Fillmore Works Specific Plan Notice of Preparation Part 2

Fillmore Works Specific Plan
Initial Study and

Notice of Preparation of a
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Prepared by:
City of Fillmore
Planning & Community Development Department
250 Central Avenue
Fillmore, CA 93015
Prepared with the assistance of:
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

180 N. Ashwood Avenue
Ventura, California 93003
November 2014
This report is printed on 30% recycled paper with

30% post-consumer content.

Initial Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Initial Study
1. Project title ................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Lead agency name and address .............................................................................................. 1
3. Contact person and phone number ........................................................................................ 1
4. Project location .......................................................................................................................... 1
5. Project sponsors name and address ...................................................................................... 1
6. General plan designation ......................................................................................................... 1
7. Zoning......................................................................................................................................... 2
8. Description of project ............................................................................................................... 2
9. Surrounding land uses and setting ...................................................................................... 10
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required ............................................................ 10
Environmental Factors Affected .................................................................................................. 14
Determination ................................................................................................................................ 15
Environmental Checklist .............................................................................................................. 16
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XIV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 16
Agriculture and Forest Resources ................................................................................. 16
Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 18
Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 19
Cultural Resources........................................................................................................... 21
Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 21
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 24
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 24
Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................... 26
Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................... 28
Mineral Resources............................................................................................................ 29
Noise .................................................................................................................................. 30
Population and Housing ................................................................................................. 31
Public Services .................................................................................................................. 32
Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 33
Transportation/Traffic .................................................................................................... 34
Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 36
Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................. 38
References ........................................................................................................................................ 40
01148.0024/229368.2
City of Fillmore

Initial Study
List of Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Project Summary ......................................................................................................... 2

Population, Households, and Employment Projections for Fillmore................ 32
List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
01148.0024/229368.2
Regional Location ........................................................................................................ 4

Project Location ............................................................................................................ 5
Existing General Plan Land Use ................................................................................ 6
Proposed General Plan Land Use .............................................................................. 7
Existing Zoning ............................................................................................................ 8
Proposed Zoning .......................................................................................................... 9
Existing City Boundary ............................................................................................... 12
Proposed City Boundary............................................................................................. 13
ii
City of Fillmore

Initial Study
INITIAL STUDY
1.
Project title:
2.
Lead agency
name and address:
3.
Contact Person
and Phone Number:
4.
Project location:
5.
Project sponsors
name and addresses:
6.
General Plan
designation:

City of Fillmore
250 Central Avenue
Fillmore, CA 93015
Kevin McSweeney, Community Development Director
(805) 524-1500 x 116
As shown on Figure 1, Regional Location, the approximately 60acre project site is located in the Santa Clara River valley in
Ventura County. The project site is regionally accessible from
Highway 126, and locally accessible from Texico Road. As shown
on Figure 2, Project Location, the project site is located to the north
of Highway 126 and adjacent to existing residential and
commercial development in eastern Fillmore. The majority of the
project site (approximately 52 acres) is currently in unincorporated
Ventura County, outside but contiguous to the City of Fillmore. The
entire project site is within the Fillmore City Urban Restriction
Boundary (CURB). The project site includes 14 Assessors parcel
numbers: 041-0-250-080, 041-0-250-120, 041-0-250-130, 053-0-030220, 053-0-030-230, 053-0-160-205, 041-0-163-180, 041-0-163-190, 0410-163-200, 050-2-202-200, 050-2-202-240, 041-0-250-110, 041-0-250190, and 041-0-250-210. The portions of the project site located to the
east of Pole Creek and north of the railroad tracks (shown as RT
4N02 on Figure 2), is known as the Pacific Coast Pipeline (PCPL)
Superfund site.
Texaco Downstream Properties Inc.
6001 Bollinger Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94583-2324
(925) 842-5413
The Ventura County General Plan land use designation for the 52acre portion of the project site is Open Space. The City of Fillmore
General Plan land use designation for the remaining 8-acre
portion of the project site is Residential Low (1-7 du/ac),
Commercial Highway, and Public Facilities. The existing land use
designations are shown on Figure 3. The project applicant
proposes the following land use designations: Commercial
Highway (CH), Fillmore Works Commercial (FWC),
City of Fillmore
01

Initial Study
Manufacturing/Industrial (MPD), Open Space (O-S), and Public

Facilities (P-F).
The Ventura County zoning designation for the 52-acre portion of
the site is Open Space. The City of Fillmore zoning designations
for the remaining 8-acre portion of the project site are Residential
Low (1-7 du/ac), Commercial Highway, and Public Facilities. The
existing zoning designations are shown on Figure 5. The project
applicant proposes the following zoning designations:
Commercial Highway (CH), Fillmore Works Commercial (FWC),
Manufacturing/Industrial (MPD), Open Space (O-S), and Public
Facilities (P-F).
7.
Zoning:
8.
Project description:
The Fillmore Works Specific Plan would provide a framework to guide future land use
and development decisions for the 60-acre project site. In addition, a Vesting Tentative
Tract Map is proposed, establishing the extent of the proposed subdivision of property
and the tentative engineering details for construction of interior streets, building pads, and
supporting infrastructure.
The Specific Plan proposes a mix of manufacturing and industrial and commercial
highway development along with potential public facilities. Table 1 summarizes the
approximate size of each land use district and the estimated buildout potential. Building
intensity potential may be reduced due to geotechnical site constraints.
Table 1
Specific Plan Summary
Land Use
Acres
Potential
Project
Buildout
(square feet)
Commercial Highway
2.4
62,727
Fillmore Works Commercial
8.7
228,167
Manufacturing/Industrial
19.6
306,881
Public Facility
2.6
35,284
Open Space
14.9
Roads and Infrastructure
11.8
60
628,059
Total
*The project also includes two areas for potential annexation outside of the Specific Plan
Area as described on page 10.
Land Use Districts
Each of the proposed land use districts is described below.
City of Fillmore
01

Initial Study
Commercial Highway (CH)

This land use district is intended to provide uses such as office, retail, services, and tourist
oriented business that will serve the surrounding and adjacent community needs.
Examples of compatible uses include, but are not limited to, tourist-oriented retail, banks,
restaurants, supermarket, auto parts sales, and hotel/motel.
Fillmore Works Commercial (FWC)
This land use district is intended to be a more limited version of the Highway Commercial
land use district and would provide a transition between Highway Commercial uses and
manufacturing/industrial uses. Examples of compatible uses include, but are not limited
to, professional office, banks, health club, and equipment rental.
Manufacturing/Industrial (MPD)
This land use district is intended to provide for a range of light manufacturing industrial
uses. Examples of compatible uses include, but are not limited to, office, agricultural
warehousing, laboratories, research and development, and solar energy production.
Public Facilities
This land use district is intended to provide a wide range of public and quasi-public uses
and activities to serve the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods and the City of
Fillmore. Examples of compatible uses include, but are not limited to, parks, police/fire
station, utility structures, government offices, library, and recreational facilities.
Open Space
This land use district is intended to preserve and protect local natural resources, natural
habitats, and provide public and private recreational land to meet the needs of all
segments of the City. Examples of compatible uses include, but are not limited to,
recreational facilities, non-vehicular recreation, agriculture, and habitat restoration.
Infrastructure
In addition to the construction of commercial, industrial, public facilities, and open space
uses, the project would involve construction of infrastructure to improve site access and
public services. A signalized intersection at the project entrance and Highway 126 is
proposed to provide vehicular access to the project site. The current location of this
driveway access is approximately 600 feet east of the Santa Clara Avenue/Highway 126
intersection. However, an alternative access point approximately 1,600 feet east of the
Santa Clara Avenue/Highway 126 intersection will also be considered in conformance
with the Citys General Plan Circulation Element. Pedestrian access to the site would be
provided by a bridge across Pole Creek, which would connect Sespe Avenue to the project
site. The option of providing vehicular access via this bridge will also be considered.
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements would be constructed throughout the site,
connecting to Highway 126, the proposed open space area, and the adjacent residential
neighborhoods and commercial land uses. City-owned water and sewer facilities and
other public services would also be extended to the project site.
City of Fillmore
01
Fillmore Works Project

Initial Study
_
^
4,000
8,000 Feet
Imagery provided by ESRI and its licensors 2013.
_
^
_
^
Project Location
15
Regional Location
30 Miles
Figure 1
City of Fillmore

Initial Study
Is la nd
t
Vie w S
2 Nd S t
Te
o
xi c
Rd
1 St St
kD
W ay
C oo
r
C as ne r
Se s p e
Av e
M a rke t
n
Lora L
St
t
M a in S
t
Cl ara S
Sa n t a
R T 4 N0
E Telegraph Rd
Imagery provided by ESRI and its licensors 2013.
Project Location
Project Site
126
S
T
250
Scale in Feet
500
Figure 2
City of Fillmore

Initial Study
et
iew Stre
Island V
t
2nd Stree
PF
RL
Mountain
OS
y
Casner Wa
eet
View Str
nue
Sespe Ave
Lora Lane
MAP FEATURES
PF
Project Boundary
City Limits April 2009
in Street
a April 2009
CURBM
Line
Water Channel (Pole Creek)
CH
Railroad
EXISTING GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE
Commercial Highway
OS
Open Space
PF
Public Facilities
Existing General Plan Land Use

Source: Texaco Downstream Properties Inc, 2012
ive
Residential Low (1-7 du/ac)
CH
26
El Dora
do Dr
RL
HIGHWAY1
Figure 3
City of Fillmore

Initial Study
MAP FEATURES
Project Boundary
City Limits
Island V
CURB Line April 2009

Railroad
et
iew Stre
LAND USE DISTRICTS

CH
t
2nd Stree
MPD
Commercial Highway
FWC
MPD
P-F
Public Facilities
O-S
Open Space
O-S
MPD
nue
Sespe Ave
treet
iew S
tain V
Moun
y
Casner Wa
Lora Lane
et
Main Stre
P-F
FWC
FWC
FWC
CH
HIGHWA
Y126
Proposed General Plan Land Use

Figure 4
City of Fillmore

Initial Study
O-S
et
iew Stre
Island V
t
2nd Stree
P-F
R-L
OS
ain Vie
Mount
y
Casner Wa
nue
Sespe Ave
w Stre
et
Lora Lane
MAP FEATURES
Project Boundary
P-F
et
Main Stre

Railroad
CH
HIGHWAY126
EXISTING ZONING
City
Residential Low (1-7 du/ac)
CH
Commercial Highway
P-F
Public Facilities
El Dora
do Driv
e
R-L
County
OS
Open Space
Existing Zoning
Figure 5
City of Fillmore

Initial Study
MAP FEATURES
Project Boundary
City Limits
Island V

Railroad
et
iew Stre
LAND USE DISTRICTS

CH
t
2nd Stree
MPD
Commercial Highway
FWC
MPD
P-F
Public Facilities
O-S
Open Space
O-S
MPD
nue
Sespe Ave
treet
iew S
tain V
Moun
y
Casner Wa
Lora Lane
et
Main Stre
P-F
FWC
FWC
FWC
CH
HIGHWA
Y126
Proposed Zoning
Figure 6
City of Fillmore

Initial Study
Phasing
Full development, or buildout, of the Fillmore Works Specific Plan Area is expected to
take approximate 20 years to complete depending on market conditions. It is currently
anticipated to be phased generally from south to north with early phases implemented
adjacent to Highway 126 and final phases at the northern portion of the Plan Area.
Annexation
As previously noted, portions of the project site are located outside of the city limits, but
within the CURB boundary. Chevron requests that the City of Fillmore annex
approximately fifty two (52) acres. (Refer to Figures 7 and 8 Existing City Boundaries and
Proposed Annexation Areas.) Of note are two (2) areas located outside of the project
boundary that are not owned by TDPI. One area is a triangular property (owned by
Ventura County Watershed Protection District - VCWPD) located northwest of the project
boundary and the other is the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC)
railroad corridor that bisects and runs parallel to the southern project boundary. As
annexation can be owner- or City-initiated, Chevron anticipates that the City may initiate
annexation of these two (2) parcels to eliminate unincorporated islands.
9.
Surrounding land uses and setting:

The western portion of the 60-acre project site is generally flat, while the eastern portion is
characterized by hillsides. The project site contained an oil refinery from circa 1915 until
1950. The refinery was shut down in 1950; dismantled by 1951, leaving approximately eight
aboveground storage tanks (ASTs); and converted to a crude oil pumping station by 1952.
Pumping station operations discontinued in late 2002, and nearly all remaining facilities
were dismantled and removed. The last remaining AST was removed in August 2004. Old
pipelines, concrete foundations, and other remaining infrastructure at the site were
excavated and removed in 2011 and 2012. The western portion of the site has been
extensively graded and final remediation activities are currently being completed.
The project site is bordered to the southwest by commercial and industrial uses; to the west
by low-density residential uses, Pole Creek, and an elementary school; to the north and east
by open space; and to the south by Highway 126 and low-density residential and
commercial uses. As shown on Figure 2, the southern portion of the project site is bisected
by the Ventura County Transportation Commission rail line, which runs parallel to
Highway 126.
10.
Necessary Public Agency Approvals:

The following includes a list of agencies and approvals known, or assumed to be required
for one or more components of the proposed Fillmore Works Specific Plan, as required by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(d).
City of Fillmore General Plan Land Use Element amendment and zone change
Fillmore General Plan Circulation Element amendment
City of Fillmore Development Permit
City of Fillmore
01
10

Initial Study
City of Fillmore approval of Specific Plan

City of Fillmore approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map
City of Fillmore and Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) approval
of a sphere of influence amendment and annexation of approximately 52 acres to the
City of Fillmore
City of Fillmore
01
11

Initial Study
Island V
et
iew Stre
t
2nd Stree
y
Casner Wa
tain V
Moun
Sespe Ave
nue
iew S
treet
Lora Lane
Main Stre
et
MAP FEATURES
Project Boundary
Rail Yard
Sphere of Influence
HIGHWAY126

CURB Line
Railroad
El Dora
do Driv
e
Debris Basin
Existing Boundary - Annexation
Figure 7
City of Fillmore

Initial Study
Island V
et
iew Stre
t
2nd Stree
y
Casner Wa
tain V
Moun
nue
Sespe Ave
Lora Lane
iew S
treet
et
Main Stre
MAP FEATURES
Project Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Rail Yard
Proposed City Limits
HIGHWAY126
CURB Line
Railroad
Debris Basin
do Driv
e
Area to be Annexed
El Dora
Property owned by others.

City to initiate Annexation
Request.
Annexation Area
Figure 8
City of Fillmore

Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AFFECTED

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

Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous

Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Transportation/Traffic
City of Fillmore
01
14

Initial Study
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have 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.
for
Kevin McSweeney, Community Development Director
City of Fillmore
11/4/2014
Date
City of Fillmore
01
15

Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
I.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AESTHETICS Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a

scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
a-d) Portions of the project site are visible from scenic vistas and public view corridors,
including residential streets across Pole Creek to the west of the project site and Highway 126 to
the south. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) lists Highway 126 as eligible
for designation as a scenic highway between Highway 150 to the west of Fillmore and Interstate
5 to the east (Caltrans, 2013). The proposed project would primarily involve development of the
flatter, western portion of the site, but nevertheless would be visible from both public view
corridors (including Highway 126) and from private residences to the west across Pole Creek.
As such, it could substantially alter views. Development of the project would also change the
visual character of the site and produce light and glare that may be visible from the residential
neighborhood to the west. Therefore, the project would have potentially significant aesthetic
impacts and such impacts will be addressed in an EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST

RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) 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 nonagricultural use?
City of Fillmore
01
16

Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST

RESOURCES -- Would the project:
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, c, d) The majority of the 60-acre project site has been previously disturbed by industrial
activities associated with oil production. Although the California Department of Conservation
has designated the eastern portion of the project site as Grazing Land, the site is not located in
the vicinity of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. In
addition, the project would not directly or indirectly result in the conversion of farmland to
non-agricultural use. Since the project site and vicinity do not contain forest land, the project
would neither conflict with existing zoning for forest land nor result in the loss of forest land.
The impact would be less than significant and further analysis in an EIR is not warranted.
b, e) Neither the project site nor surrounding land is zoned for agriculture. The majority of a
399.5-acre parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 041-0-250-200) adjacent to the project site to the east
is under Williamson Act contract. Under provisions of the Act, private landowners may
voluntarily enter into a long-term contract (minimum of 10 years) with cities and counties to
form agricultural preserves and maintain their property in agricultural or open space uses in
return for a reduced property tax assessment based on the agricultural value of the property.
The 15 acres of open space proposed along the majority of the project sites interface with this
parcel would serve as a buffer between existing agricultural uses and proposed industrial uses.
Therefore, impacts related to conflicts with agricultural zoning and potential conversion of
other agricultural lands would be less than significant. Further analysis in an EIR is not
warranted.
City of Fillmore
01
17

Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
III.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AIR QUALITY -- Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of

the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the Project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
a) The project site is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin, which is within the
jurisdiction of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). According to the
APCD Guidelines, a project that does not conform to the applicable general plan may be
inconsistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The proposed project would
require a City of Fillmore General Plan amendment and, therefore, may interfere with
attainment of state or federal air quality standards. Impacts are potentially significant and will
be analyzed further in an EIR.
b-d) The development of commercial and manufacturing/industrial uses on the project site
would generate a net increase in energy use and motor vehicle traffic. According to an Air
Quality Technical Report by URS in May 2012, modeling of the proposed projects operational
emissions using the CalEEMod program indicate that VOC and NOx emissions could exceed
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) significance thresholds. The project
could also potentially contribute to violations of state or federal air quality standards due to the
increase in traffic on and around the project site.
Construction activity associated with the proposed project would also generate temporary
increases in emissions of ozone precursors and fugitive dust due to the use of heavy
construction equipment, grading activity, and truck trips. Such emissions could exceed
VCAPCD thresholds and cause temporary impacts to neighboring residential uses, which are as
close as 25 feet to the west of the site, and the San Cayetano Elementary School, located
approximately 175 feet to the west.
City of Fillmore
01
18

Initial Study
Both temporary construction impacts and long-term impacts associated with project
operation are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.
e) Figure 5-5, Land Uses Associated with Odor Complaints, of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook (accessed online, October 2014) identifies the following land uses associated with
odor complaints: Agriculture, Wastewater Treatment Plants, Food Processing Plants, Chemical
Plants, Composting, Refineries, Landfills, Dairies, and Fiberglass Molding Plants. Based on this
list, future activities within the proposed Manufacturing/Industrial zone on the project site
would not be expected to result in objectionable odors experienced by sensitive receptors to the
west. Construction activities may generate temporary odor issues due to the use of diesel
equipment. However, compliance with requirements in the City of Fillmore Municipal Code
would protect adjoining areas from excessive odor. Pursuant to City of Fillmore Municipal
Code Section 6.04.1805, Any existing or proposed use producing odors or noxious matter in
quantities that can or may become a public nuisance/hazard shall have the source of the
contaminant controlled in order to prevent the issuance, continuance or recurrence of any
emission detectable beyond the boundary lines of the subject parcel. Therefore, impacts
related to objectionable odors would be less than significant and further analysis in an EIR is
not warranted.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
IV.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either

directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as 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?
City of Fillmore
01
19

Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
IV.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:
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-d) The project site primarily consists of disturbed, vacant land that was formerly occupied by
industrial uses. The eastern portion of the project site contains natural open space, where a May
2012 Biological Technical Report by URS identified the vegetation communities Venturan
Coastal Sage Scrub, Southern Willow Scrub, and Non-Native Grassland. Although this report
concluded that the project site generally lacks suitable habitat for special-status species, the site
does include some of the requisite habitat for the Coastal California gnatcatcher, as well as a
feature (Pole Creek) that may be within the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Thus, the project could potentially affect a federally protected
water resource that also potentially serves as a migration corridor for steelhead trout.
Consequently, the project would have a potentially significant impact to biological resources
and impacts will be further analyzed in an EIR.
e) No specific City policies pertaining to preservation of biological resources apply to the project
site. Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard and further analysis of this issue in an
EIR is not warranted.
f) The project site is not within an area that is subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved conservation plan. No impact
would occur and further investigation of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.
City of Fillmore
01
20

Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
V.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:
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) No structures or other resources of potential historic significance are present onsite.

Therefore, there would be no impact to historic resources and further analysis of this issue in
an EIR is not warranted.
b-d) An Archaeological Reconnaissance Report by URS in December 2011 found that the project
site retains several historic features associated with oil-related activities that occurred between
1915 and 2002, including the remnants of building foundations. However, the condition of
existing historic features is generally very poor, and no intact historic buildings remain on-site.
Furthermore, the report concluded that significant archaeological resources are not present on
the project site. Such resources would have been removed previously due to extensive ground
disturbance from activities associated with previous oil facilities, the demolition of dozens of
structures on the site, and the installation of hundreds of pipeline segments throughout the site.
Nevertheless, ground-disturbing activities during construction have the potential to result in
discovery of unanticipated cultural resources, including unique paleontological resources and
human remains. Therefore, impacts are potentially significant and impacts will be analyzed
further in an EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
VI.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GEOLOGY and SOILS Would the Project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential

substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
City of Fillmore
01
21

Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
VI.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GEOLOGY and SOILS Would the Project:

i)
Rupture of a known earthquake fault,

as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault?
ii)
Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,

including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable as a result of the Project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in -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. i and ii) Southern California is located in an active seismic region. As such, development that
occurs within the region has the potential of exposing people and/or structures to potentially
substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault. To evaluate the
potential of geological hazards, URS conducted an Engineering Geology and Geotechnical
Investigation on August 6, 2012. According to this report, the project site is located on the San
Cayetano Fault and in close proximity to several other active faults. The Oakridge Fault is
located approximately one mile to the south, with the Santa Susana Fault 8 miles to the
southeast, the Simi-Santa Rosa Fault 9 miles to the south, the Santa Ynez Fault 14 miles to the
northwest, the San Gabriel Fault 16 miles to the northeast, and the San Andreas Fault 26 miles
to the northeast. Ground motion caused by an earthquake is likely to occur at the site during the
lifetime of the development due to the proximity of several active and potentially active faults.
Therefore, the project site is subject to potential hazards associated with surface fault rupture
City of Fillmore
01
22

Initial Study
and ground shaking. Impacts are potentially significant and this issue will be analyzed
further in an EIR.
a. iii.) Liquefaction is a process whereby soil is temporarily transformed to a 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. The Engineering Geology
and Geotechnical Investigation found a low potential for lateral spreading toward Pole Creek
along the western boundary of the project site, due to the depth of liquefiable soil. Nevertheless,
the project site may be subject to seismically induced settlement as a result of liquefaction.
Impacts are potentially significant and this issue will be analyzed further in an EIR.
a. iv.) Although the western portion of the site is generally flat, the eastern portion has relatively
steep terrain and is located in an area with the potential for earthquake-induced landslides,
according to the California Department of Conservation Seismic Hazard Zone map of the
Fillmore Quadrangle (California Department of Conservation, 2002). In this area, heavy rainfall,
seismic shaking, and mass grading during construction could induce slope instability. Impacts
are potentially significant and this issue will be analyzed further in an EIR.
b) Construction activity associated with site development may result in the erosion of soils from
wind and water, especially on the relatively steep southeastern portion of the site where the
project would accommodate commercial uses. Impacts are potentially significant and this
issue will be analyzed further in an EIR.
c) As discussed in section a.iv) above, the project site is potentially subject to landslides,
seismically induced settlement, liquefaction, or collapse. Soil and bedrock on the site may be
unstable. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.
d) Although tests conducted by the Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Investigation
indicated that soils near ground level of the site of the project are non-expansive, the report
recommended additional site-specific testing of soil for expansiveness. Expansive soils are
primarily comprised of clays, which increase in volume when water is absorbed and shrink
when dry. Expansive soils are of concern since building foundations may rise during the rainy
season and fall during dry periods in response to the clays action. If movement varies under
different parts of the building, structural portions of the building may distort. Impacts are
potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.
e) On-site development would be served by the City of Fillmore wastewater treatment system.
Septic systems or other alternative wastewater treatment systems would not be used and
analysis of the soil capability of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems is therefore not needed. No impact would occur and further analysis of this
issue in an EIR is not warranted.
City of Fillmore
01
23

Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
VII.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project:
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 for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
a) The proposed project would generate traffic to and from the site, and would also increase onsite
energy consumption. Both traffic and onsite energy consumption would potentially generate
emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), which would incrementally contribute to global climate
change. This potentially significant impact will be analyzed further in an EIR.
b) The City of Fillmore has not adopted any plans or policies related to reducing GHG emissions.
However, both the California Climate Action Team (CCAT) and the Attorney General have
adopted plans and recommended strategies for reducing GHG emissions. In, addition the
Southern California Association of Governments has adopted the regional Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS), which is aimed at reducing GHG emissions through land use
planning. Impacts related to these plans and policies would be potentially significant and will be
studied further in an EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
VIII.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HAZARDS and HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or

the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
City of Fillmore
01
24

Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
VIII.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HAZARDS and HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the Project:

mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which 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 within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
Project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the Project area?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private

airstrip, would the Project result in a
safety hazard for 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?
a-d) The portion of the project site to the east of Pole Creek and to the north of the Ventura
County Transportation Commission railroad tracks is located on the PCPL Superfund site.
Sensitive receptors are located in proximity to the Superfund site; outdoor activity areas at San
Cayetano Elementary School are approximately 120 feet to the west of the site.
According to a May 2012 Hazardous Materials Technical Memorandum by URS, the Superfund
site contained an oil refinery from circa 1915 until 1950. The refinery was shut down in 1950;
dismantled by 1951, leaving approximately eight aboveground storage tanks (ASTs); and
converted to a crude oil pumping station by 1952. Pumping station operations discontinued in
late 2002, and nearly all remaining facilities were dismantled and removed. The last remaining
AST was removed in August 2004. Old pipelines, concrete foundations, and other remaining
infrastructure at the site were excavated and removed in 2011 and 2012. Final cleanup activities
are in the process of being completed. Future industrial activities on the project site that use or
store hazardous materials also could potentially result in the accidental release of hazardous
City of Fillmore
01
25

Initial Study
materials. Site remediation will be completed in accordance with applicable regulatory

requirements and future onsite activities would be required to adhere to applicable regulations
pertaining to the storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials. Nevertheless, health and
safety impacts associated with historic contamination and the potential for future hazardous
material releases are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.
e-f) The project site is located approximately 9.5 miles northeast of the nearest airport - Santa
Paula Airport and is not located within an airport land use plan. Implementation of the
proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people working on the project site.
Therefore, impacts related to airports and private airstrips are less than significant and will
not be analyzed further in an EIR.
g) Implementation of the proposed project would facilitate the construction of commercial,
manufacturing/industrial, and public facilities uses on the project site. Future development
under the project would be subject to City Fire Department safety and access requirements in
order to ensure that such development would not impair or interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There would be no impact and
further analysis in an EIR is not warranted.
h) The project site is adjacent to an undeveloped hillside that is a high risk area with respect to
wildland fire. A hazards analysis is necessary to determine whether proposed development
standards would be sufficient to address the potential for wildland fires to affect future site
structures. Therefore, impacts related to wildland fire are potentially significant and will be
analyzed further in an EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
IX.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or

waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering or the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would
City of Fillmore
01
26

Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
IX.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:
result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site?
d) 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
which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water

quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood

hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i)
Expose people or structures to a

significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or

mudflow?
a-b) The proposed project would facilitate the development of commercial, manufacturing/
industrial, and public facilities uses on a vacant former industrial site. Such urban development
would substantially increase the amount of impervious surface on the project site, which could
result in depletion of groundwater recharge. In addition, urban uses could increase the
discharge of pollutants into surface or nearby ground water sources such as Pole Creek. The
discharge of pollutants would potentially affect compliance with water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed
further in an EIR.
City of Fillmore
01
27

Initial Study
c-f) Implementation of the proposed project would alter surface water runoff patterns in the
project area due to the increase in impervious surfaces in the area. As described above in
subsection (a)-(b), implementation of the project could also potentially increase contaminants in
surface runoff from the site. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further
in an EIR.
g) The proposed project would facilitate the development of commercial, manufacturing/
industrial, and public facilities uses on a vacant former refinery site. As no residential uses are
proposed on the project site, the project would not result in placement of housing within 100year flood areas. There would be no impact and further analysis in an EIR is not warranted.
h-i) In May 2012, URS published a Regional Flood Hazard Information/Assessment on
hydrological conditions at the project site. According to this report, an existing flood control
channel adjacent to the project site (Pole Creek) historically posed a flood hazard to the City of
Fillmore and portions of the project site as reflected on the current Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Although flood
control improvements to Pole Creek and the Santa Clara River have been under construction
since 2007 as part of the Heritage Valley Parks (HVP) project, these improvements have not
been completed. Consequently, FEMA has not yet issued a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to
reflect these changes to the FIRM. Therefore, implementation of the project could expose
structures and people to flood hazards. Impacts are potentially significant and will be
analyzed further in an EIR.
j) According to the Ventura County General Plan Hazards Appendix, there is no record of a
seiche occurring in the County and the threat posed by this phenomenon is small. Tsunami
inundation areas are confined to the coastal margin along the Oxnard Plain and would not
affect the project site, which is located 23 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. Nevertheless, as
discussed in Section VI, Geology and Soils, the project site is potentially subject to landslides.
Mudflow impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
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
City of Fillmore
01
28

Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:

conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
a) The proposed project involves designation of commercial, manufacturing/industrial, public

facilities, and open space uses. The project involves the annexation and future development of
an uninhabited area that is currently part of unincorporated Ventura County. Consequently, it
would not interrupt neighborhood continuity or connectivity, or otherwise physically divide an
established community. The impact would be less than significant and further analysis in an
EIR is not warranted.
b) The proposed project would require an amendment to the Fillmore General Plan, zone
change, adoption of a Specific Plan, and approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. It would
also require annexation of the majority of the site to the City of Fillmore. This annexation and
associated governmental reorganization would be subject to approval by the Ventura County
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). It would also be subject to regional land use
policies adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Impacts
related to consistency with applicable land use policies of the City of Fillmore, the Ventura
County LAFCo, the applicable policies of the Ventura County General Plan, and SCAG are
potentially significant and will be studied further in an EIR.
c) The project site is located on a former industrial site adjacent to the City of Fillmore. No
habitat/natural community conservation plans apply to the site. Although the hillsides on the
eastern portion of the project site contain natural open space, as described in the Biological
Resources section, this area would be preserved under the proposed project. Therefore, no
impact would occur and further analysis in an EIR is not warranted.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan, or other land use plan?
City of Fillmore
01
29

Initial Study
a-b) Based on Figure 1b in the Ventura County General Plan, the project site is not located
within a Mineral Resource Area as defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology
(Ventura County General Plan, 2011). In addition, the project site is not underlain by known oil
resources (Figure 1.4.7, Ventura County General Plan Hazards Appendix, 2011). The proposed
project involves redevelopment of vacant land that was previously developed for industrial
uses and is located adjacent to an urbanized area of Fillmore (see Figure 2). Moreover, the
proposed development would not conflict with the only policy in the Fillmore General Plan that
pertains to extraction of mineral resources. According to Policy IV-19, The City shall encourage
only such mineral operations that are aesthetically controlled and environmentally sound in the
natural water courses. No mineral resources of value to the region or the residents of the state
have been identified within the project site, and the project site is not suited for resource
extraction given its proximity to urban development. Hence, no impact would occur and
further analysis in an EIR is not required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
XII.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
NOISE Would the Project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of

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

airstrip, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise?
City of Fillmore
01
30

Initial Study
a-d) The proposed project is bisected by the Ventura County Transportation Commission
railroad tracks and adjacent to Highway 126. Therefore, the project site is subject to traffic and
railroad noise. Activities associated with residential uses and public facilities to the west of Pole
Creek also contribute to the ambient noise environment on the project site. The proposed project
would facilitate construction of commercial, manufacturing/industrial, and public facilities
uses, which could temporarily generate noise levels while construction is on-going potentially
in excess of City standards. Construction on the project site could also expose sensitive
receptors residing in the neighborhood to the west of Pole Creek to ground borne vibration.
Therefore, impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.
e, f) The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport
or a private airstrip. Hence, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people
working on the project site to excessive noise levels from airport or aircraft operations. No
impact would occur and further investigation of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
XIII.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an

area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
a) The Citys current and projected levels of population, households, and employment are
displayed below in Table 2. Fillmore has a current population of 15,339 and is expected to add
an estimated 5,461 residents by 2035. The proposed project would facilitate construction of 11
acres of commercial uses and 20 acres of manufacturing/industrial uses, but does not involve
the construction of any housing. As such, the project would not directly generate population
growth. The addition of onsite jobs may indirectly contribute to population growth in the area
by causing people to relocate to the area for local job opportunities; however, such growth is
speculative and is not expected to exceed population forecasts for the City. Impacts related to
population growth would be less than significant and further analysis in an EIR is not
warranted.
City of Fillmore
01
31

Initial Study
Table 2
Population, Households, and
Employment Projections for Fillmore
b
2014
a
2020
2035
18,000
20,800
Population
15,339
Households
4,452
5,100
5,900
Employment
3,200
3,500
3,900
Source:
California Department of Finance, 2014.
SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS, Growth Forecast Appendix.
b, c) Implementation of the proposed project would facilitate development of commercial,

manufacturing/industrial, and open spaces uses on a site that is currently vacant. Therefore,
implementation of the project would not displace housing or people. No impact would occur
and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
XIV.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
PUBLIC SERVICES
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:
i)
Fire protection?
ii)
Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
a. i.-ii.) The Fillmore Police Department (staffed by the Ventura County Sheriffs Department)
and the Fillmore Volunteer Fire Department serve the City. The Citys police station is located
approximately 0.5 miles west of the project site, and the Fillmore City Fire Department Station
91 is located 0.8 miles west of the project site. Under the proposed project, the portion of the
City of Fillmore
01
32

Initial Study
project site that is outside the Citys current corporate boundary would be annexed and the
service area for these providers would be expanded to encompass the entire project site. The
proposed project would facilitate the development of 11 acres of commercial uses and 20 acres
of manufacturing/industrial uses. As a result of such future development, the proposed project
could potentially create police and fire service demand increases that may necessitate the
construction of new or expanded facilities that may result in significant environmental effects.
Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.
a. iii.) Since the proposed project would not accommodate the construction of residential uses, it
would not directly result in the addition of students at local public schools. Nevertheless, in
accordance with State law, the project applicant would be required to pay applicable school
impact fees to the Fillmore Unified School District in accordance with state law. Pursuant to
Section 65995(3)(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27,
1998), the payment of statutory fees ...is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the
impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the
planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or
reorganization. Thus, payment of the development fees is considered full mitigation for the
project's impacts under CEQA and no additional mitigation would be required. Impacts to
public schools would be less than significant and this issue further analysis of this issue in
an EIR is not warranted.
a. iv.) As discussed in Section XIII, Population and Housing, future commercial and
manufacturing/industrial uses on the project site would not directly induce population growth
in the City, which would increase demand for public services such as parks. Accordingly, there
would be no adverse impact on existing parks within the City. The proposed project would
dedicate additional recreational space in the form of 15 acres of open space on the eastern slopes
of the project site. This area is intended to include passive recreation opportunities such as
pedestrian and bicycle trails. With the provision of open space available for public use,
overall impacts related to public parks would be beneficial. There would no adverse impacts
and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.
a. v.) The proposed project would not adversely affect any other public facilities. No impact
would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
XV.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
RECREATION
a) Would the Project increase the use of

existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the Project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
City of Fillmore
01
33

Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
XV.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
RECREATION
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
a) As discussed in Section XIV, Public Services, implementation of the proposed project would
not add residential uses to the City; rather, the project would facilitate the development of
commercial and manufacturing/industrial uses, which would not directly generate demand for
recreational facilities. In addition, the proposed project would increase the supply of parkland
in the City by dedicating 15 acres of open space in the eastern portion of the project site. This
area is intended to include passive recreation opportunities such as pedestrian and bicycle
trails. With the provision of recreational facilities for public use, impacts to existing facilities
would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.
b) The proposed project would dedicate 15 acres of open space on the eastern portion of the
project site. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, this area contains coastal sage scrub,
willow scrub, and grassland habitat. The construction of recreational facilities such as
pedestrian and bicycle trails within the open space area could result in a significant effect on the
environment. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of recreational facilities would be
potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR biological resources section.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC -- Would the project:

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
City of Fillmore
01
34

Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC -- Would the project:

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?
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?
a, b) The proposed project would accommodate approximately 15 acres of open space uses, 20
acres of manufacturing/industrial uses, 11 acres of commercial uses, and 2.6 acres of public
facilities uses. Onsite manufacturing/industrial and commercial development would increase
traffic to and from the site, which could adversely affect service levels on roadways in the
project site vicinity, in particular along Highway 126. If vehicular access is provided across Pole
Creek, the project may also increase traffic in the residential neighborhood immediately west of
the project site, particularly along Sespe Avenue. Therefore, impacts are potentially significant
and will be analyzed further in an EIR.
c) The proposed project would not affect air traffic patterns. No impact would occur and
further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.
d) The proposed project includes alterations to the existing circulation network in the project
site, including construction of a signalized railroad crossing and a signalized intersection
providing ingress and egress via Highway 126. The existing railroad crossing would be moved
to the east to improve land use efficiency and site safety. No increased hazards due to proposed
design features have been identified. All new roads and driveways would be required to
comply with applicable City and Caltrans standards pertaining to site access and visibility.
Nevertheless, impacts related to safety along Highway 126 are potentially significant and this
issue will be studied further in an EIR.
City of Fillmore
01
35

Initial Study
e) Primary access to the project site would be provided by a signalized intersection on Highway
126, with additional pedestrian and potential vehicle access available via a proposed bridge
across Pole Creek connecting to the eastern end of Sespe Avenue. Access would be required to
meet Fire Department specifications. However, congestion along Highway 126 and other
roadways within the City could hinder site access. Site access issues are potentially significant
and will be studied further in an EIR.
f) The proposed project would involve construction of a pedestrian and bicycle-accessible
bridge across Pole Creek from Sespe Avenue to the project site. Bicycle improvements would
extend from Sespe Avenue through the site and connecting to Highway 126 and the proposed
open space area. Although these features of the project would improve the Citys alternative
transportation network, the future increase in commercial, manufacturing/ industrial, and open
space uses on the project site could generate substantial demand for public transit, bikeways, or
pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant and this issue will
be studied further in an EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
XVII.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
UTILITIES Would the Project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment

requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the Project from existing
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 Projects
projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments?
f)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient

permitted capacity to accommodate the
Projects solid waste disposal needs?
City of Fillmore
01
36

Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
XVII.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
UTILITIES Would the Project:
g) Comply with federal, state, and local

statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
a) The proposed project would accommodate 15 acres of open space uses, 20 acres of
manufacturing/industrial uses, 11 acres of commercial uses, and 2.6 acres of public facilities
uses. Such development would increase onsite wastewater generation and could potentially
generate effluent that exceeds the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an
EIR.
b, e) The Fillmore Water Recycling Plant, run by American Water, has provided zero-discharge
wastewater treatment to the City since 2009. The plant was updated for the purpose of meeting
treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and to accommodate the
Citys project wastewater flows through 2028, with an eventual capacity of 2.4 million gallons
per day (AECOM, 2013). Nevertheless, the development of 20 acres of manufacturing/
industrial uses and 11 acres of commercial uses on the project site would increase the volume of
wastewater treated by the Fillmore Water Recycling Plant and may require the extension of
sewer lines and/or recycled water lines to the project site. Impacts are potentially significant
and will be analyzed further in an EIR.
c) As discussed in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, future development facilitated by
the proposed project would alter storm water drainage on the project site. This could potentially
adversely affect the local storm drain system. Furthermore, potential commercial and
manufacturing/industrial uses on the project site could require the extension of storm water
drain facilities. Impacts would be potentially significant and this issue will be analyzed
further in an EIR.
d) Future development on the project site would receive water from the City of Fillmore, which
draws groundwater from the Fillmore aquifer and has potential additional supplies of imported
State water through a 1995 Memorandum of Understanding with the United Water
Conservation District and other parties (City of Fillmore, 2000). Based on the anticipated level of
demand, a water supply assessment (WSA) is required to identify existing water supply
entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for
the proposed project and water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights,
and contracts. Since the project requires annexation to the City, its water demand is outside that
considered in the Citys latest Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Therefore, additional
analysis is needed to determine whether existing and planned water supplies are sufficient.
Impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.
City of Fillmore
01
37

Initial Study
f, g) Fillmores waste disposal service is provided by Harrison Industries, a private contractor.

Solid waste from the City is routed to Gold Coast Recycling & Transfer Station in Ventura,
whereupon disposal waste is transported to the Toland Road Landfill (Harrison, 2013; Gold
Coast, 2013). This landfill is a fully permitted non-hazardous solid waste disposal facility that
receives municipal, construction-related, agricultural, and industrial material as well as
biosolids. The Toland Road Landfill has a permitted capacity of 1,500 tons/day and had an
average intake of 919.8 tons/day in 2011 (CalRecycle, 2013). Implementation of the project
would generate additional solid waste from commercial and manufacturing/industrial uses,
which could potentially exceed the capacity of the Toland Road Landfill. Impacts related to
solid waste generation are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE
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) Implementation of the proposed project would have the potential to adversely affect on-site
biological resources, as discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources. Although cultural resources
are not known to be present onsite, site development could potentially disturb as yet
undiscovered cultural resources, as discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources. Impacts to
biological and cultural resources are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in
an EIR.
City of Fillmore
01
38

Initial Study
b) The proposed project would facilitate the development of commercial, manufacturing/

industrial, and open space uses. Implementation of the project would intensify the use of the 60acre site and, in conjunction with other planned and pending development in the area, could
create significant cumulative impacts, particularly with respect to such issue areas as
transportation, air quality, GHGs, and noise. Cumulative impacts associated with
implementation of the proposed project are potentially significant and will be analyzed
further in an EIR.
c) Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings
through air pollution, the release and use of hazardous materials, noise, geological conditions,
and hydrologic conditions. In addition, as discussed in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, the portion of the project site to the east of Pole Creek and to the north of the Ventura
County Transportation Commission railroad tracks is located on the PCPL Superfund site.
Therefore, impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.
City of Fillmore
01
39

Initial Study
REFERENCES
AECOM. Fillmore Water Recycling Plant. 2013. Available online at
http://www.aecom.com/What+We+Do/Water/Market+Sectors/Water+Design+Build/_c
arousel/Fillmore+Water+Recycling+Plant. Accessed April 2013.
California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available online at
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html. Accessed April 2013.
California Department of Conservation. Seismic Hazard Zones: Fillmore Quadrangle. December
2002. Available online at http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/pdf/ozn_fil.pdf
California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and
the State, January 2011 and 2012, with 2010 Benchmark. January 2012. Available online at
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view.php.
Accessed April 2013.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Scenic Highway Program. Eligible (E) and
Officially Designated (OD) Routes. February 2013. Available online at
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm/. Accessed April 2013..
CalRecycle. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS). Available online at
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/. Accessed May 2013.
City of Fillmore. 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. December 2000. Available online at
http://www.fillmoreca.com/docs/Water-Plan.pdf
City of Fillmore. General Plan. 1989. Available online at
http://www.fillmoreca.com/planning_download.htm#gpu.
City of Fillmore. Municipal Code. Available online at
http://www.fillmoreca.com/zoningcode.htm. Accessed April 2013.
County of Ventura. Ventura County General Plan: Goals, Policies and Programs. June 2011.
Available online at http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/plans/generalplan/index.html
County of Ventura. Ventura County General Plan Hazards Appendix. June 2011. Available online at
http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/pdf/plans/General-Plan-Hazards-Appendix-628-11.pdf
County of Ventura Assessors Office. Assessors Parcel Map Page. Available online at
http://assessor.countyofventura.org/research/mappage.asp. Accessed April 2013.
Gold Coast Recycling & Transfer Station. 2013. Available online at
http://www.goldcoastrecycling.com/process.html. Accessed April 2013.
City of Fillmore
01
40

Initial Study
Hanson, Carl E., Towers, David A., and Meister, Lance D. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment. Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment. May 2006.
Available online at
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf
Harrison Industries. 2013. Available online at http://www.ejharrison.com/. Accessed April
2013.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Figure
5-5 Land Uses Associated with Odor Complaints. 1993.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Final 2012 Air Quality Management
Plan. December 2012. Available at
http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/2012aqmp/draft/index.html
Southern California Association of Governments. Adopted 2012 RTP Growth Forecast. Available
online at http://www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/index.htm
URS. Air Quality Technical Report, Fillmore Works Project, Ventura County, California. May 2012.
URS. Archaeological Reconnaissance Technical Report, Confidential, Fillmore Works Project, Ventura
County, California. December 2011.
URS. Biological Technical Report, Fillmore Works Project, Ventura County, California. May 2012.
URS. Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Investigation, Pacific Coast Pipeline (PCPL) Superfund
Site, Fillmore, California. August 6, 2012.
URS. Hazardous Materials Technical Memorandum, Fillmore Works Project, Ventura County,
California. May 2012.
URS. Regional Flood Hazard Information/Assessment, Fillmore Works Project. May 2012.
URS. Traffic Technical Report, Fillmore Works Project, Ventura County, California. May 2012.
City of Fillmore
01
41

Initial Study
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Fillmore
01
42

Fillmore Works Specific Plan Notice of Preparation Part 2

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Fillmore Works Specific Plan Notice of Preparation Part 2

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Fillmore Works Specific Plan

Initial Study and

Prepared with the assistance of:

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

This report is printed on 30% recycled paper with