Common use of Mandatory Findings of Significance Clause in Contracts

Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No 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)? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Response to a-c: Further, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent EIR to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures with regard to environmental impacts. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete.

Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No ImpactBased on the answers to Section IV. a) (Biological Resources) there are no rare or endangered species present on the site and the parcel is not suitable habitat for any wildlife species or community. Since the project is within the urbanized area of the City, is surrounded by development, and has been previously graded, construction on this site will not degrade the quality of the environment to a point that would threaten any animal or plant species. Based on the answers to Sections V. and XVIII. (Cultural/Tribal Cultural Resources), there are no recorded cultural resources on the site. However, mitigation measures have been incorporated to protect any potential discovery of cultural resources encountered during project development. There are no historical structures located on the parcel. Therefore, the project will have no impact on the environment from degradation of the quality of the environment, substantial reduction of habitat of a fish or wildlife species, causing a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threatening to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduction in the number or restriction of the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species or elimination of 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)? Potentially Significant According to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Air Quality Management Plan (VCAQMP), if the project is consistent with the VCAQMP, it would have a less than significant cumulative impact on air quality. The proposed project’s operational emissions are below the threshold values and consistent with the regional population forecasts in the plan. As such, the project is consistent with the VCAQMP. Therefore, there is a less than significant cumulative impact on air quality. In order to address cumulative traffic impacts, the Circulation Element of the General Plan adopted a Level of Service (LOS) “C” as the design objective for the arterial street system. To meet this design objective, individual projects are required to provide a circulation analysis and any traffic improvements to meet LOS “C” at all affected intersections. The Traffic Study provided by the Applicant (Ref. #40) indicates that all of the study-area intersections will meet this objective. Since the last update of the General Plan in 2012, the Traffic Model used by the City to determine impacts on the circulation system has been updated each time a General Plan Amendment has been approved so that the model is kept up-to-date. Therefore, there is a less than significant cumulative impact on traffic and transportation. Every project, including this development, is required to comply with the Countywide National Pollution Distribution Elimination System Permit (NPDES). This includes submitting storm-water drainage designs that comply with the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Urban Impact Less Mitigation Plan (SQUIMP) and calculating the Stormwater Quality Design Flow and Stormwater Quality Design Volume to determine the total amount and flow volume of water the design is required to clean. Compliance with these requirements ensures that each project filters the required amount of storm-water contributed to the public drainage system and countywide pollutant concentrations comply with the NPDES permit. Therefore, there is a less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less significant cumulative impact on the environment from water pollution. Since the project is consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan, the National Pollution Distribution Elimination Permit, and the City’s traffic model which indicates that all intersections affected by the project will operate at LOS “C” or better at buildout of the current General Plan, there is a less than Significant Impact No Impactsignificant impact to the environment from impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects that which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Response impacts to air quality, hydrology, and significant impacts from hazardous materials, geologic conditions, and noise have the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Based on the responses to questions in Section III. a-c: Further) - d), none the project would not have a significant impact due to pollution, consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan, or exposure of sensitive receptors to significant pollution concentrations or odors. Based on the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist that answers to questions IX. a) - d), the project would trigger the need to prepare not have a subsequent EIR to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures with regard to environmental impacts. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR significant impact due to the involvement use or transport of new hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous materials, release of hazardous materials within a quarter mile of a school, or development on a hazardous materials site. Based on the answers to questions X. a) - e), the project would not have a significant environmental effects impact due to erosion, flooding, and polluted runoff. Based on the answers to questions VII. a) - f), the project would not have a significant impact due to surface rupture, seismic ground failure, or landslides. Based on the answers to questions XIII. a) - c), the project would not have a significant impact on the environment due to the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, the increase of ambient noise by 3 dB(A), or a substantial temporary or periodic increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as completeambient noise levels.