uses or noise that exceeds 75 dBA CNEL for industrial uses.). As discussed above, future noise levels in the southern part of the project site attributable to Camarillo Airport would not exceed 65 dBA CNEL. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

POPULATION AND

HOUSING
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly or indirectly?
Yes No No NA
b. Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Yes No No NA
Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have a less than significant impact regarding population and housing growth, employment generation, and indirect growth through infrastructure. The project does not include the construction of housing units and, therefore, would not generate any direct housing or population growth. The potential housing demand created by the project would not exceed planned housing forecasts. While the original 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 then-existing Ventura Boulevard connector and is in accordance with the Airport North Specific Plan and would not constitute an unforeseen growth-inducing impact.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
119
Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. As such, the population impacts of the Amara Shopping Center would be no different from those evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and no new impacts would occur.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project includes new housing and/or businesses, but the site has been planned for urban uses in the City of Camarillo General Plan, and the project does not extend any infrastructure to areas where growth is unplanned. The project site has already been approved for the Amara Shopping Center and the project would connect to existing water, sewer, storm drain, electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure located within the Ventura Boulevard right-of-way easements. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
There were no housing units at the project site at the time that the original project was proposed. Therefore, Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No project impact would occur.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. There are still no housing at the project site that would need to be removed to accommodate the proposed project.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project does not result in the displacement of any existing housing units. Therefore, no impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
120

PUBLIC SERVICES AND

RECREATION
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered government facilities, need
for new or physically altered
government facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for
any of the following public
services?
• Fire Protection
• Police Protection
• Schools
• Parks
• Other Public Services
Yes No No NA
b. Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Yes No No NA
c. Include recreational facilities or
require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse
physical effect on the
environment?
Yes No No NA
Background Information
The City of Camarillo receives fire protection and emergency services from the Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD). The VCFD engages in activities that are aimed at preventing fires and compliance with California Building Standards Code, Chapters 7 and 7A, and the California Fire Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9). The VCFD provides fire protection engineering, building inspections for code compliance, and hazardous materials inspections. The VCFD also provides education and training in public safety and emergency preparedness.

There are three fire stations which serve the City: Station 50 at 189 S. Las Posas Road; Station 52 at 5353 Santa Rosa Road.; and Station 54 at 2160 Pickwick Drive. According to the City of Camarillo Safety Element 2013, it is anticipated that average emergency response times within Camarillo are five minutes or less.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
121
Police Protection Services for the City of Camarillo have been provided on a contract basis by the Ventura County Sheriff's Department since the City’s incorporation in 1964. The City is served by the Camarillo Police Station, located at 3701 East Las Posas Road.

Public education is provided to the residents of Camarillo by the Pleasant Valley School District (PVSD) for grades K-8 and the Oxnard Union High School District (OUHSD) for grades 9-12. In addition, there are several public charter and private schools operating within Camarillo. Attendance at area schools is dependent upon the boundaries drawn by the local school districts and students often do not attend the school that is physically closest to their homes. The attendance boundaries of individual schools are adjusted by the school districts periodically on an as-needed basis.

Public parks are primarily provided to the residents of Camarillo by the Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District (PVRPD). The PVRPD was formed in 1962 under the State Public Resources Code of California and serves an area of approximately 44 square miles. The PVRPD operates 28 parks in the Camarillo area.

A variety of recreational facilities exist, including swimming pools (indoor and outdoor), lighted ball fields, tennis courts, racquetball courts, a running track, children's play equipment, picnic shelters and barbecues, and an equestrian center. In addition, the City of Camarillo owns and operates Constitution Park adjacent to Camarillo City Hall and Dizdar Park in Old Town Camarillo. As a general standard, the Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District and the City of Camarillo recommends that for each 1,000 persons, a total of 2½ acres of neighborhood parks and 2½ acres of community parks should be required for a combined total of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

Explanation of Checklist Answers
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 government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public services?
Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have a less than significant impact regarding the potential for the project to 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 fire protection, parks, and other public facilities. Although considered to be less than significant, the following mitigation measures were recommended to ensure that potential impacts to fire protection remain less than significant:

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.

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.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
122
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the potential impacts of the project on police protection services to a less than significant level:

PUB-3 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.

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the potential impacts of the project on schools to a less than significant level:

PUB-4 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.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. While the proposed project would include a fuel facility, this facility would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable regulations.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project results in an increased demand for new public services and recreation, but no new or physically altered government facilities are needed to accommodate the increased demand. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. Mitigation measures PUB-1 through PUB-4 would continue to be applicable to the proposed project although these measures reflect standard development conditions and are not required to mitigate an otherwise particular significant impact of the proposed project.
b. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have a less than significant impact regarding the potential for the project to 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.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
123
Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project does not increase the use of existing neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed project would provide commercial uses at a site that is already approved for commercial uses. Therefore, no impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
c. Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have no impact regarding the inclusion of recreational facilities or the required construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project does not require the construction of recreational facilities to accommodate the demands of the proposed project population. Therefore, no impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
124

TRANSPORTATION
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
Yes No No NA
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3(b) for the reduction of
vehicle miles travelled (VMT)?
No No Yes NA
c. Substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
Yes No No NA
d. Result in inadequate emergency
access? Yes No No NA
Background Information
Prior to 2019, traffic impacts in Camarillo and adjacent areas were evaluated using the level of service (LOS) ranking scale, which were based on a volume-to-capacity ratio. The State of California revised the CEQA Guidelines on December 28, 2018 to change the way that transportation impacts are determined to be significant. Specifically, the State has determined that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Pursuant to Section 15064.3(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the following criteria are to be used analyzing transportation impacts:
(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
(2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152. (3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
125
miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.
(4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have a less than significant impact regarding the potential for the project to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). 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.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. Although a bus stop is not proposed within the Costco project site, mitigation measure AQ-2 requires the developer of the Amara Shopping Center to 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. Bicycle lanes are located along Ventura Boulevard and Springville Drive. Bicycle parking facilities would be provided as required by the Camarillo Municipal Code and the CalGreen Code.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project affects the existing or planned circulation system and/or requires the provision of transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, but is consistent with the City of Camarillo Circulation Element policies for these facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and the sitespecific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
126
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) for the reduction of vehicle miles travelled (VMT)?
Final MND 2006-17 and Subsequent MND 2016-1 did not evaluate the site development’s potential to conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) for the reduction of VMT since this was not a threshold of significance at that time.

Although approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission, the proposed Costco would have different trip generating characteristics than the approved shopping center uses. Therefore, the VMT impacts associated with the proposed project have been evaluated in a Daily Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) memorandum that is incorporated as Appendix G H to this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4.

Approved Shopping Center Trip Generation
Final MND 2006-17 and Subsequent MND 2016-1 evaluated the development of a commercial shopping center consisting of up to 499,000 square feet of building area. These documents identified that the commercial uses would generate approximately 19,306 average daily trips (ADT). These documents do not, however, break down this ADT into pass-by trips, diverted trips, and primary trips. In order to provide a more accurate evaluation of project VMT impacts, the Daily Trip Generation and VMT memorandum provides an updated trip generation estimate for the Amara Shopping Center based on Subsequent MND 2016-1 as well as standard pass-by and diverted trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Table 11 shows the daily trip generation estimated for the approved Amara Shopping Center.

Table 11 – Daily Trip Generation Estimate – Approved Amara Shopping Center Land Use/Trip Type Size Weekday Daily Trip Ends
Approved Amara Shopping Center
499,000 sq. ft.
19,306
Pass-by Trip Ends (34%) (3,668)
Diverted Trip Ends (26.4%) (4,827)
Primary Trip Ends 10,811
Source of table data: Kittleson & Associates, August 21, 2023.

Proposed Project and Remaining Shopping Center Trip Generation The Daily Trip Generation and VMT memorandum assumed that the proposed Costco project would occupy up to 163,400 square feet within the approved Amara Shopping Center. Table 12 shows the combined daily trip generation estimated for the proposed Costco Warehouse and Costco fuel station and the remaining approved shopping center.

Table 13 provides a summary of the primary trip ends for the proposed Costco project, further divided into estimated truck trips, employee trips and member trips. These estimates assume a total of 19 daily truck deliveries and a total of 300 employees on-site over the course of a typical day, each of whom are assumed to complete two daily trips (one entering, one exiting).

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
127
Table 12 – Daily Trip Generation Estimate – Proposed Costco Warehouse and Fuel Station with Remaining Approved Amara Shopping Center
Land Use/Trip Type Size Weekday Daily Trip Ends
Costco Warehouse and Fuel Station
163,400 sq. ft.
16,239
Internal Capture (28%) (4,547)
External Trip Ends 11,692
Pass-by Trip Ends (21%) (2,455)
Diverted Trip Ends (28%) (3,274)
Primary Trip Ends 5,963
Remaining Approved Amara Shopping Center
335,600 sq. ft.
14,918
Internal Capture (28%) (4,177)
External Trip Ends 10,741
Pass-by Trip Ends (34%) (3,652)
Diverted Trip Ends (26%) (2,793)
Primary Trip Ends 4,296
Total Trip Ends (Costco and Remaining Shopping
Center)
499,000 sq. ft.
31,157
Internal Capture (8,724)
External Trip Ends 22,433
Pass-by Trip Ends (6,107)
Diverted Trip Ends (6,067)
Primary Trip Ends 10,259
Source of table data: Kittleson & Associates, August 21, 2023.

Table 13 – Proposed Costco Primary Trip Generation Characteristics Trip Type Weekday Daily
Primary Trip Ends 5,963
Truck Trip Ends 38
Employee Trip Ends 600
Member Trip Ends 5,325
Source of table data: Kittleson & Associates, August 21, 2023.

Approved Shopping Center VMT
The VMT associated with the approved Amara Shopping Center were estimated using the following assumptions:

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
128
• The average primary trip length was assumed to be approximately 7.76 miles. The average primary trip length is the calculated weighted average of trip lengths of employees traveling in either direction between a work location and all other locations that are not home (Work-Other (W-O)) and trips made by a person traveling in either direction between land uses that do not involve home and work locations (Other-Other (O-O) from the Ventura County Transportation Model (VCTM) in the study area. • The average diverted trip length was assumed to be 2.0 miles, the assumed default value given in CalEEmod. The distance reflects the anticipated diversion distances from US 101. • Pass-by trip lengths are assumed to be 0.1 mile, the assumed default value given in CalEEmod. The distance reflects the anticipated pass-by distances from Ventura Boulevard. • Because information regarding the number of employees for the approved Amara Shopping Center is unavailable, all primary trips were conservatively assumed to be made by customers and employees (7.75 average trip length). In reality, employment-based trip lengths may be longer, thereby resulting in a higher VMT for the approved Amara Shopping Center.

Table 14 presents the VMT estimate for the approved Amara Shopping Center.

Table 14 – VMT Estimate – Approved Amara Shopping Center Trip Type Number of Trips Average Trip Length
(miles) Daily VMT
Primary Trips 10,811 7.7564 83,854
Pass-by Trips 3,668 0.1 367
Diverted Trips 4,827 2.0 9,654
Total 19,306 NA 93,875
Source of table data: Kittleson & Associates, August 21, 2023.

Note that the VMT analyzed in the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis in Subsequent MND 2016-1 was 89,421 daily VMT, which is lower than the estimated 93,875 daily VMT for the approved Amara Shopping Center under the current assumptions identified in Table 14. For a conservative analysis, the estimated VMT of the proposed project is being compared to the 89,421 daily VMT of the GHG analysis in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Proposed Project and Remaining Shopping Center Trip Generation The VMT analysis estimates the change in regional VMT associated with the proposed Costco project. VMT was calculated for different trip types including those made by existing Costco members, anticipated new Costco members, Costco employees, and internal trips between Costco and the remaining approved shopping center uses. Delivery-based trips are excluded from the VMT assessment per statewide guidance related to VMT analysis for the movement of freight.

The following components comprise the change in regional VMT that can be attributed to the proposed Project:

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
129
• Existing Member VMT
o Shifting Trips – a portion of the proposed project primary member trip ends shown in Table 13 are expected to be a change from existing Costco trips currently taken to three existing Costcos in the area that would now make a trip to the proposed Costco instead because it is closer or more convenient. The VMT associated with this shifting of trips was calculated using member transaction data provided by Costco. o Latent Demand – existing Costco members may visit the existing nearby warehouses more frequently due to latent demand that would occur after some members shift to the new warehouse and the existing warehouses become less busy. • New Member VMT – estimated VMT associated with new Costco members visiting the new warehouse.
• Employee VMT – estimated VMT associated with employees at the new warehouse. • Internal Trips VMT – estimated VMT associated with trips internally captured between the new warehouse and the remaining approved shopping center uses. • Total Project VMT = changes in existing member VMT + new member VMT + employee VMT + Truck VMT + Internal Trips VMT
The VMT analysis was conducted using the following proprietary data provided by Costco:
• Approximate home locations of Costco members who shopped at the following three existing warehouses in the project area during September 2022, grouped into 1-square-mile zones:
o 2001 Ventura Boulevard, Oxnard
o 2660 Park Center Drive, Simi Valley
o 5700 Lindero Canyon Road, Westlake Village
• Number of visits to the three existing Costco warehouses in September 2022 by members in each one-square-mile zone.
• Market areas of the three existing Costco warehouses (for current markets and for after the new warehouse opens) and projected market area for the new warehouse. • Average annual visit frequency for other Costco warehouses in California, before and after a new warehouse was opened nearby.

The VMT associated with the proposed Project were estimated using the following trip lengths:
• Average primary trip length for new members was calculated to average approximately 6.2 miles • Average diverted trip length was calculated to be approximately 0.7 mile and reflects the anticipated average change in trip length for vehicles traveling along U.S. Highway 101. • Pass-by trip lengths are assumed to be 0.1 mile and reflect the anticipated pass-by distances from Ventura Boulevard.
• Average trip length for employees was determined using VCTM VMT Maps and Spreadsheet estimated 2016 VMT per employee metric (23.7) within the transportation analysis zone (TAZ) in which the site is located.
• Internal trip lengths are assumed to be 0.25 mile and reflect the internal trip distances between the Costco and remaining approved shopping center uses.

Table 15 shows the expected daily VMT associated with the proposed project, as well as its impact to regional Costco VMT (including the nearby Oxnard, Simi Valley, and Westlake Village locations). As shown in the table, the project is anticipated to increase regional Costco VMT by approximately 31,557 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
130
miles. This value represents the projected VMT increase prior to accounting for VMT associated with the approved Amara Shopping Center.

Table 15 – VMT Estimate – Proposed Costco
Trip Type Existing VMT VMT with
Proposed Costco
Change
(Project VMT)
Existing Member VMT 162,470 161,591 (879)
Shifting Existing Trips 162,4701 155,070 (7,400)
Oxnard 61,1071 51,521 (9,586)
Simi Valley 48,0331 45,275 (2,758)
Westlake Village 53,3301 47,135 (6,195)
Proposed Camarillo Costco 0 11,139 11,139
Latent Demand at Existing Costcos 0 6,521 6,521
Oxnard 0 2,330 2,330
Simi Valley 0 2,053 2.053
Westlake Village 0 2,138 2,138
New Member VMT 0 24,179 24,179
Employee VMT 0 7,120 7,120
Internal Trips VMT 0 1,137 1,137
Total VMT 162,470 194,027 31,557
1 Values represent estimated VMT of existing Costco warehouses in the project area, shown to illustrate how many trips are anticipated to shift to the proposed Camarillo Costco Warehouse and Costco Fuel Station once open.

Source of table data: Kittleson & Associates, August 21, 2023.

Table 16 shows the expected daily VMT associated with the remaining shopping center uses, consistent with the assumptions used to develop the estimated daily VMT for the approved Amara Shopping Center in Table 14.

Table 16 – VMT Estimate – Remaining Approved Amara Shopping Center Trip Type Number of Trips Average Trip Length
(miles) Daily VMT
Primary Trips 6,015 7.76 46,655
Internal Trips 4,177 0.25 1,044
Pass-by Trips 2,041 0.1 204
Diverted Trips 2,685 2.0 5,370
Total 14,981 NA 53,273
Source of table data: Kittleson & Associates, August 21, 2023.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
131
VMT Comparison
Table 17 compares the proposed project and remaining shopping center daily VMT to that of the previously approved Amara Shopping Center. As shown, the proposed project and remaining shopping center would result in 4,591 fewer daily vehicle miles traveled than the previously approved Amara Shopping Center.

Table 17 – VMT Comparison
Development Scenario Total Daily VMT
Approved Amara Shopping Center 89,4211
Proposed Costco 31,557
Remaining Approved Shopping Center 53,273
Difference (4,591)
1 Based on the GHG analysis provided in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Source of table data: Kittleson & Associates, August 21, 2023.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, no impact would occur if the project does not change VMT or decreases VMT in the project area as compared to existing conditions. As shown in Table 17, the proposed project and remaining shopping center would result in 4,591 fewer daily vehicle miles traveled than the previously approved Amara Shopping Center. Therefore, no impact would occur. c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have a less than significant impact regarding the potential for the project to substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). The original project included the extension of Ventura Boulevard from its current terminus west of the Camarillo Town Center to Bajo Agua.

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.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. The approved extension of Ventura Boulevard and the project driveway access points have already been constructed by the applicant for the original project.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than impact would occur if the project meets City standards for the design of roadway and site access infrastructure, and the project does not introduce incompatible uses onto the surrounding roadway infrastructure. Therefore, a less than Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
132
significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have a less than significant impact regarding the potential for the project to result in inadequate emergency access. The original project included the extension of Ventura Boulevard from its current terminus west of the Camarillo Town Center to Bajo Agua.

The Ventura Boulevard extension and the project driveways would be designed in accordance with all City regulations, including those pertaining to emergency access.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. The approved extension of Ventura Boulevard and the project driveway access points have already been constructed by the applicant for the original project.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than impact would occur if the project meets City standards for the design and provision of emergency access. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
133

UTILITIES AND SERVICE

SYSTEMS
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Require the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric
power, or natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
Yes and No No Yes Yes
b. Comply with the applicable water
purveyor water conservation
ordinance requirements for new
development projects?
Yes No Yes Yes
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
Yes No Yes Yes
d. Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
Yes No No Yes
e. Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
Yes No No Yes
Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. Would the project require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, or natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have no impact regarding the potential for the project to 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. However, the impact of the original project regarding the potential for the project to 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 was determined to be potentially significant unless mitigation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
134
was incorporated. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level:

UTL-1 Prior to recordation of 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. Prior to recordation of 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.

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.

Final MND 2006-17 did not evaluate potential impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new electric power, or natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects since this was not a threshold of significance at that time.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. The approved extension of Ventura Boulevard and the water, wastewater, storm water drainage, and utility infrastructure improvements within the Ventura Boulevard right-of-way have already been constructed by the applicant for the original project.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project results in an increased demand for water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, or natural gas, or telecommunications services, but no new or expanded utilities facilities are needed to accommodate the increased demand. The proposed project would be served by the existing utility infrastructure at and in the immediate vicinity of the project site. No new or expanded facilities would be needed to serve the proposed project. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
b. Would the project comply with the applicable water purveyor water conservation ordinance requirements for new development projects?
The project site is located within the service area of the Camarillo Water Division. However, the previous agricultural uses at the project site were supplied with water by the Pleasant Valley County Water District Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
135
under an interruptible contract with the City. Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would create an estimate demand of 47,904 gallons per day of potable water based on a demand rate of 96 gallons per 1,000 square feet per day. This equates to 53.7 acre feet per year). Final MND 2006-17 determined that the City could meet this demand without any shortfall. With the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measure below, impacts would be less than significant:

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.

Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. As such, the water demand for the proposed project would not exceed the estimates for the original project as estimated in Final MND 2006-17.

As a result of the six-year drought from 1987 through 1992, the City of Camarillo adopted the No Waste Ordinance No. 715, which has since been superseded by the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance (City Municipal Code Chapter 14.12) to prohibit wasteful water practices. On July 22, 2009, the Camarillo City Council amended the Water Conservation Ordinance to provide additional water use regulations in response to the statewide drought emergency condition and declared a Stage 1 Water Supply Alert. The amendment requires that applicants for new potable water service must prepare a water impact study. In order for new such service to be approved, the water impact study must demonstrate that the proposed project will not create additional demand on the City’s water system. An example of such non-impact would be if the proposed project does not require an increase in water usage from that historically used on the same site. In the case of new developments at existing agricultural sites, the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) typically provides a groundwater allocation to the city up to two (2) acrefeet per year per acre developed.

In the case of the Amara Shopping Center project, Subsequent MND 2016-1 discussed how the City of Camarillo would not be able to obtain the agricultural groundwater allocation transfers unless the FCGMA resumes groundwater allocation transfers from agricultural operations or new sources of water are obtained. This meant that the project applicant would need to wait to develop and connect the project to the city’s water service until groundwater allocation transfers resume or provide substantial evidence of an enforceable commitment that water demands for the project will comply with Camarillo Municipal Code Chapter 14.12. This would enable the City of Camarillo Water Division to provide water to the project with no reduction of existing water supplies. In response, the following mitigation measure was recommended to reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level:

UTL-8 The project developer shall wait to develop and connect the project to the city’s water service until the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency resumes groundwater allocation transfers from agricultural operations. If groundwater allocation transfers do not resume, or if the developer wishes to connect the project to the city’s water service before that time, in accordance with Camarillo Municipal Code Chapter 14.12, the project developer shall demonstrate that the water demand of the project would be offset either directly by developer-initiated programs, or if the city is in a declared Stage 2 or higher water supply condition, by making a payment to the city’s water conservation credit program in an amount calculated by the city to reduce existing water use elsewhere within the city in an amount adequate to serve the proposed project.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
136
On August 18, 2016, the City of Camarillo Department of Public Works issued a Water Availability Letter to the owners of the Amara Shopping Center property stating that potable water supply will be made available to CDP-226M(3) upon compliance with the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance. Following that determination, the owners of the Amara Shopping Center property paid water demand credits based on a 40 acre feet per year. If the final water demand of the Amara Shopping Centeris greater than the anticipated 40 acre feet per year water demand, the City’s water demand offset program adopted by resolution number 2016-90 must be met for that portion of water demand which is greater than the anticipated water demand of 40 acre feet per year, prior to the City of Camarillo issuing a will-serve letter for new potable water service connections.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would also not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. The water demand associated with the proposed project has been evaluated in a Water Impact Study that is incorporated as Appendix F G to this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4. The Water Impact Study concludes that the proposed Costco development would be approximately 12.5 acre feet per year. As discussed above, the Amara Shopping Center has an existing water allocation of 40 acre feet per year for the 499,000 square feet of approved development. Based on the entitled development amount, the proposed Costco development would be allocated up to 13.1 acre feet per year of the overall 40 acre feet per year. The 12.5 acre feet per year demand of the proposed project would be 0.6 acre feet less than the 13.1 acre feet per year allocation for the Costco development.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project requires the provision of potable water from the applicable water purveyor, but it complies with the applicable water conservation ordinance requirements for new development projects.

While the proportionate water demand for the Costco project would be within the approved water demand credit for the Amara Shopping Center, the proposed project would be conditioned to provide a Water Demand Offset if the actual water demand exceeds 13.1 acre feet per year. This complies with the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance requirements for new development projects. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Wastewater from the project area is treated by the Camarillo Sanitary District, which operates and maintains the Camarillo Wastewater Treatment Plant (CWTP) located at 150 East Howard Road, Camarillo.

The CWTP has a current capacity of 7.25 million gallons per day and the treated flows in averaged less than half of that capacity.

Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have a less than significant impact regarding a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. The original project was estimated to generate 39,920 gallon per day of wastewater based on a generation rate of 80 gallons per 1,000 square feet of building space. The CWTP would have adequate capacity to treat the wastewater generated by the original project in addition to its existing commitments.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
137
Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. As such, the impacts of the Amara Shopping Center would be no different from those evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and no new wastewater treatment impacts would occur.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. The amount of wastewater generated by the proposed project would be similar to that of the original project.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project generates an increase in wastewater, but the applicable wastewater treatment facility has adequate capacity to accommodate the projected increase. As discussed above, the CWTP has adequate capacity to treat the wastewater that would be generated by the proposed project. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would have a less than significant impact regarding the generation of solid waste. Although considered to be less than significant, the following mitigation measure was recommended to ensure that solid waste impacts remain less than significant:

UTL-7 Recycling bins shall be provided at appropriate locations to promote recycling of paper, metal, glass, and other recyclable material.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. The amount of solid waste generated by the proposed project would be similar to that of the original project.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the project generates an increase in solid waste, but the project complies with applicable solid waste reduction goals. All solid-waste-generating activities within the City of Camarillo are 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.

The City of Camarillo is diverting approximately 67 percent of its total solid waste from landfills. Therefore, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
138
a less than significant impact would occur and the site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1.

WILDFIRE
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency evacuation plan? No No Yes NA
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
No No Yes NA
c. Require the installation and
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the
environment?
No No Yes NA
d. Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
No No Yes NA
Background Information
A wildland fire is an uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels that may expose or consume structures. Although not located in a wilderness area, the threat of a wildland fire in or near Camarillo is high due to the wildland urban areas in and around the City, where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with wildland or vegetative fuels. The threat of wildfire is particularly significant during dry summer months and when there are strong Santa Ana winds. The fire season typically extends approximately five to six months, from late spring through fall. The aftermath of wildland fire produces new areas of potential landslide as burned and defoliated soils are exposed to winter rains.

The undeveloped hillside areas in and adjacent to the City present a potentially serious hazard due to the high potential for large-scale wildland fires. According to the Ventura County Community Wildfire Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
139
Protection Plan and Cal Fire, these areas are within the “Very High” Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Other portions of land to the north and east are within the “Moderate” Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency evacuation plan? b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation and maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Final MND 2006-17 and Subsequent MND 2016-1 did not evaluate wildfire impacts as a separate topic since this was not a CEQA threshold of significance at that time. However, both of these documents evaluated wildfire impacts in their Hazards and Hazardous Materials sections and determined that the original project and the Amara Shopping Center would have no impact involving wildland fires since there are no adjacent wildlands and the project site is not located in a fire hazard zone.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would also not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. According to the Ventura County Community Wildfire Protection Plan and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (Cal Fire), the project site is not located within or near a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
140

MANDATORY FINDINGS

OF SIGNIFICANCE
Was Impact
Evaluated in
Subsequent
MND 2016-1?
Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis?
Do Subsequent
MND 2016-1
Mitigation
Measures
Resolve
Impacts?
a. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the
range of rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Yes No No Yes
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.)?
Yes No No Yes
c. Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Yes No No Yes
Background Information
Sections 15065(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines mandates that lead agencies find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the following conditions may occur:

1. The project has the potential to: substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of longterm environmental goals.

3. The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
141
are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.

4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Explanation of Checklist Answers
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would result in less than significant impacts regarding the potential for the project 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 plants or animals. The potential for the original project to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory would be reduced to a less than significant level with the recommended mitigation measures for cultural resources.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if the preceding analyses demonstrate that all project impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4. The site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be no different from those evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1. 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.)?
Final MND 2006-17 determined that, although there were other past, current, and probable future projects in the area surrounding the project site, the original project’s incremental contribution to cumulative traffic, air quality, noise, and other impact areas would be less than significant. Therefore, the original project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be considered cumulatively considerable.

Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. The potential for the Amara Shopping Center to have impacts that are individually Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 Camarillo Costco
142
limited, but cumulatively considerable was considered to be less than significant with mitigation in due to the potential for the Amara Shopping Center to generate significant cumulative operational air quality impacts and the mitigation measure identified in Subsequent MND 2016-1 to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. This was considered to be a correction to Final MND 2006-17.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. Some new potential impacts have been evaluated in this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 and some mitigation measures have been revised. In all cases, the mitigation measures identified in this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 would reduce the potential impacts of the proposed project to less than significant levels. As such, no new cumulative impacts would occur with the proposed project beyond those that were evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and Subsequent MND 2016-1.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if cumulative impacts for the preceding topics are analyzed and demonstrate that all project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4.
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Final MND 2006-17 determined that the original project would not have the potential to result in substantial adverse effects on human beings with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures.

Subsequent MND 2016-1 determined that the Amara Shopping Center would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in Final MND 2006-17 and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. The mitigation measures identified in Subsequent MND 2016-1 would reduce the potential impacts of the Amara Shopping Center to less than significant levels.

Approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or maximum amount of development evaluated in Subsequent MND 2016-1 and approved by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission. Once again, some new potential impacts have been evaluated in this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 and some mitigation measures have been revised. In all cases, the mitigation measures identified in this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023- 4 would reduce the potential impacts of the proposed project to less than significant levels.

According to the City of Camarillo CEQA Environmental Guidelines, a less than significant impact would occur if preceding analyses demonstrate that all project impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4.

APPENDIX A -

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2006-17
Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 A

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2006-17
Paseo Camino Real
Prepared for:

City of Camarillo
Prepared By:

May 18, 2007
Paseo Camino Real Table of Contents
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. I-1 II. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .......................................................................................II-1 III. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS .................................................................................................III-1 IV. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM..................................................................................... IV-1 Paseo Camino Real I. Introduction
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page I-1 I. INTRODUCTION

CEQA REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Camarillo, as Lead Agency, will consider the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) together with the comments received during the public review period and associated responses prior to its decision to approve the proposed project. If the Lead Agency finds, based on the Draft MND and the associated comments and responses, that no substantial evidence exists that the proposed project would have a significant adverse effect on the environment, the Lead Agency would adopt the Final MND, along with the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP).

The public review period of the Draft MND for the Paseo Camino Real project, during which interested agencies, organizations, and members of the public were invited to submit written comments, was noticed and conducted in compliance with CEQA Section 21091 and State CEQA Guidelines 15105. The public review period ended on January 4, 2007.

Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-1 II. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The Draft MND for the Paseo Camino Real Project was circulated for review on December 14, 2006.

The public review period, during which interested agencies, organizations, and members of the public were invited to submit written comments, was noticed and conducted in compliance with CEQA Section 21091 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15105. The public review period ended on January 4, 2007.

During the review period, eight letters commenting on the Initial Study were received by the City of Camarillo.

Each comment letter has been assigned a corresponding “number” and the comments in each letter are individually numbered. For example, letter “1” is from the Ventura County Public Works Agency. The first comment from this letter is 1-1 signifying “written comment letter 1, first comment”. Copies of each of the letters received and responses to the issues contained in these letters are included below. Written comment letters were received from the following agencies:

Letter
No.

Commenter Date Received
1 Cheryl J. Powell, IGR/CEQA Program Manager, California Department of Transportation, District 7 February 9, 2007
2 Kim Rodriguez, County Planning Director, County of Ventura, Resource Management Agency, Planning Division January 4, 2007
3 Alicia Stratton, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District January 4, 2007 4 Nazir Lalani, Deputy Director, Ventura County Public Works Agency, Transportation Department, Traffic, Advance Planning & Permits Division
January 4, 2007
5 Paul Callaway, Permit Manager, Ventura County, Watershed Protection District, Planning and Regulatory Division January 4, 2007 6 Rita Graham, Agricultural Land Use Planner, Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office January 4, 2007
7 Todd L. McNamee, AAE, Director of Airports, County of Ventura, Department of Airports January 4, 2007
8 Christopher Williamson, AICP, Senior Planner, City of Oxnard, Planning and Environmental Services Division January 12, 2007
9 Cy Johnson, Development Programs Administrator, Calleguas Municipal Water District December 20, 2006

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The following pages contain a copy of the written comment letters and the responses to these comments. 1-1
Letter 1
1-2
1-3
1-4
City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-4 Letter Number 1
Cheryl J. Powell, IGR/CEQA Program Manager, California Department of Transportation, District 7
February 5, 2007
Comment 1-1
The California Department of Transportation acknowledges receipt of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the Paseo Camino Real development project. The development consists of up to 499,000 square feet of retail, commercial and restaurant use. The project site is located adjacent to U.S.

Highway 101 to the south and west of Las Posas Road. We have reviewed the traffic information submitted and have the following comments:

We note the proposed Paseo Camino Real development project is projected to generate approximately 19,300 average daily vehicle trips, with 411 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 1809 during the PM peak hour. The project’s trip generation results in 2500 average daily trips over the originally planned use, a reduction of 119 trips during the AM peak hour and an increase of 193 trips during the PM peak hour.

The addition of project traffic would result in significant impacts to Las Posas Road and U.S. 101 northbound and southbound ramps. However, the following mitigation is being proposed:
• TRA-1 The developer shall pay the Traffic Impact Fee as established by Camarillo Municipal Code.

Payment of this fee reflects a pro-rata (fair share) of traffic mitigation improvements within the City that include widening of Las Posas Road across the US101 freeway overpass. • TRA-3 The project applicant shall design and construct the project to widen US-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.
• TRA-4 The developer shall coordinate the design and construction of all project improvements with the City’s capital improvement plan that includes the Springville Interchange. The developer shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the Springville interchange project including Springville Drive.

Response:

This comment summarizes information that is presented in the Draft MND. No further response is required.

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-5 Comment 1-2
We remind you that proposed transportation mitigation projects listed above (TRA-1, TRA-3, TRA-4) would require an encroachment permit from this Department. You may contact our office of permits in Ventura County at (805) 650-7179 to obtain information and start the process.

Response:

The City of Camarillo understands that an encroachment permit would be required for implementation of mitigation measures TRA-3 and TRA-4. Implementation of mitigation measure TRA-1 would not require an encroachment permit since it requires the project developer to simply pay the Traffic Mitigation Fee to the City of Camarillo. The City would need to obtain an encroachment permit for any applicable work that it does as to the Las Posas Road overpass.

Comment 1-3
We are aware that the City has been coordinating the design of the future Springville Interchange with Caltrans and that it is nearly completed. It would be desirable that the new interchange is completed prior to buildout of the proposed development project.

Response:

The City recognizes that it will be desirable to construct the Springville Interchange prior to buildout of the Paseo Camino Real Project. This may or may not occur as it is dependent upon a number of factors that are being negotiated between the City of Camarillo and all of the property owners that would have to provide land for the new interchange.

Comment 1-4
We note the traffic impact study does not include an analysis of mainline US-101 through lanes.

According to the Ventura County General Plan, US-101 currently operates at level of service F at Central Avenue. Per Ventura County’s general plan (2006 update), this segment of US-101 may operate at less than adequate level of service by 2020, if no improvement are made. Table 5 of the traffic study indicates that the proposed development would add approximately 500 (1800*30%) vehicle trips eastbound and 450 (1800*25%) westbound to US 101 highway. Generally, we request a main-line analysis is prepared for developments that generate 100 or more trips assigned to a State highway facility. We request the traffic analysis be revised to include an analysis of mainline US-101 from Central Avenue to Lewis Road/Dawson Drive. We are particularly interested in existing operating conditions, as well as projected future conditions or cumulative plus project scenario. A discussion of the City’s effort to address cumulative and regional transportation impacts would also be helpful.

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-6 Response:

Caltrans and the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) have previously documented that the segment of U.S. Highway 101 in the Camarillo area should be upgraded by adding one lane in each direction to provide a continuous eight-lane facility. The need for widening this facility is generated by regional traffic growth to the year 2025, not isolated to traffic generated by the proposed project. Improvements for mainline freeway segments are programmed through VCTC and are funded through various State/Federal funding sources, local sales tax and gas taxes. No formal funding for this improvement has been committed at this time. The City of Camarillo has contributed a fair-share contribution towards mainline freeway improvements by reconstructing freeway interchange bridges with longer spans to accommodate future mainline widening projects. Furthermore, the project developer would pay the Traffic Mitigation Fees to the City that would partially finance off-site projects that accommodate future widening on the mainline freeway (e.g., interchange reconstruction, ramp improvements, and intersection improvements adjacent to freeway ramps). As part of the Project Study Report approved by Caltrans, the proposed Springville interchange is consistent with long-range Highway 101 plans. The proposed project is dedicating the right-of-way in the project area necessary for the completion of the proposed Springville interchange. The right-of-way dedication for the proposed Springville interchange and City Traffic Impact Fees represent a fair share contribution towards Highway 101 capacity improvements. 2-1
Letter 2
City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-8 Letter Number 2
Kim Rodriguez, County Planning Director, County of Ventura, Resource Management Agency, Planning Division
2 January 2007
Comment 2-1
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject document. Attached are the comments that we have received resulting form intra-county review of the subject document.

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

If you have any questions regarding any of the comments, please contact the appropriate respondent.

Overall questions may be directed to Chuck Anthony at (805) 654-3683.

Response:

This letter serves as a cover letter for the comments that were received from intra-county review of the Draft MND. Comments provided in the attached letters are responded to on subsequent pages. 3-1
3-2
Letter 3
City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-10 Letter Number 3
Alicia Stratton, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 2 January 2007
Comment 3-1
We concur with the findings of the mitigated negative declaration that significant short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) air quality impacts will result from the project. The daily operational emissions would exceed the thresholds on significance of 25 lbs/day of reactive organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen. The mitigation measures described on Pages IV-14 through IV-17 adequately address both short-term and long-term air quality impacts.

Response:

This comment concurs with the analysis in Section 3, Air Quality in the Draft MND. No further response is required.

Comment 3-2
In addition to the mitigation measures in the above section, we recommend the following measure to be included in the construction mitigation measures:
• Material stockpiles shall be enclosed, covered, stabilized, or otherwise treated, to prevent blowing fugitive dust offsite.

Response:

In response to this comment, the recommended measure has been added to Mitigation Measure AQ-1 in the Final MND. See Section III, Corrections and Additions as well as Section IV, Mitigation Monitoring Program in this Responses to Comments document.

Letter Number 4
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-13 Letter Number 4
Nazir Lalani, Deputy Director, County of Ventura, Public Works Agency, Transportation Department, Traffic, Advance Planning & Permits Division 28 December 2006
Comment 4-1
We generally concur with the comments in the Initial Study and MND for those areas under the purview of the Transportation Department. The proposed project is estimated to generate 19,306 additional daily trips, 411 AM PHT and 1809 PM PHT. No project specific impacts on County roadways were identified in the Initial Study and MND.

Response:

This comment concurs with the analysis in Section 15, Transportation and Traffic in the Draft MND. No further response is required.

Comment 4-2
Table 5 (Project Trip Distribution) in the Traffic Study is not consistent with Figure 7. Table 5 has 17% of the project trips traveling north on Las Posas Road and 10% of the trips traveling south on Las Posas Road. Figure 7 has 10% of the project trips traveling north on Las Posas Road and 17% of the trips traveling south on Las Posas Road. The Traffic Study should verify the trip distribution and make the appropriate changes.

Response:

The traffic study has been amended to reflect the accurate trip distribution and this correction has been carried over into the Draft MND document in Appendix F as shown in Section III, Corrections and Additions.

Comment 4-3
The cumulative impact of this project, when considered with the cumulative impact of all other approved (or anticipated) development projects in the County is potentially significant. The condition for paying the County Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) to address the cumulative impacts of this project on the County Regional Road Network is included in the Traffic Study, but not in the mitigation measures as listed in the MND. The MND should be revised to include the mitigation measure for the cumulative impact of traffic from this project on Ventura County Road Network.

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-14 Response:

The recommended mitigation measure has been added to the Draft MND as requested. Refer to Section III, Corrections and Additions as well as Section IV, Mitigation Monitoring Program. Implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that potential cumulative traffic impacts are reduced to less-thansignificant levels.

Comment 4-4
Based on the information provided in the MND and the Reciprocal Agreement between the City of Camarillo and the County of Ventura, prior to the issuance a building permit for the new construction for each project, the applicants will be required to pay a TIMF to the County of Ventura. The fee is estimated to be:
19,306 ADT x $34.96 = $674,937.76
The above is an estimate only based on information provided in the MND. The above TIMF may be subject to adjustment at the time of deposit, due to provisions in the Traffic Impact Mitigation Ordinance allowing the fee to be adjusted for inflation based on the Engineering News Records (ENR). If the project cumulative impacts are not mitigated by payment of a TIMF, current General Plan policy will require County opposition to this project.

Our review is limited to the impacts this project may have on the County’s Regional Road Network.

Response:

The TIMF is a component of the City of Camarillo Traffic Mitigation Fee Project. Therefore, contribution to the TIMF is already addressed through mitigation measure TRA-1 of the Draft MND as well as one of the City’s standard Conditions of Approval. City staff calculates the final contribution at a later stage of project development using the methodology approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. Upon payment of the Traffic Mitigation Fee, the City would forward the TIMF portion to the County.
5-1
5-2
Letter 5
City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-16 Letter Number 5
Paul Callaway, Permit Manager, Ventura County, Watershed Protection District, Planning and Regulatory Division
29 December 2006
Comment 5-1
We concur with the Initial Study Environmental Checklist for Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Section VIII.) Hydrology and Water Quality Item b. and Item f. findings that are marked as having Less than Significant Impacts. We reviewed the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Section XVI.) Utilities Item d. and concur with the Initial Study’s checklist of having a Less than Significant Impact.

Response:

This comment concurs with the analysis in Section 8, Hydrology and Water Quality and Section 16, Utilities and Service Systems in the Draft MND. No further response is required.

Comment 5-2
The Hydrology and Water Quality Section of the Environmental Impact analysis section of the Mitigated Negative Declaration states in subsection “D” that “the project would increase the amount if impervious surface area on the site, therefore increase the amount of surface runoff”… This is unacceptable to the VCWPD as we have a deficient system downstream of the site. Please describe how this impact will be addressed, i.e.: working with VCWPD to produce added downstream detention under an agreement with VCWPD.

Response:

As discussed in Section 8(d), the City of Camarillo Master Plan of Drainage was updated in 1998. This Master Plan included provision for storm drainage on the project site as part of the Airport North Specific Plan. Therefore, the increase surface runoff which would be attendant to the conversion of agricultural land uses to commercial land uses has already been accommodated for in the relevant planning documents. Additionally, storm drain facilities are currently being improved on the project site.

However, the project developer would be conditioned to work with VCWPD relating to any storm drain connections to the Camarillo Hills Drain. Therefore, the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or result in flooding on- or off-site and impacts would be less than significant. 6-1
6-2
6-3
Letter 6
Office of

AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER
P.O. Box 889, Santa Paula, CA 93061
815 East Santa Barbara Street
Telephone: (805) 933-3165, (805) 647-5931
FAX! (805) 525-8922
Agricultural Commissioner
W. Earl McPhail
Chief Deputy
David Buettner
County of Ventura
Agricultural/Urban Buffer Policy Revised 7/19/06
The purpose of this policy is to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Ventura County and protect the economic viability and long-term sustainability of the Ventura County aOcuiltural industry.

New urban developments (and non-farming activities) should be required to lessen public and animal exposure to agriCutural chemicals, dust, noise and odors and protect agricultural operations and land from vandalism, pilferage, trespassing and complaints against standard legal agricultural practices.

This Policy provides guidelines to prevent and/or mitigate conflicts that may arise at the agricultural/urban interface. It applies where urban structures or ongoing non-fanning activities are permitted adjacent to land 1) in crop or orchard production; or 2) classified by the California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Inventory as Prime, Statewide lineortanec, Unique or Local Importance farmland These guidelines apply to projects requiring discretionary approval by the county or a city where the proposed non-farming activity is abutting or on land zoned AE, OS or RA, arid the farming activity is located outside a Sphere of Influence, as adopted by LAPCO_ The Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) or the Agricultural Commissioner may grant an exemption to these policies on a case-by-case basis, where physical factors prevent or alleviate the need for compliance, Where Applicable, urban developments or non-agricultural uses shall be conditioned to provide and maintain a 300-foot setback and chain-link fence on the non-agricultural property between the urban use and the agriculture, or a 150-foot buffer/setback if a vegetative screen as described below is used.

APPLYING THE POLICY TO NEW DEVELOPMENT
New dwellings, non-agricultural work sites and ongoing outdoor public activities potentially conflict with agricultural Vocations- A buffer/setback and fencing are therefore needed on these sites when they are developed adjacent to the qualifying agricultural land_ A 360-foot setback to new structures' and sensitive uses is required on the non-agricultural property unless a vegetative screen is in,stalled. With a vegetative screen the buffer/setback is a minimum of) 50,feet Fencing requirements:

A reinforced 8-foot chain link fence with top bar is required on applicable urban developments to deter pilferage and vandaliRn of crops. Placement is nearest the agricultural side. It the agricultural field has a fence, the requirement may be satisfied.

Minimum standards for yeeetative screen (shelter belt):
• Two staggered rcrivs of trees and sbrthS characterized by evergreen foliage that extends from the base of the plant to the crown
• Trees and shrubs should be vigorous, drought tolerant and at least 6 feet in height at the time of installation • Plants should have 5" to 75% porosity- (ie, approximately 50% to 75610 of the plant 'is air space) • Plant height should vary in. order to capture drift within 4 feet aground applications ,• A mature height of 15 feet or more is required for trees ON COPY TO:

Terrr-Ftr/. pvv
— Serving Ventura County since 1895
EI1/6'd 88228828:0i 6022 1729 208 _WM 9NINNU1d MN:Wiled 917:TT L002-i?O-Ntlf • To ensure adequate coverage, 2 staggered rows should be located 5 feet apart and consist of minimum 5 gallon plants at least 6 feet tall planted in feet on center • Recommended Plants include: Toyon (fleteromelcs arbunPlia), Sugarbush (Rhus ovaia), Laurel sumac (Malostna laurina) and Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) ▪ A long-term plan shall be in place for maintaining the vegetative shelter belt The following USES are acceptable within 309 feet of agriculture:
• Parking lots and garages
• Landscaping/hardscape
• Storage sheds or open storage
• Greenhouse structures with venting away from the non-agicultural area • Wooden or chain link fencing
• Some types of livestock such as range cattle or sheep (other livestock only as approved by APAC) • Roads and drainage facilities
• Farmworker dwellings where notification between farmer and occupants can easily occur prior to spraying • Low human-intatsity uses as approved by APAC
The following uses are acceptable within 150 feet of agriculture with a vegetative screen (shelter hell):
• All uses acceptable within 300 feet
• Front yard setbacks
• Hiking, bike or bridle paths
• Single-use facilities for government, institutional or educational use where agreements and notification between parties can easily occur prior to spraying
• Farm and produce stands where notification between farmers and occupants can easily occur prior to spraying
• Agricultural Tourism in accordance with a Condition Use Permit (CUP)

APPLYING THE POLICY TO MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING USES/ACTIVITIES • All Policy guidelines apply where feasible
The following apply where existing structures do not allow a 300-foot or 150-foot setback:
• Installation of a reduced vegetative screen
• Reinforced 8-foot chain link fence (minimum requirement) • Information exchange for agricultural spraying notification • Posting of Right-to-Farm Ordinance at the site of existing uses/activities • Agreement to modify existing cooperative practices, if needed The followine apply where a school is located directly within 300 feet of agriculture:
• All K-12 school construction within 390 feet of agriculture requires a public meeting by APAC.— and is strongly discouraged within 1/4-mile of agriculture
• When a school is located directly within 300 feet of agriculture, the recommendations in Farming Near Schools, A Community Guide for Protecting Children (available from the Agricultural Commissioner's Office or www_agfuturesalliancenet) shall be followed by both the farmer and the school These Guidelines were developed in part from data from Spray Drift Task Force (1997), established in response to EPA spray drift data requirements_
— Serving Valium Couno,since 1895
OT/OT'd 882S8828:01 6a2 t79 1=20 WINNUld LIWd:WMIJ Li7=TT L002-i70-NUf City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-20 Letter Number 6
Rita Graham, Agricultural Land Use Planner, Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office
2 January 2007
Comment 6-1
However, we note the project description includes a 499,000 square foot commercial center on land that may abut farmland in the county jurisdiction. For new human-intensive uses abutting farmland, the Ventura County Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) recommends application of its Agricultural/Urban Buffer Policy (adopted 7/19/06).

A copy of the Buffer Policy is attached.

Generally, conversion of farmland classified by the California Department of Conservation as “farmland” in an amount exceeding the decision-making jurisdiction’s threshold of significance requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Response:

As shown in Figure II-2 and discussed on page II-4 of the Draft MND, the proposed project site is located within the Airport North Specific Plan area as are the areas to the east and west of the project site. The Airport North Specific Plan area is located within the City of Camarillo. The areas to the east of the project site are developed with Camarillo Town Center and Camarillo Town Center II developments. The properties to the west of the site are currently used for agricultural production, but are designated for Research and Development in the Airport North Specific Plan and zoned LM. The Ventura Freeway is located to the immediate north of the project site and the area to the immediate south of the project site is the remaining 3.64 acres of the property that includes the project site. This area is designated for Research and Development in the Airport North Specific Plan. To the south of this area is the Camarillo Hills Drain and Camarillo Airport. Therefore, the proposed project would not abut any farmland in the County jurisdiction.

As discussed in Section 2(a) of the Draft MND, the Airport North Specific Plan EIR identified the individual and cumulative loss of farmland in the Oxnard Plain as a significant adverse impact and a Statement of Overriding Conditions was prepared and adopted prior to adoption of the Specific Plan.

Therefore, this issue has already been addressed, no new impact would occur, and a second Statement of Overriding Considerations is not required.

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-21 Comment 6-2
Secondly, placement of non-farming uses next to existing farming or farmland would typically garner a recommendation by APAC for a 300-foot setback (or 150-foot setback with vegetative barrier) on the project site as a buffer between the adjacent incompatible uses.

Response:

As discussed in the response to Comment 3-1, the area to the immediate west of the project site is currently planned to accommodate the future extension of Springville Drive, which would be constructed along with the entire U.S. 101/Springville Drive Interchange, which was approved by the City of Camarillo City Council in 1999. The western-most building at the project site would be located approximately 160 feet from any agricultural operations. In addition, the agricultural operations on the parcels to the west of the projects site would be temporary and have already been planned for in the implementation of the Airport North Specific Plan. As such, any additional setback for the proposed project is not necessary to ensure compatibility with agricultural operations or properties.

Comment 6-3
For clarification of any provisions of the Buffer Policy, please contact me at the address below. City planning officials and project proponents are encouraged to make presentations to APAC and receive comments. The Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee schedules public meetings the second Wednesday of each month. Please call, below, if you wish to place a project on APAC’s agenda and confirm meeting dates.

Response:

This comment does not address any analysis contained in the Draft MND and no further response is required.
7-1
7-2
7-3
Letter 7
7-3
City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-24 Letter Number 7
Todd L. McNamee, AAE, Director of Airports, County of Ventura, Department of Airports 4 January 2007
Comment 7-1

1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (7.e.) The avigation easement referenced on page 32 of the MND extends over the property approximately 400 feet north of the airport boundary. The 7:1 height restriction will not restrict building/structure heights located beyond the extent of the easement.

Response:

This comment provides information which may be useful but does not address any issues of adequacy within the analysis of the Draft MND. The information about the avigation easement will be forwarded to the decision-making authorities and no further response is required.

Comment 7-2

2. Noise (11.e) An examination of the noise contour maps adopted in the F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study indicates that the southern-most portion of the property lies between the 65 and 70 CNEL noise contour and a good portion of the property within the 60-65 CNEL noise contour.

The site is also subject to noise from helicopter training activities due to the location of a helicopter training traffic pattern and the integration of the use of helicopter training pads constructed in 2002 pursuant to the airport master plan. I am concerned that helicopter noise could be an issue for future users of the proposed parcels; especially those customers visiting the retail centers and restaurants.

Response:

The proposed commercial uses are not considered to be sensitive to noise. As discussed in Section 7(a) of the Draft MND, 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. Therefore, the noise associated with aircraft flying over the project site would not exceed City standards for commercial and office uses and would not constitute a significant impact under CEQA. The noise levels experienced by employees and customers of the project site would be very similar to the noise levels experienced by the employees and customers of the Camarillo Town Center and Camarillo Town Center II developments located to the east of the site and also located near Camarillo Airport.

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-25 Comment 7-3

3. Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The airport CLUP guidelines require the granting of an avigation easement and the recording of a fair disclosure agreement/covenant document because the project is located within the traffic pattern zone.

Given the above items, I request that as a condition of approval, the developer be required to grant the County of Ventura an avigation easement that would include the elements of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Model Avigation Easement, which encompasses the right to conduct normal airport operations, including noise, dust, fumes, pollution; prohibition on electronic/radio interference, hazardous lighting, erection of obstructions that are hazards to aviation. The easement will afford adequate protection for airport operations that are not embodied in the present easement referenced in the MND.

We will be able to provide easement documents for execution upon request. Also, per the CLUP, a fair disclosure/covenant document is required to be executed and recorded.

Response:

This comment includes a request for an avigation easement over the project site but does not address any issues of adequacy within the analysis of the Draft MND. The request for the avigation easement will be forwarded to the decision-making authorities and no further response is required. 8-1
8-2
Letter 8
8-3
8-4
8-5

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-29 Letter Number 8
Christopher Williams, AICP, Senior Planner, City of Oxnard, Planning and Environmental Services Division
4 January 2007
Comment 8-1
Thank you for providing the City of Oxnard an opportunity to comment on MND 2006-17 for the proposed Paseo Camino Real project. The proposed project would consist of up to 429,469 sf of retail, 29,531 sf of restaurants, and 40,000 sf of office space located adjacent and west of the Home Depot store on Ventura Blvd.

We have one comment on related projects list, two on the circulation analysis, and one suggested mitigation for the traffic analysis section.

Response:

These paragraphs provide an introduction to the following comments. No further response is required.

Comment 8-2
Related Projects List
The Related Project Database included as Appendix A does not include the Sakioka Farms nor the Camino Real (Power Machinery) Business Park Specific Plans within the City of Oxnard, currently under CEQA review and located about two miles due west of the Paseo Camino Real project site. Both areas are within Oxnard City Limits.

The two City of Oxnard specific plans are proposed as follows:

Camino Real Business Park Sakioka Farms
Total size 46.36 ac 388 ac.

Business/Research Park 418,000 sf 2.5 million sf
Light Industrial 593,940 sf 5.5 million sf
Office 400K sf
Commercial 100K sf
Residential 890 units
We request that the cumulative traffic, air quality and noise analyses take into account the buildout of these two specific plans. For analysis purposes, you can assume they will develop evenly over 12 years between 2008 and 2020.

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-30 Response:

In accordance with practice of the City of Camarillo, the evaluation of cumulative impacts focused on those projects that are located within the City of Camarillo and would affect the same service areas as the proposed project.

The traffic analysis included two scenarios. The Existing + Approved scenario assumed the development of approved projects in the area. This scenario was developed as the baseline for assessing project-specific impacts and was based on the list of projects shown in Appendix A of the Draft MND. As stated in the City of Oxnard's letter, the Camino Real Business Park and Sakioka Farms projects would be developed over the 12-year period between 2008 and 2020. Thus, these two projects should not be included in the Existing + Approved baseline scenario developed for assessing project-specific impacts for the Paseo Camino Real project.

The second scenario included in the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project assesses Year 2025 traffic conditions. The Year 2025 traffic conditions assume buildout of the land uses contained in the City of Camarillo General Plan as well as regional growth throughout the County and surrounding areas, including the City of Oxnard. The traffic volumes were forecasted using the City's Traffic Model. The City's Traffic Model includes regional growth factors derived from the VCTC traffic model. Thus, the Year 2025 traffic forecasts include the future developments planned in the City of Oxnard as tracked by the VCTC.

Comment 8-3
Circulation Comment #1
Our concern is the 101 Freeway segment between Camarillo and Oxnard, specifically Del Norte and the new Springhill interchanges. The impacts shown in tables IV-13 to IV-16 are limited to freeway on and off-ramps and do not look at through traffic volumes. We request that a capacity analysis for the 101 Freeway be included in the traffic analysis.

Response:

Caltrans and VCTC have previously documented that the segment of U.S. Highway 101 in the Camarillo area should be upgraded by adding one lane in each direction to provide a continuous eight-lane facility. The need for widening this facility is generated by regional traffic growth to the year 2025, not isolated to traffic generated by the proposed project. Improvements for mainline freeway segments are programmed through VCTC and are funded through various State/Federal funding sources, local sales tax and gas taxes. No formal funding for this improvement has been committed at this time. The City of Camarillo has contributed a fair-share contribution towards mainline freeway improvements by reconstructing freeway interchange bridges with longer spans to accommodate future mainline widening projects. Furthermore, the project developer would pay the Traffic Mitigation Fees to the City that would partially finance off-site projects that accommodate future widening on the mainline freeway (e.g., interchange reconstruction, ramp improvements, and intersection improvements adjacent to freeway ramps). As part of the Project Study Report approved by Caltrans, the proposed Springville interchange is consistent with long-range Highway City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-31 101 plans. The proposed project is dedicating the right-of-way in the project area necessary for the completion of the proposed Springville interchange. The right-of-way dedication for the proposed Springville interchange and City Traffic Impact Fees represent a fair share contribution towards Highway 101 capacity improvements.

In addition, the proposed project involves the development of a commercial center which would include local-serving retail uses aimed at the local consumer and employee population within the City of Camarillo. As such, consideration of through traffic volumes was deemed to be unnecessary by the City of Camarillo in the Draft MND. The future uses at the project site are anticipated to largely be chain stores of which similar stores are also available in the City of Oxnard and would therefore make it unlikely that customers would travel to the same store in Camarillo.

Comment 8-4
Circulation Comment #2
The Del Norte, Rice, Rose, Vineyard, and Oxnard intersections with the 101 Freeway are not included in the traffic analysis. We request that these five intersections be included in a revised traffic study.

Response:

The trip generation analysis for the proposed project shows that development of the proposed land uses would result in a net decrease of 119 trips during the A.M. peak hour and a net increase of 193 trips during the P.M. peak hour when compared to the land uses that could be developed under the existing General Plan designations. The traffic distribution model shows that 25% of the project's traffic would be oriented to the west on U.S. Highway 101. Distribution of the 48 additional P.M. peak hour trips would not significantly impact the 5 interchanges within the City of Oxnard. The modeling shows that less than 10 P.M. peak hour trips would be added to any one of the interchanges in the City of Oxnard, which would not significantly impact their operations.

Comment 8-5
Mitigation Measure
The Camino Real Business Park Specific Plan includes a right-of-way about one-quarter mile south of the 101 freeway for the eastward continuation of Gonzales Road to connect to an arterial in Camarillo, possibly a realigned and widened Ventura Road, providing an alternative connection between the two cities reducing trips on the 101 Freeway. We propose a mitigation measure that would have the cities of Oxnard and Camarillo and the County of Ventura study the feasibility of creating such a secondary arterial connection. A proposed alignment is attached.

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-32 Response:

The proposed project would realign and improve Ventura Boulevard consistent with the City of Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element. Ventura Boulevard is a frontage road on the south side of U.S. Highway 101 that extends between Central Avenue and Las Posas Road (and beyond). Creating a new east-west roadway connection between Gonzales Road and the City of Camarillo, as suggested in this comment, is not required to mitigate impacts generated by the proposed project and would be inconsistent with the City of Camarillo General Plan Circulation Element.
9-1
Comment Letter No. 9
City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real II. Public Comments and Response
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page II-34 Letter Number 9
Cy Johnson, Development Programs Administrator, Calleguas Municipal Water District 18 December 2006
Comment 9-1
Thank you for providing Calleguas Municipal Water District a copy of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 2006-17 for the Paseo Camino Real. As you are aware, the land underlying the proposed development was annexed to Calleguas in 2004 as Calleguas Annexation No. 77. Therefore, annexation to Calleguas need not be a condition for project approval.

Calleguas noted that the Utilities and Service Systems discussion on Pages IV-72 and IV-73 uses 1999 data to establish Calleguas’ delivery capacity to the City of Camarillo. In particular, it states that Callleguas can provide up to 23 mgd of potable water to the City. Calleguas’ 2005 Urban Water Management Plan confirms that the District can meet the City’s projected water purchases from Calleguas through 2030, when Camarillo estimates its demand from the District will be approximately 7,400 acrefeet per year. On an average daily basis, this equates to 6.6 mgd. Calleguas feels that this figure is a more realistic statement to the District’s capacity available to Camarillo.

Response:

The discussion of project-specific and cumulative water supply impacts has been revised in the Final MND based on this comment. See Section III, Corrections and Additions in this Responses to Comments document.

Paseo Camino Real III. Corrections and Additions
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page III-1 III. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
The following corrections and additions are set forth to update the Paseo Camino Real project Draft MND in response to the comments received during and after the public review period, as well as City staff directed changes. Changes to the Draft MND are listed by section. Changes are shown below as strike out of old text followed by new text.

1. AESTHETICS
No changes are necessary.

2. AGRICULTUR RESOURCES
On page IV-11, the first sentence of the first paragraph under Section (c) should is corrected to read:

Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Less than Significant Impact. Please refer to Section 2(a) above.

3. AIR QUALITY
Mitigation measure AQ-1 on pages IV-14 and IV-15 is revised to read:

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.
• 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.
• Material stockpiles shall be enclosed, covered, stabilized, or otherwise treated, to prevent blowing fugitive dust offsite.

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real III. Corrections and Additions
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page III-2 • 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.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No changes are necessary.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
No changes are necessary.

6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation measure HAZ-2 on page IV-32 is revised to read:

HAZ-2 Prior to project development all building plans must be submitted to the City of Camarillo Department of Building and Safety Community Development to review for consistency with all applicable avigational easements.

7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No changes are necessary.

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real III. Corrections and Additions
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page III-3

8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
No changes are necessary.

9. LAND USE AND PLANNING
No changes are necessary.

10. MINERAL RESOURCES
No changes are necessary.

11. NOISE
No changes are necessary.

12. POPULATION AND HOUSING
No changes are necessary.

13. PUBLIC SERVICES
No changes are necessary.

14. RECREATION
No changes are necessary.

15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Mitigation Measure TRA-9 is corrected and renumbered to be TRA-7, following TRA-6.

The following mitigation measure is inserted as measure TRA-8 to immediately follow measure TRA-7:

TRA-8 The developer shall pay the County Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) to address the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project on the Ventura County Regional Road Network.

16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
On page IV-11, the first sentence of the first paragraph under Section (c) is corrected to read:

Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Less than Significant Impact. Please refer to Section 2(a) above.

The last paragraph on page IV-72 under Water Treatment Facilities and Infrastructure is corrected to read:

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real III. Corrections and Additions
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page III-4 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 Calleguas Municipal Water District (CMWD).1
The City Water Division groundwater wells have a
combined capacity of 6 million gallons per day (mgd) and CMWD can provide up to 6.6 23 mgd of potable water for a total City water system capacity of 12.6 29 mgd.2 The current average water
consumption in the City is approximately 6.51 mgd.3
Therefore, the City has a remaining supply capacity
of approximately 6.1 22.49 mgd. As discussed in Section 16(d) below, the project would consume approximately 47,904 gallons per day (gpd) of water, or 0.8 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.

The last paragraph on page IV-79 under Cumulative Water Impacts is corrected to read:

The City CMWD has a remaining water supply capacity of approximately 6.1 22.49 mgd of water. As shown Table-IV-21, the cumulative water supply demand including the proposed project would be approximately 1,014,422 gpd, or 1.01 mgd. This represents approximately 16.6 percent of the remaining City CMWD supply capacity. Therefore, the City 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-thansignificant 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.

APPENDICES
Appendix F: Traffic and Circulation Study, Camarillo Commercial Center Project, Associated Transportation Engineers, May 23, 2006.

On page 14, Table 5, Project Trip Distribution has been amended to read as shown below:

1 Airport North Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, City of Camarillo, May 1986. 2 Cy Johnson, Callleguas Municipal Water District, letter to the City of Camarillo, December 18, 2006. City of Camarillo Water System Master Plan Update, December 1999. 3 Table 3-2, Water Consumption Data, City of Camarillo Water System Master Plan Update, December 1999.

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real III. Corrections and Additions
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page III-5 Table 5
Project Trip Distribution
Origin/Destination Direction Percent
U.S. 101 East 30%
U.S. 101 West 25%
Las Posas n/o Daily Dr. North 10%
Las Posas s/o Ventura Blvd South 17%
Daily Dr e/o Las Posas North 3%
Local NA 15%
Total 100%
Paseo Camino Real IV. Mitigation Monitoring Program
Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page IV-1 IV. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2006-17 FOR PASEO CAMINO REAL Mitigation Measure Action Required Timing Enforcement Agency AESTHETICS AES-1 The project building and landscaping design shall conform to all development regulations and design standards in the Airport North Specific Plan.

Developer shall provide building design documents to the City for review and approval Prior to zone clearance Community Development
Department
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 be secondary to the illumination of buildings and landscaped features, and; • Low-level, direct lighting shall be used on
pedestrian walkways.

Developer shall provide building design documents to the City for review and approval Prior to zone clearance Community Development
Department
AES-3 The exterior of the proposed buildings shall be constructed of materials such as tinted non-reflective glass and pre-cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces.

Developer shall provide building design documents to the City for review and approval Prior to issuance of zone clearance
Community Development Department
City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real IV. Mitigation Monitoring Program Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page IV-2 MITIGATION MEASURES FROM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2006-17 FOR PASEO CAMINO REAL Mitigation Measure Action Required Timing Enforcement Agency AIR QUALITY 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.
• 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. • Material stockpiles shall be enclosed, covered,
stabilized, or otherwise treated, to prevent blowing fugitive dust offsite. • Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the
construction site shall be monitored by a Citydesignated person at least weekly for dust Measures shall be included in construction documents and implemented during grading and construction Prior to issuance of grading permits and during grading and construction Community Development Department and Public Works Department City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real IV. Mitigation Monitoring Program Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page IV-3 MITIGATION MEASURES FROM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2006-17 FOR PASEO CAMINO REAL Mitigation Measure Action Required Timing Enforcement Agency stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll-compaction, and environmentallysafe 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.

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real IV. Mitigation Monitoring Program Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page IV-4 MITIGATION MEASURES FROM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2006-17 FOR PASEO CAMINO REAL Mitigation Measure Action Required Timing Enforcement Agency AQ-2 The project developer shall implement measures to reduce the emissions of pollutants generated by heavyduty 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 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.

Measures shall be included in construction documents and implemented during grading and construction Prior to issuance of grading permits and during grading and construction Community Development Department
City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real IV. Mitigation Monitoring Program Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page IV-5 MITIGATION MEASURES FROM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2006-17 FOR PASEO CAMINO REAL Mitigation Measure Action Required Timing Enforcement Agency AQ-3 The project developer shall include in construction and building management contracts the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective:
• 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.

Measures shall be included in construction documents and implemented during grading and construction Prior to issuance of grading permits and during grading and construction Community Development Department
AQ-4 The project developer shall contribute a total of $667,502 to a TDM fund managed by the City of Camarillo.

Payment of $667,502 to TDM Fund
Prior to issuance of building permits
Community Development Department
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No mitigation required.

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real IV. Mitigation Monitoring Program Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page IV-6 MITIGATION MEASURES FROM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2006-17 FOR PASEO CAMINO REAL Mitigation Measure Action Required Timing Enforcement Agency CULTURAL RESOURCES 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.

Measures shall be included in construction documents and implemented during grading and construction Prior to issuance of grading permits and during grading and construction Community Development Department
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.

Measures shall be included in construction documents and implemented during grading and construction Prior to issuance of grading permits and during grading and construction Community Development Department
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.

Measures shall be included in construction documents and implemented during grading and construction Prior to issuance of grading permits and during grading and construction Public Works Department
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 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 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.

Developer shall present to the City the soil test findings to determine if remediation is required.

Prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Community Development Department
HAZ-2 Prior to project development all building plans must be submitted to the City of Camarillo Department of Community Development to review for consistency with all applicable avigational easements.

Developer shall present to the City the building plans.

Prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Community Development Department
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.

Developer and Property Manager shall provide building design documents to the City for review and approval Prior to issuance of building permits and any time that the installation and operation of applicable electronic equipment is requested of the Property Manager.

Community Development Department
City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real IV. Mitigation Monitoring Program Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page IV-8 MITIGATION MEASURES FROM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2006-17 FOR PASEO CAMINO REAL Mitigation Measure Action Required Timing Enforcement Agency HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 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.
• 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.

Measures shall be implemented during grading and construction During construction Community Development
Department and Public Works Department
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.

Measures shall be implemented during grading and construction During construction Community Development
Department, 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.

Developer shall provide grading and building plans to the City and County for review and approval Prior to issuance of grading permits
City Public Works Department and Ventura County
LAND USE AND PLANNING No mitigation required. MINERAL RESOURCES No mitigation required. NOISE No mitigation required. POPULATION AND HOUSING No mitigation required.

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real IV. Mitigation Monitoring Program Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page IV-9 MITIGATION MEASURES FROM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2006-17 FOR PASEO CAMINO REAL Mitigation Measure Action Required Timing Enforcement Agency PUBLIC SERVICES - FIRE 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.

Developer shall provide building plans and plot plan to the VCFD for review and approval Prior to recordation of a final map or the approval of a building permit Ventura County Fire Department
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 Payment of applicable fees Prior to recordation of a
final map or the approval of a building permit
Ventura County Fire Department
PUBLIC SERVICES - POLICE 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.

Developer shall provide building plans to the Camarillo Police Department for review and approval Prior to recordation of a final map or the approval of a building permit Camarillo Police Department
PUBLIC SERVICES - SCHOOLS 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.

Payment of applicable fees Prior to recordation of a
final map or the approval of a building permit
Applicable school district
PUBLIC SERVICES - PARKS No mitigation required. PUBLIC SERVICES – OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES No mitigation required. RECREATION No mitigation required.

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real IV. Mitigation Monitoring Program Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page IV-10 MITIGATION MEASURES FROM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2006-17 FOR PASEO CAMINO REAL Mitigation Measure Action Required Timing Enforcement Agency TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 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.

Developer shall pay the Camarillo Traffic Mitigation Fee Prior to the issuance of building permits
Public Works Department
TRA-2 The project applicant shall design, dedicate rightof-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; • one (1) dedicated 12-foot-wide northbound rightturn 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).

Developer shall provide roadway intersection improvement documents to the City for review and approval, and shall construct the required improvements Prior to the issuance of grading permits and prior to certificates of occupancy Public Works Department
City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real IV. Mitigation Monitoring Program Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page IV-11 MITIGATION MEASURES FROM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2006-17 FOR PASEO CAMINO REAL Mitigation Measure Action Required Timing Enforcement Agency TRA-3 The project applicant shall design and construct the project to widen U.S. 101 Freeway northbound offramp 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 CPD197M(1).

Developer shall provide roadway intersection improvement documents to the City for review and approval, and shall construct the required improvements Prior to the issuance of grading permits and prior to building permits and/or occupancy Public Works Department
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.

Developer shall pay the County Traffic Impact Fee
Prior to the issuance of building permits
City Public Works Department and Ventura County
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - WATER 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.

Developer shall submit plans for a domestic water and irrigation system for review and approval by the City Prior to issuance of grading permits or recordation of final map Public Works Department
UTL-2 Water improvement plans shall be approved by the Fire Department, the City Engineer and the Calleguas Municipal Water District.

Developer shall submit plans for a domestic water and irrigation system for review and approval by the City Prior to issuance of grading permits or recordation of final map City Fire Department, Public Works Department, and 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.

Developer shall submit sewer plans to the City Engineer and the Camarillo Sanitary District for review and approval Prior to issuance of grading permits or recordation of final map City Engineer, Camarillo Sanitary District
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.

The Developer and/or the Property Manager shall inform future tenants of the necessary connection permits to be obtained Prior to occupancy Camarillo Sanitary District.

UTL-5 Restaurant and commercial uses shall install grease interceptors.

The Developer and/or the Property Manager shall inform future tenants of the necessary installations.

Prior to occupancy Camarillo Sanitary District.

City of Camarillo May 2007
Paseo Camino Real IV. Mitigation Monitoring Program Responses to Comments Received on Draft MND 2006-17 Page IV-13 MITIGATION MEASURES FROM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2006-17 FOR PASEO CAMINO REAL Mitigation Measure Action Required Timing Enforcement Agency 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.

The Developer and/or the Property Manager shall inform future tenants of the necessary water conserving features Prior to occupancy Building and Safety Department
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - WASTEWATER No mitigation required. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – SOLID WASTE UTIL-7 Recycling bins shall be provided at appropriate locations to promote recycling of paper, metal, glass, and other recyclable material.

Recycling bins shall be provided and serviced
Upon occupancy Community Development
Department
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2006-17
Paseo Camino Real
Prepared for:

City of Camarillo
Prepared By:

December 11, 2006

PASEO CAMINO REAL
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2006-17
PREPARED FOR:

City of Camarillo
Department of Community Development
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, CA 93011-0248
PREPARED BY:

Christopher A. Joseph & Associates
30851 Agoura Road, Suite 210
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
December 11, 2006
Paseo Camino Real MND No. 2006-17
Page i

CITY OF CAMARILLO
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-17
GPA 2006-2; CZ-297; CZ-298; CPD-226, PASEO CAMINO REAL
This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared based on the Initial Study evaluating the proposed development of a 499,000 square foot commercial center in the Airport North Specific Plan area of the City of Camarillo. The Initial Study is built upon the analysis, and incorporates the mitigation measures, from the Environmental Impact Report for the Airport North Specific Plan which was approved by the City of Camarillo City Council in 1986. If approved, project implementation will entail the construction of a mix of approximately 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. The 44.84 acres subject site is part of two parcels (properties) of land totaling approximately 48.48 acres.

Potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed development and operation of the proposed project have been assessed in an Initial Study (attached to this Negative Declaration). This Mitigated Negative Declaration and the attached Initial Study have been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended and the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that a proposed Negative Declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a. The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or
b. The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:

1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and

2. There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

Based on the analysis provided in the Initial Study, the proposed project has the potential to significantly impact the local environment without mitigation. However, implementation of the 36 mitigation measures recommended in the Initial Study would reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA, this Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared.

City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real MND No.

Page ii
Section 15071 of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that a Negative Declaration circulated for public review shall include the following:
a. A brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the project, if any;
b. The location of the project, preferably shown on a map, and the name of the project proponent;
c. A proposed finding that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment;
d. An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding; and e. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects.

The Initial Study is attached to this Mitigated Negative Declaration. All other applicable items (project description, location, and proposed findings) are included within the attached Initial Study. The 36 mitigation measures recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels are also identified in the Initial Study.

Paseo Camino Real Table of Contents
Draft MND Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………I-1
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION……………………………………………………………………….II-1 A. Environmental Setting…………………………………………………………………………… II-1 B. Project Characteristics……………………………………………………………………………. II-4 C. Discretionary Actions and Approvals……………………………………………………………II-14 III. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ..................................................................................................... III-1 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS..................................................................................IV-1

1. Aesthetics................................................................................................................................IV-2

2. Agricultural Resources .........................................................................................................IV-10

3. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................IV-12

4. Biological Resources............................................................................................................IV-20

5. Cultural Resources................................................................................................................IV-22

6. Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................IV-25

7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................................................IV-29

8. Hydrology and Water Quality..............................................................................................IV-34

9. Land Use Planning ...............................................................................................................IV-41

10. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................IV-44

11. Noise .....................................................................................................................................IV-45

12. Population and Housing .......................................................................................................IV-52

13. Public Services......................................................................................................................IV-56

14. Recreation .............................................................................................................................IV-61

15. Transportation and Traffic....................................................................................................IV-62

16. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................................................IV-72

17. Mandatory Findings of Significance....................................................................................IV-81 V. PREPARERS OF THE INITIAL STUDY....................................................................................... V-1 City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real Table of Contents
Draft MND Page ii

FIGURES
Figure Page
II-1 Regional Map and Local Vicinity...................................................................................................II-2 II-2 Airport North Specific Plan Area ...................................................................................................II-3 II-3 Proposed Site Plan...........................................................................................................................II-7 II-4 Architecture and Elevations for Buildings 1 and 2.........................................................................II-8 II-5 Architecture and Elevations for Building 3....................................................................................II-9 II-6 Architecture and Elevations for Building 4..................................................................................II-10 II-7 Architecture and Elevations for Buildings 5 and 6.......................................................................II-11 II-8 Architecture and Elevations for Buildings 7 and 8.......................................................................II-12 II-9 Architecture and Elevations for Buildings 9 and 12 ....................................................................II-13 II-10 Areas Subject to Requested Zone Changes ..................................................................................II-17 IV-1 Photo Location Map......................................................................................................................IV-3 IV-2 Views 1 to 3...................................................................................................................................IV-4 IV-3 Views 4 to 6...................................................................................................................................IV-5 IV-4 Views 7 and 8 ................................................................................................................................IV-6 City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real Table of Contents
Draft MND Page iii
TABLES
Table Page
II-1 Project Statistical Summary …………………………………………………………………… II-5 IV-1 Related Projects in the City of Camarillo……………………………………………………….IV-1 IV-2 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions……………………………………………………. IV-16 IV-3 Predicted Future (2008) With Project Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations…………IV-19 IV-4 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment…………………………………….… IV-48 IV-5 Roadway Noise Impacts – Proposed Project………………………………………………......IV-49 IV-6 Roadway Noise Impacts – Cumulative Projects……………………………………............. IV-52 IV-7 City of Camarillo Population Forecasts……………………………………………………….IV-53 IV-8 City of Camarillo Housing Forecasts………………………………………………………….IV-53 IV-9 Estimated Project Employee Generation………………………………………………….. IV-54 IV-10 Level of Service and Volume to Capacity (V/C) Discussion…………………………………IV-63 IV-11 Thresholds of Significance………………………………………………………………….. IV-64 IV-12 Estimated Project Trip Generation…………………………………………………………….IV-64 IV-13 Project Traffic Condition Impacts – AM Peak Hour………………………………………… IV-65 IV-14 Project Traffic Condition Impacts – PM Peak Hour…………………………………………..IV-66 IV-15 Trip Generation Comparison – Camarillo Traffic Model Land vs. Project……………………IV-67 IV-16 Year 2025 AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service………………………….. IV-67 IV-17 Estimated Water Consumption – Proposed Project…………………………………………. IV-75 IV-18 Estimated Wastewater Generation – Proposed Project……………………………………… IV-76 IV-19 Landfill Capacity and Intake………………………………………………………………. IV-78 IV-20 Estimated Solid Waste Generation – Proposed Project…………………………………….. IV-78 IV-21 Estimated Water Consumption – Proposed Project…………………………………………. IV-80 IV-22 Estimated Wastewater Generation – Proposed Project……………………………………. IV-81 IV-23 Estimated Solid Waste Generation – Proposed Project……………………………………… IV-82 City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real Table of Contents
Draft MND Page iv

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: RELATED PROJECTS DATABASE
APPENDIX B: AIR QUALITY DATA
APPENDIX C: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX D: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E: NOISE DATA
APPENDIX F: TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY
Paseo Camino Real I. Introduction
Draft MND Page I-1
I. INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION
The subject of this Initial Study is the proposed development of a 499,000 square foot commercial center in the City of Camarillo. The project site is located at 384 West Ventura Boulevard within the Airport North Specific Plan area of the City. The project applicant is Selleck Properties, 5655 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 301, Westlake Village, CA 91362-4045. A description of the proposed project is contained in Section II (Project Description). The City of Camarillo Department of Community Development is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title: GPA 2006-2; CZ-297; CZ-298; CPD-226 Selleck Project Location: 384 West Ventura Boulevard
Lead Agency: City of Camarillo, Department of Community Development Contact Person: David Anderson, Assistant Director

ORGANIZATION OF INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study is organized into six sections as follows:

Introduction: This section provides introductory information such as the project title, the project applicant and the lead agency for the proposed project.

Project Description: This section provides a detailed description of the environmental setting and the proposed project, including project characteristics and environmental setting.

Initial Study Checklist: This section contains the completed Initial Study Checklist.

Environmental Impact Analysis: Each environmental issue identified in the Initial Study Checklist contains an assessment and discussion of impacts associated with each subject area. When the evaluation identifies potentially significant effects, as identified in the Checklist, mitigation measures are provided to reduce such impacts to less than significant levels.

Preparers of Initial Study and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of City personnel, other governmental agencies, and consultant team members that participated in the preparation of the Initial Study.

Paseo Camino Real II. Project Description
Draft MND Page II-1
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project Location
The proposed project site is located within the City of Camarillo in Ventura County. As shown in Figure II-1, the City of Camarillo is located in southern Ventura County, along the U.S. Highway 101 (Ventura Freeway) corridor. The City is surrounded by unincorporated county land composed of hills to the north, mountains to the east, and the flat agricultural lands of the Oxnard Plain to the south and west. The City of Thousand Oaks is located to the east and the Cities of Oxnard and San Buenaventura are located to the west. Regional access is provided to the City by the Ventura Freeway and State Route 34 (Lewis Road).

Other regional access routes located close to the City include State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) and State Route 118.

The site proposed for the project is located north of the Camarillo Hills Drain and Camarillo Airport, south of the Ventura Freeway and Ventura Boulevard, and east of agricultural land, and west of the Camarillo Town Center West (Home Depot) development. The project site is a portion of the 338-acre Airport North Specific Plan (Specific Plan) area approved by the Camarillo City Council in 1986 and amended most recently in 2003 as shown in Figure II-2.

Description of the Project Site and Existing Land Uses
The project site consists of 44.84 acres (1,953,138 square feet) from two parcels (properties) of land totaling approximately 48.48 acres. The site is relatively flat and slopes gently to the south at a rate of approximately 0.007 foot in height to one foot of distance. Both parcels are currently used for the agricultural production of row crops and unpaved access roads along the eastern, western, and southern perimeters of the site. An area used for farm equipment staging and supplies is located at the northeast corner of the site. According to the County of Ventura Water Resources Division, there are no water wells existing within the property. The planned conversion of this farmland to urban uses was addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Airport North Specific Plan and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council in 1986.

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).

AHOIOVJ

POSAS RD S
>-
UJ
t - Q .
_ L 0 3
CD
>,
Ll 'o
>
w
rHiHON
to
LU
gl < <D
* ^
Q_ ro
CO ?' si
<-
D^_
LU (U
X^
Pi CO O
8=1Ulu
a
•;z
ST
,
I''
ommi LAS POSAS
'iftr(3 M
C-) 4/
rr_
L.=
F.)
9!
Ai
CALLE
FANO
-z

4.1 DOMINICA
AV
SA
is
dIVANO

PROJECT SITE
WIN
2J OCIVIAV
s'cN (loom
d
LLJ
LU
Source: TheThomasGuide Digital Edition, 2006.

Airport North Specific Pla
-
ni

IS AVIATION DR

CAMARILLO AIRPORT
0 CO
0 0
HIHON
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real II. Project Description
Draft MND Page II-4
Surrounding Land Uses
The proposed project site is located within the Airport North Specific Plan area. The areas to the east and west of the project site are located within the Airport North Specific Plan area. The properties to the east of the site are developed with the Camarillo Town Center and Camarillo Town Center II developments.

The Camarillo Town Center is developed with approximately 370,000 square feet of commercial uses anchored by a Target store. The Camarillo Town Center West development site is located adjacent to the project site and is anchored by a Home Depot. Both of these developments are designated Commercial and zoned CPD.

The properties to the west of the site are currently used for agricultural production, but are designated for Research and Development in the Airport North Specific Plan and zoned LM. The area to the immediate west of the project site is currently planned to accommodate the future extension of Springville Drive, which would be constructed along with the entire U.S. 101/Springville Drive Interchange, which was approved by the City of Camarillo City Council in 1999.

The area to the immediate south of the project site is the remaining 3.64 acres of the property that includes the project site. This area is designated for Research and Development in the Airport North Specific Plan. To the south of this area is the Camarillo Hills Drain, which services a larger area of the City and is under the jurisdiction of the Ventura County Flood Control District. South of the Camarillo Hills Drain is Camarillo Airport, which is a public use airport with only general aviation operations; there are no commercial operations.

Other than the Ventura Freeway, Ventura Boulevard is the primary roadway link between Las Posas Road and Central Avenue. East of the project site, Ventura Boulevard is recently constructed four-lane eastwest secondary arterial road that links to Las Posas Road. Along the northern perimeter of the project site and to the west, Ventura Boulevard is a two-lane rural arterial. These two roadways are linked by a north-south connector between the two Camarillo Town Center developments.

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Project objectives
The objects of the project, as set forth by the project applicant, are to continue the City’s primary commercial corridor along the Ventura Freeway and provide an appropriate terminus to this commercial district at the planned Springville Road. The project would protect erosion of Camarillo’s economic tax base within the region and provide goods and services currently missing in Camarillo and/or based on market demand, including soft and hard goods and services, electronics, book stores, and other retail users, restaurants, offices, and service sector tenants.

City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real II. Project Description
Draft MND Page II-5
These objectives are generally consistent with the overall objectives of the City of Camarillo General Plan and the Airport North Specific Plan.

Proposed Development Plan and Specific Plan Amendment
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 and Research and Development 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 shown in Figure II-3 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.

A statistical description of the project is provided in Table II-1.

Table II-1
Project Statistical Summary
Project Characteristic Statistic
Total Site Area 1,953,138 square feet (44.84 acres)
Building Area 499,000 square feet
Building Coverage 24.15 percent
Retail Area 426,010 square feet
Restaurant Area 50,700 square feet
Office Area 22,290 square feet
Parking Required 2,301 stalls
Parking Provided 2,496 stalls
Parking Ratio 5.0/1,000 building square feet
Source: Poliquin Kellog Design Group, May 2006.

Building Design
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 City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real II. Project Description
Draft MND Page II-6
character and scale of the nearby commercial areas. The buildings would incorporate Mediterranean/European Spanish architectural styles1
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. Figures II-4 through II-9 illustrate the architecture and elevations proposed for each of the proposed buildings.

1 Anthony Molina, Designer, Poliquin Kellogg Design Group, Architecture Planning Interior Design, October 30, 2006.

Source: Poliquin Kellog Design Group, September 6, 2006.

VENTUR A
CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Planning and Research
E E w Ay
0 3,289.

F-11

RESTAUFWIT
(EXI5T1116)

NOT A PART
00 s.f
URA

BESTBUY
30,000 s.f.

KOHL'S
FOOTPRINT 89,008 s.f.

MEZZ. 6,963 s.f.

TOTAL 95,971 s.f.

ME HOLE DEPOT
(EXOTIN5)

NOT A PART

RETAIL A
23,068 s.f.

RETAIL B
28,000 s.f.

IIIIIIIIVENTURA BOULEVARD - A
- ---------
-125
120 1^5
115 720

AVMT/ON CONTOURS
115 110
110
105 /00
700
95 90
85 30
Figure 11-3
Proposed Site Plan
® BUILDING 1 NORTH ELEVATION
Me 3,03r6E-ar
1 CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Planning and Research
BUILDING 1 SOUTH ELEVATION
wpL 3/3ro•-o•
BUILDING 1 WEST ELEVATION
IOW
Source: Poliquin Kellog Design Group, July 27, 2006.
®
®
BUILDING 2 SOUTH ELEVATION
SOU 3/32.1,6*
BUILDING 2 NORTH ELEVATION
=ft 3/31W-0.

Figure 11-4
Architectural Elevations 1 and 2
116 reiralt010 ill 01-- - re I
1111111111111E imid Ems Emil 111
Faillra7

II II H U
IA
CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Planning and Research
BUILDING 3 SOUTH ELEVATIO
SCALE: 3/32.-1*-0°
WWI
111000611MIX 1111111111•11112. 11111111111111iniiii
munimmmul er
BUILDING 3 NORTH ELEVATIO
SCALE 3/32".1.-0.

Source: Poliquin Kellog Design Group, July 27, 2006.

Figure 11-5
Architectural Elevation 3
jr. :411111
W• • • • A* • • •
in
..i. mi.
am. '
00:i='=10.40 AM ,mii,F,ILA .4 •• .
ni mogn•a, ,,,,,,, • a.

NM
P " Meg; f.n.3.................
...,
n.......................- '
fillni
Fi!
I
AO
• 10•11.11A iliallh. .".1.1FF ..n1'
.0 MI .411011 0100.41401114.11"..111.1•0641, in,
F, WWI. FFI. PI WI MA MA MO 11011.11,10 .1.
=,24.= =W. . • MOM MM..= MA , ,
.... WORM! F4.00.1.01.4101.12.1:4124:.:2
MIMI,
I
• . . • ,
I
11111111111111111111111i
1•10.11 NM AMI.Nli
...FA =
FFAI. Ma •••••• ima..
:NM 2. MINN ••••••
. .;
b
0000
01111111111.
1111111111111111111111
11111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111111111 NMI
='M
11111111111111111111111111111E
111111111111111111111111111111E11
•
tfl
BUILDING 4 SOUTH ELEVATION
BUILDING 4 NORTH ELEVATION
em. •
11111111111111111111 11
satL varow
BUILDING 4 EAST ELEVATION
Mtn 3/3r•E-0-
Source: Poliquin Kellog Design Group, July 27, 2006.

CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Planning and Research
mon 111111,1111111011101111111111111111
111111111 ilITT11111111111111111111
1111111111111111111 III 1 111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111110111111111 1/1111111111111111111111111111 Figure 11-6
Architectural Elevations 4
BUILDING 6 SOUTH ELEVATION
tate
BUILDING 5 NORTH ELEVATION
3/06V-r
BUILDING 4 EAST ELEVATION
MIL 3/2r.f-0*
Source: Poliquin Kellog Design Group, July 27, 2006.

CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Planning and Research
NMBUILDING 6 SOUTH ELEVATION
sor-v-o•
BUILDING 8 NORTH ELEVATION
3/3r-r-V
9 9
a 9
BUILDING 8 EAST ELEVATION
taL vsw-ir g
Figure 11-7
Architectural Elevations 5 and 6
CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Planning and Research
9 =re
LI al LI
BUILDING 7 SOUTH ELEVATION
3/sr-r-o"
BUILDING 7 NORTH ELEVATION
MIL 3/31"-V-0'
BUILDING 7 EAST ELEVATION
altO 3/7r.E-0.

Source: Poliquin Kellog Design Group, July 27, 2006.
@ BUILDING 8 WEST ELEVATION
With 3/32-.1'-r
BUILDING 8 SOUTH ELEVATION
Mae sisr-r-o•
BUILDING 8 NORTH ELEVATION
3COM 3/32V-0'
Figure 11-8
Architectural Elevations 7 and 8
®
®
@
CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Planning and Research
BUILDING 9 SOUTH ELEVATION
BUILDING 9 NORTH ELEVATION
IMO 3/31W-0.

BUILDING 9 EAST ELEVATION
scar vir-f-e
Source: Poliquin Kellog Design Group, July 27, 2006.
moo 00
DO 0000 rinrin
OD 0 — I
OD DO DO 00
DO OD DO DO 00
OD OE-,0

DO OD DO
DC Oki
fIIt1tIII .• •
=dB HHEBB
Dorm lob.>
DO
DO
OD
BUILDING 12 SOUTH ELEVATION
ICILD
BUILDING 12 NORTH ELEVATION
3/ir.V-r
3-E
BUILDING 72 WEST ELEVATION
IONA 3,,WW-lf
-C> BUILDING 12 EAST ELEVATION
Eite 3/31'61,0-
Figure 11-9
Architectural Elevations 9 and 12
City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real II. Project Description
Draft MND Page II-14
Roadways and Site Access
The project would extend the recently constructed four-lane Ventura Boulevard from its current terminus (at the eastern project site boundary) to Bajo Agua Avenue, which is approximately ¾-mile 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 needed to provide continuous roadway access from Las Posas Road on the east to Central Avenue on the west. Depending on future plans for the U.S. 101/Springville Drive Interchange, and therefore the future traffic demands on the roadway, the extension of Ventura Boulevard, as part of the Proposed Project, would proceed in one of two option scenarios: 1) all four lanes of Ventura Boulevard would be extended to Springville Drive; then reduced to 2 lanes from Springville Drive to Bajo Agua, or 2) Ventura Boulevard would be extended to Bajo Agua with four lanes along the entire length of the extension.

Vehicular access to the project site would primarily be provided via two driveways along the new extension of Ventura Boulevard, one driveway along the planned extension of Springville Drive, and the older segment of Ventura Boulevard discussed above. Two additional driveways located along Ventura Boulevard are intended to accommodate delivery trucks.

Parking and Loading
The current site plan shown in Figure II-3 shows that 2,496 parking stalls are proposed for the project at a ratio of 5.0 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building space. City parking standards require the project to provide 2,301 parking stalls for the proposed size and mix of uses. Therefore, the project would provide 195 parking spaces in excess of City standards.

Loading dock areas are proposed at the rear of the major retail buildings located along the Ventura Boulevard and Springville Drive perimeters of the site as illustrated in Figure II-3. Loading spaces are also required for the smaller peripheral buildings for smaller delivery vehicles such as step vans, which are anticipated to stop for short periods of time.

Landscaping
A detailed landscape plan has not been prepared at this time. However, the project would be required to comply with all landscaping standards established in the Airport North Specific Plan and the City of Camarillo Street Median and Parkway Master Plan.

City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real II. Project Description
Draft MND Page II-15
Construction Schedule
Construction of the Ventura Boulevard extension is planned to commence in May/June 2007. Grading of the project site is planned to occur in July/August 2007, and the project is planned to be completed in March/April 2008.

Infrastructure
The Airport North Specific Plan area is located within the Calleguas Municipal Water District and is served by the Camarillo Municipal Water Division. The project would connect to a 12-inch water main located in Ventura Boulevard.

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’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.

Storm waters in the Airport North Specific Plan area flow to the Camarillo Hills Drain located along the north side of Camarillo Airport. A Mello Roos Community Facilities District has been formed to widen the Camarillo Hills Drain to accommodate a 100-year storm given the anticipated buildout of the Airport North Specific Plan area. The project would be required to participate in this District.

DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND APPROVALS
The City of Camarillo (the City) is the lead agency for the project. The Initial Study is provided to address all discretionary and ministerial actions associated with the development of the project including, but not limited to, the following:
• GPA-2006: The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to amend the Camarillo General Plan Land Use Map designation for 19.5 acres of the project site from Office to General Commercial. The GPA would also amend the Airport North Specific Plan to be consistent with the changes to the General Plan Land Use Map. • CZ-297: The applicant is requesting a zone change for 15.96 acres of the project site from LM to CPD.
• CZ-298: The applicant is requesting a zone change for 14.90 acres of the project site from LM & PO to CPD.

City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real II. Project Description
Draft MND Page II-16
• CPD - 226
The site areas subject to the requested zone changes are shown in Figure II-10.

H
O
a
o
a
S
o
n n n (i
u o
o o H h- n > o n _i a. U
■■■
O O c / > t - * - C D
I T „ 0 3 LL- CO r0 3 o
^ N
< -a
0 "go
0 =5
O"
0 m
■UUON
CO
LU
8^1< 0
x^
Q_ CO
CO ¥ si
<-
a: _
LU ro x£
21 CO o
11Old
a
Paseo Camino Real Initial Study and Checklist
Draft MND Page III-1

CITY OF CAMARILLO

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

INITIAL STUDY

AND CHECKLIST

LEAD CITY AGENCY
City of Camarillo
DATE
December 11, 2006

RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
PROJECT TITLE/NO.

Paseo Camino Real
CASE NO.

GPA-2006, CZ-297, CZ-298
PREVIOUS ACTIONS CASE NO.

Airport North Specific Plan
DOES have significant changes from previous actions.

DOES NOT have significant changes from previous actions.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Please refer to Section II. Project Description.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Please refer to Section II. Project Description.

PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is located in the City of Camarillo within the Airport North Specific Plan area. The project site is located along Ventura Boulevard south of the Ventura (101) Freeway. The project address is 384 West Ventura Boulevard.

PLANNING DISTRICT STATUS:

PRELIMINARY
PROPOSED ____________________________

ADOPTED

EXISTING ZONING

LM & PO
MAX. DENSITY ZONING DOES CONFORM TO PLAN (with
density bonus and incentives)

PLANNED LAND USE & ZONE
General Commercial and CPD

MAX DENSITY PLAN DOES NOT CONFORM TO PLAN

SURROUNDING LAND USES
Commercial and CPD

PROJECT DENSITY NO DISTRICT PLAN
Paseo Camino Real Initial Study and Checklist
Draft MND Page III-2
DETERMINATION (To be completed by Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
⌧ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions on the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
ҏI find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

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

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

SIGNATURE
_____________________________________________________
NAME
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less that significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the Paseo Camino Real Initial Study and Checklist
Draft MND Page III-3
incorporation of a mitigation measure has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analysis,” as described in (5) below, may be cross referenced). 5) Earlier analysis must be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR, or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D).

In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
1) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. 2) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
3) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated
7) Supporting Information Sources: A sources list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whichever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
1) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and 2) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Paseo Camino Real Initial Study and Checklist
Draft MND Page III-4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Hazards & Hazardous Materials ҏPublic Services Agricultural Resources Hydrology/Water Quality ҏRecreation Air Quality Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Geology/Soils Population/Housing
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST (To be completed by the Lead City Agency)

BACKGROUND

PROPONENT NAME
Selleck Properties

PHONE NUMBER
PROPONENT’S ADDRESSES
100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000
Santa Monica, California 90401

AGENCY REQUIRING CHECKLIST
City of Camarillo, Department of Community Development

DATE SUBMITTED
PROPOSAL NAME (If Applicable)
Paseo Camino Real Initial Study and Checklist
Draft MND Page III-5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all potentially and less than significant impacts are required to be attached on separate sheets)
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, or other locally recognized desirable aesthetic natural feature within a city-designated scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

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

a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b. Conflict the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

III. AIR QUALITY. The significance criteria established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project result in:

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any Paseo Camino Real Initial Study and Checklist
Draft MND Page III-6
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service ?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in the City or regional plans, policies, regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as 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?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in significance of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA Section
15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in significance of an Paseo Camino Real Initial Study and Checklist
Draft MND Page III-7
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Section
15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a. Exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving :
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potential result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
Paseo Camino Real Initial Study and Checklist
Draft MND Page III-8
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located 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?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?

VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
proposal result in:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c. 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?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in an manner which would result in flooding on- or off site?
Paseo Camino Real Initial Study and Checklist
Draft MND Page III-9
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood plain as mapped on federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, inquiry or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with 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, coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

XI. NOISE. Would the project:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise in level in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Paseo Camino Real Initial Study and Checklist
Draft MND Page III-10
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
b. Exposure of people to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a. 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)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

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

a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities?
Paseo Camino Real Initial Study and Checklist
Draft MND Page III-11
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact

XIV. 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?
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?

XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
project:
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to ratio capacity on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

XVI. UTILITIES. Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Paseo Camino Real Initial Study and Checklist
Draft MND Page III-12
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resource, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? [How is this
potentially significant?]
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?(”Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of an
individual project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects).
c. Does the project have environmental effects which cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Attach additional sheets if necessary) PREPARED BY TITLE TELEPHONE # DATE
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-1
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft Initial Study contains an assessment and discussion of impacts associated with each environmental issue and subject area identified in the Initial Study Checklist. The thresholds of significance are based on the practices of the City of Camarillo and other sources as noted.

RELATED PROJECTS
In addition to the potential environmental impacts that would be associated with the project, this Initial Study also evaluates “cumulative impacts.” Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts may be analyzed by considering a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts.

All proposed (i.e., those projects with pending applications), recently approved, under construction, or reasonably foreseeable projects that could produce a related or cumulative impact on the local environment when considered in combination with the project are evaluated in this Initial Study. The analysis of cumulative impacts associated with these related projects and the project is provided in the Cumulative Impacts discussion at the end of each environ mental topic in this section of the Initial Study.

Table IV-1 summarizes the City-wide land use numbers that are considered in the cumulative impact analyses in this Initial Study. A full breakdown of the related projects is provided in Appendix A.

Table IV-1
Related Projects in the City of Camarillo
Land Use Building Size Site Size Parking Population
Increase
Residential 2,651 DU N/A N/A 3,693
Commercial 1,139,702 square feet 94.51 acres 5,104 spaces N/A Industrial 1,134,514 square feet 53.45 acres 2,445 spaces N/A Institutional/Other 172,083 square feet 14.98 acres 389 spaces N/A Source: City of Camarillo Department of Community Development, June 2006 Monthly Report. For a full breakdown of Related Projects please refer to Appendix A.

City of Camarillo December 2006
Paseo Camino Real IV. Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft MND Page IV-2

IMPACT ANALYSIS

1. AESTHETICS
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project were to introduce incompatible visual elements within a field of view containing a scenic vista or substantially blocks views of a scenic vista. Scenic vistas are generally described in two ways: panoramic views (visual access to a large geographic area, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance) and focal views (visual access to a particular object, scene, or feature of interest).

The existing visual character of the surrounding locale is highly influenced by the proximity of the U.S. 101 (Ventura) Freeway and Camarillo Airport. The project site is a flat area of agricultural land located between the freeway and the airport (see Figure IV-2, View 1 and View 2). To the east the site is bordered by the Camarillo Town Center West (Home Depot) development (see Figure IV-2, View 3), and the current terminus of Ventura Boulevard (see Figure IV-3, View 4). Views towards the project site from the Camarillo Town Center are obstructed by a line of Cypress trees lining the western edge of the Camarillo Town Center. Views in the vicinity of the project site are largely constrained by adjacent structures and the area’s relatively flat topography. No public views are provided from or through the currently agricultural project site.

Development of the project would replace the existing flat agricultural land with commercial center with 17 differently sized retail buildings no more than 35 feet in height and associated at-grade parking areas.

As such, views of the project site would be very similar to the existing Camarillo Town Center immediately to the east (see Figure IV-3, View 5). To the west of the project site is agricultural land (see Figure IV-3, View 6). Short-range views looking south across the project site of Camarillo Airport would be screened with construction of the project. However, views of the airport are not considered scenic vistas. Views to the north are dominated by the Ventura Freeway, beyond them are the Camarillo Hills which are developed with residential uses (see Figure IV-4, View 7). Long-range views of the Santa Monica and Guadalasca Mountains to the southeast and east are generally available due to their elevation; however the flat topography of the site and the intervening buildings to the east may prevent these views from some portions of the project site. Consequently, no other scenic vistas currently exist in the areas around the project site, and construction of the project would not block any scenic vistas and therefore would result in a less-than-significant impact.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur only if scenic resources would be damaged and/or removed by development of the project.

Legend
"^-(2) Photograph Location
Source: The Thomas Guide Digital Edition, 2006.

PROJECT SITE
Camarillo Town
Center
DRAIM
Camarillo Airport
CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Planning and Research
0 2 5 0 5 0 0 7 5 0 1 0 0 0
Scale (Feet)
Figure IV-1
Photograph Location Map
View 1: View of the Project Site looking southwest
toward the Camarillo Airport.

View 2: View of the Project Site looking west
along the current route of Ventura Boulevard.

View 3: View of eastern perimeter of the Project
Site. The Camarillo Town Center is visible to the
right.

Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates. 2006.

CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Planning and Research
Figure IV-2 Views of the Project Site
Views 1-3
View 4: View of the Project Site looking west at
the current terminus of Ventura Boulevard.

View 5: View of the Camarillo Town Center.
ff*
"&J
. ffiiiMPmnr'iff Rw*j
- — • ■ —: "•"- {- -
Br ' • sSH!fi
• - -
^^sn j^
.

View 6: View of agricultural land west of the
Project Site.

Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates. 2006.

CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Planning and Research
Figure IV-3 Views of the Project Site and
Surrounding Uses Views 4-6
View 7: Looking north to residential uses north of Ventura Freeway.

Camarillo City CouncilMay 28, 2025

Camarillo City Council
May 28, 2025