Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
AGENDA REPORT 1995 1206 CC REG ITEM 11D
/L, 5$I 'TEMK • 199,6 JN: _ `4° c-e 1k/1 / `I _ l AGENDA REPORT !-7 CITY OF MOORPARK TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Developmen* Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner . ST DATE: November 21, 1995 (CC Meeting of 12-6-95) SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES PROJECT (APPLICANT: BOLLINGER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) Background The Draft EIR for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project was distributed for public review on August 23, 1995, and the review period closed on October 9, 1995 . A Planning Commission public hearing for the Draft EIR was held on September 25, 1995, and was continued to and closed on October 9, 1995 . Components of the Final EIR were reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meetings on October 30 and November 13, 1995, and on November 13, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (see Attachment 1) . The Commission did express continued concern regarding traffic on Walnut Canyon and Grimes Canyon Roads . The initial Planning Commission staff report is attached (see Attachment 2) , and provides background information on the project, environmental issues, and alternatives. The Project analyzed in the Final EIR is the original development proposal, filed with the City in 1994 . On October 9, 1995, the applicant submitted a revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map consistent with Alternative 5, as described in Chapter 20 of the Final EIR and the attached staff report. Alternative 5 achieves the applicant's objectives for a two golf course, 216 unit residential development, and would result in reduced environmental impacts, in comparison to the original Project submittal. The re-submittal of the revised Project, which would result in reduced impacts, is consistent with the objectives of CEQA. The initial Planning Commission public hearing for the Project entitlements is tentatively scheduled for a special meeting on December 19, 1995. Staff has scheduled City Council consideration of the Final EIR, in advance of the first Project public hearing before the Planning Commission, due to the Agreement between the City and Bollinger Development Corporation for the Preparation of an EIR for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project, which requires a certification decision by December 20, 1995. Honorable City Council November 21, 1995 Page 2 Discussion The draft Final EIR has been distributed to the City Council under separate cover, and includes the responses to comments received on the Draft EIR. In addition, draft responses to comments were provided to all agencies, organizations, and individuals that commented on the Draft EIR, a minimum of ten days prior to the December 6 City Council meeting, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . As identified in the transmittal memorandum for the Draft Final EIR, several pages in Chapters 20 and 22 were either left out or were incorrect. Revised errata sheets for Chapters 20 and 22 are attached to this report (see Attachment 3) . CEQA requires that the Final EIR consist of the Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft; a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR; comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR; and the responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. In the draft Final EIR that has been provided to the City Council, revised text sections are identified by italic type font in Volume I . Since there are only five revised pages in Volume II, Appendices, staff has included those revised pages in Attachment 3 to this report versus redistributing the entire Volume II to the City Council. The other required comments and responses related components of the Final EIR are contained in Chapter 22 . A Topical Response section is provided at the beginning of Chapter 22 (see also Attachment 3 for revised pages) . The topical responses provide more detailed explanation for frequently made comments on the Draft EIR. Each of the topical concerns that are addressed were raised either at the Planning Commission public hearings or in written comments received on the Draft EIR document, and include issues raised by the members of the Planning Commission. The draft Topical Responses Section references the Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis Report that has been prepared by Ralph Andersen and Associates under contract to the City. A copy of that draft report has also been provided to the City Council under separate cover and will be discussed further at the time of the Project public hearings . It is staff's opinion that the draft Final EIR fully addresses the impacts of the Project, and staff supports certification that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. No public hearing is required for the certification decision. Section 15202 of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies that CEQA does not require formal public hearings at any stage of the environmental review process . Honorable City Council November 21, 1995 Page 3 City Council adoption of a resolution, certifying the Final EIR as adequate and prepared in compliance with CEQA, does not indicate or require Council approval of the Project. If any modifications to the Final EIR are required after certification, an addendum, supplement, or subsequent EIR would be prepared. A mitigation monitoring program, EIR findings, and statement of overriding considerations would need to be adopted if the City Council's determination is that the Project should be approved. The required sequence is that the mitigation monitoring program, EIR findings, and statement of overriding considerations would need to be adopted (typically by resolution) prior to any approval action for the Project. Recommendation Adopt a resolution certifying: 1. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of Moorpark as lead agency; 2 . The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's CEQA Procedures; and 3 . The City Council received and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making any approval decision for the Project. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution 2 . Planning Commission Staff Report 3. Revised draft Final EIR pages (Errata Sheets) 4 . Draft City Council Resolution ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. PC-95-313 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS ADEQUATE, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, FOR MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES PROJECT (GPA-94-1, ZC-94-1, VTR-4928, PM-94-1, - RPD-94-1, CUP-94-1) WHEREAS, applications have been filed by the Bollinger Development Corporation for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project, consisting of General Plan Amendment No. 94-1, Zone Change No. 94-1, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 4928, Residential Planned Development (RPD) Permit No. 94-1, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 94-1, and Parcel Map No. 94-1, for a 655-acre site located approximately 2,700 feet south of Broadway , with frontage on both Walnut Canyon Road (State Route 23) to the east and Grimes Canyon Road to the west (Assessor Parcel Nos: 500-240-075, 500-230-065, 500-230-125, 500-230-015, 500-230-135, 500-230-095, 500-230-115, 500-230-075, 500-260-015, 500-250-115, 500-220-075, 500-430-015, 500-430-025, 500-430-035, 500-430-045, 500-430-055, 500-430-065, 500-430-075, 500-430-085, 500-430-095, 500-440-015, 500-440-025, 500-440-035, 500-440-045, 500-440-055, 500-440-065, 500-440-075, 500-440-085, 500-440-095, 500-440-105, 500-440-115, 500-440-125, 500-440-135, 500-440-145, 500-440-155, 500-440-165, 500-440-175, 500-440-185; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project (SCH No. 94081075) provides an environmental assessment of the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, public notice of the availability and distribution of the Draft EIR was provided in compliance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on September 25, 1995, and a continued public hearing on October 9 , 1995, the Planning Commission received public testimony regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing for the Draft EIR at its meeting of October 9, 1995, and reached its decision to recommend certification of the Final EIR at its meeting on November 13, 1995; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Resolution No. PC-95- 313 Page 2 SECTION 1. A Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the State of • California) . The Planning Commission has received and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and has found that this document adequately addresses the environmental effects of the proposed project. SECTION 2 . The Planning Commission recommends that the City • Council certify the Final EIR for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED t 's 13.a day of November , 1995 . 1PP ,/,___..., Erman, Planning Commission ATTEST: /7 ( (2 /-e'rt, --,c_ze- , Celia La Fleur Secretary ATTACHMENT 2 aPpK C4�a ` 4 a ••^p MOORPciRK 41110r�q 9799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 y n HD PJ CITY OF MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION A. HEARING DATE: B. HEARING TIME: September 25, 1995 7:00 p.m. C. HEARING LOCATION: D. PROJECT NAME AND CASE NOS. : Moorpark City Hall Moorpark Country Club Estates City Council Chambers GPA-94-1, ZC-94-1 799 Moorpark Avenue VTT Map 4928, PM-94-1 Moorpark, CA 93021 RPD-94-1, CUP-94-1 E. STAFF CONTACT: F. APPLICANT: Deborah Traffenstedt Bollinger Development Corp. Senior Planner G. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 500-240-075, 500-230-065, 500-230-125, 500-230-015, 500-230-135, 500-230-095, 500-230-115, 500-230-075, 500-260-015, 500-250-115, 500-220-075, 500-430-015, 500-430-025, 500-430-035, 500-430-045, 500-430-055, 500-430-065, 500-430-075, 500-430-085, 500-430-095, 500-440-015, 500-440-025, 500-440-035, 500-440-045, 500-440-055, 500-440-065, 500-440-075, 500-440-085, 500-440-095, 500-440-105, 500-440-115, 500-440-125, 500-440-135, 500-440-145, 500-440-155, 500-440-165, 500-440-175, 500-440-185 H. PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING: The City's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) procedures (City Council Resolution No. 92-872) require that a Planning Commission public hearing be scheduled for consideration of public comments on a Draft EIR during the public review period. The intent of the public hearing is to provide for direct communication between reviewers and the Lead Agency (City) and to provide an opportunity for members of the public to learn the concerns of other people testifying about the potential environmental impacts of the project. PAUL W LAWRASON JR BERNARDO M.PEREZ PATRICK HUNTER SCO I I MONTGOMERY JOHN E.WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember The Planning Commission September 19 , 1995 Page 2 The public review period for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project Draft EIR began on August 23, 1995, and will end on October 9, 1995. Verbal comments given at the Planning Commission public hearing, from the Commissioners and the public, will be responded to in the Final EIR. In addition, all written comments received by October 9 , 1995, will be responded to in the Final EIR. The written responses will describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the Draft EIR or may be a separate section in the Final EIR. The Planning Commission public hearing(s) for the requested Project entitlements (General Plan amendment, zone change, vesting tentative tract map, parcel map, residential planned development peLmit, and conditional use peimit) will be scheduled and advertised following the initial public hearing for the Draft EIR. The staff recommendation (refer to Section VI of this report) is that the first Planning Commission public hearing for the Project entitlements be scheduled for October 30, 1995 . I. PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION AND SUMMARY DESCRIPTION: Location The Project site is located in the northern portion of the City, totals 655 acres, and has frontage on both Walnut Canyon Road (State Route 23) to the east and Grimes Canyon Road to the west. The Project site northerly boundary is also the northerly boundary for the City limits and is approximately 2 ,700 feet south of Broadway. A location map from the Draft EIR is attached (Attachment 1) . Summary Description 223 subdivided lots 216 single-family dwelling units 2 18-hole golf courses and related facilities including driving range and clubhouse with pro-shop, restaurant, bar, and snack-bar Public trails, park and equestrian staging area A summary of requested Project entitlements is provided below. A more detailed discussion of the proposed Moorpark Country Club Estates Project will be provided in a subsequent staff report to the Planning Commission for the scheduled public hearing for the various Project entitlement components . The Planning Commission September 19 , 1995 Page 3 General Plan Amendment 94-1 The applicant has requested a General Plan amendment of the Project site land use designation. The existing land use designation is Rural Low - 1 Dwelling Unit (DU) /5 Acres . The proposed land use designation is Rural High 1 DU/Acre (residential density is calculated based on 216 du's to be clustered onto 616 .9 net acres = . 35 DU/acre) . The Land Use Element identifies that residential uses in an area with a Rural High designation are characterized by rural large estate lots or clustered single family homes, with significant permanent open space area, consistent with the constraints of the land. Zone Change 94-1 The existing zoning is Rural Exclusive (RE) - 5 Acres; the proposed zoning is RPD-.35 DU/Acre. The intent is that an easement will be recorded for the golf course/open space areas precluding residential development. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No . 4928 The entire Project site totaling approximately 655 acres is proposed to be subdivided into 223 lots . A new local collector roadway (shown as "C" Street) is proposed to be constructed along the ridge system defining the northern portion of the property. This local collector roadway is proposed to be constructed in Phase 1 of the development and would link Walnut Canyon and Grimes Canyon Roads. Parcel Map No. 94-1 A parcel map is proposed for financing purposes and would create four lots . The intent is that the parcel map would be recorded first. The Vesting Tract Map would then further subdivide the property. Residential Planned Development Permit 94-1 The Project proposal is for 216 single-family units to be constructed as custom homes on the higher elevation portions of the Project site. The residential design concept for the Project is that the development of custom homes would be controlled by standards to be specified in design guidelines that would be adopted in conjunction with the RPD Permit and incorporated into the Project Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&R's) . The RPD Permit will also specify the landscaping requirements- for the common areas that would be maintained by a future homeowners ' The Planning Commission September 19 , 1995 Page 4 association. As a component of the RPD Pe/mit application and Vesting Tract Map, the applicant has proposed a public park with an equestrian staging area and associated trails . Conditional Use Permit 94-1 A Conditional Use Permit has been requested for two 18-hole golf courses and related facilities . The applicant's proposal is that one golf course be municipal and would include a small combined clubhouse and shop area. The other golf course is intended to be privately owned, but open for public play. The golf course proposed for private ownership includes a driving range; a clubhouse with a restaurant, bar, pro-shop, and snack bar; and golf cart storage and maintenance buildings . The CUP will need to specify operating hours for all facilities. The applicant has requested dawn to dusk operating hours; however, this is not specific for operation of the dining and bar facilities as well as operation of the driving range. (Some driving ranges typically have lighting installed for the driving range so as to allow operation after dark in the winter. ) J. APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE AND PROCESSING TIME LIMITS: The Project application was deemed complete on June 29 , 1994 . Due to an amendment of the Project after the original application completeness determination, the applicant and City Council jointly agreed to extend the date for a certification decision on the Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to December 20, 1995 . Section 65950 . 1 of the Government Code requires that the City must approve or disapprove the development project within 90 days after certification of the EIR. A revised Vesting Tentative Map was filed on August 31, 1995, and a new 30-day review period for application completeness began on that date. The revised Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with Draft EIR Alternative 5 (Refer to Project Environmental Impacts and Alternatives Discussion, following in this report) . SECTION II - PROJECT SITE BACKGROUND A. SITE ZONING: RE (Rural Exclusive) 5 Acre B. SITE GENERAL PLAN: Rural Low (RL) 1 Dwelling Unit (DU) /5 Acre The Planning Commission September 19 , 1995 Page 5 C. VICINITY ZONING: North: County Agricultural Exclusive (AE) 40 Acres and Open Space (OS) South: RE 5 Acre East: Grimes Canyon Road/County AE 40 Acres West: Walnut Canyon Road/RE-5 Acre and Rural Agricultural (RA) 10 Acre D. VICINITY GENERAL PLAN: North: County Agricultural and Open Space South: RL 1 DU/5 Acres East: County Agricultural West: M and AG-1 (Agricultural 10-40 acres/du) E. EXISTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Land Uses North: Citrus orchard/agriculture South: Vacant/grazing land East: Vacant/very low density residential West: Orchard/mixed agriculture Buildings and Structures (approximate distances from project site) North: At varied locations, approximately 100 feet to 2,000 feet South: 2 residences, approximately 100 feet and 1 water tank, 100 feet East: 2 residences, approximately 100 feet and 800 feet West: 1 ranch complex, approximately 300 feet SECTION III - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DISCUSSION The Draft EIR Narrative Summary provides a brief overview of the conclusions presented in the EIR, and identifies each potential significant effect, along with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that effect. The Summary Table beginning on Page 3-1 is useful, because it provides a concise listing of all impacts, significance classification, proposed mitigation measures, and residual effects . The impact analysis in the Draft EIR is based on the Project development plans submitted by the applicant in early 1994, and deemed complete in June 1994 . As identified in the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would result in significant environmental- impacts, not all of which can be fully mitigated. To summarize, Project The Planning Commission September 19 , 1995 Page 6 environmental impacts with significant residual effects (not fully mitigated) are as follows : air quality (construction effects, and emissions in excess of 25-pounds-per-day ROC/NOx significance thresholds) , biological resources (cumulative loss of native habitat, plant communities, and effects on wildlife corridors) , and geologic hazards (landslides and slope stability) . In addition, the Project analyzed in the Draft EIR is inconsistent with the following General Plan Land Use Element Goals and Policies: Goal 5 : Develop new residential housing which is compatible with the character of existing individual neighborhoods and minimizes land use incompatibility. Policy 5 . 3: Landscaped and/or natural vegetation buffer areas shall be provided around and within residential projects to minimize land use conflicts and privacy impacts . Goal 11: Identify and encourage the preservation of viable agricultural resources in the City and its Area of Interest. Policy 11.2 : When new residential development is adjacent to existing agricultural uses, a 200-foot minimum width setback shall be provided to minimize compatibility conflicts . The Draft EIR identifies that the Project would not be consistent with the above identified goals and policies, unless there is the incorporation of a conservation easement/landscape buffer, as provided with Alternatives 4 and 5 (see following discussion) . SECTION IV - ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSION CEQA requires that an EIR present reasonable and feasible alternatives to a proposed project, including the "no project" alternative . The discussion of alternatives must focus on revisions to a proposed project that can either eliminate a significant effect or reduce the severity of an impact. The alternatives evaluated for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project are discussed in Chapter 20 of the Draft EIR. Attached is a revised Chapter 20 (Attachment 2) , which includes minor corrections to the numbering of alternatives . The alternatives analyzed are as follows: The Planning Commission September 19 , 1995 Page 7 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 2 : Golf Course and 5 Acre Home Sites Alternative 3: 5 Acre Estate Homes and No Golf Course Alternative 4 : Rural Neighborhood Plan Alternative 5: Revised Project Design Alternative 6 : Alternative Locations Since the Draft EIR provides a very thorough discussion of the alternatives evaluated, staff 's intent in this report is to focus on the identified Environmentally Superior Alternatives. As required by CEQA, in cases where the No Project Alternative is identified as the alternative which is environmentally superior to the project as proposed, at least one other alternative must be identified that, at least in part, achieves the applicant's objectives, while still attaining, to some degree, environmental preservation and enhancement. In the case of the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project, the applicant's basic objectives are to receive approval for 216 residential units and two golf courses with related facilities . The EIR identifies two environmentally superior build alternatives, one of which would fully achieve the applicant's objectives. The environmental consultant worked with the applicant and the applicant's engineer to redesign the project to respond to concerns expressed by the City Council and Planning Commission at a January 25, 1995, workshop. Attachment 2, Pages 20-12 and 13 summarizes the consultant's redesign recommendations to reduce grading quantities, reduce ridgeline modifications and be more consistent with the City's Hillside Ordinance, improve compatibility with existing residential development and agricultural uses, incorporate improved urban design features for the rural neighborhoods, and improve golf course routing (minimize grading, traffic circulation conflicts and adverse aesthetic effects) . A revised project was conceived to respond to the identified environmental and urban design concerns, and is identified as Alternative 5 and illustrated in Figure 20-3. Modifications are summarized on Pages 20-18 and 20-19 . Alternative 4, a Rural Neighborhood Plan, was developed by the environmental consultant to further reduce significant impacts, and yet still achieve residential objectives. A. ALTERNATIVE 4 - RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: An alternative was studied that would not involve the construction of any golf courses , but would allow for the requested residential density (i.e. , 216 dwelling units) or higher residential density. The design objectives for this alternative were to conceive a variation of the Project that would: 1) potentially increase the applicant's residential development objectives; 2) provide for preservation of substantial native habitat areas; 3) reduce The Planning Commission September 19 , 1995 Page 8 environmental effects; 4) minimize grading; 5) eliminate the need for some infrastructure extensions ; 6) preserve substantial open space; and 7 ) provide recreation-oriented housing opportunities . The basic design strategies for this alternative involve the creation of three residential neighborhoods, organized around a series of intervening open space buffers that provide for preservation of rare plant habitats and natural open space. A recreational area could be provided within the central neighborhood, to enhance the quality of life and value of the residential properties. The area primarily devoted to golf courses in the proposed Project would be left largely intact as open space with this alternative. Refer to Attachment 2, Pages 20-13 and 20- 14, for more detailed discussion of design strategies . The Rural Neighborhood Plan is environmentally superior to the Project and Alternative 5 (Revised Project Design) . An all residential development alternative, however, would not meet the applicant's objectives, and would require further design and impact analysis if preferred by the City. The environmental consultant has recommended that the precise density for the Rural Neighborhood Alternative should be determined based on a fiscal analysis, to allow sufficient residential density, if needed to offset infrastructure extension costs . Most on-site environmental effects would be reduced with this alternative; however, population dependent effects (such as traffic circulation, school system effects, and demands for municipal services) would exceed the impacts of the Project and Alternative 5, if residential density is increased. Following is a summary of the environmental effects for the Rural Neighborhood Plan (refer to Attachment 2 for more detailed discussion) . Grading impacts would be very substantially reduced. Mass grading would be limited to "spot" grading to create three distinct, but related, neighborhoods . The extensive fill required to create the golf courses would not need to be undertaken; therefore, the degree of landform cutting to create fill would also be minimized. This design would conform more closely to the grading standards contained in the City's Hillside Management ordinance. Construction-related air quality impacts would be substantially reduced, and the deletion of the golf courses would reduce trips and thereby also result in reduced air quality impacts through decreased emissions. The Planning Commission September 19 , 1995 Page 9 • The potential for impacts to surface water quality related to golf course operations would be eliminated. • The need for on-site detention (drainage and flood control) would be reduced. • With the very substantial reduction in grading, extensive stands of rare habitat could be preserved. This habitat could be retained in sufficiently large expanses that the associated wildlife and ecosystems would continue to exist rather than be eliminated. • This alternative would improve the ambient noise environment for the proposed homes within the project boundary, because fewer homes would be directly exposed to the major collector street ( "C" Street) , larger lot sizes would permit changes in building orientation to minimize exposure to traffic noises, and open space buffering between neighborhoods would decrease noise problems which result from increased concentration of population. The proposed setbacks from the existing residential neighborhoods surrounding the Project site would also decrease nuisance noise for existing residents . • An increase in population and the addition of native habitat areas between residential neighborhoods could increase fire risks . • Growth inducement could be exacerbated. In addition, the current unfavorable jobs:housing ratio for Moorpark would be further imbalanced (i.e, golf courses and related facilities result in employment opportunities) . • Improved internal circulation would result in less exposure of residents to high volume traffic. With the deletion of the trips associated with two golf courses, it is likely that even an increase in residential density would still result in an overall reduction in trips . Permitting a higher density residential project would result in increased demands on school facilities, libraries, and the need for enhanced emergency services, fire protection, and police services . However, the elimination of the municipal golf course operation from the project would offset some of this increased demand for emergency and police services . • The Rural Neighborhood Plan would be superior to the Project and the Revised Project Design Alternative (Alternative 5) , since modifications to ridgelines and mass grading would be minimized. In addition, each neighborhood cluster could be oriented to different components of the housing market. The Planning Commission September 19 , 1995 Page 10 B. ALTERNATIVE 5 - REVISED PROJECT DESIGN: As identified previously in this staff report, on August 31, 1995, the applicant submitted a revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map, which is consistent with Draft EIR Alternative 5, an environmentally superior alternative, that fully meets the applicant's basic objectives (refer to Attachment 2 , Pages 20-17 to 20-23) . This alternative would not result in a reduction of golf courses or residential units . Following is a summary of the more substantive reductions in environmental effects (refer to Attachment 2 for a more detailed discussion) . Impacts associated with mass grading, landfolla modification, slope stability, and all types of soil disturbance are reduced. Grading would be reduced from approximately 10 . 8 million cubic yards with the original Project to approximately 9 .5 million cubic yards with the Revised Project. There are existing landslides on the project site, and the redesigned project would reduce slope stabilization requirements in residential areas and reduce the potential for seismically- induced slope failures . Due to improved planning for on-site retention and the addition of a larger number of more widely distributed water features for the golf courses (which serve as filters for turf chemicals) , impacts to surface water quality would be diminished with this alternative. There would be a modest improvement in the preservation of on- site native vegetation due to the provision of an open space buffer around the project perimeter, that would allow for a transition zone. Increased setbacks from the existing residential neighborhoods, adjacent to the site, would decrease nuisance noise for residents . The layout of the Revised Project would allow for more coordinated and improved fuel modification zone planning for fire protection purposes . With the original Project proposal, neighboring property owners had been concerned that they would be forced to undertake expensive weed abatement on their properties, due to the lack of adequate setbacks for proposed new residential lots. The Revised Project provides additional setbacks, which would need to be guaranteed through an easement on the Vesting Tentative Map and a condition of approval for the RPD PeLmit. The Planning Commission September 19 , 1995 Page 11 • The internal street system has been redesigned and is preferred, because there would be less exposure of residents to high-volume traffic . • The Revised Project provides greater setbacks from high voltage transmission lines . • The Revised Project provides improved aesthetics and community design, including a better streetscape and street layout; larger lots, which improve quality of life and provide enhanced private recreational areas within individual lots; greater privacy through location of residences in relation to the street; and diminished impacts to the community viewshed, through preservation of ridgelines around most of the Project site. • The revised project allows for conformity with the General Plan Land Use Element agricultural setback policy (i.e. , residential units would be located a minimum of 200 feet from agricultural zoned properties to the north) and land use compatibility/buffer policies . SECTION V - CONCLUSIONS The proposed Project analyzed in the Draft EIR would result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated, including inconsistency with General Plan setback and buffer policies . The Draft EIR analyzes alternatives to the proposed Project that would avoid or minimize significant, adverse, environmental effects . The Draft EIR also includes discussion of land use and planning considerations that pertain to the feasibility of five acre and larger lot residential development within the City. The environmental consultant's conclusion is that the City's requirements for the provision of urban services, including sewer hookups and water supply infrastructure extension, have made the development of five acre and larger residential subdivision developments not economically feasible. Also, partitioning of the entire property into five acre parcels would increase grading requirements, would not preserve natural habitat or open space, and would not provide the City with a golf course recreation amenity. Alternative 4 , the Rural Neighborhood Plan, is a clustered residential development concept that would reduce environmental impacts , but would not meet the applicant's golf course objectives . As presently conceived, no viable alternative has been developed that would involve a single golf course and the requested number of residential units . If a single golf course and residential project The Planning Commission September 19 , 1995 Page 12 is deteimined to be preferred, substantial modifications would need to be made to the conceptual plan illustrated in the Draft EIR (Alternative 2) to reduce impacts . Suggested modifications include the provision of more open space/natural habitat protection and the creation of two or three compact, distinct, open space partitioned rural neighborhoods (as described for the Rural Neighborhood Plan) . Alternative 5 is environmentally superior to the original Project proposal, and fully meets the applicant's objectives . The applicant has submitted a revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map that is consistent with Alternative 5; therefore, the staff report for the entitlement public hearings will be based on an analysis of the Revised Project Design. Staff is proposing that a joint City Council/Planning Commission field trip to the Project site be scheduled. The City Council will be considering the scheduling of a field trip at the Council's September 20th meeting. The field trip would be scheduled as a special meeting, with the public invited to attend. Staff will inform the Planning Commission of the Council's decision regarding the field trip at the Commission's September 25 meeting. Staff is recommending that the first Planning Commission public hearing for the requested entitlements should be scheduled for Monday, October 30, 1995 . SECTION VI - REQUESTED ACTION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony on the Draft EIR; and 2 . Review and consider the information in the Draft EIR, and identify any Planning Commission comments/concerns to be addressed in the Final EIR; and 3 . Close the public hearing on the Draft EIR; and 4 . Direct that the draft Final EIR be prepared following the close of the public review period on October 9 , 1995, and that a subsequent Planning Commission meeting be scheduled for the purposes of providing the City Council with a certification recommendation; and The Planning Commission September 19 , 1995 Page 13 5 . Direct staff to schedule a Planning Commission special meeting to allow for a field trip to the Project site, on the date selected by the City Council, and to schedule a public hearing for October 30, 1995, for consideration of the Revised Project entitlements (General Plan amendment, zone change, vesting tentative tract map, parcel map, residential planned development permit, and conditional use peimit) . Prepared by: Approved by: Deborah S . Traffenstedt Alme R. Aguilera Senior Planner Director of Community Development Attachments : Attachment 1 - Draft EIR Location and Vicinity Map Attachment 2 - Revised Draft EIR Chapter 20 , Alternatives I ` �/ Favnewl Broadw yliprid ,3.1 �M .� �`EBworth ., + ^y ,-r..+, f o \\ / — "" i N ao.o 8, ..28 �' 30 -d '29 H2) : / ( „Bl, dei • 99? .I H6 869 O,F Tlnk1 90c _ ( ,�, - _ • ?y..a. t- ,ney�l_ , l " A BM 856 ° c - i ...!A.4' M e5y ! - ,9 Y •Fy 1 !1vRese,.o, \ / 'V e H , - \ 1 � _y ' / im -r n sa ° �'- 'I •I - � 7. c - / o I i �. -ass. , -'l Jr -,--,-,, � F_' I �' � l /_ - r � i� 1 ,� " :\ _ . '; � 3(1 903 , �' - • .In \ fRescrumr_ ^' \ - _ I - - - _� - :------.1 -. - ill, 401-7,!,.,,71 \_ n.„„ 61. fi 4 f-, ' $eI .'oO 7,•a L4ps AnogIes Aven - L - ' 6aS1 /� !4 t1r i L 11 ' J C 1 1, s _wexz C`- 0. , __,1� / -/.)ir 1 `idea 1• \ �. l\\ f , r-ri r,_. 3 ' ;,l . lek 14 •` _ - ' 4h�v .. /_� It,/ �\ 1 _ 'L' �i s / 17 !, t Ikk � •' •t '� _- _ �”=•=• - �' '7 ~ (' _ 4 5• = lJ ,1,_!...:. .:,,..„--_:-.:‘...--,6,, ( ( R7' - , Vtrgmta.7 k . - r-;�`'1_ - - -^.� H sh 4ch. r.��x,�" F Colony ---' - a j - - 6 3� ) _ 5 - c1,r I IlitiAl 3 ,\ - GFS`�—9M a9- '.`. - . : H• (`) - _r,,- , \; ��/ r e.i :r..=� 1:m ,nark L� ,OM1) ' ( _�' .1J /- ol" i ) SOUT"c; oet I I. �l[1 , litR �L_ 7 't - *s ,i `ate - • I eM _ i•' I: �r—if` - OXY -- - _ - ,t $` 1( nm„ I'll 1: .'. ' im i•wr• Ie — _ 71,,! \� / soH Vii' -7 j -11 s �9 Avenri .,e et")r,.l�! ' ,�n� n = (1 il[ 4t `r. 1. _- ---'1.-:,..j-', Ik I` f ."-'- " A "7y `' - PROJECT LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP . wens, j L I T IT L E ".$ I M IC.-_.':5"--• II �-._.._..- '•!'�° LEGEND IN]OM '.p.U,ID) I Project Site Boundary MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES FIGURE r� Environmental Impact Report 4-1 n. r�,.�.1 2000 City of Moorpark Ulm • Project Descrrptwn 4 24 1 . I CHAPTER 20 ALTERNATIVES The California Environmental Quality Act requires that an EIR present reasonable and feasible alternatives to a proposed project, including the "no project" alternative. The purpose of the following discussion is to ascertain whether an "environmentally superior" alternative to the proposed project can be conceived. Section 15126(d) of CEQA Guidelines recommends that the discussion of alternatives should focus on revisions to a proposed project that can either eliminate a significant effect or reduce the severity of an impact. The alternatives evaluated for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project included the following options: Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 2: 1 Golf Course and 5 Acre Home Sites Alternative 3: 5 Acre Estate Homes and No Golf Course Alternative 4: Rural Neighborhood Plan Alternative 5: Revised Project Design Alternative 6: Alternative Locations Conclusion and Recommendations: A Comparison of Alternatives 20.1 Legal Background An EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, or to its location, that could feasibly attain the project's basic objectives. The document must include an evaluation of the comparative merits of each alternative (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126, subd.(d), section 21100, subd.(d).) The discussion must focus on alternatives capable of either eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if such alternatives would be costly or to some degree would impede the project's objectives (Guidelines, section 15126, subd.(d)(3).) If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that the project itself would cause, the adverse effects of alternatives must be discussed, but in less detail than is required for impacts caused by the project(Guidelines, section 15126, subd (d)(4) ) Recent court cases have clarified that the discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive and the requirement to discuss alternatives is subject to the test of reasonableness The statute does not demand what is not realistically possible given the limitation of time, energy, and funds (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Committee v. Board of Trustees). In Village Laguna of Laguna Beach v. Board of Supervisors, the court noted that "there are literally thousands of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project...the key issue is whether the selection and discussion of alternatives fosters informed decision-making and informed public participation. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative." (Guidelines, section 15126, subd (d)(5) ) - Alternatives 20-1 Although the analysis of the impacts of developing the proposed project at an alternative site need not be as detailed as the analysis of the project as proposed, reasonable alternatives must be studied with a "sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information to allow them to intelligently take account of [the alternative's] environmental consequences." (San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino). One of the alternatives analyzed must be the so-called "No Project Alternative." It must"describe what condition or program preceded the project." (County of Inyo v City of Los Angeles). The No Project Alternative must summarize the environmental consequences of not permitting future development under the proposed Plan. This alternative must address a condition which results in no further development. In addition, the alternatives discussed in this document include the more realistic No Project option--that is, buildout under existing land use designations. If the No Project alternative is environmentally superior to all others, the EIR must also identify which of the other alternatives causes the least environmental damage. (Guidelines, section 15126, subd.(d)(2).) 20.2 Summary of Significant Project Specific and Cumulative Impacts The impacts associated with implementation of the Specific Plan and increasing the permitted residential density in the project area can be segmented into population dependent and non- population dependent impacts. Population dependent impacts include effects on transportation circulation, public and municipal services, air quality and noise. Non-population dependent impacts would occur regardless of proposed densities of types of land use; these effects include impacts to cultural resources, biological habitats, open space, community aesthetics and visual resources, geologic hazards, and hazardous materials related problems. The emphasis in the analysis to follow is on describing alternatives that can reduce population dependent impacts to acceptable levels while providing for a greater degree of environmental preservation within the project boundary. The potentially significant impacts of the project have been discussed in detail in the individual chapters in the EIR and a summary table has been provided in Chapter 2 of the document which links each significant impact and the mitigation measures required to offset these impacts to acceptable levels For the purposes of comparing the impacts of the alternatives to follow and the project, the primary effects to be considered include. (1) Geologic and Seismic Hazards (2) Air Quality Impacts (3) Groundwater Supplies and Surface Water Quality (4) Drainage, Hydrology, and Flood Control (5) Biological Resources (6) Noise (7) Fire Hazards (8) Population, Housing and Jobs.Housing Balance (9) Transportation and Circulation (10) Public Services and Private Utilities - (11) Aesthetics, Visual Resources, Community Design issues Alternatives 2:-2 • In comparing and analyzing each of the following alternatives, fiscal constraints, environmental resources, known significant effects arising from the proposed project configuration, and design constraints implicit in various land use designations were all taken into account in deriving two alternatives that are superior to the project as proposed. 20.3 Alternative 1: No Project The "No Project" alternative which must be analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is defined for this EIR to include two options: (1) an alternative which results in no amendments to the existing plan designations (no new parcel maps and related entitlements) which would prohibit further development on the property and, a more reasonable outcome, (2) buildout under existing General Plan and Zoning designations. To describe the impacts of buildout under the second option, the consultants estimated full residential buildout potential within the property boundary. The environmental consequences of these alternatives are described briefly in the following summary. No Project Alternative 1: No Amendment to Existing Parcels and No Future Development on the Property The assumption that no development at all will occur within the project boundary is an unlikely outcome. An existing approved five acre subdivision occupies the western portion of the project area at this time and once infrastructure is extended northward along Grimes Canyon Road, these parcels would likely be developed in short order. The primary constraint on the development of this existing subdivision is simply the high cost of completing infrastructure extensions; as developments to the south of the Moorpark County Club Estates Project are implemented and as annexations to the south are incorporated into the City and provided with urban services, the costs of infrastructure development for the Moorpark County Club Estates property will diminish accordingly . In the case of the proposed project, the No Project Alternative is not equivalent to a no development option with the entire property retained in open space (current conditions). Eventually, the existing parcels in the western portion of the property will develop with residential uses As infrastructure problems are solved, undoubtedly parcelization of the remainder of the property would occur consistent with or possibly more intense than the present land use designations Therefore, even with the No Project Alternative, a minimum level of development consistent with existing General Plan and Zoning designations is likely to occur. The No Project Alternative would not result in long term preservation of environmental resources and scenic values within the property. While superior to the project as proposed in the short term, this alternative does not provide planned or dedicated open space and would not, ultimately, serve to preserve the important attributes of the environment in the project boundary nor would this alternative result in a rural neighborhood design that would represent a livable community. No Project Alternative 2: Buildout to Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations Under existing land use designations, the proposed project could be developed with about 131 homes. The likely distribution of such homes would be in five acre parcels which would occupy most of the land within the property boundary Selected parcels would probably exceed the five acre minimum As discussed in section 20.5 below (Alternative 3. Five Acre Homes and No Golf Courses), the partitioning of the entire property into five acre parcels is not recommended for a variety of reasons (inordinately large number of streets would be required; little if any environmental preservation of contiguous open space; very costly infrastructure- extension requirements, more extensive flood control and drainage infrastructure would be installed, water consumption would exceed the proposed project, etc.) Alternatives 20-3 As discussed in the Land Use and Planning Considerations chapter of the EIR (Chapter 5 pages 5-1 through 5-6), such a designation is over represented in the city's inventory of planned designations while clustered, rural neighborhood designations are under represented Furthermore, from environmental management, resource conservation, social organization, and infrastructure extension standpoints, rural neighborhood creation and clustering of neighborhoods within the environment provides a more livable community plan than five acre estate ranchette types of housing products. Therefore, under the No Project Alternative that assumes entitlements would eventually be obtained to buildout the property to existing General Plan designations, potential environmental effects would be equivalent to Alternative 3 described below in section 20 4 Because a more resource conserving land use plan can be developed for the property if the General Plan designations were modified to permit clustered rural neighborhood development, the No Project Alternative, while possibly somewhat environmentally superior to the project as proposed, would not result in environmental preservation or enhancement of the basic resource values within the project boundary; further, the existing land use designations would commit a developer to a design that encourages environmental impacts and prevents the creation of clustered rural neighborhoods. From the standpoint of community design, such an alternative is not preferred. 20.4 Alternative 2: One Golf Course and Five Acre Residential Subdivision In the event that the City declines to participate in the development of a municipal golf course with the applicant, it appeared prudent to evaluate the impacts of the proposed project under the assumption that only one private golf course would be developed As in the case of the No Project Alternative, there are basically two options Planning Concepts for a Single Golf Course Project The basic design concept for a project that would involve a single golf course is illustrated in schematic form in Figure 20-1. This alternative would involve a proposal to develop the property with 216 residential units and a single golf course which would be situated in the eastern half of the property within the area presently designated in the site plan for a municipal course Basically, the urban design form would be nearly identical to the project as proposed with several exceptions The basic design attributes of this alternative would involve (1) retention of the eastern neighborhood along the main project collector (C Street) in a linear format with homes facing the street; (2) several larger parcels would be created along the eastern perimeter of the property to buffer existing rural residential estates along the east and west sides of Walnut Canyon; (3) the western neighborhood (west of Gabbert Canyon) would remain largely as designed with the exception that an addition bridge and roadway system would be conceived to provide access to the larger five acre parcels that would be created between the two smaller lot residential neighborhoods to the east and west; (4) the northern extension of the western neighborhood would be retained-- (note that this neighborhood has been deleted in the applicant supporfed environmentally superior alternative below [section 20 7])--resulting in unmodified ridgeline effects along the property's northern perimeter Alternatives 20-4 goi ?-71:.,..I I P YA a 1, Air kj:. '411 Kra • - 4F01 ....... ., mph $- \ ♦♦ • Soh • mos ,. .' ' ,.: '-'5:'.:.--',-:iv,l',1. ''','';',, --•11., .':." ..V.:i'.;.741: . '''''' illallax iti. M 4 i 11 at W4 :111: 10 , 111r011 R-1,:i IIII *it 411" ilge NAM OM WM NEM SCE EASEMENT Alternative 2: One Golf Course and Five Acre Residential Estates • 1__ -► e ♦ _ - _- MOORPARK ESTATES EIR FIGURE CITY OF MOORPARK 20-1 Alternatives 20-5 1 (5) larger lot subdivision would occur in the central portion of the development and a more extensive road and infrastructure system would need to be installed to support this more dispersed settlement pattern; and (6) residential areas would be placed in close proximity to the existing high voltage transmission lines crossing the property. While one might assume that two golf courses will result in more grading than a single counsa, given the use of five acre parcels within this proposal (in accord with the existing General Plan Designation), a significant reduction in grading would not necessarily be achieved. Environmental Effects of the Revised Alternative The potential changes in environmental effects associated with this alternative are summarized briefly in the following discussion The principal site design changes associated with this alternative include: o a much more extensive collector road system would need to be developed to accommodate the more dispersed pattern of the residences; o far more infrastructure needs to be installed to provide the basic vvater, sewer, and reclaimed water service planned for the project; o the drainage system and related structures would be more complex and more expensive to purchase and install; o more open space modifications would occur since under this alternative all open space would be committed either to the golf course or would be enclosed within private parcels--conversion of native habitat within these parcels would a very likely outcome, o grading quantities would be more difficult to balance and the elevation of the golf course in relation to the homes would be more topographically separated than with the project as proposed or with the alternatives discussed in section 20.6 Geologic and Seismic Hazards Impacts associated with mass grading, landform modifioetion, slope stabi|ity, and all types of soil disturbance typical of mass graded projects would all be equal to or greater than the project as proposed since the actual surface area to be graded would increase and a much more extensive road system would be required Slope stabilization requirements would be increased in several residential areas that were not subject to remediation under the project design as proposed; while the golf course still would be situated in areas characterized by the most unstable n|opee, expensive remediation would potentially be required in the northern extension of the western neighborhood (adjacent to Gabbert Canyon) and in other locations. All impacts associated with proposed mass grading will be equal to or significantly increased with this alternative. The potential for seismically induced slope failures also would be increased with this alternative. Potential downstream hydraulic and debris transport impacts would be correspondingly increased Air Quality Impacts Operational impacts associated with the project would be somewhat reduced with this alternative because one less golf course would be planned However, construction related impacts would be substantially increased compared to the proposed project. These reductions would occur to PM10 values as well as to all ozone precursors The duration of construction, particularly the air quality disruptive grading period, would be increased since site specific contour grading would be required to develop access and building sites on individual five acre parcels within the center of the project. Groundwater Supplies and Surface Water Quality Due to expanded acreage within individual residential lots, water consumption would predictably increase. Since these lots would not be served by reclaimed water supplies, this alternative would be more consumptive of domestic water supplies. Typically, five acre estate homes include extensive landscaping, outbuildings, second units, and often orchards. Water consumption would certainly increase compared to the project as proposed. Planning for on-site retention and surface water quality control would require the addition of a larger number of more widely distributed water features. If properly managed, impacts to surface water quality from the golf course would be diminished with this alternative, however, the use of herbicides, pesticides, and other materials ori 'hobby farms', orchards, and turf within individual estate home sites would increase. Based on the relative lack of control over the use of such chemicals in home settings, overall, this alternative would result in more intensive surface water quality effects. Impacts related to groundwater supplies, groundwater extraction, and long term water supply planning would be equivalent to or exceed the impacts of the project as proposed However, due to the greater compactness of the golf course route and the reduction in grading area, some minor reduction in reclaimed water demand may result from adoption of this alternative as the project. Drainage, Hydrology, and Flood Control Major changes in infrastructure planning would be necessary to implement this design Most of these changes would result from the more dispersed nature of the development, the need to link each lot with roads, sewerlines, waterlines, stormwater control devices, and related infrastructure (utilities, etc.). The drainage planning for the project would be more complex and expensive to install. Increased retention basin sizing would also be required The impacts of this alternative would exceed the project as proposed regarding all aspects of water management and drainage. Biological Resources Although the proposed project has not incorporated effective plans for retention of open space or the use of native vegetation communities as a component of neighborhood design, this alternative would actually represent a less desirable option than the project as proposed from the standpoint of biological resources The project and the improved alternative discussed below in section 20.7 both would result in more habitat preservation than this alternative Typically, in five acre ranchette developments, all native vegetation is ultimately converted to other uses (open turf areas, outbuildings, second units, landscaping, animal enclosures, etc). Under this alternative, the expectation would be that all of the native vegetation within the property would be-converted and no dedicated open space would be preserved Alternatives 20-7 ` . Noise This alternative would not result in a significant departure from the anticipated noise impacts of the pject as proposed Huvvever, because fewer proposed homes within the project boundary would be directly exposed to the major collector street passing through the deva|opment, this design would probably result in an improved ambient noise environment for most homeowners. Larger lot sizes would permit changes in building orientation and site planning that can minimize the exposure of bedrooms to the street. The proposed size of the lots would also decrease nuisance noise for existing residents. The noise impacts of the alternative would probably be less significant than the impacts anticipated under the prject as proposed. Fire Hazards While the increase in population that would result from this alternative may increase fire risks maqJina||y, essentially this alternative will result in very similar fire risks characteristic of the project as proposed With the addition of native habitat buffers between residential neighborhnoda, there would be an increase in wi|d|and-residential interface that could, if ' improperly menaged, somewhat increase fire potential. Hovvever, balancing these increased risks would be the likely outcome that virtually all native vegetation would be removed from the site thereby reducing fire potential. Population, Housing and Jobs:Housing Balance The impacts of the project and the alternative are not significantly different than the project for issues related to housing rnarketm, population gnowth, and job formation potential. Transportation and Circulation The alternative will result in a far more complex and difficult to maintain internal circulation system, more potential for pedestrian and bicycle oncidonts, more exposure of children and young adults to high volume traffic(due to improved neighborhood design), greater street privacy for some potential reoidenta, and a streetscape design that will probably more resemble typical suburban tracts Since a reduction is proposed in the number of golf courses, the off-site impacts of the project on the surrounding street system (road capacity and intersection impacts) would decrease slightly over what is anticipated for the project. However, given the tendency for second unit construction and the use of day laborer agricultural workers and domestic help in estate ranchette settings, the basic trip generation for the individual residential units within the project would increase. Public Services and Private Utilities Since no changes are proposed in the number of residential units and only one golf course (rather than two) are proposed to be constructed under both opbono, impacts of the project and the alternatives on public services and private utilities would remain very similar. These impacts are typically population dependent and the basic population to be situated in the property would be similar for both undertakings The proposed project, however, provides greater setbacks from high voltage transmission lines While there appears to be no significant risk ofexpoSuna from the dispersion of electromagnetic impulses along the utility corridor, increased setbacks appears to be a prudent course of action . . Aesthetics, Visual ResourcesCommunity Design From the standpoint of community design and project layout in relation to environmental oonotrainta, this alternative is not recommended The highly dispersed nature of the development is not conducive to the preservation of hillside values Unnecessarily lengths of street (and related infrastructure) will need to be construction and two rather than one bridge over the Gabbert Canyon drainage will be required Rather than preserving any open space to serve as greenbelts between neighborhoods, the entire internal view shed of the project will be developed with rural and urban uses The potential land use conflicts between the more compact neighborhood areas along the project collector street (in the eastern and western portions of the project) and the more dispersed five acre parcels in the center of the project would create land use incompatibilities that would, undoubtod|y, be reflected in the marketability of the five acre estate homes As planned (and the proposed layout is predicated on grading requirements necessary for the single golf course), the more expensive homes would be located in the least desirable portion of the development within view of the utility lines crossing the property For these and other reosons, this alternative is not considered an improvement in community planning compared to the project as proposed or other alternatives. In summary, this alternative increases impacts in most categories of significant environmental effect and in several other categories the alternative and the proposed project will result in comparable effects. From the standpoint of urban form, hillside protection, community planning, environmental protection and streetscape design, this alternative is inferior to the project as proposed. Theraforw, adoption of this alternative is not recommended. While this alternative basically addresses many of the development goals set forth by the applicant, if an alternative is to be developed with a single golf course, the entire layout should be revised and the five acre lots should either be deleted or consolidated into more compact neighborhoods. 20.5 Alternative 3: Five Acre Estate Homes and No Golf Course Many of the same critiques of the prior alternative apply as well to this option. Hovvevar, this alternative is not recommended for serious consideration for the following reasons (1) Grading quantities would be significantly increased As displayed in Figure 20-2, a schematic representation of a typical five acre |ayout, virtually the entire property would be subject to grading which would be equal to the proposed project in severity. All of the basic mass grading required for the project would likewise be required for this alternative the northern ridges would need to be lowered to fill the valley system to the south; an additional ridgeline road would need to be constructed along the southern property ridge--an area not graded in the project as propooad, more extensive grading would be require as well to adjust landforms to provide relatively large building envelopes within each five acre parcel (2) Road and infrastructure development would be too extensive As illustrated in the project schematic for this a|tornadve, a much more extensive road and infrastructure system would need to be developed to implement this design than is required for the project as proposed or for either of the environmentally superior options presented in section 20 7 ',wow Oila*,•ORMO4wim wOfillPv Zwhp.. .s•Ti SOli tok.ogior 41c) 41116,041110 silk •****# MIK _.... % Illi 1 Alternative 3: Five Acre Estates Without a Golf Course f MOORPARK ESTATES EIR FIGURE 1........... T CITY OF MOORPARK 20-2 To accomplish this project, nearly three times the amount of road development would need to be completed and all related necessary infrastructure would also need to be installed within the more elaborate road system The costs of the infrastructure installation for this alternative would likely preclude development feasibility (3) Hillside Management Ordinance concerns and ridgeline modifications- Compared to all of the other alternatives considered, this option results in the most substantial impact to ridgelines, hillside terrain, native vegetation, and drainage features. The highly dispersed nature of the site plan prevents the concentration of residential land into neighborhoods surrounded by open space; despite the larger lot size and decreased home to home proximity, the ultimate experience for residents will be one of a more crowded and less spacious environment than the project as proposed (or other alternatives). Given the unique shape of the topography within the property, the design objective of placing homes outside of major ridgeline views can be accomplished only if rural residential neighborhoods are created in relatively compact areas. Cross valley noise would also decrease the potential quality of life for individuals residing in a development built to this site plan. With this alternative, homes would undoubtedly be built, or would be proposed to be built, on the entire perimeter of the development. Since other design options exist which preserve dominant ridgelines, further serious consideration of this alternative would be counterproductive In addition to the three basic design and development problems outlined above, this alternative would result in the virtual elimination of all native habitats, placement of homes within and immediately adjacent to the high voltage transmission line corridor on the property, increased noise, light and glare, internal traffic circulation problems, and related environmental degradation In summary, without the benefit of category by category impact comparison, it is obvious that this alternative substantially increases impacts in most categories of significant environmental effect compared to the proposed project and other alternatives. This option is basically flawed from the standpoint of land planning and rural neighborhood design. The distribution of five acre parcels over the entire property (to meet either existing or proposed land use densities) is not recommended. From the standpoint of urban form, hillside protection, community planning, environmental protection and streetscape design, this alternative is inferior to all other options. Therefore, adoption of this alternative is not recommended This alternative also does not address any of the development goals set forth by the applicant. An option involving residential development only has been conceived and recommended in Alternative 5 (Alternative Project Design) If a residential-only development option is to be considered for this property, the five acre standard is not recommended 20.6 Alternative 4: Rural Neighborhood Plan [An Environmentally Superior Alternative] As required by CEQA, in cases where the No Project alternative is identified as the alternative which is superior to the project as proposed, at least one other alternative must be identified that, at least in part, achieves the applicant's objectives while still attaining, at least to some degree, environmental preservation and enhancement. In the case of the Moorpark Country Club Estates project, taking into account the impacts and constraints identified in the review of planning concerns and significant environmental effects presented in the beginning of this chapter, two Alternatives 20-11 alternatives have been recommended for consideration which, in the consultants judgment, are both environmentally superior to the project as proposed The first alternative, The second opdion, a revised project with two golf courses, was developed in close consultation with the applicant Planning Concepts Guiding Redesign Recommendations In considering what specific features in the project should be modified or redesigned to achieve better environmental preservation and improved urban design, the consultants identified the following significant problems in the layout of the project as proposed (1) Reduction in Grading Quantities: The grading quantities proposed in the project (more than 10 million cubic yards) were identified as excessive; by modifying the project layout through the preservation of additional ridgeline areas around the project perimeter, a significant reduction in grading could be achieved. Construction related air quality impacts could be reduced if grading modifications could be achieved; further, aesthetic impacts would be lessened if ridgeline grading and landform cutting could be replanned. (2) Reduction in RidgelineModifioati;na: To better achieve consistency with the City's recently approved Hillside Management Ordinance and to reduce or eliminate design inconsistency with policies in the City's General Plan governing the preservation of ridgelines, the consultants proposed the creation of a perimeter open space buffer around the nndhern, eaotern, and southern perimeter of the project. Given the topography of the property along the western perimeter (along Grimes Canyon Road), preservation of the ridge system without modification in this area cannot be achieved without virtually eliminating the proposed "western neighborhood" along Grimes Canyon. Further, the vicinity of the western ridgeline has already been subdivided into five acre parcels which are distributed over this ridge system. Also, this ridgeline is only visible from the Grimes Canyon view corridor and cannot be seen from the remainder of the City. (3) Improved Compatibility With Existing Developments. Another consideration in recommending design modifications for this project was the potential inconsistency of the applicant proposed design with land uses in around the eastern perimeter of the property. This area contains five, ten, and twenty acre parcels which have been developed into rural estates which are decidedly 'non-urban': these parcels have been built out with relatively large homes which are non-contiguous. The proposed project as originally conceived would have introduced high density affordable housing and ridgeline homes, distinct urban types of land uses, into an area that is decidedly rural which lacks the density and proximity of residential use characteristic of the project as proposed To prevent these incompatibilities and to avoid ridgeline diorupUona, the consultant proposed redesign of the project to provide a substantial setback from the existing ridgeline around the eastern perimeter of the project where the existing rural neighborhood is situated. The higher density housing planned for the immediate vicinity of this neighborhood was also deleted from the revised project. With the incorporation of these redesign recomnrnendadnna, aesthetic and visual resource impacts were reduced, noise, night lighting intruniono, and other proximity related impacts which could adversely effect quality of life in the adjacent rural neighborhood were reduced, and, the incompatible housing type and density proposed in the eastern portion of the project was eliminated (4) Incorporate Improved Urban Design Features for the Rural Neighborhoods. Three essential urban design modifications were required to improve the design of the project: first, the street design and streetscape plan needed to be revised to accommodate a more rural neighborhood aesthetic; second, the average size of the lots in the development as proposed are less than an acre--for rural neighborhoods, when average lot size is increased to approximately an acre, the aesthetics and quality of life within the neighborhood are substantially improved Such neighborhoods are also better distinguished from more traditional subdivisions--a redesign feature that actually enhances value for both the applicant and future home purchasers; larger lot sizes also support variability in the presentation of homes to the street which further enhances both aesthetics and value. Finally, the layout of the homes as proposed did not maximize exposure to the proposed golf courses The pattern of homes in the proposed project was also excessively linear with nearly all homes in the proposed eastern neighborhood aligned rather uniformly along the street. (5) Golf Course Routing Plan Modifications: The routing plan set forth in the proposed project requires excessive grading. The placement of Hole 12 of the municipal course north of the main collector street would result in significant traffic operation problems (golf carts would need to cross the main collector street in the development); further, this routing requires placing homes along the northern ridgeline perimeter; an alternative routing could be conceived that places fairways below or along the northern ridgelines rather than homes The revision in the project design and routing plan made in response to this concern significantly reduced grading quantities, air quality impacts, potential traffic circulation problems, and adverse aesthetic effects A Rural Neighborhood Plan Since there is no certainty that the City will participate in the development of a municipal golf course at this location as requested by the applicant, an alternative was conceived that would not involve the construction of any golf courses Since the golf course development is an essential part of a comprehensive financial plan to reduce infrastructure extension costs for this property, in order to minimize these extension costs, an alternative can be conceived that would permit the development of the full complement of residential lots requested by the applicant while reducing infrastructure costs. The design objectives for this alternative were to conceive a variation of the project as proposed that would (1) increase the applicant's residential development objectives over requested entitlements, (2) provide for preservation of substantial rare habitat, (3) reduce environmental effects, (4) minimize grading, (5) eliminate the need for some infrastructure extensions, (6) preserve substantial open space, and (7) provide recreation oriented housing opportunities Design Strategy The basic design strategy for this alternative would involve the creation of three -residential neighborhoods within the project boundary These three neighborhoods would be organized around a series of intervening open space buffers where rare plant habitats and open space Alternatives 20-13 would be preserved. A centrarecreational center would be situated in the central neighborhood near the Gabbert Canyon drainage The area primarily devoted to golf courses in the proposed project would be left largely intact as open space In addition, the following design features would characterize this alternative (1) The existing eastern neighborhood would remain essentially as presently designed except that the development would be situated, to the degree feaoib|e, on approximately the existing grade--mass grading would be minimized The neighborhood would be tiered to follow the gradually descending contours of the main collector road planned across the project. This design would partition the eastern neighborhood into a series of tiered sub neighborhoods, cul-de-sacs would be placed along southerly trending ridges that extend out into the open space planned for golf courses in the present design. Exceptional views of the valley systems to the south would be retained and developed as a natural amenity for the property. The water system for the project would need to be redesigned to provide adequate water pressure for this alternative neighborhood design, the redesign may require coordinated water planning with properties to the east where higher elevation landforms are situated (2) The two golf courses would be eliminated and replaced with open space; as in the previously described a|ternntive, homes would be constructed along landforms extending out into this open space The elimination of the golf courses would eliminate the need for reclaimed water extensions The trail system presently planned along the ridge defining the southern perimeter of the development would be redesigned to pass through the valley system where the proposed golf courses were to be located (3) The western neighborhood would be retained essentially as proposed without modification from the layout provided in the revised environmentally superior alternative described above (4) To assist in offsetting water and sewer infrastructure extension ooste, the number of residential units permitted for the property would be inureased, these additional residences would be situated in a central neighborhood which would extend along landforms adjacent to Gabbert Canyon (on the eastern terraces above the drainage) (5) The area illustrated as clubhouse and driving range in the site plan would be developed as a central recreational feature for the development. Recreational features could include tennis courts, a swimming pool, driving range and putting greens, and other amenities (6) Portions of the central neighborhood would be developed with some higher density, more affordable housing stock. Environmental Effects of the Revised Alternative The precise increases in density that would be permitted over what currently the applicant has requested would require fiscal analysis The basic objective of permitting the increase in density over the applicant's requested density would be to enable the development within the property to carry the costs of necessary infrastructure extensions Despite the density increase that this alternative would generate, most on-site environmental effects would be reduced Population dependent effects (impacts related to population size such as traffic circulation, school system effects, demands for municipal services, etc ) would exceed the impacts of the project or the previously described alternative A brief review of the potential impacts of this alternative are provided in the following discussion Geologic and Seismic Hazards The grading impacts of this alternative would be very substantially reduced compared to the project as proposed Mass grading would be limited to "spot" grading to create three distinct but related neighborhoods. Contour grading would be used, to the extent feasible, with the neighborhoods to create landform undulation and visual interest. The extensive fill program required to create the golf courses would not need to be undertaken and therefore the degree of landform cutting overall would be minimized. This design would conform more closely to the grading standards contained in the City's Hillside Management ordinance All related geologic effects including exposure to or undercutting of unstable slopes, requirements for slope remediation, exposure to active or potentially active landslides, and related hazards and risks would be significantly reduced Air Quality Impacts Since the proposed grading for this alternative would not entail extensive mass grading, the short term construction related impacts of the project would be substantially reduced Permitting increased density to offset infrastructure extension requirements would in turn potentially increase operational emissions However, with the deletion of the trips associated with two golf courses (estimated at 50,000 rounds per year), it is likely that even with a substantial increase in residential density, this alternative would result in overall reductions to air quality impacts. Groundwater Supplies and Surface Water Quality The use of reclaimed water would not be necessary and therefore this water source could be reserved for use at another location Impacts to groundwater supplies would slightly increase overall since this alternative contemplates increased residential density and a larger population. Impacts to surface water quality related to golf course operations would be eliminated entirely Drainage, Hydrology, and Flood Control The amount of on-site detention would be significantly reduced and the flood control planning requirements for the project would be simplified Since reductions would occur in the acreage of disturbance and the recontouring of the land would be minimized, flood control planning would be simplified and the costs associated with flood hazard remediation and drainage planning (and improvements) would be reduced Biological Resources From the standpoint of environmental resource preservation, this alternative is considerably superior to the project as proposed and superior as well to the previously considered alternative With the very substantial reduction in grading which would occur with this alternative, extensive stands of rare habitat on the property could be maintained This habitat could be retained in Alternatives 20-15 . . sufficiently large expanses that the associated wildlife and ecosystems would continue to exist rather than be eliminated. Noise The noise impacts of this alternative and the previously described alternative would be comparable As in the prior case, this alternative will improve the ambient noise environment for the proposed homes within the project boundary because fewer homes will be directly exposed to the major collector street passing through the development. Larger lot sizes will permit changes in building orientation and site planning that can minimize the exposure of bedrooms to the street. The proposed setbacks from the existing residential neighborhoods on the eastern and western perimeters of the project will decrease nuisance noise for existing residents. In addidon, the design of the project with eubstantio| open space buffering between neighborhoods provides increased insulation between residential neighborhoods and decreased concentration of population with the attendant noise problems which coexist with proximity Fire Hazards While the increase in population that would result from this alternative may increase fire risks nnmrginaUy, essentially this alternative will result in very similar fire risks characteristic of the project as proposed With the addition of native habitat buffers between residential neighborho$ds, there would be an increase in wildland-residential interface that could, if improperly managed, somewhat increase fire risks Population, Housing and Jobs.Housing Balance The impacts of the pjectondthion|ternativevvou|dbesignificant|ydiffarentforissueare|atedtu housing nnarkets, population growth, and job formation potential With increases in population associated with a higher density residential pnoject, related impacts described in the E|R concerning growth inducement would become exacerbated In addiUon, the current unfavorable jobs:housing ratio characteristic of Moorpark would be further imbalanced Transportation and Circulation As in the case of the prior alternative, this option will also result in improved internal circulation, less potential for pedestrian and bicycle accidents, less exposure of children and young adults to high volume traffic (due to improved neighborhood design), greater street privacy for potential renidantu, an improved streetscape design (which will encourage slower travel speeds along the major collector linking Walnut Canyon and Gabbert Canyon), and an improved project entrance Permitting increased density to offset infrastructure extension requirements would in turn potentially increase traffic volumes Hmwaver, with the deletion of the trips associated with two golf courses (estimated at 50.000 rounds per yeur), it is likely that even with a substantial increase in residential densih/, this alternative would result in overall reductions to impacts at local intersections. Alternatives 20-16 Public Services and Private Utilities Impacts on public services and utility providers would not, with the exception of effects on the local school system, be more severe with this alternative. Increasing the diversity of housing types provided and permitting a higher density residential project would result in increased demands on school facilities, libraries, and the need for enhance emergency services, fire suppression, and police services. However, at least some of these effects would be offset by the elimination of the municipal golf course operation from the project. Aesthetics, Visual Resources, Community Design From the standpoint of these concerns, the proposed project would be superior to the project as proposed or to the prior alternative since modifications to ridgelines would be minimized, contour rather than substantial mass grading would be used to implement the site plan, and greater diversity in housing types and neighborhood planning could occur with this alternative. In addition, each neighborhood cluster could be oriented to different components of the present housing market. The provision of a central recreational area for all three neighborhoods and very substantial open space would enhance the quality of life and value of the properties included in each neighborhood In summary, from the standpoint of community planning and environmental design, this alternative is superior to the project as proposed. This alternative also represents an improvement in environmental preservation compared to the previously described alternative which includes mass grading for two golf courses. Without golf course development on this property, an increase in density may be warranted to assist in funding required infrastructure extensions. However, even with this increase in density, an alternative has been conceived which accomplishes greater environmental preservation than the project as proposed or the previously described design alternative. 20.7 Alternative 5: The Revised Project Alternative This alternative does not involve either a reduction in the number of proposed golf courses or elimination of any proposed housing. The design objective for this alternative was to conceive a variation of the project as proposed that would meet the applicant's objectives while reducing environmental effects and improving the proposed urban design. As described in the following section, this alternative was developed with the cooperation of the applicant's engineer. This alternative is acceptable to the applicant and may with applicant consent be substituted for the project design originally submitted to the City for consideration Alternatives 20-17 . Applicant Response to Recommended Design Changes and Environmental Enhancement Modifications In response to these omnoerno, the consultant and applicant's engineer met to discuss how best to redesign the project in response to the foregoing critique As a resu|t, a revised project was conceived that responds to each of the environmental and urban design concerns which were outlined as potentially significant problems The redesign effort resulted in the following modifications to the project: (1) the average lot size was increased from less than 3/4 of an acre to approximately 1 acre to improve the project's aesthetics and to reduce land use conflicts with adjacent properties; (2) the northern extension of the western neighborhood was eliminated to prevent grading and landform modification along the northern perimeter of the development; (3) an open space buffer was incorporated into the design around the northern, eastern, and southern portions of the property; (4) the golf courses were redesigned to achieve greater compactness, to reduce intrusions into preserved open space, to reduce grading and air quality impaota, and tb prevent potential traffic-pedestrian/golf cart conflicts, (5) the golf course lake system was redesigned to provide an improved surface drainage design (so surface water is directed, to the maximum extent haaaib|a, into water features) which assists in reducing the potential for surface water impacts to downstream areas from golf course chemicals, (6) additional retention capacity was provided to further reduce any potential hydrology impacts within the Gabbert Canyon drainage; (7) the water system for the project was designed to conform with Water District No 1 master plans for storage reservoir capacity; (8) the layout of houses within the eastern neighborhood was changed substantially to break up the linearity of the original design and to provide more exposure of the neighborhood to the golf course fairway areas, (9) the golf course clubhouse was relocated and redesigned to achieve more compactness and to reorient elevations to prominent fairway exposure, (10) larger acreage lots (approximately 5 acres) were planned around the perimeters of the project to provide additional buffers between the proposed project and surrounding rural neighborhoods, (11) all higher density housing which would have intruded on the quality of life of surrounding rural neighborhoods was eliminated, and ' — (12) the applicant has agreed to revise the street sections and streetscape for the project to include a parkway design, to provide reduced width street sections (on nu|'da-maon), and to provide a coordinated boulevard street tree planting program on the project collector (C GtreaU linking Walnut Canyon and Gabbert Canyon The proposed layout for the revised project is illustrated in Figure 20-3 and the anticipated grading impacts of this layout have been mapped and illustrated in Figure 20-4. Comparing the grading impacts predicted for the proposed project (Figure 6-1) and the revised project, it is evident that a very substantial reduction in grading has been achieved. Environmental Effects of the Revised Alternative The potential reductions in environmental effects associated with this alternative are summarized briefly in the following discussion. If this Alternative is ultimately to be adopted by the decision- makers instead of the project as propooed, some additional expanded discussion and documentation of the impacts of the Alternative would be prudent prior to certification of the Final BR. In accord with the determinations made in recent case'law (e.g., Laurel Heights II), these additions and modifications to this chapter can be made without recirculation of the Draft EIR. Geologic and Seismic Hazards Impacts associated with mass grading, landform modificaUon, slope stobi|ih/, and all types of soil disturbance typical of mass graded projects would all be reduced if this alternative is adopted as the proposed project. Slope stabilization requirements would be reduced in several residential areas that were to be remediated under the project design as proposed. All impacts associated with proposed mass grading will be significantly reduced with this alternative The potential for seismically induced slope failures also would be diminished with the proposed design revision alternative Potential downstream hydraulic and debris transport impacts would be correspondingly reduced Air Quality Impacts Operational impacts associated with the project would not be significantly reduced with this alternative since the same number of residential lots and golf courses are planned. Huvvever, construction related impacts would be substantially reduced compared to the proposed project. These reductions would occur to PM10 values as well as to all ozone precursors. The duration of construction, particularly the air quality disruptive grading period, would be reduced. Groundwater Supplies and Surface Water Quality Due to improved planning for on-site retention and the addition of a larger number of more widely distributed water features (which serve as 'filters' for turf ohernion|s), impacts to surface water quality would be diminished with this alternative Impacts related to groundwater supp|iea, groundwater extraction, and long term water supply planning would be equivalent to the project as proposed Howovar, due to the greater compactness of the golf course route and the reduction in grading area, some minor reduction in reclaimed water demand may result from adoption of this alternative as the p 'eot. Alternatives 20-19 Y-- 13 4e, -mo — --a: cd h yI. ,— I �TJray J u5r '® 1-271 U4 c �ib `-'' '-.4.L",'''. 4 � t <.- ,71'-a.,- w __ 'f 1" I.. V f_____ _, ,„._, 1 ofic tV t a z ,sem �/ _ r s _ _,._,__.._..0...-„_, _,..7, € "',407• +. - , ,.30.67rea,{ 4 4' s At-9-- __ � 1,....:0,_.,„0--,v#:, 1,--..„,_-,--,-------2„---•--nhogs#,- -_,AtorziGS‘ ,. -t ! i. ice: l .-- ✓ _ r T.. � yia#-:..cr, -. " � -..¢ : }/.� .1`-P �.+ _ � � ". f ` �;'t��'�� i,.< - --t-,',._ �„ ,,,o, yy,��. —�'*"ti'xs d3 _-,Y It ,-,. 1 ! _ s*-ks+`f \ f ,-- --,--,-M-S,!-_,';-• -l'ri---... ,k-„--i-,7-41__IWAViratrw---::::',,,- 1► "'? F t, \_� • 7� I is ;wr..p� 6b`2. .� /I''�/' g.` r, ,ax�tfi¢ � a F 'r �•�. �;• "p mss” ar�e:ae. ,� s•,t• . -11_-77,..--.4.10;,.„.:3___ __,--1,___,:itv.s......1.,_,.... y''-.3irr •',a„ -d .ti .t,/ 7 l{1 • ' tic E' @ ' f a - -. i„ 7-4-1r..-.4,5; � ,. - - • . 1� °1 er r- :,=i.r , s ry; .,,�-.. r 5. (�;R .a , ® fes. s_ elf Vitt �.. � � � � ®_, >,, y 5 tyra _ F �C eY�s 'tt'� si,'i�`°�2� eWt " 11 ;''' !f w•etr* -. -�, T.. t r kil.= r - • ,,.r.. -- ..___.7, - _-—- 4:40 �L a y=�..-.,0,..--_,2i-__ _t_. y'. t_'.r frelf: •f+ q pr" y ,'^ ' ,- ti{",.Y�j� '1----.-%.,-- \'• y�ne� ir�kFsa 4:47'4:-.1,---41.-0;44-: � j :. ., i� ' ,- ^ifi -`V1 J� \ f' i�14 *"f ""�T',. ''- f aI. Aa41 5't01.r'Fi _, , / !• ,I.S'11^ ' �0 !t k 3'} � j'! !{/�,.-- �* • ', !} 1/ r ; � ra Yt�✓ll r 4+M^ ( l' , v•,;--"K -%.-i..,)tl \.. r� �� ALTERNATIVE 5: PREFERRED PROJECT DESIGN MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES FIGURE Environmental Impact Report 20-3 City of Moorpark • Alternatives 20-20 1 s t.--`. - - r 1' r- "F Oyu. i-r•rt _ .+f.� --r ..--r ,r.. �.. .vim i.,.�.rCp` '.`. �� ...• , '''''' '-'1-`' _i .j - :ate. \, l '� y' a`t;--Ix+.,A. . .47if A ialipi.s� ii O. 1 F9 ` • r .-_,•;'r-- ?- - :e.• 1.�,�j -"'�"s.I•- ,s- €``•¢- S/ - t,,"--ii r S1•:L 'mi i.Y4 j'i�-i�A�WrAiilBrPl�i%.. '\��r , ` s � tal,���; �.�_". �- - �. :=i. .s�i, r�•Y' .��'�- r .1c��i►'�l3%lV..(!�//j 1�� � .`._ i4 e" P a � ^e t f frtNil2,+ it R �/G,i6i?t /.�^al�:.rr']! i1V 74.7‘0V/.�1 �- - t '� r /�r r ,, '- -' (J! I ',rii� u::�(im r+i or i%:J ,, I�,+Sr, r`1r � #`- I 11ClgiV:A-so s r, i�.�yit r ��J�/ 'f% r�r1ii��i 1iQ�Zla�./•fS �A( l+��"<`. =r „. t i' -„..j, '%.n';i //// /sr'', =r w '.fdm' .A ,, ,4' /1iLl�.,l''.' "t'i,•!oa r,- }.: es t. r 41t.✓"t y/tr ' �'J'1'� ./ i r ll fir r v 1 „,e- 1.'♦ °\7 r�, '3,/7 N•d oaNN. _ ...r.:::-.11;t1,4 t :' � •v..'r� r 4 f� !Alf� ,--,.,..,,,;(..-4,. .�alOI % ti- Nevol As.A. .„�1�') •A `p;/ ip t:li_tek}- _>>y33's. _ . .+.mut; 'O' ew•v ^,!ty. ��..... �' '� /0 /'ti' „,....” ,,// a �/ )f, \8:” rIJ/' To��r h �A'`S• i5. i �• '•• � '� _� �, JJ�I�I 1 1� /( e�?7�1{rr ��s��s -'f r i�- 1 : �'_.t � 1 a �a+=�;a --!.0;-° - -w) / / i' f 1 /J/� r '-'77,-Vr,' ) ->f✓ Gr\llv�,A.,�a ,, : I.. .t' 7{l;_ 'g 'xz..<ls.iv.:7 (1f: ".��isw, .tr 1i //'. ..!•..,I.f.l�l ).VS 1,.� . 1 -�' .i_' l .e .-`41,,.. y' ,) aJ. 1 t`. •d, 4 v. . , tea s z. a' �c. ��►onyx► -v. _ .. t---, 4/ f' i :a�,, L(`-rgit:‘Q,,,,---_,_,..5.:,,‘:17'-�r,7 . (�I�.•a'" ,, l� $S�. �e �:=I.1•��,1`���1_,s , +. •. Il ��?�. �� �'ti� � ��, ���`.�/ .,!� � iii f..s';' rriows-d_i: ?fi: !I / �.�.,...- r•.- `•�� %i ,•-¢'.s,•.'. `,i1 t s`% h.. i/Ap-i,jr1 f aJ, t /•.- s 11 ♦ ,� s t ) . ���''p� = /��i�I'•+'rr�Ss � w.d � �. •��,...-r, It r 1G, is�,J�K a^-_.-� �:C �.'f�u1i x••40 stjN., N"^�,A ,,. - //... 1t J..:•V;!�/ly/ lI .r�ei ok_i.�,c,-..-, ,, _` •mac_ '+ - .4' €5 -sJ' C s'� `•tom - ' ._ es-.- ----,�r k��ii.�:1�®i��/-f'rsy:`.l�yl"/'.4 ��e 7/ `` �'f�',� • �v \�.:. t7 II r r !T S�..� /,,!, _maw3• e_ = .• 4�,t+� Il t,ovi Tijr ,•'\iv.P ! "l %�r>�ia-' -� ���" �� . //.L:= . . ` Drainage, Hydrology, and Flood Control While some minor changes will occur in drainage planning and flood control atruoturen, the project as proposed and the alternative will result in very similar types of impacts. Biological Resources Although the proposed project and alternative will result in very similar disturbances to the on-site vegetation communities within the property bnundary, the alternative will result in a modest improvement in the preservation of on-site habitat. The provision of an open space buffer around the project perimeter will provide for a transition zone of native habitat that will assure that at least some of the rare habitats on site will be preserved. The greater compactness of the golf course also will contribute to reducing the overall impacts of the project. With these exoepUona, the project and alternative will result in very similar impacts to native p|ents, hobitatu, and wildlife. Noise The proposed pjeotwi|| impnnvatheambientnoiaeanvivonmentfortheproposedhomaevvithin the project boundary because fewer homes will be directly exposed to the major collector street passing through the development. Larger lot sizes will permit changes in building orientation and site planning that can minimize the exposure of bedrooms to the street. The proposed setbacks from the existing residential neighborhoods on the eastern and western perimeters of the project will decrease nuisance noise for existing residents. With these exuepdona, the anticipated impacts of the pject and alternative are approximately the same Fire Hazards Fire hazards would be reduced with the alternative since lot sizes will be larger and greater separation will occur between residences in the project and between the project and surrounding neighborhoods The layout of the project as revised will also permit more coordinated and improved fuel modification zone planning The areas for fire hazard fuel maintenance can also be more conveniently serviced by the Homeowners Association given the larger average lot sizes Less intrusion will occur into native habitat surrounding the property. Population, Housing and Jobs.Housing Balance The impacts of the project and the alternative are not significantly different for issues related to housing morkete, population growth, and job formation potential. Transportation and Circulation The alternative will result in improved internal circulation, less potential for pedestrian and bicycle accidents, less exposure of children and young adults to high volume traffic (due to improved neighborhood denign), greater street privacy for potential residonts, an improved streetscape design (which will encourage slower travel speeds along the major collector linking Walnut Canyon and Gabbed Canyon), and an improved project entrance Since no reduction is proposed in the number of homes or golf coursae, the off-site impacts of the project on the surrounding street system (road capacity and intersection impacts) would remain equivalent for the project and alternative ` . Public Services and Private Utilities Since no changes are proposed in the number of residential units and two golf courses are proposed to be constructed under both opdons, impacts on public services and private utilities would remain virtually the same The revised project, however, provides greater setbacks from high voltage transmission lines. While there appears to be no significant risk of exposure from the dispersion of electromagnetic impulses along the utility corhdor, increased setbacks appears to be a prudent course of action Aesthetics, Visual Resources, Community Design The improvements to the project aesthetics and community design that have been incorporated into the alternative are very significant improvements over the project as proposed. These improvements include a better streetscape and street layout, larger lots which improve quality of life and provide enhance private recreational areas within individual lots; considerably improved lot relations to the proposed golf courses; greater privacy of residence in relation to the street; diminished impacts to the community viewshed and considerable preservation of ridgelines around most of the project. On the issue of design and oeothetioo, the alternative if far superior to the project as proposed In summary, this alternative reduces impacts in most categories of significant environmental effect and in several other categories the revised project and the alternative will result in comparable impacts. Therefore, from the standpoint of urban design, community planning, and environmental impact reduotion, the revised project is superior to the project as proposed. This alternative also basically addresses all of the development goals set forth by the applicant. Fiscal Considerations The proposed alternative does not significantly reduce or cause to be restructured the proposed fiscal arrangements between the City and the applicant which will need to be entered into to implement the project as proposed (one semi-private and one municipal golf course). If the applicant and City decline to come to terms on co-developing one of the golf courses, then the essential components of the revised project would still be environmentally superior to the project. Whether the golf courses are developed privately or as a public-private portnership, the environmental effects would be identical. Thnrefore, if the City declines to participate in the applicant proposed financing portnership, if a project is to be approved that involves two golf uouroes, the revised pnojeot, not the proposed pnojaut, should become the design that receives entitlements Since there is some question regarding future City participation in the development of a municipal golf course, and because it is possible that infrastructure development costs cannot be defrayed with the development of a single private golf course, another environmentally superior alternative was conceived. This npdon, unlike the preceding o|tornative, was not conceived with applicant participation Alternatives 20-23 ^ ' 20.8 Alternative Locations A number of alternative locations exist within the City of Moorpark which could feasibly support the type of land uses proposed for the Moorpark Country Club Estates project. in fact, at least one other large specific plan which is either in prepareUon, undergoing environmental ravievv, or in the public review process, includes a golf course proposal and a limited number of golf course honnes, as well as other types of residential properties. Therefone, the type of uses proposed for this project could be accomodated at a number of alternative locations within the City Consideration of alternative development sites would not solve the basic land use and environmental design problems associated with conceiving and implementing a project that would be suitable for the property described in this document. The Moorpark Country Club Estates Property has a number of significant constraints which require careful and thoughtful design. As discussed in previous chopters, these constraints can be addressed successfully through maintaining relatively small parcel uizeo, minimizing infrastructure deva|opment, and designing a project organized around rural neighborhood principals. The open space to be situated within and around these rural neighborhoods could be devoted either to golf course operations or be retained as either unmodified or partially modified open space. There are also a number of locations that would be suitable for development of a municipal golf course within the City or in immediately adjacent unincorporated areas which could potentially be annexed for this purpose. The proposed project site has the disadvantage of being relatively remote; nor is the Moorpark Country Club Estates project a location that would allow exposure of a public golf course to large traffic volumes along major travel routes within the City. Municipal golf course operations are often situated so they provide effective and meaningful open space buffers in areas of relatively dense development. The proposed location of a municipal course in a secluded setting outside of the more urbanized portions of the City would prevent meeting several of the environmental design objectives typically attributed to municipal courses in urban -.settings (separation of neighborhoods, open space prooan/obon, creation of greenbelts in urban settings) From the standpoint of alternative site p|anning, development of a municipal golf course in more urbanized portions of the City would be preferable to the location proposed by the applicant. There is no environmental rationale for considering a number of specific alternative locations for the project proposed by the applicant. The City is currently reviewing a number of mjor specific plans that could accomodate a municipal golf course and related golf course oriented housing In most respects, the impacts of the pject would be very similar if the proposed development were situated in any semi-mountainous area around the perimeter of the City currently under consideration as Specific Plans. Alternatives 20-24 20.9 Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the preceding analysis, it is evident that several alternatives can be derived that result in enhanced environmental preservation and improved community design compared to the proposal for the project originally developed and submitted by the applicant. One of these two environmentally superior alternatives has been developed cooperatively with the applicant and applicant's engineer (the revised project design). If the decision-makers are inclined to approve the project that includes two golf courses and the requested number of residential units, then the applicant should formally revise the project to conform with the revised project design presented in section 20.7 of this chapter. Nearly all of the mitigation measures conceived for the proposed project would be applicable to this revised project; however, if this alternative is to be adopted as the project, all conditions should be reviewed and limited additional discussion should be provided of the environmental effects of this alternative. This additional discussion can be included in the Final EIR Alternatives Analysis without requiring recirculation of the EIR. As presently conceived, no viable alternative has been developed for the project that would involve a single golf course and the requested number of residential units. If such a development would be acceptable to the decision-makers and the applicant, a project should be designed that (1) maintains a portion of the project in open space, (2) confines residential development to areas of low or non-existent geologic hazards, (3) provides for ridgeline preservation, (4) includes biological habitat preserves, and (5) minimizes infrastructure and road development and extension costs. To accomplish these objectives and comply with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance will require clustering of rural neighborhoods as recommended in the rural residential neighborhood plan alternative The optimal combination of attractive and well design rural residential neighborhoods, preservation of hillsides and habitat, and using open space to separate and buffer separate rural neighborhoods from one another cannot be accomplished under the present General Plan Designation for the property An alternative designation should be applied at the time of the next Land Use Element General Plan Update or alternatively the landowner should apply for a General Plan designation that will permit a less dispersed lot pattern than would be required with a five acre designation Recommendations Option 1. Revised Project Design An environmentally superior project that basically conforms with the applicant's objectives has been conceived and discussed in detail in this chapter This alternative should be substituted for the project as proposed if the decision-makers are inclined to approve a residential project with two golf courses Option 2: Residential Project with One Golf Course To approve a residential project with one golf course will necessitate very substantial redesign and additional planning, the alternative site configuration for a single golf course option suggested by the applicant is unacceptable. If a single golf course is to be approved, substantial modifications should be made in the conceptual plan illustrated in this chapter; these modifications should involve more open space protection and the creation of two or three compact, distinct, open space partitioned rural neighborhoods and a single golf course. Alternatives 20-25 Option 3: Higher Density Rural Residential Neighborhood Plan If the decision-makers are inclined to deny a project that involves golf courses, then a rural residential neighborhood plan should be considered for this property. Such a development could involve increasing the number and diversifying the type of permitted residential land uses to enable the creation of three compnct, dinhnct, rural residential neighborhoods that would be separated by open space buffers. The center of the neighborhood plan for this area should involve the development of common recreational amenities. Such a development can be conceived that conforms with the Hillside Management Ordinance and preserves all dominant ridgelines while still permitting an increase in density over existing General Plan designations Such an increase in residential density would be warranted to offset the extensive infrastructure development requirements for this property. Development under existing General Plan designations is not recommended since such an option would be environmentally more destructive than more compact land use alternatives. Alternatives 20-26 • s ATTACHMENT 3 Errata Sheet for the Moorpark County Club Estates Project Chapter 20 Errata Sheet In response to further analysis of the applicant's proposed grading plan and to address questions about redesign raised by the Planning Commission and the public, the following changes and amendments have been made to the Alternatives Analysis in Chapter 20. Changes are shown in Italic Type. 20.5 Alternative 3: Five Acre Estate Homes and No Golf Course Many of the same critiques of the prior alternative apply as well to this option. However, this alternative is not recommended for serious consideration for the following reasons: (1) Grading quantities would be significantly increased: As displayed in Figure 20-2, a schematic representation of a typical five acre layout, virtually the entire property would be subject to grading which would be equal to the proposed project in severity. All of the basic mass grading required for the project would likewise be required for this alternative: the northern ridges would need to be lowered to fill the valley system to the south; an additional ridgeline road would need to be constructed along the southern property ridge--an area not graded in the project as proposed; more extensive grading would be require as well to adjust landforms to provide relatively large building envelopes within each five acre parcel. (2) Road and infrastructure development would be too extensive: As illustrated in the project schematic for this alternative, a much more extensive road and infrastructure system would need to be developed to implement this design than is required for the project as proposed or for either of the environmentally superior options presented in section 20.7. To accomplish this project, nearly three times the amount of road development would need to be completed and all related necessary infrastructure would also need to be installed within the more elaborate road system. The costs of the infrastructure installation for this alternative would likely preclude development feasibility. (3) Hillside Management Ordinance concerns and ridgeline modifications: Compared to all of the other alternatives considered, this option results in the most substantial impact to ridgelines, hillside terrain, native vegetation, and drainage features. The highly dispersed nature of the site plan prevents the concentration of residential land into neighborhoods surrounded by open space; despite the larger lot size and decreased home to home proximity, the ultimate experience for residents will be one of a more crowded and less spacious environment than the project as proposed (or other alternatives). Given the unique shape of the topography within the property, the design objective of placing homes outside of major ridgeline views can be accomplished Errata for Moorpark County Club Estates Final EIR 1-1 only if rural residential neighborhoods are created in relatively compact areas. Cross valley noise would also decrease the potential quality of life for individuals residing in a development built to this site plan. With this alternative, homes would undoubtedly be built, or would be proposed to be built, on the entire perimeter of the development. Since other design options exist which preserve dominant ridgelines, further serious consideration of this alternative would be counterproductive. In addition to the three basic design and development problems outlined above, this alternative would result in the virtual elimination of all native habitats, placement of homes within and immediately adjacent to the high voltage transmission line corridor on the property, increased noise, light and glare, internal traffic circulation problems, and related environmental degradation. However, another version of this alternative could be conceived which would involve retaining a five acre estate designation density on the property but distributing the units to be developed into several clustered neighborhoods. This approach would represent a considerable improvement of grading quantities and environmental impacts anticipated if the five acre estate option were constructed as outlined above. The impacts of developing such a project are virtually identical to the Rural Neighborhood Plan impacts discussed in the following Alternative. In summary, without the benefit of category by category impact comparison, it is obvious that this alternative substantially increases impacts in most categories of significant environmental effect compared to the proposed project and other alternatives. This option is basically flawed from the standpoint of land planning and rural neighborhood design. The distribution of five acre parcels over the entire property (to meet either existing or proposed land use densities) is not recommended. From the standpoint of urban form, hillside protection, community planning, environmental protection and streetscape design, this alternative is inferior to all other options. Therefore, adoption of this alternative is not recommended. This alternative also does not address any of the development goals set forth by the applicant. An option involving residential development only has been conceived and recommended in Alternative 5 (Alternative Project Design). If a residential-only development option is to be considered for this property, the five acre standard, unless clustering is required, is not recommended. The physical impacts of a clustered neighborhood alternative are provided in the following discussion. 20.6 Alternative 4: Rural Neighborhood Plan [An Environmentally Superior Alternative] As required by CEQA, in cases where the No Project alternative is identified as the alternative which is superior to the project as proposed, at least one other alternative must be identified that, at least in part, achieves the applicant's objectives while still attaining, at least to some degree, environmental preservation and enhancement. In the case of the Moorpark Country Club Estates project, taking into account the impacts and constraints identified in the review of planning concerns and significant environmental effects presented in the beginning of this chapter, two alternatives have been recommended for consideration which, in the consultants judgment, are both environmentally superior to the project as proposed. The first alternative, . The second option, a revised project with two golf courses, was developed in close consultation with the applicant Planning Concepts Guiding Redesign Recommendations In considering what specific features in the project should be modified or redesigned to achieve better environmental preservation and improved urban design, the consultants identified the following significant problems in the layout of the project as proposed: Errata for Moorpark County Club Estates Final EIR 1-2 (1) Reduction in Grading Quantities: The grading quantities proposed in the project (more than 10 million cubic yards) were identified as excessive; by modifying the project layout through the preservation of additional ridgeline areas around the project perimetar, a significant reduction in grading could be achieved. Construction related air quality impacts could be reduced if grading modifications could be achieved; further, aesthetic impacts would be lessened if ridgeline grading and landform cutting could be replanned. (2) Reduction in RidgelineModificationo: To better achieve consistency with the City's recently approved Hillside Management Ordinance and to reduce or eliminate design inconsistency with policies in the City's General Plan governing the preservation of ridga|ines, the consultants proposed the creation of a perimeter open space buffer around the northenn, eomtarn, and southern perimeter of the project. Given the topography of the property along the western perimeter (along Grimes Canyon Road), preservation of the ridge system without modification in this area cannot be achieved without virtually eliminating the proposed "western neighborhood" along Grimes Canyon. Further, the vicinity of the western ridgeline has already been subdivided into five acre parcels which are distributed over this ridge system. Also, this ridgeline is only visible from the Grimes Canyon view corridor and cannot be seen from the remainder of the City (3) Improved Compatibility With Existing Developments: Another consideration in recommending design modifications for this project was the potential inconsistency of the applicant proposed design with land uses in around the eastern perimeter of the property. This area contains five, ten, and twenty acre parcels which have been developed into rural estates which are decidedly 'non-urbon', these parcels have been built out with relatively large homes which are non-contiguous. The proposed project as originally conceived would have introduced high density affordable housing and ridgeline homas, distinct urban types of land uses, into an area that is decidedly rural which lacks the density and proximity of residential use characteristic of the pject as proposed. To prevent these incompatibilities and to avoid ridgeline disrupUona, the consultant proposed redesign of the project to provide a substantial setback from the existing ridgeline around the eastern perimeter of the project where the existing rural neighborhood is situated. The higher density housing planned for the immediate vicinity of this neighborhood was also deleted from the revised project. With the incorporation of these redesign recommendations, aesthetic and visual resource impacts were reduced; noiee, night lighting intnuoionn, and other proximity related impacts which could adversely effect quality of life in the adjacent rural neighborhood were reduced; and. the incompatible housing type and density proposed in the eastern portion of the pject was eliminated. (4) Incorporate Improved Urban Design Features for the Rural Neighborhoods: Three essential urban design modifications were required to improve the design of the project: fiust, the street design and streetscape plan needed to be revised to accommodate a more rural neighborhood aesthetic; oaoond, the average size of the lots in the development as proposed are less than an acre--for rural Errata for Moorpark county club Estates Final EIR 1-3 neighborhoods, when average lot size is increased to approximately an acre, the aesthetics and quality of life within the neighborhood are substantially improved. Such neighborhoods are also better distinguished from more traditional subdivisions--a redesign feature that actually enhances value for both the applicant and future home purchasers; larger lot sizes also support variability in the presentation of homes to the street which further enhances both aesthetics and value. Finally, the layout of the homes as proposed did not maximize exposure to the proposed golf courses. The pattern of homes in the proposed project was also excessively linear with nearly all homes in the proposed eastern neighborhood aligned rather uniformly along the street. A Rural Neighborhood Plan Since there is no certainty that the City will participate in the development of a municipal golf course at this location as requested by the applicant, an alternative was conceived that would not involve the construction of any golf courses. Since the golf course development is an essential part of a comprehensive financial plan to reduce infrastructure extension costs for this property, in order to minimize these extension costs, an alternative can be conceived that would permit the development of the full complement of residential lots requested by the applicant while reducing infrastructure costs. The design objectives for this alternative were to conceive a variation of the project as proposed that would (1) increase the applicant's residential development objectives over requested entitlements, (2) provide for preservation of substantial rare habitat, (3) reduce environmental effects, (4) minimize grading, (5) eliminate the need for some infrastructure extensions, (6) preserve substantial open space, and (7) provide recreation oriented housing opportunities. Design Strategy The basic design strategy for this alternative would involve the creation of three residential neighborhoods within the project boundary. These three neighborhoods would be organized around a series of intervening open space buffers where rare plant habitats and open space would be preserved. A central recreational center would be situated in the central neighborhood near the Gabbert Canyon drainage. The area primarily devoted to golf courses in the proposed project would be left largely intact as open space. In addition, the following design features would characterize this alternative: (1) The existing eastern neighborhood would remain essentially as presently designed except that the development would be situated, to the degree feasible, on approximately the existing grade—mass grading would be minimized. The neighborhood would be tiered to follow the gradually descending contours of the main collector road planned across the project. This design would partition the eastern neighborhood into a series of tiered sub neighborhoods; cul-de-sacs would be placed along southerly trending ridges that extend out into the open space planned for golf courses in the present design. Exceptional views of the valley systems to the south would be retained and developed as a natural amenity for the property. The water system for the project would need to be redesigned to provide adequate water pressure for this alternative neighborhood design; the redesign may require coordinated water planning with properties to the east where higher elevation landforms are situated. Errata for Moorpark County Club Estates Final EIR 1-4 (2) The two golf courses would be eliminated and replaced with open space; as in the previously described alternative, homes would be constructed along landforms extending out into this open space. The elimination of the golf courses would eliminate the need for reclaimed water extensions. The trail system presently planned along the ridge defining the southern perimeter of the development would be redesigned to pass through the valley system where the proposed golf courses were to be located. (3) The western neighborhood would be retained essentially as proposed without modification from the layout provided in the revised environmentally superior alternative described above. (4) To assist in offsetting water and sewer infrastructure extension costs, the number of residential units permitted for the property would be increased; these additional residences would be situated in a central neighborhood which would extend along landforms adjacent to Gabbert Canyon (on the eastern terraces above the drainage). (5) The area illustrated as clubhouse and driving range in the site plan would be developed as a central recreational feature for the development. Recreational features could include tennis courts, a swimming pool, driving range and putting greens, and other amenities. (6) Portions of the central neighborhood would be developed with some higher density, more affordable housing stock. Environmental Effects of the Revised Alternative The precise increases in density that would be permitted over what currently the applicant has requested would require fiscal analysis. The basic objective of permitting the increase in density over the applicant's requested density would be to enable the development within the property to carry the costs of necessary infrastructure extensions. Despite the density increase that this alternative would generate, most on-site environmental effects would be reduced. Population dependent effects (impacts related to population size such as traffic circulation, school system effects, demands for municipal services, etc.) would exceed the impacts of the project or the previously described alternative. A brief review of the potential impacts of this alternative are provided in the following discussion Geologic and Seismic Hazards The grading impacts of this alternative would be very substantially reduced compared to the project as proposed. Mass grading would be limited to "spot" grading to create three distinct but related neighborhoods. Contour grading would be used, to the extent feasible, with the neighborhoods to create landform undulation and visual interest. The extensive fill program required to create the golf courses would not need to be undertaken and therefore the degree of landform cutting overall would be minimized. This design would conform more closely to the grading standards contained in the City's Hillside Management ordinance. All related geologic effects including exposure to or undercutting of unstable slopes, requirements for slope remediation, exposure to active or potentially active landslides, and related hazards and risks would be significantly reduced. Errata for Moorpark County Club Estates Final EIR 1-5 . . ` ^ Air Quality Impacts Since the proposed grading for this alternative would not entail extensive mass grading, the short term construction related impacts of the project would be substantially reduced. Permitting increased density to offset infrastructure extension requirements would in turn potentially increase operational emissions. However, with the deletion of the trips associated with two golf courses (estimated at 50.000 rounds per year), it is likely that even with a substantial increase in residential danoib/, this alternative would result in overall reductions to air quality impacts. Groundwater Supplies and Surface Water Quality The use of reclaimed water would not be necessary and therefore this water source could be reserved for use at another location. Impacts to groundwater supplies would slightly increase overall since this alternative contemplates increased residential density and a larger population. Impacts to surface water quality related to golf course operations would be eliminated entirely. Drainage, Hydrology, and Flood Control The amount of on-site detention would be significantly reduced and the flood control planning requirements for the project would be simplified. Since reductions would occur in the acreage of disturbance and the recontouring of the land would be minimized, flood control planning would be simplified and the costs associated with flood hazard remediation and drainage planning (and improvements)would be reduced. Biological Resources From the standpoint of environmental resource pnamervation, this alternative is considerably superior to the pjeotmopropooedandmupehoraswoUhothepnavioue|yoonsidenado|harVaUve. With the very substantial reduction in grading which would occur with this a|ternotiva, extensive stands of rare habitat on the property could be maintained. This habitat could be retained in sufficiently large expanses that the associated wildlife and ecosystems would continue to exist rather than be eliminated. Noise The noise impacts of this alternative and the previously described alternative would be comparable. As in the prior case, this alternative will improve the ambient noise environment for the proposed homes within the pject boundary because fewer homes will be directly exposed to the major collector street passing through the development. Larger lot sizes will permit changes in building orientation and site planning that can minimize the exposure of bedrooms to the street. The proposed setbacks from the existing residential neighborhoods on the eastern and western perimeters of the project will decnonse nuisance noise for existing residents. In sddit|on, the design of the project with substantial open space buffering between neighborhoods provides increased insulation between residential neighborhoods and decreased concentration of population with the attendant noise problems which coexist with proximity. Errata for Moorpark County C'ub Estates FnaI EIR 1-6 Fire Hazards While the increase in population that would result from this alternative may increase fire risks marginally, essentially this alternative will result in very similar fire risks characteristic of the project as proposed. With the addition of native habitat buffers between residential neighborhoods, there would be an increase in wildland-residential interface that could, if improperly managed, somewhat increase fire risks. Population, Housing and Jobs:Housing Balance The impacts of the project and this alternative would be significantly different for issues related to housing markets, population growth, and job formation potential. With increases in population associated with a higher density residential project, related impacts described in the EIR concerning growth inducement would become exacerbated. In addition, the current unfavorable jobs:housing ratio characteristic of Moorpark would be further imbalanced. Transportation and Circulation As in the case of the prior alternative, this option will also result in improved internal circulation, less potential for pedestrian and bicycle accidents, less exposure of children and young adults to high volume traffic (due to improved neighborhood design), greater street privacy for potential residents, an improved streetscape design (which will encourage slower travel speeds along the major collector linking Walnut Canyon and Gabbert Canyon), and an improved project entrance. Permitting increased density to offset infrastructure extension requirements would in turn potentially increase traffic volumes. However, with the deletion of the trips associated with two golf courses (estimated at 50,000 rounds per year), it is likely that even with a substantial increase in residential density, this alternative would result in overall reductions to impacts at local intersections. Public Services and Private Utilities Impacts on public services and utility providers would not, with the exception of effects on the local school system, be more severe with this alternative. Increasing the diversity of housing types provided and permitting a higher density residential project would result in increased demands on school facilities, libraries, and the need for enhance emergency services, fire suppression, and police services. However, at least some of these effects would be offset by the elimination of the municipal golf course operation from the project. Aesthetics, Visual Resources, Community Design From the standpoint of these concerns, the proposed project would be superior to the project as proposed or to the prior alternative since modifications to ridgelines would be minimized, contour rather than substantial mass grading would be used to implement the site plan, and greater diversity in housing types and neighborhood planning could occur with this alternative. In addition, each neighborhood cluster could be oriented to different components of the present housing market. The provision of a central recreational area for all three neighborhoods and very substantial open space would enhance the quality of life and value of the properties included in each neighborhood. Errata for Moorpark County Club Estates Final EIR 1-7 In summary, from the standpoint of community planning and environmental design, this alternative is superior to the project as proposed. This alternative also represents an improvement in environmental preservation compared to the previously described alternative which includes mass grading for two golf courses. Without golf course development on this property, an increase in density may be warranted to assist in funding required infrastructure extensions. However, even with this increase in density, an alternative has been conceived which accomplishes greater environmental preservation than the project as proposed or the previously described design alternative. 20.7 Alternative 5: The Revised Project Alternative This alternative does not involve either a reduction in the number of proposed golf courses or elimination of any proposed housing. The design objective for this alternative was to conceive a variation of the project as proposed that would meet the applicant's objectives while reducing environmental effects and improving the proposed urban design. As described in the following section, this alternative was developed with the cooperation of the applicant's engineer. This alternative is acceptable to the applicant and may with applicant consent be substituted for the project design originally submitted to the City for consideration. Applicant Response to Recommended Design Changes and Environmental Enhancement Modifications In response to these concerns, the consultant and applicant's engineer met to discuss how best to redesign the project in response to the foregoing critique. As a result, a revised project was conceived that responds to each of the environmental and urban design concerns which were outlined as potentially significant problems. The redesign effort resulted in the following modifications to the project: (1) the average lot size was increased from less than 3/4 of an acre to approximately 1 acre to improve the project's aesthetics and to reduce land use conflicts with adjacent properties; (2) the northern extension of the western neighborhood was eliminated to prevent grading and landform modification along the northern perimeter of the development; (3) an open space buffer was incorporated into the design around the northern, eastern, and southern portions of the property; (4) the golf courses were redesigned to achieve greater compactness, to reduce intrusions into preserved open space, to reduce grading and air quality impacts, and to prevent potential traffic-pedestrian/golf cart conflicts; (5) the golf course lake system was redesigned to provide an improved surface drainage design (so surface water is directed, to the maximum extent feasible, into water features) which assists in reducing the potential for surface water impacts to downstream areas from golf course chemicals; Errata for Moorpark County Club Estates Final EIR 1-8 (6) additional retention capacity was provided to further reduce any potential hydrology impacts within the Gabbed Canyon drainage; (7) the water system for the project was designed to conform with Water District No. 1 master plans for storage reservoir capacity; (8) the layout of houses within the eastern neighborhood was changed substantially to break up the linearity of the original design and to provide more exposure of the neighborhood to the golf course fairway areas; (9) the golf course clubhouse was relocated and redesigned to achieve more compactness and to reorient elevations to prominent fairway exposure; (10) larger acreage lots (approximately 5 acres) were planned around the perimeters of the project to provide additional buffers between the proposed project and surrounding rural neighborhoods; (11) all higher density housing which would have intruded on the quality of life of surrounding rural neighborhoods was eliminated, and (12) the applicant has agreed to revise the street sections and streetscape for the project to include a parkway design, to provide reduced width street sections (on cul-de-sacs), and to provide a coordinated boulevard street tree planting program on the project collector (C Street) linking Walnut Canyon and Gabbed Canyon. The proposed layout for the revised project is illustrated in Figure 20-3 and the anticipated grading impacts of this layout have been mapped and illustrated in Figure 20-4. Comparing the grading impacts predicted for the proposed project (Figure 6-1) and the revised project, it is evident that a very substantial reduction in grading has been achieved. Environmental Effects of the Revised Alternative The potential reductions in environmental effects associated with this alternative are summarized briefly in the following discussion. If this Alternative is ultimately to be adopted by the decision- makers instead of the project as proposed, some additional expanded discussion and documentation of the impacts of the Alternative would be prudent prior to certification of the Final EIR. In accord with the determinations made in recent case law (e.g., Laurel Heights II), these additions and modifications to this chapter can be made without recirculation of the Draft EIR. Geologic and Seismic Hazards Impacts associated with mass grading, landform modification, slope stability, and all types of soil disturbance typical of mass graded projects would all be reduced if this alternative is adopted as the proposed project. Slope stabilization requirements would be reduced in several residential areas that were to be remediated under the project design as proposed. All impacts associated with proposed mass grading will be significantly reduced with this alternative. The potential for seismically induced slope failures also would be diminished with the proposed design revision alternative. Potential downstream hydraulic and debris transport impacts would be correspondingly reduced. Errata for Moorpark County Club Estates Final EIR 1-9 Air Quality Impacts Operational impacts associated with the project would not be significantly reduced with this alternative since the same number of residential lots and golf courses are planned. However, construction related impacts would be substantially reduced compared to the proposed project. These reductions would occur to PM1p values as well as to all ozone precursors. The duration of construction, particularly the air quality disruptive grading period, would be reduced. Groundwater Supplies and Surface Water Quality Due to improved planning for on-site retention and the addition of a larger number of more widely distributed water features (which serve as 'filters' for turf chemicals), impacts to surface water quality would be diminished with this alternative. Impacts related to groundwater supplies, groundwater extraction, and long term water supply planning would be equivalent to the project as proposed. However, due to the greater compactness of the golf course route and the reduction in grading area, some minor reduction in reclaimed water demand may result from adoption of this alternative as the project. Drainage, Hydrology, and Flood Control While some minor changes will occur in drainage planning and flood control structures, the project as proposed and the alternative will result in very similar types of impacts. Biological Resources Although the proposed project and alternative will result in very similar disturbances to the on-site vegetation communities within the property boundary, the alternative will result in a modest improvement in the preservation of on-site habitat. The provision of an open space buffer around the project perimeter will provide for a transition zone of native habitat that will assure that at least some of the rare habitats on site will be preserved. The greater compactness of the golf course also will contribute to reducing the overall impacts of the project. With these exceptions, the project and alternative will result in very similar impacts to native plants, habitats, and wildlife. Noise The proposed project will improve the ambient noise environment for the proposed homes within the project boundary because fewer homes will be directly exposed to the major collector street passing through the development. Larger lot sizes will permit changes in building orientation and site planning that can minimize the exposure of bedrooms to the street. The proposed setbacks from the existing residential neighborhoods on the eastern and western perimeters of the project will decrease nuisance noise for existing residents. With these exceptions, the anticipated impacts of the project and alternative are approximately the same. Fire Hazards Fire hazards would be reduced with the alternative since lot sizes will be larger and greater separation will occur between residences in the project and between the project and surrounding neighborhoods. The layout of the project as revised will also permit more coordinated and improved fuel modification zone planning. The areas for fire hazard fuel maintenance can also be more conveniently serviced by the Homeowners Association given the larger average lot sizes. Less intrusion will occur into native habitat surrounding the property. Errata for Moorpark County Club Estates Final EIR 1-10 Population, Housing and Jobs:Housing Balance The impacts of the project and the alternative are not significantly different for issues related to housing markets, population growth, and job formation potential. Transportation and Circulation The alternative will result in improved internal circulation, less potential for pedestrian and bicycle accidents, less exposure of children and young adults to high volume traffic (due to improved neighborhood design), greater street privacy for potential residents, an improved streetscape design (which will encourage slower travel speeds along the major collector linking Walnut Canyon and Gabbert Canyon), and an improved project entrance. Since no reduction is proposed in the number of homes or golf courses, the off-site impacts of the project on the surrounding street system (road capacity and intersection impacts) would remain equivalent for the project and alternative. Public Services and Private Utilities Since no changes are proposed in the number of residential units and two golf courses are proposed to be constructed under both options, impacts on public services and private utilities would remain virtually the same. The revised project, however, provides greater setbacks from high voltage transmission lines. While there appears to be no significant risk of exposure from the dispersion of electromagnetic impulses along the utility corridor, increased setbacks appears to be a prudent course of action. Aesthetics, Visual Resources, Community Design The improvements to the project aesthetics and community design that have been incorporated into the alternative are very significant improvements over the project as proposed. These improvements include a better streetscape and street layout, larger lots which improve quality of life and provide enhance private recreational areas within individual lots; considerably improved lot relations to the proposed golf courses; greater privacy of residence in relation to the street; diminished impacts to the community viewshed and considerable preservation of ridgelines around most of the project. On the issue of design and aesthetics, the alternative if far superior to the project as proposed. Alternative 5 Grading Impact Reduction Analysis In response to questions raised by the Planning Commission, a reconsideration of the potential grading impacts of the project was undertaken. Several commentors and members of the City Planning Commission expressed concern regarding the quantity and distribution of the proposed grading for the project. Specifically, the Planning Commission wanted an evaluation which would define what portion of the proposed grading would be attributable to the residential development (and collector road) and what portion would be related to the development of either one or two golf courses. Subsequent to final Planning Commission review of the preliminary grading plan, the City Engineer and the EIR consultant further evaluated the potential grading impacts of the project to refine the conclusions contained in the Draft EIR regarding potential grading impacts associated with the project. This analysis included a detailed evaluation of cut and fill quantities, grading methods, and overall grading strategy. Errata for Moorpark County Club Estates Final EIR 1-11 In response to these concerns over the extent of the proposed grading, several exhibits were prepared by the applicant's engineer which attempted to address grading quantities and proposed grading strategy. Several grading overlays were conceived which partitioned the proposed grading. Based on this analysis, of the total 10 million cubic yard program proposed by the applicant, approximately 8 million yards were allocated to the collector street and lot development and the remaining 2 million to the golf courses. The consultant and the City Engineer reviewed this data and determined that this allocation was reasonable and relatively accurate. However, if the golf course were not to be constructed, several of the southerly trending ridges bisecting the central valley system on the property would probably not need to be graded as extensively as shown in the applicants exhibit. Even with a recalculation of grading quantities assuming these southerly trending ridges are left intact, the allocation of grading quantities would be approximately as computed by the applicant's engineer. Further additional analysis of the applicant's grading strategy suggested that one of the factors contributing to the extent of cut and fill for this project was the objective of assuring that the proposed homes were actually situated on rather than above the golf course fairway systems proposed for the east and west courses. The City and consultant grading analysis demonstrated that alternatives to the applicant proposed grading plan could be conceived that resulted in greater retention of existing landforms and decreased modification of topography over the entire project boundary. However, with this alternative, the residential neighborhoods would be vertically offset from the fairway systems by as much as 20 or 30 feet. The general integration of the residential project with the golf course amenities would be lost if this alternative approach to the grading program were substituted for the applicant's approach. Such a modification would undoubtedly influence the marketability of the housing product proposed by the applicant. In fact, the degree of separation between homes and the golf courses would reflect conditions where golf courses are distinctly separated from adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Proximity of recreational use would be substituted for the proposed goal of full integration of the residential and golf course components of the project into a marketable "fairway home"type of product. Regardless of what degree of integration occurs between the residential and golf course components of the project, the development of the proposed collector street and the lots included in the project boundary will require very extensive grading due to the relatively narrow aspect of the ridge system where the road and neighborhoods are proposed to be situated. The use of these ridges for the residential portion of the project offers the most acceptable geotechnical solution to the development of the property. Given the proposed lot size, building pad locations in relation to the collector street, and the width of the collector, the amount of residential related grading that will occur(about 8 million cubic yards) is basically unavoidable if development is to occur in the configuration proposed by the applicant. Examination of the question of whether grading quantities could be reduced if only one golf course were to be construction resulted in the finding that since the majority of the grading is required for road and building pad construction, whether one or two courses are ultimately developed is not the most decisive factor in the determination of grading quantities. If only one course was constructed, the elevation of the course would be lower in relation to housing pads and the collector road but the basic grading strategy of lowering the elevation of the ridge system along the northern perimeter of the property and raising the elevation of the valley system descending westerly to Gabbert Canyon would still be retained. Therefore, while it is certainly possible to only develop a single golf course, based on the consultant and City Engineer analysis of the grading alternatives, while this project modification could substantially reduce the grading quantities associated with a two golf course project, the golf course and proposed residential neighborhoods would be considerably vertically offset from one another Errata for Moorpark County Club Estates Final EIR 1-12 4 Remediation of grading impacts will require very substantial contour grading, blending of cut and fill fines with existing topography to minimize the artificiality of the built environment, and extensive landscaping and slope stabilization efforts. The mitigation measures included in the EIR require that soil stability be assured as soon as possible after completion of finish grading. The Conditions of Approval for the project will require that finish grading for lots and the golf course(s) be completed within a few months of rough grading. This compression of the time period between rough and finish grading should minimize grading related visual and slope stability effects to the extent feasible given the very extensive nature of the program proposed to implement the project. In summary, this alternative reduces impacts in most categories of significant environmental effect and in several other categories the revised project and the alternative will result in comparable impacts. Therefore, from the standpoint of urban design, community planning, and environmental impact reduction, the revised project is superior to the project as proposed. This alternative also basically addresses all of the development goals set forth by the applicant. Errata for Moorpark County Club Estates Final EIR 1-13 Chapter 22 Errata Sheet In response to further analysis of the applicant's proposed grading plan, the following changes and amendments have been made to the Comments and Response Chapter of the Final EIR. In addition, a supplemental topical response (Topical Response 8: Compatibility of Equestrian and Pedestrian Trails, Golf Courses, and Residential Uses) has been added to Chapter 22. Text changes are identified in Italic Type. Topic 6: Grading Impacts In response to comments on the draft EIR, a reconsideration of the potential grading impacts of the project was undertaken. Several commentors and members of the City Planning Commission expressed concern regarding the quantity and distribution of the proposed grading for the project. Specifically, the Planning Commission wanted an evaluation which would define what portion of the proposed grading would be attributable to the residential development (and collector road) and what portion would be related to the development of either one or two golf courses. Subsequent to final Planning Commission review of the preliminary grading plan, the City Engineer and the EIR consultant further evaluated the potential grading impacts of the project to refine the conclusions contained in the Draft EIR regarding potential grading impacts associated with the project. This analysis included a detailed evaluation of cut and fill quantities, grading methods, and overall grading strategy. In response to concerns over the extent of the proposed grading, several exhibits were prepared by the applicant's engineer which attempted to address grading quantities and proposed grading strategy. Several grading overlays were conceived which partitioned the proposed grading. Based on this analysis, of the total 10 million cubic yard program proposed by the applicant, approximately 8 million yards were allocated to the collector street and lot development and the remaining 2 million to the golf courses. The consultant and the City Engineer reviewed this data and determined that this allocation was reasonable and relatively accurate. However, if the golf course were not to be constructed, several of the southerly trending ridges bisecting the central valley system on the property would probably not need to be graded as extensively as shown in the applicants exhibit. Even with a recalculation of grading quantities assuming these southerly trending ridges are left intact, the allocation of grading quantities would be approximately as computed by the applicant's engineer Errata for Moorpark County Club Estates Final EIR 1-14 Further additional analysis of the applicant's grading strategy suggested that one of the factors contributing to the extent of cut and fill for this project was the objective of assuring that the proposed homes were actually situated on rather than above the golf course fairway systems proposed for the east and west courses. The City and consultant grading analysis demonstrated that alternatives to the applicant proposed grading plan could be conceived that resulted in greater retention of existing landforms and decreased modification of topography over the entire project boundary. However, with this alternative, the residential neighborhoods would be vertically offset from the fairway systems by as much as 20 or 30 feet. The general integration of the residential project with the golf course amenities would be lost if this alternative approach to the grading program were substituted for the applicant's approach. Such a modification would undoubtedly influence the marketability of the housing product proposed by the applicant. In fact, the degree of separation between homes and the golf courses would reflect conditions where golf courses are distinctly separated from adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Proximity of recreational use would be substituted for the proposed goal of full integration of the residential and golf course components of the project into a marketable "fairway home"type of product.. Regardless of what degree of integration occurs between the residential and golf course components of the project, the development of the proposed collector street and the lots included in the project boundary will require very extensive grading due to the relatively narrow aspect of the ridge system where the road and neighborhoods are proposed to be situated. The use of these ridges for the residential portion of the project offers the most acceptable geotechnical solution to the development of the property. Given the proposed lot size, building pad locations in relation to the collector street, and the width of the collector, the amount of residential related grading that will occur (about 8 million cubic yards) is basically unavoidable if development is to occur in the configuration proposed by the applicant. Examination of the question of whether grading quantities could be reduced if only one golf course were to be construction resulted in the finding that since the majority of the grading is required for road and building pad construction, whether one or two courses are ultimately developed is not the most decisive factor in the determination of grading quantities. If only one course was constructed, the elevation of the course would be lower in relation to housing pads and the collector road but the basic grading strategy of lowering the elevation of the ridge system along the northern perimeter of the property and raising the elevation of the valley system descending westerly to Gabbert Canyon would still be retained. Therefore, while it is certainly possible to only develop a single golf course, based on the consultant and City Engineer analysis Errata for Moorpark County Club Estates Final EIR 1-15 of the grading alternatives, while this project modification could substantially reduce the grading quantities associated with a two golf course project, the golf course and proposed residential neighborhoods would be considerably vertically offset from one another. Remediation of grading impacts will require very substantial contour grading, blending of cut and fill lines with existing topography to minimize the artificiality of the built environment, and extensive landscaping and slope stabilization efforts. The mitigation measures included in the EIR require that soil stability be assured as soon as possible after completion of finish grading. The Conditions of Approval for the project will require that finish grading for lots and the golf course(s) be completed within a few months of rough grading. This compression of the time period between rough and finish grading should minimize grading related visual and slope stability effects to the extent feasible given the very extensive nature of the program proposed to implement the project. Topic 8: Compatibility of Equestrian and Pedestrian Trails, Golf Courses, and Residential Uses Several individuals commenting on the proposed project questioned whether the placement of a trail system to be used for equestrian and pedestrian use was compatible with the location of the proposed golf course routing Documentation of alleged incompatibility between residential and golf course uses (in the form of anecdotal newspaper articles) was also supplied by several comments. Golf course fairway homes are a typical market product throughout California and the greater southwest. The compatibility of residential uses adjacent to fairways with golf course uses are best assured by providing sufficient buffers between fairways and homes; route planning where fairway homes are situated also needs to be completed with sensitivity to the direction of play. In the case of the proposed project, more than typical topographic separation between the proposed fairway-adjacent homes and the golf routing has also been planned. In general, while occasional incompatibilities may occur due to poorly conceived route designs, in general, golf courses and residential uses are compatible. The overall financial success of fairway-adjacent type of housing developments demonstrates the market tested compatibility of these uses. When recreational and residential uses are placed adjacent to golf courses, a range of buffers and separations are provided to separate these uses and minimize any potential disruption due to Errata for Moorpark County Club Estates Final EIR 1-16 golf activities. Pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle trail systems in the Ojai Valley (Ventura County), in Griffith Park (Los Angeles County), and in Hawaii (particularly in the Counties of Kawaii and Oahu) all provide excellent examples of the range of solutions which exist for providing safe proximity of equestrian and pedestrian trails to golf courses. A designated pedestrian trail system exists within most golf courses; while players must be reasonably attentive to avoid any injury from driven balls, when these trail systems are reasonably offset from the route of play or are buffered in areas of proximity, the potential for injury along trails systems is remote. The proposed project includes a trail system that will span the southern perimeter of the property included within the project boundary. In several places, this system is situated relatively close to the proposed fairway system. A Condition of Approval has been included to address providing adequate topographic or vegetative buffering between the proposed trail and the golf course. As is the case with other elements of design, there are a variety of acceptable solutions to assuring that the proposed trail system is attractive and safe for equestrian and pedestrian users. Errata for Moorpark County Club Estates Final EIR 1-17 Kciy I. Carryon 1009 Jeannette Avenue•Tiousand Oak,s, Caffornia 91362•(805)495-3434 CivilEngineer 37396• Landscape Arcfiitect 4035• CertffiedAr6orist WC-1140 September 13, 1995 Mr. Steve Craig The Planning Corporation Post Office Box 20250 • Santa Barbara, California 93120 Subject: Vesting Tentative Tract 4928 Dear Mr. Craig: As discussed, I developed the following general recommendations to address a preservation philosophy for the trees located within Vesting Tentative Tract 4928. As stated in the Preliminary Tree Report dated May 3, 1995, there are four species of trees found within the site: Eucalyptus globulus (Blue Gum) —These trees were likely planted many years ago to serve as an agricultural wind break. From this viewpoint, they may merit historical value. If the City desires to retain the trees, they should receive remedial pruning care to correct recent years of neglect. Most of the trees have good health and would be worthy of preservation. Platanus racemosa (California Sycamore) —These trees are representative of the native riparian habitat in the area. Though health varies, their age and size merit special preservation measures. Sambucus mexicana (Blue Elderberry) —These trees are representative native species for this area. They provide habitat for a variety of animals. Large specimens should be preserved if possible. Schinus molle (California Pepper Tree) -- Despite its common name, this tree is not native to California. It originates from the Andes in Peru. It was a characteristic of early mission gardens due to its adaptability to the climate. Therefore, it can be deemed to have historical value in appropriate circumstances. The genus is considered to be invasive to native habitat. Since the native habitat on this site is of fairly high value, removal of all of these trees should be considered. Please do not hesitate to call if further comments would be useful. Sincerely, --ea4tr • KAY J. WARIStON • "„ ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS ll7i100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 • FAX (805) 682-8509 • (805) 687-4418 Maynard Keith Franklin,P.E. Robert L.Faris,P.E. Richard L.Pool,P.E. Scott A.Schell,A1CP October 13, 1995 ATE #94104L05.LTR Mr. Steve Craig The Planning Corporation P.O. Box 20250 Santa Barbara, CA 93120 MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES PROJECT, MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA - Response to comments from Robert B. Brownie, Public Works Agency, Ventura County Comment #1 - Not a traffic issue. Comment #2 - The improvement of Grimes Canyon Road along the project frontage is necessary for the completion of the Circulation Element, thus, the project shall improve Grimes Canyon Road along the project frontage to the applicable City or County standard and dedicate the necessary right-of-way to accommodate the improvements. Comment #3 - This is a policy decision and as part of the project processing, the City Council will have to address the issue. However, since the City is using buildout of a portion of the General Plan for Year 2000 and full buildout of the General Plan for Year 2010, the only feasible means to fairly assign the costs associated with the transportation system is to establish a program with the related funding. The basis of the analysis is that a Capital Improvement Program and a funding program that includes traffic impact mitigation fees will be implemented by the City. This project shall be required to participate in the program by the payment of fees. Comment #4 - Figure 13 is incorrectly labeled, this is the 2010 ADT Volumes, a corrected plate has been prepared. The LOS is based upon SR 118 being improved 'to accommodate the traffic. This section of SR 118 is on Ventura County list of impacted roadways and is part of their fee program. The programming and scheduling of regional projects is one that has to be Engineering • Planning • Parking • Signal Systems • Impact Reports • Bikeways • Transit • Mr. Steve Craig Page 2 October 13, 1995 addressed by all the affected agencies. If the improvements are not constructed before the volume increases occur, then the preparation of a deficiency plan will be required under the CMP program. However, there is some available capacity on the roadways and the participation in the City's program will mitigate this projects portion of the cumulative traffic impact. Comment #5 - The volumes used in the analysis were obtained from the Moorpark Traffic Analysis Model ("MTAM"). The MTAM output for a specific location is affected by the change in land use and changes in the circulation system. At times, the changes will reduce the volume at a specific location, and this happens to be one of them for this scenario. It appears that there are alternative travel routes and/or changes in the destinations due to land use changes that have affected this particular location. Comment #6 - Comment noted. Comment #7 - Comment noted. Comment #8 - Comment noted. Comment #9 - Comment noted. Associated Transportation Engineers 40110,/ y: Richard L. Pool, P.E. President RLP/wp Attachment - Revised Figure 13 -95,0 : 6 n . g E3 Voc°4 _ 3 5 1 5 4 plYOKAT ' RGAPKAT _ 14 PI 73 1 1 C'nary 15 J 4"/ a • A „./ `S 9 LAWNS FMK V 19 27 !S 78 80 il --+tom 3.-,..,. 6 1,_YAun n, es q•` o # \8 3 CASs, ► r 92 _ 5 - 1 4t.. u.cun tax J ~m J o, 5 `4 .an o o1 N ►e 1� 2d 24 34 39 1 37 47 53 52 19 u.canItr� S n •r.acs ± SD' iigt N }7 /0 S K di ;9 - ' r 7 j!J 1.I y l ' tib vqV, MACH HILL 0 1Y{, ~ 10 �' a 17 Li ` nrfA 111.114 11110 r' 12 `v S� 24 Is rtwoor 1 o 6e '45- Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. ADT Volumes In 1,000's FIGURE@.). 1!I'�'I= ASS- 71OCIATANAN ' 100N.HopeAvenue.Su'teED TR4,SanteBarSPORTbara.CA931TION10ENGI•(©05)687.44EERS1(3 YEAR 2010 (ALT. 3) ADT VOLUMES Revised 10/13/95 0. , w Supplemental Information Included in the EIR Technical Reports Very few changes were made in the Technical Report data circulated with the Draft EIR. Amendments and additions to the Technical Reports are summarized below and additional pages inserted into the Final EIR Technical Report follows this introduction. Traffic Report Supplement(Appendix 8) Supplemental data included in the Traffic Technical Appendix was provided by the consulting traffic engineers for the project, Associated Transportation Engineers. This supplemental information included a corrected graphic and topical responses to several traffic related questions raised by the Planning Commission and the public. Tree Report Supplement(Appendix 12) The letter included in the Technical Report from the Certified Arborist who prepared the Tree Report for this project clarifies which of the trees on the property should be judged to be significant. Conditions of Approval for the project reflect the Arborist's recommendations for this project which include: (1) not retaining the immature and widely distributed invasive California Pepper Tree which is common within the project boundary (2) retaining and upgrading habitats containing relict stands of California Sycamore; (3) preservation of the perimeter stands of Blue Gums that were planted on the property during prior decades when the area was in agricultural use; (4) retaining large specimens of Blue Elderberry when possible. Mitigation measures for the project require substantial habitat enhancement and planting of the Elderberry and Sycamore. Errata for Moorpark County Club Estates Final EIR 1-18 ♦ < < w ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, FOR MOORPARK COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES PROJECT (GPA-94-1, ZC-94-1, VTT-4928, PM-94-1, RPD-94-1, CUP-94-1) WHEREAS, applications have been filed by the Bollinger Development Corporation for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project, consisting of General Plan Amendment No. 94-1, Zone Change No. 94-1, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 4928, Residential Planned Development (RPD) Permit No. 94-1, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 94-1, and Parcel Map No. 94-1, for a 655-acre site located approximately 2,700 feet south of Broadway , with frontage on both Walnut Canyon Road (State Route 23) to the east and Grimes Canyon Road to the west (Assessor Parcel Nos: 500-240-075, 500-230-065, 500-230-125, 500-230-015, 500-230-135, 500-230-095, 500-230-115, 500-230-075, 500-260-015, 500-250-115, 500-220-075, 500-430-015, 500-430-025, 500-430-035, 500-430-045, 500-430-055, 500-430-065, 500-430-075, 500-430-085, 500-430-095, 500-440-015, 500-440-025, 500-440-035, 500-440-045, 500-440-055, 500-440-065, 500-440-075, 500-440-085, 500-440-095, ' 500-440-105, 500-440-115, 500-440-125, 500-440-135, 500-440-145, 500-440-155, 500-440-165, 500-440-175, 500-440-185; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project (SCH No. 94081075) provides an environmental assessment of the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California, and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, public notice of the availability and distribution of the Draft EIR was provided in compliance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on September 25, 1995, and a continued public hearing on October 9, 1995, the Planning Commission received public testimony regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing for the Draft EIR at its meeting of October 9, 1995, and reached its decision to recommend certification of the Final EIR at its meeting on November 13, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered certification of the Final EIR at its regular meeting on December 6, 1995, and reached its decision to certify the Final EIR; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: is ' ' w Resolution No. 95- Page 2 SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Moorpark, as lead agency. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final EIR for the Moorpark Country Club Estates Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California) and the City's CEQA Procedures . SECTION 3. The City Council hereby certifies that the Council has received and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making any approval decision for the proposed Moorpark Country Club Estates Project and has found that the Final EIR adequately addresses the environmental effects of the proposed project. PASSED, APPROVED MID ADOPTED THIS DAY OF , 1995. Mayor of the City of Moorpark ATTEST: Lillian E. Hare City Clerk