October 25, 2017

VENTURA PORT DISTRICT
BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS

Everard Ashworth, Chairman
Brian Brennan, Vice Chairman
Jim Friedman, Secretary
Nikos Valance, Commissioner
Chris Stephens, Commissioner
Oscar Peña, General Manager
Timothy Gosney, Legal Counsel
Jessica Rauch, Clerk of the Board
PORT COMMISSION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 25, 2017 AT 7:00PM
VENTURA PORT DISTRICT OFFICE
1603 ANCHORS WAY DRIVE
VENTURA, CA 93001
A Closed Session of the Board will be held at 6:00PM at the
Port District Office located at 1603 Anchors Way Drive, Ventura, CA,
to discuss the items on the Attachment to AgendaClosed
Session Conference with Legal Counsel.
The Board will convene in Open Session at the Port District Office
located at 1603 Anchors Way Drive for its Regular Meeting at 7:00PM.
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA:
CALL TO ORDER: By Chair Everard Ashworth.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: By Chair Everard Ashworth.
ROLL CALL: By the Clerk of the Board.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA (3 minutes)
Consider and approve, by majority vote, minor revisions to agenda items and/or attachments and any
item added to, or removed/continued from the Port Commission’s agenda. Administrative Reports relating
to this agenda and materials related to an item on this agenda submitted after distribution of the agenda
packet are available for public review at the Port District’s office located at 1603 Anchors Way Drive,
Ventura, CA during business hours as well as on the District’s website – www.venturaharbor.com (Port
District Business-Port Commission & Meeting Schedule). Each item on the agenda shall be deemed to
include action by an appropriate motion, resolution or ordinance to take action on any item.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (3 minutes)
The Minutes of the October 11, 2017 Regular Meeting will be considered for approval.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS (3 minutes)
The Public Communications period is set aside to allow public testimony on items not on today’s agenda.
Each person may address the Commission for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the Chair.
1
Ventura Port District – Regular Meeting Agenda
October 25, 2017
CLOSED SESSION REPORT (3 minutes)
Closed Sessions are not open to the public pursuant to the Brown Act. Any reportable actions taken by
the Commission during Closed Session will be announced at this time.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (5 minutes)
Port Commissioner’s may present brief reports on port issues, seminars, meetings and literature that
would be of interest to the public and/or Commission, as a whole. In addition, Port Commissioners should
provide a brief summary and disclose any discussions he or she may have had with any Port District
Tenants related to Port District business.
DEPARTMENTAL AND GENERAL MANAGERS REPORTS (5 minutes)
Ventura Port District Staff and General Manager will give the Commission reports on their Department
and items of general interest to the Port Commission and members of the public.
LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT (5 minutes)
STANDARD AGENDA:
1) Coastal Marine Biolabs Current Activities Presentation
Recommended Action: Informational.
That the Board of Port Commissioners receive a presentation from Coastal Marine Biolabs on
their current activities.
2) Approval of Final IS-MND for the Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project
Recommended Action: Roll Call Vote.
That the Board of Port Commissioners:
a) Adopt Resolution No. 3340 certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project;
b) Approve the Project by Resolution No. 3340; and
c) Authorize the General Manager to File the Notice of Determination (NOD) with the State
Office of Planning and Research and the Ventura County Clerk.
AGENDA PLANNING GUIDE AND REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
This agenda was posted on Friday, October 20, 2017 by 5:00 p.m.
at the Port District Office and on the Internet –
www.venturaharbor.com (Port District Business-Port Commission & Meeting Schedule).

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the Ventura Port District at (805) 642-8538. Notification 48 hours before the
meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.
(28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II)
2
Ventura Port District – Regular Meeting Agenda
October 25, 2017
ATTACHMENT TO PORT COMMISSION AGENDA
CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2017
1. Conference with Real Property Negotiators – Per Government Code Section 54956.8:

a) Property:
Negotiating Parties:
Under Negotiation:
Parcel 5 and Parcel 8
Oscar Peña, Brian Pendleton, Timothy Gosney
Lease Negotiations with H. Parker Hospitality
b) Property:
Negotiating Parties:
Under Negotiation:
State or Federal Authorized Sea Bottom
Oscar Peña, Brian Pendleton, Timothy Gosney
Leasing for Aquaculture Purposes
2. Conference with Legal Counsel – Per Government Code Section 54957(b)(1):
To consider the continued employment of the Business Operations Manager, and the
terms thereof [excluding compensation].
3
BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS
OCTOBER 25, 2017
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
OCTOBER 11, 2017 MEETING
4
VENTURA PORT DISTRICT
BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2017
The Regular Meeting of the Ventura Board of Port Commissioners was
called to order by Chairman Everard Ashworth at 7:01PM at the Ventura
Port District Office located 1603 Anchors Way Drive, Ventura, CA
93001.
Commissioners Present:
Everard Ashworth, Chairman
Brian Brennan, Vice Chairman
Jim Friedman, Secretary
Nikos Valance
Chris Stephens
Commissioners Absent:
None
Port District Staff:
Oscar Pena, General Manager
Brian Pendleton, Business Operations Manager
Richard Parsons, Consultant
Jessica Rauch, Clerk of the Board
Legal Counsel:
Roland Trinh
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: By Chairman Everard Ashworth at 7:01PM.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: By Commissioner Brennan.
ROLL CALL: All Commissioners were present.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ACTON: Commissioner Stephens moved, seconded by Commissioner Friedman and
carried by a vote of 5-0 to adopt the October 11, 2017 agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of September 27, 2017 Regular meeting were considered as follows:
ACTION: Commissioner Brennan moved, seconded by Commissioner Stephens and
carried by a vote of 5-0 to approve the minutes of the September 27, 2017
regular meeting.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS: None.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT: Mr. Trinh stated that the Board met in closed session;
discussed and reviewed all items on the closed session agenda. Staff was given instructions on
how to proceed as appropriate and there was no action taken that is reportable under The
Brown Act.
5
Ventura Port District Board of Port Commissioners
October 11, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 2
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None.
LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT: Mr. Trinh reported that the Monthly Report was sent to the
Commissioners yesterday.
STANDARD AGENDA:
1) Consideration of Rejection of Claim by Johanna McIntosh
Recommended Action: Vote Voice.
That the Board of Port Commissioners approve the rejection of a claim filed against the Ventura
Port District on August 25, 2017 by Johanna McIntosh and authorize the General Manager to
execute and mail a Notice of Rejection.
ACTION: Commissioner Brennan moved, seconded by Commissioner Friedman and
carried by a vote of 5-0 to approve the rejection of a claim filed against the
Ventura Port District on August 25, 2017 by Johanna McIntosh and
authorize the General Manager to execute and mail a Notice of Rejection.
2) Ventura Shellfish Enterprise Site Selection Alternatives
Recommended Action: Informational.
That the Board of Port Commissioners receive a report on the Ventura Shellfish Enterprise Site
Selection Alternatives.
ACTION: The Board of Port Commissioners received a report on the Ventura
Shellfish Enterprise Site Selection Alternatives.
Public Comment: Jamie Diamond appreciated that the Commission is willing to look at
other options for site selection. John Gingrich also appreciated that the
Commission is looking into other options. Mike McCorkle informed the
Commission that he would report at a Fish and Game meeting tomorrow
that the District is considering other options, including Federal waters.
3) Ventura Port District Status of On-going Projects
Recommended Action: Informational.
That the Board of Port Commissioners receive an informational report on the status of on-going
projects.
ACTION: The Board of Port Commissioners received an informational report on the
status of on-going projects.
Mr. Peña reported the following items that were not listed on the memo:
• Human Resources – Working with Unions on Dockmaster and Harbor Patrol MOU’s
• Harbor Village – Andria’s Seafood front patio expansion
• Capital Projects – Docks Replacement – Engineer developing working drawings
• Capital Projects – Fish pier resurfacing
6
Ventura Port District Board of Port Commissioners
October 11, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 3
The Commission wanted the following added to the list:
• Storm water runoff – swayles
• Integration with Portside Partners
• Bicycle access
• Nodes – synergy
• Access from Portside Partners to Village
AGENDA PLANNING GUIDE AND REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Chairman
Ashworth requested that the informational report on the status of on-going projects be utilized
as a working document moving forward.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:46PM.
________________________________
Secretary
7
BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS
OCTOBER 25, 2017
DEPARTMENTAL STAFF REPORTS
DREDGING
FEDERAL
FACILITIES
MARINA
MARKETING
PROPERTY
8
RWP DREDGING MANAGEMENT
Richard W. Parsons
2271 Los Encinos Road
Ojai, California 93023
Phone/Fax (805) 649-9759
October 25, 2017
Board of Port Commissioners
Ventura Port District
1603 Anchors Way Drive
Ventura, CA 93001
Subject: September/October 2017 Dredging Activities and Special Projects Report
The Dredging Program Manager’s activities for the September/October 2017 period are reviewed below:
FY2018 Federal Dredging Appropriations
In early September the Congress passed and the President signed a Continuing Resolution (CR) that will
fund government operations until December 8, 2017. The Corps of Engineers has advised that the CR will
enable the Corps to exercise the option in Manson Construction’s contract for the maintenance dredging of
Ventura Harbor for work to be accomplished in the first quarter of 2018. The $5,163,000 provided in the CR
for Ventura coupled with $800,000 of Work Plan funds carried over from FY17 will enable Manson to
remove about 640,000 cu.yds. of material from the harbor entrance area. Current indications are that that
volume of material will assure quite adequate entrance conditions.
Parking Lot Repairs and Slurry Seal
Toro Enterprises will begin the pavement repairs and slurry sealing of the following Port District parking lots
on October 23, 2017:
Ventura Harbor Village
Launch Ramp
Parcel 19A
During the first week of work Toro plans to saw cut, but not remove, the failing asphalt areas scheduled for
removal. Starting the week of October 30 Toro will sequentially remove the failed asphalt areas and place
the new asphalt the same day the removal occurred. This phase of the work will extend into the week of
November 6.The seal coating of the lots is expected to commence November 13 and be completed by
Thanksgiving. In order to minimize public disruption the contractor is not permitted to work on weekends
and must phase the sealcoating work. The initial contract cost is $344,444.00.
Re-roofing at 1431, 1591 and 1691 Spinnaker Drive
The Garland Company will begin work on the re-roofing of the Harbor Village buildings at 1431, 1591 and
1691 Spinnaker Drive on October 23, 2017. This $638,849 project should be completed in late December
2017.
9
Replacement of D, G and H Docks
Noble Consultants expects to have the final plans and specifications for the replacement of D, G & H Docks
completed in early November 2017. Competitive bids will then be sought and with definite costs then in
hand the District can evaluate financing alternatives for what is expected to be about a $4 million project.
Fish Pier Deck Structural Evaluation
Four 12 inch concrete cores were removed from the fish pier in early October. These cores are now being
analyzed in a laboratory and we expect to have a recommendation to the Board at its December meeting
relative to a future course of action.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Parsons
Dredging and Special Projects Consultant
Attachment.
10
September/October 2017 Update
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria disrupted the congressional schedule for the
month of September. The storms delayed votes and committee business and also
required the passage of emergency aid bills. The staggering cost of these disasters
will require additional funding bills as the full cost of recovery becomes clearer and
puts a spotlight back on FEMA’s ability to provide timely aid. These storms also
highlighted the problems within the National Flood Insurance Program and have
elevated reforms in the NFIP to a higher level that will occupy more legislative time
over the coming months than previously expected.
The current fiscal year expired on October 1 and with it the authorization of several
major programs. Congress was able to approve a six-month extension of aviation
funding, but the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) will lapsed at the start
of October.
New Budget Resolutions to Set Outline for Debates to Come
The Senate Budget Committee waited until the last business day of the FY2017 to
unveil its budget resolution for FY2018. Their plan would allow up to $1.5 trillion to
be added to the deficit over the next ten years. If adopted by a majority of the
Senate, the plan would also allow tax reform to move forward without Democratic
votes. It also makes an allowance to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act. It
also calls on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to find at least $1 billion
for deficit reduction over the next ten years, an amount likely to come through
expanded fossil fuel production.
The House Budget Committee has been stymied by intra-party feuding among
Republicans for months. Now slated for markup during the month of October, it is
expected that House conservatives will bow to the Party’s desire for tax cuts over
deficit reduction and entitlement reform.
President and Congress Reach Temporary Deal on Funding, Debt
Catching Republican leaders by surprise, President Trump agreed to a timetable put
forward by Democratic leaders to pass a Continuing Resolution (CR) and debt limit
extension. The CR will to keep the government operating through December 8; the
federal fiscal year begins October 1.
Many politically divisive issues, with funding for a border wall at the forefront,
remain as potential roadblocks to a deal in December. This leaves open the
possibility that Congress may pass another short-term CR or one that covers the
11
remainder of FY2018. The ability to pass a new spending plan may rest, at least in
part, on progress towards tax reform with the current year spending being used to
induce support for long-term tax changes.
Part of the agreement also allowed an extension of the debt ceiling, or limit on
government borrowing, until December 8. However, the Treasury is able to use
“extraordinary measures” to effectively extend borrowing until February or March.
Republicans Release Principles for Tax Reform
The “Big 6” Republicans released the principles they will use to craft what they hope
will become the first overhaul of the U.S. tax code since 1986. The GOP leaders of
the House Ways & Means and Senate Finance Committees, together with Speaker
Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and
White House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn negotiated the principles. Their
mutual agreement, it is hoped by supporters, will help keep the House and Senate
from diverging too far from each other and from where President Trump wants to
go on tax reform.
The principles are designed to give committee chairmen flexibility to craft a final bill
to meet, or come close to, these goals. The timeline is not fixed, but they hope to vote
on a final bill before the end of the year. Also, their intent is to use reconciliation
instructions from the FY18 Budget Resolution (not yet passed) to bring a tax
package to the Senate floor. This would allow the bill to pass with 50 votes instead
of 60.
While attention will be on new tax rates for business and individuals, the offsets for
tax cuts also will be the source of vigorous debate in coming weeks. The initial
principles would repeal the ability to deduct state and local taxes (SALT) from
federal returns – a move that would hit filers in high-tax states such as California
particularly hard. At $1.2 trillion per year, the SALT deduction is the largest account
that could be used to off-set revenue reductions short of entitlement reform.
Following behind the SALT deduction is the tax-exempt status of municipal debt.
The “Big 6” principles leave this tax-exempt status untouched. Costing the Treasury
over $400 billion annually, several tax writers have mentioned the possibility of
ending or curtailing this item too. Associations of counties, cities, and infrastructure
interests have and will lobby vigorously to protect muni bonds.
The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) and the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) released a study earlier this year
estimating that this tax exemption saved water and wastewater agencies alone
nearly $16 billion in financing costs in just 2016.
12
House Passes Omnibus Spending Bill
After debating more than 450 amendments, the House approved an FY2018
appropriations measure that includes all twelve spending bills. This is the first time
since 2009 that the House passed all 12 spending bills before the end of the fiscal
year.
The Senate has no plans to take up the House-passed bill. In fact, at this time, the
Senate has announced no plan for how it intends to address spending bills in that
chamber. The Appropriations Committee has reported out several of its bills, but
there is no schedule to bring them up for a vote in the full Senate during October.
The $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill, called the “Make America Secure and
Prosperous Appropriations Act” (H.R. 3354), was approved by a vote of 211-198.
The bill incorporated four spending bills previously passed by the House – including
funding for the Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of Engineers – and added bills that
included funding for the EPA. After President Trump urged an increase in funding
for the Clean Water SRF, the House adopted an amendment to add $250 million for
the program. This brings the House amount in line with the FY2017 level of funding.
Nominations Update
Compared to his predecessors, President Trump is still “behind schedule” in
nominating individuals to serve in his administration. However, now that
Democrats in the Senate are allowing votes to occur with greater frequency, Trump
is making better headway in filling more key roles. Thus far, he has formally
nominated 157 people and 123 have been confirmed. He has announced his
intention to nominate another 19 individuals who are now finalizing their
background documentation for transmittal to the Senate. Another 302 political
appointee positions remain unfilled.
On October 4th, the President nominated R.D. James to serve as the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The White House press release announcing
the nomination had this to say about Mr. James:
Mr. James has most recently served as a civilian member and engineer on the
Mississippi River Commission, originally appointed in 1981 by President Ronald
Reagan, where he provided water resources engineering direction and policy advice to
several Administrations, Congress, and the Army for a drainage basin that covers
roughly 41 percent of the United States. He is a self-employed farmer and manager of
cotton gins and grain elevators in New Madrid, Missouri. Over the past 35 years, Mr.
James has developed a wealth of knowledge about our nation’s critical infrastructure.
He previously served as president of the Southern Cotton Ginners Association, he
served on the board of directors and executive committee of the Southern Cotton
Ginners Association, the Cotton Producers of Missouri, the Board of Directors of U.S.
Bank of Sikeston, and the board of directors of Osceola Products. Mr. James is the
13
recipient of the prestigious Bronze de Fleury medal for his significant contributions to
Army engineering, the Sikeston Area Chamber of Commerce Agri-Business Award, and
was formerly named the New Madrid County Outstanding Conservation Farmer. Mr.
James received his degree in civil engineering from the University of Kentucky.
This position will require Senate confirmation which can take several months. The
role of the ASA for Civil Works has been important for the advancement of the Port
District’s US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) portfolio and we will work to
establish a relationship between the Port District and Mr. James.
During September, President Trump nominated David Ross, an assistant attorney
general from Wisconsin, to lead the EPA’s Office of Water. Ross previously served as
an assistant AG in Wyoming. He has an extensive record in environmental law with
a specialization in the Clean Water Act. Trump also nominated Matthew Leopold, an
environmental advisor to former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, for EPA General
Counsel.
The nomination of Brenda Burman to be Commissioner of Reclamation still awaits a
vote before the full Senate. This month, the Committee on Natural Resources
approved the nomination of Ryan Nelson to be Solicitor for the Department of the
Interior. This is the top legal position within Interior. He now joins Burman in the
wait for final confirmation.
The President also nominated Paul Trombino to be Administrator of the
Federal Highway Administration. Trombino led the Iowa Department of
Transportation for five years. During his time in Iowa, he served a term as President
of the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
and as a Vice-Chair of the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee.
US Army Corps of Engineers Staffing Changes
General Semonite, the 54th Chief of Engineers and the Commanding General of the
Corps has announced several staffing changes which will take place over the course
of the fall calendar. They include:
Tab Brown will become the new Regional Business Director for the Corps South
Atlantic Division based in Atlanta, GA. In his role as Chief of Planning and Policy, he
oversaw the development of the Corps SMART Planning (aka 3x3x3) process. A
successor has not yet been announced.
Stuart Hazlett will become the new Assistant Secretary of the Army (Procurement),
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics & Technology).
He previously served as the Director of Contracting for Corps Headquarters.
Eric Hansen will become the new Regional Business Director for the Corps
Northwestern Division based in Portland, Oregon. He previously served as the
14
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Works for Management and Budget. A
successor has not yet been announced.
David Leach will become the new Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Project Planning and Review. This role was previously occupied by Doug Lamont
who has been serving as the Acting ASA since the start of the Trump Administration.
EPA Staff Levels Continue to Fall
During August and September, at least 400 EPA officials took buyouts and other
incentives to retire early. Administrator Pruitt announced earlier this year his goal
to reduce personnel levels at the agency by as many as 1,200. These are in addition
to other headcount reduction plans set by the President and congressional
appropriators.
A real concern is that staff reductions, which have been occurring for many years, is
compromising the ability of the EPA to approve projects, permits, and grant
requests. This come at the same time the Administration is seeking to reduce
review times by federal agencies and speed project delivery.
15
VENTURA PORT DISTRICT
DEPARTMENTAL STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: October 25, 2017
TO: Board of Port Commissioners
FROM: Joe A. Gonzalez, Facilities Manager
SUBJECT: September 2017 Facilities Report
Facilities
Continuing to perform preventive maintenance on certain areas that need immediate attention on the Ventura Harbor
Village buildings to prevent dry rot damaged to existing areas, this include sills, trim, and other areas.
Before After
New ADA pathway signage was installed within the Village common areas. A walkthrough with an ADA Consultant
determined the locations for the pathway signage.

16
Replaced four old wooden doors with new fiberglass doors, marine grade stainless steel hinges and hardware at
building 1691 Spinnaker.
Before After
Marina
Continue to perform monthly inspections on all gangways, docks, fire extinguishers, fish pier cranes and fire boxes.
Marketing
The Maintenance Department continues to provide assistance to the Marketing Department on weddings, set-up for
events, during events, installation of banners/flyers, or whatever the needs are to make a successful event.
On-going Projects
1. VHV Window Replacement – 1449, 1567, 1575, 1583, 1591 and 1691 Spinnaker: 110 windows were
replaced at Harbor Village and completed in early October. Staff is waiting for the final inspection from the
City.

2. 1583 Elevator Modernization: Completed the service contract. Project will start before the end of the
calendar year and will take approximately 30 days to complete.
3. Harbor Cove and Surfers Knoll: Restoration of cinder block retaining wall (approximately 300’ to 400’)
and rusted rebar in upper area of the wall. Currently working on developing a plan and budget for Board
approval.
4. Re-Roofing Phase ll (1431, 1591, 1691): Awarded Garland contract at last Board meeting. Start date is
scheduled for October 23rd with expected completion the end of December.

17
VENTURA PORT DISTRICT
DEPARTMENTAL STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: October 25, 2017
TO: Board of Port Commissioners
FROM: Frank Locklear, Marina Manager / Technology
SUBJECT: September 2017 Marina Report
I. Ventura Harbor Village Marina Occupancy and Squid Production
October squid production has resumed. There has been as many as 16 individual seiner
landings daily, however, individual vessel loads have been small. The smaller per vessel loads
are due to the large number of vessels operating out of Ventura Harbor. Individual vessel loads
are expected to increase in the coming weeks. The high $1,000.00 per ton for squid that the fish
companies are paying has kept competition keen and even the smaller loads profitable for
seiners and their operators.
Ventura Harbor Village Marina seiner slip occupancy is at 100%. Sadly, the demand for seiner
slips and request for moorage far exceed our capability and seiners are turned away on a daily
basics.
Sad news was reported that one of the harbors favorite seiners, PAMELA ROSE was the victim
of an accident on October 18, 2017 when the boom broke while fishing for squid in Northern
waters. The accident resulted in the sinking of the vessel and the death of one crew member
and severe injuries to another crew member.
II. Technology
Arrangements have been made for ATT to continue to improve and expand fiber optic network
services for tenant use throughout the Ventura Harbor Village. The increased services make the
Ventura Harbor Village a more attractive retail and business location and prospective tenants
have indicated that the availability of fiber is a positive influence on their decision.
Improvements to equipment for the large conference room A/V system have been completed.
This equipment will provide enhanced audio and visual capability for Port District teleconference
meetings and presentations.
Essential upgrades to the District’s accounting and maintenance servers have been completed.
The district is now operating with 35 computers and eight servers. Firewall protection for the
servers has been increased and antivirus updates for the Districts computers have been
completed. An additional level of email scrubbing has also been added to protect against a
steadily increasing amount of malicious email attachments.
18
Marketing/Meetings/Media
Marketing Report September 2017
September Promotions/Advertising
• “Seaside Cool” campaign launched for “September Second Summer”
Promotional tools developed inclusive of website banners, print advertising in Ventura County
and surrounding regions, boosted social media posts, photo-shoot.
• Rock on the Dock concert series production: Secured bands, contracts, stage upgrade, print
ads in Ventura County & beyond, boosted social posts, e-newsletters, cross promotion with
Art & Street Painting Festival, poster/rack card distribution, press release and media pitches.
• Press coverage on September 3rd
– “Rock on the Dock gets Rolling” VC Star
• Press Coverage Valley Scene Magazine ; Dedicated article on Ventura Harbor Village
• NEW! VC Reporter Front Cover Ad Strips & featured e-blasts
• Sept. 805 Living Magazine Food and Wine Issue – ¼ ad featuring Dine Seaside
• Coastal Clean Up Day September 16th – collaborated with Channel Islands National Park
• VC Reporter announced Best Of issue ; Harbor coop page 2 page spread plus Seaside Cool
congrats advertisement, boosted Facebook post + Instagram story coverage. Ventura County
“Best Of” Winners Party hosted at the Greek in Ventura Harbor Village.
• 2017 Trip Advisor Award of Excellence; Coverage: press release distributed, boosted posts,
front page + interior banner ads on website. Offered 3 mid-week tenant promotions.
Media Visits
• Sommerville Associates developed press itinerary for Irish Times writer on assignment to
California Sept 14-15. Inclusive of Harbor overnight stay, dine, play, and Channel Islands.
• Hosted California Central Cost Tourism Council and Visit California/Adventure Travel
Familiarization Influencer Tour on Sept 22nd Story Telling Consumer Campaign to inspire
visitation to Central Coast, Ventura Harbor, and the Channel Islands. Hosted media influencers
to dine, kayak, and learn about the Channel Islands in conjunction with Visit Ventura. All
content submitted to Visit California for future use.
Sept. Film Revenue
9/03 NY Reality Show
9/13 Dog Training Video
9/14 Nordstrom Catalogue Shoot
= $1,100 revenue
Sept. Beach Wedding Revenue
= $2,175 Revenue
Sept. 23-24
Hosted a NSSA Surf
Competition
19
Ventura Harbor Village September Events
Marketing Report September 2017
September Rock on the Dock 2017
Rock on the Dock (sponsored by Ventura Boat Rentals) is a concert series every Saturday in
September from 3-6pm with an intent to drive afternoon business and attract 40+ market.
Thousands attended both on the water and on
the promenade over the 5 week series
Businesses surveyors would like to
see in the Harbor Village:
• Breweries
• More Live Music
• Better Night Life
• Kid & Family Activities
84% of visitors surveyed have been to the
Ventura Harbor before
44% were visiting from outside Ventura County
Top 3 Reasons for Visit:
• 54% Live Music
• 44% Dining
• 28% Shopping
Top 3 Harbor info sources for visitors:
• 39% Friends and Family
• 30% Ventura Harbor Website
• 14% Facebook
Ventura Art & Street Painting Festival
September 9th and 10th
– 38 Chalk Artists & 52 Art Vendors
Approximately 3000 visitors a day per event organizer
Ventura Art Foundation raised $10,000 for FOOD Share
Harbor Marketing promoted via print advertising, online promotion, web banners, e-newsletter
20
New Harbor Postcard Program
Marketing Report September 2017
Postcard Participant Highlights:
• “We had a great time at Rock on the Dock! The music was wonderful. Wish you were here with us!”
• “Hi Doll, they offered free postage so I’m sending all my love to you! Ventura is so cool! Let’s come here!”
• “We are listening to a band by the harbor. It is beautiful, fun, and everyone says hello. Lots of boats here!“
Reached 19 states (blue)
Reached 6 countries:
Canada | England
Holland | Peru
Poland | Philippines
Send a Postcard Program was a part of the Wet Wednesday and Rock on the Dock Visitors booth to connect
customers with the Harbor and share “word of mouth” with friends and family. Program was well received by
visitors and locals, as the postage was paid. See results below for Rock on the Dock Saturdays:
21
Website Analytics
VenturaHarbor.com
Top 5 Pages Visited on VenturaHarbor.com ( September 2017):
1) Harbor Cove Café 2) Directions 3)Boat Yard Pub 4) Restaurants 5) Portside Ventura
Harbor Breaks Ground
Top referral sites : Google and search engines | Direct | TheGreekVentura.com | VisitCalifornia.com
Marriott.com | GuRuin.com
Data from September 1 – September 31, 2017
VenturaHarborVillage.com
Top 5 Pages Visited on VenturaHarborVillage.com ( September 2017):
1) Dine 2) Events 3) Play 4) Shop 5) Rock on the Dock
Top referral sites: Google and search engines | Direct | Facebook Mobile | Facebook |
VenturaHarbor.com | VisitVentura.com | TheUltimateEscapeRooms.com Marketing Report September 2017
Data from September 1 – September 31, 2017
22
Social Media Analytics
Marketing Report September 2017
September Second Summer Promotion
Instagram engagement :
2,028 Likes
23,375 Impressions
17,694 People Reached
Rock on the Dock Promotion
1,455 Likes
19,959 Impressions
15,077 People Reached
Instagram engagement:
Top Instagram Posts
Sept 1 – Sept 30, 2017
+ 140 followers gained
= 8,796 total followers
Instagram
23
Social Media Analytics (Cont.)
Facebook
19,259 Followers
45,462 Engagements
1,126,971 Impressions
Twitter
4,480 followers
13,000 Impressions
Marketing Report September 2017
Rock on the Dock promotion post reached
20,073 people, 120 shares and had 1,116
reactions! _______________________________________________
Driving traffic to events, activities ,
retail, and restaurants throughout the
Village through paid boosted posts.
Wild Local Seafood Promo
24
VENTURA PORT DISTRICT
DEPARTMENTAL STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: October 25, 2017
TO: Board of Port Commissioners
FROM: Robin Baer, Property Manager
SUBJECT: September 2017 Property Report
I. Tenant Report
1) Greek Restaurant — 1583 Spinnaker Drive #101 — The bar remodel is in design
stages with the tenant. The design is subject to District approval. This lease was
effective September 2015 and to date we have not received any drawings. Staff has
met with the tenant and sent email reminders regarding tenant improvements as per
the lease requirements.
2) Coffee Dock & Post — 1575 Spinnaker Drive #105 A&B – The Tenant is requesting
the Landlord to consider an Assignment of Lease to Josefina Aguilar dba Espresso Mi
Cultura.
3) BS Taproom — 1591 Spinnaker Drive #115 – Drawings have been submitted to the
City of Ventura. Waiting on DRC Meeting in October to move forward. Estimated
completion third quarter of 2018.
4) Rhumb Line — 1510 Anchors Way — Drawings have been submitted to the City of
Ventura. Waiting on DRC Meeting in October to move forward. Estimated completion
second quarter of 2018.
II. Leasing
1) Leasing Outreach
• Daily exposure with our ads online via Loopnet / Costar which covers the following:
 On October 7th, CoStar’s database will now power LoopNet, and
incorporate 100% of its listings and content. This means there will never be
a listing in LoopNet that is not in CoStar. CoStar will now display all
listings – free and paid – whereas LoopNet will only display listings from
paying advertisers. This increasing our overall exposure to non-real estate
viewers.
 24 Million visitors to these sites
 83% of all 2016 commercial real estate transactions involved these sites
• Leasing campaign, showings, contacts and site visits:
 Working with CoStar/Loopnet to advertise our existing ads on Craigs List
and LinkedIn.
 Site visits and showings to the following:
o Ventura — Dottie’s Sweet Delights, Esthers Sweet SinSations Bakery
o Thousand Oaks — Sandbox, King Kong Sushi, Poke Tiki, Buca di
Beppo
o Several office contacts and showings
2) Overview of FY2016/2017 leasing strategy goals:
• Motionloft – A new pedestrian and vehicle counts system. This technology will
deliver reports with specific times, dates and locations. Sensors have been
installed and we are fine tuning the report setup configurations. We estimate full
reports by first part of November.
25
III. Occupancy level at Harbor Village – September 2017
CATEGORY Harbor Harbor Harbor Harbor City * City *
Vacancy Vacancy Available Available Vacancy Available
Sq Ft % Sq Ft % % %
Office 2,615 9% 2,615 8% 13% 30.2%
Retail 1,381 6.5% 7,015 33% 20.6% 25.7%
Restaurant 0 0% 0 0% 10.1% 9%
*Based on comparable square footage
IV. September Sales Report
The attached summary provides sales for three categories: restaurants, retail and charters.
The reports compare the monthly sales for 2017 and 2016. They also include year-to-date
comparisons. Restaurant sales are up 11.08% for the month of September 2017.
The year-to-date overall sales were up 7.62% for September 2017 from the same time last
year.
Attachment 1 – September Tenant Sales and Third Quarter Sales
26
ATTACHMENT 1 27
ATTACHMENT 1
28
BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS
OCTOBER 25, 2017
STANDARD AGENDA ITEM 1
Coastal Marine Biolabs Current
Activities Presentation
29
VENTURA PORT DISTRIST STANDARD AGENDA ITEM 1 BOARD COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: October 25, 2017
TO: Board of Port Commissioners
FROM: Linda Santschi, Ph.D. and Ralph Imondi, Ph.D.
SUBJECT: Coastal Marine Biolabs Current Activities Presentation
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Port Commissioners receive a presentation from Coastal Marine Biolabs on
their current activities.
SUMMARY:
Coastal Marine Biolabs (CMB) will discuss the following:
• Research/educational activities update
• Funding status; and
• Ongoing collaborations with the Ventura Port District.
BACKGROUND:
CMB is a private, 501(c)(3), research-based science education organization that provides
innovative field and laboratory-based learning experiences for high school students. Under the
mentorship of CMB scientists, students use many of the key technological cornerstones of
modern scientific discovery to explore contemporary questions that lie at the frontiers of
scientific knowledge.
CMB joined the Ventura Harbor family in April 2007 in the 1559 Building, Suite 101 with a one
year lease. After termination, CMB was a month-to-month tenant until 2011 when the lease was
re-stated for three years. In June 2014, a new five year lease was created.

30
BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS
OCTOBER 25, 2017
STANDARD AGENDA ITEM 2
APPROVAL OF FINAL IS-MND FOR
THE VENTURA ISLE MARINA DOCK
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
31
VENTURA PORT DISTRICT STANDARD AGENDA ITEM 2
BOARD COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: October 25, 2017
TO: Board of Port Commissioners
FROM: Brian Pendleton, Business Operations Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of Final IS-MND for the Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Port Commissioners:
a) Adopt Resolution No. 3340 certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project;
(Attachment 1)
b) Approve the Project by Resolution No. 3340; and
c) Authorize the General Manager to File the Notice of Determination (NOD) with the State Office
of Planning and Research and the Ventura County Clerk (Attachment 4).
SUMMARY:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study – Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS-MND) for the Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project was prepared with the
assistance of Impact Sciences, Inc. (Attachment 2). The Port District is the Lead Agency and,
therefore, must consider approval of the Final IS–MND.
BACKGROUND:
A major provision of the Amendment No. 3 to Ground Lease includes replacement of certain VIM
dock(s) G, H and I (Phase I Dock Plan) and L and M (Phase II Dock Plan). SHM submitted a plan for
both Phase I and Phase II Dock Replacement of G, H, I, L, and M with substantial upgrades to Dock F
and minor repairs to Dock J. The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and review by the Ventura Port District, California Coastal Commission U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and other regulatory bodies as necessary. On behalf of the District, Impact Sciences
performed the necessary CEQA review and documentation for Commission consideration.
The DRAFT IS-MND was circulated for a 30-day public review period that began on September 6,
2017. The Port District received 3 comment letters on the Draft IS-MND (provided in Appendix E of
the Final IS-MND and as Attachment 3 to this staff report). The letters either confirmed receipt of the
IS-MND or expressed concurrence with the findings of the document. None of the letters require
responses.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None. The District retained Impact Sciences for environmental consultant services in the amount of
$32,238.20. However, SHM is billed for 100 percent of these environmental consultant services, plus
any change orders.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 3340
Attachment 2 – Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment 3 – Comment letters received on the IS-MND
Attachment 4 – Notice of Determination
32
ATTACHMENT 1 33
ATTACHMENT 1 34
ATTACHMENT 1 35
ATTACHMENT 1 36
Impact Sciences, Inc. 1 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND
511.006 October 2017
VENTURA ISLE MARINA DOCK REPLACEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. BACKGROUND
Project No:
Case:
No:
Lead Agency Name/Address Board of Port Commissioners
Contact Brian Pendleton
Business Operations Manager
Ventura Port District
1603 Anchors Way Drive
Ventura, CA 93001
Applicant Name/Address Safe Harbor Marinas
11226 Indian Trail
Dallas, TX 75229
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
The proposed project includes upgrades to docks F, G, H, I, L, and M located at 1363 Spinnaker Drive in
the City of Ventura within an area known as the Ventura Isle Marina (VIM) (hereinafter referred to as the
project site). The project site is within the greater Ventura Harbor, approximately 1.3 miles south of the
Ventura Freeway (US 101) and accessible by East Harbor Boulevard and Spinnaker Drive (Refer to Figure
1, Project Location).
The project site is generally bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and commercial uses to the
southwest these include restaurant, shopping, and other commercial type land uses located along the
marina’s waterfront. These uses are approximately 590 feet southwest of the site. To the east across
Harbor Boulevard are agricultural fields and a golf course. Immediately to the south are industrial uses
and the Ventura Harbor Boatyard. Immediately to the north is Ventura West Marina. The Holiday Inn
Express is approximately 235 feet to the east and the Four Points by Sheraton is located approximately
865 feet north of the project site.
ATTACHMENT 2 37
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND
511.006 October 2017
The Channel Islands are approximately 25 miles south west from the project site, and regional access is
provided via US-101 located approximately 1.3 miles north of the project site. The project site, as depicted
in Figure 2, Project Site Plan, is divided into two parcels: Parcel A and Parcel B. All dock replacements
would occur on Parcel A, while facility upgrades would occur on both parcels.
Project Background
The Ventura Harbor began operating in June, 1963 for recreational and commercial fishing small craft.
With the exception of a 2.74 acre site owned by the National Park Service, the 274 acre harbor is owned
and operated by the Ventura Port District (the District). Of this property, 152 acres are comprised of land
and the remaining 122 acres is water area. The VIM is leased and operated by Safe Harbor Marinas
(SHM) and provides 556 spaces (slips) for wet storage, ranging from 25 to 95 feet in size.1 The majority of
slips are intended for boats less than 50’ in length and only seven percent are available to boats exceeding
50’. The average slip size currently at the project site is 38.93’. The project site was partially remodeled in
2002, specifically Docks, A, B, C D and E were rebuilt in 2002.
2 However, the remaining docks and slips
are more than 50 years old and have aged out of their utility. Due to the age of the docks most are
dilapidated and in need of repair and replacement. Some of the slip fingers are not in service due to
safety hazard. Further, many of the slips are undersized for the existing boat mix and market demand.
The project site is approximately 12 acres in size and comprised of 556 slips, 487 of which are built for
boats smaller than 50 feet. As stated above, due to the larger size of modern boats, smaller slips are no
longer in demand. Further, as most 25 foot and 30 foot boats are generally on trailers, the need for smaller
slips has diminished. Additional structures on the project site include restroom facilities, a management
office, club offices, and a boat sales building. The site primarily serves recreational boaters (not
commercial boaters). Currently, 10 percent of the marina slips are allocated to house live-aboard residents
which would remain unchanged with implementation of the project. Landside improvements are
ongoing on the project site and include upgrades and repairs to the existing bathrooms, fences,
landscaping, and the parking lot. Additional upgrades include pavement restriping, on-site Wi-Fi, and
bathroom upgrades.
Proposed Project
The proposed project is limited to waterside improvements. Five docks (G, H, I, L and M) will be entirely
demolished and new docks will be constructed. The construction is expected to proceed in the following
sequence: demolition and replacement of docks G, H, and I followed by demolition and replacement of

1 Safe Harbor Marinas, Ventura Port District Commissioners Meeting, June 09. 2016.
2 Ventura Port District communication
ATTACHMENT 2 38
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND
511.006 October 2017
docks L and M, followed by substantial upgrades to dock F (i.e., half of F will be replaced) and minimal
improvements to dock J (two additional slips and an end tie). During demolition and replacement of
docks, liveaboards will be temporarily relocated throughout the project site, but will not be displaced. In
addition, new gate structures and gangways will be constructed to control access and improve security.
The proposed replacement and reconfiguration of the subject docks would decrease the number of
existing slips from 556 to 455 with an increase in average slip size from 38.93 feet to 44.93 feet to meet the
current and projected demands of the boating market in this area (Figure 2, Project Site Plan). As such, a
range of slip sizes would remain available to accommodate marina users. The proposed project would
decrease the dock area from approximately 83,000 square feet to approximately 75,000 square feet and
would decrease the number of guide piles from 211 to approximately 200. New pile elevations would be
consistent with District Resolution 3254 requiring a minimum top elevation of 15 feet mean lower low
water for new guide piles. Existing dinghy docks would be reconfigured but retain the same total area of
approximately 1,600 square feet. Table 1, Existing and Proposed Ventura Isle Marina Slip Mix describes
the proposed changes in the allocation of slip sizes. While refinements may occur to the slip mix, it is
expected the number of slips and size will be generally within the parameters stated herein.
The proposed project site plan is shown in Figure 2, Project Site Plan.
In summary, specific project elements include:
• Replace docks G, H, I, L, and M and associated guide piles, gangways, and platforms;
• Substantially upgrade dock F;
• Minor improvements to dock J;
• Install new Americans with Disabilities Act compliant gangway and paddleboard storage and
launch platform;
• Replace existing dock entry gates;
• Remove four existing abandoned concrete gangway landings in Parcel B and five gangway
landings in Parcel A after dock replacement;
• Relocate existing vessel pump-out station from Dock G to Dock N;
• Reconfigure existing dinghy dock and storage racks.
ATTACHMENT 2 39
Project Location
FIGURE 1
0511.006•2/17
n
SOURCE: Google Maps, 2017
2000
Approximate scale in feet.
Project Site
ATTACHMENT 2 40
105.0′
70.0′
63.0′
120.0′
100.0′
62.0′
23′
SPINNAKER DRIVE
SPINNAKER DRIVE
0
SCALE IN FEET
80 160
NORTH
DATE BY APP’D DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
REV
ONE INCH
AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONE
INCH SCALE ACCORDINGLY
DESIGNED BY:
APPROVED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
SCALE:
VENTURA ISLE MARINA
SAFE HARBOR MARINAS
VENTURA ISLE, LLC SHEET NO. OF
Jun 12, 2017 8:16am rrazonable H:\AutoCAD Project Files\_Projects\1428-Safe Harbor Marinas\Ventura Isle Marina Planning\Design Development Plans\1428-SP1_SITE PLAN-CEQA.dwg SP-1 CEQA
R RAZONABLE
F MASSABKI
R MASON
AS NOTED
PARCEL B
PARCEL A
(E) RESTROOMS &
SHOWERS BUILDING
(E) MARINA MANAGEMENT
OFFICES, RESTROOMS &
SHOWERS
(E) YACHT CLUB OFFICE,
RESTROOMS & SHOWERS
(E) BOAT SALES
BUILDING
G/H
L/M
SP-1
1 1 PROPOSED MARINA PLAN
NEW PUMPOUT
NEW ADA GANGWAY
PADDLE BOAT
STORAGE/LAUNCH
DINGHY DOCK
6/7/2017
F
E
D
I
J
K
N
A
B
C
NOTE: Average slip size excludes endties.
Project Site Plan
FIGURE 2
0511.006•7/17
SOURCE: Safe Harbor Marinas
ATTACHMENT 2 41
Impact Sciences, Inc. 6 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND
511.006 October 2017
Table 1
Existing and Proposed Ventura Isle Marina Slip Mix
Slip
Size
(ft)
Dock Total
Proposed
Total
Existing
Net
Change
A B C D E F G/H I J K L/M N
<30 0 52 -52 30-35 23 18 1 44 20 106 212 -106 36-40 3 5 24 22 16 31 7 108 96 12 41-50 25 22 19 9 11 17 18 7 128 127 1 51-60 2 3 24 10 14 13 66 39 27 61-69 6 12 18 6 12 70 1 2 5 4 3 15 1 14 Endtie 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 14 23 -9 Total 28 52 44 42 46 42 35 36 47 41 28 14 455 556 -101 Average Slip Size 44.93 38.93 6.00 Source: Safe Harbor Marinas, 2017 NOTE: Average slip size excludes endties Access/Parking Regional access to the project site is provided via US-101. Local access is provided through East Harbor Boulevard and Spinnaker Drive. Surface parking is available for visitors. Currently, a public sidewalk/concrete promenade with restrooms and administrative offices surrounds the project site’s docks and separates the parking lot from the harbor. Santa Clara River is also located approximately 3,000 feet to the south of the project site. Land Use On the City of Ventura General Plan3 (Venture General Plan), Land Use Element, the entire marina is designated as ‘Commerce’. The project site is also zoned ‘Harbor Commercial’ in the City’s zoning map. Surrounding land uses mainly include industrial uses, commercial uses, park and open space uses, and agricultural uses. Surrounding zoning include Harbor Commercial, Harbor Mixed Use, Parks, and Agriculture. 3 City of Ventura, General Plan, August 2005. ATTACHMENT 2 42 Impact Sciences, Inc. 7 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Project Construction Sequencing Construction of the proposed project would be sequenced. During construction, vessels in the marina would likely be relocated to available slips while individual docks are removed and replaced. Figure 3, Project Construction Sequencing indicates the proposed construction plan. The construction is expected to proceed according to the following schedule: • Demolition and replacement of docks G, H, and I is anticipated to take five months. This sequence would also incorporate upgrades to the paddle boat storage/launch facility • Demolition and replacement of docks L and M, is anticipated to take three months. • Substantial upgrades to dock F and minimal improvements to dock J (two additional slips and an end tie) is anticipated to take four months During demolition and replacement of docks, liveaboards will be temporarily relocated throughout the project site, but will not be displaced. In addition, new gate houses will be constructed to control access, the replacement of existing gangways for security purposes is also proposed For purposes of analysis in this environmental document, all work is assumed to take place at once. It is expected sequences will overlap and may change; therefore, this conservative estimate ensures impacts are not understated while still presenting an accurate picture of the proposed project construction. Other public agencies whose approval is required: US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) USACE’s jurisdiction relates to the permitting for waterside improvements. The USACE circulates the completed Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment to the National Marine Fisheries Services and other interested parties. National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires the completion of an Essential Fisheries Habitat (EFH) Assessment when a federally-permitted action could adversely affect a designated EFH area. The EFH is submitted to the USACE who then submits the EFH to the NMFS. ATTACHMENT 2 43 Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage STAGE Project Construction Sequencing FIGURE 3 0511.006•8/17 SOURCE: Safe Harbor Marinas ATTACHMENT 2 44 Impact Sciences, Inc. 9 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 California Coastal Commission The California Coastal Commission has jurisdiction over waterside improvements in the harbor. A Biological Assessment is necessary along with the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application. However, as the proposed project would take place on floating docks, an EFH Assessment with the appropriate biological resource information will suffice. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) As part of the waterside improvements, permitting is required under the LARWQCB for waste discharge during construction. ATTACHMENT 2 45 Impact Sciences, Inc. 10 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions 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” 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 potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Oscar Pena Ventura Port District ATTACHMENT 2 46 Impact Sciences, Inc. 11 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. ATTACHMENT 2 47 Impact Sciences, Inc. 12 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. ATTACHMENT 2 48 Impact Sciences, Inc. 13 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tress, 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? Responses: a) Less than significant impact. The nearest scenic view or vista from the project site would be the Pacific Ocean, Ventura Harbor, and the Channel Islands located directly west of the project site. The project site is adjacent to Spinnaker Drive, Harbor Drive, Olivas Park Drive, and Navigator Drive, all of which are designated “scenic routes” established by the Ventura General Plan.4 Due to the existing development and harbor that protect the entrance to the Ventura Harbor, views of the coast from the project site are already limited. The proposed project is limited to dock replacements and facilities upgrades in the Ventura Isle Marina. The proposed project would replace existing dock structures with expanded docks and boat slips. Although the new boat slips would allow for larger boats to access the docks, it is not anticipated these larger boats would impede existing views. As there are no new physical developments that would block views of the harbor, the Pacific Ocean, and the Channel Islands, this impact is considered less than significant. The project site is adjacent to Spinnaker Drive, Harbor Drive, Olivas Park Drive, and Navigator Drive, all of which are designated “scenic routes” established by the Ventura General Plan. The project site is readily visible from these routes as the existing marina is currently operational. Motorists on these routes would not experience a change of views from existing conditions to the 4 City of Ventura, General Plan, August 2005. ATTACHMENT 2 49 Impact Sciences, Inc. 14 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 proposed project. The proposed upgrades and landscaping would be compatible with the colors, massing, and landscaping of development in the area. The project would be considered a visual improvement and compared to existing conditions given the design of the compatible buildings, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, open spaces, and high-quality landscaping onsite. Such an improvement would not degrade scenic views. Additionally, the Ventura General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report identified an unavoidable significant impact for the change in visual character of the community due to conversion of farmland to urbanized uses as well as the potential for new development to alter and/or block views from various public view corridors. As described above, the project would not block views from public view corridors. Further, the project does not include the conversion of any uses from farmland to urban. The site is in use as a marina and will continue to be used as a marina. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to the unavoidable significant impact to aesthetics analyzed in the Ventura General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required. b) No impact. No highways or roads within or adjacent to the project site are designated as state scenic highways.5 US-101 is located approximately 5,000 feet north of the project site, but is currently in eligible status and is not officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project site is an existing marina, docks, and supporting office facilities. The proposed project involves dock replacements to the Ventura Isle Marina, and would not expand the water surface area of the dock. These upgrades would not affect or block views of any designated scenic resources than what currently exists. The project site does not contain any rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Therefore, no impacts would occur. c) Less than significant impact. Buildout of the proposed project would not substantially change the existing visual character of the project site, which currently is typical of a marina. The project site includes a parking area, a walking path, facilities that support the marina (i.e., management office, restrooms), ramps/walkways to the docks, and boat slips. The proposed project is limited to dock replacements and facilities upgrades and would not alter the existing visual character of the project site. Public views of the marina would be maintained and in general the proposed improvements would be expected to enhance the visual character of the marina. 5 California Department of Transportation, Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/, accessed 12/21/2016 ATTACHMENT 2 50 Impact Sciences, Inc. 15 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Building improvements as part of the proposed project would be compatible with the overall character of the surrounding area. The immediate vicinity of the project site includes additional docks with associated boat slips. As the surrounding uses of the site mainly support the functions of a harbor, the character of the surrounding area would not be diminished. A less than significant impact would occur, and no further analysis is necessary. d) Less than significant impact. The project site is currently developed and therefore generates nighttime lighting. Current sources of light on the project site includes lighting for commercial uses adjacent to the project site, offices, facilities, and safety-related lighting on docks related to security. Additionally, adjacent development such as adjacent docks and residential uses to the north generate light proximate to the project site. The proposed project is limited to dock replacements and facilities upgrades. Therefore, the proposed project may involve additional lighting in the form of security lights around the facilities and walkways. However, as the project site is currently developed and generates night time lighting, the addition of security lighting for the upgrades would not substantially increase light levels such that nighttime views would be affected. Glare is the result of sunlight reflected off expanses of highly reflective surfaces. The intensity of glare and reflectivity would depend on the types of building materials used in construction and the ultimate design of the approved project. The proposed project is not expected to create unusual or isolated glare impacts. There are no extraordinary reflective surfaces related to the proposed project. Boats parked at the dock may incrementally increase glare but this change relative to existing conditions would not be substantial. Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, Street Lighting and Guidelines, would reduce any potential lighting or glare impacts by mandating appropriate lighting and building materials to reduce potential light and glare impacts. Therefore, impacts associated with illumination, glare, and shadow would be less than significant. No further analysis is necessary. ATTACHMENT 2 51 Impact Sciences, Inc. 16 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) 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 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 nonforest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Responses: a) No impact. According to the Ventura General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, the project site is not classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide ATTACHMENT 2 52 Impact Sciences, Inc. 17 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Importance.6 The Olivas Potential Expansion Area, an area that is classified as Prime Farmland, is directly east of the project site. As the proposed project would be limited to the confines of the project site, there would be no impact to important farmlands, or conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. As such, no impacts would occur to farmland. b-e) No Impact. The project site is located in the “Harbor Commercial” (H-C) zone. The Harbor Commercial Zone accommodates a broader mix of building types for commercial visitor-serving purposes, recreation, boating, commercial fishing, private fishing, and general commercial retail offices. The project site is not zoned for agricultural uses and/or forest land/timberland and is limited to the uses listed above. Only lands that are proposed for agricultural use may be eligible for a Williamson Act Contract. Thus, the project site does not contain any land that is under a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert farmland and/or forest land/timberland to non-agricultural or non-forest land uses. No impacts would occur and no further analysis is needed. 6 2005 Ventura General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Section 4.2 Agriculture Resources. ATTACHMENT 2 53 Impact Sciences, Inc. 18 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Responses: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant impact. The proposed project is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin (“Basin”) and, therefore, falls under the jurisdiction of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD). In conjunction with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the VCAPCD is responsible for formulating and implementing air pollution control strategies. The VCAPCD’s most recent Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was adopted in 2007 and establishes a comprehensive air pollution control program leading to the attainment of state and federal air quality standards in the Basin, which is in non-attainment ATTACHMENT 2 54 Impact Sciences, Inc. 19 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 for 1-hour ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM10) state standard as well as the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The AQMP also addresses the requirements set forth in the state and federal Clean Air Acts. Potential impacts on local and regional air quality are anticipated to be less than significant, falling below VCAPCD thresholds as a result of the nature and small scale of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would fall below the VCAPCD significance thresholds for both short-term construction and long term operational emissions, as discussed below. Because construction and operation of the project would not exceed the VCAPCD significance thresholds, the proposed project would not increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, and neither cause or contribute to new air quality violations, nor delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. A project may be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would generate population exceeding the forecasts used in the development of the AQMP. This is attributed with increased vehicle use, energy consumptions, and associated air pollutant emissions. The proposed project involves dock replacements and facilities upgrades. Currently, 10 percent of the marina slips are allocated to house live-aboard residents, and this amount would not change following the implementation of the proposed project. There is no additional residential component to the proposed project and project implementation would not generate any new population. Dock replacements involve the reconfiguration of boat slips on the harbor, but the proposed project would effectively decrease the total amount of boat slips available on the marina. Therefore, air quality plans that address population trends would not be applicable and the proposed project would not have a substantial impact on growth projections. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than significant impact. Construction Air pollutant emissions from the proposed project were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The full CalEEMod results and variables for the proposed project can be found in Appendix III. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve removal of the existing dock structures, construction of new expanded dock structures, and facilities upgrades. Construction activities would generate fugitive dust particles, ozone precursors, and diesel ATTACHMENT 2 55 Impact Sciences, Inc. 20 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 exhaust that could result in an increase in criteria pollutants and also contribute to the existing nonattainment levels for ozone and particulate matter. Table 1, Project Construction Emissions depicts the total amount of emissions per day of each criteria pollutant associated with the project. Table 1 Project Construction Emissions Pollutants Daily Emissions (pounds/day) ROG 0.88 NOx 8.52 CO 6.19 SO2 0.009 PM10 0.79 PM2.5 0.56 Source: CalEEMod version 2013.2.2 It should be noted that the VCAPCD states that construction-related emissions are not evaluated against any numeric threshold for significance, since such emissions are temporary and would cease after project completion. Rather, the VCAPD recommends the implementation of emission and dust control requirements for all construction projects with ROG or NOx emissions over 25 pounds per day, including VCAPD Rule 55. However, as construction-related emissions of ROG and NOx would be below 25 pounds/day, no mitigation would be required and impacts would be less than significant. Operation Air pollution emissions associated with the operation of the proposed project include emissions associated with natural gas usage, landscaping maintenance, and from vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Table 2, Operational Emissions from the Proposed Project depicts the daily amount of air pollution that is expected to occur upon project implementation. ATTACHMENT 2 56 Impact Sciences, Inc. 21 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Table 2 Operational Emissions from the Proposed Project Pollutants Daily Emissions (pounds/day) ROG 4.33 NOx 8.22 CO 32.65 SO2 0.078 PM10 5.84 PM2.5 1.62 Source: CalEEMod version 2013.2.2 Operational emissions were calculated in CalEEMod based on the number of trips generated as a result of the project and the energy needed to power the facilities on the project site. VCAPD thresholds state that a significant air quality impact would occur if ROC and NOx emissions exceed 25 pounds/day. As shown in Table 2, operation of the proposed project would not generate emissions exceeding VCAPCD thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is necessary. c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than significant impact. As previously discussed in section (a) and (b) above, the proposed project would be consistent with the most current VCAPCD Air Quality Management Plan and would not exceed VCAPCD emissions thresholds both during its construction and operational phases. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is currently in non-attainment. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is necessary. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would generate long-term emissions on-site from area and energy sources that would generate negligible pollutant concentrations of ozone precursor emissions at nearby sensitive receptors. Certain land uses and population groups are considered particularly sensitive to air pollutants. These include uses such as schools, hospitals, daycare centers, and senior centers. The sensitive receptors closest to the project site are the ATTACHMENT 2 57 Impact Sciences, Inc. 22 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 residential uses (i.e. mobile home park) located approximately 2,500 feet to the north of the project site. Based on previous analysis, the project would not generate emissions that would exceed any VCAPCD significance thresholds in both construction and operational phases. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is required. e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would involve dock replacements and facilities upgrade to the area but would not result in activities that create objectionable odors. It would not include any land uses typically associated with unpleasant odors and local nuisances (e.g., rendering facilities, dry cleaners). VCAPCD regulations and complaint programs that govern nuisances would regulate any occasional odors associated with on-site uses. As a result, any odor impacts from the project would be considered less than significant and no further analysis is necessary. ATTACHMENT 2 58 Impact Sciences, Inc. 23 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US 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, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ATTACHMENT 2 59 Impact Sciences, Inc. 24 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? Responses: a,b,f) Less than significant impact. The biological resources assessment consisted of a field reconnaissance survey around the docks proposed for redevelopment in accordance with National Marine Fisheries Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife protocols with regards to the proposed replacement of docks and gangways under a recently applied for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit. The field reconnaissance survey documented existing site conditions and the potential presence of sensitive biological resources, including sensitive terrestrial plant and wildlife species, and habitat for nesting birds. The field biologist surveyed the project site on foot and recorded the biological resources present onsite such as plant and wildlife species. The field survey was conducted in November 2016 on, under, and adjacent to the docks, gangways, and riprap at Docks F, G, H, I, L, M and a portion of dock J. The full report is provided in Appendix IV. Surveys consisted of swimming transects along riprap walls outlining the proposed construction area, the sediment within the proposed construction area, as well as along the docks and pilings in the proposed construction area. Much of the survey area, including riprap, was coated in a fine to thick layer of sediment, especially in the area directly adjacent to the Pierpont Bay Yacht Club where there appears to be significant amounts of runoff from the land directly above the riprap. Sediment in the basin was dark and thick with few signs of inhabitants. A low amount of anthropogenic and terrestrial debris was encountered. Flora was nearly non-existent, the riprap areas were dominated by non-native tunicates, and only few fish were observed throughout the study site. A single detached giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) holdfast was found under Dock F, representing the lone macroalga found during this survey. Only a few cryptogenic tufts of red turf algae were found on the sides of the docks. There was no eelgrass (Zostera spp) or surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp) seen, nor was evidence of previously attached grasses found. ATTACHMENT 2 60 Impact Sciences, Inc. 25 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Turbidity, sedimentation, and associated low light levels inside the harbor likely prevent any photosynthetic activity from occurring on the benthos. The upper intertidal of perimeter riprap was dominated by the invasive pleated tunicate (Styela plicata), invasive club tunicate (Styela clava), and invasive Mediterranean mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis), with high abundances of whitecap limpets (Acmaea mitra), and moderate abundances of spaghetti worms (Thelepus crispatus). The subtidal portions of riprap were also dominated by the same invasive tunicates and mussels. A few (1-5) juvenile/sub-adult Black Perch, Opaleye, Barred Sand Bass, California Scorpionfish, and Round Stingray were found utilizing the riprap as habitat. Dock floats were relatively bare, with only low to moderate densities of two invasive colonial bryozoans: moss animals (Bugula neritina) and spaghetti bryozoans (Zoobotryon verticillatum). Dock and gangway pilings had moderate cover of Mediterranean mussels, but little else. No fishes were observed around, on the underside, or on the benthos below the docks. Several invasive species were observed during this survey and were often the dominant species. Each of these invasive species are now common throughout Southern California Bight bays and harbors, and this survey did not identify any new or unusual species in the study area. A complete list of species and relative abundances by location can be found in Table 3, Species Found Near Project Site, where invasive species are identified with an asterisk. ATTACHMENT 2 61 Impact Sciences, Inc. 26 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Table 3 Species Found Near Project Site Dock F Dock G Dock H Dock I/J Dock L Dock M Riprap Phylum Scientific Name Common Name Substrate Dock/Pilings Substrate Dock/Pilings Substrate Dock/Pilings Substrate Dock/Pilings Substrate Dock/Pilings Substrate Dock/Pilings Low Middle High Flora Phaeophyta Macrocystia pyrifera Giant kelp S1 Fauna Mollusca Acmaea mitra Whitecap limpet H Chordata Botrylloides diagenesis Colonial tunicate L L L Chordata Botryllus schlossen Colonial tunicate L L L Bryozoa Bugula neritina Moss animal L L M M M L M M L M L M L Mollusca Chaceia ovoidea Wart neck paddock S Mollusca Crassadorna gigantean Rock scallop L S L Chordata Didemnum Carnulentum Colonial tunicate L Cnidaria Diadumene leucolena* Ghost anemone L L L Mollusca Diaulula sandiegensis San Diego dorid L L L Chordata Embiotoca jacksoni Black Perch L Chordata Girella nigricans Opaleye L Mollusca Mytilus galloprovincialis Mediterranean mussel M M M M M M V V V Annelida Myxicola infundibulum Sabellid worm S S Mollusca Navanax inermis Navanax L L L Cnidaria Pachycerianthus fimbriatus Tube-dwelling anemone S Chordata Paralabrax nebulifer Barred Sand Bass L Platyhelmin thes Praestheceraeus bellostriatus Plyclad flatworm S Chordata Scorpaena guttata California Scorpionfish S Mollusca Unidentified nudibranch Unidentified nudibranch L Porifera Haliclona sp. Sponge L L L Chordata Styela clava* Club tunicate V V V Chordata Styela montereyensis Stalked tunicate L Chordata Styela plicata* Pleated tunicate V V V Annelida Thelepus crispus Spaghetti worm M Mollusca Tonicella lineata Lined chiton L S S Chordata Urobatis halleri Round Stingray S Bryozoa Zoobotryon verticillatum* Spaghetti bryozoan M M M M M M H M L M L M Source: Relative abundance indicated by letter: V = Very High; H = High; M = Moderate; L= Low; S = Singleton 1 Single individual not attached to substrate * Taxa indicated by (*) are invasive ATTACHMENT 2 62 Impact Sciences, Inc. 27 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 As indicated in Table 3, no known threatened, endangered, or rare species or their habitats, locally designated species, locally designated natural communities, riparian or wetland habitats exist on this project site. There is also no riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Furthermore, no NOAA Habitat Areas of Particular Concern or EFH areas protected from fishing occur in the project vicinity. The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is necessary. c) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project site is located adjacent to Pacific Ocean. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would substantially degrade water resources through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. The proposed project may increase turbidity and the discharge of materials into the waterway during construction; however, operationally, the proposed project would be comparable to existing conditions. These effects may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 shall be implemented to reduce these effects to a less than significant level. These measures ensure that Best Management Practices are utilized to reduce the amount of pollution and hazardous materials that enter the waterways. No further analysis is necessary. d) Less than significant impact. The proposed project is limited to dock replacements and facilities upgrade. Any impacts related to wildlife movement would be temporary in nature and are not expected to impact substantially with the movement of any species. However, as mature trees are located on the project site, these trees have the potential for nesting sites for birds. These trees will not be removed as a component to the facilities upgrade. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) implements the United States’ commitment to four treaties with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia for the protection of shared migratory bird resources. The MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. The US Fish and Wildlife Service administers permits to take migratory birds in accordance with the MBTA. Provisions of the MBTA are met by either avoiding grading activities during the nesting season (February 15 to August 15) or conducting a site survey for nesting birds prior to commencing grading activities. The proposed ATTACHMENT 2 63 Impact Sciences, Inc. 28 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 project will be required to comply with the provisions of the MBTA. Adherence to the MBTA regulations would ensure that if construction occurs during the breeding season, appropriate measures would be taken to avoid impacts to any nesting birds if found. With adherence to the MBTA requirements, less than significant impacts would occur and no further analysis is required. e) Less than significant impact. The City of Ventura Municipal Code does not currently include a tree protection ordinance. The project is limited to waterside improvements and as such, there are no trees on the project site. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is required. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 Construction Responsibilities and Debris Removal. Safe Harbor Marina will observe the following construction-related requirements: • No construction materials, debris, or waste shall be placed or stored where it may be subject to wave or tidal action, erosion, or dispersion. • Any and all debris resulting from construction activities shall be removed from the site upon completion of construction and disposed of at an appropriate location. • Divers shall recover non-buoyant debris discharged into coastal waters as soon as possible after loss. • Safe Harbor Marina shall dispose of all construction debris resulting from the proposed project at an appropriate location outside the coastal zone. If the disposal site is located within the coastal zone, a separate coastal development permit shall be required before disposal can take place. • Reasonable and prudent measures shall be taken to prevent any discharge of fuel or oily waste from heavy machinery or construction equipment into coastal waters. Safe Harbor Marina and its contractors shall have adequate equipment available to contain any such spill immediately. • All debris and trash shall be disposed of in the proper trash and recycling receptacles at the end of each construction day. • Any wood treatment used shall conform with the specifications of the American Wood Preservation Association for saltwater use. • Safe Harbor Marina shall use the least damaging method for the construction of pilings and dock structures and any other activity that will disturb benthic sediments. Safe Harbor Marina shall limit, to the greatest extent practicable, the suspension of benthic sediments into the water column. ATTACHMENT 2 64 Impact Sciences, Inc. 29 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 BIO-2 Best Management Practices. Safe Harbor Marina shall take the steps necessary to ensure that the long-term water-borne berthing of boats at the approved marina will be managed in a manner that protects water quality pursuant to the implementation of the following BMPs: Continued participation in the Clean Marina Plan: The CMP shall include appropriate BMPs for the protection of water quality from waterside development activities. Guidance for appropriate BMPs can be found in the Program Manual and Clean Marina Scoresheets of the Clean Marinas program (www.cleanmarina.org). While this permit only addresses waterside activities, it is recommended that this project follow all the guidelines of the Clean Marina Program and seek certification under that program ATTACHMENT 2 65 Impact Sciences, Inc. 30 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 pursuant to § 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? e) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 21074? Responses: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? No impact. A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.7 Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines an historical resource as (1) a resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) a resource listed in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting certain state guidelines; or (3) an object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided that the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The project site is not located in one of the historic districts identified in the Ventura General Plan.8 7 California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 8 City of Ventura General Plan, Figure 9-1, Historic Districts and Sites, 2005 ATTACHMENT 2 66 Impact Sciences, Inc. 31 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 The buildings on the project site consist of restrooms and management offices. There are no historic resources within or adjacent to the project site. Further, the proposed project is limited to waterside improvements. There would be no impacts, and no further analysis is necessary. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Less than significant impact. Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines significant archaeological resources as resources that meet the criteria for historical resources, as discussed above, or resources that constitute unique archaeological resources. The proposed project is limited to waterside improvement, specifically, the demolition and replacement of existing docks. As the improvements would be limited to waterside improvement (i.e., removal of the previously constructed structure), it is unlikely that accidental discovery of any archeological resources would occur. Therefore impacts would be less than significant. No further analysis is necessary. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the project site has been previously disturbed and, therefore, it is unlikely that undisturbed paleontological resources or unique geologic features are present on the project site. Construction activities associated with buildout of the project site would be limited to the waterside portion of the project site. Therefore, it is unlikely that any previously unidentified resources would be unearthed. Impacts would be less than significant level, and no further analysis is necessary. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant impact. No formal cemetery exists on the project site or in the vicinity of the proposed project. As the project site has been subject to past subsurface disturbance associated with grading and foundations, it is unlikely that intact human remains are present beneath the site. Further, the project does not include any ground disturbing activities that would be likely to result in accidental discovery of human remains. Impacts would be less than significant. No further analysis is necessary. ATTACHMENT 2 67 Impact Sciences, Inc. 32 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 e) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 21074? Less than significant impact. The Port of Ventura has received letters from two different tribal groups requesting consultation on proposed projects under the agency’s discretion. These letters are from the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, dated December 1st, 2016, and May 2nd 2016, respectively. Pursuant to AB 52, a tribal consultation notice was sent to all California Native American tribes who requested consultation in February 2017. No tribe has requested further consultation or indicated that tribal cultural resources are present. The project is limited to waterside improvements and therefore does not include any substantial ground disturbing activities that could result in accidental discovery of any tribal cultural resources. Therefore impacts would be less than significant. ATTACHMENT 2 68 Impact Sciences, Inc. 33 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ATTACHMENT 2 69 Impact Sciences, Inc. 34 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Responses: a) i) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project site is not located within the boundaries of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone identified for fault-rupture hazards.9 The Ventura Fault, a north-dipping thrust fault, is the closest Alquist-Priolo fault zone to the project site, located approximately 2.5 miles to the north. The Oak Ridge Fault runs along the northern boundary of the project site and is classified as an active or potentially active fault.10 Thus, the project site may experience effects of ground rupture. However, all development pursuant to the proposed project would conform to the California Building Code (CBC) that addresses risks from fault rupture. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would further ensure compliance with state building codes and requirements, and thus, this impact is considered to be less than significant. a) ii) Strong seismic groundshaking Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Since the project site is located within the seismically active Southern California region, there is some possibility that there could be (a) trace(s) of (a) previously unidentified fault(s) somewhere on-site. The closest surface trace of an active fault to the project site is the Oak Ridge Fault, which runs along the northern boundary of the project site, and the Ventura-Foothill Fault, located approximately 2.5 miles north of the site. If evidence of faulting were to be discovered, potential building hazards would be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through application of already-required provisions of the California Building Code (CBC), which sets construction design standards that can reduce potential impacts related to seismic activity. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 below is required to ensure compliance with applicable City and state building codes and requirements. With the incorporation of 9 California Department of Conservation, Regional Geologic Hazard and Mapping Program, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps, Ventura Quandrangle, http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/VENTURA/maps/VENTURA.PDF, accessed December 2016 10 City of Ventura, General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, 2005. ATTACHMENT 2 70 Impact Sciences, Inc. 35 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts associated with the exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic groundshaking would be reduced to less than significant levels. No further analysis is necessary. a) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine-grained granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: (1) shallow groundwater; (2) low-density, fine, clean sandy soils; and (3) high intensity ground motion. The project site is located within a potential liquefaction zone as identified in the 2005 City of Ventura General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.11 Mitigation Measure GEO-1 below is required to ensure compliance with applicable City and state building codes and requirements, including Title 24, Part 2, Volume 228, and the City of Ventura regulations. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts associated with liquefaction would be less than significant. No further analysis is necessary. a) iv) Landslides No impact. Landslides and other types of slope failures, such as lateral spreading, can result in areas with varying topography in the event of an earthquake. The project site is comprised of flat terrain and no significant ground slopes exists in the vicinity of the project site. The project site is not susceptible to landslides.12 Therefore, the likelihood of seismically induced landslides affecting the project site is considered to be remote. No impact would occur. No further analysis is necessary b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Construction associated with site development would result in ground surface disruption during site clearance, which would temporarily expose soils, allowing for possible erosion. Construction activity would include removal and replacement of existing dock structures and associated landside improvements. These activities would require minimal ground-disturbing construction activity. As a result, the potential for substantial erosion to occur is low. 11 City of Ventura, General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, 2005. 12 City of Ventura, General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, 2005. ATTACHMENT 2 71 Impact Sciences, Inc. 36 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Under regulations adopted by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB), projects are required to implement a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), during the operational life of the project to ensure that storm water pollution is addressed by incorporating BMP features into the design of the project. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. No further analysis is necessary. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Impacts related to liquefaction and landslide potential are evaluated above. Potential impacts from expansive soils are considered less than significant throughout the City of Ventura. While several areas have been identified throughout the City, which could be affected by expansive soils, none of these areas are located in the project site.13 The proposed project would adhere to the requirements of the City of Ventura Public Works Department and the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with these codes and requirements would assure safe construction practices and avoid any potentially significant impacts associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 provided below, would ensure that impacts related to the potential for compressible soils on the project site would not pose a geologic hazard to future visitors. With implementation of mitigation, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. No further analysis is necessary. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project site has been previously disturbed by development activity. As described above, soils located within the City maintain low expansion potential and the proposed project would be designed and constructed in conformance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2, and would be subject to the requirements of the City of Ventura Public Works Department and the City’s Municipal Code. In the event that expansive soils are encountered during project construction, 13 City of Ventura, General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, 2005. ATTACHMENT 2 72 Impact Sciences, Inc. 37 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 compliance with these codes and regulations would avoid potentially significant impacts associated with expansive soils. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is required to ensure compliance with these standard regulations. With implementation of mitigation, impacts related to expansive soil would be reduced to a less than significant level. No further analysis is necessary. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No impact. Project implementation would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The project site is currently connected to the City’s wastewater conveyance system. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no further study is required. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are required to reduce potential impacts related to geology and soils to a less than significant level. GEO-1 The project shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 16 (Structural Design) of the 2013 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 (based on the International Building Code, Chapter 16, Section 1613 – Earthquake Loads), the City of Ventura Municipal Code, and accepted engineering practices. ATTACHMENT 2 73 Impact Sciences, Inc. 38 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Background Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions refer to a group of emissions that are believed to affect global climate conditions. These gases trap heat in the atmosphere and the major concern is that increases in GHG emissions are causing global climate change. Global climate change is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, most agree that there is a direct link between increased emission of GHGs and long-term global temperature. What GHGs have in common is that they allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere, but trap a portion of the outward-bound infrared radiation and warm up the air. The process is similar to the effect a greenhouse has in raising the internal temperature, hence the name greenhouse gases. Both natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature; however, it is the scientific consensus that emissions from human activities such as electricity generation and motor vehicle operations have elevated the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. This accumulation of GHGs has contributed to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and contributed to global climate change. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and water vapor (H2O). CO2 is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant greenhouse gas emitted. To account for the varying warming potential of different GHGs, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). ATTACHMENT 2 74 Impact Sciences, Inc. 39 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 According to the 2010 California Climate Action Team (CAT) Report, temperature increases arising from increased GHG emissions potentially could result in a variety of impacts to the people, economy, and environment of California associated with a projected increase in extreme conditions, with the severity of the impacts depending upon actual future emissions of GHGs and associated warming. In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emissions of GHG would be progressively reduced, as follows: By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. In response to Executive Order S-3-05, the Secretary of Cal/EPA created the CAT, which, in March 2006, published the first CAT Report (2006 CAT Report). The 2006 CAT Report identified a recommended list of strategies that the State could pursue to reduce climate change GHG emissions. These are strategies that could be implemented by various State agencies to ensure that the Governor’s targets are met and can be met with existing authority of the State agencies. In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), which requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. As a central requirement of AB 32, the ARB was assigned the task of developing a Scoping Plan that outlines the State’s strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit. This Scoping Plan, which was developed by the ARB in coordination with the CAT, was published in October 2008. The Scoping Plan proposed a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce the State’s dependence on oil, diversify the State’s energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. An important component of the plan is a cap-and-trade program covering 85 percent of the State’s emissions. Additional key recommendations of the Scoping Plan include strategies to enhance and expand proven cost-saving energy efficiency programs; implementation of California’s clean cars standards; increases in the amount of clean and renewable energy used to power the State; and implementation of a low-carbon fuel standard that will make the fuels used in the State cleaner. ATTACHMENT 2 75 Impact Sciences, Inc. 40 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Furthermore, the Scoping Plan also proposes full deployment of the California Solar Initiative, high-speed rail, water-related energy efficiency measures, and a range of regulations to reduce emissions from trucks and from ships docked in California ports. The Proposed Scoping Plan was approved by the ARB on December 11, 2008. Because climate change is already affecting California and current emissions will continue to drive climate change in the coming decades, the need to adapt to the impacts of climate change is recognized by the State of California. The 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy Discussion Draft (the Strategy) begins what will be an ongoing process of adaptation, as directed by Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S-13-08. The goals of the strategy are to analyze risks and vulnerabilities and identify strategies to reduce the risks. Once the strategies are identified and prioritized, government resources will be identified. Finally, the strategy includes identifying research needs and educating the public. Climate change risks are evaluated using two distinct approaches: (1) projecting the amount of climate change that may occur using computer-based global climate models and (2) assessing the natural or human system’s ability to cope with and adapt to change by examining historical experience with climate variability and extrapolating this to understand how the systems may respond to the additional impact of climate change. The major anticipated climate changes expected in the State of California include increases in temperature, decreases in precipitation, particularly as snowfall, and increases in sea level, as discussed above. These gradual changes will also lead to an increasing number of extreme events, such as heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods. This would impact public health, ocean and coast resources, water supply, agriculture, biodiversity, and the transportation and energy infrastructures. Key preliminary adaptation recommendations included in the Strategy are as follows: • Appointment of a Climate Adaptation Advisory Panel; • Improved water management in anticipation of reduced water supplies, including a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2020; • Consideration of project alternatives that avoid significant new development in areas that cannot be adequately protected from flooding due to climate change; • Preparation of agency-specific adaptation plans, guidance or criteria by September 2010; • Consideration of climate change impacts for all significant State projects; • Assessment of climate change impacts on emergency preparedness; ATTACHMENT 2 76 Impact Sciences, Inc. 41 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 • Identification of key habitats and development of plans to minimize adverse effects from climate change; • Development of guidance by the California Department of Public Health by September 2010 for use by local health departments to assess adaptation strategies; • Amendment of Plans to assess climate change impacts and develop local risk reduction strategies by communities with General Plans and Local Coastal Plans; and • Inclusion of climate change impact information into fire program planning by State firefighting agencies. In August 2007, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), which required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare and transmit new CEQA guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions to the Natural Resources Agency by July 1, 2009. On April 13, 2009, OPR submitted to the Secretary for Natural Resources its proposed amendments to the state CEQA Guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions, as required by Senate Bill 97. These proposed CEQA Guideline amendments provided guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in draft CEQA documents. On December 31, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency transmitted the Adopted Amendments and the entire rule-making file to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). On February 16, 2010, OAL approved the Adopted Amendments and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Adopted Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. In the CEQA Guideline Amendments, a threshold of significance for greenhouse gas emissions was not specified, nor does it prescribe assessment methodologies or specific mitigation measures. Instead, the amendments encourage lead agencies to consider many factors in performing a CEQA analysis and rely on the lead agencies to make their own significance threshold determinations based upon substantial evidence. The CEQA Amendments also encourage public agencies to make use of programmatic mitigation plans and programs from which to tier when they perform individual project analyses. There are several unique challenges to analyzing greenhouse gas emissions and climate change under CEQA, largely because of climate change’s “global” nature. Typical CEQA analyses address local actions that have local – or, at most, regional – impacts, whereas climate change presents the considerable challenge of analyzing the relationship between local activities and the resulting potential, if any, for global environmental impacts. Most environmental analyses examine the “project-specific” impacts that a particular project is likely to generate. With regard to global warming, however, it is generally accepted that while the magnitude of global warming ATTACHMENT 2 77 Impact Sciences, Inc. 42 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 effects may be substantial, the GHG emissions from a single general development project would have no noticeable effect on global climate. For greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, there is not, at this time, one established, universally agreed-upon “threshold of significance” by which to measure an impact. While the ARB published some draft thresholds several years ago, they were never adopted and the ARB recommended that local air districts and lead agencies adopt their own thresholds for GHG impacts. Responses: a, b) Less than significant impact. The CEQA Guidelines provide that, when available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make determinations of significance for greenhouse gas emissions. Neither the City of Ventura nor the VCAPCD have adopted any specific thresholds of significance for construction or operational GHG emissions. Given that Ventura County is adjacent to the SCAQMD jurisdiction and is a part of the SCAG region, VCAPCD staff believes it makes sense to set a local GHG emission threshold of significance for land use development projects at levels consistent with those set by the SCAQMD and the SCAG region. VCAPCD believes that adopting harmonized regional GHG emission thresholds would help streamline project review and encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout most of Southern California. Therefore, the SCAQMD thresholds are used for the purposes of this analysis to be consistent. The SCAQMD has published draft thresholds using a tiered approach. The draft approach as most recently updated in September 2010 is as follows:14 Tier 1: Is the project exempt from further analysis under existing statutory or categorical exemptions? If yes, there is a presumption of less than significant impacts with respect to climate change. Tier 2: Is the project’s GHG emission within the GHG budgets in an approved regional plan? (The plan must be consistent with State CEQA Guidelines §§15064(h)(3), 15125(d), or 15152(s).) If yes, there is a presumption of less than significant impacts with respect to climate change. 14 South Coast Air Quality Management District, “Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group Meeting #6,” http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2008/oct22mtg/oct22.html. 2008. ATTACHMENT 2 78 Impact Sciences, Inc. 43 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Tier 3: Is the project’s incremental increase in GHG emissions below or mitigated to less than the significance screening level (10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent [MTCO2e] per year for industrial projects; 3,500 MTCO2e for residential projects; 1,400 MTCO2e for commercial projects; 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed-use or all land use projects)? If yes, there is a presumption of less than significant impacts with respect to climate change. Tier 4: Does the project meet one of the following performance standards? If yes, there is a presumption of less than significant impacts with respect to climate change. Option #1: Achieve some percentage reduction in GHG emissions from a base case scenario, including land use sector reductions from AB 32. Option #2: For individual projects, achieve a project-level efficiency target of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population by 2020 or a target of 3.0 MTCO2e per service population by 2035. For plans, achieve a plan-level efficiency target of 6.6 MTCO2e per service population by 2020 or a target of 4.1 MTCO2e per service population by 2035. Tier 5: Does the project obtain offsets alone or in combination with the above to achieve the target significance screening level (offsets provided for 30-year project life, unless project life limited by permit, lease, or other legally binding conditions)? If yes, there is a presumption of less than significant impacts with respect to climate change. Otherwise, the project is significant. The SCAQMD has not announced when or if, in light of recent CEQA case law, staff is expecting to present a finalized version of these thresholds to the Governing Board for consideration. The SCAQMD has adopted Rules 2700, 2701, and 2702 that address GHG reductions; however, these rules are currently applicable to boilers and process heaters, forestry, and manure management projects. Further, recent case law muddled the methodology for determining significance in CEQA documents. Specifically, courts have indicated that comparing reductions to the reductions necessary in the scoping plan may not be a suitable method of analysis. While the scoping plan provides statewide targets, it may be that some projects need to exceed the proposed statewide target while some projects will likely fall short. For this reason, the determination of GHGs in this IS/MND is based on consistency with local plans and a specific numeric target is not used to determine significance. However, total GHG emissions are presented for informational purposes. The Tier 3 threshold is also used in the analysis as proposed projects that do not exceed the thresholds would not be considered to have a significant impact on the attainment of air quality goals and would, therefore, be considered to be consistent with the current air quality plan. ATTACHMENT 2 79 Impact Sciences, Inc. 44 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Construction The proposed project would result in short-term emissions of GHGs during construction. These emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), are the result of fuel combustion by construction equipment and motor vehicles. The other primary GHGs (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) are typically associated with specific industrial sources and are not expected to be emitted by the proposed project. The emissions of CO2 were estimated using CalEEMod, using the same factors and assumptions as described above. Table 4, Estimated Unmitigated Construction GHG Emission, lists the estimated GHG emissions from the proposed project’s construction activities. The estimated emissions are reported in units of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) incorporates impacts from GHGs other than CO2 which are primarily N2O and CH4 for this project. As shown in Table 4, construction emissions would peak at 1,099 MTCO2e in the single construction year. Table 4 Estimated Unmitigated Construction GHG Emission GHG Emissions Source GHG Emissions MTCO2e/Year CO2 1,098 CH4 .0436 N20 0.0 Total CO2e 1,099 Source: CalEEMod version 2013.2.2 Operation At buildout, the project would result in direct annual emissions of GHGs during operation. Direct emissions of GHG from operation of the proposed project are primarily due to natural gas consumption and mobile source emissions. Area and mobile source emissions were calculated using CalEEMod under similar assumptions. As shown in Table 5, Estimated Unmitigated Operation GHG Emission, operation emissions would peak at 1098MTCO2e per year. This falls below Tier 3 operations thresholds set by SCAQMD. ATTACHMENT 2 80 Impact Sciences, Inc. 45 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Table 5 Estimated Unmitigated Operation GHG Emission GHG Emissions Source GHG Emissions MTCO2e/Year CO2 1097.9167 CH4 0.0436 N20 0.0 Total CO2e 1098.8328 Area sources 0.001 Energy sources 0 Mobile sources 1,098.831 Waste sources 0 Water sources 0 Source: CalEEMod version 2013.2.2 The City of Ventura, the Ventura Port District, nor the VCAPCD have adopted a plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs. This section will address the project’s consistency with other regional and statewide plans and policies adopted for that purpose. In response to concern regarding GHGs and global climate change, the state passed Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) also known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 (Health and Safety Code Section 38500 et. Seq.) mandated a reduction in the state’s GHG levels. AB 32 is the basis for reduction of GHG emissions in California. Local agencies such as the SCAQMD base their planning and regulations on the requirements included in AB 32, which include a reduction of GHG emissions to 1990 rates by 2020. The SCAQMD adopted the GHG significance thresholds specifically to meet AB 32 requirements within its jurisdiction, and so plans and projects that meet those thresholds can be assumed to meet the requirements of AB 32. Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) was signed into law on August 31, 2016. This bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. SB 375 passed by the State of California in 2009, requires metropolitan regions to adopt transportation plans and sustainable communities strategy that reduce vehicle miles travelled. In accordance with SB 375, SCAG prepared and adopted the 2016 RTP/SCS with the primary goal of enhancing sustainability by increasing mobility through various public transit options, increasing the number and variety of housing options to meet the demands of the growing population, creating more compact communities while decreasing urban sprawl, and ensuring people are ATTACHMENT 2 81 Impact Sciences, Inc. 46 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 able to live closer to work, school, and recreation uses. Additionally, the 2016 RTP/SCS reaffirms the 2008 Advisory Land Use Policies that were incorporated into the 2012 RTP/SCS. Development that occurs pursuant to the proposed Project would be consistent with all land use policies included in the 2016 RTP/SCS:15 • Identify regional strategic areas for infill and investment • Structure the plan on a three-tiered system of centers development • Develop “Complete Communities” • Develop nodes on a corridor • Plan for additional housing and jobs near transit • Plan for changing demand in types of housing • Continue to protect stable, existing single-family areas • Ensure adequate access to open space and preservation of habitat • Incorporate local input and feedback on future growth The proposed project is limited to dock replacements and facility upgrades. The Ventura Isle Marina mainly serves as a recreational harbor offering a variety of amenities for boaters such as fishing, tours, and access to the Pacific Ocean. The proposed project would reduce the amount of boat slips, and include renovations and upgrades to existing amenities along the harbor. Thus, the project would not interfere with SCAG’s goals of identifying regional strategic areas for infill, structuring a plan on a three-tiered system of centers development, or developing “Complete Communities.” The proposed project does not include any plans to include transit centers, nor is it located near a transit stop. As shown in Table 5, the majority of the proposed project’s greenhouse gas emissions would occur from mobile (i.e., vehicle) sources. However, the project’s trip generation (refer to Section XVI. Transportation) indicates that fewer total vehicle trips would result from the proposed project due to the reduction of boat slip amount. Although the proposed project does not include a transit component, it would result in fewer vehicle trips than existing conditions, and thus lead to an overall reduction in greenhouse gases. 15 SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, p. 75. ATTACHMENT 2 82 Impact Sciences, Inc. 47 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Furthermore, the proposed project would not affect single-family homes or other residences in the area. Currently, the VIM accommodates liveaboards on approximately 10 percent of their boat slips. The proposed project would not reduce nor increase this amount of housing. The proposed project would also not affect open space, and would include a period of time for local feedback as part of the environmental review process. All other applicable plans in reducing greenhouse gases are listed in Table 6, Consistency with Applicable Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies. Table 6 Consistency with Applicable Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies Source Category/Description Consistency Analysis AB 1493 (Pavley Regulations) Reduces GHG emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2012 through 2016. Also reduces gasoline consumption to a rate of 31 percent of 1990 gasoline consumption (and associated GHG emissions) by 2020 Consistent. The proposed Project would not conflict with implementation of the vehicle emissions standards. Executive Order S-3-05 Establishes the following GHG emission reduction targets: • By 2010 reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels • By 2020 reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels • By 2050 reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels Consistent. The proposed Project would not prohibit the state from reaching these targets. SB 1368 Establishes an emissions performance standard for power plants within the State of California. Consistent. The proposed Project would not conflict with implementation of the emissions standards for power plants. SB 375 Supports the state’s climate actions goals to reduce GHG emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable communities. Under SB375 the California Air Resources Board set regional targets for GHG emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. Consistent. The proposed Project would not conflict with the implementation of passenger vehicle emission reduction measures. Executive Order B-30-15 Establishes a state GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Consistent. The proposed Project would not prohibit the state from reaching the 2030 GHG reduction target. Low Carbon Fuel Standard Establishes protocols for measuring life-cycle carbon intensity of transportation fuels and helps to establish use of alternative fuels. Consistent. The proposed Project would not conflict with implementation of the transportation fuel standards. Thus, the proposed Project would comply with all applicable plans, policies, and programs adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The net increase in GHG emissions, direct and indirect, would be consistent with applicable greenhouse gas reduction strategies. Impacts would be less than significant. ATTACHMENT 2 83 Impact Sciences, Inc. 48 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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? ATTACHMENT 2 84 Impact Sciences, Inc. 49 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? Responses: a) Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would create a significant hazard though the routine transfer, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction of the proposed project would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials, including vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. However, all hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Compliance with these regulations would reduce construction impacts to less than significant. The proposed project is limited to dock replacements and facilities upgrades. Transportation and storage of fuel would occur as part of project operations, as boats would be entering and leaving the dock. However, these operations would be comparable or reduced compared to existing conditions, as the total number of slips would be reduced. The project would be required to meet all applicable California Building and Fire Codes, including through the addition of a fire main on each dock as required by the Fire Marshall. All hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with these standards and regulations, and would not pose significant hazards to the public or the environment. Therefore, operation impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials use would be less than significant. No further analysis is necessary. b) Less than significant. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project created a significant hazard to the public or environment due to a reasonably foreseeable release of hazardous materials. ATTACHMENT 2 85 Impact Sciences, Inc. 50 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 The proposed project includes the replacement of several docks to make them more efficient and to accommodate larger boats. None of these improvements would contribute to conditions that could cause a reasonably foreseeable release in hazardous materials. The project site is currently in use as a marina and implements standard practices to ensure accidents do not occur. These include compliance with City Code standards, best practices implemented by the Ventura Port District, goals outlined by the Strategic Plan of the California Coastal Commission, as well as compliance with California Building and Fire Codes. All hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with these standards and regulations, and would not pose significant hazards to the public or the environment. Therefore, accidents involving the release of hazardous materials impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials use would be less than significant. No further analysis is necessary. c) No impact. No schools are located within 0.25 miles of the project site. The closest school is Pierpont Elementary School, located approximately 1.15 miles northwest of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not emit hazardous materials in the vicinity of an existing school. d) Less than significant impact. The project site is not listed on the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker list and/or the Department of Toxic Substances EnviroStor list.16,17 Thus, the project site is not on any hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is necessary. e, f) No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. The nearest public airport is the Oxnard Airport, located approximately 6 miles southeast of the project site. Therefore, no impact related to an airport land use would occur. No further analysis is necessary. g) Less than significant impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to interfere with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan. During an emergency, surrounding properties would evacuate onto the main roads, towards the freeways (e.g., State Route 126 and US-101). The existing street patterns associated with the major emergency evacuation routes would not be altered as a part of the project. The proposed project would be developed in consultation with the 16 State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker, accessed January 2017 17 Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor, accessed January 2017 ATTACHMENT 2 86 Impact Sciences, Inc. 51 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Ventura City Fire Department and would comply with all applicable access standards during construction and operation. As with any development, access to and from the project site would be required to comply with required street widths as determined in the California Building Code and California Fire Code. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant and no further study is required. h) Less than significant impact. The project site is not located in a wildland fire hazard zone.18 The project site is in an urbanized area within the Ventura Harbor. Thus, the proposed project would not expose persons or structures to wildfire hazard risks. No impact would occur and no further analysis is necessary. 18 Ventura County General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Figure 4.11-2, 2005. ATTACHMENT 2 87 Impact Sciences, Inc. 52 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through 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-oroff-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ATTACHMENT 2 88 Impact Sciences, Inc. 53 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 areas 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) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Responses: a) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project discharges water that does not meet the quality standards of agencies which regulate surface water quality and water discharge into stormwater drainage systems. A significant impact would also occur if the proposed project would not comply with all applicable regulations with regard to surface water quality as governed by the (LARWQCB), the County of Ventura, and the City of Ventura. Three general sources of potential short-term, construction-related stormwater pollution associated with the proposed project include: (1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction material containing pollutants, (2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and (3) earth moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion via storm runoff or mechanical equipment. The dock replacement of the proposed project may also result in the temporary disturbance of the waters within Ventura Harbor. Construction activities may temporarily degrade the quality of these waters. ATTACHMENT 2 89 Impact Sciences, Inc. 54 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 During construction, Safe Harbor Marina would be required to comply with the California Construction General Permit (CGP) and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit. The CGP requires the incorporation of applicable structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs), such as filtration devices and other approved methods that intercept stormwater and prevent pollutants from discharging into the storm drain system. During operation, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the City’s MS4 permit, which establishes limits for the concentration of contaminants entering the storm drain system and requires BMPs such as landscaping for infiltration. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to install City approved trash excluders in stormwater inlets to reduce trash outflow and would be required to design storm drains that conform to the standards approved by the City Engineer. Compliance with the CGP and the City’s MS4 Permit would reduce water quality and waste discharge impacts from runoff during temporary construction activities and long-term operational activities. As required under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Safe Harbor Marina is responsible for preparing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to mitigate the potential effects of erosion and the potential for sedimentation and other pollutants entering the stormwater system and harbor waters during construction. Implementation of the BMPs identified in the SWPPP and compliance with the NPDES and City discharge requirements would ensure that the construction of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Furthermore, the implementation of the Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-5 and BIO-1 would ensure that the proposed project’s construction-related water quality impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates navigable waters where fill material (discharge) is proposed below the ordinary high water mark. Section 404 prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill materials into Waters of the United States or adjacent wetlands without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Act specifies, in Section 401, that states must certify that any activity subject to a permit issued by a federal agency, such as the USACE, meets all state water quality standards. In California, the state and regional water boards are responsible for certification of activities subject to USACE Section 404 permits. A RWQCB 401 Certification would be required for the proposed project. In addition, the harbor waterways are subject to USACE jurisdiction per Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. ATTACHMENT 2 90 Impact Sciences, Inc. 55 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Furthermore, Section 10 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 403) covers construction, excavation, or deposition of materials in, over, or under navigable water of the United States, or any work which would affect the course, location, condition or capacity of those waters. Actions requiring Section 10 permits include structures (e.g., piers, wharfs, breakwaters, bulkheads, jetties, weirs, transmission lines) and work such as dredging or disposal of dredged material, or excavation, filling or other modifications to the navigable waters of the United States. The permits described above would require BMPs to reduce pollution and sedimentation from the project site into Ventura Harbor. Specific measures may include the following: • No contamination by cement, concrete, asphalt, washings, paint, etc. is permitted. Hazardous materials shall not be placed where they may accidently spill or run off into the Harbor. • No debris, soil, construction materials, concrete wash water, fluids, etc. shall be placed where they may be washed by rainfall or runoff into the Harbor. • Litter shall be picked up and removed from the site daily. Trash receptacles should be fully covered and emptied regularly. • Harbor water may not be used for any construction activity (e.g. dust control, concrete mix). • Stationary equipment (motors, pumps, generators, welders) located adjacent to the Harbor must be positioned over drip pans. • Oil absorbent pads must be onsite at all times in case of a spill. Spills shall be cleaned up immediately. • Equipment and vehicles should regularly checked and be properly maintained to prevent leaks. • Staging, storage, fueling, and maintenance of equipment/vehicles shall occur as far away as possible from the Harbor water. • Stockpiles must be covered during construction. Compliance with these measures and the implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-5 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. b) Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project substantially depleted groundwater or interfered with groundwater recharge. As a majority of the project site is developed with impermeable surfaces, the project site has not been established as an area for groundwater recharge. The proposed project would not install any groundwater wells, and would not otherwise directly withdraw any groundwater. The water demand associated with the proposed project would not be enough to substantially deplete groundwater ATTACHMENT 2 91 Impact Sciences, Inc. 56 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 supply, nor would the project interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, a less than significant impact related to groundwater is anticipated. c) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project substantially altered the drainage pattern of the site or an existing stream or river, so that substantial erosion or siltation would result on-or off-site. As discussed above, the City’s stormwater infrastructure services the project site. During construction, erosion and siltation from the project site and surrounding areas could increase significantly as a result of soil disturbance and construction operations. Construction-related activities that expose soils to potential mobilization by rainfall/runoff and wind are primarily responsible for sediment releases. Such activities include removal of vegetation from the site, grading of the site, and trenching for infrastructure improvements. Environmental factors that affect erosion include topographic, soil, and rainfall characteristics. Unless adequate erosion controls are installed and maintained at the project site during construction, significant quantities of sediment may be delivered to the downstream receiving waters. Erosion control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap or filter sediment once it has been mobilized. Safe Harbor Marina would provide a SWPPP as required by, and in compliance with, the Construction General MS4 Permit. The MS4 General Permit requires the SWPPP to include BMPs to be selected and implemented based on the determined project risk level to effectively control erosion and sediment to the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT). For these reasons and with the implementation of the Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-5, any construction water quality impacts would be less than significant. Within the project area, surface water is transported overland via sheet flow, which is directed to a system of catch basins and storm drains along the project site and within the surface parking to vegetated areas, or directly into the Harbor. Within the project site, stormwater is transported through the existing rock revetment or via sheet flow on the launch ramp into Ventura Harbor. The proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river and would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Therefore, it would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site during operation. Impacts are less than significant, and no further analysis is required. ATTACHMENT 2 92 Impact Sciences, Inc. 57 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 d) Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project substantially altered the drainage pattern of the site or an existing stream or river so that flooding would result. The project site is currently developed. The proposed project would not add any new impervious surfaces, such as parking lots or roads. The proposed project would involve the construction of upgraded facilities, but would not add additional impervious surfaces to the site or change the direction of flows from the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site such that flooding on-or off-site would occur. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is required. e) Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if runoff water exceeded the capacity of existing or planned storm drain systems serving the project site. A project-related significant adverse effect would also occur if a project would substantially increase the probability that polluted runoff would reach the storm drain system. As discussed above, stormwater runoff is transported over land via sheet flow, which is directed to a system of catch basins and storm drains along the project site, to vegetated areas off-site, or directly into the Harbor. The portion of the project site on land is almost entirely covered with impervious surfaces. The proposed project would involve the upgrade of harbor facilities on areas already covered with impervious surfaces. The proposed project would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surfaces and runoff from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate stormwater volumes exceeding the capacity of stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts related to runoff would be less than significant. No further analysis is necessary. f) Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project substantially degraded water quality. Surface water quality is generally affected by the length of time since the last rainfall, rainfall intensity, urban uses of the area, and quantity of transported sediment. Typical urban water quality pollutants usually result from motor vehicle operations, fertilizer/pesticide uses, human/animal littering, careless material storage/handling, and poor property management. Street and parking lot/garage-generated pollutants typically contain atmospheric pollution, tire-wear residues, petroleum products, oil and grease, fertilizer and pesticide wash-offs, industrial chemical spills, as well as animal droppings and litter types of wastes. The pollutants are washed from street surfaces by a rainfall adequate to produce ATTACHMENT 2 93 Impact Sciences, Inc. 58 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 sufficient runoff. The amount of pollutants washed off the street surface is a function of the amount of pollutants on street surfaces and amount of surface water flow by storm and nonstorm events such as hosing down of walkways and parking garage surfaces. These pollutants have the potential to degrade water quality and may result in significant impacts. As mentioned above in Sections a) and c), adherence to applicable regulations and the implementation of BMPs and Mitigation Measure HYD-1 and HYD-5 would ensure that project implementation would not substantially degrade water quality. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is necessary. g) Less than significant impact. The project site is located in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood panel 0611C0885E dated January 20, 2010. 19 According to maps, portions of the project site are located in Zone AE and the Special Flood Hazard Area subject to inundation by a 100-year flood. The project site does not contain any habitable structures and no habitable structures would be developed with the proposed project. The proposed project would involve replacement of docks and associated improvements. The proposed project would not increase the risk of flood hazard from existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant. h) Less than significant impact. The project site is within the potential dam inundation area for the Bouquet Dam.20 The dam meets applicable safety requirements and is required by the California Dam Safety Act to be inspected every three years. Locally, officials of the State Office of Emergency Services, through their regional Los Angeles office, perform these inspections.21 The project site is not protected by any levees. The proposed project does not involve any new construction of building structures and would not expose additional people or structures to risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. i,j) Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project was located within in an area susceptible to flooding. The project site is not subject to inundation by seiche or mudflow due to the topography and location of the project site. The project site is located within the Ventura Harbor adjacent to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean and is subject to inundation by tsunami. Most of the project site is located within the 19 FEMA Flood Maps, FIRM Panel Number 0611C0885E, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search, accessed January 2017 20 Ventura County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, http://www.venturacountymhmp.com/map/flood_daminundation/#13/34.2598/-119.2368/roadmap/0//. 21 Ventura County General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, 2005. ATTACHMENT 2 94 Impact Sciences, Inc. 59 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Tsunami Inundation Area.22 The proposed project would involve replacement and expansion of docks and associated facilities. As part of the improvements to the marina, the Ventura Fire Department has devised and maintains a comprehensive Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) Multihazard Functional Response Plan (1999) that addresses the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, including tsunamis. The plan provides operational concepts, identifies sources of outside support that would be provided through mutual aid agreements, State and Federal agencies, and the private sector. The proposed project would continue to participate in the Seismic Sea Wave Warning System and maintenance of the SEMS Multi-hazard Functional Response Plan. Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts related to hydrology and water quality to less than significant. HYD-1 During construction of the proposed project all waste shall be disposed of properly. Use appropriately labeled recycling bins to recycle construction materials including: solvents, water-based paints, vehicle fluids, broken asphalt and concrete, wood, and vegetation. Non-recyclable materials/wastes shall be taken to an appropriate landfill. Toxic wastes must be discarded at a licensed regulated disposal site. HYD-2 During construction of the proposed project all vehicle/equipment maintenance, repair, and washing shall be conducted away from storm drains. All major repairs shall be conducted off-site. Drip pans or drop cloths shall be used to catch drips and spills. HYD-3 Materials with the potential to contaminate stormwater must be: (1) placed in an enclosure such as, but not limited to, a cabinet, shed, or similar structure that prevents contact with runoff spillage to the stormwater conveyance system; or (2) protected by secondary containment structures such as berms, dikes, or curbs. HYD-4 Any connection to the sanitary sewer shall have authorization from the City of Ventura Public Works Department. HYD-5 Storage areas shall be paved and sufficiently impervious to contain leaks and spills. 22 Ventura County General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Figure 4.6-6, 2005. ATTACHMENT 2 95 Impact Sciences, Inc. 60 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 HYD-6 In the event the parking lot is used for staging of construction equipment, all catch basins in and adjacent to the staging area shall be covered to reduce the potential for sediment entering the storm drain system. ATTACHMENT 2 96 Impact Sciences, Inc. 61 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Responses: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project site is within the Ventura harbor. The proposed project is limited to dock replacements and facilities upgrades. Thus, implementation of the proposed project involves improvements on an already developed site and does not include features that would physically divide an established community. No impacts would occur. 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? Less than significant impact. Listed below are all applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations for the proposed project. City of Ventura The project site is zoned “Harbor Commercial” (HC), and has a land use designation of “Commerce” and is within the Harbor Master Plan. The proposed project does not involve any change in land use. Rather, it involves improvements and upgrades to the existing marina. The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable City of Ventura land use plans and policies. ATTACHMENT 2 97 Impact Sciences, Inc. 62 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 California Coastal Act The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Public Resources Code 30000 et. seq.) establishes policies guiding development and conservation along the California coast. Coastal Act policies fall into six general categories: (1) public access; (2) recreation; (3) marine environment; (4) land resources; (5) development; and (6) industrial development. The Coastal Act requires local jurisdictions that are located (wholly or partly) in the coastal zone to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the portion of the local jurisdiction that lies within the Coastal Zone. The LCP consists of a Land Use Plan (such as the General Plan) and an Implementation Plan (i.e., Zoning Regulations). The Coastal Commission must approve (i.e., “certify”) a City’s LCP in order to ensure that the LCP is consistent with, and achieves the objectives of, the Coastal Act. The project site is located within the coastal zone for the City of Ventura. Table 6, California Coastal Act Consistency details the proposed project’s consistency with applicable policies of the Coastal Act for the purpose of avoiding and/or mitigating an environmental impact. Table 6 California Coastal Act Consistency California Coastal Act Component Project Consistency Article 2, Public Access: Article 2 coastal access policies include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) access must be provided to coastal resources (Section 30210); (2) new development shall not interfere with existing public access to coastal resources (Section 30211); and (3) public access shall be provided in specific situations involving new development between the nearest public roadway and the shoreline (Section 30212). The proposed project is consistent with this goal. The proposed project is limited to dock replacements and facilities upgrade necessary to replace existing dilapidated docks and insufficiently sized boat slips. The proposed project would not limit or interfere with public access to coastal resources or recreational activities or facilities. Through renovations, the proposed project would improve coastal access and upgrade outdated design. Article 3, Recreation: Article 3 includes, but is not limited to, policies regulating the following recreational activities and facilities: (1) coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be provided at inland water areas (Section 30220); (2) oceanfront land suitable for recreational use (Section 30221); (3) private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities (Section 30222); and (4) facilities designed to enhance recreational boating use of coastal waters (Section 30224). The proposed project is consistent with this policy. The proposed project would include dock replacements to accommodate for changing design in boating trends. Recreational boaters would still be able to access the dock. Article 4, Marine Environment: Article 4 of the Coastal Act is designed to maintain, enhance, and restore marine resources. More specifically, Article 4 includes, but is not limited to, policies intended to achieve the following: (1) maintenance of the biological productivity and quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes (Section 30231) and (2) protection of commercial fishing and recreational boating facilities (Section 30234). The proposed project is consistent with this policy. As discussed in Biological Resources, the proposed project would not significantly affect biological productivity. Furthermore, in Hydrology and Water Quality the proposed project would not affect the productivity and quality of coastal waters. It would not result in the degradation of the local marine environment. ATTACHMENT 2 98 Impact Sciences, Inc. 63 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 California Coastal Act Component Project Consistency Article 5, Land Resources, Development, and Industrial Development: Article 5 of the Coastal Act applies to development and local regulatory actions that involve environmentally sensitive habitat (Section 30240), the maintenance or conversion of agricultural lands (Section 30241-30243), and archaeological or paleontological resources (Section 30244). Article 6 of the Coastal Act applies to new development in the Coastal Zone and Article 7 includes policies that apply to coastal-depended industrial development. The proposed project would not involve environmentally sensitive habitat (see Biological Resources), the conversion of agricultural land (Agriculture and Forest Resources), or impacts to archaeological or paleontological resources (see, Cultural Resources). The proposed project would not involve any new development or industrial development. These policies would not apply. Source: California Coastal Commission c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No impact. As discussed above, under Section IV, Biological Resources the project site is not located within a natural conservation community or a habitat conservation area. Thus, no anticipated impact would occur as a result of the project, and no further analysis is needed. ATTACHMENT 2 99 Impact Sciences, Inc. 64 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? Responses: a-b) 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? 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? No impact. The project site is developed and located in the harbor of Ventura City. The California Geological Survey (CGS) has categorized the project site as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3a. Areas within the MRZ-3a could contain aggregate resources suited for use in Portland Cement Concrete; however the City’s General Plan has not identified the project site and/or the surrounding area as a mineral resource area.23 Therefore, no impact associated with mineral resources would occur. 23 2005 Ventura General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Section 4.9 Mineral Resources, Figure 4.9-2, http://www.cityofventura.net/files/file/comm-develop/ventura_general_plan_feir_2005.pdf, accessed December 20, 2016. ATTACHMENT 2 100 Impact Sciences, Inc. 65 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Background Sound is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. The human ear does not respond uniformly to sounds at all frequencies, being less sensitive to low and high frequencies than to medium frequencies that correspond with human speech. In response to this, the A-weighted ATTACHMENT 2 101 Impact Sciences, Inc. 66 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 noise level (or scale) has been developed. It corresponds better with people’s subjective judgment of sound levels. This A-weighted sound level is called the “noise level” referenced in units of dB(A). Because noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB(A) increase in noise levels. However, changes in a community noise level of less than 3 dB(A) are not typically noticed by the human ear. Changes from 3 to 5 dB(A) may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A 5.0 dB(A) increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dB(A) increase in sound level to be a doubling of sound. Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady ambient noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from, for example, traffic on a major highway. Noise sources occur in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment or individual motor vehicles; and (2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of point sources (motor vehicles). Sound generated by a point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6.0 dB(A) for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically “hard” sites and 7.5 dB at acoustically “soft” sites. For example, a 60.0 dB(A) noise level measured at 50 feet from a point source at an acoustically hard site would be 54.0 dB(A) at 100 feet from the source and 48 dB(A) at 200 feet from the source. Sound generated by a line source typically attenuates (i.e., becomes less) at a rate of 3.0 dB(A) and 4.5 dB(A) per doubling of distance from the source to the receptor for hard and soft sites, respectively. Examples of hard sites include asphalt, concrete, and hard and sparsely vegetated soils. Examples of acoustically soft sites include sand, plowed farmland, grass, crops, and heavy ground cover. Sound levels can also be attenuated by man-made or natural barriers (e.g., sound walls, berms, ridges), as well as elevational differences. Solid walls and berms may reduce noise levels by 5.0 to 10.0 dB(A) depending on their height and their horizontal distance relative to the noise source and the noise receptor. A higher noise barrier lengthens the path of a sound wave from the source to the receptor. The longer the distance a sound wave needs to travel to reach the receptor, the greater the sound attenuation. Sound levels may also be attenuated 3.0 to 5.0 dB(A) by a first row of houses and 1.5 dB(A) for each additional row of houses in residential environments. The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below: Leq: The equivalent sound level is used to describe noise over a specified period of time, typically one hour, in terms of a single numerical value. The Leq is the constant sound ATTACHMENT 2 102 Impact Sciences, Inc. 67 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 level, which would contain the same acoustic energy as the varying sound level, during the same period (i.e., the average noise exposure level for the given period). Lmax: The instantaneous maximum noise level for a specified period of time. L50: The noise level that is equaled or exceeded 50 percent of the specified time. This is the median noise level during the specified time. L90: The noise level that is equaled or exceeded 90 percent of the specified time. The L90 is often considered the background noise level averaged over the specified time. DNL: The Day/Night Average Sound Level is the 24-hour day and night A-weighed noise exposure level, which accounts for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise by weighting noise levels at night. Noise between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM is weighted (penalized) by adding 10 dB(A) to take into account the greater annoyance from nighttime noise (also referred to as Ldn). CNEL: Similar to the DNL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) adds a 5-dB(A) “penalty” for the evening hours between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM in addition to a 10-dB(A) penalty between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The DNL and CNEL values differ by much less than 1 dB(A). In general, changes in a community noise level of less than 3.0 dB(A) are not typically noticed by the human ear. Changes from 3.0 to 5.0 dB(A) may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A greater than 5.0 dB(A) increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10.0 dB(A) change in sound level to be a doubling or halving sound. A 1 dB(A) difference in noise level is not noticed by the human ear. Therefore, as a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment. Regulatory Framework County of Ventura Construction Noise Threshold Criteria and Control Plan24 The County of Ventura’s Construction Noise Threshold Criteria and Control Plan, adopted in November 2005 and last amended in July 2010, establishes thresholds for construction noise, as specific construction noise limits are not specified in the County’s General Plan or administrative code. It also provides sample mitigation measures and general information related to noise monitoring, noise prediction, and construction equipment reference noise levels. 24 The County Noise Thresholds are included as the City does not include a threshold for hotel use. ATTACHMENT 2 103 Impact Sciences, Inc. 68 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 The following tables show the Plan’s daytime, evening, and nighttime construction noise threshold criteria. The “NTC” is defined as the construction noise threshold criteria. The Plan considers daytime hours to be 7:00 A.M. – 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and from 9:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. on Saturdays, Sundays, and local holidays. Evening hours are between 7:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. Nighttime hours are considered to be 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M., Monday through Friday, and 10:00 P.M. to 9:00 A.M. on Saturdays, Sundays, and local holidays. Table 7 Daytime Construction Activity Noise Threshold Criteria Construction Duration Affecting Noise-sensitive Receptors. Noise Threshold Criteria shall be the greater of these noise levels at the nearest receptor area or 10 feet from the nearest noise-sensitive building Fixed Leq(hour), dBA Hourly Equivalent Noise Level (Leq), dBA1,2 0 to 3 days 75 Ambient Leq(hour) + 3 dB 4 to 7 days 70 Ambient Leq(hour) + 3 dB 1 to 2 weeks 65 Ambient Leq(hour) + 3 dB 2 to 8 weeks 60 Ambient Leq(hour) + 3 dB Longer than 8 weeks 55 Ambient Leq(hour) + 3 dB 1 The instantaneous Lmax shall not exceed the NTC by 20 dBA more than 8 times per daytime hour. 2 Local ambient Leq measurements shall be made on any mid-week day prior to project work. Source: Construction Noise Threshold Criteria and Control Plan. Table 8 Evening Construction Activity Noise Threshold Criteria Receptor Location Noise Threshold Criteria shall be the greater of these noise levels at the nearest receptor area or 10 feet from the nearest noise-sensitive building Fixed Leq (hour), dBA Hourly Equivalent Noise Level (Leq), dBA1,2 Residential 50 Ambient Leq (hour) + 3 dB Residential, Live-in institutional 45 Ambient Leq (hour) + 3 dB 1 The instantaneous Lmax shall not exceed the NTC by 20 dBA more than 6 times per evening hour. 2 Hourly evening local ambient noise measurements shall be made on any mid-week evening prior to project work. Source: Construction Noise Threshold Criteria and Control Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 104 Impact Sciences, Inc. 69 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 City of San Buenaventura San Buenaventura Municipal Code Chapter 10.650 “Noise Control” of the San Buenaventura Municipal Code (SBMC) contains a number of regulations that would pertain to the Project’s temporary construction activities and long-term operations. Section 10.650.130 outlines designated noise zones, as well as exterior and interior noise level limits for these zones. Sec. 10.650.130. – Designated Noise Zones. A. Assignment of noise zones. Receiving properties are assigned to designated noise zones as follows: 1. Designated noise zone I: Noise sensitive properties. 2. Designated noise zone II: Residential properties. 3. Designated noise zone III: Commercial properties. 4. Designated noise zone IV: Industrial and agricultural properties. Table 9 City of Ventura Designated Noise Standards Zone Land Use Time Interval Exterior Noise Levels dB(A) I Noise Sensitive Properties 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM 50 10:00 PM – 7:00 AM 45 II Residential 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM 50 10:00 PM – 7:00 AM 45 II Commercial 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM 60 10:00 PM – 7:00 AM 55 IV Industrial/Agricultural Anytime 70 Source: City of Ventura Municipal Code, Section 10.650.130, Designated Noise Zones B. Exterior noise levels. 1. Noise zone exterior noise levels. The following exterior noise levels, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all receiving properties within a designated noise zone for the purpose of establishing noise level limits in subsection B.2 below: 2. Noise level limits. Unless otherwise provided in this article, no person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the city, or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the noise level when measured on any receiving property to exceed the following noise level limits: ATTACHMENT 2 105 Impact Sciences, Inc. 70 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 a) The exterior noise levels for that land use, as specified in subsection B.1. above, for a total period of more than 30 minutes in any consecutive 60 minutes; b) The exterior noise levels plus five dB for a total period of more than 15 minutes in any consecutive 60 minutes; c) The exterior noise levels plus ten dB for a total period of more than five minutes in any consecutive 60 minutes; or d) The exterior noise levels plus 15 dB for a total period of more than one minute in any consecutive 60 minutes; or e) The exterior noise levels plus 20 dB for any period of time. 3. Intrusive noise measurement duration. It shall be sufficient for the noise level limits in sections 2.(a), (b), (c) and (d), above, to be measured for no less than one minute of any portion of the periods stated in subsections 2.(a), (b), (c) and (d), provided that any witness to the intrusive noise can testify to the fact that the intrusive noise continued at the same level or greater level than the level measured by the enforcing officer for a period in excess of the period allowed in subsections 2.(a), (b), (c) and (d). 4. Ambient noise level in excess of noise level limit. If the ambient noise level exceeds that permissible for any of the noise level limits in subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection 2. above, the noise level limit shall be increased in five dB increments as appropriate to encompass or reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise level limit in subsection 2.(e) above, this limit shall be increased to the maximum ambient noise level. 5. Boundary between different zones. If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different designated noise zones, the lower noise level limit applicable to the two zones shall apply. 6. Content of intrusive noise. In the event the intrusive noise is judged by the enforcing officer to contain a steady, audible, pure tone such as a whine, screech or hum, or is an impulsive noise, or is a repetitive noise exceeding one second in duration or contains music or speech, the noise level limits set forth in subsection 2. above shall be reduced by five dB. Section 10.650.150. prohibits noise-generating construction activities located within or adjacent to any residential zone from occurring between the hours of 8:00 P.M. one day and 7:00 A.M. of the next. Though the Project is not located within or adjacent to any residential zone, it is highly unlikely that the Project’s construction activities would occur past the hour of 7:00 P.M. on any weekday, or on any weekend. Sec. 10.650.150. – Special Noise Sources. A. Radios, television sets and similar devices. No person within any residential zone of the city shall use or operate any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, television set or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound in such a manner as to create any noise which exceeds the noise level limits of this article. ATTACHMENT 2 106 Impact Sciences, Inc. 71 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 C. Machinery, equipment, fans and air-conditioning. No person shall operate any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air-conditioning apparatus or tool of any nature of similar mechanical device so as to create any noise which exceeds the noise level limits of this article. D. Construction of buildings and structures. 1. Between the hours of 8:00 P.M. of one day and 7:00 A.M. of the next, no person adjacent to or within any residential zone in the city shall operate power construction equipment or tools or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings or structures, or operate any pile driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, steam or electric hoist or other construction device so as to create any noise which exceeds the noise level limits of this article. These specified construction activities are permitted between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. The performance of emergency work is exempt from the provisions of this section. 2. Home repairs and routine maintenance of personal property such as automobiles or boats is not considered construction. 3. The planning commission and city council shall retain the right to impose more restrictive hours of construction upon any projects involving construction activity by adding appropriate conditions to the city’s approval of subdivisions, planned development permits, conditional use permits, variances and other projects. Sec. 10.650.160 of the SBMC is a general noise standard prohibiting noise which unreasonably disturbs peace and quiet or causes discomfort or annoyance. Sec. 10.650.160. – General Noise Regulations. A. Unlawful noise. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, and in addition thereto, it shall be unlawful for any person to make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of ordinary or normal sensitivity residing in the area. B. Environmental factors. The environmental factors which may be considered in determining whether a violation of provisions of subsection A. exists includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1. The sound level of the intrusive noise. 2. The sound level of the ambient noise. 3. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities. 4. The nature and zoning of the area from which the noise emanates. 5. The number of persons affected by the alleged intrusive noise. 6. The time of day or night the noise occurs. 7. The duration of the noise and its tonal content. 8. Whether the noise in continuous, recurrent, or intermittent. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, and in addition thereto, it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary, excessive, or ATTACHMENT 2 107 Impact Sciences, Inc. 72 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 unusual noise which unreasonably disturbs the peace and quiet or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness. The factors which may be considered in determining whether such noise violates the provisions of this section shall include, but are not limited to, the following: A. The volume of the noise; B. The intensity of the noise; C. Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual; D. Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural; E. The volume and intensity of the background noise, if any; F. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; G. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; H. The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; I. The time of the day or night the noise occurs; J. The duration of the noise; K. Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant; and L. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity. California Department of Transportation In 2013, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) published the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual to aid in the estimation and analysis of vibration impacts. Typically, potential building and structural damages are the foremost concern when evaluating the impacts of construction-related vibrations. Table 10, Caltrans Building Damage Vibration Guidelines summarizes Caltrans’s vibration guidelines for building and structural damage. Table 10 Caltrans Building Damage Vibration Guidelines Significance Thresholds (in/sec PPV) Structure and Condition Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent/ Intermittent Sources Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1 Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25 Older residential structures 0.5 0.3 New residential structures 1.0 0.5 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5 Source: California Department of Transportation, 2013. ATTACHMENT 2 108 Impact Sciences, Inc. 73 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Existing Conditions The Project site is surrounded by hotel uses to the north, industrial uses to the south, and commercial uses to the west and southwest. Though there are no residential zones in the vicinity of the Project site, some individuals reside long-term on vessels moored at the Ventura Isle Marina. The following receptors were chosen specifically for detailed construction noise impact analysis given their potential sensitivities to noise and their proximity to the Project site. Ventura Isle Marina Residences and Ventura West Marina25 This receptor consists of vessels moored in the Ventura Isle Marina and Ventura West Marina that are occupied by individuals as long-term residences (also known as ‘liveaboards’). As these vessels are more or less residential in nature, they would be classified as Zone II “Residential Properties” and therefore subject to the noise limits respective to Zone II properties as set forth by the SBMC. With respect to the County of Ventura’s Construction Noise Threshold Criteria and Control Plan, these vessels would be afforded the same noise threshold criteria as usual residential dwellings. Holiday Inn Express and Suites Ventura Harbor Hotel This receptor is located at 1080 Navigator Drive, approximately 235 feet east of the project site. Though hotels typically are not considered to be noise-sensitive receptors for the purposes of CEQA analysis, the County of Ventura’s Construction Noise Threshold Criteria and Control Plan explicitly categorizes hotels and motels as such, as they are “quasi-residential.” Four Points by Sheraton Ventura Harbor Resort Hotel This receptor is located at 1050 Schooner Drive, approximately 865 feet north of the project site. As explained above, the County of Ventura’s Construction Noise Threshold Criteria and Control Plan categorizes hotels and motels as noise-sensitive receptors. Ventura Isle Marina Commercial Land Uses This receptor consists of restaurant, shopping, and other commercial-type land uses located along the Marina’s waterfront, up to 590 feet south of the project site. Though commercial land uses are also typically not considered to be noise-sensitive, the SBMC’s relatively strict 60 dBA daytime 25 Although the SBMC does not specifically state liveaboard vessels as residential land uses, these vessels are considered sensitive receptors for purposes of CEQA. ATTACHMENT 2 109 Impact Sciences, Inc. 74 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 exterior noise level limit for these types of uses could potentially be exceeded by the Project’s construction noise impacts. An analysis of the Project’s impacts on these commercial land uses is therefore warranted. Ventura Harbor Boatyard This receptor, located 50 feet south of the Project site at 1415 Spinnaker Drive, is zoned as “Harbor Commercial” and would therefore be similarly subject to the SBMC’s 60 dBA daytime exterior noise level limit for Zone III commercial properties. Pierpont Bay Yacht Club This receptor, located within the boundaries of the Project site itself and at 1363 Spinnaker Drive, is also zoned as “Harbor Commercial” and would be subject to the SBMC’s 60 dBA daytime exterior noise level limit for Zone III commercial properties. Charlotte Schmidt Yacht Sales This receptor, also located within the boundaries of the Project site itself and at 1101 Spinnaker Drive, is zoned as “Harbor Commercial” and would be subject to the SBMC’s 60 dBA daytime exterior noise level limit for Zone III commercial properties. On February 14, 2017, DKA Planning took short-term noise readings at locations surrounding the Project site to determine these receptors’ ambient noise conditions.26 At all noise monitoring locations, ambient noise was low, given the relative lack of vehicle traffic or other consistent and readily perceptible noise sources in the area. Table 11, Existing Ambient Noise Levels shows the results of this monitoring. Figure 4, Monitoring Locations shows the monitoring locations. 26 Noise measurements were taken using a Quest Technologies SoundPro DL Sound Level Meter. The SoundPro meter complies with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) for general environmental measurement instrumentation. The meter was equipped with an omni-directional microphone, calibrated before the day’s measurements, and set at approximately five feet above the ground. ATTACHMENT 2 110 /ŵĂŐĞƌLJǀŝĂ'ŽŽŐůĞĂƌƚŚ DKA Planning sĞŶƚƵƌĂDĂƌŝŶĂWƌŽũĞĐƚʹEŽŝƐĞZĞĐĞƉƚŽƌDĂƉ ΎZĞĚŵĂƌŬĞƌƐŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ ͘sĞŶƚƵƌĂ/ƐůĞDĂƌŝŶĂZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞƐ ͘,ŽůŝĚĂLJ/ŶŶdžƉƌĞƐƐĂŶĚ^ƵŝƚĞƐsĞŶƚƵƌĂ,ĂƌďŽƌ,ŽƚĞů ͘&ŽƵƌWŽŝŶƚƐďLJ^ŚĞƌĂƚŽŶsĞŶƚƵƌĂ,ĂƌďŽƌZĞƐŽƌƚ ͘sĞŶƚƵƌĂ/ƐůĞDĂƌŝŶĂŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů>ĂŶĚhƐĞƐ
͘sĞŶƚƵƌĂ,ĂƌďŽƌŽĂƚLJĂƌĚ
&͘WŝĞƌƉŽŝŶƚĂLJzĂĐŚƚůƵď
‘͘ŚĂƌůŽƚƚĞ^ĐŚŵŝĚƚzĂĐŚƚ^ĂůĞƐ
/ŵĂŐĞƌLJǀŝĂ’ŽŽŐůĞĂƌƚŚ DKA Planning
sĞŶƚƵƌĂDĂƌŝŶĂWƌŽũĞĐƚʹEŽŝƐĞZĞĐĞƉƚŽƌDĂƉ
ΎZĞĚŵĂƌŬĞƌƐŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ
͘sĞŶƚƵƌĂ/ƐůĞDĂƌŝŶĂZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞƐ
͘,ŽůŝĚĂLJ/ŶŶdžƉƌĞƐƐĂŶĚ^ƵŝƚĞƐsĞŶƚƵƌĂ,ĂƌďŽƌ,ŽƚĞů
͘&ŽƵƌWŽŝŶƚƐďLJ^ŚĞƌĂƚŽŶsĞŶƚƵƌĂ,ĂƌďŽƌZĞƐŽƌƚ
͘sĞŶƚƵƌĂ/ƐůĞDĂƌŝŶĂŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů>ĂŶĚhƐĞƐ
͘sĞŶƚƵƌĂ,ĂƌďŽƌŽĂƚLJĂƌĚ
&͘WŝĞƌƉŽŝŶƚĂLJzĂĐŚƚůƵď
‘͘ŚĂƌůŽƚƚĞ^ĐŚŵŝĚƚzĂĐŚƚ^ĂůĞƐ
Monitoring Locations
FIGURE 4
0511.006•2/17
SOURCE: Safe Harbor Marinas
ATTACHMENT 2 111
Impact Sciences, Inc. 76 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND
511.006 October 2017
Table 11
Existing Ambient Noise Levels
Location Existing Ambient Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Noise Monitoring Location A 49.0
Noise Monitoring Location B 58.9
Noise Monitoring Location C 49.9
Source: DKA Planning, 2017
Responses:
a) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Construction
The replacement of docks G, H, I, L, and M would have the potential to substantially raise ambient
noise levels in excess of city and county standards at nearby receptors as a result of associated
construction activities. Other elements of the Project are not likely to require construction activities as
intense, and would therefore have a limited, or no potential, to substantially raise ambient noise
levels at nearby receptors.
The replacement of the docks would require a specialized marine-operating pile driver to insert
guide piles. The project would use hydraulic guided pile jetting, with minimal diesel powered impact
pile driving. Hydraulic pile drivers can produce average peak noise levels of 65 dBA Leq at a reference
distance of 50 feet.27 The Project’s noise impacts from guided piles are shown in Table 12, Dock
Replacement Construction Noise Levels Unmitigated and summarized below.

27 County of Ventura, Construction Noise Threshold Criteria and Control Plan, July 2010.
ATTACHMENT 2 112
Impact Sciences, Inc. 77 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND
511.006 October 2017
Table 12
Dock Replacement Construction Noise Levels Unmitigated
Sensitive Receptor
Distance
from Site
(feet)
Maximum
Construction
Noise Level
(dBA)
Existing
Ambient
(dBA, Leq)
New
Ambient
(dBA, Leq)
Increase
Ventura Isle Marina Residences < 50 65.0 49.0 65.1 16.1 Holiday Inn Express and Suites Ventura Harbor Hotel 315 49.0 49.9 52.5 2.6 Four Points by Sheraton Ventura Harbor Resort Hotel 865 40.2 49.9 50.3 0.4 Ventura Isle Marina Commercial Land Uses 1,290 36.8 49.0 49.3 0.3 Ventura Harbor Boatyard 775 41.2 49.0 49.7 0.7 Pierpont Bay Yacht Club 150 55.5 58.9 60.5 1.6 Charlotte Schmidt Yacht Sales 50 65.0 58.9 66.0 7.1 Source: Impact Sciences, 2017. Ventura Isle Marina Residences This receptor is projected to experience exterior noise levels of up to 65.1 dBA Leq as a result of the Project’s pile guiding activities, an increase of at least 16.1 dBA over existing ambient noise conditions. This would exceed the SBMC’s Zone II noise limits for residential properties. It would also exceed the County’s recommended threshold criteria for residential dwellings. Holiday Inn Express and Suites Ventura Harbor Hotel This receptor is projected to experience exterior noise levels of up to 52.5 dBA Leq as a result of the Project’s pile guiding activities, an increase of 2.6 dBA over existing ambient noise conditions. This would exceed the County’s recommended threshold criteria for hotels and motels. Four Points by Sheraton Ventura Harbor Resort Hotel This receptor is projected to experience exterior noise levels of up to 50.3 dBA Leq as a result of the Project’s pile driving activities, an increase of 0.4 dBA over existing ambient noise conditions. This would exceed the County’s recommended threshold criteria for hotels and motels. ATTACHMENT 2 113 Impact Sciences, Inc. 78 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Ventura Isle Marina Commercial Land Uses This receptor is projected to experience exterior noise levels of up to 49.3 dBA Leq as a result of the Project’s pile driving activities, an increase of 0.3 dBA over existing ambient noise conditions. This would not exceed the SBMC’s Zone III limits for commercial properties. Ventura Harbor Boatyard This receptor is projected to experience exterior noise levels of up to 49.7 dBA Leq as a result of the Project’s pile driving activities, an increase of 0.7 dBA over existing ambient noise conditions. This would not exceed the SBMC’s Zone III limits for commercial properties. Pierpont Bay Yacht Club This receptor is projected to experience exterior noise levels of up to 60.5 dBA Leq as a result of the Project’s pile driving activities, an increase of 1.6 dBA over existing ambient noise conditions. This would exceed the SBMC’s Zone III limits for commercial properties. Charlotte Schmidt Yacht Sales This receptor is projected to experience exterior noise levels of up to 66.0 dBA Leq as a result of the Project’s pile driving activities, an increase of 7.1 dBA over existing ambient noise conditions. This would exceed the SBMC’s Zone III limits for commercial properties. As discussed above, all several receptors would experience construction-related noise levels above their respective limits as set forth by the SBMC and/or the County of Ventura’s Construction Noise Threshold Criteria and Control Plan. However, this impact could be mitigated. As a result, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-2 are included to limit the Project’s construction noise impact to below levels of significance. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-2 would reduce the Project’s related construction noise impact at receptors to below significance. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure that no resident-occupied vessels are located within a distance of noise generating activities capable of experiencing sustained noise levels greater than 50 dBA Leq, the SBMC’s daytime exterior noise limit for Zone II residential properties. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would ensure that Charlotte Schmidt Yacht Sales does not experience noise levels in excess of the SBMC’s daytime exterior noise limits for Zone III commercial properties. Table 13, Dock ATTACHMENT 2 114 Impact Sciences, Inc. 79 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Replacement Construction Noise Levels Mitigated shows the project’s construction noise impacts with the implementation of Mitigation Measures. Table 13 Dock Replacement Construction Noise Levels Mitigated Sensitive Receptor Distance from Site (feet) Maximum Construction Noise Level (dBA) Existing Ambient (dBA, Leq) New Ambient (dBA, Leq) Increase Ventura Isle Marina Residences 500 45.0 49.0 50.5 1.5 Holiday Inn Express and Suites Ventura Harbor Hotel 315 49.0 49.9 52.5 2.6 Four Points by Sheraton Ventura Harbor Resort Hotel 865 40.2 49.9 50.3 0.4 Ventura Isle Marina Commercial Land Uses 1,290 36.8 49.0 49.3 0.3 Ventura Harbor Boatyard 775 41.2 49.0 49.7 0.7 Pierpont Bay Yacht Club 150 55.5 58.9 62.6 3.7 Charlotte Schmidt Yacht Sales 50 65.0 58.9 66.0 7.1 Source: Impact Sciences, 2017. Ventura Isle Marina Residences After the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, resident-occupied vessels would experience noise levels no greater than 50.5 dBA Leq as a result of construction activities. With this mitigation in place, it is highly unlikely that these residential vessels would experience noises in excess of the SBMC’s 50 dBA Leq daytime exterior noise limit for Zone II residential properties for greater than 30 minutes every work hour. This noise level would also be below the County’s 60 dBA Leq daytime residential dwellings noise limit for construction activities lasting two to eight weeks. Holiday Inn Express and Suites Ventura Harbor Hotel This receptor would experience noise levels no greater than 52.5 dBA Leq as a result of the construction activities, below all County-recommended thresholds for construction activities affecting hotel or motel land uses. ATTACHMENT 2 115 Impact Sciences, Inc. 80 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Four Points by Sheraton Ventura Harbor Resort Hotel After the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-2, this receptor would experience noise levels no greater than 50.3 dBA Leq as a result of construction activities, below all County-recommended thresholds for construction activities affecting hotel or motel land uses. Ventura Isle Marina Commercial Land Uses This receptor would experience noise levels no greater than 49.3 dBA Leq as a result of the construction activities, below the SBMC’s 60 dBA Leq daytime exterior noise limit for Zone III commercial properties. Ventura Harbor Boatyard This receptor would experience noise levels no greater than 49.7 dBA Leq as a result of the construction activities, below the SBMC’s 60 dBA Leq daytime exterior noise limit for Zone III commercial properties. Pierpont Bay Yacht Club This receptor would experience noise levels no greater than 60.5 dBA Leq as a result of the Project’s pile driving activities. With this mitigation in place, it is unlikely that this receptor would experience noises in excess of the SBMC’s 60 dBA Leq daytime exterior noise limit for Zone III commercial properties for greater than 30 minutes every work hour. Charlotte Schmidt Yacht Sales This receptor would experience noise levels no greater than 66.0 dBA Leq as a result of the construction activities. However, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would ensure that pile guiding activities are sequenced in such a way so as to avoid exceeding the SBMC’s 60 dBA daytime exterior noise limit for Zone III commercial properties by more than 10 dBA for 5 minutes per hour, 5 dBA for 15 minutes per hour, or for 30 minutes per hour, overall. As discussed above, after the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, the project’s construction noise impacts would be considered less than significant. Operation The project’s operational noise impacts would be no greater than its existing operational noises, as the project proposes to update marina docks and other features. In fact, the project would ATTACHMENT 2 116 Impact Sciences, Inc. 81 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 actually decrease the number of existing vessel slips from 357 to 246. Though the project would relocate an existing vessel pump-out station from Dock G to Dock N, this is unlikely to substantially alter ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the station’s new location, as it would be used intermittently. As such, the project would not create vehicle trips by adding vessel slips or otherwise increasing the intensity of the Ventura Isle Marina’s usage. There would be no change in ambient noise impacts from traffic to and from the Marina. The project’s operational noise impact would be considered less than significant. b) Less than significant impact. Construction As discussed earlier, the Project would require hydraulic jet driven guided piles. Hydraulic guided piles can produce a PPV of approximately 0.169 inches per second at a reference distance of approximately 15 feet. Table 14, Building Damage Vibration Levels at Off-Site Structures Unmitigated summarizes the Project’s projected vibration impacts at the nearest off-site structures. No receptor would experience potentially damaging levels of ground-borne vibration from the Project’s construction activities. As a result, construction vibration impacts would be considered less than significant. Table 14 Building Damage Vibration Levels At Off-Site Structures Unmitigated Off-Site Structures Distance to Project Site (ft.) Estimated PPV (in/sec) Structural Significance Threshold (in/sec) Significant? Pierpont Bay Yacht Club 150 0.006 0.5 No Charlotte Schmidt Yacht Sales 50 0.030 0.5 No Holiday Inn Express and Suites Ventura Harbor Hotel 315 0.002 0.5 No Source: Impact Sciences, 2017. Operation During project operation, there would be no significant stationary sources of ground-borne vibration, such as heavy equipment or industrial operations. The project’s long-term vibration impacts would be considered less than significant. ATTACHMENT 2 117 Impact Sciences, Inc. 82 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 c) Less than significant impact As discussed previously, the project would have a nominal impact on the Marina’s operational noises. No project element would introduce a new permanent source of noise or increase the intensity of the Marina’s usage. The project’s impact on permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity would be considered less than significant. d) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Construction activities would temporarily increase ambient noise levels at nearby receptors that would be significant before mitigation. Moreover, any other developments that are built concurrently with the project could further contribute to these temporary increases in ambient noise levels. However, as no such projects have been identified within the vicinity of the project site, the project’s construction activities would not be expected to contribute to significantly considerable cumulative construction noise impacts. However, the project’s impact on ambient noise from construction activities would be considered significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. e–f) No Impact. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project would not expose persons in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impacts would occur, and no further analysis is required. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are required to ensure impacts related to construction and operation related noise levels are reduced to less than significant. NOI-1 Safe Harbor Marina shall offer for the relocation of vessels occupied as long-term residences and moored within 500 feet of pile guiding activities. If requested, these vessels shall be temporarily relocated to slips located no less than 500 feet from such activities. NOI-2 During Project construction, pile guiding activities within 50 feet of Charlotte Schmidt Yacht Sales shall be sequenced in such a manner so as to avoid exceeding the SBMC’s 60 dBA daytime exterior noise limit for Zone III commercial properties by more than 10 dBA for 5 minutes per hour, 5 dBA for 15 minutes per hour, or for 30 minutes per hour, overall. This specification shall be included on all construction plans. ATTACHMENT 2 118 Impact Sciences, Inc. 83 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 road 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? Responses: a) Less than significant impact. The proposed project does not involve the construction of residential uses. Currently, 10 percent of the marina slips are allocated to house liveaboard residents and it is not expected that the number of liveaboards would change as a result of the proposed project, particularly as the number of boat slips available would decrease. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not generate substantial population growth in the marina area. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is necessary. b-c) Less than significant impact. During construction, some liveaboards may be temporarily displaced as docks are replaced. However, no liveaboards would be permanently displaced necessitating the need for replacement housing. As such, impacts would be less than significant. ATTACHMENT 2 119 Impact Sciences, Inc. 84 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Responses: Fire Protection: i) Less than significant. The proposed project is limited to dock replacements and facility upgrades. There is no residential component of the project. The project site is served by the Ventura Harbor Patrol, which provides rescue, and emergency medical services, as well as the Ventura City Fire Department (VCFD). Fire suppression is generally provided by the VCFD. The Ventura Harbor Patrol provides both land and waterside services within the Ventura Harbor and the Harbor Patrol station is located approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the project site.28 The closest VCFD station is Station #5, located at 4225 East Main Street, approximately 3.5 miles east of the project site. The proposed project would reduce the number of slips, but increase the size of ships that would be allowable on the marina. The proposed project is adequately served by existing services and 28 Ventura Harbor, Harbor Patrol, accessed January 2017. Website: https://venturaharbor.com/harbor-patrol/ ATTACHMENT 2 120 Impact Sciences, Inc. 85 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 therefore would not create the need for new or physically altered Harbor Patrol or VCFD facilities, as operation would not increase the need for services.29 Furthermore, building upgrades associated to the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations in the California Building Code and regarding fire prevention. In addition to response times, Safe Harbor Marina would be required to comply with California Fire Code (CFC) and City standards related to water availability and accessibility to firefighting equipment. It is expected that the Fire Marshall will require a fire main on each dock. Specifications for fire mains will occur as part of the project review process. In addition, the Ventura Fire Department would review the proposed project and make recommendations for fire protection services and fire flow rates. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is necessary. ii) Less than significant impact. Police protection services are not “facility-driven;” that is, police protection services are not as reliant on facilities in order to effectively patrol a beat. An expansion of, or intensification of development within a beat does not necessarily result in the need for additional facilities if police officers and patrol vehicles are equipped with adequate telecommunications equipment in order to communicate with police headquarters. However, if the geographical area of a beat is expanded, population increases, or intensification/redevelopment of an existing beat results in the need for new police officers, new or expanded facilities could be needed. The City is divided into four geographic beats, which are created based on the number of crimes reported and calls for services within the City of Ventura. The project site is located within Beat 2, which covers the entire Ventura Harbor District. Construction of the proposed project would normally not require services from the Department, except in the cases of trespass, theft, and/or vandalism. During construction of the proposed project, the Department would require ample access to the project site for emergency vehicles including routine patrol vehicles. With adequate access the ability of officers to provide proactive policing and efficient crime suppression would not be diminished. The proposed project does not involve a residential component and would not induce population growth typically associated with officer service ratios. Any incremental increases in residents near the marina would be incidental, and would not substantially affect service times. Therefore, construction and operational impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is required. 29 Ventura Port District, Harbor Patrol. https://venturaharbor.com/harbor-patrol/ accessed February 13, 2017. ATTACHMENT 2 121 Impact Sciences, Inc. 86 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 iii) No impact. The project site is within the boundary of the Ventura Unified School District. Impacts to schools are typically associated with population associated with implementation of a proposed project. As stated previously, the proposed project does not contain a residential component, and no changes to the percentage of liveaboards currently accommodated on the project site would occur. No increase in student population would occur as a result of the proposed project, and as such, no impact would occur. iv) Less than significant impact. There is no increase in population anticipated from the proposed project that would substantially increase demand on local parks such that deterioration of facilities would occur. The Olivas Adobe Historical Park is the closest park to the project site, located approximately 2,300 feet east of the marina. The proposed project involves expansion of an existing marina and facility upgrades for recreational boaters. These facility upgrades include the expansion of recreational areas on project site, which are expected to be used by the boaters. As upgrades to recreational areas are included as part of the proposed project, it is expected that visitors to the marina would utilize these spaces for recreation and not neighboring, local parks. Although 10 percent of the marina slips are dedicated for liveaboard residents, no additional residents are expected from the proposed project. As deterioration of park and recreational facilities are associated with an increase in permanent population, the incremental and incidental increase of people from the proposed project is expected to be negligible. Therefore, impacts to existing neighborhood and regional parks would be less than significant. No further analysis is necessary. v) No impact. The three public libraries located in the City are operated by the County of Ventura Public Library. Impacts to library services are typically associated with population associated with implementation of a proposed project. As stated previously, the proposed project does not contain a residential component, and no changes to the percentage of liveaboards currently accommodated on the project site would occur. No impact would occur and no further analysis is necessary. ATTACHMENT 2 122 Impact Sciences, Inc. 87 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 XV. RECREATION. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Responses: a) Less than significant impact. There is no increase in population that is anticipated from the proposed project that would substantially increase demand on local parks such that deterioration of facilities would occur. Harbor Cove Beach and Surfer’s Knoll are located immediately west of the project site and is the nearest recreational area. The Olivas Adobe Historical Park is the closest park to the project site, located approximately 2,300 feet east of the marina. The proposed project involves replacement of the existing aged docks. Boaters accessing the docks may also access the local beach; however, it is likely this is the existing condition and the replacement of the docks (which would result in fewer docks overall) would not substantially increase the number people accessing nearby recreational facility. Although 10 percent of the marina slips are dedicated for liveaboard residents, no additional residents are expected from the proposed project. As deterioration of park and recreational facilities are associated with an increase in permanent population, the incremental and incidental increase of people from the proposed project is expected to be negligible. Therefore, impacts to existing neighborhood and regional parks would be less than significant. No further analysis is necessary b) Less than significant impact. The project site is in use as a recreational facility for recreational boaters. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are discussed throughout this document. Impacts would be less than significant. ATTACHMENT 2 123 Impact Sciences, Inc. 88 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 XVI. TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Responses: a) Less than significant impact. Trip generation estimates for the proposed project were developed using data published in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) trip generation report for marinas. Table 15, Project Trip Generation depicts the trip generation forecasts for the proposed project. As shown in Table 15, the proposed project would generate an estimated 1,820 average daily trips (ADT), with 55 AM peak hour trips, and 127 PM Peak Hour trips. ATTACHMENT 2 124 Impact Sciences, Inc. 89 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Table 15 Project Trip Generation VIM Land Use Size ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Proposed Project Marina 455 Boat Slips Rate Trips Rate Trips (in/out) Rate Trips (in/out) 4.0 1,820 0.12 55 0.28 127 Existing Conditions Marina 556 Boat Slips Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips 4.0 2,224 0.12 67 0.28 156 Source: ATE, 2015 As shown in Table 15, existing conditions of the VIM generate approximately 2,224 ADT. The proposed project would reduce the number of vessel slips (net reduction of 101 slips), and therefore would also decrease the total amount of vehicle trips generated. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is required. b) Less than significant impact. The Congestion Management Program (CMP) was created statewide as a result of Proposition 111 and has been implemented locally by VCTC. The intent of the legislation was to link transportation, land use, and air quality decisions by addressing the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system. State statute requires that a CMP be developed, adopted, and updated biennially for every county that includes an urbanized area, which shall include every city and county government within that county. Therefore, the City must comply with CMP requirements in developing a circulation plan for the County area. The Ventura County CMP road network is comprised of the state highway system and principals arterial in Ventura County. Harbor Boulevard, the major arterial adjacent to the project site, is located within the CMP network. As shown in section a) above, the proposed project would not affect significant operations on Harbor Boulevard. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is necessary. c) Less than significant impact. As stated in Section VII) Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. The nearest public airport is the Oxnard Airport, located approximately six miles southeast of the project site. Therefore, no impact related to an airport land use would occur. No further analysis is necessary. d) Less than significant impact. The project does not include any design features that would substantially increase hazards or incompatible use. The proposed project is limited to dock ATTACHMENT 2 125 Impact Sciences, Inc. 90 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 replacements and facilities upgrades in the Ventura Isle Marina. Vehicle access to and from the project site would remain the same. The impact would be less than significant, and no further study is required. e) Less than significant impact. Access to the project site would be provided via existing roadways and by water within the Harbor. The proposed project does not involve construction of new structures that would impede emergency access. The project is not anticipated to interfere with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan of the City of Ventura. The project would be developed in consultation with the Ventura City Public Works and Fire Departments and would comply with all applicable access standards during construction and operation. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant and no further study is required. f) Less than significant impact. The project site is developed with harbor and recreational uses. The proposed project is limited to dock replacements and facility upgrades. Currently, there are no bicycle or public transit facilities located near or on the project site. The proposed project would improve pedestrian facilities by providing a new ADA-compliant walkway and associated landscaping. The walkway would span across the border of the existing harbor and connect with adjacent public walkways. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted pedestrian policies, plans or programs. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no further study is required. ATTACHMENT 2 126 Impact Sciences, Inc. 91 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et. seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ATTACHMENT 2 127 Impact Sciences, Inc. 92 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Responses: a) Less than significant impact. Wastewater from the City of Ventura is treated at the Ventura Water Reclamation Facility (VWRF). The VWRF is responsible for disposal of the treated wastewater, while LARWQCB regulates the treatment of wastewater at the VWRF as well as the treated wastewater into receiving waters. The VWRF is responsible for adhering to the LARWQCB regulations as they apply to wastewater generated by the proposed project. The VWRF is designed to treat typical wastewater flows from various land uses in the City of Ventura, including typical wastewater effluent generated by the proposed project. The VWRF is designed to treat up to 14 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgd), however many of the VWRF’s treatment facilities are operating beyond their typical design life and thus, the facility’s true operating capacity is 12.1 mgd. 3031 In 2015, the VWRF was operating at approximately 71 percent of its design capacity (8.6 mgd). 32 The proposed project is limited to dock replacements and facilities upgrades in the Ventura Isle Marina. There are three existing restroom/shower facilities along the walkway of the harbor. The proposed project would solely involve the remodel of these facilities and would not increase the amount of waste produced by the harbor. Furthermore, the proposed slip mix for dock replacements would result in the net reduction of 101 slips. Typically, waste pumped out of vessels are associated with the amount of boats within the project area. As the implementation of the proposed project would result in the reduction of maximum allowable boats, increases to the amount of waste generated would be highly unlikely. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is necessary. b) Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate substantial amount of wastewater compared to existing conditions. 30 Ventura Water Department, Electric Mechanic Lead Worker, Joseph Barajas, written communication June 24, 2015 31 Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission, 2012 Municipal Service Reviews Nine Ventura County Cities 32 Based on a 12.1 mgd design capacity ATTACHMENT 2 128 Impact Sciences, Inc. 93 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 Similarly, the proposed project is not expected to modify water usage in a substantial way. The City of Ventura has seen declining per capita water usage since 1985. In the period between 1985 through 1989, the annual per capita use averaged about 196 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). In 2015, the estimated water usage dropped to 117 GPCD.33 By 2020, the City of Ventura expects to have 21,509 Acre-Feet (AF) of water supply per year, or roughly seven billion gallons per year.34 Assuming a conservative estimate of the population of Ventura to be 110,000, the City would have adequate water supply for any increase in population.35 The proposed project may have live-in residents, but any increase of wastewater generation or water demand due to the implementation of the proposed project would be accommodated for within the current water supply forecast. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Impacts are less than significant, and no further analysis is necessary. c) Less than significant impact. As discussed in Section IX Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would not increase the amount of impervious surfaces and runoff from the project site. The project site is currently developed. The proposed project would not add any new impervious surfaces, such as parking lots or roads. The proposed project would involve the construction of upgraded facilities, but would not add additional impervious surfaces to the site or change the direction of flows from the site. Furthermore, implementation of the proposed project would require BMPs to reduce pollution and sedimentation from the project site into Ventura Harbor in case substantial runoff does occur. Specific measures may include the following: • No contamination by cement, concrete, asphalt, washings, paint, etc. is permitted. Hazardous materials shall not be placed where they may accidently spill or run off into the Harbor. • No debris, soil, construction materials, concrete wash water, fluids, etc. shall be placed where they may be washed by rainfall or runoff into the Harbor. • Litter shall be picked up and removed from the site daily. Trash receptacles should be fully covered and emptied regularly. • Harbor water may not be used for any construction activity (e.g. dust control, concrete mix). • Stationary equipment (motors, pumps, generators, welders) located adjacent to the Harbor must be positioned over drip pans. 33 City of Ventura, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015. 34 Ibid. 35 United States Census Bureau, 2010 United States Census, 2010. ATTACHMENT 2 129 Impact Sciences, Inc. 94 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 • Oil absorbent pads must be onsite at all times in case of a spill. Spills shall be cleaned up immediately. • Equipment and vehicles should regularly checked and be properly maintained to prevent leaks. • Staging, storage, fueling, and maintenance of equipment/vehicles shall occur as far away as possible from the Harbor water. • Stockpiles must be covered during construction. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase stormwater runoff compared to existing conditions. Stormwater runoff levels would be comparable to existing conditions and stormwater would continue to flow along the project site and via sheet flow to the Harbor. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is necessary. d) Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if sufficient domestic and/or fire protection water supply were not available to serve the proposed project’s current and long-term needs and new water facilities and/or expansion of existing water facilities is needed. Water is currently supplied to the project area by the Casitas Municipal Water District (CMWD). CMWD would continue to provide water to the project site following operation of the proposed project. As discussed in above in impact b) the 2015 City of Ventura UWMP indicated adequate water supply from multiple sources including groundwater, recycled water, and state-allocated water for the forecasted growth of the city. The proposed project would provide new landscaping and lawn game areas as part of the facilities upgrade. These areas would replace existing landscaping and lawn areas, which generate water use. Water usage under the proposed project would be accommodated for under the most recent UWMP, and may even be comparable to existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis is necessary. e) Less than significant impact. The VWRF has the capacity to provide treatment for 12.1 mgd of wastewater. As of 2015, the VWRF is operating at 71 percent design capacity, or 8.6 mgd. Although the proposed project may increase the size of boats entering the harbor, the project would result in the reduction in number of the dock and, as a result, the number of boats allowed within the harbor. Specifically, there would be a net reduction of 101 slips in the VIM, and a net reduction of approximately 8,500 square feet of dock area resulting from the proposed project. Due to this, the chance of increased wastewater even from larger boats is slim. However, the current VWRF capacity would be able to accommodate any incremental increase of wastewater that would result from the proposed project. Thus, any increases of wastewater generated from ATTACHMENT 2 130 Impact Sciences, Inc. 95 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 the project site would be able to be treated by the VWRF, in which approximately 3.5 mgd capacity remain. Therefore, impacts are less than significant, and no further analysis is necessary. f, g) Less than significant impact. Solid waste disposal is an issue of regional and statewide significance, especially as landfills are reaching their capacities. Recycling and reusing waste materials provides substantial environmental benefits such as reducing energy use, conserving water, and reducing pollution. In 1989, the State of California passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA) in response to reduced landfill capacity. This legislation (generally known by the name of the enacting bill AB 939) required cities and counties to reduce the amount of solid wastes entering existing landfills, through recycling, reuse and waste prevention efforts. AB 939 required every city and county in the state to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to its Solid Waste Management Plan that identified how each jurisdiction would meet the mandatory state waste diversion goals of 25 percent by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. On June 30, 2008, the state assembly amended Senate Bill 1252 to include further waste diversion goals of 60 percent by the year 2015 and 75 percent by the year 2025.36 The purpose of AB 939 was to “reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste generated in the state to the maximum extent feasible.” The City of Ventura is currently diverting 74 percent of waste generated within the City from landfills.37 During construction and operation of the proposed project, Safe Harbor Marina would comply with all applicable City, County, and state solid waste diversion, reduction, and recycling mandates, including compliance with the County’s Integrated Waste Management Plan Countywide Sitting Element, and Section 6.500.130 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal of the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with these regulations and mandates would assist in reducing the amount of waste deposited in local landfills. Solid waste service in the City of Ventura is provided by E.J. Harrison and Sons. After collection, residents’ waste and recyclables are transported to the Gold Coast Recycling and Transfer Station. Solid waste items are transferred to the Toland Road Landfill in the City Santa Paula and recyclable items are taken to the Gold Coast Materials Recovery Facility located in the City of Ventura. Construction of the proposed project would generate construction and demolition debris. Waste materials generated during construction are expected to be typical construction debris, including 36 CWIMB, Senate Bill 1252 Amendment, June 30, 2008 37 City of Ventura Public Works Department website, Residential Trash and Recycling Services, http://www.cityofventura.net/pw/es/resrecycling, accessed January 2017 ATTACHMENT 2 131 Impact Sciences, Inc. 96 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 concrete, stucco, asphalt, rocks, building materials, wood, paper, glass, plastic, metals, cardboard, and other inert wastes (i.e., wastes that are not likely to produce leachates of environmental concern), as well as green wastes. The City of Ventura has adopted the California Green Building Code Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part II) (CALGreen), and Section 5.408 requires all new construction projects to file and implement a construction and demolition Waste Management Plan (WMP). The City’s Environmental Sustainability Division works in conjunction with the Building and Safety Division to review and assist applicants with WMP plans. The WMP must be submitted and approved as a part of the plan-check process before a building permit can be issued. Implementation of the WMP must result in diversion of at least 50 percent of the waste generated during construction. Thus, much of this debris would be recycled and salvaged to the greatest extent possible. Waste generated during demolition and construction that is not recycled would result in an incremental and intermittent increase in solid waste disposal at landfills and other waste disposal facilities generally within Ventura County. Given the sufficiency of available capacity in the Simi Valley and Toland Road Landfill, demolition and construction debris impacts to solid waste facilities would be less than significant.38 No further analysis is necessary. The proposed project includes dock replacements and facilities upgrades. Upon completion, a total of 455 boats would be accommodated in the marina as compared to 556 boats that are currently accommodated in the VIM. This would be a decrease of 101 boats that could be accommodated. As such, the operational phase would not increase solid waste generation compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would comply with the diversion rate of at least 50 percent in accordance with AB 939. Any incremental increase in solid waste generation would not exceed the capacity of local landfills. The 2005 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report identified a Class I impact for solid waste generation. The 2005 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report found that projected growth would increase solid waste sent to landfills by an estimated 84 tons per day by 2025, which was within the currently available daily capacity at Toland Road Landfill. However, the 2005 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report concluded that area landfills are projected to close in the 2022-2027 timeframe; therefore, regional waste generation increases could exceed the daily capacity of area landfills. Assuming that the City would continue to generate about 25 percent of the waste sent to the landfill, the City could send about another 25 tons on a daily basis without exceeding the landfill 38 CalRecycle, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/Search.aspx. ATTACHMENT 2 132 Impact Sciences, Inc. 97 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 capacity. The proposed project’s no net increase in solid waste would remain well within the currently available capacity of area landfills, as discussed above. This contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, landfill capacity and solid waste disposal impacts and impacts related to regulatory compliance would be less than significant. No further analysis is necessary.39 39 California Integrated Waste Management Board, Facility Site/Summary Details, Toland Road Landfill, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/56-AA-0005/Detail/, accessed January 2017 ATTACHMENT 2 133 Impact Sciences, Inc. 98 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 selfsustaining 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? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Responses: a) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As stated in Section IV) Biological Resources, impacts to biological resources are potentially significant. However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, impacts to wildlife would be reduced to less than significant. As noted under Section V, Cultural Resources, the proposed project would ATTACHMENT 2 134 Impact Sciences, Inc. 99 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 not impact any known archeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources. No further analysis is necessary. b) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As indicated in the above analysis, project implementation would not result in significant environmental impacts with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Specifically, Mitigation Measures GEO-1, HYD-1 through HYD-5, NOI-1 and NOI-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. No potential for the project to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals has been identified. No further analysis is necessary. c) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Based on the preceding discussion, with implementation of the required mitigation measures, the proposed project would not result in any unmitigated significant adverse impacts and/or cumulatively considerable impacts. No further analysis is necessary. d) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As indicated in the above analysis, with implementation of the required mitigation measures, the proposed project would not result in any unmitigated significant adverse impacts. Thus, the project would not have the potential to result in substantial adverse effect on human beings. No further analysis is needed. ATTACHMENT 2 135 Impact Sciences, Inc. 100 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project IS/MND 511.006 October 2017 REFERENCES California Integrated Waste Management Board, Facility Site/Summary Details, Toland Road Landfill, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/56-AA-0005/Detail/, accessed January 2017. CalRecycle, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/Search.aspx. City of Ventura, 2005 Ventura General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. City of Ventura, General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, 2005. City of Ventura Public Works Department website, Residential Trash and Recycling Services, http://www.cityofventura.net/pw/es/resrecycling, accessed January 2017. City of Ventura, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015. County of Ventura, Construction Noise Threshold Criteria and Control Plan, July 2010. CWIMB, Senate Bill 1252 Amendment, June 30, 2008. Pendleton. Ventura Port District Board Communication, Standard Agenda Item 3: Ventura Isle Marina (VIM) Dock Replacement Plan. September. Safe Harbor Marinas. 2016. Ventura Port District Commissioners Meeting PowerPoint. September. South Coast Air Quality Management District, “Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group Meeting #6,” http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2008/oct22mtg/oct22.html. 2008. United States Census Bureau, 2010 United States Census, 2010. Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission, 2012 Municipal Service Reviews Nine Ventura County Cities. Ventura Port District. 2014. Ventura Harbor- Ventura Isle Marina. Available at: www.venturaharbor.com, accessed December 7, 2016. Ventura Water Department, Electric Mechanic Lead Worker, Joseph Barajas, written communication June 24, 2015. ATTACHMENT 2 136 Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-1 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement 511.006 Octover 2017 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURPOSE The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is the intent of this program to: (1) verify satisfaction of the required mitigation measures of the EIR; (2) provide a methodology to document implementation of the required mitigation measures; (3) provide a record of the Monitoring Program; (4) identify monitoring responsibility; (5) establish administrative procedures for the clearance of mitigation measures; (6) establish the frequency and duration of monitoring; and (7) utilize existing review processes wherever feasible. INTRODUCTION This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) describes the procedures that will be used to implement the mitigation measures adopted in connection with the approval of the Project and the methods of monitoring such actions. This MMRP takes the form of a table that identifies the responsible entity for monitoring each mitigation measure and the timing of each measure. ATTACHMENT 2 137 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-2 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement 511.006 October 2017 Table 1.0-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Responsible Implementing Party Monitoring Responsibility Timing Signature of Responsible Party (and compliance date) BIO-1 Construction Responsibilities and Debris Removal. Safe Harbor Marina will observe the following construction-related requirements: • No construction materials, debris, or waste shall be placed or stored where it may be subject to wave or tidal action, erosion, or dispersion. • Any and all debris resulting from construction activities shall be removed from the site upon completion of construction and disposed of at an appropriate location. • Divers shall recover non-buoyant debris discharged into coastal waters as soon as possible after loss. • Safe Harbor Marina shall dispose of all construction debris resulting from the proposed project at an appropriate location outside the coastal zone. If the disposal site is located within the coastal zone, a separate coastal development permit shall be required before disposal can take place. • Reasonable and prudent measures shall be taken to prevent any discharge of fuel or oily waste from heavy machinery or construction equipment into coastal waters. Safe Harbor Marina and its contractors shall have adequate equipment available to contain any such spill immediately. • All debris and trash shall be disposed of in the proper trash and recycling receptacles at the end of each construction day. • Any wood treatment used shall conform with the specifications of the American Wood Preservation Association for saltwater use. • Safe Harbor Marina shall use the least damaging method for the construction of pilings and dock structures and any other activity that will disturb benthic sediments. Safe Harbor Marina shall limit, to the greatest extent practicable, the suspension of benthic sediments into the water column. Construction Contractor or Designee Ventura Port District During construction ATTACHMENT 2 138 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-3 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement 511.006 October 2017 Mitigation Measure Responsible Implementing Party Monitoring Responsibility Timing Signature of Responsible Party (and compliance date) BIO-2 Best Management Practices. Safe Harbor Marina shall take the steps necessary to ensure that the long-term water-borne berthing of boats at the approved marina will be managed in a manner that protects water quality pursuant to the implementation of the following BMPs: Continued participation in the Clean Marina Plan: The CMP shall include appropriate BMPs for the protection of water quality from waterside development activities. Guidance for appropriate BMPs can be found in the Program Manual and Clean Marina Scoresheets of the Clean Marinas program (www.cleanmarina.org). While this permit only addresses waterside activities, it is recommended that this project follow all the guidelines of the Clean Marina Program and seek certification under that program Construction Contractor or Designee Ventura Port District During operation GEO-1 The project shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 16 (Structural Design) of the 2013 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 (based on the International Building Code, Chapter 16, Section 1613 – Earthquake Loads), the City of Ventura Municipal Code, and accepted engineering practices. Construction Contractor or Designee Ventura Port District During construction HYD-1 During construction of the proposed project all waste shall be disposed of properly. Use appropriately labeled recycling bins to recycle construction materials including: solvents, water-based paints, vehicle fluids, broken asphalt and concrete, wood, and vegetation. Nonrecyclable materials/wastes shall be taken to an appropriate landfill. Toxic wastes must be discarded at a licensed regulated disposal site. Construction Contractor or Designee Ventura Port District During construction HYD-2 During construction of the proposed project all vehicle/equipment maintenance, repair, and washing shall be conducted away from storm drains. All major repairs shall be conducted off-site. Drip pans or drop cloths shall be used to catch drips and spills. Construction Contractor or Designee Ventura Port District During construction HYD-3 Materials with the potential to contaminate stormwater must be: (1) placed in an enclosure such as, but not limited to, a cabinet, shed, or similar structure that prevents contact with runoff spillage to the stormwater conveyance system; or (2) protected by secondary containment structures such as berms, dikes, or curbs. Construction Contractor or Designee Ventura Port District During construction HYD-4 Any connection to the sanitary sewer shall have authorization from the City of Ventura Public Works Department. Safe Harbor Marina Ventura Port District Prior to operation HYD-5 Storage areas shall be paved and sufficiently impervious to contain leaks and spills. Safe Harbor Marina Ventura Port District During operation ATTACHMENT 2 139 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-4 Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement 511.006 October 2017 Mitigation Measure Responsible Implementing Party Monitoring Responsibility Timing Signature of Responsible Party (and compliance date) HYD-6 In the event the parking lot is used for staging of construction equipment, all catch basins in and adjacent to the staging area shall be covered to reduce the potential for sediment entering the storm drain system. Construction contractor or designee Ventura Port District During construction NOI-1 Safe Harbor Marina shall offer for the relocation of vessels occupied as long-term residences and moored within 500 feet of pile guiding activities. If requested, these vessels shall be temporarily relocated to slips located no less than 500 feet from such activities. Safe Harbor Marina Ventura Port District During construction NOI-2 During Project construction, pile guiding activities within 50 feet of Charlotte Schmidt Yacht Sales shall be sequenced in such a manner so as to avoid exceeding the SBMC’s 60 dBA daytime exterior noise limit for Zone III commercial properties by more than 10 dBA for 5 minutes per hour, 5 dBA for 15 minutes per hour, or for 30 minutes per hour, overall. This specification shall be included on all construction plans. Construction contractor or designee Ventura Port District During construction ATTACHMENT 2 140 APPENDIX A Response Letters ATTACHMENT 2 141 ATTACHMENT 2 142 ATTACHMENT 2 143 From: Adams, Loni@Wildlife To: bpendleton@venturaharbor.com Cc: jrauch@venturaharbor.com Subject: Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Date: Thursday, October 05, 2017 5:19:21 PM Attachments: image001.gif Dear Mr. Pendleton, The Department of Fish and Wildlife reviewed your mitigated negative declaration for the Ventura Isle Marina Project. The Department has no objections to this project as long as you fully implement the best management practices proposed, and implement all permit conditions issued by the California Coastal Commission and other agencies. Sincerely, Loni Adams Marine Environmental Scientist California Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Region 3883 Ruffin Rd. San Diego, CA 92123 858-627-3985 office 858-627-3984 Marine FAX loni.adams@wildlife.ca.gov ATTACHMENT 2 144 VENTURA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT Memorandum TO: Jessica Rauch, Clerk of the Board Ventura Port District DATE: October 2, 2017 FROM: Alicia Stratton SUBJECT: Request for Review of the Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration Air Pollution Control District staff has reviewed the subject Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which is a proposal for waterside improvements in the Ventura Harbor. Five docks will be entirely demolished and new docks will be constructed. The will also include new gate structures and gangways. The proposed replacement and configuration would decrease the number of existing slips from 556to 455 with an increase in average slip size from 38 ft. to 44 ft. to meet the current and projected demands of the boating market. Section III of the MND addresses air quality. We concur with the findings of this discussion that significant air quality impacts will not result from the project. Table 1, Project Construction Emissions, indicates that short-term, construction emissions would be less than 25 lbs/day of ROG and NOx, although construction related emissions are not evaluated against the District’s 25 lbs/day threshold for significance because they are temporary. Table 2, Operational Emissions from the Proposed Project, indicates that ROG and NOx emissions would also be below the District’s 25 lbs/day threshold for significance (4.33 lbs/day and 8.22 lbs/day, respectively). No air quality mitigation is necessary. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 645-1426 or email alicia@vcapcd.org. ATTACHMENT 2 145 ATTACHMENT 3 146 ATTACHMENT 3 147 From: Adams, Loni@Wildlife To: bpendleton@venturaharbor.com Cc: jrauch@venturaharbor.com Subject: Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Date: Thursday, October 05, 2017 5:19:21 PM Attachments: image001.gif Dear Mr. Pendleton, The Department of Fish and Wildlife reviewed your mitigated negative declaration for the Ventura Isle Marina Project. The Department has no objections to this project as long as you fully implement the best management practices proposed, and implement all permit conditions issued by the California Coastal Commission and other agencies. Sincerely, Loni Adams Marine Environmental Scientist California Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Region 3883 Ruffin Rd. San Diego, CA 92123 858-627-3985 office 858-627-3984 Marine FAX loni.adams@wildlife.ca.gov ATTACHMENT 3 148 VENTURA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT Memorandum TO: Jessica Rauch, Clerk of the Board Ventura Port District DATE: October 2, 2017 FROM: Alicia Stratton SUBJECT: Request for Review of the Ventura Isle Marina Dock Replacement Project Mitigated Negative Declaration Air Pollution Control District staff has reviewed the subject Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which is a proposal for waterside improvements in the Ventura Harbor. Five docks will be entirely demolished and new docks will be constructed. The will also include new gate structures and gangways. The proposed replacement and configuration would decrease the number of existing slips from 556to 455 with an increase in average slip size from 38 ft. to 44 ft. to meet the current and projected demands of the boating market. Section III of the MND addresses air quality. We concur with the findings of this discussion that significant air quality impacts will not result from the project. Table 1, Project Construction Emissions, indicates that short-term, construction emissions would be less than 25 lbs/day of ROG and NOx, although construction related emissions are not evaluated against the District’s 25 lbs/day threshold for significance because they are temporary. Table 2, Operational Emissions from the Proposed Project, indicates that ROG and NOx emissions would also be below the District’s 25 lbs/day threshold for significance (4.33 lbs/day and 8.22 lbs/day, respectively). No air quality mitigation is necessary. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 645-1426 or email alicia@vcapcd.org. ATTACHMENT 3 149 ATTACHMENT 4 150