Fillmore Works Specific Plan Notice of Preparation Part 2

8/10/2019 Fillmore Works Specific Plan Notice of Preparation Part 2

1/46

Fillmore Works Specific Plan

Initial Study andNotice of Preparation of a

Draft Environmental Impact Report

Prepared by:

City of FillmorePlanning & Community Development Department

250 Central Avenue

Fillmore, CA 93015

Prepared with the assistance of:

Rincon Consultants, Inc.180 N. Ashwood Avenue

Ventura, California 93003

November 2014


2/46

This report is printed on 30% recycled paper with30% post-consumer content.


3/46

Fillmore Works Specific PlanInitial Study

City of Fillmore01148.0024/229368.2 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Initial Study

1. Project title ................................................................................................................................. 12. Lead agency name and address .............................................................................................. 13. Contact person and phone number ........................................................................................ 14. Project location .......................................................................................................................... 15. Project sponsors name and address ...................................................................................... 16. General plan designation ......................................................................................................... 17. Zoning......................................................................................................................................... 28. Description of project ............................................................................................................... 29. Surrounding land uses and setting ...................................................................................... 1010. Other public agencies whose approval is required ............................................................ 10

Environmental Factors Affected .................................................................................................. 14Determination ................................................................................................................................ 15

Environmental Checklist .............................................................................................................. 16

I. Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 16II. Agriculture and Forest Resources ................................................................................. 16III. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 18IV. Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 19V. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 21VI. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 21

VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 24VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 24IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................... 26X. Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................... 28XI. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 29XII. Noise .................................................................................................................................. 30XIII. Population and Housing ................................................................................................. 31XIV. Public Services .................................................................................................................. 32XIV. Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 33XVI. Transportation/Traffic .................................................................................................... 34XVII. Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 36

XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................. 38

References ........................................................................................................................................ 40


4/46


City of Fillmore01148.0024/229368.2 ii

List of Tables

Table 1 Project Summary ......................................................................................................... 2Table 2 Population, Households, and Employment Projections for Fillmore ................ 32

List of Figures

Figure 1 Regional Location ........................................................................................................ 4Figure 2 Project Location ............................................................................................................ 5Figure 3 Existing General Plan Land Use ................................................................................ 6Figure 4 Proposed General Plan Land Use .............................................................................. 7Figure 5 Existing Zoning ............................................................................................................ 8Figure 6 Proposed Zoning .......................................................................................................... 9Figure 7 Existing City Boundary ............................................................................................... 12Figure 8 Proposed City Boundary............................................................................................. 13


5/46


City of Fillmore01 1

INITIAL STUDY

1. Project title: Fillmore WorksSpecific Plan

2. Lead agency

name and address: City of Fillmore250 Central AvenueFillmore, CA 93015

3. Contact Personand Phone Number: Kevin McSweeney, Community Development Director

(805) 524-1500 x 116

4. Project location: As shown on Figure 1, Regional Location, the approximately 60-acre project site is located in the Santa Clara River valley inVentura County. The project site is regionally accessible fromHighway 126, and locally accessible from Texico Road. As shownon Figure 2, Project Location, the project site is located to the northof Highway 126 and adjacent to existing residential andcommercial development in eastern Fillmore. The majority of theproject site (approximately 52 acres) is currently in unincorporatedVentura County, outside but contiguous to the City of Fillmore. Theentire project site is within the Fillmore City Urban RestrictionBoundary (CURB). The project site includes 14 Assessors parcelnumbers: 041-0-250-080, 041-0-250-120, 041-0-250-130, 053-0-030-220, 053-0-030-230, 053-0-160-205, 041-0-163-180, 041-0-163-190, 041-0-163-200, 050-2-202-200, 050-2-202-240, 041-0-250-110, 041-0-250-190, and 041-0-250-210. The portions of the project site located to the

east of Pole Creek and north of the railroad tracks (shown as RT4N02 on Figure 2), is known as the Pacific Coast Pipeline (PCPL)Superfund site.

5. Project sponsorsname and addresses: Texaco Downstream Properties Inc.

6001 Bollinger Canyon RoadSan Ramon, CA 94583-2324(925) 842-5413

6. General Plan

designation: The Ventura County General Plan land use designation for the 52-acre portion of the project site is Open Space. The City of FillmoreGeneral Plan land use designation for the remaining 8-acreportion of the project site is Residential Low (1-7 du/ac),Commercial Highway, and Public Facilities. The existing land usedesignations are shown on Figure 3. The project applicantproposes the following land use designations: CommercialHighway (CH), Fillmore Works Commercial (FWC),


6/46



Manufacturing/Industrial (MPD), Open Space (O-S), and PublicFacilities (P-F).

7. Zoning: The Ventura County zoning designation for the 52-acre portion ofthe site is Open Space. The City of Fillmore zoning designations

for the remaining 8-acre portion of the project site are ResidentialLow (1-7 du/ac), Commercial Highway, and Public Facilities. Theexisting zoning designations are shown on Figure 5. The projectapplicant proposes the following zoning designations:Commercial Highway (CH), Fillmore Works Commercial (FWC),Manufacturing/Industrial (MPD), Open Space (O-S), and PublicFacilities (P-F).

8. Project description:

The Fillmore Works Specific Plan would provide a framework to guide future land useand development decisions for the 60-acre project site. In addition, a Vesting TentativeTract Map is proposed, establishing the extent of the proposed subdivision of propertyand the tentative engineering details for construction of interior streets, building pads, andsupporting infrastructure.

The Specific Plan proposes a mix of manufacturing and industrial and commercialhighway development along with potential public facilities. Table 1 summarizes theapproximate size of each land use district and the estimated buildout potential. Buildingintensity potential may be reduced due to geotechnical site constraints.

Table 1Specific Plan Summary

Land Use Acres

PotentialProject

Buildout(square feet)

Commercial Highway 2.4 62,727

Fillmore Works Commercial 8.7 228,167

Manufacturing/Industrial 19.6 306,881

Public Facility 2.6 35,284

Open Space 14.9 -

Roads and Infrastructure 11.8 -

Total 60 628,059

*The project also includes two areas for potential annexation outside of the Specific PlanArea as described on page 10.

Land Use Districts

Each of the proposed land use districts is described below.


7/46



Commercial Highway (CH)

This land use district is intended to provide uses such as office, retail, services, and touristoriented business that will serve the surrounding and adjacent community needs.Examples of compatible uses include, but are not limited to, tourist-oriented retail, banks,restaurants, supermarket, auto parts sales, and hotel/motel.

Fillmore Works Commercial (FWC)

This land use district is intended to be a more limited version of the Highway Commercialland use district and would provide a transition between Highway Commercial uses andmanufacturing/industrial uses. Examples of compatible uses include, but are not limitedto, professional office, banks, health club, and equipment rental.

Manufacturing/Industrial (MPD)

This land use district is intended to provide for a range of light manufacturing industrialuses. Examples of compatible uses include, but are not limited to, office, agricultural

warehousing, laboratories, research and development, and solar energy production.

Public Facilities

This land use district is intended to provide a wide range of public and quasi-public usesand activities to serve the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods and the City ofFillmore. Examples of compatible uses include, but are not limited to, parks, police/firestation, utility structures, government offices, library, and recreational facilities.

Open Space

This land use district is intended to preserve and protect local natural resources, naturalhabitats, and provide public and private recreational land to meet the needs of all

segments of the City. Examples of compatible uses include, but are not limited to,recreational facilities, non-vehicular recreation, agriculture, and habitat restoration.

Infrastructure

In addition to the construction of commercial, industrial, public facilities, and open spaceuses, the project would involve construction of infrastructure to improve site access andpublic services. A signalized intersection at the project entrance and Highway 126 isproposed to provide vehicular access to the project site. The current location of thisdriveway access is approximately 600 feet east of the Santa Clara Avenue/Highway 126intersection. However, an alternative access point approximately 1,600 feet east of the

Santa Clara Avenue/Highway 126 intersection will also be considered in conformancewith the Citys General Plan Circulation Element. Pedestrian access to the site would beprovided by a bridge across Pole Creek, which would connect Sespe Avenue to the projectsite. The option of providing vehicular access via this bridge will also be considered.Bicycle and pedestrian improvements would be constructed throughout the site,connecting to Highway 126, the proposed open space area, and the adjacent residentialneighborhoods and commercial land uses. City-owned water and sewer facilities andother public services would also be extended to the project site.


8/46

_

Initial Study

Fillmore Works Project

City of Fillmor e

Regional Location Figure 1

_

0 8,0004,000 Feet

0 3015 Miles

_ Project Location

Imagery provided by ESRI and its licensors 201 3.


9/46

ST126

Texic

oRd

MainSt

MarketS

t

SantaClaraSt

CookD

r

SespeAve

Isla

ndV

iewSt

2NdSt

LoraLn

E TelegraphRd

1StSt

CasnerWay

RT4N02

Initial Study


City of Fillmore

Project Location Figure 2

Imagery provided by ESRI and its licensors 201 3.

0 500250

Scale in Feet

Project Site


10/46

HIGHWAY126

MainStreet

LoraLane

CasnerWay

2ndStreet

IslandV

iewStre

et

MountainView

Street

SespeAvenue

Project Boundary

City Limits April 2009

CURB Line April 2009

Water Channel (Pole Creek)

Railroad

Residential Low (1-7 du/ac)

Commercial Highway

Open Space

Public Facilities

MAP FEATURES

EXISTING GENERAL

PLAN LAND USE

RL

CH

OS

PF

PF

PF

OS

CH

RL


Initial Study

Figure 3City of Fillmore

Existing General Plan Land UseSource: Texaco Downstream Properties Inc, 2012


11/46


Initial Study


Proposed General Plan Land UseSource: Texaco Downstream Properties Inc, 2012

HIGHWAY126

MainStreet

LoraLane

CasnerWay

2ndStreet

IslandViewStre

et

MountainViewStre

et

SespeAvenue

FWCFWC

FWC

P-F

MPD

O-S

CH

MPD

Project Boundary

City Limits



Railroad

Commercial Highway

Fillmore Works Commercial

Manufacturing/Industrial

Public Facilities

Open Space

MAP FEATURES

LAND USE DISTRICTS

MPD

CH

O-S

P-F

FWC


12/46

HIGHWAY126

MainStreet

LoraLane

CasnerWay

2ndStreet

IslandV

iewStre

et

MountainVie

wStre

et

SespeAvenue

Project Boundary




Railroad

Residential Low (1-7 du/ac)

Commercial Highway

Public Facilities

Open Space

MAP FEATURES

EXISTING ZONINGCity

County

R-L

CH

OS

P-F

P-F

P-F

OS

O-S

CH

R-L


Initial Study


Existing ZoningSource: Texaco Downstream Properties Inc, 2012


13/46


Initial Study


Proposed ZoningSource: Texaco Downstream Properties Inc, 2012

HIGHWAY126

MainStreet

LoraLane

CasnerWay

2ndStreet

IslandViewStre

et

MountainViewStre

et

SespeAvenue

FWCFWC

FWC

P-F

MPD

O-S

CH

MPD

Project Boundary

City Limits



Railroad

Commercial Highway

Fillmore Works Commercial

Manufacturing/Industrial

Public Facilities

Open Space

MAP FEATURES

LAND USE DISTRICTS

MPD

CH

O-S

P-F

FWC


14/46



Phasing

Full development, or buildout, of the Fillmore Works Specific Plan Area is expected totake approximate 20 years to complete depending on market conditions. It is currentlyanticipated to be phased generally from south to north with early phases implementedadjacent to Highway 126 and final phases at the northern portion of the Plan Area.

Annexation

As previously noted, portions of the project site are located outside of the city limits, butwithin the CURB boundary. Chevron requests that the City of Fillmore annexapproximately fifty two (52) acres. (Refer to Figures 7 and 8 Existing City Boundaries andProposed Annexation Areas.) Of note are two (2) areas located outside of the projectboundary that are not owned by TDPI. One area is a triangular property (owned byVentura County Watershed Protection District - VCWPD) located northwest of the projectboundary and the other is the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC)railroad corridor that bisects and runs parallel to the southern project boundary. As

annexation can be owner- or City-initiated, Chevron anticipates that the City may initiateannexation of these two (2) parcels to eliminate unincorporated islands.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting:

The western portion of the 60-acre project site is generally flat, while the eastern portion ischaracterized by hillsides. The project site contained an oil refinery from circa 1915 until1950. The refinery was shut down in 1950; dismantled by 1951, leaving approximately eightaboveground storage tanks (ASTs); and converted to a crude oil pumping station by 1952.Pumping station operations discontinued in late 2002, and nearly all remaining facilitieswere dismantled and removed. The last remaining AST was removed in August 2004. Old

pipelines, concrete foundations, and other remaining infrastructure at the site wereexcavated and removed in 2011 and 2012. The western portion of the site has beenextensively graded and final remediation activities are currently being completed.

The project site is bordered to the southwest by commercial and industrial uses; to the westby low-density residential uses, Pole Creek, and an elementary school; to the north and eastby open space; and to the south by Highway 126 and low-density residential andcommercial uses. As shown on Figure 2, the southern portion of the project site is bisectedby the Ventura County Transportation Commission rail line, which runs parallel toHighway 126.

10. Necessary Public Agency Approvals:

The following includes a list of agencies and approvals known, or assumed to be requiredfor one or more components of the proposed Fillmore Works Specific Plan, as required byCEQA GuidelinesSection 15124(d).

City of Fillmore General Plan Land Use Element amendment and zone change

Fillmore General Plan Circulation Element amendment

City of Fillmore Development Permit


15/46



City of Fillmore approval of Specific Plan

City of Fillmore approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map

City of Fillmore and Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) approvalof a sphere of influence amendment and annexation of approximately 52 acres to theCity of Fillmore


16/46


Initial Study


Existing Boundary - Annexation

Source: Texaco Downstream Properties Inc, 2012

HIGHWAY126

MainStreet

ElDoradoDrive

LoraLane

CasnerWay

2ndStreet

IslandViewStre

et

MountainViewStre

et

SespeAvenue

Debris Basin

Rail YardProject Boundary

Sphere of Inuence


CURB Line

Railroad

MAP FEATURES


17/46


Initial Study


Annexation Area

Source: Texaco Downstream Properties Inc, 2012

HIGHWAY126

MainStreet

ElDoradoDrive

LoraLane

CasnerWay

2ndStreet

IslandV

iewStre

et

MountainViewStre

et

SespeAvenue

Debris Basin

Rail Yard

Project Boundary

Sphere of Inuence

Proposed City Limits

CURB Line

Railroad

Property owned by others.

City to initiate Annexation

Request.

Area to be Annexed

MAP FEATURES


18/46



ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AFFECTED

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

AestheticsAgriculture and ForestResources

Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Greenhouse GasEmissions

Hazards & HazardousMaterials

Hydrology/WaterQuality

Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population/Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems

Mandatory Findings of

Significance


19/46


City of Fi l lmore

01 15

DETERMINATION:

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 in the project have beenmade by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVEDECLARATION will be prepared.

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

I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially

significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has beenadequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described onattached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyzeonly the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIRor NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have beenavoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, includingrevisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothingfurther is required.

for 11/4/2014Kevin McSweeney, Community Development Director DateCity of Fillmore


20/46



ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

PotentiallySignificant

Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated

Less thanSignificant

Impact

No

Impact

I. AESTHETICS Would the Project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on ascenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including, but not limited to, trees, rockoutcroppings, and historic buildings withina state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visualcharacter or quality of the site and its

surroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light orglare which would adversely affect day ornighttime views in the area?

a-d) Portions of the project site are visible from scenic vistas and public view corridors,including residential streets across Pole Creek to the west of the project site and Highway 126 tothe south. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) lists Highway 126 as eligiblefor designation as a scenic highway between Highway 150 to the west of Fillmore and Interstate5 to the east (Caltrans, 2013). The proposed project would primarily involve development of theflatter, western portion of the site, but nevertheless would be visible from both public view

corridors (including Highway 126) and from private residences to the west across Pole Creek.As such, it could substantially alter views. Development of the project would also change thevisual character of the site and produce light and glare that may be visible from the residentialneighborhood to the west. Therefore, the project would have potentially significant aestheticimpacts and such impacts will be addressed in an EIR.


Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRESOURCES --Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, UniqueFarmland, Farmland of StatewideImportance (Farmland), as shown on themaps prepared pursuant to the FarmlandMapping and Monitoring Program of theCalifornia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?


21/46




Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST

RESOURCES --Would the project:

b) Conflict with existing zoning foragricultural use, or a Williamson Actcontract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or causerezoning of, forest land (as defined inPublic Resources Code Section12220(g)), timberland (as defined byPublic Resources Code Section 4526), ortimberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code Section51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land orconversion of forest land to non-forestuse?

e) Involve other changes in the existingenvironment which, due to their locationor nature, could result in conversion ofFarmland, to non-agricultural use?

a, c, d) The majority of the 60-acre project site has been previously disturbed by industrialactivities associated with oil production. Although the California Department of Conservationhas designated the eastern portion of the project site as Grazing Land, the site is not located in

the vicinity of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Inaddition, the project would not directly or indirectly result in the conversion of farmland tonon-agricultural use. Since the project site and vicinity do not contain forest land, the projectwould neither conflict with existing zoning for forest land nor result in the loss of forest land.The impact would be less than significant and further analysis in an EIR is not warranted.

b, e) Neither the project site nor surrounding land is zoned for agriculture. The majority of a399.5-acre parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 041-0-250-200) adjacent to the project site to the eastis under Williamson Act contract. Under provisions of the Act, private landowners mayvoluntarily enter into a long-term contract (minimum of 10 years) with cities and counties toform agricultural preserves and maintain their property in agricultural or open space uses in

return for a reduced property tax assessment based on the agricultural value of the property.The 15 acres of open space proposed along the majority of the project sites interface with thisparcel would serve as a buffer between existing agricultural uses and proposed industrial uses.Therefore, impacts related to conflicts with agricultural zoning and potential conversion ofother agricultural lands would be less than significant. Further analysis in an EIR is notwarranted.


22/46




Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

III. AIR QUALITY -- Would the Project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation ofthe applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard orcontribute substantially to an existing orprojected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable netincrease of any criteria pollutant for whichthe Project region is non-attainment underan applicable federal or state ambient airquality standard (including releasing

emissions which exceed quantitativethresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantialpollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting asubstantial number of people?

a) The project site is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin, which is within thejurisdiction of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). According to theAPCD Guidelines, a project that does not conform to the applicable general plan may beinconsistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The proposed project would

require a City of Fillmore General Plan amendment and, therefore, may interfere withattainment of state or federal air quality standards. Impacts are potentially significant and willbe analyzed further in an EIR.

b-d) The development of commercial and manufacturing/industrial uses on the project sitewould generate a net increase in energy use and motor vehicle traffic. According to an AirQuality Technical Report by URS in May 2012, modeling of the proposed projects operationalemissions using the CalEEMod program indicate that VOC and NOxemissions could exceedVentura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) significance thresholds. The projectcould also potentially contribute to violations of state or federal air quality standards due to theincrease in traffic on and around the project site.

Construction activity associated with the proposed project would also generate temporaryincreases in emissions of ozone precursors and fugitive dust due to the use of heavyconstruction equipment, grading activity, and truck trips. Such emissions could exceedVCAPCD thresholds and cause temporary impacts to neighboring residential uses, which areasclose as 25 feet to the west of the site, and the San Cayetano Elementary School, locatedapproximately 175 feet to the west.


23/46



Both temporary construction impacts and long-term impacts associated with projectoperation are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.

e) Figure 5-5, Land Uses Associated with Odor Complaints,of the SCAQMD CEQA Air QualityHandbook (accessed online, October 2014) identifies the following land uses associated with

odor complaints: Agriculture, Wastewater Treatment Plants, Food Processing Plants, ChemicalPlants, Composting, Refineries, Landfills, Dairies, and Fiberglass Molding Plants. Based on thislist, future activities within the proposed Manufacturing/Industrial zone on the project sitewould not be expected to result in objectionable odors experienced by sensitive receptors to thewest. Construction activities may generate temporary odor issues due to the use of dieselequipment. However, compliance with requirements in the City of Fillmore Municipal Codewould protect adjoining areas from excessive odor. Pursuant to City of Fillmore MunicipalCode Section 6.04.1805, Any existing or proposed use producing odors or noxious matter inquantities that can or may become a public nuisance/hazard shall have the source of thecontaminant controlled in order to prevent the issuance, continuance or recurrence of anyemission detectable beyond the boundary lines of the subject parcel. Therefore,impactsrelated to objectionable odors would be less than significant andfurther analysis in an EIR isnot warranted.


Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, eitherdirectly or through habitat modifications,

on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive, or special status species in localor regional plans, policies, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fishand Game or U.S. Fish and WildlifeService?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on anyriparian habitat or other sensitive naturalcommunity identified in local or regionalplans, policies, or regulations, or by theCalifornia Department of Fish and Gameor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect onfederally protected wetlands as defined bySection 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through directremoval, filling, hydrological interruption,or other means?


24/46




Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:

d) Interfere substantially with the movementof any native resident or migratory fish orwildlife species or with established nativeresident or migratory wildlife corridors, orimpede the use of native wildlife nurserysites?

e) Conflict with any local policies orordinances protecting biologicalresources, such as a tree preservationpolicy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adoptedHabitat Conservation Plan, NaturalCommunity Conservation Plan, or otherapproved local, regional, or state habitatconservation plan?

a-d) The project site primarily consists of disturbed, vacant land that was formerly occupied byindustrial uses. The eastern portion of the project site contains natural open space, where a May2012 Biological Technical Report by URS identified the vegetation communities VenturanCoastal Sage Scrub, Southern Willow Scrub, and Non-Native Grassland. Although this reportconcluded that the project site generally lacks suitable habitat for special-status species, the sitedoes include some of the requisite habitat for the Coastal California gnatcatcher, as well as a

feature (Pole Creek) that may be within the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fishand Wildlife (CDFW), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Regional WaterQuality Control Board (RWQCB). Thus, the project could potentially affect a federally protectedwater resource that also potentially serves as a migration corridor for steelhead trout.Consequently, the project would have a potentially significant impact to biological resourcesand impacts will be further analyzed in an EIR.

e) No specific City policies pertaining to preservation of biological resources apply to the projectsite. Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard and further analysis of this issue in anEIR is not warranted.

f) The project site is not within an area that is subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved conservation plan. No impactwould occur and further investigation of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


25/46




Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change inthe significance of a historical resource asdefined in 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change inthe significance of an archaeologicalresource as defined in 15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a uniquepaleontological resource or site or uniquegeologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, includingthose interred outside of formalcemeteries?

a) No structures or other resources of potential historic significance are present onsite.Therefore, there would be no impact to historic resources and further analysis of this issue inan EIR is not warranted.

b-d) An Archaeological Reconnaissance Report by URS in December 2011 found that the projectsite retains several historic features associated with oil-related activities that occurred between1915 and 2002, including the remnants of building foundations. However, the condition ofexisting historic features is generally very poor, and no intact historic buildings remain on-site.

Furthermore, the report concluded that significant archaeological resources are not present onthe project site. Such resources would have been removed previously due to extensive grounddisturbance from activities associated with previous oil facilities, the demolition of dozens ofstructures on the site, and the installation of hundreds of pipeline segments throughout the site.Nevertheless, ground-disturbing activities during construction have the potential to result indiscovery of unanticipated cultural resources, including unique paleontological resources andhuman remains. Therefore, impacts are potentially significant and impacts will be analyzedfurther in an EIR.

PotentiallySignificantImpact


UnlessMitigationIncorporated

Less thanSignificantImpact

NoImpact

VI. GEOLOGY and SOILS Would the Project:

a) Expose people or structures to potentialsubstantial adverse effects, including therisk of loss, injury, or death involving:


26/46




Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

VI. GEOLOGY and SOILS Would the Project:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake FaultZoning Map issued by the StateGeologist for the area or based onother substantial evidence of a knownfault?

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure,

including liquefaction?iv) Landslides?

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or theloss of topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that isunstable as a result of the Project, andpotentially result in on- or off-sitelandslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction, or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as definedin -B of the Uniform Building Code,

creating substantial risks to life orproperty?

e) Have soils incapable of adequatelysupporting the use of septic tanks oralternative wastewater disposal systemswhere sewers are not available for thedisposal of wastewater?

a. i and ii) Southern California is located in an active seismic region. As such, development thatoccurs within the region has the potential of exposing people and/or structures to potentiallysubstantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault. To evaluate the

potential of geological hazards, URS conducted an Engineering Geology and GeotechnicalInvestigation on August 6, 2012. According to this report, the project site is located on the SanCayetano Fault and in close proximity to several other active faults. The Oakridge Fault islocated approximately one mile to the south, with the Santa Susana Fault 8 miles to thesoutheast, the Simi-Santa Rosa Fault 9 miles to the south, the Santa Ynez Fault 14 miles to thenorthwest, the San Gabriel Fault 16 miles to the northeast, and the San Andreas Fault 26 milesto the northeast. Ground motion caused by an earthquake is likely to occur at the site during thelifetime of the development due to the proximity of several active and potentially active faults.Therefore, the project site is subject to potential hazards associated with surface fault rupture


27/46



and ground shaking. Impacts are potentially significant and this issue will be analyzedfurther in an EIR.

a. iii.) Liquefaction is a process whereby soil is temporarily transformed to a fluid form duringintense and prolonged ground shaking or because of a sudden shock or strain. Liquefaction

typically occurs in areas where the groundwater is less than 30 feet from the surface and wherethe soils are composed of poorly consolidated fine to medium sand. The Engineering Geologyand Geotechnical Investigation found a low potential for lateral spreading toward Pole Creekalong the western boundary of the project site, due to the depth of liquefiable soil. Nevertheless,the project site may be subject to seismically induced settlement as a result of liquefaction.Impacts are potentially significant and this issue will be analyzed further in an EIR.

a. iv.) Although the western portion of the site is generally flat, the eastern portion has relativelysteep terrain and is located in an area with the potential for earthquake-induced landslides,according to the California Department of Conservation Seismic Hazard Zone map of theFillmore Quadrangle (California Department of Conservation, 2002). In this area, heavy rainfall,seismic shaking, and mass grading during construction could induce slope instability. Impactsare potentially significant and this issue will be analyzed further in an EIR.

b) Construction activity associated with site development may result in the erosion of soils fromwind and water, especially on the relatively steep southeastern portion of the site where theproject would accommodate commercial uses. Impacts are potentially significant and thisissue will be analyzed further in an EIR.

c) As discussed in section a.iv) above, the project site is potentially subject to landslides,seismically induced settlement, liquefaction, or collapse. Soil and bedrock on the site may beunstable. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.

d) Although tests conducted by the Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Investigation

indicated that soils near ground level of the site of the project are non-expansive, the reportrecommended additional site-specific testing of soil for expansiveness. Expansive soils areprimarily comprised of clays, which increase in volume when water is absorbed and shrinkwhen dry. Expansive soils are of concern since building foundations may rise during the rainyseason and fall during dry periods in response to the clays action. If movement varies underdifferent parts of the building, structural portions of the building may distort. Impacts arepotentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.

e) On-site development would be served by the City of Fillmore wastewater treatment system.Septic systems or other alternative wastewater treatment systems would not be used andanalysis of the soil capability of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater

disposal systems is therefore not needed. No impact would occur and further analysis of thisissue in an EIR is not warranted.


28/46




Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly, that may havea significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy,or regulation adopted for the purpose ofreducing the emissions of greenhousegases?

a)The proposed project would generate traffic to and from the site, and would also increase onsite

energy consumption. Both traffic and onsite energy consumption would potentially generateemissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), which would incrementally contribute to global climatechange. This potentially significantimpact will be analyzed further in an EIR.

b) The City of Fillmore has not adopted any plans or policies related to reducing GHG emissions.However, both the California Climate Action Team (CCAT) and the Attorney General haveadopted plans and recommended strategies for reducing GHG emissions. In, addition theSouthern California Association of Governments has adopted the regional SustainableCommunities Strategy (SCS), which is aimed at reducing GHG emissions through land useplanning. Impacts related to these plans and policies would be potentially significantand will bestudied further in an EIR.


Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

VIII. HAZARDS and HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the Project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment through the routinetransport, use, or disposal of hazardousmaterials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment through reasonablyforeseeable upset and accident conditionsinvolving the release of hazardousmaterials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handlehazardous or acutely hazardousmaterials, substances, or waste within


29/46




Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

VIII. HAZARDS and HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the Project:

mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included ona list of hazardous material sites compiledpursuant to Government Code Section65962.5 and, as a result, would it create asignificant hazard to the public or theenvironment?

e) For a project located within an airport landuse plan or, where such a plan has notbeen adopted, within two miles of a public

airport or public use airport, would theProject result in a safety hazard for peopleresiding or working in the Project area?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a privateairstrip, would the Project result in asafety hazard for people residing orworking in the Project area?

g) Impair implementation of or physicallyinterfere with an adopted emergencyresponse plan or emergency evacuationplan?

h) Expose people or structures to a

significant risk of loss, injury, or deathinvolving wildland fires, including wherewildlands are adjacent to urbanized areasor where residences are intermixed withwildlands?

a-d) The portion of the project site to the east of Pole Creek and to the north of the VenturaCounty Transportation Commission railroad tracks is located on the PCPL Superfund site.Sensitive receptors are located in proximity to the Superfund site; outdoor activity areas at SanCayetano Elementary School are approximately 120 feet to the west of the site.

According to a May 2012 Hazardous Materials Technical Memorandum by URS, the Superfundsite contained an oil refinery from circa 1915 until 1950. The refinery was shut down in 1950;dismantled by 1951, leaving approximately eight aboveground storage tanks (ASTs); andconverted to a crude oil pumping station by 1952. Pumping station operations discontinued inlate 2002, and nearly all remaining facilities were dismantled and removed. The last remainingAST was removed in August 2004. Old pipelines, concrete foundations, and other remaininginfrastructure at the site were excavated and removed in 2011 and 2012. Final cleanup activitiesare in the process of being completed. Future industrial activities on the project site that use orstore hazardous materials also could potentially result in the accidental release of hazardous


30/46



materials. Site remediation will be completed in accordance with applicable regulatoryrequirements and future onsite activities would be required to adhere to applicable regulationspertaining to the storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials. Nevertheless, health andsafety impacts associated with historic contamination and the potential for future hazardousmaterial releases are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.

e-f) The project site is located approximately 9.5 miles northeast of the nearest airport - SantaPaula Airport and is not located within an airport land use plan. Implementation of theproposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people working on the project site.Therefore, impacts related to airports and private airstrips are less than significant and willnot be analyzed further in an EIR.

g) Implementation of the proposed project would facilitate the construction of commercial,manufacturing/industrial, and public facilities uses on the project site. Future developmentunder the project would be subject to City Fire Department safety and access requirements inorder to ensure that such development would not impair or interfere with an adoptedemergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There would be no impact and

further analysis in an EIR is not warranted.

h) The project site is adjacent to an undeveloped hillside that is a high risk area with respect towildland fire. A hazards analysis is necessary to determine whether proposed developmentstandards would be sufficient to address the potential for wildland fires to affect future sitestructures. Therefore, impacts related to wildland fire are potentially significant and will beanalyzed further in an EIR.

Potentially

SignificantImpact


Unless

MitigationIncorporated

Less than

SignificantImpact NoImpact

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards orwaste discharge requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwatersupplies or interfere substantially withgroundwater recharge such that therewould be a net deficit in aquifer volume ora lowering or the local groundwater tablelevel (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a levelwhich would not support existing landuses or planned uses for which permitshave been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainagepattern of the site or area, includingthrough the alteration of the course of astream or river, in a manner which would


31/46




Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project:

result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainagepattern of the site or area, including thealteration of the course of a stream orriver, or substantially increase the rate oramount of surface runoff in a mannerwhich would result in flooding on- or off-site?

e) Create or contribute runoff water whichwould exceed the capacity of existing orplanned stormwater drainage systems orprovide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade waterquality?

g) Place housing within a 100-year floodhazard area as mapped on a federalFlood Hazard Boundary or FloodInsurance Rate Map or other flood hazarddelineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard areastructures which would impede or redirectflood flows?

i) Expose people or structures to asignificant risk of loss, injury, or deathinvolving flooding, including flooding as aresult of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, ormudflow?

a-b) The proposed project would facilitate the development of commercial, manufacturing/

industrial, and public facilities uses on a vacant former industrial site. Such urban developmentwould substantially increase the amount of impervious surface on the project site, which couldresult in depletion of groundwater recharge. In addition, urban uses could increase thedischarge of pollutants into surface or nearby ground water sources such as Pole Creek. Thedischarge of pollutants would potentially affect compliance with water quality standards orwaste discharge requirements.Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzedfurther in an EIR.


32/46



c-f) Implementation of the proposed project would alter surface water runoff patterns in theproject area due to the increase in impervious surfaces in the area. As described above insubsection (a)-(b), implementation of the project could also potentially increase contaminants insurface runoff from the site. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed furtherin an EIR.

g) The proposed project would facilitate the development of commercial, manufacturing/industrial, and public facilities uses on a vacant former refinery site. As no residential uses areproposed on the project site, the project would not result in placement of housing within 100-year flood areas. There would be no impact and further analysis in an EIR is not warranted.

h-i) In May 2012, URS published a Regional Flood Hazard Information/Assessment onhydrological conditions at the project site. According to this report, an existing flood controlchannel adjacent to the project site (Pole Creek) historically posed a flood hazard to the City ofFillmore and portions of the project site as reflected on the current Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Although floodcontrol improvements to Pole Creek and the Santa Clara River have been under constructionsince 2007 as part of the Heritage Valley Parks (HVP) project, these improvements have notbeen completed. Consequently, FEMA has not yet issued a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) toreflect these changes to the FIRM. Therefore, implementation of the project could exposestructures and people to flood hazards. Impacts are potentially significant and will beanalyzed further in an EIR.

j) According to the Ventura County General Plan Hazards Appendix, there is no record of aseiche occurring in the County and the threat posed by this phenomenon is small. Tsunamiinundation areas are confined to the coastal margin along the Oxnard Plain and would notaffect the project site, which is located 23 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. Nevertheless, asdiscussed in Section VI, Geology and Soils, the project site is potentially subject to landslides.

Mudflow impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.


Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:

a) Physically divide an establishedcommunity?

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with

jurisdiction over the project (including, butnot limited to the general plan, specificplan, local coastal program, or zoningordinance) adopted for the purpose ofavoiding or mitigating an environmentaleffect?

c) Conflict with an applicable habitat


33/46




Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:

conservation plan or natural communityconservation plan?

a) The proposed project involves designation of commercial, manufacturing/industrial, publicfacilities, and open space uses. The project involves the annexation and future development ofan uninhabited area that is currently part of unincorporated Ventura County. Consequently, itwould not interrupt neighborhood continuity or connectivity, or otherwise physically divide anestablished community. The impact would be less than significant andfurther analysis in anEIR is not warranted.

b) The proposed project would require an amendment to the Fillmore General Plan, zonechange, adoption of a Specific Plan, and approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. It wouldalso require annexation of the majority of the site to the City of Fillmore. This annexation andassociated governmental reorganization would be subject to approval by the Ventura CountyLocal Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). It would also be subject to regional land usepolicies adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Impactsrelated to consistency with applicable land use policies of the City of Fillmore, the VenturaCounty LAFCo, the applicable policies of the Ventura County General Plan, and SCAG arepotentially significant and will be studied further in an EIR.

c) The project site is located on a former industrial site adjacent to the City of Fillmore. Nohabitat/natural community conservation plans apply to the site. Although the hillsides on theeastern portion of the project site contain natural open space, as described in the BiologicalResources section, this area would be preserved under the proposed project. Therefore, noimpact would occur and further analysis in an EIR is not warranted.


Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a knownmineral resource that would be of value tothe region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery sitedelineated on a local general plan,specific plan, or other land use plan?


34/46



a-b) Based on Figure 1b in the Ventura County General Plan, the project site is not locatedwithin a Mineral Resource Area as defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology(Ventura County General Plan, 2011). In addition, the project site is not underlain by known oilresources (Figure 1.4.7, Ventura County General Plan Hazards Appendix, 2011). The proposed

project involves redevelopment of vacant land that was previously developed for industrialuses and is located adjacent to an urbanized area of Fillmore (see Figure 2). Moreover, theproposed development would not conflict with the only policy in the Fillmore General Plan thatpertains to extraction of mineral resources. According to Policy IV-19, The City shall encourageonly such mineral operations that are aesthetically controlled and environmentally sound in thenatural water courses. No mineral resources of value to the region or the residents of the statehave been identified within the project site, and the project site is not suited for resourceextraction given its proximity to urban development. Hence, no impact would occur andfurther analysis in an EIR is not required.


Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XII. NOISE Would the Project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation ofnoise levels in excess of standardsestablished in the local general plan ornoise ordinance, or applicable standardsof other agencies?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of

excessive groundborne vibration orgroundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase inambient noise levels above levels existingwithout the Project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodicincrease in ambient noise levels in theProject vicinity above levels existingwithout the Project?

e) For a project located within an airport landuse plan or, where such a plan has notbeen adopted, within two miles of a publicairport or public use airport, would theProject expose people residing or workingin the Project area to excessive noiselevels?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a privateairstrip, would the Project expose peopleresiding or working in the Project area toexcessive noise?


35/46



a-d) The proposed project is bisected by the Ventura County Transportation Commissionrailroad tracks and adjacent to Highway 126. Therefore, the project site is subject to traffic andrailroad noise. Activities associated with residential uses and public facilities to the west of PoleCreek also contribute to the ambient noise environment on the project site. The proposed projectwould facilitate construction of commercial, manufacturing/industrial, and public facilities

uses, which could temporarily generate noise levels while construction is on-going potentiallyin excess of City standards. Construction on the project site could also expose sensitivereceptors residing in the neighborhood to the west of Pole Creek to ground borne vibration.Therefore, impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.

e, f) The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airportor a private airstrip. Hence, implementation of the proposed project would not expose peopleworking on the project site to excessive noise levels from airport or aircraft operations. Noimpact would occur and further investigation of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the Project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in anarea, either directly (for example, byproposing new homes and businesses) orindirectly (for example, through extensionof roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing

housing, necessitating the construction ofreplacement housing elsewhere?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction ofreplacement housing elsewhere?

a) The Citys current and projected levels of population, households, and employment aredisplayed below in Table 2. Fillmore has a current population of 15,339 and is expected to addan estimated 5,461 residents by 2035. The proposed project would facilitate construction of 11acres of commercial uses and 20 acres of manufacturing/industrial uses, but does not involvethe construction of any housing. As such, the project would not directly generate population

growth. The addition of onsite jobs may indirectly contribute to population growth in the areaby causing people to relocate to the area for local job opportunities; however, such growth isspeculative and is not expected to exceed population forecasts for the City. Impacts related topopulation growth would be less than significant and further analysis in an EIR is notwarranted.


36/46



Table 2Population, Households, and

Employment Projections for Fillmore

2014

2020b

2035b

Population

15,339a

18,000 20,800

Households

4,452a

5,100 5,900

Employment

3,200b

3,500 3,900

Source:aCalifornia Department of Finance, 2014.

bSCAG 2012 RTP/SCS, Growth Forecast Appendix.

b, c) Implementation of the proposed project would facilitate development of commercial,manufacturing/industrial, and open spaces uses on a site that is currently vacant. Therefore,implementation of the project would not displace housing or people. No impact would occur

and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

a) Would the project result in substantialadverse physical impacts associated withthe provision of new or physically alteredgovernmental facilities, or the need fornew or physically altered governmentalfacilities, the construction of which couldcause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable serviceratios, response times or otherperformance objectives for any of thepublic services:

i) Fire protection?

ii) Police protection?

iii) Schools?

iv) Parks?

v) Other public facilities?

a. i.-ii.) The Fillmore Police Department (staffed by the Ventura County Sheriffs Department)and the Fillmore Volunteer Fire Department serve the City. The Citys police station is locatedapproximately 0.5 miles west of the project site, and the Fillmore City Fire Department Station91 is located 0.8 miles west of the project site. Under the proposed project, the portion of the


37/46



project site that is outside the Citys current corporate boundary would be annexed and theservice area for these providers would be expanded to encompass the entire project site. Theproposed project would facilitate the development of 11 acres of commercial uses and 20 acresof manufacturing/industrial uses. As a result of such future development, the proposed projectcould potentially create police and fire service demand increases that may necessitate the

construction of new or expanded facilities that may result in significant environmental effects.Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.

a. iii.) Since the proposed project would not accommodate the construction of residential uses, itwould not directly result in the addition of students at local public schools. Nevertheless, inaccordance with State law, the project applicant would be required to pay applicable schoolimpact fees to the Fillmore Unified School District in accordance with state law. Pursuant toSection 65995(3)(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27,1998), the payment of statutory fees ...is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of theimpacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, theplanning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization orreorganization. Thus, payment of the development fees is considered full mitigation for the

project's impacts under CEQA and no additional mitigation would be required. Impacts topublic schools would be less than significant and this issue further analysis of this issue inan EIR is not warranted.

a. iv.) As discussed in Section XIII, Population and Housing, future commercial andmanufacturing/industrial uses on the project site would not directly induce population growthin the City, which would increase demand for public services such as parks. Accordingly, therewould be no adverse impact on existing parks within the City. The proposed project woulddedicate additional recreational space in the form of 15 acres of open space on the eastern slopesof the project site. This area is intended to include passive recreation opportunities such aspedestrian and bicycle trails.With the provision of open space available for public use,

overall impacts related to public parks would be beneficial. There would no adverse impactsand further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

a. v.) The proposed project would not adversely affect any other public facilities. No impactwould occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XV. RECREATION

a) Would the Project increase the use ofexisting neighborhood and regional parksor other recreational facilities such thatsubstantial physical deterioration of thefacility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the Project include recreationalfacilities or require the construction or


38/46




Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XV. RECREATION

expansion of recreational facilities whichmight have an adverse physical effect onthe environment?

a) As discussed in Section XIV, Public Services, implementation of the proposed project wouldnot add residential uses to the City; rather, the project would facilitate the development ofcommercial and manufacturing/industrial uses, which would not directly generate demand forrecreational facilities. In addition, the proposed project would increase the supply of parklandin the City by dedicating 15 acres of open space in the eastern portion of the project site. This

area is intended to include passive recreation opportunities such as pedestrian and bicycletrails.With the provision of recreational facilities for public use, impacts to existing facilitieswould be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

b) The proposed project would dedicate 15 acres of open space on the eastern portion of theproject site. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, this area contains coastal sage scrub,willow scrub, and grassland habitat. The construction of recreational facilities such aspedestrian and bicycle trails within the open space area could result in a significant effect on theenvironment. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of recreational facilities would bepotentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR biological resources section.


Impact

Potentially

SignificantUnless



ImpactNo

Impact

XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC-- Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinanceor policy establishing a measure ofeffectiveness for the performance of thecirculation system, taking into account allmodes of transportation, including mass

transit and non-motorized travel andrelevant components of the circulationsystem, including but not limited tointersections, streets, highways, andfreeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestionmanagement program, including, but notlimited to level of service standards and


39/46




Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC-- Would the project:

travel demand measures, or otherstandards established by the countycongestion management agency fordesignated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in trafficlevels or a change in location that resultsin substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to adesign feature (e.g., sharp curves ordangerous intersections) or incompatibleuse (e.g., farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, orprograms regarding public transit,bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, orotherwise substantially decrease theperformance or safety of such facilities?

a, b) The proposed project would accommodate approximately 15 acres of open space uses, 20acres of manufacturing/industrial uses, 11 acres of commercial uses, and 2.6 acres of public

facilities uses. Onsite manufacturing/industrial and commercial development would increasetraffic to and from the site, which could adversely affect service levels on roadways in theproject site vicinity, in particular along Highway 126. If vehicular access is provided across PoleCreek, the project may also increase traffic in the residential neighborhood immediately west ofthe project site, particularly along Sespe Avenue. Therefore, impacts are potentially significantand will be analyzed further in an EIR.

c) The proposed project would not affect air traffic patterns. No impact would occur andfurther analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

d) The proposed project includes alterations to the existing circulation network in the project

site, including construction of a signalized railroad crossing and a signalized intersectionproviding ingress and egress via Highway 126. The existing railroad crossing would be movedto the east to improve land use efficiency and site safety. No increased hazards due to proposeddesign features have been identified. All new roads and driveways would be required tocomply with applicable City and Caltrans standards pertaining to site access and visibility.Nevertheless,impacts related to safety along Highway 126 are potentially significant and thisissue will be studied further in an EIR.


40/46



e) Primary access to the project site would be provided by a signalized intersection on Highway126, with additional pedestrian and potential vehicle access available via a proposed bridgeacross Pole Creek connecting to the eastern end of Sespe Avenue. Access would be required tomeet Fire Department specifications. However, congestion along Highway 126 and otherroadways within the City could hinder site access. Site access issues are potentially significant

and will be studied further in an EIR.

f) The proposed project would involve construction of a pedestrian and bicycle-accessiblebridge across Pole Creek from Sespe Avenue to the project site. Bicycle improvements wouldextend from Sespe Avenue through the site and connecting to Highway 126 and the proposedopen space area. Although these features of the project would improve the Citys alternativetransportation network, the future increase in commercial, manufacturing/ industrial, and openspace uses on the project site could generate substantial demand for public transit, bikeways, orpedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant and this issue willbe studied further in an EIR.


Impact

Potentially

SignificantUnless



ImpactNo

Impact

XVII. UTILITIES Would the Project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatmentrequirements of the applicable RegionalWater Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction ofnew water or wastewater treatment

facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could causesignificant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction ofnew storm water drainage facilities orexpansion of existing facilities, theconstruction of which could causesignificant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available toserve the Project from existingentitlements and resources, or are new orexpanded entitlements needed?

e) Result in a determination by thewastewater treatment provider whichserves or may serve the Project that it hasadequate capacity to serve the Projectsprojected demand in addition to theproviders existing commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficientpermitted capacity to accommodate theProjects solid waste disposal needs?


41/46




Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XVII. UTILITIES Would the Project:

g) Comply with federal, state, and localstatutes and regulations related to solidwaste?

a) The proposed project would accommodate 15 acres of open space uses, 20 acres ofmanufacturing/industrial uses, 11 acres of commercial uses, and 2.6 acres of public facilitiesuses. Such development would increase onsite wastewater generation and could potentiallygenerate effluent that exceeds the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional WaterQuality Control Board. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in anEIR.

b, e) The Fillmore Water Recycling Plant, run by American Water, has provided zero-dischargewastewater treatment to the City since 2009. The plant was updated for the purpose of meetingtreatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and to accommodate theCitys project wastewater flows through 2028, with an eventual capacity of 2.4 million gallonsper day (AECOM, 2013). Nevertheless, the development of 20 acres of manufacturing/industrial uses and 11 acres of commercial uses on the project site would increase the volume ofwastewater treated by the Fillmore Water Recycling Plant and may require the extension ofsewer lines and/or recycled water lines to the project site. Impacts are potentially significantand will be analyzed further in an EIR.

c) As discussed in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, future development facilitated bythe proposed project would alter storm water drainage on the project site. This could potentiallyadversely affect the local storm drain system. Furthermore, potential commercial andmanufacturing/industrial uses on the project site could require the extension of storm waterdrain facilities. Impacts would be potentially significant and this issue will be analyzedfurther in an EIR.

d) Future development on the project site would receive water from the City of Fillmore, whichdraws groundwater from the Fillmore aquifer and has potential additional supplies of importedState water through a 1995 Memorandum of Understanding with the United WaterConservation District and other parties (City of Fillmore, 2000). Based on the anticipated level of

demand, a water supply assessment (WSA) is required to identify existing water supplyentitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply forthe proposed project and water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights,and contracts. Since the project requires annexation to the City, its water demand is outside thatconsidered in the Citys latest Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Therefore, additionalanalysis is needed to determine whether existing and planned water supplies are sufficient.Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.


42/46



f, g) Fillmores waste disposal service is provided by Harrison Industries, a private contractor.Solid waste from the City is routed to Gold Coast Recycling & Transfer Station in Ventura,whereupon disposal waste is transported to the Toland Road Landfill (Harrison, 2013; GoldCoast, 2013). This landfill is a fully permitted non-hazardous solid waste disposal facility thatreceives municipal, construction-related, agricultural, and industrial material as well as

biosolids. The Toland Road Landfill has a permitted capacity of 1,500 tons/day and had anaverage intake of 919.8 tons/day in 2011 (CalRecycle, 2013). Implementation of the projectwould generate additional solid waste from commercial and manufacturing/industrial uses,which could potentially exceed the capacity of the Toland Road Landfill. Impacts related tosolid waste generation are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.


Impact


UnlessMitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OFSIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential tosubstantially reduce the habitat of a fish orwildlife species, cause a fish or wildlifepopulation to drop below self- sustaininglevels, eliminate a plant or animalcommunity, reduce the number or restrictthe range of a rare or endangered plant oranimal or eliminate important examples ofthe major periods of California history orprehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that areindividually limited, but cumulativelyconsiderable? (Cumulativelyconsiderable means that the incrementaleffects of a project are considerable whenviewed in connection with the effects ofpast projects, the effects of other currentprojects, and the effects of probable futureprojects)?

c) Does the project have environmentaleffects which will cause substantialadverse effects on human beings, eitherdirectly or indirectly?

a) Implementation of the proposed project would have the potential to adversely affect on-sitebiological resources, as discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources. Although cultural resourcesare not known to be present onsite, site development could potentially disturb as yetundiscovered cultural resources, as discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources. Impacts tobiological and cultural resources are potentially significant and will be analyzed further inan EIR.


43/46



b) The proposed project would facilitate the development of commercial, manufacturing/industrial, and open space uses. Implementation of the project would intensify the use of the 60-acre site and, in conjunction with other planned and pending development in the area, couldcreate significant cumulative impacts, particularly with respect to such issue areas astransportation, air quality, GHGs, and noise. Cumulative impacts associated with

implementation of the proposed project are potentially significant and will be analyzedfurther in an EIR.

c) Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beingsthrough air pollution, the release and use of hazardous materials, noise, geological conditions,and hydrologic conditions. In addition, as discussed in Section VIII, Hazards and HazardousMaterials, the portion of the project site to the east of Pole Creek and to the north of the VenturaCounty Transportation Commission railroad tracks is located on the PCPL Superfund site.Therefore, impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.


44/46



REFERENCES

AECOM. Fillmore Water Recycling Plant. 2013. Available online athttp://www.aecom.com/What+We+Do/Water/Market+Sectors/Water+Design+Build/_carousel/Fillmore+Water+Recycling+Plant. Accessed April 2013.

California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder.Available online athttp://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html.Accessed April 2013.

California Department of Conservation. Seismic Hazard Zones: Fillmore Quadrangle. December2002. Available online at http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/pdf/ozn_fil.pdf

California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, andthe State, January 2011 and 2012, with 2010 Benchmark.January 2012. Available online athttp://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view.php.Accessed April 2013.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Scenic Highway Program. Eligible (E) andOfficially Designated (OD) Routes. February 2013. Available online athttp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm /. Accessed April 2013..

CalRecycle. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS). Available online athttp://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/. Accessed May 2013.

City of Fillmore.

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	thefillmoregazette
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Fillmore Works Specific Plan Notice of Preparation Part 2

Documents