HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0720 CC REG ITEM 11FA G E N D A R E P O R T
C I T Y O F M O O R P A R K
ITEM.
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Developmeniii
Deborah S. Traffenstedt,, Senior Planner 7p5(
DATE: July 14, 1994 (CC Meeting of 7- 20 -94)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER PRELIMINARY STAFF COMMENTS ON DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR ARROYO SIMI
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS
BACKGROUND
The public review period for the above referenced Draft EIR will
end on July 21, 1994, and comments are due on that date. The
Ventura County Flood Control District is the lead agency for the
EIR. The Ventura County Environmental Review Report Committee is
scheduled to hold a public hearing to consider the adequacy of the
Draft EIR at 2:00 p.m. on August 1, 1.994, at the Ventura County
Government Center.
DISCUSSION
Proposed Project
The project location is along the Arroyo Simi between Spring Road
and Hitch Boulevard. The proposed project consists of the
replacement of 16,320 linear feet of existing flood control channel
lining and drop structures, which have been either removed or
damaged to substandard flood control criteria due to successive
years of flood flows. Proposed improvements include widening the
channel, installing rock rip -rap on the banks for erosion
protection, and installing grade stabilizers to control bed erosion
and maintain non - erosive velocities. Approximately 11.6 acres of
riparian wetlands are proposed to be created in three separate
parcels immediately adjacent to the channel. An estimated 5.6
acres of willows, flanking the south side of the channel between
Peach Hill Wash and Tierra Rejada Road, will be revegetated
following construction. The stated purpose of the proposed project
is to reduce the current level of f lood hazard along the Arroyo
Simi by increasing channel capacity to convey a 100 -year storm
event.
dst- 07- 12- 941 9:06amC:\WP51\STPRPT\CC7- 20.67R
The Honorable City Council
July 14, 1994
Page 2
Preliminary Comments on Draft EIR
Following are preliminary comments prepared by staff on the Draft
EIR. Following City Council review of this report, staff's intent
is to prepare a comment letter to the Ventura County Flood Control
District, which would incorporate comments similar to the
following, as well as any Counci.]. omments,
Sections 1.0 through 10.0 - Spring Street should be changed to
Spring Road throughout the Draft. F'TR.
Figure 1.1 -1 - Revise to show ent.:, --e Arroyo Simi within the City
limits.
Page 2.2, Consistency With Genera.. Plan Goals and Policies - In
Paragraph one, revise the zoning description to identify that the
majority of the Arroyo Simi channel is zoned open space (the EIR
incorrectly states that the major.ity of the creek is zoned Rural
Exclusive. In Paragraph two, the City's determination regarding
General Plan consistency, as discussed below, should be reflected
in this discussion.
Pages 2 -2 through Table 2.1 -1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation -
Refer to comments on Sections 5 through given below.
Pages 3 -2 and 3 -3, Project Alternatives - Refer to comments on
Section 10, given below.
Page 3 -5, Section 3.7.3, Wetland Areas - In paragraph two, the
specific time frame proposed for monitoring should be given.
Page 3 -6, Section 3.8.1, Phasing and Schedule of the Project - The
proposed phasing /schedule for the creation of the new
wetland /riparian habitat areas should be given in this section.
Wetland habitat creation should occur first, prior to other
proposed channel improvement work ghat would impact wetland areas,
and which is not related directly " --c the creation of the wetland
areas.
Page 3 -7, Section 3.8.4, CreatLon of Wetland Areas - Any
revegetation plan should be prepared by a qualified biologist or
landscape architect with experience in designing wetland habitat
areas, and the plan should be provided to the City of Moorpark, the
State Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for review prior to the _nit.iation of any construction
activity which would impact existivsg wetland habitat.
dst- 07- 12- 9419:06amC:\WP51 \STFRPT\CC7- 20.6IR
The Honorable City Council
July 14, 1994
Page 3
Page 4 -4, Section 4.5.1.2, Proposed Projects - A proposed County
project which should be addressed in this section, is the work
being done on a Regional Trails and Pathways Program. The County
of Ventura, General Services Agency, is managing this Program, and
representatives from all of the cities and park and recreation
districts in the County, as well as a number of special interest
group representatives, are participating in the development of a
regional trails and pathways plan. The Regional Trails and
Pathways Committee has identified the Arroyo Simi /Calleguas Creek
watershed system as one of its highest priority locations for early
development of regional, non - motorized trails. The Committee's
preliminary recommendation is that all. future trails be planned as
Class 1 Bikeway /Multi -use trails to allow eligibility for all
possible funding sources.
Page 4 -5, Section 4.5.1.2, Proposed Projects, Happy Camp Park
Development (Quor Resorts) - The discussion should be updated to
indicate that the Quor Resorts, Inc . , lease option has expired, and
that the County General Services Agency is now considering a golf
course proposal for Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park.
Page 4 -6, Section 2.5.2., City Projects - A City "project" which
should be addressed in the Draft EIR is the work being done as a
result of the Urban Streams Restoration Grant that was jointly
awarded to the City and the Environmental Coalition of Ventura
County, Moorpark Branch, from the California Department of Water
Resources (Urban Streams Restoration Program) . The grant money has
been used to partially fund the removal of exotic vegetation from
the Arroyo Simi, the planting of native species, and the
preparation of a Management and Restoration Plan. The City of
Moorpark and the Environmental Coalition have also provided in -kind
labor donations to accomplish the restoration work and develop the
draft plan. The primary purpose of the Management and Restoration
Plan is to set forth goals, policies, and recommendations for the
identification, preservation, recreation, and enhancement of
biological and aesthetic resources Eor the Arroyo Simi, while still
providing for needed flood control, development interests,
recreation/ trails, and bank stabilL.ty. Project consistency should
be addressed in the Environmental Anal.ysis section of the EIR.
Other City projects, which should be identified, are a planned
pedestrian /bikeway bridge over the .Arroyo Simi in the vicinity of
Liberty Bell Road, a Spring Road bridge replacement project, and
continuing development of the Arroyo Vista Community Park.
Cumulative impacts should be addressed in the Environmental
Analysis section of the EIR. Folli,wain.g is a brief description of
these referenced projects:
dst- 07- 12- 9419 :06amC : \WP51 \STPRPT \CC7- -20.SZR
The Honorable City Council
July 14, 1994
Page 4
Construction of the pedestrian /bikeway bridge over the Arroyo
Simi is tentatively scheduled to begin within six months, and
this bridge will facilitate non- motorized access to Arroyo
Vista Community Park and the high school.
A Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Preparation of Design
Plans and Specifications for t:.he Reconstruction of the Spring
Road Bridge was distributed in July 1994, and the submittal
deadline is August 16, 1994.. The RFP requires that the
consultant shall demonstrate how the proposed bridge structure
will be compatible with the requirements of the Ventura County
Flood Control District, and the possible future construction
of trails along the Arroyo Simi for pedestrian, bicycle and
equestrian use (including an evaluation of the feasibility of
placing the trail, and possibly the Flood Control District
maintenance road under the bridge structure).
The Arroyo Vista Community Park encompasses a total area of
approximately 69 acres and is :Located along the south side of
the Arroyo Simi, adjacent to the :high school. Although
development of the park is c:: °ontinui..ng, existing facilities
include a recreation center bu_Llding, including gymnasium, and
36 acres of multi- purpose f`ie[ds
Page 4 -10, Section 4.5.3, Conclusions - Impact conclusions should
not be included in the Environmental and Regulatory Setting section
of the EIR. Cumulative impacts should be addressed in the
Environmental Analysis section c -4 :.he EIR,
Figure 4.5 -1 - This figure should be amended to identify the
project area for the Urban Streams Restoration Grant and Management
and Restoration Plan for the Arroyo, Simi, the planned location for
the pedestrian /bikeway bridge across the Arroyo Simi, the location
of the Spring Road bridge, and th,, location of the Arroyo Vista
Community Park.
Page 5 -41, Section 5.4.6, Project impacts (Biological Resources) -
The EIR is not clear regarding whether or not the area of impact is
limited to the proposed improvemen area as shown on Figures 3.7-
2A, B, and C.
Page 5 -46, Section 5.4.8, Mitigation. Measures (Biological
Resources) - As previously :identified, either the project
description should be revised, or a mitigation measure should be
included which requires that the revegetation plan and wetland
habitat design shall be prepared by a qualified biologist or
landscape architect with experience in designing wetland habitat
dst- 07- 12- 9419:06amC:\WP5I\STFRPT\CC7- 20.EIR
The Honorable City Council
July 14, 1994
Page 5
areas. Also, either the project. description should be revised to
clarify when wetland creation work will be completed, or a
mitigation measure should be included in clarify appropriate
phasing.
Pages 5 -61 through 5 -67, Section 5.5.4.3, City of Moorpark General
Plan and Policies, Land Use Element. - The Draft EIR concludes that
the proposed project is consistent with all applicable goals and
policies in the City's General Plan. We are unable to reach this
conclusion, based on the current project description, impact
analysis information, and alternatives discussion as provided in
the Draft EIR. The City's General Plan emphasizes the importance
of preservation and enhancement of the area adjacent to the Arroyo
Simi floodway as a natural and scenic feature of the community.
The proposed project will convert further natural channel area to
rip -rap embankment, mature trees will be removed and not replaced
in the immediate vicinity of the impact, and no information is
provided regarding the feasibility of biotechnical bank
stabilization. Further information should be provided in the EIR
pertaining to project area of impact, mature tree impacts, and the
feasibility of an alternative that would provide a more natural
appearance for the section of the Arroyo Simi between the Spring
Road and Tierra Rejada bridges (see comments on Section 10, below) .
Page 5 -67, Section 5.5.5, Project Impacts - Refer to above
discussion.
Figure 5.5 -1B, Existing Land Uses - This figure should be revised
to show the Arroyo Vista Community Park,
Figure 5.5 -1C, Existing Land Uses This figure should be revised
to more accurately show existing open space along the south side of
the Arroyo Simi (some of the area shown as Residential /Planned
Residential is currently undeveloped open space).
Figure 5.5 -2, City and County General Plan Land Use Designations -
The open space designation shown on the property located east of
Spring Road and south of the Arroyo Simi is not correctly located.
That area should be labeled Carlsberg Specific Plan, since there
are various planned land uses for he property.
Page 5 -70, Section 5.6.2, Project Impacts (Visual Resources) - The
impact analysis is not adequate. Mature tree impacts should be
addressed in this section as a isual impact. In the City's
response to the Notice of Preparat. ion, we requested that mature
trees currently located at the µ:op of the channel banks be
preserved to the maximum extent fe,isible. If any mature tree was
dst- 07- 12- 9419:06amC: \WP51 \STFRPT \CC7- 20.EIR
The Honorable City Council
July 14, 1994
Page 6
to be removed, the City requested that replacement be provided at
a minimum ratio of 5:1, in the immediate vicinity of the trees
removed. Mature tree impacts do not appear to be clarified in the
Draft EIR, in either the Biological Resources or Visual Resources
sections. For example, no information is provided to clarify
whether the mature trees located at the easterly end of the project
limits, near the Spring Road bridge, will be removed. If those
trees cannot be preserved, as requested, they should be replaced in
the immediate vicinity of the impact, at the ratio indicated above,
to fully mitigate any visual impact. We do not consider the
wetland habitat areas to be mitigation for mature tree impacts at
a different location.
As discussed under comments fox, Section 5.5.4.3, above, further
information should be provided in the EIR to allow the City to
reach a conclusion regarding the significance of the aesthetic
impacts resulting from further conversion of the Arroyo Simi into
a non - natural appearing, rip - rapped channel. Also, further
alternatives analysis should be done to determine whether there is
a feasible alternative which provides additional wetlands areas, or
does not preclude another agency from creating additional wetlands
areas at a future time, along the Arroyo Simi between the Spring
Road and Tierra Road bridges.
Page 7 -1, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts - For the reasons previously
stated, we cannot conclude that adverse significant visual impacts
have been fully mitigated.
Pages 10 -2 and 10 -3, Alternatives and 4 - We do not believe that
an adequate effort was made to develop an alternative which would
retain a natural appearance along the Arroyo Simi between Spring
and Tierra Rejada Roads. .For example, biotechnical bank
stabilization methods were ignored, which makes both Alternatives
3 and 4 infeasible, because of continued bank erosion and failure.
The Draft Management and Restoration Plan for the Arroyo Simi, that
has been prepared in association with an Urban Streams Restoration
Grant, includes suggestions regarding biotechnical bank
stabilization. The EIR should address the feasibility of using
biotechnical bank stabilization versus the proposed rock rip -rap
method of bank stabilization..
Another comment regarding Alternatives 3 and 4 is that the
assumption that the Arroyo Simi would be widened by an additional
50 feet (Alternative 3) or 25 feet (Alternative 4) along its entire
south bank, to create a wetlands area, is not necessarily natural
appearing or realistic. A more realistic alternative would be one
which incorporates wetland /woodland areas along either the southern
dst- 07- 12- 9419:06amC:\WP5I\STFRPT\CC7- 20.EIR
The Honorable City Council
July 14, 1994
Page 7
or northern banks of the Arroyo Simi (within the project limits),
to the full extent as is feasible, given the existing terrain and
land uses. Although it may not be feasible for the Flood Control
District to create additional wetland /woodland areas, beyond that
which is already proposed, there may be other funding sources.
Also, for both Alternatives 3 and 4, upland vegetation impacts
would appear to be over - emphasized, since the project impact
discussion for Biological Resources characterizes most of the
uplands within the project vicinity as graded and converted to
agriculture or residential development. A quote from the Draft EIR
that pertains to the vegetation. found in the undeveloped area
adjacent to the project site is as follows:
It is likely that most of the undeveloped areas adjacent
to the project site have been subjected to repeated
disturbances (such as cultivation and livestock grazing) ,
as they are dominated by non - native, weedy plant species.
Natural vegetation occurs only on portions of the steep
hills adjacent to the project site
We do not believe that either Alternative 3 or 4 should involve
grading of steep slope areas; therefore no significant upland
vegetation impacts should result,
Pages 10 -6 and 10 -7, Preferred Alternative - Staff does not agree
with the identification that t :he proposed project is the
environmentally preferred alternative. As discussed above,
Alternatives 3 and 4 were not ap},ropriately developed so as to
mitigate project impacts.
Staff Conclusions
It is staff's opinion that the alternatives analysis is inadequate,
and that more emphasis should have been placed towards development
of a feasible alternative that would provide a more natural
appearance for the south bank of the Arroyo Simi. The City's
General Plan emphasizes the importance of preservation and
enhancement of the area adjacent to the Arroyo Simi floodway as a
natural and scenic feature of the community. Also, the Draft EIR
completely ignores the efforts of the City, the Environmental
Coalition, and various responsible and trustee agencies to develop
a Management and Restoration Plan `or the Arroyo Simi.
dst- 07- 12- 9419:06amC:\WP5I\STFRPT\CC7- 20.EZR
The Honorable City Council
July 14, 1994
Page 8
Insufficient or inaccurate information has presented for the
project alternatives; therefore, staff cannot at this time agree
with the conclusions of the Draft EIR that. the proposed project is
the environmentally preferred alternative. Additional information
needs to be provided regarding the exact area of project impact,
mature tree impacts, and the feasibility of biotechnical bank
stabilization methods. In regard to project impact, the EIR should
clarify whether or not any residences adjacent to the Arroyo Simi
would need to be acquired.
It is staff's intent to discuss ire the comment letter the City's
strong interest to enter into an agreement with the County for use
of the Arroyo Simi flood control access /utility roads for trail
purposes, especially as part of the regional trails network. The
conclusion in the Draft EIR i5 that the proposed channel
improvements will not preclude future use of the arroyo's
access /utility roads for trail purposes (although access would be
prohibited during periods of construction). It is staff's
understanding that the City would need to enter into a cooperative
agreement with the County to allow use of the access /utility roads
for multi -use trail purposes. Any future agreement would need to
specify planned improvements, as well. as maintenance and liability
responsibilities, to permit tra:i.. )se
RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to prepare a comment.. letter to the Ventura County
Flood Control District, consistent with the draft comments
contained in the staff report, or -s modified by the Council.
Attachment: DEIR Alternatives .Anal..ys:Ls
dst- 07- 12- 941 9:06aMC:�WP51�STFRPT�CC7- 20.BIR
10. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
As required by CEQA, the following section presents alternatives to the proposed Arroyo Simi
channel improvements project, as considered by VCFCD. For the purposes of this analysis it
is assumed that: (1) acreage associated with channel widening (embankment protection and grade
stabilizer installation) is a permanent land /property, loss; (2) construction - related impacts are
temporary; and (3) the creation of the proposed project's wetland /riparian areas would be
temporary disturbancesAand losses, as ,,dl three parcels would be located within existing,
undeveloped "natural" areas that would r «:-main as such following construction.
10.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE)
Under this alternative no improvements to the project site would occur (the "No Project"
alternative). Stabilizer, bridge, and channel lining damage would continue, as would land loss
and down -stream sediment transport ano accumulation due to bank erosion and failure. In
addition, the potential for flood - related hazards,, such as the rupture of local pipelines due to
bank failure, would continue.
This alternative would avoid both temporr:u-y and permanent disturbances of riparian -and other
native habitats within, and adjacent to, the arroyo, as well as other resource - specific impacts.
However, it would not: (1) correct existing channel damage, (2) prevent future flood hazards
and damage as they relate to existing channel conditions, or (3) assist with the elimination of
long -term degradation of down -stream habitats and Mugu Lagoon due to sediment transport and
accumulation. For the latter reasons, this alternative is not preferable to the proposed project.
10.2 ALTERNATIVE 2
Alternative 2 would provide for a 100 -year storm event. The alternative would involve widening
the channel bottom to 150 feet between Hitch Boulevard and a point 13,000 feet upstream, while
the remaining 3,320 feet of channel woui,,,l be widened to 90 feet. Channel banks would vary
between 13 and 18 feet in height, and .vould be protected with t/ ton rock rip -rap. Seven new
grade stabilizers would be constructed and two exiting stabilizers would be modified.
Alternative 2 would require relocation of the existing Southern California Edison (SCE)
transmission lines that are located upstre�.irn feast) c,,f 'Tierra Rejada Road.
This alternative would create approximatt�ly 51.6 acres of channel and would not include the
creation of wetland /riparian areas. Tht.- total channel acreage of this alternative would be
approximately 6.6 acres more than the proposed project (45 acres); consequently, Alternative
2 would create slightly greater long -ter,,T m mpacts .a ue to an increased area of permanent land
I )-
il
r
N
r
FA
G
L
I
a
loss. This increase would primarily affect biological resources (upland vegetation) and property
owners along the westernmost 3,300 feet of the ar -royo, where channel widening would exceed
that of the proposed project.
Temporary impacts (noise, air quality, traffic, and N isuai resources) due to construction of
Alternative 2 would be less than those of the proposed project. Although the channel acreage
of Alternative 2 would be approximately 6.6 acres more than that of the proposed project's
channel, the creation of the proposed project's wetland areas would increase construction - related
impacts by 11.6 acres. However, as construction - related impacts are considered temporary, and
the proposed wetlands would provide permanent r>eneficial impacts (Class IV) to the arroyo's
biological resources, the net effect of the additional wt.�tland creation is not considered
significant.
Relocation of a series of the SCE transmission lure towers would result in significant publicly
funded expeditures due to land purchases for a new SCE Right -Of -Way and tower relocation
construction costs, and would additionally create temporary and permanent disturbances within
the Moorpark area. The realignment would primarily produce long -term impacts to biological
resources, land use, and visual resources. Additionally realignment construction would create
temporary impacts to air quality, noise, and traffic. These impacts would not be generated
under the proposed project scenario. Because of those additional impacts and no creation of
wetland areas, this alternative is not preferable to the proposed project.
10.3 ALTERNATIVE 3
Alternative 3 would include the same improvemern is as Alternative 2, except that the south side
of the arroyo would be widened by an additions; 50 feet for its entire length. The widening
would create additional wetlands for mitigation f rrposes. 1 he south bank would not be lined
with rock rip -rap.
This alternative would create approximately 51.6 acres of channel and 18.7 acres of wetlands.
The total channel area required for Alternative 3 would be approximately 6.6 acres greater than
that of the proposed project (45 acres). The majority of acreage designated for wetlands creation
would extend beyond existing, undeveloped "natural" areas, particularly along the westernmost
portion of the project site. This extension would increase the net loss of private properties
adjacent to the arroyo, including agricultural, ivestock breeding /stabling, residential, and
recreational land uses. The net loss would be c(,)nsrdered a permanent, adverse impact upon
local residents. The extension would additionat v increase the permanent net loss of upland
vegetation.
D
Although creation of an additional 7.1 acres of wetlands, as proposed by Alternative 3, would
be considered an increased beneficial impact on biological resources within the immediate project
vicinity, the exclusion of rock rip-rap lining along the south bank would likely result in long-
term adverse impacts both locally and regionally. At a local scale, the lack of bank lining would
result in continued bank erosion and failure, and consequently on -going structural damage due
to hydrologically inferior flood protection. Regionally, bank erosion and failure would result
in down - stream sediment transport and accumulation. 'This would adversely impact the
hydrology and biological resources of lover Calleg gas Creek and Mugu Lagoon, and
additionally contribute to downstream land los,,
The total acreage of channel and wetland construction associated with Alternative 3 equals
approximately 70.3 acres. Total channel and wetland acreage of the proposed project would be
approximately 56.6 acres. The difference between the short-term impacts associated with
construction of these two alternatives is considered relatively substantial.
Alternative 3 would require realignment of a portion of the local SCE transmission line. The
costs, and permanent and temporary impacts l.ssociated with the realignment are the same as
described in Section 10.2 for Alternative :.
This alternative would result in greater short-term and long -term impacts to the environment than
the proposed project. Therefore, it is not preferable to the proposed project.
10.4 ALTERNATIVE 4
Alternative 4 would be identical to Alternative t, except that the south side of the arroyo would
be widened by 25 feet instead of 50 feet. As in the case of Alternative 3,' the widening would
be used for wetland mitigation purposes. The , mth bank would not be lined with rock rip -rap.
This alternative would create approximately 7 i 6 acres of channel, and 9.7 acres of wetlands. a
As in the case of Alternative 3, the total channel area would be approximately acres greater
reater
than that of the proposed project (45 acres). 'I ;pie total acreage required for wetlands would be
reduced by 50% in comparison to Alternative 3, and would not, therefore, impact local residents
and upland vegetation as significantly. However, the overall net reduction of existing land uses
(agricultural, livestock breeding/ stabling, re�Adendal, and recreational uses) and upland
vegetation would remain permanent, adverse ii -,pacts. Bank erosion and flood hazards due to
a lack of rock rip -rap lining on the south bank vcu d be the same as described for Alternative
3 (Section 10.3).
The creation of an estimated 9.7 acres of wetlands µ ould be less than that of either Alternative
3 or 5. Although this would reduce short-term construction- related impacts, the local and
regional impacts associated with a lack of effective lining along the south bank would remain
the same as described for Alternative 3 (Section 10 ' ).
The total acreage of both channel and wetland consti uction associated with Alternative 4 equals
approximately 61.3 acres. Total channel and wetland acreage of the proposed project would be
approximately 56.6 acres. The difference between the short -term impacts associated with
construction of these two alternatives is not considered substantial.
Alternative 4 would require realignment of a portiort of the local SCE transmission line. The
costs, and permanent and temporary impacts associated with the realignment are the same as
described in Section 10.2 for Alternative 2. Based on these additional impacts and bank erosion
and flood hazards due to a lack of rock rip -rap lincig along the south bank, this alternative is
not preferable to the proposed project.
10.5 ALTERNATIVE 5 (PROPOSED PROJECT)
Improvements for Alternative 5 (the proposed project) would include channel widening from
west to east as follows: (1) 100 feet between Hitch Boulevard and Peach Hill Wash
(approximately 3,000 linear feet), (2) 150 feet between Peach Hill Wash and Tierra Rejada
Bridge (4,895 linear feet), and (3) 100 feet along tr e remaining 8,425 linear feet. '/a ton rock
rip -rap would be installed along the entire north bank, and along the south bank as necessary to
ensure effective flood and erosion control. Seven new grade stabilizers would be built, and 2
existing stabilizers would be modified. The f-ojecn would include the development of
approximately 11.6 acres of wetlands, and w( , d riot it:.quire realignment of the SCE
transmission line.
i This alternative would create approximately 45 ac es of channel, and temporarily disturb an
j additional 11.6 acres of land during wetland construe tion Channel widening associated with this
Alternative would require approximately 6.6 acre, less land than Alternatives 2 through 4;
consequently, it's implementation would reduce Ion term impacts associated with the permanent
loss of uplands.
The placement of rock rip -rap along the south kink of the arroyo, as necessary to ensure
effective bank protection, would significantly redw, e long -term, local and regional impacts due
to land loss /bank erosion and downstream sedim(mt transport. These reductions would be
considered a significant beneficial impact in comp,,.;risor to Alternatives 3 and 4.
10 -.,
Temporary impacts associated with construction of this Alternative's channel and wetlands areas
are not considered to be substantially different from those of Alternatives 2 through 4.
However, there are additional short-term impacts associated with realignment of the SCE
transmission line (Alternatives 2 through .x ) that would not occur under Alternative 5,.
10.6 ALTERNATIVE 6
Alternative 6 would be identical to Alternative 5, except that the existing levee located along the
channel's north bank and adjacent to Wetland Areal would be removed. The levee currently
protects an existing 27 -inch sewer main. Removal o.- the levee would require relocation of the
sewer line. This alternative would allow a urface water within the channel to flow freely into
Wetland Area 1, thereby creating a wetland regime that would be anticipated to become more
similar to freshwater marsh than hardwood riparian (Section 5.4.6).
The total acreage of channel improvements and wetland development associated with this ro "ect
would be no different than that of Alternative 5. However, removal of the levee would result
in increased construction activity, thereby .treating substantially greater short-term noise air
quality, traffic and visual impacts.
In addition to removal of the levee itself, this alternative would require significant re-routing of
the 27 -' h sewer line below surface streets within the City of Moorpark. Not only would re -route result n significant costs, it would also create significant temporary the
the Moorpark area due to construction. In addition, as the existing sewer line's es within
due to resulting controlled gravitationally, re- routing could he hydrologically infeasible oflow
restrictions. g
As noted above, removal of the levee would iikely result ir, a freshwater marsh regime with
Wetland Area 1, whereas implementation cif Alternative 5 would likely result in a hardwood
riparian regime because the levee would (1) protect the area from annual channel scouring
(2) prevent channel surface water form flowing freely into the area. The establishment of and
different wetland habitat types in proximity to tech other, as would likely result from Alternative two
5, would be considered a greater benefit than the, likely result of Alternative 6 because wo
habitat types provide a structurally more diverse and cc)mplete system than two wetland two
i
representing the same habitat type. areas
This alternative would result in greater short wid long -term impacts and costs than the ro
Project, and would not likely provide the "'Ame biological diversity. Therefore, P ipo
preferrable to the proposed project. of
I
I
A
r
r
i
r
10.7 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
In addition to describing a range of reasonablc alternatives to a proposed action, CEQA
guidelines require that an EIR's lead agency explain why one project, as specifically proposed,
is preferred over its alternatives. During development of the Arroyo Simi flood control channel
ir._provements proposal, VCFCD identified Alt,, °rnative (" "the proposed project ") as the
preferred alternative for the following reason 5.
(1) In comparison to Alternati,es 2 through 4, the proposed project would
require the smallest net reduction in private properties which are currently
in use by local resident.w (agricultural, livestock breeding /stabling,
residential, and recreational lses). 'This net reduction would significantly
reduce impacts to the local ommunity and upland vegetation habitats.
(2) In comparison to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would provide the
most hydrolgically effective means of flood and erosion control, as the
banks of the project site waould be entirely lined with rock rip -rap.
However, Alternative 2 would only meet the primary flood control goals
of the Arroyo Simi proposal and would not adequately meet either (a) the
concerns of residents/ property owners adjacent to the arroyo, or (b) the
project's wetland mitigatior objective
(3) In comparison to Alternatives ' , .3, 4 and 6, the proposed project would
not result in either the addr'i.onal costs, or long and short-term impacts
associated with realignrrien >f the either the SCE transmission line or
existing sewer line.
(4) In comparison to Alterriadvc-1 o, the proposed project would likely provide
greater biological diversitN and completeness due to the anticipated
development of two differer type of habitats in Wetland Areas 1 and 2.
(5) The proposed project represents the median acreage for wetlands
development. Although they proposed project would represent less local
benefits to biological resour, es in comparison to Alternative 3, it would
provide significantly more c °i ! ective flood and erosion control due to lining
along the south bank. The hi in- would provide significantly greater long-
term benefits to residents duc to bank protection and flood control, as well
as to the downstream re.lch o'_ W'alle =uas Creek and Mugu Lagoon.
10 .
(6) The proposed protect could cost less than Alternatives 2 through 4.
Therefore, it represents the most cost efficient means of achieving all of
the project's struct_ral and mitigation goals.
(7) Alternative 1 (No project Alternative) would result in -the continuation of
unacceptable flood ��azard conditions.
Based on the above reasons, Alternative f represents the preferred alternative as it achieves the
greatest number of public, environmental, Hood, erosion, and safety goals in the most
hydrologically and cost efficient manner
i -7