CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project Initial Study prepared by California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority One University Drive Camarillo, California 93012 prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003 November 2016 CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project Initial Study prepared for California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority One University Drive Camarillo, California 93012 prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003 November 2016 Table of Contents Table of Contents Initial Study 1 1 Project Title 1 2 Lead Agency Name and Address 1 3 Contact Person and Phone Number 1 4 Project Sponsor's Name and Address 1 5 Project Location 1 6 Existing Setting 6 7 CSUCI Master Plan and Specific Reuse Plan Density Designation 7 8 Description of Project 7 9 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting.......................................................................................................................................................... .17 10 Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required............................................................................................................................... 17 Environmental Checklist......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .19 1 Aesthetics................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .19 2 Agriculture and Forest Resources................................................................................................................................................................ .21 3 Air Quality..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .23 4 Biological Resources....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 79 6 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................................................................................................................... .37 8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................................................................................................. .39 9 Hydrology and Water Quality.............................................................................................................................................................................. 43 10 Land Use and Planning................................................................................................................................................................................................ .49 11 Mineral Resources .51 12 Noise 53 13 Population and Housing............................................................................................................................................................................................ 55 14 Public Services .57 15 Recreation .61 16 Transportation 63 17 Tribal Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................................................................................... 67 18 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................................................................................................................ 69 19 Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................................................................................................ 73 References 75 List of Preparers 77 Initial Study i California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project Tables Table 1 Project Summary..................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 2 Project Estimated Wastewater Generation.......................................................................................................... 71 Table 3 Camrosa Water District Projected Water Supply and Demand................................................... 72 Figures Figure 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 Project Location..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 Site Photos.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4 Campus Master Plan......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5 Site Plan........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 6 Conceptual Domestic Water Master Plan............................................................................................................ 11 Figure 7 Conceptual Storm Drain Master Plan......................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 8 Conceptual Recycled Water Master Plan.............................................................................................................. 13 Figure 9 Conceptual Sewer Master Plan........................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 10 Conceptual Street Light Master Plan........................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 11 Circulation Plan.................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Appendix Appendix A Geotechnical Study and Addendum ii Initial Study Initial Study 1 Project Title CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project 2 Lead Agency Name and Address The Trustees of the California State University 400 Golden Shore Long Beach, California 90802-4275 3 Contact Person and Phone Number Terry M. Tarr, AIA, LEED AP CSUCI Facilities Services Department Assoc. Architect / Project Manager / Planning Design & Construction Dept. (805) 437-2018 4 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address Owner The Trustees of the California State University 400 Golden Shore Long Beach, California 90802-4275 Ground Lessee/Locally represented by Site Authority California State University, Channel Islands P.O. Box 2862 Camarillo, California 93011-2862 5 Project Location The portion of the project site to be developed (referred to as Phase Two of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood, also known as University Glen Phase 2) is located on the California State University, Channel Islands (CSUCI) campus in southern Ventura County at the eastern edge of the Oxnard Plain and at the western flank of the Santa Monica Mountains. The CSUCI campus lies 2.5 miles south of the city of Camarillo, northeast of the intersection of Lewis and Potrero Roads, and east of Calleguas Creek. Primary access to the CSUCI campus is provided by U.S. Highway 101 to the north, via Lewis Road and Camarillo Street, or by U.S. Highway 1 to the southwest, via Las Posas Road and Hueneme Road. The project site is included within the Specific Reuse Plan and is a part of the Community Development Area (CDA) designated within the plan. The CDA is planned for development of university-related support uses. Figure 1 shows the location of the Specific Reuse Plan area in its regional context. Figure 2 shows the geographic area of East Campus within which the Specific Reuse Plan amendment area and the proposed residential development are located. Figure 3 provides site photos. Initial Study 1 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project Figure 1 Regional Location Specific Reuse Plan Area Phase Two Residential - Project Site 2 Initial Study Initial Study Figure 2 Project Location Initial Study 3 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project Figure 3 Site Photos Photo 1: Aerial from southwest looking northeast over project site Photo 2: Facing northeast near the Channel Islands Drive and Santa Rosa Islands Drive intersection 4 Initial Study Initial Study Photo 3: Facing west toward western boundary of project site Photo 4: Facing south from Inspiration Point toward drainage and project site Initial Study 5 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project 6 Existing Setting The existing CSUCI campus is broadly organized into three areas of development: the Academic Core, which includes classrooms, administrative buildings, student housing, research facilities, offices, and Broome Library; a Town Center directly east of the Academic Core; and University Glen, which consists of residential areas to the east and north of the Town Center (Figure 4). Generally speaking, the Campus Master Plan guides development in the Academic Core area, while the Specific Reuse Plan guides development of University Glen (referred to as East Campus Residential Neighborhoods in prior documents, such as the Specific Reuse Plan), as well as two smaller areas, one to the west of the Academic Core (referred to as Business Campus or Research & Development Area in prior documents), and the far eastern end of the campus, which is planned for K-8 school facilities (CSUCI 2000). University Glen is intended to provide a range of housing opportunities for faculty and staff near the Academic Core and create a community that invites pedestrian activity and bicycling (CSUCI 2000). Development of University Glen has been subdivided into two phases. The J-shaped area jutting east and then north of the Town Center constitutes Phase I. The undeveloped area that lies north of Phase I and extends eastward constitutes Phase 2 (Figure 4). Development of University Glen Phase 1 has already been completed. The proposed project involves development of Phase 2, the northernmost residential area. The majority of the 32-acre project site is level due to previous grading, and features level building pads, retaining walls, and an array of paved streets, curbs, and gutters. The northern portion of the project site is accessed by an unpaved road called Inspiration Point that crosses an unnamed drainage feature. The area accessed by the unpaved Inspiration Point roadway (also referred to as Inspiration Point in this document) is at a higher elevation than the majority of the site and contains a eucalyptus tree grove. 6 Initial Study Initial Study Figure 4 Campus Master Plan 7 CSUCI Master Plan and Specitic Reuse Plan Density Designation Existing Designation: Low to Low-Medium (L/LM) Residential Density (0-10 dwellings/acre) University Glen Master Planned Community Phase Two Residential Area Proposed Designation: Low-Medium to Medium-High (LM/MH) Residential Density (10-20 dwellings/acre) - University Glen Master Planned Community Phase Two Residential Area 8 Description of Project The proposed project consists of Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood, also referred to as University Glen. Development of the proposed project requires an amendment to the CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan, which is one of the documents governing land development for the non-academic portions of the CSUCI complex, including the West and East Campuses. Since the adoption of the Specific Reuse Plan by the CSUCI Site Authority in 2000, extensive development has occurred on the East Campus, resulting in a sizeable residential community and a mixed-use town center located at the pivot of the East Campus and the Academic Core, located east of the Broome Library. Initial Study 7 California Stafe University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project Under the existing CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan, the project site is entitled for 242 single-family residential units. However, under the proposed project, up to 600 residential units would be developed on the 32 acres of vacant land. The increase in residential density requires an amendment to the Specific Reuse Plan, which currently designates the project site for low to low-medium residential density (0-10 units per acre) development. The amendment would allow for low-medium to medium-high residential density (10-20 units per acre) at the project site. The proposed project offers a mix of multi-family apartments, for-sale single-family attached/detached homes, and income/age-restricted apartments (Figure 5). Table 1 provides further details on the types of proposed units, including approximate square footages and parking spaces. The site plan (Figure 5) also includes approximately 2.8 acres of recreation/ park area that consists of a central park and clubhouse, two vista parks along the northern periphery of the project site, and various paseos and courtyards. To accommodate the increase in density, the number of lots, parcel and roadway configuration, and utility lines would be modified. Existing building pads and roads would be demolished and replaced in accordance with the site plan shown in Figure 5. Much of the existing utilities and infrastructure would also need to be replaced and/ or modified to serve the new site layout. Figure 6 shows the conceptual Domestic Water Master Plan; Figure 7 shows the conceptual Storm Drain Master Plan; Figure 8 shows the conceptual Recycled Water Master Plan; Figure 9 shows the conceptual Sewer Master Plan; Figure 10 shows the conceptual Street Light Master Plan; and Figure 11 shows the Circulation Plan. All infrastructure plans are conceptual in nature and will be refined as the project design progresses. There is the potential that the existing 96-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) running under Channel Islands Drive and the flood control basin it feeds into along Camarillo Street are undersized for a 100-year storm event (Huitt-Zollars 2016). A study is needed to determine whether modifications to the stormwater drain system beyond those shown in Figure 7 are required and will be completed prior to final design. For the purpose of this study, as well as the EIR, it is assumed that some modifications will be required to ensure that potential impacts to biological and hydrological resource areas, in particular, are considered as result of these infrastructure improvements. Inspiration Point is physically separated from the main body of the project site by an unnamed drainage. The existing drainage crossing, consisting of an unpaved road and culvert, does not provide adequate access to Inspiration Point and the culvert is currently undersized to withstand a 100-year storm event. Consequently, as part of the proposed project, the existing crossing and drainage culvert leading to Inspiration Point would be demolished and replaced with a new culvert and crossing. The culvert would be approximately 75 feet long and 30 feet wide with concrete retaining walls and a corrugated steel culvert pipe and would be sized to accommodate a 100-year storm event. 8 Initial Study Initial Study Figure 5 Site Plan Initial Study 9 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project Table 1 Project Summary | Site Plan Totals J Approximate Site Area (sf) 1,394,000 (32 acres) Approximate Building Footprint Area (sf) 343,000 (24.6 % site coverage) Approximate Landscape Area (sf) 460,000 (33% site coverage) Approximate Hardscape Area (sf) 607,000 (43.5% site coverage) Building Area Unit type Bedrooms x Bathrooms Unit Size (sf) Number of Units Total Area (sf) Apartment rental 1x1 800 50 40,000 Apartment rental 2x2 950 180 171,000 Apartment rental 3x2 1,200 80 96,000 Income/Age-Restricted rental 1x1 552 85 46,920 Income/Age-Restricted rental 2x1 712 85 60,520 Townhome for sale 2x2.5 1,450 22 31,900 Townhome for sale 3x2.5 1,650 22 36,300 Townhome for sale 3x3 1,850 22 40,700 Single Family for sale 3x2.5 1,675 15 25,125 Single Family for sale 3x2.5 1,727 14 24,178 Single Family for sale 5x3 2,120 14 29,680 Single Family for sale 4x3 2,400 11 26,400 Total 600 628,283 Community Amenities Amenity Type Area (sf) Central Park and Community Center 60,984 Neighborhood Parks-Vistas 17,424 Neighborhood Parks-Paseos and courtyards 47,916 Total 126,324 Parking Parking Type Number of Spaces Enclosed/Covered 508 Standard 519 Handicap TBD per California Building Code Standards Total Approx. 1,027 spaces Notes: sf = square feet 10 Initial Study Initial Study Figure 6 Conceptual Domestic Water Master Plan Initial Study 11 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project Figure 7 Conceptual Storm Drain Master Plan 12 Initial Study Initial Study Figure 8 Conceptual Recycled Water Master Plan Initial Study 13 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project Figure 9 Conceptual Sewer Master Plan 14 Initial Study Initial Study Figure 10 Conceptual Street Light Master Plan Initial Study 15 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project Figure 11 Circulation Plan 16 Initial Study Initial Study 8. Description of Project (continued) Construction Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to start as early as Fall 2017 and continue until mid-2020. Access and Parking Regional access to the project site is provided by US 101 and Lewis Road from the north to Camarillo Street, and State Route (SR) 1 and Hueneme Road from the south. Local access is provided via Channel Islands Drive, which runs along the southwest border of the project site and provides access from the west and south. Access from the main campus north to the project site is provided by Channel Islands Drive. The proposed project would provide approximately 1,027 new parking spaces, inclusive of accessible parking. Parking for apartment units would consist of a combination of garages, covered, and surface parking. Townhomes and single family homes would have onsite parking spaces, as well as individual one or two-car garages accessible via alleys. Water Quality and Drainage Onsite water quality treatment would be managed with multiple bio-filtration/bio-planter systems throughout the project site (Huitt-Zollars 2016). Bio-filtration/bio-planter systems would be provided at all inlet locations to the public storm drain system, which would be modified for the proposed project as shown in Figure 7 (Storm Drain Master Plan). Catch basin inserts would also be installed. Treated on-site water would flow downstream and then comingle with off-site water and ultimately be stored in the existing flood control basin along Camarillo Street. 9 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The CSUCI campus lies at the western edge of the Santa Monica Mountains, east of Calleguas Creek. The site is surrounded by open space to the north, east, and west, and residential development to the south. Less than 0.5 mile to the west is Camarillo Street and agricultural fields. The project site is located about one mile northeast of the eastern edge of the CSUCI Main Campus (Figure 4). 10 Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required The Board of Trustees is the lead agency with responsibility for approving the proposed project. The Site Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ventura County Watershed Protection District, and Ventura County are all potential responsible agencies for the project. The following approvals could be required for the proposed project: ¦ Amendment to the Campus Master Plan ¦ Specific Reuse Plan Amendment adoption and proposed project approval » Schematic plan approval ¦ Final approval of real property public-private partnership ¦ Streambed Alteration Agreement ¦ Possible Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit ¦ Possible CWA Section 401 Certification ¦ Others, as may be necessary Initial Study 17 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project Environmental Factors Potentially Affected This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ¦ Aesthetics ¦ Biological Resources ¦ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ¦ Land Use/Planning Population / Housing ¦ Transportation / Traffic ¦ Mandatory Findings of Significance Agriculture and Forest Resources ¦ Cultural Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources ¦ Public Services Tribal Cultural Resources ¦ Air Quality ¦ Geology and Soils ¦ Hydrology/Water Quality ¦ Noise ¦ Recreation ¦ Utilities/Service Systems Determination Based on 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 to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ¦ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 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 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. 18 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Aesthetics Environmental Checklist 1 Aesthetics Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista ¦ . . . b. Substantial damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a state scenic highway ¦ . . . C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings ¦ . . . d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area ¦ . . . a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings in a state scenic highway? There are no scenic resource areas or scenic vistas designated by the Ventura County General Plan (hereafter referred to as the General Plan) in the area of the CSUCI campus (Ventura County 2011). However, the project site may be visible from Lewis Road, which is designated as an "Eligible County" scenic highway in the General Plan. Although the project site is buffered from view by agricultural fields, the development of the proposed project site may have significant impacts on vistas from Lewis Road. Further analysis will be conducted in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The project site is currently vacant land that has been mowed and disced, with graded building pads and paved roads. The development of up to 600 multi-family and single-family residential units on the project site, which is currently entitled for 242 single-family residential units, would alter the visual character of the project site relative to what currently exists and relative to the visual character of the project site envisioned in the Specific Reuse Plan. The project site is currently designated for Low to Low-Medium Residential density (up to 10 units/acre) and would instead, under the proposed revision, be designated Low-Medium to Medium-High Residential density (10-20 units/acre). Initial Study 19 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project The proposed building designs are consistent with the height and massing of residential development originally envisioned for the project site. The existing Specific Reuse Plan states: The residential community is envisioned to be primarily two stories with one-story elements for massing relief. Three-story elements, if proposed, will tend to be located in interior or in vertical accent locations within the community. The proposed project would include two to three story townhomes at heights of 28 feet to 40 feet, three-story senior and market rate apartments at a height of 40 feet, and two-story single-family detached homes at a height of 28 feet. The proposed project is consistent with the vision for three-story elements to be located in interior or vertical accent locations, as three-story townhomes and apartments are planned for the interior of the residential area and in areas adjacent to Channel Islands Drive, while single-family houses and t wo-story townhomes are located along the northern and eastern boundaries. The northern boundary of the project site would include nine single-family homes on the southern side of the eastern portion of Inspiration Point area of the site and two townhomes on the southern side of the western portion of the Inspiration Point area. There are potentially significant visual impacts in relation to development adjacent to the hillside within the Inspiration Point area, which will be further analyzed in the EIR. In addition, construction of the new Inspiration Point culvert and crossing would alter the visual character of the existing drainage crossing, which is part of an unpaved, perimeter road. The proposed culvert would be composed of retaining walls and a steel corrugated culvert. It would be approximately 75 feet long and 30 feet wide with a paved surface, and would include concrete sidewalks and a brick facade in portions of the retaining walls above grade level. As the proposed project would involve the development of a currently undeveloped site and at a density higher than that identified in the Specific Reuse Plan, impacts would be potentially significant and warrant further analysis in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The addition of up to 600 residential units in the northern portion of the East Campus could increase light and glare impacts during daytime and nighttime hours relative to existing site conditions and entitled site development. Potential new sources of lighting include reflections from windows, illumination of exterior building areas, glare from lighted signage, and indoor lights from residential structures. Headlights from vehicles entering and exiting the project site at night could cast light onto roadways and surrounding properties. Construction vehicles could also add glare impacts and contribute headlights when operating in darker conditions. The nearest sensitive receptors are the residential buildings immediately south of the project site. Impacts related to light and glare would be potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 20 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Agriculture and Forest Resources 2 Agriculture and Forest Resources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use . . . ¦ b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract . . . ¦ C. Conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)) . . . ¦ d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use . . . ¦ e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use . . . ¦ a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? C. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. 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? The project site is mostly vacant, features an array of roads and existing infrastructure, and does not contain any designated farmland or forest land. The proposed project would not result in any changes to Initial Study 21 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project the land use designation of any such lands. No impact would occur with respect to these issues and further analysis in an EIR is not warranted. NO IMPACT 22 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Air Quality 3 Air Quality Potentially Significant Impart Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impart No Impart Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan ¦ . . . b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation ¦ . . . C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) ¦ . . . d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations ¦ . . . e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people . . ¦ . a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Vehicle use, energy consumption, and associated air pollutant emissions are directly related to growth. A project may be inconsistent with the Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) if it would generate population, housing, or employment growth that exceeds the forecasts used in the development of the AQMP. The CSUCI campus lies in an aggregated non-growth area (AGA) of Ventura County. According to the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, a consistency determination with the AQMP for projects in a non-growth area is based on actual population growth relative to projected growth (VCAPCD 2003). If the current estimated population for the AGA is below the following year's target population, and the proposed project conforms to the applicable General Plan designation, or in this case the Campus Master Plan designation, the proposed project is consistent with the AQMP. The proposed project would increase the number of East Campus dwelling units by up to 358 units relative to entitled conditions, and 600 units relative to existing conditions, thereby inducing local population growth. The proposed project's consistency with the current AQMP will be analyzed in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Initial Study 23 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? C. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? According to the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, if a project is proposed to generate emissions above two pounds per day of reactive organic compounds (ROC) or nitrous oxides (NOx), an assessment to evaluate consistency with the AQMP is required (VCAPCD 2003). This issue will be further analyzed in an EIR. The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) has set significance thresholds for temporary construction-related and long-term operational emissions of air pollutants (VCAPCD 2003). Projects that comply with these thresholds would not have an individually or cumulatively significant impact and would not jeopardize attainment of federal and/or state standards for Ventura County. Appendix F of the Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (VCAPCD 2003) provides a Project Screening Analysis table to determine whether a proposed project would potentially exceed significance thresholds for criteria pollutants and thus require further analysis for determination of significance. Using the numbers provided for analysis year 2020, a project with only 345 condominium/townhouse units, or 331 low-rise apartment units, or284 detached single family units would be within ROC or NO„ significance thresholds. The proposed project would involve construction of 120 attached and detached townhomes and houses and 480 low-rise apartment units. As the proposed project exceeds screening criteria guidelines, the proposed project merits further analysis to determine whether it would exceed significance thresholds. Impacts are potentially significant and warrant further analysis in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, are particularly sensitive to air pollution. For the purposes of this analysis sensitive receptors are defined as land uses that are likely to be regularly used by these population groups and include health care facilities, retirement homes, school and playground facilities, and residential areas. Development of the proposed project would result in emissions associated with construction and operation. The project site is immediately adjacent to residential areas that may house children, the elderly, and people with health problems and would itself also include sensitive receptors once developed. Potential impacts to sensitive receptors may be significant and will be further reviewed in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Residential uses typically do not create objectionable odors. However, odors would be generated by the operation of equipment during site preparation and the construction phases of the proposed residential units. Odors associated with construction would be emitted by diesel machinery, which includes oil or diesel fuel odors. The odors would be limited to the time that construction equipment is operating. Some of these odors may reach sensitive receptors south of the project site. All off-road construction equipment would be subject to the California Air Resources Board (ARB) anti-idling rule (SS2449(d)(2)), which limits idling to 5 minutes. Compliance with ARB rules would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 24 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Biological Resources 4 Biological Resources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ¦ . . . b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 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 a 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? . . . ¦ A reconnaissance-level site visit was conducted on November 10, 2016, to verify previously determined habitat conditions within the project area and identify potential biological resources within and adjacent to the project site for sensitive habitat and special-status species. The dominant plant species observed included wild fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), brome (Bromus sp.), coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), white sage (Salvia apiana), and mallow Initial Study 25 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project (Malva sp.). Additionally, one arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and scattered mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) shrubs were observed. Federal, state, and local authorities under a variety of legislative acts share regulatory authority over biological resources. The primary authority for general biological resources lies within the land use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions, in this instance, the California State University. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a trustee agency for biological resources throughout the state under CEQA and also has direct jurisdiction under law through the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). The state and federal Endangered Species Acts also provide direct regulatory authority over specially designated organisms and their habitats to CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) also have regulatory authority over specific resources, namely waters of the U.S., under Section 401 and 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). In response to their legislative mandates, regulatory authorities have designated sensitive biological resources to include those specific organisms that have regionally declining populations such that they may become extinct if population trends continue. Habitats are also considered sensitive biological resources if they have limited distributions, have high wildlife value, include sensitive species, or are particularly susceptible to disturbance. a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS? The Specific Reuse Plan Amendment primarily involves the development of a modified residential project on land that has already been disturbed and graded, which would not adversely affect candidate, sensitive, or special status species. However, the proposed project also involves the demolition of a drainage culvert and crossing, and construction of a new approximately 75-foot long, 30-foot wide culvert with two reinforced concrete retaining walls. The Campus Master Plan FEIR (CSUCI 1998) identified the presence of arroyo willows adjacent to and downstream of the existing culvert, as well as several mulefat shrubs with an understory of cattails (Typha sp.) and sedges (Carex sp.). The Campus Master Plan FEIR determined that well-defined southern willow scrub habitat, which is a sensitive wetland plant community, was not present, but that this category best described the two areas. The 2016 reconnaissance-level site visit only identified one arroyo willow with scattered mulefat shrubs, confirming that this area has not developed into full southern willow scrub habitat. Plant species observed during the reconnaissance-level site visit were not indicative of an intact southern willow scrub community or other wetland habitat (i.e., cattail, sedges, or other hydrophytic vegetation were not observed), and were more typical of a dry river wash. Therefore, southern willow scrub habitat does not occur within the project site. The Campus Master Plan FEIR did not identify any special-status species specifically within the drainage area. Additionally, the 2016 reconnaissance-level site visit did not identify any sensitive species or suitable habitat for sensitive species within the project site, including the area of Inspiration Point. However, the existing flood basin may provide suitable habitat for sensitive species including Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Therefore, the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to sensitive species if modifications to the flood basin are required to accommodate stormwater flows. Existing vegetation within and adjacent to the project areas could provide habitat for nesting birds that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 United State Code Section 703-711) and CFGC (Section 3500). Protected birds include common songbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, hawks, owls, eagles, ravens, crows, native doves and pigeons, swifts, martins, swallows, and others, including their body parts (e.g., feathers, plumes), nests, and eggs. The proposed project has the potential to impact migratory and other bird species if construction activities occur during the nesting/breeding/dispersal season, typically February 15 through September 15. Construction-related disturbances could result in 26 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Biological Resources nest abandonment or premature fledging of the young. Therefore, the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to sensitive species unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure, in compliance with MBTA and CFGC requirements, is required to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level. BIO-1 To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds, including raptorial species protected by the MBTA and CFGC, activities related to construction of the proposed project, including, but not limited to vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition, shall occur outside of the nesting season (February 1 through September 15). If construction activities during the nesting season cannot be avoided, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The survey shall be conducted on foot and visually assess the entire project area, including a 300-foot line-of-site buffer (500-foot for raptors) using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in southern California coastal communities. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist using bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and instructed to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding / nesting is completed and the young have fledged. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. Impacts to nesting birds would be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, potential modifications to the existing flood basin and feeding pipe to meet 100-year storm design standards would result in potentially significant impacts to sensitive species, such as Least Bell's vireo. Therefore, impacts to sensitive species will be further analyzed in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS? Plant communities are considered sensitive biological resources if they have limited distributions, have high wildlife value, include sensitive species, or are particularly susceptible to disturbance. CDFW ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very threatened" and keeps records of their occurrences in CNDDB. Local or regional plans, policies, regulations, CDFW, and USFWS do not identify riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities in the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. NO IMPACT Initial Study 27 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No wetland vegetation or hydric soils are associated with the unnamed northern drainage, and no wetlands as defined by the USACE were observed on the portion of the project site to be developed during the reconnaissance survey. However, the drainage channel contains approximately 0.009 acre of potential non-wetland waters of the U.S. (0.009 acre) and 0.025 acre of potential CDFW jurisdictional area, as defined by an ordinary high water mark, channel bed and bank, sediment sorting and deposition, wrack and debris, and/or shelving. Additionally, wetland habitat is expected to occur within the flood basin. Therefore, both the unnamed drainage and existing flood basin are potentially subject to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction. Impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. and State would be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 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? The project site has been previously disturbed by grading and does not provide for any substantial movement or nursery habitat. The proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or affect any nursery sites. No impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. NO IMPACT e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The project site is part of a designated State and Federal facility and not legally subject to local planning or land use policies. Further discussion of this issue in the EIR is not warranted. NO IMPACT f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The project site is not within an area of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (CDFW 2015, USFWS 2016). Therefore, the proposed Specific Reuse Plan Amendment would not have an effect on areas subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Further discussion of this issue in the EIR is not warranted. NO IMPACT 28 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources 5 Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 . . . ¦ b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §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 . ¦ . . a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to historical resources. No known historic resources exist onsite as the project site is vacant. Further discussion of this issue in the EIR is not warranted. NO IMPACT b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? C. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The project site has previously been disturbed and graded. Previous grading activities did not uncover any archaeological, paleontological, or cultural resources, or any human remains. The likelihood that intact archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains are present in the surficial soil layer is low. In the unlikely event that archaeological or paleontological resources are identified, as defined by Section 2103.2 of the Public Resources Code, the project site would be required to be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code as appropriate. It is possible that unanticipated cultural resource remains are encountered during construction or land modification activities, and continuation of work may damage or destroy archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains. If human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In Initial Study 29 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project addition, mitigation measure CR-1 would also be required. With incorporation of mitigation measure CR- 1, impacts of the proposed project on cultural resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. CR-1 If unanticipated cultural deposits are encountered during any phase of project construction or land modification activities, work shall stop and the California State University, Board of Trustees shall be notified. A qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for professional archaeology, shall be retained to assess the nature, extent, and potential significance of any cultural remains. If the resources are determined to be Native American in origin, the archaeologist would consult with the project proponent and the California State University, Board of Trustees to begin Native American consultation procedures, as appropriate (see Section 17, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Environmental Checklist). If the discovery is determined to be not significant, work would be permitted to continue in the area. Potentially significant resources may require a Phase II subsurface testing program to determine the resource boundaries within the project site, assess the integrity of the resource, and evaluate the site's significance through a study of its features and artifacts. If, in consultation with the California State University, Board of Trustees, a discovery is determined to be significant, a mitigation plan would be prepared and carried out in accordance with State guidelines. If the resource cannot be avoided, a data recovery plan would be developed to ensure collection of sufficient information to address archaeological and historical research questions, with results presented in a technical report describing field methods, materials collected, and conclusions. Any cultural material collected as part of an assessment or data recovery effort would be curated at a qualified facility. Impacts to cultural resources would be mitigated to a less than significant level by contacting an archaeologist to provide assessment of any cultural remains are unearthed during the project's construction. No further analysis of this issue in an EIR is warranted. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED 30 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils 6 Geology and Soils Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: . . ¦ . 1. 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 . . ¦ . 2. Strong seismic ground shaking . . ¦ . 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction . . ¦ . 4. Landslides . ¦ . . b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil . . ¦ . C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is made unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse . ¦ . . d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property . ¦ . . e. 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 . . . ¦ a.l. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones have been established throughout California by the California Geological Survey (CGS). These zones identify areas where potential surface rupture along an active fault Initial Study 31 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project could prove hazardous and identify where special studies are required to characterize the fault rupture hazard potential to habitable structures (CGS 2016). Known active faults near the project site include the Camarillo fault and the Simi-Santa Rosa fault system. The Camarillo fault is approximately 2.5 miles from the project site, and the Simi-Santa Rosa fault is approximately 4.5 miles from the project site. Both of these faults are considered active, and the Camarillo fault is designated as an Alquist-Priolo fault zone. However, no known fault lines cross through the project site and the design and construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with California Building Code (CBC) standards. Exposure of people or structures to significant adverse effects resulting from fault rupture would be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.2. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? The Camarillo and Simi-Santa Rosa faults could create substantial ground shaking if a seismic event occurred along either of those faults. Similarly, a strong seismic event on any other fault system in southern California has the potential to create considerable levels of ground shaking throughout the region. However, all new structures would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the CBC. As a result the exposure of people or structures to significant adverse effects resulting from strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted: LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.3. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction is a process whereby soil is temporarily transformed to fluid form during intense 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 where the soils are composed of poorly consolidated fine to medium sand. Groundwater depths underlying the East Campus exceed 30 feet and soils above and below groundwater level contain considerable amounts of clay (CSUCI Site Authority 2000). Thus, there is a low potential for liquefaction and other seismic-related ground failure. Any new construction would be required to follow CBC standards that address liquefaction hazards. Thus, this impact would be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.4. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? During an earthquake event, the seismic shaking forces applied to native hillside areas can result in "seismically induced landslides." These typically occur in areas of steeper hillsides, near the tops of ridges, where weathered surficial and bedrock materials are exposed on slopes, and in areas of prior landslides. The topography of the project site is relatively flat. The project site, however, is located near areas where earthquake-induced landslides are mapped and or/where landslide movement has occurred in the past according to the State of California Seismic Hazard Camarillo Quadrangle (California Department of Conservation 2002). There is a possibility for landslides, particularly if residual soils layered between flows of volcanic bedrock in the surrounding slopes are exposed by a slope excavation, as well as rockfalls and surface debris flows along natural slopes (Site Authority 2000). 32 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils Fugro West, Inc. conducted a geotechnical study in December 2000 for CSUCI that presents findings, conclusions, and recommendations concerning the geotechnical conditions in the East Campus Development area, including the proposed project site. Fugro West also prepared an addendum in 2007 that provides revised recommendations in anticipation of demolition of the existing Inspiration Point creek crossing and drainage culvert and construction of a new culvert and crossing, which would be included as part of the proposed project. Both documents are included in Appendix A. The majority of the project site avoids hillside areas and slopes greater than 10 percent. Building pads along Inspiration Point and the road itself have been previously graded. Slopes adjacent to Inspiration Point crossing may exceed 10 percent. In addition, slopes occur to the north, and a landslide on adjacent lands could potentially expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are required to reduce geological and soil impacts to a less than significant level, including incorporating the recommendations of the Geotechnical Study: Cal State University Channel Islands East Campus Development (Site Authority 2000) in mitigation measure GEO-1 and potentially conducting a new geotechnical study, if needed in mitigation measure GEO-2. GEO-1 Incorporate recommendations of Geotechnical Study: Cal State University Channel Islands East Campus Development (Site Authority 2000). Recommendations presented in the Geotechnical Study shall be incorporated at the project site. These recommendations include site preparation, excavation considerations, slope construction, subgrade stabilization measures, fill selection and compaction, shrinking and subsidence, shallow foundation design, retaining walls, bridge drilled pier foundation, utility trenching, pipe bedding, trench backfill, and pavements. A brief listing of the recommendations is below. A more detailed explanation of each recommendation is provided in the Geotechnical Report (Appendix A). GEO-2 Updates Geotechnical Study, as needed. The applicability of the existing Geotechnical Study and Addendum for current site conditions and construction/ grading plan will be assessed by a geotechnical consultant. If recommendations in the existing Geotechnical Study and Addendum are no longer applicable to existing conditions, updates and/or a new geotechnical study will be required. Recommendations resulting from the new study shall be incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate geological hazards to a less than significant level. Impacts to landslide and other geological hazards would be mitigated to a less than significant level once all recommendations by the Geotechnical Report (2000) and any future updates are incorporated. No further analysis of this issue in an EIR is warranted. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Erosion is a normal and inevitable geologic process whereby earth materials are loosened, worn away, decomposed, or dissolved and are then removed from one place and transported to another. Preparing land for construction can remove ground cover, exposing soils to wind erosion. The majority of the project site is generally flat and has been previously disturbed, which limits the potential for substantial soil erosion. However, construction of the Inspiration Point culvert and crossing could result in erosion along the banks of the drainage. Modifications to the flood basin and the RCP feeding to the flood basin would require excavation and construction along Channel Islands Drive and in the flood basin itself that could also result in erosion. The proposed project would be required to comply with the California State Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-2009-DWQ) and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would include best management practices (BMP) Initial Study 33 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project for erosion and sediment control during construction. Compliance with construction BMPs would reduce impacts associated with soil erosion and the loss of topsoil to less than significant levels. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT C. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Subsidence is the sudden sinking or gradual downward settling of the earth's surface with little or no horizontal movement. Subsidence is caused by a variety of activities that include, but are not limited to, withdrawal of groundwater, pumping of oil and gas from underground, the collapse of underground mines, liquefaction, and hydrocompaction. Lateral spreading is the horizontal movement or spread of soil toward an open face. The potential for failure from subsidence and lateral spreading is highest in areas where the groundwater table is high and where relatively soft and recent alluvial deposits exist. Lateral spreading hazards may also be present in areas with liquefaction risks. The Ventura County General Plan Subsidence Zones Map does not identify the project site as being located in an area where subsidence is probable (Ventura County 2011). As discussed in item a.3. in this section of the Environmental Checklist, the project site is located on a geologic unit with low risk for lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, collapse, or landslides, although it is near slopes that may experience landslides. Any new construction would be required to follow CBC standards that address liquefaction hazards, including strengthening the foundation and footings. An existing culvert and its associated foundations are proposed to be demolished prior to construction of the new Inspiration Point crossing. Since foundation plans for the existing crossings are not available, only estimations of removal depths during demolition are provided. Excavation depths may be increased based on conditions. In addition, due to thick brush and difficult access during a field investigation, actual subsurface conditions are unknown at the exact locations of the proposed footings for the new crossing. It is also unknown if dewatering would be required during demolition or construction. Due to these unknown factors, there is potential for on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Incorporation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 above and GEO-3 below, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts related to soil stability during construction of the Inspiration Point crossing to a less than significant level. GEO-3 Incorporate recommendations of 2007 Geotechnical Study Addendum. The proposed project shall incorporate the recommendations presented in the Geotechnical Study Addendum (Site Authority 2007; attached as Appendix A), including, but not limited to observations during demolition, excavation and the use of appropriate backfill material, to mitigate geological hazards to a less than significant level. Impacts to soil stability would be mitigated to a less than significant level with incorporation of the above mitigation measure. No further analysis of this issue in an EIR is warranted. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? Expansive soils generally contain high percentages of clay. The Geotechnical Study identified the presence of near-surface clay with medium and high to very high expansiveness at the project site. The study provided recommendations for mitigating the expansiveness of soils at the project site. All 34 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils development would be required to comply with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the CBC and incorporate Mitigation Measures GEO-1, GEO-2, and GEO-3. Compliance with building standards and incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts related to expansive soils to a less than significant level. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The CSUCI campus is serviced by two gravity-flow sewage collection systems, and wastewater generated onsite is currently treated at the adjacent Camrosa Wastewater Treatment Facility. The proposed project would connect into this system and would not utilize septic tanks. Therefore, further discussion of this issue in the EIR is not warranted. NO IMPACT Initial Study 35 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project This page left intentionally blank. 36 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions 7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment ¦ . . . b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases ¦ . . . a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate additional GHG emissions, primarily from vehicle trips that would result in the burning of fossil fuels. The adopted CEQA Guidelines provide regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. While the VCAPCD has not yet set significant threshold options for Ventura County, it has stated a preference for GHG threshold consistency with the South Coast AQMD (SCAQMD) and the SCAG region in a white paper, "Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance Options for Land Use Development Projects in Ventura County" (VCAPCD 2011). In the latest guidance provided by the SCAQMD's GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group, SCAQMD considered a tiered approach to determine the significance of residential and commercial projects. The draft-tiered approach is outlined in the meeting minutes, dated September 28, 2010. Tier 1 - If the project is exempt from further environmental analysis under existing statutory or categorical exemptions, there is a presumption of less than significant impacts with respect to climate change. If not, then the Tier 2 threshold should be considered. Tier 2 - Consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan that may be part of a local general plan, for example. The concept embodied in this tier is equivalent to the existing concept of consistency in CEQA Guidelines section 15064(h)(3), 15125(d) or 15152(a). Under this Tier, if the proposed project is consistent with the qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it is not significant for GHG emissions. If there is not an adopted plan, then a Tier 3 approach would be appropriate. Tier 3 - Establishes a screening significance threshold level to determine significance. The Working Group has provided a recommendation of 3,500 MT C02e per year for residential projects. Further analysis in an EIR will estimate GHG emissions generated by the proposed project and compare project emissions to SCAQMD's Tier 3 threshold for residential projects. In addition, while CSUCI does not have a certified GHG reduction plan for the campus, the CSU has committed to reducing C02 emissions by 15 percent to reach 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2040 (CSU 2014). Further analysis in an EIR will assess whether the proposed project would impede achievement of Initial Study 37 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project these goals and analyze the proposed project's consistency with relevant campus policies. Impacts to GHG emissions may be potentially significant and will be analyzed in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 38 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials 8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials . . ¦ . b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment . . ¦ . C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school . . ¦ . d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material 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 in 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 near a private airstrip, would it result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project 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 . . ¦ . Initial Study 39 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The proposed project would involve the construction of multi-family residential, age restricted apartments, and for-sale single family detached and townhomes units in East Campus. No production or manufacturing of any kind that would involve the use or transport of hazardous materials would occur on the project site and operation of the new residences and associated amenities would not involve the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous substances, other than minor amounts typically used for maintenance. In the event that hazardous materials are used on site, their use, disposal, and transport would be subject to compliance with existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the Federal, State, and local agencies, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Adherence to these requirements would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 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? The proposed project would involve the construction of new residential units and ancillary facilities on vacant land. This activity and resulting uses are unlikely to involve more than minor amounts of hazardous materials. Thus, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the accidental release of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The proposed project would occur on a university campus. The nearest K-12 schools are over three miles from the project site. Operation of the proposed project would not involve the use or transport of hazardous materials and development would not require any demolition of existing structures. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous emissions or materials affecting school sites would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Would the project be located on a site included on a list of hazardous material 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? The following databases were checked on August 30, 2016 for known hazardous materials contamination pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5: ¦ GeoTracker (California State Water Resources Control Board) ¦ EnviroStor (California Department of Toxic Substances Control) ¦ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System database ¦ Cortese list of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites ¦ EnviroMapper (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) The following hazardous materials sites were located within 0.5 miles of the project site: 40 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials ¦ Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanup Site- Case Closed: Thornhill Ranch (2350 Portrero Road, Camarillo, California 93010) ¦ LUST Cleanup Site-Case Closed: Camarillo State Hospital (1878 Lewis Road, Camarillo, California 93010) ¦ WDR (waste discharge requirement): Highwest Nursery Inc., approved permit for small domestic wastewater treatment system (8620 Santa Rosa Road, Camarillo, California 93012) ¦ Permitted Underground Storage Tank: OLS Energy-Camarillo (1947 Portrero Road, Camarillo, California 93012) ¦ LUST Cleanup Site-Case closed: Camrosa Treatment Plant (1574 Lewis Road, Camarillo, California 93010) None of these sites occur at the project site or within 1,000 feet of the project site. In addition, the nearest hazardous site (Thornhill Ranch) is a LUST site for which cleanup has already been completed. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of these issues is not warranted. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 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? The nearest public airport is Camarillo Airport, which is located approximately 3.75 miles northwest of the project site. The project site is not located in an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. Although the project site does occasionally get fly overs from the Naval Base at Port Hueneme, this would not pose a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would occur and further analysis of these issues is not warranted. NO IMPACT f. For a project near a private airstrip, would it result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? There is no private airstrip within two miles of the project site. No impact would occur and further analysis of these issues is not warranted. NO IMPACT g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The CSUCI campus lies in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), meaning that the County is responsible for fire protection and not the federal or state government. The campus lies in an area designated as having Very High and High Fire Hazard Severity by Cal FIRE (Cal FIRE 2007). The campus lies within a mile of the Boney Mountains State Wilderness Area, at the foothills of the Santa Monica Mountains. To mitigate fire hazard, 35 acres along the eastern border of the campus were acquired and cleared of fuels to serve as a fire buffer zone. The Ventura County Fire Department Station 50 and Station 54 are located about 5.5 miles away by road, and the Point Mugu Fire Station is located 5.8 miles away by road. The proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and would not increase the risk of fire hazard to people or structures. The impact is less than significant and discussion of this issue in the EIR is not warranted. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Initial Study 41 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project This page left intentionally blank. 42 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality 9 Hydrology and Water Quality Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements . . ¦ . b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned 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 that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site ¦ . . . d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or offsite ¦ . . . e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff ¦ . . . f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality . ¦ . g. Place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map . . . ¦ h. Place structures in a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows . . . ¦ Initial Study 43 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including that occurring as a result of the failure of a levee or dam ¦ . . . j. Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow . . ¦ . a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Construction of the proposed project would include excavation and grading activities that may result in soil erosion and sedimentation that could degrade water quality without the implementation of existing laws and regulations. Development of the proposed project would create more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, therefore, the proposed project would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit for non-traditional small entities, as set by Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ and issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. This permit would require retention or biofiltration BMPs to capture or treat the stormwater quality design volume (or flow). The proposed project would also be required to comply with the California State Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-2009-DWQ) and implement a SWPPP, which would include BMPs to prevent stormwater pollution during construction. As previously described in Section 9, Description of Project, of the Initial Study, onsite water quality treatment would be managed with multiple bio-filtration/bio-planter systems throughout the project site to meet MS4 Phase II Permit requirements and the requirement set forth in the CSUCI Stormwater Implementation Program (Huitt-Zollars 2016). Bio-filtration/bio-planter systems would be required at all inlet locations to the public storm drain system. Catch basin inserts will also be installed to meet the California Zero Trash Policy. Treated on-site water would comingle with offsite water downstream from the project site and be stored in the existing flood control basin along Camarillo Street. Overall, compliance with existing laws and regulations would ensure that impacts associated with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. Therefore, further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The project site does not overlie any groundwater basin. The Calleguas Creek, approximately one mile west of the project overlies the Pleasant Valley Groundwater Basin, designated a Critically Over Drafted Basin and a High Priority for groundwater management (DWR 2016). However, as the project site does not overlie a groundwater basin and all project related runoff would be directed to a drainage basin that allows percolation of stormwater, the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater 44 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality supplies nor interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. This impact would be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT C. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including by altering the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite? d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or offsite? The proposed project may alter the existing drainage pattern on the project site and surrounding area. The existing RCP that feeds into the flood basin along Camarillo Street and the flood basin itself may require modifications to meet 100-year storm event design standards. Construction and modifications could alter the drainage pattern on or offsite. The proposed project would also include alterations to the existing storm drain system at the project site (Figure 7, Storm Drain Master Plan) to accommodate the site layout, but would not change points of discharge into onsite and offsite drainages. The proposed project would also include replacement of the existing culvert on the northern unnamed drainage with a new culvert and crossing to access Inspiration Point. The existing culvert is undersized for a 100-year storm flow and could result in flooding in adjacent lots due to backflow. Thus, the proposed alterations to existing drainage would improve existing conditions with regards to flooding. Due to potential and required modifications to the existing drainage system on and offsite, impacts would be potentially significant and warrant further analysis in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT e. Would the project create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The proposed project would create new impervious surfaces at a site that currently consists of open, unpaved lots and an unpaved access road at Inspiration Point. Currently entitled development at the project site would also result in paving of open lots in the main body of the project site. The proposed project would additionally involve the construction of a new paved crossing and culvert at Inspiration Point. Resident activities, such as vehicle use or car washing, would generate runoff and could contribute to contamination of runoff. The proposed project would include features to reduce runoff impacts. Bio­filtration/bio-planter systems would be provided at all inlet locations to the public storm drain system and catch basin inserts would also be installed to reduce runoff and contamination of stormwater. In addition, the proposed project may include upgrades to the existing RCP feeding into the flood control basin along Carrillo Street and the flood basin itself in order to increase capacity to handle a 100-year storm event. For this reason and because the proposed project would increase potential sources of runoff and contamination, impacts would potentially be significant and warrant further analysis in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? The proposed project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff that would degrade water quality. The proposed project would be required to comply with the campus MS4 Phase II permit and the California State Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-2009-DWQ). The proposed project would be required to implement a SWPPP that would include BMPs to protect water quality. BMPs would reduce polluted runoff from the project site by retaining, treating, or infiltrating polluted runoff onsite. Adherence to MS4 and Construction General Permit requirements to capture and treat stormwater runoff would reduce the quantity and level of pollutants in runoff leaving the site. Because Initial Study 45 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project the proposed project would be required to use BMPs, it would not cause a negative effect on Calleguas Creek to the west of the project site. Runoff from the project site would be channeled by a system of storm drains and curbs and gutters that discharge directly into, or into drainages that flow to, the existing flood control basin along Camarillo Street (Figure 7). Bio-filtration/bio-planter systems would be placed at all inlet locations to the public storm drain system and catch basin inserts would also be installed. The existing storm drain system would be modified to accommodate the site layout for the proposed project and would be designed to meet the needs of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of capacity for the planned storm drain system, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade water quality. No significant impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT g. Would the project place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Would the project place in a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? The project site lies in Flood Zone X, an area outside of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood. No housing or structures would be placed in a 100-year flood hazard area. There would be no impact. NO IMPACT i. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding including that occurs as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? According to the Hazard Mitigation Plan for Ventura County (Ventura County 2010) the project site is not located in a dam inundation area and is not subject to flooding due to dam or levee failure. However, the existing culvert at Inspiration Point is currently undersized for a 100-year storm. There is also potential that the existing flood control basin along Camarillo Street and the 96-inch RCP that feeds into the basin are also inadequately designed for a 100-year storm (Huitt-Zollars 2016). To address these issues, the proposed project would include construction of a new crossing and culvert at Inspiration Point to ensure adjacent lots would not experience flooding during a 100-year storm event and to ensure safe access during a high flow storm event. The proposed project would also include an evaluation of the existing flood control basin along Camarillo Street and the RCP prior to construction to ensure they are adequately designed for a 100-year storm event given the proposed development. Modifications to the basin and RCP, if needed, would be implemented as part of the proposed project are included as part of the project evaluated in this Initial Study. Due to the potential for the existing RCP and flood control basin to be undersized for a 100-year storm event and the need to replace the existing culvert at Inspiration Point, the proposed project's impact on flood hazards may be potentially significant and warrant further analysis in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT j. Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? A tsunami is a series of traveling ocean waves of extremely long length generated primarily by vertical movement on a fault (earthquake) occurring along the ocean floor. The project site is located approximately 5.2 miles from the coastline and approximately 2,000 feet from the Calleguas Creek. The project site is also not located near a large inland body of water that could generate a seiche during seismic ground shaking. According to the County of Ventura General Plan Hazards Appendix, the project 46 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality site is located in a low hazard area for tsunamis or seiches (Ventura County 2011). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Initial Study 47 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project This page left intentionally blank. 48 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Land Use and Planning 10 Land Use and Planning Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts? a. Physically divide an established community . . . ¦ b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect ¦ . . . C. Conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan . . . ¦ a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The proposed project involves the development of new residences within the CSUCI East Campus area. The proposed project would not involve a road or other facility that would physically divide an established community; rather, it would complete the final phase of this planned development area. The proposed development would blend into the fabric of the already established campus. Therefore, no impact would occur. NO IMPACT b. Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The project site is currently designated Low to Low-Medium density residential in the Specific Reuse Plan. The Specific Reuse Plan Amendment would increase the density of development allowed on the project site to Low-Medium to Medium-High density residential development. This topic and the potential for any conflicts to occur will be reviewed further in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT C. Would the project conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan applies to Ventura County. Therefore, the proposed project would not pose a conflict (CDFW 2015, USFWS 2016). No impact would occur, and further analysis of this issue is not warranted. NO IMPACT Initial Study 49 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project This page left intentionally blank. 50 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Mineral Resources 11 Mineral Resources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project have any of the following impacts: 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? . . . ¦ 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? b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The project site is not designated as a known mineral resource site on the Ventura County General Plan Resource Protection Map (Ventura County 2011). No mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state are known to exist. Likewise, no mineral recovery sites have been identified on the project site. Given the present residential and academic uses in the surrounding areas, mineral resource extraction would not be considered a compatible use. The proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources. Further discussion of this issue in the EIR is not warranted. NO IMPACT Initial Study 51 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project This page left intentionally blank. 52 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Noise 12 Noise Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in any of the following impacts? a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies ¦ . . . b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels ¦ . . . C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above those existing prior to implementation of the project ¦ . . . d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above those existing prior to implementation of the project ¦ . . . e. For a project located in 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 near a private airstrip, would it expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise . . . ¦ a. Would the project result in exposure of persons to, or generation of noise levels in excess of, standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? C. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project? d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above those existing prior to implementation of the project? The project site is currently vacant and lies in a part of East Campus that is as yet undeveloped. Consequently, the project site experiences minimal noise from pedestrians and transportation-related sounds from automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles. Construction and operation activities associated with the proposed project would increase noise levels in the vicinity of the project site and along Initial Study 53 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project transportation corridors. Development of the project site would introduce new, temporary sources of noise due to construction and new long-term sources of noise due to project-generated traffic and operation. Operational noises would include sounds typically .associated with residential communities, such as conversations, doors closing, music playing, cars starting, and trash hauling. An increase in traffic associated with the proposed projects and operational noise generated onsite could impact nearby sensitive receptors. Temporary noises due to construction activities could also impact sensitive receptors. These receptors include residences located to the south of the project site. The proposed project is separated from adjacent residences by a two-lane roadway. Given the proximity of the project to nearby sensitive receptors, temporary and long-term noise impacts could potentially be significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Vibration is a unique form of noise because its energy is carried through buildings, structures, and the ground, whereas noise is simply carried through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. The proposed project would involve construction activities, such as grading and excavation. These activities are anticipated to result in some vibration that could affect nearby residential receptors. Operation of the proposed project would not perceptibly increase ground-borne vibration or ground­borne noise above existing conditions. Due to the presence of residences near the project site, temporary groundborne vibration associated with construction activity could affect sensitive receptors. Impacts could be potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT e. For a project located in 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? The project site is not located in the jurisdiction of an airport land use plan and is more than two miles from the nearest public airport, Camarillo Airport (approximately 3.75 miles). There would be no impact related to proximity to an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport and further analysis in an EIR is not warranted. NO IMPACT f. For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise? There is no private air strip in or adjacent to the project site. There would be no impact relative to proximity to a private airstrip and further analysis in an EIR is not warranted. NO IMPACT 54 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Population and Housing 13 Population and Housing Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impart No Impart Would the project result in any of the following impacts? a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure) . . ¦ . b. Displace substantial amounts of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere . . . ¦ c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere . . ¦ a. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The proposed Specific Reuse Plan Amendment would increase available housing by up to 358 units above that which is currently entitled, increasing the number of potential residences from 242 single-family residences up to 600 multi-family, single-family, and income/age-restricted residential units. This would induce population growth on the CSUCI Campus. The California Department of Finance (DOF) states that the population of Ventura County in 2016 is 856,508 persons (DOF 2016). The DOF estimates that there are approximately 3.05 persons per household in Ventura County (DOF 2016). Based on this average, a 600-unit project would accommodate approximately 1,830 people. Consequently, the proposed project alone would increase the population of Ventura County to approximately 858,338 persons. This falls within the 2040 population projection for Ventura County utilized by the Southern California Associate of Government (SCAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan-Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) document (SCAG 2016). Furthermore, the proposed project would not extend roads and infrastructure into an undeveloped area and thus, indirectly contribute to further population growth. Impacts to population growth would be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project would increase housing opportunities for the University Glen Community by up to 600 additional units. As the project site is currently vacant, it would not displace existing housing or any Initial Study 55 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project people. No existing housing units would be removed as part of the project. Therefore, no impact to existing housing would occur and a further discussion of this issue in the EIR is not warranted. NO IMPACT 56 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Public Services 14 Public Services Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in any of the following impacts? a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection ¦ . . . 2. Police protection ¦ . . . 3. Schools . . ¦ . 4. Parks ¦ . . . 5. Other public facilities . . ¦ . a.i. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? Fire protection for the entire campus is presently provided by the Ventura County Fire Protection District (VCFPD). Station 54 is the nearest fire station, located approximately five miles from the campus, at Pickwick Drive and Arneill Road in the city of Camarillo. Station 50 is the second nearest station, approximately 5.7 miles from the campus, on Las Posas Road near Camarillo Center Drive. The proposed development would increase the local population by approximately 1,830 persons relative to existing conditions. The increase in population resulting from the proposed project and the distance of the campus from existing fire protection facilities could potentially result in a significant physical impact related to the need to provide new or physically altered facilities. This issue will be further analyzed in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Initial Study 57 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection? Police protection services are provided by the University Police Department staffed by state police officers. The police station is on the main campus about one mile away on Camarillo Street near the Administration Building. The University provides and funds police protection and traffic law enforcement services for the campus and University Glen. Services would increase as development progresses and demand for protection rises. Additional staff may be necessary in the future as the entire campus continues to develop. Impacts may be potentially significant and further analysis in an EIR is warranted. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? As of January 1987, State law allows school districts to levy three different levels of development fees directly on new residential, commercial, and industrial development (Government Code Section 65995). School districts set their own fees within the limits set by the law, based on a nexus study establishing their funding requirements. Pursuant to Senate Bill 50 (Section 65995(h)), payment of mandatory impact fees by a private development partner to the affected school district for public-private developments would reduce school facility impact fees to a less than significant level under CEQA. Therefore, with payment of school facility impact fees, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to the need for construction of new schools or alteration of existing schools. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? The proposed project would result in a population increase (over the existing condition) of up to 1,830 persons. The proposed project includes 2.8 acres of recreation and park land. No specific trails are identified in the Campus Master Plan on the project site, but some hiking trails are expected to be developed at or connecting to the project site. Given the number of new residents when compared to the amount park area provided within the project site, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact on existing recreational facilities and/or result in the need for new or expanded facilities. Impacts would be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? Library services are provided by the John Spoor Broome Library located at 50 Camarillo Street, within walking distance of the project site. The proposed project would increase the population by an estimated 1,830 residents over existing conditions. Residents may use existing library facilities, but increased 58 Initial Study demand would be nominal. This impact would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted. No impacts to other governmental facilities are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. For a discussion of impacts to utilities (e.g., sewer, storm drains) and roadways, see Section 16, Transportation, and Section 17, Utilities and Services, of the Environmental Checklist. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project This page left intentionally blank. 60 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Recreation 15 Recreation Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in any of the following impacts? 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 ¦ . . . 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? The proposed project would result in a population increase (over the existing condition) of up to 1,830 persons. The proposed project includes 2.8 acres of recreation and park land. No specific trails are identified in the Campus Master Plan on the project site, but some hiking trails are expected to be developed at or connecting to the project site. Given the number of new residents when compared to the amount park area provided within the project site, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact on existing recreational facilities and/or result in the need for new or expanded facilities. Impacts would be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Initial Study 61 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project This page left intentionally blank. 62 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Transportation 16 Transportation Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in any of the following impacts? a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? ¦ . . . b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ¦ . . . C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? . . . ¦ d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? ¦ . . . e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ¦ . . D f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ¦ . . . The California State University system provides a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) Manual to guide the analysis of a proposed project's transportation impacts on the CSU campuses and adjacent transportation networks. The manual, prepared by Fehr and Peers in November 2012, provides a preferred methodology for level of service (LOS) analysis, as well as criteria to determine the significance Initial Study 63 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project of transportation impacts under CEQA. The TIS Manual provides significance criteria for off-site traffic operations, on-site circulation, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, transit, intersection traffic control, transportation plan consistency, safety, and construction. As required by the TIS Manual, the TIS will assess the proposed project's consistency with significance criteria. Consistency would indicate a less than significant impact to relevant transportation impacts. A TIS for the proposed project is in the process of being completed and will be incorporated into the EIR for the proposed project. a. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? The proposed project would increase traffic along site-adjacent roadways compared to existing levels. Additional temporary and long term traffic would be generated by construction activities and by the operation of the proposed project. Project-generated traffic during construction would include worker- related commuter trips, trucks used for delivering construction equipment, and trucks used for delivering and hauling construction materials and wastes. Project-generated traffic during operation would include resident traffic. The increase in traffic could adversely affect circulation system performance on the CSUCI campus and in adjacent areas, potentially exceeding thresholds in the TIS Manual. Adjacent areas include nearby communities that use highways and roads near the site, including SR 1, SR 34, U.S. Highway 101, Lewis Road, Cawelti Road, Hueneme Road, and Potrero Road. Impacts resulting from both project components would be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR in accordance with guidelines set forth in the TIS Manual. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Ventura County prepares and updates a Congestion Management Plan (CMP) every two years to meet voluntary state congestion management regulations (Government Code sections 65088-65089) and mandatory federal regulations that require the development and implementation of a congestion management process (Title 23 CFR Part 450.320). The CMP is intended to address congestion and improve traffic primarily on highways, in urban areas, and on principal arteries in Ventura County (Ventura County 2009). The CMP identifies key roadways for monitoring and management, referred to as the CMP Network. The CSUCI campus lies outside of the County's main urban area, but is accessed via routes included in the CMP network, such as Lewis Road and U.S. Highway 101. Congestion impacts resulting from the proposed project could be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT C. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? As discussed in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 12, Noise, of the Environmental Checklist, the project site is more than three miles away from a public airport/private airstrip and would not affect air traffic patterns. There would be no impact, and further analysis is not warranted. NO IMPACT 64 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Transportation d. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? A traffic study impact analysis will be prepared to evaluate potential traffic hazards. More information on the proposed project's residential driveway design is also forthcoming. The proposed project's impact on traffic hazards due to project design could be significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT e. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The project site is accessed via Channel Islands Drive, which intersects roads traversing the project at two points: at the western boundary of the project site and at the southern boundary of the project site (see Figure 11). The project site itself is serviced by an array of roads that vary from a 32-foot curb-to-curb roadway with parking on both sides to alleys with 24-foot drive aisles. The project would be required to comply with VCFPD Access Standards, as well as provisions of the International Fire Code Section 504, and California Code of Regulations Title 14, Sections 1270.00-1273.11 (VCFPD 2011). These regulations establish requirements for access design and construction that provide for emergency responders and public safety. In addition, construction plans for the proposed project would be subject to review by the Ventura County Fire Prevention Bureau (VCFPD 2016). Compliance with applicable codes and standards would reduce impacts to emergency access to less than significant levels. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The proposed development would result in modifications to existing roadways and paths on the project site to accommodate a new lot configuration for 600 mixed residential units. More details regarding proposed pedestrian and bike facilities are forthcoming. Consequently, conflicts with policies and plans included in the Specific Reuse Plan and the Campus Master Plan regarding public transit, bikeways or pedestrian facilities could be potentially significant and warrant further analysis in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Initial Study 65 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project This page left intentionally blank. 66 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Tribal Cultural Resources 17 Tribal Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, 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: a. 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.l(k), or . . . ¦ b. 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 Cod Section 2024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significant of the resource to a California Native American tribe. . . . ¦ a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is 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.l(k)? b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is 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 2024.1? Tribal cultural resources are defined in Public Resources Code 21074 as one of the following: 1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: (a) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. (b) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1. The area on which the project site is located has been previously disturbed and has been evaluated for cultural resources in past environmental reviews (e.g., 2000 Campus Master Plan EIR). No tribal resources have been previously identified on the site and the proposed project does not affect a tribal cultural resource listed or eligible for listing in the state or local register of historical resources, or Initial Study 67 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project determined by the lead agency to be significant to a California Native American tribe. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT 68 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems 18 Utilities and Service Systems Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in any of the following impacts? a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board D . ¦ . b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects . . ¦ . C. Require or result in the construction of new 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 resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed ¦ . . . 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 . . ¦ . Initial Study 69 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project a. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 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? CSUCI relies on the water and wastewater facilities provided by the Camrosa Water District (CWD; 2015), which provides wastewater treatment and potable and recycled water delivery to the campus. The existing campus water distribution system was reconstructed between 1990 and 1996. Two existing 1.0 million gallon storage tanks located on the hill northeast of the campus core provide additional storage for fire and peak flow demands on campus. Water and wastewater infrastructure would be developed onsite to serve the proposed project. Figure 6 shows the conceptual plan for domestic water facilities at the project site. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the existing and proposed recycled water and sewer system for the project site, respectively. The CWD provides the CSUCI campus with recycled water from its Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). The facility reclaims wastewater and provides tertiary treatment at a capacity of 1.5 million gallons per day (mgpd). It has a storage capacity of nearly 100 million gallons (CWD 2009). The sanitary sewer system in University Glen flows by gravity to the existing sewer system in the academic area, which in turn flows to the CWD wastewater treatment plant. The sewer system for the proposed project would connect into the sewer system serving existing University Glen residences and the main campus. The CWD WRF is currently operating at close to capacity. As a result, CWD is in the process of expanding the capacity of the WRF to accommodate an average flow of 2.25 mgpd—an increase in capacity of 0.75 mgpd (CWD 2015). Based on wastewater generation estimates for different land uses provided in the Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide (City of Los Angeles 2006), the proposed project would generate approximately 102,660 gallons of wastewater per day. This represents fourteen percent of available expanded capacity and less than five percent of total capacity. While the CWD is in the process of providing expanded treatment facilities, allocation of the increased capacity is unknown, and it is yet to be determined as to whether the proposed expansion could accommodate the increase in wastewater generation from the proposed project. The project may result in significant an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements, or may require result additional wastewater treatment capacity beyond what is already underway. Impacts could be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR. 70 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems Table 2 Project Estimated Wastewater Generation Land Use Quantity (Dwelling Units) Generation Factor (gallons/unit/day) Amount (gpd) Apartment-1 bedroom 135 120 16,200 Apartment-2 bedroom 265 160 42,400 Apartment-3 bedroom 80 200 16,000 Townhouse-2 bedroom 22 180 3,960 Townhouse/Single Family-3 bedroom 73 230 16,790 Townhouse/Single Family 4 bedroom 11 270 2,970 Townhouse/Single Family -5 bedroom 14 310 4,340 Total 102,660 Source: Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, "Table 1: Loadings for Each Class of Land Use". Accessed October 5, 2016. gpd = gallons per day POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT C. Would the project 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? As previously discussed in Section 9, Description of Project, of the Initial Study, and Section 9, Hydrology, of the Environmental Checklist, the proposed project would extend the existing storm drain system onsite to serve a mix of 600 residential units (Figure 7). Impacts within the main project site boundaries associated with storm drain system improvements would minimal. However, potential modifications to the existing 96-inch RCP pipe and flood control basin as well as the culvert on the unnamed drainage leading to Inspiration Point could potentially result in significant environmental effects, including in relation to hydrology and biological resources. These impacts will be evaluated further in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The proposed project would include up to 600 new residential units and ancillary facilities and utilize potable and recycled water for construction, operations, and landscape maintenance. As previously mentioned, water supplies would be provided to the project site by the CWD. From 2010 through 2015, the CSUCI campus decreased potable water use despite a growing campus population by substituting recycled water. Campus potable water use fell from 275 acre feet (AF) in 2010 to 217 AF in 2015, while recycled water use rose from 131 AF to 256 AF over the same time period. In addition, CWD water demand projections, presented in CWD's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), factor in student count increases and future buildout of the CSUCI campus over the next 10-15 years (CWD 2016). As indicated in Table 3, CWD projects that it will have a surplus water supply of over 8,000 AF through 2035. Water demand is estimated to be 120 percent of wastewater generated by a project. Based on wastewater generation rates used previously in this section of the Environmental Checklist, the proposed project would use approximately 123,192 gallons of water per day, or 138 AF per year. That is less than two percent of forecast water supply surplus for the forecast period, 2020-2035. Nonetheless, the proposed project would result in 358 more residential units than originally planned. Furthermore, California is entering a sixth year of drought, and Ventura County water supply in general remains Initial Study 71 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project uncertain. Existing water supplies may not be adequate to serve the proposed project. Impacts could be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR. Table 3 Camrosa Water District Projected Water Supply and Demand 2020 2025 2030 2035 Supply totals (AF) 24,450 28,830 28,930 28,930 Demand totals (AF) 15,941 15,587 15,987 16,113 Difference (AF) 8,509 13,243 12,943 12,817 Source: CWD 2015 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT f. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal need? g. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? If a proposed project has a direct or indirect adverse effect on a landfill such that it impairs the landfill's disposal capacity in terms of reducing its useful life to less than 15 years, the project has a potentially significant impact on the demand for solid waste disposal capacity (VCRMA 2011). Harrison Industries, a commercial vendor, provides solid waste disposal for CSUCI. It partners with the Gold Coast Recycling and Transfer Station, where recyclables are sorted, baled, and sold for reuse in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 341. It also partners with Agromin for the processing of green waste for reuse in agricultural products, fuel, and landscape materials. Refuse haulers are required to implement waste reduction and recycling programs consistent with the Ventura County General Plan's Source Reduction and Recycling Element. The two recycling and transfer centers that may be used are the Del Norte Regional Recycling and Transfer Station and the Gold Coast Recycling Center. The residual waste may be taken to either the Toland Landfill or the Simi Valley Landfill. Toland Landfill has a capacity of 1,500 tons per day with a maximum capacity of 30,000 cubic yards. Simi Valley Landfill has a daily capacity of 9,250 tons per day with a maximum capacity of 119,600,000 cubic yards and both landfills had most of their capacity remaining at the last inspection date (2006 and 2012, respectively) (CalRecycle 2016). The proposed project has the potential to generate approximately 7,338 lbs (3.7 tons) per day based on a waste generation rate for residential uses of 12.23 lbs per household per day (City of Los Angeles 2006); as the resident amenities/community center would be used primarily by residents, solid waste generated by the community center would be largely captured by residential use estimates and was not estimated as a separate project component. This represents 0.2 percent of the daily capacity of Toland Landfill and less than 0.04 percent of the daily capacity of Simi Valley Landfill. In addition, solid waste generated by the proposed project would be minimized by campus efforts to reduce waste, and presents a nominal increase in capacity use for landfills serving the area. Furthermore, the proposed project would adhere to state and federal regulations pertaining to solid waste. Therefore, this increase would not reduce the landfills' useful lives to less than 15 years. Consequently, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts to landfill capacity and would not conflict with applicable guidelines regarding solid waste. No further analysis in an EIR is warranted. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 72 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Mandatory Findings of Significance 19 Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impart a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ¦ . . . b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ¦ . . . C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ¦ . . . a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, 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? The project site generally lacks native biological habitats, as discussed under Section 4, Biological Resources, of the Environmental Checklist but existing vegetation within and adjacent to the project could provide habitat for nesting birds. The project also includes ground disturbance activities that could impact the unnamed drainage that runs between the main part of the site and Inspiration Point. The proposed project could also include changes to the existing flood basin located west of the project site, which could impact wetland habitat and suitable habitat for the protected Least Bell's vireo. As discussed under Section 5, Cultural Resources, of the Environmental Checklist, there are no known historic resources or known archaeological or paleontological resources onsite. Compliance with State law and incorporation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would address potential impacts to any as yet undiscovered archaeological and paleontological resources. Based on this, the proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Given the potential impacts to special status species and their associated habitats, impacts related to these issues could be potentially significant and further analysis will be conducted in an EIR. Initial Study 73 California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 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)? In combination with other planned and pending development in the area, the proposed project could contribute to significant cumulative impacts. In particular, cumulative impacts could occur with respect to such issues as transportation, air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gases, water supply, and noise. The cumulative effects of the proposed project, in combination with other planned projects in the vicinity, will be evaluated in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposed project may result in potential adverse impacts to human beings. Impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, land use/planning, noise, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities/service systems would be potentially significant. These impacts will be analyzed further in an EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 74 Initial Study References References California Department of Conservation (COC). 2002. State of California Seismic Hazard Zones: Camarillo Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000. Released February 7, 2002. James Davis, State Geologist. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Finance (DOF). 2016. E-5 Population for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011 2016 with 2010 Census Benchmark. May 2016. http://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/E-5/. Accessed August 2016. -----. 2016. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015. California Regional Conservation Plans. Map projection NAD83. August 2015. Sacramento, CA. https://nrm.dfg. ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=68626&inline California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal FIRE). 2007. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, Ventura County. Scale 1:100,000. Released September 17, 2007. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2016. "Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center (56-AA-0007)." CalRecycle.com. Data updated continuously. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/56-AA-0007/Detail/. Accessed September 2016. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2016. "Critically Overdrafted Groundwater Basins - January 2016 - Southern Region." January 1, 2016. Sacramento, California. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/pdfs/GW_basinsCriticalOverdraft_SouthernRegion. pdf. California Geological Survey (CGS). 2016. Official Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap. Accessed September 2016. California State University. 2014. Sustainability Report 2014. http://www.calstate.edu/cpdc/sustainability/policies- reports/documents/csusustainabilityreport2014.pdf. Accessed November 2016. California State University, Channel Islands Site Authority (Site Authority). 2000. Geotechnical Study: Cal State University Channel Islands East Campus Development, Camarillo Area. Prepared by Fugro West, Inc. Long Beach, CA: December 2000. _________. 2007. Addendum to Geotechnical Study, Phase 2A/2B East Campus Housing, Inspiration Point Bridge, California State University Channel Islands, Camarillo, California. Prepared by Fugro West, Inc. Long Beach, CA: August 17, 2007. _________. 2000. Community Development Area. Specific Reuse Plan Prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. Long Beach, CA: June 5, 2000. Camarillo, City of. 2013. "Safety Element." City of Camarillo General Plan. May 2013. http://www.ci.camarillo.ca.us/docs/Safety.pdf. Initial Study 75 California Stafe University, Channel Islands Site Authority CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan Amendment and Phase 2 Development of the East Campus Residential Neighborhood Project Camrosa Water District (CWD). 2009. "Water Reclamation." www.camrosa.com. Updated 2009. http://www.camrosa.com/about_fac_wrf.html. Accessed September 2016. ........... 2015. Urban Water Management Plan. ttp://www.camrosa.com/documents/2015UWMP/CWD2015_UWMP DRAFT.pdf. Accessed November 2016. Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). 2016. "Zone AO." www.fema.gov. Last updated May 11, 2016. www.fema.gov/zone-ao. Accessed September 2016. Harrison Industries, Inc. 2016. "Home." EJ Harrison & Sons, http://ejharrison.com/index. Accessed August 2016. Huitt-Zollars. 2016. CSUCI Specific Reuse Plan: EIR Data. Personal Communication (email). October 31, 2016. Los Angeles, City of. 2006. CEQA Thresholds Guide. http://environmentla.com/programs/thresholdsguide.htm. Accessed November 2016. Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15: "Proposed Tier 3 Quantitative Thresholds - Option 1", September 2010. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. 2016/2040 RTP SCS, Appendix: Demographics & Growth Forecast. April 2016. Ventura, County of. 2009. Congestion Management Plan. Transportation Commission. Prepared by COH & Associates, Inc. Ventura, California. July 10, 2009. ttp://www.goventura.org/sites/default/files/Executive%20Summary.pdf. -----.2011. Ventura County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Last amended December 2010. Ventura, California. http://www.vcfloodinfo.com/pdf/Ventura%20County%20HMP_031411.pdf. -----. 2011. Ventura County General Plan. Last amended June 28, 2011. Ventura, California. http://www.countyofventura.org/rma/planning/pdf/plans/Goals-Policies-and-Programs-6-28- 11.pdf. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD).2003. Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines. October 2003. http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf Ventura County wide Stormwater Quality Management Program (VC Stormwater). (2011). Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures. Errata updated May 29, 2015. Prepared by Lary Walker Associates and Geosyntec Consultants, Davis, California. http://www.vcstormwater.org/images/stories/NPDES_Documents/TGM/Ventura TGM_Errata_ Update_2015-paginated_20150806_reduced.pdf. Ventura County Fire Protection District (VCFPD). 2011. Access Standards. -----. 2016. Fire Prevention. http://vcfd.org/Fire-Prevention (accessed 11/9/16). 76 Initial Study References Ventura County Resource Management Agency (VCRMA). 2011. Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines. April 2011. http://vcrma.org/pdf/ceqa/current_ISAG.pdf. (Accessed 11/12/16). United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. "Habitat Conservation Plans Report: Individual Habitat Conservation Plans." Environmental Conservation Online System. United States Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecpO/conservationPlan/region ?region=8& type=HCP. Accessed September 2016. List of Preparers Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS under contract to the CSUCI and CSUCI Site Authority. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control include the following. Jennifer Haddow, PhD, Principal Lilly Rudolph, AICP, Senior Planner Lexi Journey, MESM, Associate Planner Smadar Levy, MESM, Associate Planner Abagale Taylor, Associate Planner Nik , Associate Planner April Durham, PhD, Senior Technical Editor Initial Study 77 Rincon Consultants, Inc. www.rinconconsultants.com Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers