Agoura Equestrian Estates Project EIR Section 4.5 Hydrology and Water Quality
N /
SCALE: 1"=100' No. 36538 EXP. 30-JUN-16 60'80'100' 40' 20' 0 100'
Source: Hardy Engineering, 2014. Proposed Hydrology Figure 4.5-3 City of Agoura Hills Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 4.5 Hydrology and Water Quality
The QSD will evaluate the project and assign a Risk Level (Risk Level 1 – 3) based on site characteristics for erosion potential, threat to “receiving waters,” and the time of year that the project activity would occur. The project Risk Level determines compliance requirements set forth in the permit. BMPs will be applied based on the Risk Level of the project and the site characteristics. Strategies to control the quality of runoff may include the following methods, depending on the site characteristics and the scope of the project.
• Erosion Control: Measures that prevent erosion and keep soil particles from entering stormwater, lessening the eroded sediment that must be trapped, both during and at completion of construction. Feasible methods might include hydroseeding or using non-toxic soil binders.
• Sediment Control: Feasible methods of trapping eroded sediments so as to prevent a net increase in sediment load in stormwater discharges from the site. Strategies to reduce sediment loading might include the use of silt fences, hay bales, or sand bags around storm drain inlets.
• Site Management: Methods to manage the construction site and construction activities in a manner that prevents pollutants from entering stormwater, drainage systems or receiving waters. Strategies to maintain the construction site may include watering active construction areas two or more times per day to reduce airborne soil particles, sweeping adjacent streets to reduce soil tracked onto streets by construction vehicles, anti-tracking pads at site exits to prevent the offsite transport of materials, and pollutant containment areas for construction related equipment and processes that generate pollutants, such as construction staging areas.
• Materials and Waste Management: Methods to manage construction materials and wastes that prevent their entry into stormwater, drainage systems, or receiving waters. Feasible methods to manage materials and waste may include provision of designated recycling and disposal areas for general waste, construction waste and industrial wastes such as concrete dust, cutting slurry, motor oil and lubricants.
Phase 1 of the project includes the installation of drainage improvements. The drainage system includes a series of earthen and rock lined swales capturing runoff from the surrounding hills and residential lots, which would then enter a series of debris retention basins. Inlet/outlet structures in the basins would capture surface runoff and place it into underground pipes and then outleting at a headwall in Chesebro Canyon Creek. The debris detention basins act as a filter system for sediment and other pollutants. The Phase 1 grading is limited to what is necessary to install the road, trails and drainage improvements, as well as to raise Lot 1 for flood purposes, and would not result in grading of the residential lots 2-15. Therefore, grading as part of Phase 1 would be minimized to the extent feasible. As part of the Phase 1 grading of the site, given that over one acre would be graded, a SUSMP would be required. The SUSMP would include BMPs to ensure that water pollution does not filter into groundwater or Chesebro Canyon Creek. This could include filters in the debris detention basins and bioswales.
Section 5509 of the Municipal Code requires preparation of a Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP) for a variety of projects, including single family residences. As part
City of Agoura Hills 4.5-11 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 4.5 Hydrology and Water Quality
of Phase 2, a SUSMP would also be required. The SUSMP would include measures to address sedimentation and runoff and water quality on an ongoing basis for each residential lot as it is developed in the future. These could include onsite bioswales, outlet filters, as well as minimizing impervious paving, etc. A SUSMP would be required to be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit for the residence(s).
Proof of compliance with the General Permit, including the SWPPP and SUSMP, would be required pursuant to Sections 5508 and 5509 of the City of Agoura Hills Municipal Code, prior to the issuance of grading, building, or occupancy permits. Therefore, impacts related to stormwater quality during construction and long-term operation of the project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. Compliance with the SWPPP and SUSMP required under the NPDES General Permit would ensure that temporary impacts during construction, and potential long term impacts from ongoing residential activities, to erosion/sedimentation and water quality are less than significant. No additional mitigation is necessary.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact HWQ-2 Both Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed project would alter the existing drainage pattern on the project site. However, drainage on the project site would not exceed the capacity of the off-site storm drain system. Therefore, impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
The proposed grading and storm drain system would alter the over land flow of water within the development footprint, including the lower portions of existing drainages. Stormwater within the development footprint would be collected and conveyed via the proposed on-site debris detention basins and swales to underground pipes. The proposed system includes three permanent detention basins, two temporary detention basins, and a drainage swale. The two temporary basins would be used until Lots 11 and 12 are developed with residences, and three basins would remain permanently. The runoff would be collected in the basins and the swales, then would travel through underground pipes to an outlet on the opposite side of Chesebro Road and into Chesebro Canyon Creek. The project site naturally slopes towards the creek, which currently receives the majority of the runoff from the site via sheet flow. The proposed drainage system has been designed to accommodate 50 year storm flows for the site.
Drainage patterns would not be altered for the portions of the site that are not proposed to contain the road, trails or houses.
The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on existing drainage systems. Stormwater flows from the site would not exceed the capacity of the off-site storm drain system since the system is specifically being designed and constructed to accommodate the project. Therefore, Phases 1 and 2 of the project would result in less than significant flooding impacts due to alteration of drainage pattern and site development, and would not require any drainage facilities beyond those currently planned.
City of Agoura Hills 4.5-12 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 4.5 Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measures. Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Impact HWQ-3 Pollutants associated with operation of the project in Phases 1 and 2 could be discharged into the storm drain system. However, the project includes filtering systems. In addition, the project would be required to comply with NPDES permit requirements regarding runoff from the site. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit regulates and ensures protection of stormwater resources. As noted in subsection 4.5.1 under “City of Agoura Hills,” General Plan Goal NR-6 (protection of the water quality of local watersheds and groundwater quality, and Policy NR-1.3 (Slope Preservation), Policy NR-6.4 (Protect Open Space Areas and Water Resources), Policy NR-6.5 (Watershed Education), Policy NR-6.6 (Cooperation with Other Agencies), Policy NR-6.7 (Stormwater Quality), Policy NR-6.8 (New Development), Policy NR-4.2 (Conserve Natural Resources), Policy NR-4.11 (Creeks and Natural Resources), Policy U-3.5 (Protection of Water Bodies), and Policy U-3.6 (Bioswales) address minimizing water pollution. The uses proposed on the project site in both phases would not create effluent discharges from point sources and therefore the project would not violate any waste discharge requirements. Pollutants that may be present on-site during operation of Phases 1 and 2 of the project could include pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used for landscaping, and oil, gasoline, metals, and other substances from vehicles. If untreated, the pollutants could be discharged into the off-site storm drain system. However, stormwater runoff from developed hardscape, such as parking areas, would be partially reduced based on the use of permeable materials, with the remainder directed to the swales, detention basins, or pipes. The City Architectural Design Standards and Guidelines, Section VI. Old Agoura Design Guidelines, which would apply to the project, state that permeable and semi-permeable surfaces should be installed wherever possible. These include interlocking concrete manufactured pavers, natural flag stone, and decomposed granite. The swales and detention basins would trap and/or treat many pollutants, including sediment, pathogens, and nutrients, and would generally reduce the potential for pollutant loading to Chesebro Creek.
Phases 1 and 2 of the project would be required to comply with NPDES standards, including implementation of BMPs and the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). Several BMPs are already included in the project, like swales and debris detention basins. Per the SUMSP, methods to minimize pollutants in the storm drain system would be required to be incorporated into the project; these may include filters prior to storm water outleting into Chesebro Canyon Creek. Implementation of the NPDES requirement, would result in less than significant impacts to surface water quality from stormwater runoff for Phases 1 and 2.
City of Agoura Hills 4.5-13 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 4.5 Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measures. Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Impact HWQ-4 Both phases of the project would increase impervious surfaces on the site and could interfere with groundwater recharge. However the majority of the site would remain unpaved. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
The project site is currently unpaved. Phase 1 of the project includes constructing a private road, storm drain improvements, trails, fencing and the grading of Lot 1 only. Phase 2 consists of constructing 15 single family residences in the future. The private road and the residences would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site. Impervious surfaces would incrementally reduce the flow rate and volume of storm water. This could interfere with groundwater recharge. However, the site is approximately 71 acres of vacant land. The project would develop 22 acres (approximately 32 percent) of the site. The majority remainder of the project site at 49 acres would be designated as open space and would not contain any impervious surfaces. For the portions of the site to be developed, the Zoning Ordinance and the City’s Architectural Design Standards and Guidelines, Section VI. Old Agoura Design Guidelines, regarding impervious surfaces would apply. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Architectural Design Standards and Guidelines would minimize impervious surfaces onsite to a less than significant level.
Additionally the project would be required to connect to the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District (LVMWD) for water service. The project would not be using groundwater to provide potable water to the project. Therefore the project would not substantially deplete groundwater resources. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Impact HWQ-5 A portion of the project site is located within the 100-year flood plain, including a portion in the floodway. Development of structures on Lots 1, 2 and 15 as part of Phase 2 could result in flood hazards. Impacts would be Class II, less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
A portion of the project site is located within the floodway and floodplain of Chesebro Canyon Creek (see Figure 4.5-1). The creek is located on the northwest side of Chesebro Road, across from the project site. A portion of Lots 1, 2, and 15 are located within the FEMA Flood Zone AE (floodway, 0.1 percent annual chance of flood hazard), while another portion is within Zone X (0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard). Phase 1 of the project would add fill dirt to Lot 1 in order to ensure that grading cut and fill in Phase 1 is balanced onsite. This would raise the site
City of Agoura Hills 4.5-14 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 4.5 Hydrology and Water Quality
out of the flood plain without raising the base foundation elevation. A less than significant impact would result from Phase 1.
Any construction of buildings on these three lots during Phase 2 would be required to comply with the City of Agoura Hills Municipal Code Section 3707, which outlines construction standards for buildings within the flood plain. These include anchoring the buildings, elevating them out of the flood plain, and flood proofing the buildings and utilities. Additionally, this section requires:
Encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development are prohibited unless certification by a registered professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. If no floodway sources are designated, the registered professional engineer or architect shall demonstrate that the cumulative effect of all encroachment in the floodplain does not increase the base flood elevation (BFE) by more than one (1) foot.
Nonetheless, there remains the potential that flooding could occur as a result of building construction on Lots 1, 2 and 15, given their location in the FEMA floodplain. Additional studies, including a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR), would be required prior to issuance of a Bbuilding Ppermit or Ggrading Ppermit, whichever occurs first, to ensure that no damage would be caused to the structures proposed in the floodplain and flood waters would not be diverted so as to cause damage to neighboring properties. Impacts related to construction within the floodplain would be potentially significant.
Additionally, the project would take its access from Chesebro Road. This road is currently within the floodplain and could potentially flood. This would make site access difficult. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is required for Phase 2.
HWQ-5(a) Floodplain. Prior to development of Lots 1, 2, or 15 as part of Phase 2, the applicant shall be responsible for preparing documents required to conduct work in the FEMA floodplain, such as a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR), and other items required by the City Public Works Director/City Engineer. Such documents shall be submitted to the City Public Works Department for review and acceptance prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first.
HWQ-5(b) Access. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for development of Phase 2, the applicant must submit for review and approval by the City Public works Department/City Engineer an access plan for the site detailing how access would be maintained under flood conditions. This could include sand bags or berms along the northern side of the road or a hydrology study proving that the road is not in the 100-year floodplain.
City of Agoura Hills 4.5-15 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 4.5 Hydrology and Water Quality
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.
c. Cumulative Impacts. The development of related projects would increase the impervious surface area in local watersheds, thereby potentially increasing the amount of surface water entering area drainages. Of the nine planned and pending projects in the area (see Table 3-1 in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting), projects six and seven are the closest at 0.6 miles north and 0.3 miles west, respectively. This could cumulatively contribute to the risk of flooding downstream of the proposed project site. However, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) requires the proposed project to include on-site drainage infrastructure to ensure that receiving water peak flows would not be increased above pre-development volumes. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase off-site stormwater flow because the proposed stormwater system would limit flows to pre-development levels. Therefore, the project’s contribution to potential cumulative surface drainage flooding impacts would be less than significant.
Storm runoff concentrations of oil, grease, heavy metals, and debris increase as the amount of urban development increases in a watershed, as these pollutants are present as a result of human activities in urban areas. SUSMP and SWPPP BMPs are designed to address both the proposed project level impacts and cumulative project impacts of regional development. Given proper design and implementation of SUSMP and SWPPP BMPs, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative surface and ground water quality impacts would be less than significant.
City of Agoura Hills 4.5-16 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 5.0 Other CEQA Required Discussions
5.0 OTHER CEQA REQUIRED DISCUSSIONS
5.1 GROWTH INDUCING EFFECTS
The CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of a proposed project’s potential to foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment. However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant adverse environmental effects. The proposed project’s growth-inducing potential is therefore considered significant if it could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental issue areas. An example of when an economic effect might create a physical change would be when economic growth in one area creates blight conditions elsewhere by causing existing competitors to go out of business and, consequently, the buildings to be left vacant.
5.1.1 Economic and Population Growth
The project would include the development of 22 acres of a 71-acre project site. The first phase is proposed at this time and would include trails, fencing, drainage improvements with debris basins, a private road, and grading of Lot 1. The second phase, which would be developed at a currently unknown date, would include 15 single family residences. The City of Agoura Hills has an average of 2.8 residents per household (California Department of Finance, 2014). The proposed project would house approximately 42 residents. Given the City’s estimated population of 20,625 (California Department of Finance, 2014), this represents an increase in population of 0.2 percent. The trails would not require dedicated employees, instead they would be maintained by existing employees. Therefore, the proposed project would not be considered growth-inducing as it would not substantially increase long-term population growth. The project would also generate temporary jobs during the construction phases of the project. Typically, these jobs are filled by people who live in the area due to their temporary nature.
The project would not have economic or social effects that would result in adverse physical changes or deterioration of the surrounding area, as the project site is currently undeveloped. The project site would preserve about 49 acres of the 71-acre site as permanent open space. Further, no existing housing or population would be displaced, given that the site is vacant.
5.2 REMOVAL OF OBSTACLES TO GROWTH
The proposed project would be located adjacent to a developed area on the west side of Agoura Hills. Major improvements to water, sewer, and circulation systems and drainage connection infrastructure would not be needed for this development as these utilities are already located along Chesebro Road right-of-way. Only a short extension would be required to bring the water line further north, to the project site. Furthermore, the project would not facilitate growth on nearby lands as the project would preserve approximately 49 acres of the project site, east and south of the area proposed for development, as permanent open space with no development of buildings allowed. The project includes transferring the open space areas to a public entity for permanent preservation. The existing open space parcel to the north of the site is owned by the State of California and managed by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Area. This
City of Agoura Hills 5-1 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 5.0 Other CEQA Required Discussions
parcel is used for state park access. Consequently, adjacent vacant lands would not only prevent additional access to nearby undeveloped parcels, but would be protected from additional urban development. Therefore, the project would not remove an obstacle to growth.
5.3 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs evaluating projects involving amendments to public plans, ordinances, or policies contain a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes. CEQA also requires decisionmakers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. This section addresses non-renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to the proposed uses, and irreversible impacts associated with the proposed project.
Conversion of the project site from vacant open space with an informal multi-use trail to a single family residential development with trails and dedicated open space would likely result in a long-term commitment of the site to an increased level of use. These actions would alter the built environment in ways that have been found in this EIR to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project would involve the use of building materials and energy, some of which are non-renewable resources. Consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and are not unique to the project. Resources that would be consumed as a result of project implementation include water, electricity, and fossil fuels during construction and operations; however, the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result in significant environmental impacts or the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources. Compliance with applicable building codes, as well as City policies in the General Plan, and the mitigation measures identified in this EIR would ensure that natural resources are conserved to the extent feasible.
CEQA also requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. The analysis contained in this EIR concludes that the proposed project would not result in any Class I, significant and unavoidable, impacts.
City of Agoura Hills 5-2 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 6.0 Alternatives
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation.
Alternatives to the proposed project that would reduce significant impacts are listed below and Table 6-1 provides a summary comparison of the development characteristics of each as compared with the proposed project.
Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative 2 – Reduced Residential Alternative 3 – North Area Plan Buildout Alternative 4 – Clustered Development
Table 6-1 Project Alternative Comparison
Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Alternative 4: Proposed Alternative 1: Feature Reduced North Area Clustered Project No Project Residential Plan Buildout Development 15 single-family 8 single-family 14 single-family 15 single-family lots (approx. 1.5 lots (approx. 1.5 lots (5 Residential Lots None lots (<1acre/unit) acres/unit) acres/unit) acres/unit) 13 acres 22 acres 12.5 acres 71 acres Open Space 49 acres None 58.5 acres None 58 acres
Each of the various alternatives is described and analyzed below. This section also evaluates the feasibility of similar development at alternative locations and, as required by CEQA, includes a discussion of the “environmentally superior alternative” among those studied.
6.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
This alternative assumes that the proposed project would not be developed and that the site would remain in its current vacant condition. The No Project alternative would avoid the proposed project’s environmental impacts in every issue area studied in the EIR. Therefore, no impact would occur under this alternative and overall environmental impacts would be lower than those of the proposed project. However, this alternative does not meet any of the project objectives except for potentially conserving open space, nor would it preclude the site from future development under a different proposal.
City of Agoura Hills 6-1 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 6.0 Alternatives
6.2 REDUCED RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE
6.2.1 Description
Under the Reduced Residential Alternative, the residential component of the subdivision would be reduced to approximately 50 percent of the proposed project size with eight single-family residential lots on approximately 12.5 acres. Under this alternative the eight single-family lots would be zone RV Residential Very Low Density (RV) (1 acre minimum lot <2 DU/acre), which is the same as under the proposed project. Additionally, under the Reduced Residential Alternative, the remaining portion of the site (about 58.5 acres) would be zoned for permanent preservation of open space. Figure 6-1 shows a potential way the site could be developed under this alternative. No plans have been submitted that would constitute the Reduced Residential Alternative. This figure has been included solely for reference. All other design features would remain relatively consistent with the currently proposed project, including:
Construction of a private access road through the site, including rolled curb Trails, fencing and drainage improvements within the private road right-of- way Relocation/construction of an existing multi-use informal trail located partially within and partially outside of the site boundaries to the east Earthen and rock drainage swale improvements and debris basins for runoff An equestrian trail and fence along the western side of the site, adjacent to existing homes Extension of utilities under the proposed private road from existing water and sewer lines under Chesebro Road
6.2.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics. This alternative would include the development of eight single family residential units compared to the 15 included in Phase 2 of the proposed project. This would reduce total building massing and footprint on the project site, as well as related infrastructure (road and drainage improvements), which would reduce the overall visual impacts of the project site from scenic vantage points by preserving more open space and by limiting development overall. The project density would remain approximately the same. Further, as this alternative would include less development, it would have incrementally less light and glare impact as compared with the proposed project.
This alternative’s overall aesthetic impact would be incrementally lower than that of the proposed project. Nevertheless, mitigation measures AES-1 and AES-3 would apply to this alternative as well since the drainage improvements would still be required. Additionally, compliance with City standards and requirements would also reduce the proposed project’s impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, this alternative would not reduce or avoid a significant impact of the proposed project.
City of Agoura Hills 6-2 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives
r D
y n d o l o C
Chesebro Rd
¤£101
Palo Comado Canyon Rd
¤£101
Project Boundary Reduced Alternative 0 200 400 Feet ± Agoura Rd
Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2014.
Alternative 2 - Potential Reduced Project Site Plan Figure 6-1 Rincon Consultants, Inc. Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 6.0 Alternatives
b. Biological Resources. This alternative would avoid affecting approximately half of the non-native grassland that would be impacted by the proposed project, or about five acres. While the amount of habitat affected would be incrementally less, the magnitude of impacts to biological resources would remain the same as the proposed project. Impacts to locally important wildlife species (Impact BIO-1 and Impact BIO-2) would remain Class II, less than significant with mitigation incorporated, and mitigation measures BIO-1 (a-cf) and BIO-2 (a-bc) would apply. This alternative would also encroach on the northern potential jurisdictional drainages; therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would still apply. Impacts to oak trees (BIO-6) would remain Class II, less than significant with mitigation incorporated, and Mitigation Measures BIO-6 (a-b) would apply.
Other impacts related to biological resources would be the same as those of the proposed project: Class III, less than significant with mitigation incorporated to sensitive plant communities (BIO-3) and mitigation measures BIO-1 (a-b), and Class III, less than significant to wildlife movement or migration (BIO-5).
c. Geology and Soils. Impacts related to geology and soils would be similar to those identified for the proposed project, as this alternative would involve similar types of development on the same site. Class II, less than significant with mitigation incorporated, impacts would occur with respect to ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, slope stabilization in the hillsides around the development pad, differential soil settlement, and expansive soils (Impacts GEO-1, GEO-4, GEO-5, and GEO-6). Mitigation measures GEO-1 (a, b), and GEO-6 would apply.
d. Hazards/Hazardous Materials. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would remain the same as those of the proposed project, given that this alternative would be in the same general location. The proximity of the open and closed LUST sites (Impact HAZ-1) would be the same and impacts would remain Class III, less than significant. Additionally, impacts associated with the contamination related to the Calabasas Landfill (Impact HAZ-2) would remain Class III, less than significant due to the levels of uranium found in the groundwater testing.
f. Hydrology and Water Quality. This alternative would incrementally reduce the amount of impervious surfaces that would be placed on the site due to the elimination of 7 of 15 residences and reduction in the overall building footprint by about five acres. This would reduce the amount of runoff that would be produced by the project. Impacts related to site runoff (Impact HWQ-4) would be Class III, less than significant, the same as with the proposed project. In addition, sedimentation/erosion, water quality, and stormwater system capacity impacts would remain Class III, less than significant, the same as with the proposed project, due to compliance with NPDES general construction permit requirements.
6.2.3 Comparison with Project Objectives
Alternative 2 – Reduced Residential Alternative would meet the majority of the proposed project’s objectives. However, due to the reduced number of residential lots that would be developed, this alternative would be less financial viable than the proposed project.
City of Agoura Hills 6-4 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 6.0 Alternatives
6.3 NORTH AREA PLAN BUILDOUT ALTERNATIVE
6.3.1 Description
Under the North Area Plan Buildout Alternative, development on the project site would be consistent with what is designated for the site under Los Angeles County’s Santa Monica Mountains North Area Plan. This would allow for 14 single-family residential lots at a density of 5 acres/1 dwelling unit (Mountain Lands, N5) over the entire site. This could result in a more dispersed development over the site with no designated open space. Building footprints for individual residences could be similar to those of the proposed project. Figure 6-2 shows a potential way the site could be developed under this alternative. All other components of the project would be similar, including:
Construction of a private access road through the site, including rolled curb Trails, fencing and drainage improvements within the private road right-of- way Relocation/construction of an existing multi-use informal trail located partially within and partially outside of the site boundaries to the east Earthen and rock drainage swale improvements and biofiltration basins for runoff An equestrian trail and fence along the western side of the site, adjacent to existing homes Extension of utilities under the proposed private road from existing water and sewer lines under Chesebro Road
Given the dispersed nature of the development in this alternative, substantially larger facilities would be needed, including additional roads, drainage swales, debris detention basins, and utility extensions.
6.3.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics. This alternative would have one less residence than the proposed project with 14 residences under the North Area Plan Buildout Alternative compared to 15 under the proposed project. Under this alternative, residences and associated infrastructure (drainage facilities, roads, fencing, trails) would be dispersed through the project site and possibly on hillsides.
This alternative would increase the distance between on-site residences and the adjacent residences on the east side of Chesebro Road, reducing the overall view blockage from these residences compared to the proposed project. However, unlike the proposed project, residences and infrastructure could be visible from U.S. 101 and more visible than the proposed project from the Santa Monica National Recreation Area, which would result in a Class I, significant and unavoidable impact to scenic vistas, compared to the Class III impact from the proposed project.
City of Agoura Hills 6-5 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives
r D
y n d o l o C
Chesebro Rd
¤£101
Palo Comado Canyon Rd
¤£101
Project Boundary Buildout Site Plan 0 200 400 Feet ± Agoura Rd
Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2014. Alternative 3 Potential North Area Plan Buildout Site Plan Figure 6-2 Rincon Consultants, Inc. Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 6.0 Alternatives
Grading and development of the entire site would substantially alter the visual character of the property and may affect more trees, including oaks, and other visual features located throughout the site, as well as alteration of hillsides. The appearance of density could be less than the proposed project and more rural looking, since the homes would be spread out. However, this dispersal could also give the appearance of a larger area of development, and less open space that is free from development. It is likely that debris detention basins would be required in this alternative, so Impact AES-1 regarding basin fencing would still apply and Mitigation Measure AES-1 required. Impact AES-3 related to design of storm drain outlet structures could still apply to this alternative, and if so, Mitigation Measure AES-3 would still be necessary. Overall, given the severity of grading hillsides and removing other potentially sensitive visual resources within the hillsides there would likely be a Class I, significant and unavoidable impact to visual character, compared to the Class II impact from the proposed project.
With approximately the same number of residences under this alternative and North Area Plan policies to minimize the effects of lighting; impacts associated with light and glare would remain Class III, less than significant, though site lighting would generally be visible from a broader area than under the proposed project.
b. Biological Resources. This alternative would have greater impacts to biological resources than the proposed project. While approximately the same number of residences would be built on the project site, they would be more dispersed throughout the site, which would require more grading and disturbance for roads. With single family residences more dispersed throughout the site, there would be an increased potential for the development to affect a greater amount of habitat types and species, such as oaks, riparian habitat, and ephemeral streams, than under the proposed project. Additionally, none of the project site would be rezoned for permanent preservation of open space as in the proposed project. Overall impacts to biological resources would be greater than those of the proposed project, but would be Class II, less than significant with mitigation incorporated. All mitigation measures for the proposed project would apply and mitigation would need to be added for disturbance and reduction to sensitive plant communities. This mitigation could include avoidance of the areas that contain sensitive plant communities.
c. Geology and Soils. Impacts related to geology and soils would be similar to those identified for the proposed project as this alternative would occur on the same site. Impacts would be Class II, less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The impacts would be ground shaking, liquefaction, slope stabilization in the hillsides around the development pad, differential soil settlement, and expansive soils (Impacts GEO-1, GEO-4, GEO-5, and GEO-6). However, additional slope stability measures may be required with development occurring throughout the project site instead of primarily within the valley floor, which would require slope cuts into the hillsides and more grading than the proposed project. This alternative may also result in more development in expansive soils. It may also bring development into areas of liquefaction. Therefore, further geotechnical analysis and mitigation would be required than what is proposed under Mitigation Measure GEO-1(a and b). Mitigation Measure GEO-6 would also apply. Impact GEO-2, less than significant impacts to fault rupture, would be the same as for the proposed project, since this alternative would not bring development closer to a fault.
City of Agoura Hills 6-7 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 6.0 Alternatives
d. Hazards/Hazardous Materials. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be the same as those of the proposed project. The proximity of the open and closed LUST sites (Impact HAZ-1) would be the same and impacts would remain Class III, less than significant. Additionally, although this alternative would place some housing units closer to the landfill, impacts associated with the Calabasas Landfill (Impact HAZ-2) would remain Class III, less than significant, due to the levels of uranium that were found in the groundwater testing onsite.
e. Hydrology and Water Quality. This alternative would have hydrology/water quality impacts (Impacts HWQ-1, HWQ-2, HWQ-3 and HWQ-4) that would be similar to, but slightly greater than, those of the proposed project because there would be no dedicated open space and there would be more overall grading and impervious surfaces. Due to the increase in disturbance area, the potential for this alternative to result in erosion, sedimentation, or stormwater runoff during construction would be higher. Nevertheless the impacts would be, Class III, less than significant, the same as for the proposed project due in part to compliance with City and NPDES requirements. The operational phase of this alternative would have incrementally greater impacts than those identified for the proposed project because overall stormwater runoff volumes would be incrementally greater. Nevertheless, as with the proposed project, this alternative would comply with current requirements related to control of runoff and pollutants, which would reduce impacts to a Class III, less than significant, level. Impact HWQ-5 regarding floodplain would apply to this alternative as well, given the location of the alternative in the same floodplain as the proposed project. Impacts from the alternative could be comparable to that of the proposed project, depending on the size of the lots and potential to locate structures in the floodplain. The alternative’s impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 would apply.
6.3.3 Comparison with Project Objectives
Alternative 3 – North Area Plan Buildout Alternative would meet the majority of the proposed project’s objectives. Under this alternative the site would not be annexed into the City; therefore, this alternative would not meet the objective of annexing the site into the City and ensuring that development would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. This alternative would also not meet the objective of conserving open space since under this alternative, the entire site would be developed and no parcels would be available for open space conservation.
6.4 ALTERNATIVE 4: CLUSTERED DEVELOPMENT
6.4.1 Description
Under the Clustered Development Alternative, the single family residential lots would be located in a cluster on the project site near the entrance under the proposed project. The residential component would have the same number of single-family residential lots as the proposed project, but in a greater density with lots at 1-2 dwelling units per acre with 15 single family lots developed on 13 acres. Under this alternative the residential component would be zoned Low Density-Residential (20,000 square feet minimum lot size per dwelling unit) (RL). The remainder of the project site, approximately 58 acres, would be zoned for permanent
City of Agoura Hills 6-8 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 6.0 Alternatives
preservation of open space. All other components of the project would be the same as the proposed project including:
Construction of a private access road through the site, including rolled curb Trails, fencing and drainage improvements within the private road right-of- way Relocation/construction of an existing multi-use informal trail located partially within and partially outside of the site boundaries to the east Earthen and rock drainage swale improvements and biofiltration basins for runoff An equestrian trail and fence along the western side of the site, adjacent to existing homes Extension of utilities under the proposed private road from existing water and sewer lines under Chesebro Road
Figure 6-3 shows a diagram of how this alternative could be developed on the site. No plans have been provided by the applicant that would involve development of the site in a clustered manner. This figure has been included for reference.
6.4.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics. This alternative would have an approximately 50 percent smaller development footprint than the proposed project with all single-family residences further congregated and located near Chesebro Road adjacent to existing single family residential development along the east side of Chesebro Road. This would reduce the overall visual impacts of the project site from the scenic vista vantage point of the National Recreation Area by increasing open space preservation by 14 acres and reducing the footprint of development, and, like the proposed project, the developed portion of the site would not be visible from U.S. 101. Due to the 50 percent smaller development footprint, overall scenic vista impacts would be less than those of the proposed project. The alternative would result in the same level of impact as the proposed project, a Class II, less than significant impact with mitigation. This alternative would still require a debris detention basin with fencing (Impact AES-1). Mitigation Measure AES-1 would continue to be required for basin fencing.
The increase in density would result in a more urban development pattern adjacent to open space, and would provide less of a visual transition to adjacent open space than the proposed project. The residential density would be similar, however, to the existing homes along Chesebro Road, near the proposed project site. Overall, the alternative would have the same or less impacts with regard to visual character and compatibility. Impact AES-3 related to design of storm drain outlet structures, however, could still apply to this alternative, and if so, Mitigation Measure AES-3 would still be necessary. Therefore, impacts to visual quality would continue to be Class II, less than significant with mitigation.
With the same number residential units as the proposed project, impacts related to light and glare would be the same as the proposed project, Class III, less than significant.
City of Agoura Hills 6-9 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives
r D
y n d o l o C
Chesebro Rd
¤£101
Palo Comado Canyon Rd
¤£101
Project Boundary Development Site Plan 0 200 400 Feet ± Agoura Rd
Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2014. Alternative 4 Potential Clustered Development Site Plan Figure 6-3 Rincon Consultants, Inc. Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 6.0 Alternatives
b. Biological Resources. This alternative would avoid affecting approximately half of the non-native grassland that would be impacted by the proposed project and impacts to approximately five acres non-native grassland would be avoided. While the amount of habitat affected would be less, the overall magnitude of impacts to biological resources would remain the same as the proposed project. Impacts to locally important wildlife species (Impact BIO-1 and Impact BIO-2) would remain Class II, less than significant with mitigation incorporated, and mitigation measures BIO-1 (a-cf) and BIO-2 (a-bc) would apply. This alternative would also encroach on the northern potential jurisdictional drainages; therefore, mitigation measure BIO-4 would still apply. Impacts to oak trees (BIO-6) would remain Class II, less than significant with mitigation incorporated, and mitigation measure BIO-6 (a-b) would apply. All other impacts related to biological resources would be the same as the proposed project: Class III, less than significant with mitigation incorporated to sensitive plant communities (BIO-3) and mitigation measures BIO-1 (a-b), and Class III, less than significant to wildlife movement or migration (BIO-5).
c. Geology and Soils. Impacts related to geology and soils would be similar to those identified for the proposed project as this alternative would occur on the same, although smaller, portion of the site with Class II, significant but mitigable impacts related to ground shaking (Impact GEO-1).
Impacts related to slope stabilization of hillside areas adjacent to proposed residential areas (Impact GEO-4) on the valley floor would remain the same, Class II, less than significant with mitigation incorporated. While less grading would be required for building pads, overall impacts related to differential soil settlement and expansive soils would remain the same and would be Class II, less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Impacts GEO-5 and GEO- 6). As with the proposed project, impacts from fault rupture or liquefaction would be Class II, less than significant. Mitigation measures GEO-1 (a-b) and GEO-6 would apply.
d. Hazards/Hazardous Materials. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would remain the same as those of the proposed project. The proximity of the open and closed LUST sites to the project site (Impact HAZ-1) would be the same and impacts would remain Class III, less than significant. Additionally, impacts from the landfill adjacent to the site (Impact HAZ-2) would remain Class III, less than significant. This is due to the levels of uranium that were found in the groundwater testing onsite.
e. Hydrology and Water Quality. This alternative would have similar, but slightly lower impacts related to hydrology and water quality compared to the proposed project because development would be clustered, leaving more open permeable space and less runoff and associated pollutants. The potential for this alternative to result in erosion/sedimentation, and water quality concerns during construction would still be Class III, less than significant, the same as the proposed project due to compliance with City and NPDES requirements (see Impact HWQ-1). The reduction in runoff would also reduce the use of stormwater drainage systems in the area. Impact HWQ-5 regarding floodplain would apply to this alternative as well, given the location of the alternative in the same floodplain as the proposed project. Impacts from the alternative would be comparable to that of the proposed project, depending on the size of the lots and potential to locate structures in the floodplain. The alternative’s
City of Agoura Hills 6-11 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 6.0 Alternatives
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 would apply. 6.4.3 Comparison with Project Objectives
Alternative 4 – Clustered Development Alternative would meet the majority of the proposed project’s objectives. However, under this alternative the site would be developed with smaller residential lots. This would not meet the project’s objective of providing the framework for large lot future home development, and may not meet the financial viability objectives.
6.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED
An alternative involving the previously entitled private day school (such as Heschel West Day School) was also considered but rejected. It was determined that development of a day school within the valley floor the project site would increase potential impacts related to aesthetics with an increased building footprint and a parking lot. Impacts related to traffic and noise would be greater with additional traffic generated by employees and students traveling to and from the school. The school would also generate additional noise impacts in its daily operations as compare to 15 single family residential units. With a greater portion of the project site being graded, impacts would also be greater in the areas of biological resources, geology, and hydrology. Therefore, with the increased impacts in many issues areas, this alternative has been rejected and further consideration is not warranted.
6.6 ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS
Several criteria form the basis of whether alternative sites need to be considered in detail. These criteria take the form of the following questions:
1. Could the size and other characteristics of another site physically accommodate the project? 2. Is another site reasonably available for acquisition? 3. Is the timing of carrying out development on an alternative site reasonable for the applicant? 4. Is the project economically feasible on the alternative site? 5. Is the land use designation of the alternative site compatible with the project? 6. Does the lead agency have jurisdiction over the alternative site? 7. Are there any social, technological, or other factors that may make the alternative site infeasible?
Due to the nature of the project, which involves the annexation of unincorporated land from the County of Los Angeles into the City of Agoura Hills, there are no alternate project sites. The project site is located adjacent to the City of Agoura Hills and owned by the City of Agoura Hills, and the City does not own or reasonably have access to other sites that could accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, although development of the proposed uses at another site would be physically feasible, an analysis of an alternative that considers development of the proposed project on another site is not warranted.
City of Agoura Hills 6-12 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 6.0 Alternatives
6.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
As required by CEQA, this section identifies the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, would avoid all environmental impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would be environmentally superior overall. However, this alternative would not meet primary objectives of the proposed project, which include:
Develop a project that is aesthetically and functionally compatible with adjacent uses and the environment. Provide a recreational trails area for the Agoura Hills equestrian community. Conserve open space in compliance with the Agoura Hills General Plan. Provide the framework for large lot future home development with freeway access consistent with the character of Old Agoura. Create a financially viable project for the City of Agoura Hills. Annex the project site into the City of Agoura Hills to ensure that any development would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, and that enforcement of building, planning and environmental standards will be handled by the City’s staff. Sell individual residential lots to residential developers and assure the site would not be developed as a school.
Table 6-2 illustrates an impact comparison of the proposed alternatives and the proposed project. Alternatives 2 and 4 would reduce the impacts to biological resources, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality due to the fact that these two alternatives would reduce the impacted area to approximately 13 acres. Under these two alternatives, the remaining project area would become part of the open space area and would not be impacted. Alternative 3 would be inferior to the proposed project as the aesthetic, biological, geological, and hydrologic/water quality impact of spreading out the development would be greater.
Based on the preceding discussion and the information summarized in Table 6-2, Alternatives 2 and 4 would have impacts similar to those of the proposed project. As stated in the discussion above, these two alternatives would incrementally reduce some of the impacts of the project, but would not eliminate any significant impacts.
City of Agoura Hills 6-13 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 6.0 Alternatives
Table 6-2 Impact Comparison of Alternatives
Proposed Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Alternative 4: Alternative 1: Issue Project Impact Reduced North Area Clustered No Project Classification Residential Buildout Plan Development
Aesthetics III + = - =
Biological + II + - Resources +
Geology and + + II + - Soils
Hazards and Hazardous III + = = = Materials
Hydrology and II + + - + Water Quality
+ Superior to the proposed project (reduced level of impact) - Inferior to the proposed project (increased level of impact) = Similar level of impact to the proposed project
City of Agoura Hills 6-14 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 7.0 References
7.0 REFERENCES AND PREPARERS
7.1 REFERENCES
7.1.1 Bibliography
ALDASORO, J.J., C. NAVARRO, P. VARGAS, LL. SÁEZ & C. AEDO (2002). California, a new genus of Geraniaceae endemic to the southwest of North America. Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 59(2): 209-216
Baldwin, B.G. (Ed.) et al., 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.
California Department of Conservation, Seismic Hazards Zone Map, Calabasas Quadrangle. February 1998.
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Interim Revision 2007.
California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011- 2014, with 2010 Benchmark. May 2014.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [CDFW] List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program,. Sacramento, CA. September 2010. California Department of Fish and Game, October 22, 2007. List of California Vegetation Alliances. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, 16 pgs.
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch And The California Native Plant Society Vegetation Program. 2007. Vegetation Classification of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area and Environs in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, California (2007).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Natural Diversity Database. 2014.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Special Animals. October,2014
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. September, 2014
California Department of Transportation. Scenic Highway Designation. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Waste Discharge Requirements- Calabasas Landfill, Agoura Hills, CA (File NO. 60-118). July 21, 2009.
California State Water Resources Board, Impaired Water Bodies 303(d) list.
City of Agoura Hills 7-1 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 7.0 References
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml accessed September 12, 2014
City of Agoura Hills General Plan 2035 EIR. Final EIR Volumes I and II. February 2010.
City of Agoura Hills Final General Plan Update. March 2010.
County of Los Angeles, Department of Regional Planning. Heschel West School Final EIR. June 2006. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Calabasas Landfill Risk Assessment and Environmental Controls. August 30, 2005.
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Radioactivity Sampling Report for Calabasas Landfill. January, 2003.
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Calabasas Landfill Combined Second Semiannual 2013 and Annual 2013 Water Quality Monitoring and Corrective Action Program Progress Report. January 31, 2014.
David C. Rentz, David B. Weissman. Faunal Affinities, Systematics, and Bionomics of the Orthoptera of the California Channel Islands, Volume 94; University of California Press. 1982.
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Advisory-Active Soil Gas Investigations. April 2012.
Garrett, K., and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution. Los Angeles Audubon Society. Los Angeles, California.
Gillespie, I. G., and E. A. Allen. 2004. Fire and competition in a southern California grassland: impacts on the rare forb Erodium macrophyllum. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:643-652.
Jennings and Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Final report to the Inland Fisheries Division, California Department of Fish and Game. Rancho Cordova, California.
Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Rancho Cordova: California Department of Fish and Game.
Johnson, L. 2007. Two New Species and a Reassessment of Synonymy in the Navarretia pubescens Complex (Polemoniaceae) of Western North America
[LACFD] County of Los Angeles Fire Department. 2011. Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines, Firewise Landscape Guide for Creating and Maintaining Defensible Space
Los Angeles County Fire Department Brush Clearance Program, 2015. Personal Communication.
Nafis, G. A. (2000-2013) Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Available at: http://www.californiaherps.com/ (accessed August 2014).
City of Agoura Hills 7-2 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 7.0 References
Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed [04/15/2014].
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: March 1, 2015 ). http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=erodium+macrophyl lum
Ng, S., J. Dole, R. Sauvajot, S. Riley, and T. Valone. 2004. Use of highway undercrossings by wildlife in southern California. Biological Conversation.
Penrod, Cabanero and Beir, et al. 2006. South Coast Missing Linkages Project: A Linkage Design for the Santa Monica-Sierra Madre Connection. South Coast Wildlands, National Parks Service, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, California State Parks, and the Nature Conservancy.
Pierson, E., W. Rainey. 1998. “Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
David C Rentz; David B Weissman. 1982. Faunal affinities, systematics, and bionomics of the Orthoptera of the California Channel Islands. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Reiser, C. H. 1994. Rare plants of San Diego County. Aquafir Press, Imperial Beach, California. (Available at: http://sandiego.sierraclub.org/rareplants/)
Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Spencer, W.D., H. Rustigian, R.M. Scheller, A.D. Syphard, J.R. Strittholt, B.C. Ward. 2008. Baseline evaluation of fisher habitat and population status and effects of fires and fuels management on fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada. Report to the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 133pp. http://consbio.org/what-we-do/southern-sierra- nevadafisher-assessment/sothern-sierra-nevada-fisher-assessment
State of California, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dog
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database, http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/default.asp
Suarez, A.V. and Case, T.J. 2002. Bottom-up effects on persistence of a specialist predator: ant invasions and horned lizards. Ecological Applications 12: 291-298.
City of Agoura Hills 7-3 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Section 7.0 References
Suarez, A.V.; Richmond, J.Q. and Case, T.J. 2000. Prey selection in horned lizards following the invasion of Argentine ants in southern California. Ecological Applications 10: 711-725.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006 (November 14). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii; Final Rule. Federal Register 71(219): 66373–66423. Washington, D.C.: USFWS.
Zeiner, D.C.,W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E.Mayer, and M.White, eds.1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. I-III. California Depart. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
7.2 LIST OF PREPARERS
This EIR was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. under contract to the City of Agoura Hills. Ms. Allison Cook is the project planner from the City of Agoura Hills. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control include:
Rincon Consultants Sara Kopp, Project Manager Joe Power, Principal Saudamini Sindhar, Biologist Steve Hongola, Biologist Jake Hurley, Associate Environmental Scientist Kevin Howen, Graphic Designer Katie Stanulis, Production Coordinator
City of Agoura Hills 7-4 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
8.0 RESPONSES to COMMENTS
This section includes the comments received during circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Agoura Equestrian Estates Project (Project) and responses to those comments. Where a comment resulted in a change to the Draft EIR text, a notation is made in the response indicating that the text is revised. Changes in text are signified by strikeouts (strikeouts) where text is removed and by underlined font (underline font) where text is added. Other minor clarifications and corrections to typographical errors are also shown as corrected in this format, including corrections not based on responses to comments. These changes do not introduce new information or otherwise affect the analysis or conclusions of the EIR and thus do not require recirculation under State CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.
The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period that began on January 9, 2015 and ended on March 2, 2015. The City of Agoura Hills (City) received comments from the public at a hearing of the Planning Commission and 36 comment letters on the Draft EIR, including an acknowledgement from the State Clearinghouse that the City has complied with CEQA environmental review requirements. The commenters and the page numbers on which each commenter’s letters appear (as applicable) are listed below.
Page Commenter No. Comments from Speakers at the Planning Commission Hearing on 20 February 5, 2015 Comment Letters 1. Scott Morgan, California State Clearinghouse, February 24, 2015 29 2. David Szymanski, National Parks Service, March 2, 2015 40 3. Betty J. Courtney, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 55 February 23, 2015 4. Dianna Watson, California Department of Transportation, 66 February 23, 2015 5. Jillian Wong, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 70 February 20, 2015 6. Paul Edelman, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, March 2, 2015 76 7. Kevin T. Johnson, County of Los Angeles Fire Department, 89 February 6, 2015 8. Patricia Hachiya, Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, 96 March 2, 2015 9. Patrick Malekian, Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and 98 Control, February 18, 2015 10. Kathline J. King, Los Angeles County Department of Parks and 100 Recreation, February 12, 2015 11. Patricia Hachiya, Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, 105 March 2, 2015 12. Art Vander Vis, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, 122 February 23, 2015
City of Agoura Hills
8-1 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Page Commenter No. 13. Aura C. Wong, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, 126 February 20, 2015 14. Yolanda De Ramus, Los Angeles County Library, February 17, 2105 128 15. Tracey Jue, Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, March 5, 2015 130 16. Whitney Wilkinson, Ventura County Planning Division, March 5, 2015 135 17. Tricia Maier, County of Ventura, March 2, 2015 143 18. Mary E. Wiesbrock, Save Open Space, February 5, 2015 147 19. Mary E. Wiesbrock, Save Open Space, February 6, 2015 150 20. Mary E. Wiesbrock, Save Open Space, February 24, 2015 152 21. Mary E. Wiesbrock, Save Open Space, February 28, 2015 176 22. Mary E. Wiesbrock, Save Open Space, March 1, 2015 200 23. Mary E. Wiesbrock, Save Open Space, March 2, 2015 230 24. Mary E. Wiesbrock, Save Open Space, March 2, 2015 238 25. Mary E. Wiesbrock, Save Open Space, March 2, 2015 250 26. Joel Schulman, Poison Free Malibu, March 2, 2015 253 27. Larry Brown, February 5, 2015 257 28. Jess Thomas, February 5, 2015 259 29. Meril S. Platzer, M.D. March 1, 2105 268 30. Tyler Barns, February 28, 2015 272 31. Pat MacGregor, March 2, 2015 279 32. Phil Ramuno, March 1, 2015 282 33. Jess Thomas, March 1, 2015 288 34. Ronald T. Barns, March 1, 2015 291 35. Larry Brown, March 2, 2015 293 36. Slosson and Associates, Thomas L. Slosson, March 2, 2015 297
The comment letters and the City’s responses follow. Each comment letter has been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has also been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response 2.1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in Comment Letter 2).
8.1 GLOBAL RESPONSES
Many comments address similar topics. For these comments, seven Global Responses have been prepared and are presented below. Throughout the Responses to Comments, when comments pertain to these topics, the reader is directed to the Global Response, with supplemental responses also provided in response to specific comments as warranted.
Global Response 1: Allowed Units
Phase 2 of the proposed project includes the construction of 15 single family dwelling units. No plans have been submitted for these structures, nor are they being proposed for construction. Instead it is anticipated that the residential lots would be sold to individuals who would then City of Agoura Hills
8-2 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments construct their homes. The City of Agoura Hills Municipal Code and California State Law allow for secondary dwelling units on residential lots. The large majority of single family homes in the City of Agoura Hills, including in the Old Agoura community, do not include secondary residential units. Nonetheless, if future property owners in the project so choose, 15 additional second dwelling units could be constructed on the project site. Under the City’s Municipal Code, each of the second units could not exceed 700 square feet. These units may or may not be permanent dwelling units. Should secondary dwelling units be proposed in the future, they would be required to adhere to the standards of the Agoura Hills Municipal Code, including setbacks and sizing. Furthermore, in Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007), the courts found that CEQA documents do not need to include analysis of potential secondary dwelling units that are not currently proposed since such analysis would be speculative.
The Draft EIR examines the maximum disturbance area for the site. The only areas not assumed to be disturbed by the project are the areas within the setbacks required by the Agoura Hills Municipal Code and the proposed open space parcels. Thus, the Draft EIR considers a maximum impact scenario, including for potential structures. See also Global Response 4: Traffic from Secondary Units.
Global Response 2: Proposed Trails
The project includes relocation of the existing informal onsite trail further east and construction of two new trails. The existing trail to be shifted easterly would connect to the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area and would allow for public access by pedestrian and equestrian users. The second trail, for equestrian use, would follow along the western boundary of the site and be accessible by residents of the project and the adjacent residences. The third trail, for equestrians and pedestrians of the proposed homes, would follow both sides of the internal private driveway. Refer to Draft EIR Figures 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6, which show the trails. These figures are also available in the Draft EIR posted on the City’s website and can be enlarged online. Appendix B also includes plans showing the trails at a larger scale.
Global Response 3: Traffic Impact Analysis
The City’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines state that development projects that have the potential to substantially affect the City’s transportation system may be required to prepare a TIA. The requirement to prepare a TIA is considered on a case-by-case basis. The Guidelines state that a TIA may be required for a development project that satisfies at least one of the following criteria:
1. The project will generate 50 or more new AM or PM peak-hour vehicle trip-ends*; or 2. The project will generate 500 or more new daily vehicle trip-ends*; or 3. The project will substantially affect an intersection or a roadway segment already identified as operating at an unacceptable level of service; or 4. The project is inconsistent with the General Plan land use, zoning designations, or could potentially generate substantially greater levels of traffic than contemplated by the General Plan; or 5. The project may create a hazard to public safety; or
City of Agoura Hills 8-3 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
6. The project will substantially change the offsite transportation system or connections to it.
* A vehicle trip-end is defined as either an origin or destination of a trip.
Note: The AM peak-hour is defined as the peak consecutive hour during the 7-9 AM peak period, and the PM peak-hour is defined as the peak consecutive hour during the 4-6 PM peak period. Both are on a weekday (Tuesday-Thursday). Analysis of special time periods may be required depending on the land use.
The following describes the general process for determining whether any of the above criteria are met:
1. Compute the AM and PM peak-hour trip generation in a manner consistent with current Trip Generation (published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers) methodologies. 2. Compute daily trip generation in a manner consistent with current Trip Generation (published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers) methodologies. 3. Prepare the anticipated distribution pattern for the proposed project trips and quantify the number of trips that would be added to the surrounding intersections and roadway segments. 4. Consult the City’s Planning and Community Development Department for General Plan documentation and assumptions, and Zoning Code provisions. 5. Consult with the City’s Planning and Community Development Department and Public Works Department to determine if there are any existing known or anticipated public safety hazards.
If none of these cases apply, a TIA may not be necessary unless the City deems that special circumstances require analysis. In certain cases, the City may require a less extensive analysis, which might include obtaining traffic counts, preparing signal warrants, or performing a focused TIA.
Staff determined that none of the above criteria were met, but decided to prepare a TIA nonetheless. The TIA was prepared and circulated as part of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) in May 2014. The issue area of Transportation/Traffic was discussed in the IS/NOP, and given the results of the TIA, was determined not necessary to carry forward in the EIR. The TIA is attached to the IS/NOP in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. For the TIA, 15 single family homes were considered. The residential lots would likely be developed over time, yet the TIA assumed a situation in which all 15 homes would be constructed at the same time by 2015, prior to implementation of the Palo Comado Canyon Road/U.S. 101 interchange improvements currently being designed, as a conservative scenario. The format of the TIA follows the City of Agoura Hills and Congestion Management Plan (CMP) guidelines.
Two study intersections were analyzed in the vicinity of the project site: 1) Chesebro Road at Palo Comado Canyon Road/Driver Avenue/Canwood Street; and 2) Palo Comado Canyon Road at U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps
The following scenarios were assessed at each of these intersections: Existing (2013) Conditions without Project Existing (2013) Conditions with Project
City of Agoura Hills 8-4 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Near Term (2015) Conditions without Project (Project opening year) Near Term (2015) Conditions with Project (Project opening year) Longer Term (2035) Conditions (Cumulative) (assumes other development)
The project would generate an estimated 144 daily trips, including 11 trips during the AM peak period and 15 trips during the PM peak period. Trip generation was based on the ITE guidelines (ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th edition, 2012) for single family detached homes (category 210). ITE develops ratios based on a national collection of studies for all different types of communities.
The TIA Guidelines state that a proposed project would result in a significant impact if, prior to mitigation, it:
i. Degrades operations at a signalized intersection as follows:
Table 1 Intersection Thresholds Study Intersections Pre-Project Increase in v/c LOS v/c C 0.71 - 0.80 0.04 or more D 0.81 - 0.90 0.02 or more E/F 0.91 or more 0.01 or more
Or
ii. Degrades the Level of Service (LOS) at an unsignalized intersection to an unacceptable level of LOS D or worse; or iii. Increases delay at an unsignalized intersection operating at an unacceptable level by five or more seconds; or iv. Results in satisfying the most recent California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) peak-hour volume warrant or other warrants for traffic signal installation at the intersection; or v. Increases the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio on a roadway segment operating at an unacceptable level (LOS D, E or F) by 0.05 or more.
Both study intersections operate at an unacceptable level in the AM peak hour period and an acceptable level in the PM peak hour period currently, however, the trips added to these intersections by the project would be less than significant and would change neither the Level of Service (LOS) during the existing condition (2013), or under the near term/project opening year condition (2015). At both intersections, the project’s change in delay would range from 0.3- 0.5 seconds per vehicle, not exceeding the City’s impact criteria of five or more seconds of delay during the existing condition or near term/project opening year condition.
The trips would not trigger any of the other thresholds listed above for determining a significant impact.
City of Agoura Hills 8-5 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
The longer-term cumulative scenario (2035) assumes full buildout of the entire City per the General Plan by 2035. This scenario assumes the occupation of pending, approved and either under construction or already constructed projects not yet occupied. These include relevant projects in the vicinity of the site, such as the approved 18 residential units at the southeast corner of Chesebro Road/Driver Avenue, Palo Comado Canyon Road/Canwood Street. Table 4 of the TIA lists all relevant projects assumed in the cumulative analysis. The cumulative scenario also assumes ambient annual traffic growth of 0.75 percent beyond the list of specific projects expected to be occupied in the future. For this scenario, the planned interchange improvements at the Palo Comado Canyon Road/U.S. 101 interchange are assumed to be implemented. In the cumulative scenario, the project would not result in a significant traffic impact (i.e., the project does not change the LOS at either study intersection, nor does the change in delay meet the threshold for significant impact).
See also Global Response 4, below.
Global Response 4: Traffic from Secondary Units
As discussed in Global Response 1, impacts from second units, including impacts related to vehicle trips, do not require analysis in the EIR. The second units are not proposed either in Phase 1 or Phase 2 of the project, and it would be speculative to assume their development at a later date. Currently, there are an estimated five total second units in Agoura Hills, while the total number of residential units in the City is estimated at 7,585. Thus, only about 0.06 percent of the homes in the City have second units. Moreover, pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2 et seq., second units are considered ministerial actions, and therefore are exempt from CEQA (see Section 21080(b)(1) of the Public Resources Code). Finally, the courts found in Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007), that CEQA document are not required to analyze impacts from secondary dwelling units that are not being proposed as part of the project. Therefore, the TIA appropriately does not assess traffic resulting from possible future second homes on each of the 15 residential lots.
Global Response 5: Fuel Modification and Permanent Preservation of Sensitive Communities
Several commenters contend that the Draft EIR does not adequately evaluate fuel modification impacts on species habitat, sensitive communities, existing oak trees, and wildlife movement; are concerned about site design and offsite fuel modification on public lands; and indicate that enforcement of fuel modification mitigation measures would be difficult. The response below includes a discussion of Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) Forestry Division regulations, CEQA evaluation requirements, and clarification on the Final EIR of mitigation measures requiring Fuel Management Plan, that includes combustible structure setbacks (if necessary) to avoid indirect impacts to native habitat, and sensitive habitat mitigation.
Los Angeles County Fire Department Forestry Division Regulations As discussed in the Draft EIR, the fuel modification calculations in Tables 4.2-3, 4.2-4 and 4.2-5, and Figure 4.2-5 represent the maximum theoretical impacts. These calculations are based on the most recent fuel modification guidance from the Los Angeles Fire Department (2011). However, the LACFD Forestry Division Fuel Modification Unit does not require offsite fuel management:
City of Agoura Hills 8-6 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
A wide variety of conditions may result in fuel modification not being fully achieved within the property boundaries. Property owners are not required to extend their fuel modification on to adjacent property. However, they are encouraged to collaborate with adjacent private landowners and public agencies to find ways to extend their fuel modification or brush clearance activities in ways that benefit everyone in the community. Written documentation will need to be submitted as proof before any offsite modification will be taken into consideration… (LACFD, 2011).
The Draft EIR fuel modification and mapping analysis is likely beyond the existing legal requirements of fuel modification in that it assumes offsite fuel management, and so the analysis is a reasonable maximum scenario. Any offsite vegetation removal is the responsibility of the LACFD Brush Clearance Program, which for developed properties is implemented by the regional fire station. If offsite fuel management is required, the terms and requirements are negotiated with the property owner, surrounding landowners, and public agencies on a case- by-case basis. Alternative methods such as fire masonry wall may be required or allowed by the regional fire stations as part of the Brush Clearance Program (LACFD, 2015), and would be integrated into the Fuel Management Plan (a plan for fire safety required and approved by LACFD, which may include alternative and traditional fire prevention techniques). Additionally, adjacent public landowners including the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC), as shown in Figure 4.2-6, are exempted from the LACFD fuel clearance requirements (LACFD, 2015).
CEQA Evaluation Requirements A lead agency is only required to evaluate “reasonably foreseeable” impacts (§15064), and judicial direction is that it is unreasonable and unrealistic to demand that an EIR “must describe in detail each and every conceivable development scenario.”1 Given the legal requirements for fuel modification, the reasonable foreseeable impact from fuel modification is the fuel management on each individual lot. However, as discussed in Section 4.2, the Draft EIR evaluates a theoretical “worst case” fuel management scenario that exceeds the vegetation removal that is reasonably foreseeable under existing LACFD Forestry Division regulatory guidance. Under the onsite (within the residential lots 1-16 only, excluding the Lot 17 open space parcel) fuel modification requirements less than 0.2 acre of sensitive native vegetation would be removed. However, given that 2.3 acres of non-native grassland bordering residential development along the western edge of the project site is already mowed by homeowners annually for fuel modification, it is reasonable to assume that some offsite and Lot 16 and 17 open space parcels fuel modification is possible.
Within the Residential Very Low Density (RV) zone district, the City of Agoura Hills requires a rear setback prohibiting non-accessory structures within 25 feet of the rear lot line (see Draft EIR Section 4.2). The 25-foot setback represents a reasonable limit from which to measure and analyze fuel modification zones since it represents the limits of the requirements for habitable structures based on the City’s legal setback requirement. The maximum theoretical impact scenario for fuel modification potential is evaluated in the Draft EIR and includes the alteration of up to 6.8 acres of native habitat onsite (including portions of Lot 16 and Lot 17) and up to 3.9 acres offsite (excluding non-native annual grassland). Based on comments by the CDFW, the existing “worst case” Draft EIR fuel modification analysis has been updated to the maximum
1City of Antioch v. City Council (1986).
City of Agoura Hills 8-7 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments theoretical impacts fuel modification for all zones as permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation. Fuel modification is defined as the creation of defensible space around structures through the removal and thinning of vegetation on a site and/or development and installation of new planting using the concepts of Firewise Landscaping (Fuel Modification Guidelines, County of Los Angeles, Fire Code 317.10). A Fuel Modification Zone is a specific area where vegetation has been removed, planted, or modified in ways that increase the likelihood that a structure will survive a wildfire; improve the defensible space around that structure needed for firefighting activities; and prevent direct flame contact with structures. Vegetation includes native and ornamental plants, non-native naturalized annual grasses, and other invasive or naturalized species. Fuel modification activities can include removal, partial or total replacement of existing plants with adequately spaced drought-tolerant and fire-resistant species, and thinning of existing native or ornamental species.
Sites going through a plan review generally require a fuel modification area that is a 200 foot buffer around structures. The 200 foot buffer can be divided into various Fuel Modification Zones, the actual number and width of which depends on onsite and offsite factors. Zone A is the setback zone and requires clearance of vegetation within 20 to 50 feet of habitable structures. Zone B is the irrigation or transition zone and requires thinning or irrigation of vegetation from the edge of Zone A to 100 feet. Zone C is the native brush thinning zone and requires thinning of flammable vegetation from the edge of Zone B to 200 feet. The Draft EIR treatment of Zone C was 3.5 acres of onsite indirect “modification” of habitat and sensitive communities rather than direct permanent removal; the Zones A and B Draft EIR analysis of the direct removal of 3.2 acres of onsite sensitive communities remains unchanged. The total onsite fuel modification (Zones A–C) for sensitive communities (as classified by CDFW and the City), all of which is evaluated as permanent removal, is 6.89 acres as disclosed in the Final EIR page 4.2-70, Table 4.2-5. As discussed below in response to this consideration, MM BIO-3(a) was amended to indicate a preference for a masonry wall or other similar alternative means to address fire concerns, if approved by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (including any agency with jurisdiction over fuel management or brush clearance, such as the Agricultural Commissioner and Weed Abatement Division) (LACFD). If the LACFD instead requires vegetation removal and/or modification, then the first 50 feet (maximum theoretical Zone A) would occur in the rear yard of each residential Lot 6-15 (i.e., a 50-foot setback from the rear property line). No habitable structures would be allowed in the first 25- feet of the total 50 feet closest to the rear property line (also consistent with the RV zoning); in the next 25 feet, combustible structures would not be allowed and the land must be maintained in accordance with LACFD requirements for maximum theoretical Zone A fuel modification. If the LACFD requires offsite fuel modification for Zones B and C (and does not allow a wall or similar alternative measure to vegetation removal/modification) compensation at a 2:1 ratio would be required for impacts to the following sensitive habitats:
Purple Sage Scrub Alliance Purple Sage - California Sagebrush Scrub Alliance Purple Needlegrass - California Melic Grass Alliance (Native Grassland) (if affected) Sawtooth Goldenbush- California Sagebrush Scrub Alliance Red Willow-Arroyo Willow- Mugwort Alliance
City of Agoura Hills 8-8 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
MM BIO-3(a) outlines required mitigation, which would generally be 2:1 for the coastal sage scrub (up to 3.1 acres) and native grassland (up to 0.2 acers), and riparian (less than 0.1 acres) sensitive habitats. Table 4.2-5 of the Draft EIR includes a summary of sensitive habitats that could potentially be affected by fuel modification on the Lot 16 and 17 open space parcels. The City encourages the protection of high value (as determined by a biologist) coastal sage scrub habitat and provides for replacement of high value coastal sage scrub habitat that is disturbed. However, as discussed in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR, the one coastal sage scrub alliance present, Sawtooth Goldenbush - Golden Stars - Wild Oats, is not considered high value because of disturbance. Therefore, as evaluated in the Draft EIR, impacts to the Sawtooth Goldenbush - Golden Stars - Wild Oats Alliance are less than significant, mitigation would not be required for fuel management.
Avoidance of Native Habitat As noted above, MM BIO-3(a) has been clarified to indicate a preference for a masonry wall or similar measure at the rear edges of Lots 6-15, adjacent to Lot 17, if allowed by the LACFD, to avoid offsite vegetation removal/modification as part of fuel modification. This would reduce or eliminate impacts to sensitive and native habitat from the maximum theoretical Zone B and C requirements. The Final EIR has been updated to include a 50-foot rear setback for combustible structures on Lots 6-15 under MM BIO-3(a), unless it can be demonstrated that fuel management requirements can be met onsite. Additionally, MM BIO-3(a) has been clarified to require mitigation at a 2:1 ratio for sensitive habitats, including coastal sage scrub, riparian habitat, and native grasslands, impacted by fuel clearance on Lots 17 and 16.
As clarified in MM BIO-3(a) and consistent with LACFD guidance, any fuel management conducted outside the residential lots on the Lot 17 and Lot 16 open space parcel requires the permission of the property owner and would be negotiated through the Fire Department's Brush Clearance Program. Additionally, the LACFD must approve a fuel management plan prepared to address the specific building proposal prior to building permit issuance.
Oak Trees and Fuel Modification As the specific location of the proposed homes and any accessory structures that are part of Phase 2 are not yet known, it is possible that oak trees could be impacted by grading and required fuel modification associated with the development of each residential parcel, namely Oak Tree Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 which are on or adjacent to the northern edge of Lot 15. LACFD regulation requires trees to be limbed up six feet above the ground (Zone B), and oak trees without an understory chaparral require shorter fuel modification distances (LACFD, 2011) Oak Tree #4 does not have limbs that touch the ground or extrude from the truck less than six feet from the ground, and lacks a vegetative understory. Trimming of live branches extending from the canopy to within six feet of the ground would not significantly impact the heath of the tree. The fuel modification within 200 feet of structures and specific tree liming requirements is not anticipated to substantially affect the health of any protected oak tree. Nonetheless, any impacts that occur to protected oaks would need to be mitigated for by preparing an Oak Tree Report or similar study for each lot proposed for development that is in the vicinity of a protected oak tree, and by following the recommendations and requirements of the Oak Tree Report or similar study, as well as the requirements of the Planning and Community Development Department. If off-site oak trees under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County
City of Agoura Hills 8-9 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments were to be pruned or encroached upon, a permit from Los Angeles County would be required consistent with the Los Angeles County Oak Tree Ordinance (§ 22.56.2050).
All trees onsite, but particularly the mature valley oak (Quercus lobata) (Oak Tree #4) off-site directly north of lot 15, serve as wildlife foraging and breeding habitat. In particular, existing deadwood in the canopy and on fallen wood are considered to have habitat value and are important elements in the maintenance of both wildlife and botanic diversity. Large isolated valley oaks (with their deadwood component), such as Tree #4, are held to be particularly valuable for both birds and mammals. Limbing of the deadwood in Oak Tree #4 could potentially impact nesting bird and special statues species habitat. Mitigation Measure BIO-6(b) has been revised to require an 80-foot protection zone from the trunk of Oak Tree #4 during development of Lot 15 in Phase 2 and to prohibit development of any structures, hardscape and paved access areas in the protected zone unless a reduced area is approved by an oak tree specialist upon further review of project specific development plans. This prohibition would limit the removal of deadwood for fuel modification in Oak Tree # 4 by ensuring that the canopy of Oak Tree #4 is within fuel management Zone B. As discussed above, in Zone B LACFD regulation requires trees to be limbed up six feet above the ground. The potential removal of deadwood (and limbs) from the canopy six feet above the ground would not significantly affect the habitat value of the Oak Tree #4, which has a height of approximately 50 feet.
Impacts to sensitive plant communities remain less than significant with mitigation as evaluated in the Draft EIR, and clarified in the Final EIR. The amendment of Draft EIR MM- BIO-3(a) as noted above does not warrant recirculation under CEQA Guidelines §15088.5. The conclusions in the Draft EIR regarding the significance of the impact are not changed by the addition of more restrictive mitigation and mitigation clarifications incorporated into the Final EIR.
Global Response 6: Wildlife Movement and Connectivity
Several commenters state that the Draft EIR does not adequately evaluate the project’s potential direct and indirect impacts to wildlife movement. The commenters state that the project is located within mapped landscape linkages and therefore the project would have significant and unavoidable impacts on wildlife movement, and that the proposed project would conflict with a proposed future freeway wildlife crossing.
Several commenters state that money is available to purchase the project site. The purchase of the property for open space is not part of the project action requested by the applicant. The purpose of the EIR is to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The availability of money to purchase the property for conservation does not inform the potential impacts of the development of the project site and is therefore not relevant to the preparation of the EIR.
The discussion below clarifies the wildlife movement mapping, provides additional context on the mapped wildlife corridors disclosed in the Draft EIR, and details how the new and amended mitigation measures in the Final EIR would further ensure impacts would be less than significant as evaluated in the Draft EIR.
City of Agoura Hills 8-10 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
As discussed under Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR, the project site is mapped under two landscape level connectivity modeling studies:
1) South Coast Missing Linkages Project: A Linkage Design for the Santa Monica- Sierra Madre Connection (Penrod, et al, 2006) (2006 South Coast Wildlands Study). This model was develop based on a ”Least Cost Union” for landscape permeability of 20 focus species between large protected areas of suitable habitat (i.e., Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area, Los Padres Nation Forest). 2) 2010 California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project (Caltrans, 2010). This study differentiates between “Natural Landscape Blocks” and “Essential Connectivity Areas.”
“Chesebro/Cheeseboro Meadow Key Linkage in Parcel” Map The “Chesebro Meadow Key Parcel in Linkage” and “Chesebro Meadow Key Parcel” designation shown on the map key submitted under comment letter #18 is not a phrase or designation present in either modeling study referenced above. More generally “key parcels” are not a concept evaluated or designated under either of the above modeling studies. Neither phrase and similar designation is included in any the multiple regional wildlife movement studies conducted, including the incorrect citation as the South Coast Missing Linkages Project: A Linkage Design for the Santa Monica- Sierra Madre Connection (Penrod, et al, 2006) (2006 South Coast Wildlands Study). The map provided in the comments may have been adapted from Figure 46 on page 67 of the 2006 South Coast Wildlands Study, which is intended to show existing protected lands within the Santa Monica Mountains-Sierra Made linkage design. The proposed project parcel is not called out specifically in the 2006 South Coast Wildlands Study, nor is it depicted in any of the 94 maps and figures contained in the study. Similarly, “key parcel” is not a phrase that appears in the 2006 South Coast Wildlands Study for Chesebro/Cheeseboro Meadows or elsewhere in the Linkage. Additionally, the phrase “key parcel” or designation does not appear in the 2010 California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project, which incorporates this information from the mapping of the 2006 South Coast Wildlands Study. The 2006 South Coast Wildlands Study is discussed in detail in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR, and references and mapping of the project site and vicinity (e.g., Cheeseboro and Palo Comado Canyons) are further detailed below. References to the site in the Agoura Hills General Plan and 2010 California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project are also evaluated under Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR. The altered map submitted with several comments does not offer any substantial or new evidence about how the project would result in significant impacts to wildlife movement.
Large Mammal Movement Mapping Modeling As discussed in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR, the 2006 South Coast Wildlands Study maps landscape linkages based on the modeling of habitat and movement needs for 20 focal species. Several commenters state that the project site, including the predominantly non-native grassland development area (development footprint), provides habitat and movement pathways for mountain lions and other large carnivores. The 2006 South Coast Wildlands Study does not include the site as a “Least Cost Union” for mountain lions, but for mule deer (Figure 8). The least cost union for mountain lion begins approximately 2.3 miles east of the project site at Lanskey Mesa (Figure 10). The mountain lion model assumed 40% vegetative cover based on the following assumptions:
City of Agoura Hills 8-11 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Mountain lions use brushy stages of a variety of habitat types with good cover…mountain lions are known to occupy a wide variety of habitat types, including within the urban interface… preferred travel routes are along stream corridors and gentle terrain, but all habitats are used. In southern California grasslands, agricultural areas, and human altered landscapes are avoided.
No stream corridors or cover are present on the 71-acre project site and the 22-acre development area is flat and largely absent of continuous vegetative cover (e.g., shrubs and trees) except for scattered oak trees in the northeast portion. The study concluded that the modeled Least Cost Union would serve mountain lions given that they may disperse across large expanses. As modeled by the 2006 South Coast Wildlands Study and shown in NPS telemetric data depicted on Figure 4.2-6 of the Draft EIR, mountain lion dispersal occurs through vegetated canyons beginning approximately 1,200 feet to the east of the proposed development area.
As evaluated in the 2006 study, the grassland valley within the development area may provide habitat and migration routes for mule deer. As stated in the Draft EIR, given that the site is adjacent to 6,000 acres of contiguous habitat, impacts to wildlife movement from the direct removal (i.e., grading) of approximately 22 acres of undeveloped area adjacent to existing development would not be significant. The following is a summary of the recommendations set forth in the 2006 South Coast Wildlands Study (page 103) to mitigate the effects of urban barriers in the linkage design area:
Open space acquisition and protection of conservation easements Minimal outdoor lighting Fencing dogs and domestic animals on-site, keeping cats indoors Public education regarding surrounding wildlife, including the Santa Monica Mountains Resource Conservation District brochure on Best Management Practices for Horse Owners Encourage preservation of sensitive communities Prohibit invasive landscaping and minimize the use pesticides, poisons, and chemicals.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1(f) includes wildlife friendly fencing standards. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not block an existing movement pathway, and Mitigation Measure BIO-1(f) would ensure that wildlife is not entrapped in fences, and encourages funneling away from Chesebro Road and existing development and into natural areas to the east and north. The proposed rezone would result in the permanent preservation of 49 acres of open space. Mitigation Measure BIO-1(c) would minimize outdoor lighting. Mitigation Measure BIO-1(e) requires the developer/applicant to prepare a public education campaign for future residents about the domestic animals predation on wildlife, and the risk of predation on domestic animals by of carnivores and predator safety, including providing future residents with the South Coast Wildlands recommended brochure. Mitigation Measure BIO-3(a) would mitigate impacts to sensitive communities. Mitigation Measure BIO-3(b) would prohibit invasive species, and Mitigation Measure BIO-3(d) would minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, and prohibit rodenticides. The FEIR clarifications, including updated and additional mitigation measures discussed above, do not constitute “significant new information.” No substantial increase in the severity of the impact to biological resources is identified in the Final EIR. The Final EIR clarifications would not result in new substantial adverse environmental effects, and would not reduce the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. Impacts to biological resources (species, sensitive communities, waters and wetlands,
City of Agoura Hills 8-12 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments local tree ordinances) would be less than significant with mitigation, as identified in Draft EIR. Therefore, the clarifications and amplifications to the FEIR and mitigation measures do not necessitate recirculation of the Environmental Impact Report under CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.
Proposed and Existing Highway 101 Wildlife Crossing The 2006 South Coast Wildlands Study references a potential Highway 101 wildlife crossing at Liberty Canyon. Specifically for Liberty Canyon, the 2006 South Coast Wildlands Study (page 79) recommended a highway crossing over Highway 101 with exclusion fencing, habitat restoration, and removal of existing impediments at the existing Liberty Canyon Drainage. In reference to Comment Letter #6, Caltrans has recently prepared a Project Study Report for the design and review of this potential crossing. The proposed development area is located approximately 3,500 feet northwest of the proposed crossing and is separated by mountainous terrain providing a 400-foot high topographic barrier from Liberty Canyon, which begins approximate 2,300 feet east of the development area. Given this distance, and terrain separation, and lack of movement pathways or core habitat in the development area, the proposed project would not to affect future Liberty Canyon wildlife movement enhancements. The proposed project does not have the potential to conflict with the 2006 South Coast Wildlands Study (page 79) Liberty Canyon recommendations.
Liberty Canyon is comprised of high value native and riparian habitat, which would presumably support the majority of any future the wildlife movement between the north and south sides of Highway 101. As shown in Draft EIR Figure 4.2-6, telemetry data obtained from the NPS from 1996 to 2004 provides substantial evidence that in comparison to Liberty Canyon and Lower Chesebro Canyon north of the site, large mammalian wildlife (i.e., bobcat, coyote, mountain lion) prefer the topographically separated canyons to the east rather than the development footprint for habitat and migration. Further, as shown on Figure 4.2-6, the 22-acre area proposed for residential development shows five bobcat, two coyotes, and no mountain lion data points. Areas to the west and north host much higher concentrations of telemetric data points for each of these species. The telemetric data on the project site in comparison to Liberty Canyon to the east demonstrates that large carnivores are likely not attracted to or funneled into the valley area adjacent to existing development along Chesebro Road. Figure 4.2-6 indicates that a greater concentration of wildlife movement is occurring to the east of the ridge and in Liberty Canyon, and most wildlife movement depicted in the figure is topographically separated from the project site. The telemetric data suggests that wildlife is already directed away from the existing valley into adjacent and topographically separated areas to the east that contain suitable vegetative cover. Draft EIR Figure 4.2-6 depicts GPS readings at an undescribed point in time and that are not comprehensive of all large mammalian predator movement in the area; nevertheless, it reasonably reflects the wildlife movement trends in the wildlife corridor and adjacent area.
The Draft EIR evaluates the project’s potential to affect wildlife movement, and acknowledges the potential for a future Liberty Canyon wildlife crossing across Highway 101, as discussed in the 2006 South Coast Wildlands Study. The National Park Service, Santa Monica Conservancy, and Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains are currently working with Caltrans on funding and design of a wildlife overpass and other wildlife crossing enhancements at Highway 101 at Liberty Canyon, beginning approximately 3,500 feet southeast of the
City of Agoura Hills 8-13 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments proposed development area. Approval of funding of design and environmental review for the crossing does not constitute new significant information that would change the impact level evaluated under Draft EIR Section 4.2., Biological Resources.
Cumulative impacts are discussed throughout the Draft EIR. Refer to Section 3.0 for a list of planned and pending projects.
Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed project would result in the permanent preservation of the southern 49 acres of the project site (Lot 17), which is adjacent to the freeway and topographically separated from the proposed development area. Lot 17 contains 17.9 acres of high quality native habitat (excluding non-native grassland), including coastal sage scrub (Draft EIR Figures 4.2-1, 4.2-4, and 4.2-5) which would be permanently preserved as part of the proposed project. The southern portion of the Lot 17 open space parcel is topographically separated from the valley areas where development is proposed. Approximately 1,700 feet of frontage along Highway 101 would be maintained as open space, and may provide future opportunities for the enhancement of any future Liberty Canyon freeway crossing. The development area is approximately 800 feet north of Highway 101. Direct impacts from project development would occur in a flat area vegetated by non-native grassland and adjacent to existing residential development along Chesebro Road. As discussed in the Draft EIR and depicted in Figure 4.2-6, the flat valley area where development is proposed does not contain high value wildlife movement habitat. The NPS data shows that wildlife movement is concentrated on the other side of the ridge to the east. The Draft EIR analysis is based on a maximum impact scenario that assumes development activity (residential building or grading) on the entire lot area, which would preclude the use of the lots by wildlife for habitat or movement. The analysis includes wildlife impermeable property line fencing and potential masonry fire walls that may be required under BIO-3(a).
As stated in the Draft EIR, indirect impacts to open areas where wildlife movement has been documented could occur, as shown in Figure 4.2-6. The project proposes the preservation of 49 acres of habitat and open space outside the residential lots in perpetuity, which could be used by wildlife. As detailed above, indirect impacts to wildlife movement would be further reduced with the following new and clarified mitigation requirements:
Rodenticide prohibition under new MM BIO-1(d) Domestic animal education under new MM BIO-1(e) Wildlife friendly fencing (including masonry walls) under new MM BIO-1(f)
The project site is within two mapped landscape-scale wildlife movement models and is adjacent to the City’s General Plan mapped wildlife corridor. Nevertheless, direct impacts to wildlife movement would be less than significant as evaluated in the Draft EIR, given that development is clustered adjacent to existing development, telemetry data suggests that wildlife prefers the adjacent canyons to the east over the flat development site (Figure 4.2-6), and non-native grassland generally does not have high value habitat. Indirect impacts would be less than significant with adherence to Final EIR mitigation measures listed above to reduce potential indirect “edge effects” to wildlife movement. Therefore, the conclusions in the Draft
City of Agoura Hills 8-14 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
EIR regarding the significance of the impact are not changed by the wildlife movement comments.
Global Response 7: Botanical Surveys.
The response below includes discussion of current and past botanical surveys, rare (CNPS RPR 4) plants, the round leaved filaree (California macrophylla), and associated impacts and mitigation measures.
Current and Past Botanical Surveys In response to precipitation that occurred in spring 2015 after several years of drought, botanical surveys were conducted by Rincon botanists on March 12, April 15, and June 25, 2015. The surveys were conducted and scoped in consultation with the City, SMMC, and NPS. The results are included in the Final EIR as Appendix H, 2015 Rare Plant Survey Report, and are incorporated into the Final EIR.
The 2003 biological surveys from the former school proposal on the same subject site are included as Appendix 4.5 of 2006 Heschel West Day School EIR, which is incorporated by reference. The 2014 rare plant surveys were conducted in accordance with the CDFW and CNPS survey protocols; Draft EIR Appendix D, Floral Compendium, Faunal Compendium has been updated to reflect the 2015 rare plant surveys and clarify the 2014 species citations. The 2014 botanical surveys were conducted by a qualified botanist that exceeds the educational and experience requirements described under the CDFW/CNPS protocol. The past surveys (2003, 2014) and current (2015) locations where special status and rare plants were detected are generally outside the proposed lot lines, and are outside the non-native annual grassland.
CEQA Special Status Species Survey efforts focused on the early flowering species (including the round-leaved filaree, discussed below), within and adjacent to the proposed lots within the valley. The 2015 Rare Plant Survey found an unidentified navarretia species and has been included in the updated analysis. Mitigation measures in the Draft EIR include pre-construction botanical surveys (MM BIO-2(a)) and a special status plant species mitigation plan if special status plants are detected and a population would be removed (BIO-2(b)). As discussed in the Draft EIR, only RPR 1 and 2 plants are “special status” and required to be evaluated and mitigated pursuant to CEQA § 15380.2 Table 4.2-1 has been expanded to disclose the RPR 4 plants detected onsite and with the potential to occur. A requirement for consultation with regulatory resource agencies (i.e., USFWS, CDFW) if botanical mitigation is required has been the added to the Final EIR under MM BIO 2(b). CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(b) allows for measures to specify performance standards that would mitigate the significant effect of the project and that may be accomplished in more than one specified way. Performance standards consistent with the CEQA Guidelines
2 The following Rare Plant Rank 4 species were detected on the project site during 2015 rare plant surveys: Small- flowered morning-glory (Calystegia peirsonii), RPR 4.2; Catalina mariposa-lily (Calochortus catalinae), RPR 4.2; Club-haired mariposa-lily (Calochortus clavatus var. clavatus), RPR 4.3. The small-flowered morning-glory and Catalina mariposa-lily were detected within the same elemental occurrence as in the 2006 Heschel EIR. All species were detected in the Lot 17 open space parcel (which be preserved as open space), except for one occurrence of small-flowered morning-glory in the rear setback of Lot 13.
City of Agoura Hills 8-15 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments and judicial guidance are included under MM BIO-2(c) (MM BIO-2(b) in the Draft EIR). Therefore, Final EIR MM BIO-3(c) is not deferred mitigation.
Round Leaved Filaree No information regarding the specifics of the C. macrophylla population NPS detected in 2006 (or other species status species populations) was available on the Calflora database, NPS website, CNPS website, or California Consortium of Herbarium database. Copies of the California Native Species Field Survey Forms, submitted to CDFW to reflect the elemental occurrence of C. macrophylla and the rare species described above, are included in Final EIR Appendix H, 2015 Rare Plant Survey Report. The 2015 rare plant surveys included an assessment for the presence of C. macrophylla in the approximate location described by NPS and SMMC staff. Should a new C. macrophylla population be detected and impacted as part of the proposed project, on or offsite mitigation as prescribed in Final EIR MM BIO-2(c) would be required. Therefore, the conclusions in the Draft EIR regarding the significance of the impact are not changed by the comment.
The Final EIR has been updated to reflect the 2015 rare plant survey findings and revised MM BIO-2(c) is included in the Final EIR for preservation and avoidance of the population of the C. macrophylla detected during the 2015 rare plant survey. Three separate occurrences were detected, all within the Lot 17 open space parcel: 1) in the area as shown in Draft EIR Figure 4.2- 7 approximately 5 feet south of Lot 8; 2) a separate occurrence 60 feet to the south of the occurrence adjacent to lot 8; and 3) approximately 150 feet east of Lot 13 outside of drainage and trail easements. The location of the C. macrophylla and other special status species detected onsite is shown in Figure 3 of Appendix H, 2015 Rare Plant Survey Report. The detection of a known species in the same general location as that previously identified (e.g., NPS, Draft EIR Figure 4.6-6) does not constitute new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR under CEQA Guidelines § 15088.6.
Impacts to special status plant species would be further reduced through MM BIO-2(b), which requires mitigation with a Restoration Plan or Preservation Plan, and through Mitigation Measure BIO-2(c), which would require preservation and avoidance of the round leaf filaree occurrences detected in 2015. The occurrences are within open space Lot 17 and would be within fuel modification Zones B and C. The population detected in 2015 would be fenced with split rail or other similar wildlife permeable fencing for a 50-foot radius within the Lot 17 open space parcel (or to the rear property line of Lots 8 and 9), and if vegetation management is required by the LACFD, it must be accomplished with hand tools and/or mowed to a height of three inches and prohibited from February 1 through May 30 through coordinated with a biologist. The text revisions to Mitigation Measures BIO-2 (b and c) are shown below:
BIO-2(b) Special Status Plant Species Mitigation Plan. In the event that round-leaved filaree, or any other special status plant populations (e.g., round-laved filaree, ojai navarretia) cannot be fully avoided, an onsite or offsite Restoration Plan or an Offsite Preservation Plan Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the City Environmental Analyst for approval, in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or other appropriate agencies with permitting or approval authority prior
City of Agoura Hills 8-16 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. The Plan for Phase 1 impacts shall be submitted for City approval prior to issuance of a grading permit, and a Plan for impacts during Phase 2 shall be submitted for City approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or Building Permit, whichever occurs first, for each applicable residential development. The mitigation shall be installed by one (1) year after completion of work acceptable to the City. The Applicant shall secure a bond for an amount equal to the cost of the mitigation effort. The bond shall be released by the City upon satisfaction of the approved performance criteria after the monitoring period has expired.
The following methods may be implemented individually, or in conjunction with each other.
Onsite or Offsite Restoration Plan (Seed Salvage and Replanting). Restoration shall involve the collection of seed from within the development footprint or nearby areas, if necessary, and replanting the seed in a suitable area outside the development footprint but elsewhere on the project site that is set aside for preservation. If infeasible, an offsite location as close to the impact area as possible, but at least within the local watershed, may be used. An in-lieu fee to compensate for the loss of the population may be provided to a qualified agency or other entity acceptable to the City and applicable regulatory agencies. The in- lieu agreement shall be provided to the City Planning and Community Development Department for review prior to issuance of a Building Permit or Grading Permit, whichever occurs first. The Restoration Plan, prepared by a qualified plant ecologist satisfactory to the City Environmental Analyst, shall include, but not be limited to, the following to achieve a performance standard of a 2:1 replacement, or as dictated by a regulatory agency with permitting authority over the species:
Location of the mitigation/restoration and map; Performance criteria (i.e., what is an acceptable success level of re-vegetation to mitigate impacts); Plant species, container sizes, and seeding rates; Planting schedule; Monitoring effort (i.e., who is to check on the success of the re-vegetation plan, and how frequently); Contingency planning (i.e., if the effort fails to reach the performance criteria, what remediation steps need to be taken); Irrigation method/schedule (i.e., how much water if needed, where and for how long);
City of Agoura Hills 8-17 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Means to control exotic vegetation; and Identification of the party responsible for meeting the success criteria and providing for conservation of the mitigation site in perpetuity.
The Applicant shall provide to the City a Restoration Plan, including a map, prepared by an approved biologist that meets the requirements of this condition. The Restoration Plan and map must be approved by the City prior to issuance of prior to issuance of a grading permit for Phase 1 and/or Phase 2. The Applicant shall maintain and monitor the plants for a minimum of five years.
Offsite Preservation Plan. Offsite preservation shall consist of locating a population of the impacted special status plant species containing at least two-times the number of individuals impacted by the project, and preserving the population in perpetuity via placement of a permanent conservation easement or purchase of the land and dedication to the City, or an approved conservation organization, or other entity acceptable to the City. The preserved population shall be located on an area of sufficient size to create a preserve core and be located, as feasible, at least 350 feet away from existing or proposed development, paved roads, v-ditches and irrigated areas, as feasible. Additionally, the preserve population shall exhibit connectivity to other protected open space or hillside areas. The Preservation Plan shall at least identify the specific location of the preservation site and size; number of individuals preserved; ownership of the land; parties involved; and the preservation methodology (i.e., permanent conservation easement or dedication to an approved conservation organization, etc.). The easement, dedication, or other legal mechanism to preserve the population shall be provided to the City Planning and Community Development Department for review and acceptance prior to County recordation. Proof of recordation shall be provided to the City Planning and Community Development Department prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or Building Permit, whichever occurs first.
BIO-2(c) Round-leaved Filaree (California macrophylla) Avoidance and Preservation. The round-leaved filaree occurrences detected in 2015 shown in Exhibit X shall be avoided and preserved. Structures requiring fire clearance shall not be permitted within 50 feet of the population, and no development is permitted
City of Agoura Hills 8-18 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
within 50 feet of the population as shown on Exhibit X.[1] Construction of the Phase 1 drainage facility is allowed within the required fencing (as described below) with monitoring by a qualified, City-approved biologist (biologist). As part of Phase 2 improvements, a property wall consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-1(f) may be constructed within the 50 foot buffer with monitoring by a biologist. On the Lot 17 open space parcel, a 50-foot buffer around each of the three occurrences (or to the rear property line of Lots 8 and 9) must be fenced in perpetuity with a spilt rail (or similar wildlife permeable fencing) and signage erected prohibiting disturbance prior to issuance of a grading or building permit (whichever occurs first) for Phase 1. The minimum distance from ground level to any fences to the first rung shall be 18 inches A fence or wall (consistent with BIO-1(b)) is allowed within the 50-foot buffer along the property lines of Lots 8 and 9, providing it would serve the same function of keeping people and domestic animals away from the occurrence. Any required fuel modification within the fenced area on Lot 17 must be completed by hand, with vegetation only be mowed to a height of three (3) inches, and is prohibited from February to May. This requirement shall be integrated into a Fuel Management Plan prepared under MM BIO-3(a). Hand weeding to manage invasive species is allowed in coordination with a qualified biologist. A deed restriction with these requirements, including Exhibit X, shall be recorded on the deed for Lots 8, 9, and 17 concurrent with the Final Tract Map recordation.
If additional populations of C. macrophylla or any special status species are detected during pre- construction surveys required under Mitigation Measure BIO-2(a), a Special Status Plant Species Mitigation Plan per Mitigation Measure BIO-2(b) would be required. Impacts to special status plant species remain less than significant with mitigation included in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measure BIO-2(c) was included in order to clarify mitigation specifically for the round leaf filaree from the more general MM BIO-2(b) that addresses special status and rare plant species.
[1] Exhibit X refers to, Figure 3, from Appendix H, 2015 Rare Plant Survey Report, depicting the required 50-foot buffers which will be incorporated into the project permit conditions of approval.
City of Agoura Hills 8-19 PC Hearing AEE Project DEIR Public Comments Verbal Comments 2-5-15
Mary Wiesbrock:
Changed circumstances have occurred after settlement agreement by City Council. Now have confirmation that this property is high priority per South Coast Wildlands Organization as irreplaceable of Liberty Canyon wildlife corridor. Qualifies for Prop 117. Money to purchase at fair market value is available. It is a designated wildlife corridor, so qualifies for Prop 117 funds. An appraisal is now being processed by MRCA and Department of General Services. Hopeful that property may be on the open agenda of the Wildlife Conservation Board on 2/25/15 or 5/21/15 agenda so that we may purchase the property at fair market value.
Ms. Wiesbrock discusses success of Save Open Space in legal battles regarding other projects/properties able to be saved as open space. 1
Asking you to vote to require a new spring flora and fauna survey. After 3 years of drought, the 2014 survey is deficient. Full health risk assessment, as was required by Los Angeles County for the old Potomoc Project since City will be annexing this project. Hydrological analysis of impacts on Chesebro Creek as this project would be annexed to City. Other missing studies and documents per our extensive comments which will be submitted on March 2nd.
You can vote to add these studies to inadequate DEIR. You can vote no on the project as SOS will soon request.
[submitted at hearing letter to “City Council, Planning Commissioners and for the EE record,” no date – see attached]
Meril Platzer:
As our city grows, there is always new development, have to be sensible on how we plan any new development, especially on areas of wildlife corridors, open space, intrusion of night skies, potential exposure to hazardous waste, soil contamination, water runoff, health and welfare of citizens and taxpayers. Calabasas Landfill has accepted in the past hazardous waste from Rocketyne. Active leaking underground storage tanks have shown hazardous waste including uranium, etc. The risk assessment for 2 Liberty Canyon Project outlined these dangers in 1990. These hazardous materials in soil or groundwater have long half life. Uranium carries risk of lung and bone cancer, damage to organs, increase risk of leukemia, causing bone cancer and respiratory tract problems. These are found on site. Historic drought but wet year washing of contaminants downhill and into populations. The health risk for residents, including children at schools down site. Need full health risk assessment for this property.
Anne- Marie Brown: 3 Read letter from Pat McGregor.
8-20 National and worldwide importance of wildlife corridor overpass. City can be leaders and innovators in this event or the cause of it to fail. Chesebro Meadows property is an important part of success of process provides food for much of wildlife a food source without the meadow, it becomes a chokepoint to the crossing. Please join me along with Senator Fran Pavley, Congresswoman Julia Brownley, Save 3 Open Space, Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, California Native Plant Society, Old Agoura cont'd homeowners association, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, Sierra Club of CA, National Park Service, Audubon Society, MRCA, Center for Biodiversity, National Wildlife Federation of CA and other supporters of saving Chesebro meadows.
[no letter submitted at Planning Commission hearing]
Larry Brown:
Read from his letter (submitted at hearing, no date on letter - attached). 4
[submitted attached handouts]
Jess Thomas:
Read from his letter (submitted at hearing, no date on letter). 5
[submitted attached map to be shown at hearing]
Jerrold Bregman:
Came here to experience pervasive wildlife in this canyon. Obvious that this meadow sits at the mouth of Cheeseboro Canyon and feeds the entire canyon up into National Park. While normally supporting development, this particular project raises the specter of significant down side risks for our community 6 my primary concern is that the development would devastate wildlife. EIR based on assumptions which apparently have risk, doubt, uncertainty. Our concern is devastation not just on this parcel but surrounding areas, into hills and into like national forest. This was raised in the flooding issue since all these canyons feed into this area. Not convinced these issues have been adequately addressed in report. The development would have substantial traffic especially intersection of Chesebro/Driver where Agoura Park is. Now, substantial lines at intersection the cars go all the way back to 101, and there has been an approved apartment building construction project at this very corner. Not evident to me that this report thoughtfully takes into account the project’s traffic impact in future, when 7 apartment building is constructed. Not going to presume to weigh in on merits of _____ [couldn’t hear]. Strongly support City government’s efforts to navigate complex issues through agreeable resolution and settlements wherever possible, not alternate routes which would not __ [couldn’t hear] for community. Cast your votes to not approve the project.
Phil Ramuno:
Tonight you are starting to consider a most important issue that affects the future of Old Agoura and all of AH. This piece of property was originally gerrymandered outside of the City as a source of developer 8 campaign donations from long ago. It is a vital piece of Old Agoura. The site is special to everyone, not just Old Agoura. Hikers, wildlife uses the natural space which starts on this property. If you look at the map I have handed out, you will see the historic proposed wildlife freeway overpass becomes less
8-21 efficient if you cut out this part of it. Developer is developing 19 acres and gifting 50 acres and gets a tax credit and won’t need to maintain it anymore. Actually, it’s much less than 50 acres. He has to build road in these 50 acres and into flood zone to make these 30 homes. Yes, 30 homes. Each parcel would be allowed to approve 700 SF 2nd house by state law. Houses with dogs, kids, leaf blowers would force wildlife to travel up other side of the ridge which squeeze all animals up against the dump. This not only 8 harms the success of the corridor but future of our City, which will have a unique forest over the cont'd freeway tourist attraction. You are charged now tonight with being the decision markers about that future.
[submitted map to Planning Commission at hearing – attached]
Richard Lawson:
Used to come out to Agoura, looked for a place to live. Mad Mad Mad World. This decision is a very tough decision. There are a number of people here that are placing the decision in your hands. You are the educated ones, you have been around. You have read about diff projects, not only of this magnitude but of others. So we’re going to rely on you as a board, a body to look at this and really look at what ramifications of this would be. There are groups of people. I can’t believe they are all wrong and doing it for a selfish purpose. Doing it for the greater good of the community and the good of wildlife. This is a beautiful meadow. Do we really need to have 15 homes? Do we really need to have 15 homes with 9 maybe a dog in each home with the wildlife trying to navigate what is out there already. Don’t need to make situation more difficult for them. We are in their land. We all know that. People have mentioned this is an ill thought out plan. Not all of them can be wrong. You guys have touch decision but with your education you will know. We are in their land. Does this community really need another 15 homes like that? I didn’t realize they could build another little guest house on it. I didn’t know the guy was getting a tax credit for the 50 acres? If he is, I don’t know. But if he is, that’s not really a good reason for that. So, that’s what you guys have got to look at. I know you will do it. This doesn’t need a private road with 15 homes, maybe gated. This is a wildlife corridor. I sure hope these people are not going to have pygmy goats.
Jeremy Wolf:
Chesebro meadow wildlife corridor is indeed a viable wildlife corridor. Here, and this is from the Heschel EIR, is a list of some of the animals that use it: the Mountain lion, bobcat, mule deer, badger, long tail weasel, burrowing owl, golden eagle, prairie falcon, western beaver, kite, egret, western bluebird, red poached whip, silvery legless lizard, monarch butterfly , valley oak ant. Showed an ad from the Acorn 10 newspaper from Save Chesebro Meadow group (provided attachment), showing list supporters, and now have new supporters including Santa Monica Mountains chapter of the Sierra Club and ___ [couldn’t hear] I hope the important decision in your hands is thought out carefully.
[submitted ad from Acorn dated 5-8-14 to Planning Commission, attached]
Christopher Regali:
Lived here all his life. Work off Chesebro Road. Fifth generation Californian, fourth generation Los Angeles native. I know the whole area. I grew up in this area and am back here by choice. I have seen 11 the rest of the world and the impact of cement and what it does to any place you like to see in nature. An eyesore and devaluing to a community and what we enjoy about a community. Not what I want or
8-22 most people want. Running over deer in this community. Running out of wildlife. Need to co-exist with animals. Health impacts, I’ve had two relatives die from valley fever due to construction impacts. Not only is this area a great place to view, but a good place to educate our children as to how they impact the environment and how they can prosper and enjoy the environment. Not only is it unnecessary, but 11 it’s eliminating this meadow, that is beautiful. It’s gorgeous. There’s a quote: the best time to plant a cont'd tree is 20 years ago, the second best time to plant a tree is today. I hope I don’t have to take a sidewalk to view that tree. I hope I can view the tree from its natural habitat and see it healthy and growing for at least 100 years from now. My grandchildren can enjoy the area the way I am and my grandparents who have preserve it have done.
Ron Troncotty:
Lived here since 1976. I want to say that this ___ [couldn’t hear] really shook meeting. It’s a done deal. City has sold a $7 million piece of property for $650,000 that the Old Agoura HOA turned the City on to. 12 Are you going to let Mr. Efraim make $7 million and no offering back to the City? Are you going to look at it a little closer?
Richard Burke:
I see many deer out there. It’s scenic, it’s beautiful. Opportunity to do something that will be a tremendous decision. That decision is something that should be weighed for years to come. We have 13 something unique and very beautiful to preserve and hoping that it may fall upon your hearts and conscious, and development is fine, just need to have responsible development. This area everyone can agree is very gorgeous. I think you can make that decision._____ [couldn’t hear]. Hope you will be proud of yourself years from now.
Clifton Von Buck:
Moved into my house two years ago from scratch. When I was going through the entitlement process, the City tried to force me to donate 3-4 acres to get my permits. Why is it so difficult for someone to build something for himself and why do large developments seem to go though so easily? Old Agoura is 14 the jewel of Agoura Hills. Drive everyday you can see people on horseback. Fabulous community. Hate seeing city make mistakes it has. Palo Comado overpass, 1-2 years ago talk of doing a study of Chesebro overpass – doesn’t think traffic that bad. If you guys decide to vote in favor of this, please make larger lots, don’t want to see a bunch of large houses.
Clarise Compton:
Seeing all the new development around Old Agoura is disheartening. Friends have a sense of disconnect with the city of Agoura. Breaks my heart, City losing sense of community, just hearing about them after the fact. It’s already set in stone. I hope you guys have the power and do something about it, because community wants to oppose it. Lots of questions I don’t find answers to, who benefits this, who gets to 15 choose what land is sold and protected, why don’t community people have say, feel a complete disconnect from City Council and the City. No one knows about this. It’s just a city, not the community of Agoura. When something like this happens, it solidifies that. Don’t know how much power you guys have. How much joy it brings. Would hope people would want to be part of City.
8-23 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Comments from Speakers at the Planning Commission Hearing, February 5, 2015
Verbal Comment 1, Mary Wiesbrock
The commenter stated that the project site has been designated by the South Coast Wildlands Organization as an irreplaceable component of the Liberty Canyon wildlife corridor and states that funds are available for the purchase of the property for preservation as open space. The commenter requests completion of a full flora and fauna study for the site and a hydrologic analysis.
Response
An updated rare plant survey was completed during the spring/summer of 2015. Additional focused wildlife surveys (e.g. Least Bell’s vireo, raptors, coastal California gnatcatcher) are not recommended due to a lack of suitable habitat. Consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a), if any sensitive species individuals or active nests are detected, impacts would be avoided through avoidance and relocation. Please refer to Global Response 7 for a discussion of 2015 spring surveys. As discussed under General Comment 6, the project site has not been specifically designated by South Coast Wildlands. The purchase of the property for open space is not part of the project action requested by the applicant. The subdivision of the property and development of 15 homes is the subject of the environmental impact analysis provided in the Draft EIR. Hydrology impacts of the proposed project are analyzed in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR and are based on the Hydrology Report completed by Hardy Engineering.
Verbal Comment 2, Meril Platzer
The commenter stated that the Calabasas Landfill has accepted past hazardous waste from Rocketdyne and these hazardous waste materials have leached into the soil and groundwater. The commenter requests that a full health risk assessment be completed for the project.
Response
The first tier of a health risk evaluation is to determine whether any contaminants exceed generic health risk thresholds, and if so, are there any receptors that could be exposed to those contaminants. For the proposed project, soil gas and groundwater sampling was done to determine whether contaminants are present onsite that exceed health risk thresholds. The soil gas results were compared to California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs), developed by the Office of Environmental Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and groundwater results were compared to State of California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for those constituents in drinking water. The purpose of the CHHSLs is to establish baseline thresholds. If a contaminant is below that baseline threshold, no adverse health risk is anticipated and, pursuant to general health risk protocol, no additional health risk evaluation is typically performed. The concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and methane in the soil gas were all below CHHSL thresholds. In the groundwater sample, the water is also compared to MCLs for drinking water. In the analyses performed, conductivity exceeded its secondary MCL and isotopic uranium exceeded its MCL in the sample from RB-1 (monitoring well) and did not exceed its MCL in the sample from MW-1 (groundwater monitoring well). The
City of Agoura Hills 8-24 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments secondary MCL for conductivity is not a health risk threshold because conductivity is not toxic. It is a measurement of the ability of an electrical current to pass through water. Therefore, the groundwater under the site does not contain any contaminants in excess of thresholds and further testing is not required.
Groundwater beneath the project site is not going to be used as a potable water supply. Residents would obtain their water from a municipal supply source and not onsite groundwater. Therefore, the presence of a chemical in groundwater does not pose a drinking health risk because there is no connection between the groundwater and residents (i.e., residents are not receptors for the groundwater). Further, because the groundwater is well below planned grading and excavation depths below surface grade, the groundwater would not come in contact with workers, residents, or guests.
Based on the results of soil and groundwater sampling (no contaminant levels exceeding standards) and the fact that future site residents would not come into contact with groundwater, conducting a full health risk assessment is not warranted.
Verbal Comment 3, Anne Marie Brown
The commenter stated that the project site is important to the wildlife corridor and linkage. Without the Chesebro Meadows property it becomes a chokepoint to the crossing.
Response
See Global Response 6 for a discussion of wildlife movement.
Verbal Comment 4, Larry Brown
The hearing notes show that Larry Brown read from a letter submitted at the Planning Commission hearing.
Response
This letter has been included and responded to as Letter 26 in this Response to Comments.
Verbal Comment 5, Jess Thomas
The hearing notes show that Jess Thomas read from a letter submitted at the Planning Commission hearing. This letter has been included and responded to as Letter 27 in this Response to Comments.
Verbal Comment 6, Jerrold Bregman
The commenter stated concerns that the project would have a detrimental impact on wildlife movement in the area. The commenter said that flooding is an issue.
City of Agoura Hills 8-25 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Response
Refer to Global Response 6 for a discussion of wildlife movement impacts. Hydrology and flooding impacts of the proposed project are analyzed in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR and are based on the Hydrology Report completed by Hardy Engineering. Chesebro Canyon Creek is under the jurisdiction of the County Flood Control District, which maintains the creek channel. Detention basins would measure out the stormwater flow from the property and would gradually release stormwater from the site to the creek. As each individual residential parcel is developed, the developer would be required to demonstrate that post development flows do not exceed pre-development flows.
Verbal Comment 7, Jerrold Bregman
The commenter stated that the project would generate substantial amounts of traffic, especially at the intersection of Chesebro Road/ Driver Avenue/Palo Comado Road/Canwood Street. The commenter questioned whether the report took into consideration the approved but not constructed apartment project at that corner.
Response
The intersection of Chesebro Road and Driver Avenue was analyzed in the traffic study prepared for the project. The study took into consideration proposed growth in the area including the projects listed on Table 3-1 of the Draft EIR. The referenced project is Project No. 6 by Aitan Hillel. Please see Global Response 3: Traffic Impact Analysis for a discussion of the traffic analysis completed for the project.
Verbal Comment 8, Phil Ramuno
The commenter stated that the project would reduce the efficiency of the proposed wildlife freeway overpass. The commenter further stated that the project would allow for the construction of 30 homes instead of the listed 15.
Response
Refer to Global Response 6 for a discussion of wildlife movement impacts and Global Response 1 for a discussion of allowed units.
Verbal Comment 9, Richard Lawson
The commenter questioned the necessity of the project and whether it needs to be placed in the proposed location.
Response
The issue raised by the commenter addresses the merits of the project and does not raise any issues with the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.
City of Agoura Hills 8-26 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Verbal Comment 10, Jeremy Wolf
The commenter stated that the Chesebro meadow wildlife corridor is a viable wildlife corridor.
Response
Refer to Global Response 6 for a discussion of wildlife movement impacts.
Verbal Comment 11, Christopher Regali
The commenter questioned the necessity of the project due to the impacts that the project would have on wildlife.
Response
The issue raised by the commenter addresses the merits of the project and does not raise any issues with the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. Refer to Global Response 6 for a discussion of wildlife movement impacts.
Verbal Comment 12, Ron Troncotty
The commenter stated that the City has sold a seven million dollar piece of property and asks if the Planning Commission is going to look at the project more closely.
Response
The project will go before the Planning Commission for review and the Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will then review the project and make a final decision. Responses to all comments received from the public during the Draft EIR public review period have been prepared. The comments and responses thereto will be taken into consideration by decision makers.
Verbal Comment 13, Richard Burke
The commenter stated that there are deer present in the site and that the site should be preserved.
Response
The mule deer is not a protected species. As discussed in Global Response 6, suitable habitat for foraging and migration is present in the open areas east of the site. The issue raised by the commenter addresses the merits of the project and does not raise any issues with the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.
Verbal Comment 14, Clifton Von Buck
The commenter questioned how traffic from the project would integrate with the existing traffic in the area.
City of Agoura Hills 8-27 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Response
Traffic is discussed in the Initial Study/NOP prepared for the project (Draft EIR Appendix A). The analysis found that no significant traffic impacts would result from the development of the proposed project. Please see Global Response 3: Traffic Impact Analysis, for a description of the traffic analysis that was completed for the project.
Verbal Comment 15, Clarise Compton
The commenter asked who benefits from the project and who chooses what land is sold and protected.
Response
The potential benefits (objectives) of the project are listed on page 2-3 of Section 2.0, Project Description. City decision makers (Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council) will make decisions regarding whether to approve the project.
City of Agoura Hills 8-28 Letter 1
1
8-29 8-30 8-31 8-32 8-33 8-34 8-35 8-36 8-37 8-38 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Letter 1
COMMENTER: Scott Morgan, California State Clearinghouse
DATE: February 24, 2015
The commenter states that the Draft EIR was received by the Clearinghouse and was submitted to selected state agencies for review. The commenter also forwarded comment letters from CDFW and Caltrans.
See Letter 3 for responses to the CDFW letter and see Letter 4 for responses to the Caltrans letter.
City of Agoura Hills 8-39 Letter 2
1
8-40 1 cont'd
2
3
4
8-41 4 cont'd
5
6
8-42 6 cont'd
7
8
8-43 9
10
11
8-44 11 cont'd
12
13
8-45 13 cont'd
14
8-46 8-47 8-48 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Letter 2
COMMENTER: David Szymanski, National Park Service
DATE: March 2, 2015
Response 2.1
The commenter states support for acquisition of the property for conservation due to the potential impacts to wildlife movement in the area. The commenter also requests that the project alternatives incorporate a reduction in aesthetic impacts in order to maximize park resource protection. The commenter states that should acquisition funding and a willing seller not be available, that Draft EIR’s preferred alternative be based on maximum preservation.
The project includes dedication of about 49 acres (69%) of the site as permanent open space. See Global Response 6 for a discussion of wildlife movement. Aesthetic impacts are analyzed in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR and no significant aesthetic impacts were identified. The Draft EIR included the analysis. Since no significant aesthetic impacts were identified, it was not necessary to include an alternative that would reduce aesthetic impacts.
The proposed project includes the development of the subject property with single family residences and preservation of open space parcels. The project does not propose preservation of the entire property. Alternatives include clustering of the development or reduction in the number of residential lots. While these alternatives would preserve open space while allowing for the development of the project site, they do not offer any significantly lessened impacts than those expected from the proposed project.
Response 2.2
The commenter requests the provision of visual simulations for Phase 2 improvements.
Views of the project site from scenic vistas are discussed in Impact AES-2, on pages 4.1-12 to 4.1- 13 of the Draft EIR. No plans have been submitted for residences on the project site; therefore any photosimulations that could be created for Phase 2 development would not be based on any proposed design and would be misleading. The Draft EIR discusses from where the residences would be visible and how this development could change the views from these areas. The Draft EIR concludes that no significant aesthetic impact would result from the proposed project. Please see Global Response 2: Proposed Trails for a discussion of the trails that would be constructed as a part of the project.
Response 2.3
The commenter states that the Phase 2 impacts on the visitor’s sense of entry into parkland would be significant and have not been avoided or adequately mitigated. The commenter states that the preservation of Lots 1 and 15 as open space or limiting the size of residential development would reduce these impacts.
City of Agoura Hills 8-49 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Impacts to people travelling on Chesebro Road are analyzed in Impact AES-2. The Draft EIR acknowledges that Chesebro Road is used by travelers going to the National Recreation Area. The Draft EIR also states that due to the curve of the road and the placement of existing homes, the project site is visible from a car in the northbound lane of Chesebro Road once it reaches the western site boundary, and then for approximately 225 feet (approximately six seconds) until reaching the eastern site boundary. The site is visible from a car on the southbound side of Chesebro Road approximately 300 feet north of the project site boundary until the western edge of the project site (approximately 511 feet, or 14 seconds). The residential component of the project would be of a scale and density similar to that of immediately adjacent residential properties, while about 69% of the site is proposed for permanent preservation as open space. The project would not truncate views of the surrounding ridgelines due to the height of the proposed buildings and the required setbacks from property lines. Finally, Chesebro Road is not considered a scenic corridor by the City’s General Plan. Based on these facts, the project’s aesthetic impact was determined to be less than significant with mitigation and no evidence to the contrary has been provided.
Response 2.4
The commenter states that the floral compendium is missing species that have been documented in the area and requests that the appendix be updated to include the species.
Refer to Global Response 7 for a discussion of botanical surveys. See Appendix H for the 2015 Rare Plant Survey Letter report, including the plant species list compiled during the 2015 Rare Plant Survey. As discussed in Global Response 7, the Appendix D Floral Compendium detailing 2014 botanical surveys has been corrected.
Response 2.5
The commenter states disagreement with the conclusion that the project would not reduce species population, habitat, or restrict reproductive capacity of endangered, threatened, or rare plant species.
The botanical surveys completed for the project site determined that no significant impacts to endangered, threatened, or rare plant species would occur. Please refer to Global Response 7 for a discussion of botanical mitigation, including the 2015 rare plant survey results, particularly those for the C. macrophylla. No evidence refuting this determination has been provided.
Response 2.6
The commenter recommends including a task of collecting and donating seed to a facility that provides seed banking to preserve the genetic makeup of the round leaved filaree in case the mitigation plantings fail, and a monitoring period longer than five years to reflect the recent drought.
See Global Response 5 for a discussion of fuel modification and Global Response 7 for a discussion of botanical (including round-leaved filaree) mitigation. Based on the locations detected during 2015 surveys, no mitigation plantings or associated monitoring would be
City of Agoura Hills 8-50 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments required. Mitigation Measure BIO-2(c) would require avoidance and preservation of the populations detected during 2015 surveys. If additional populations of special status species (other than the round leaf filaree) are detected during future pre-construction surveys, a Special Status Plant Species Mitigation Plan would be required under BIO-2(b), which requires a minimum of 5 years of monitoring, and prohibits release of the bond (for an amount equal to the cost of the mitigation effort) until the success criteria have been satisfied.
Response 2.7
The commenter states that fuel modification using mowing or disking would “devastate” the round leaf filaree population and fuel modification requirements to avoid sensitive communities may be difficult to enforce. The commenter also states that the impacts to round leaved filaree have not been mitigated and remain potentially significant.
Refer to Global Response 7 for discussion of botanical resources. Refer to Global Response 5 for a discussion of fuel modification, including specific fuel modification timing and methodology recommendations based on species morphology and life history.
Response 2.8
The commenter requests that NPS be involved in any fuel modification discussions on MRCA property. The commenter also states that removal of dead wood is not consistent with the management goals of the MRCA or NPS. The commenter recommends protection of Lot 15 as open space to avoid residential fuel modification impacts on the oak tree located adjacent to the parcel. The commenter states that the Los Angeles County Oak Tree Protection Ordinance defines the protected zone as five feet beyond the dripline. The commenter notes that this tree is one of the finer regional examples of a valley oak, showing its full, vigorous growth form.
The City of Agoura Hills Oak Tree Ordinance and Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines define a protected zone as five feet beyond the tree dripline. This definition refers to the British Standards Institute’s Trees and Development by Matheny and Clark (1998), under which the protected zone should be 79 feet from the trunk of Tree #4, located offsite on MRCA property near Lot 15. The International Society of Arboriculture’s Best Management Practices provides guidelines for determining tree protection zones, adapted from Matheny and Clark 1998, and the British Standards Institute. Pursuant to the City’s Oak Tree Consultant, the protected zone would be 1.25 feet for every 1 inch of trunk diameter.3 With a trunk diameter of 64 inches, this would result in a protected zone of 80 feet from the edge of the trunk. The project has been revised to shift the Phase 1 staging area on Lot 15 to prohibit staging within 80 feet of the trunk of Oak Tree 4. As evaluated in the Draft EIR, impacts to oak trees from fuel modification would be less than significant since the trees would need to be limbed, including live branches and dead wood, to six feet from the ground consistent with LACFD regulations for Zone B (LACFS, 2011).
Mitigation Measure BIO-6(b) has been revised to require an 80-foot protection zone from the trunk of Oak Tree #4 during development of Lot 15 in Phase 2 and to prohibit development of
3 Given that Tree #4 is considered “overmature” in age and of “medium” tolerance to construction damage.
City of Agoura Hills 8-51 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments any structures, hardscape and paved access areas in the protected zone unless a reduced area is approved by an oak tree specialist upon further review of project specific development plans. This prohibition would limit the removal of deadwood for fuel modification in Oak Tree # 4, since it would effectively place the tree in Zone B. Valley oaks are an acceptable species for Zone B, and as discussed above, the tree would only need to be limbed of live and dead wood to six feet. The requirements of BIO-6(b) would continue to apply to all oak trees within and adjacent to the proposed project. The conclusions in the Draft EIR regarding the significance of the impact are not changed by more restrictive mitigation clarifications incorporated into the Final EIR. If off-site trees under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County (e.g., Oak Tree No. 4) were to be pruned or encroached upon during Phase 1 or 2 (including fuel modification), a permit from Los Angeles County would be required consistent with the Los Angeles County Oak Tree Ordinance (§ 22.56.2050).
Response 2.9
The commenter recommends that Lot 15 be protected as open space to avoid residential fuel modification impacts on Oak Tree #4.
Please refer to Global Response 5 for a discussion of fuel modification and mitigation measure clarifications incorporated into the Final EIR, including a discussion of Oak Tree #4. Lot 1 would not contain any structures, and therefore oak trees would not be affected since fuel clearance would not be required. See also Response 2.8 above.
Response 2.10
The commenter states that the Draft EIR is deficient because it does not include mitigation for edge effects other than light, including predation by domestic pets, the use of rodenticides, or the spread of invasive non-native landscaping.
Refer to Global Response 6 for a discussion of edge effects (indirect impacts) on wildlife movement. Mitigation measures to address rodenticide use (Mitigation Measure BIO-1(d)), invasive landscaping (Mitigation Measure BIO-3(b)), wildlife friendly fencing (Mitigation Measure BIO-1(f)), and domestic animal education (Mitigation Measure BIO-1(e)) have been added to the Final EIR. These additional mitigation measures do not alter the Draft EIR conclusions with respect to the significance of the impacts to biological resources, but add additional protective measures.
Response 2.11
The commenter states that the DEIR does not adequately address cumulative edge effects on wildlife (i.e., domestic pet predation, invasive landscaping) and the negative effects of anti- coagulant rodenticides.
Refer to Global Comment 6 for a discussion of cumulative edge effects (indirect impacts) on wildlife, and the response to comment 25.1 (below) for a discussion of anti-coagulant rodenticides. Mitigation measures to address rodenticide use [BIO-1(d)], prohibit invasive landscaping [BIO-3(b)], and domestic animals predators and predation [BIO-1(e)], and fencing
City of Agoura Hills 8-52 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
[BIO-1(f)] have been added to the Final EIR for clarification. Fire resistant native landscaping is not included as a mitigation measure, since the edge effects could be amplified through genetic pollution if ornamental varieties (i.e., LACFD recommended cultivars) of native plants were to hybridize with native genotypes. As discussed under Global Reponses 6, these mitigation measures are clarifications that do not alter the Draft EIR conclusions with respect to the significance of the impacts to biological resources and are not required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level however they would further reduce impacts.
Response 2.12
The commenter requests that the Final EIR address the potential biological impacts that could be caused by grading for the trail. The commenter also suggests that a separate parcel be created for the fuel management zone, to be managed by the HOA. The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not discuss how much habitat would be permanently removed by the trial construction.
Grading for the easternmost trail to be realigned is included in Phase 1 improvements. Impacts from this grading are analyzed throughout the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR determined that no significant impacts would result from the proposed project, which includes the grading for the trail. Refer to Global Response 5 for discussion of fuel management, including Lots 16 and 17 open space parcels. The Phase 1 vegetation impacts are shown on Figure 4.2-4 and quantified in Tables 4.2-3 and 4.2-5. Refer to Global Comment 5 for a discussion of fuel management mitigation measures, including Lot 17 open space parcel management requirements.
Response 2.13
The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not provide any alternatives that fully avoid impacts to natural resources or avoid fuel modification on public land. The commenter suggests an alternative that would place the round leaved filaree completely outside fuel modification zones, avoids any fuel modification on public lands, and provides a scenic buffer along Chesebro Road. The commenter states that Alternative 3, North Area Plan Buildout, does not take into consideration the Plan’s guidance that the number of lots is only a maximum and could be reduced based on conditions on the site.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (a) states that an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, however an EIR does not need to consider every conceivable alternative to the project. The same CEQA Guidelines section goes on to state that the alternatives should feasibly attain most of the objectives for a project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. No significant and unavoidable effects were identified in the EIR, including impacts related to fuel modification or scenic corridors. The EIR determined that Alternative 2, Reduced Residential and Alternative 4, Clustered Development, would reduce impacts to biological resources, but not significantly. As discussed under Global Comment 7, Mitigation Measure BIO-2(c) would address impacts to the round leaved filaree though avoidance and preservation. Alternative 3, North Area Plan Buildout, assumes that development on the project site would be consistent with what is designated for the site under Los Angeles County’s Santa Monica Mountains North Area Plan. This would allow for 14 single-family residential lots at a density of 5 acres/1 dwelling unit
City of Agoura Hills 8-53 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
(Mountain Lands, N5) over the entire site. This could result in a more dispersed development over the site with no designated open space. Although County staff may encourage a clustered development similar to what is proposed, Alternative 3 reflects the density of development specified in the North Area Plan.
Response 2.14
The commenter requests substantiation of the need to annex the MRCA property into the City so that MRCA and NPS can understand implications for park management.
The LAFCO has indicated to the City that it would likely request annexation of APN 2055-010- 901 along with the subject parcels and the Caltrans right-of-way along Highway 101. LAFCO has stated that annexing the entire Chesebro Road right-of-way, including the adjoining property, into the City of Agoura Hills would have the added effect of creating a more logical boundary for the City of Agoura Hills. The proposed boundary would follow established parcel ownership patterns and an important regional-serving roadway. Annexation of these parcels is not expected to affect MRCA and NPS management of their lands.
City of Agoura Hills 8-54 State of California – Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov
February 23, 2015 Letter 3
Ms. Allison Cook, Principal Planner City of Agoura Hills 30001 Ladyface Court Agoura Hills, CA 93101 [email protected]
Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Agoura Equestrian Estates Project, Unincorporated Los Angeles County; SCH# 2014061063
Dear Ms. Cook:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the above- referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Agoura Equestrian Estates project (Project). The Department previously provided comments on the Notice of Preparation, dated June 19, 2014.
The Project site is located on the north side of U.S. Highway 101, east of Chesebro Road, adjacent to the eastern boundary of the City of Agoura Hills, in unincorporated Los Angeles County. The Project is set in a canyon formed by a series of ridgelines that bound the proposed development on the north, east, and south. The property to the north and east of the Project is protected habitat owned by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. The project site is approximately 71-acres and is identified by Assessor’s Parcel Number 2052-009-270 and 2055- 010-270. The Project involves subdividing the site into 17 lots, including 15 single family homes on 23 acres, one lot dedicated for open space, and one lot for preservation, totaling 48 acres of open space.
The Project site is located on the former proposed Herchel West Day School. Phase 1 of the DEIR does not include the construction of any homes, but does include associated infrastructure including access roads, sewers, curbs, hiking and equestrian trails, fencing, utilities, drainage swales, fuel modification, among other improvements. Phase 2 of the DEIR includes the construction of 17 houses and fuel modification. The Project site contains sensitive habitat including oak woodlands, saltgrass flats, purple needlegrass, and riparian habitat. The site is also adjacent to the Liberty Canyon Wildlife Corridor.
The following comments and recommendations have been prepared pursuant to the Department’s authority as a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code § 2050 et seq.) and Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq., and pursuant to our authority as Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project (California Environmental Quality Act, [CEQA] Guidelines § 15386) to assist the Lead Agency in avoiding or minimizing potential project impacts on biological resources.
Conserving California’s8-55 Wildlife Since 1870 Ms. Allison Cook, Principal Planner City of Agoura Hills February 23, 2015 Page 2 of 6
Impact Analysis
1) Fuel Modification Impacts. The DIER indicates fuel modification (zones A-C) will affect 14.7 acres of native habitat on-site and 3.9 acres of native habitat off-site including Special- Status Plant Communities (Purple Needlegrass-California Melic Grass Alliance (Native Grassland) (CDFW S3. 1), Sawtooth Goldenbush-California Sagebrush Alliance (CDFW S3), Sawtooth Goldenbush-Goldenstar-Wild Oats Alliance. (CDFW S3), and Red Willow- Arroyo Willow-Mugwort Alliance. (CDFW S3). 1 The Department recommends all fuel modification requirements be met within the boundaries of the Project parcels and outside the designated open space. The Department considers fuel modification (zones A-C) a permanent impact to vegetation communities and as such, impacts to sensitive habitats as a result of fuel modification should be mitigated for accordingly. The Department recommends fuel modification activities take place outside of lands set aside as mitigation for other Project related impacts.
2) CNDDB Records Search. The DEIR Biological Resources section states a 5-mile radius was used to generate a potential species list for the 2014 surveys. The Department advises using a 9-quadrangle search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) as many species have had significant range expansions over the last few years and would have been missed using only a narrow, 5-mile area to generate a list of potential species. One United State Geological Survey 15-minute quadrangle encompasses over 200 square miles1. The 2 CNDDB is a positive sighting database, meaning there might not be any sightings of a species immediately adjacent to your Project site if surveys have not been preformed there or if results were not reported to the CNDDB. An example of the importance for including a more robust dataset of potentially occurring species is the nearby Ahmanson Ranch, where plant species thought to be extinct were discovered.
3) Botanical Surveys. The DEIR relies on surveys from the 2006 Hershel West Day School EIR (HWDS), and 2014 spring biological surveys.
a) The Department recommends a recent, floristic based botanical survey following Department protocol be conducted of the project site as well as the proposed off site fuel modification impacts. Department protocol can be found at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/Protocols_for_Surveying_and_Evaluating_Impacts.pdf. 3 b) The Department recommends the survey report(s) be included in the appendices of the DEIR so the methodology and timing of surveys can be reviewed by the Department. Protocol instructions indicate that timing and methodology used for rare plant surveys be listed, as well as information on the botanist(s) conducting these surveys. Many rare plants do not bloom during the spring and would be missed during spring surveys.
4) Table 4.2.1 of the DIER indicates Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis, slender Mariposa lily is restricted to the San Gabriel mountains. Slender mariposa lily is known from the western 4
1 http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/usgsmaps/usgsmaps.html
8-56 Ms. Allison Cook, Principal Planner City of Agoura Hills February 23, 2015 Page 3 of 6
Transverse Ranges including the San Gabriel, Santa Susana, and Santa Monica mountains, as well as the Simi Hills.
5) Impacts to Round-Leaved Filaree (California macrophylla). The Department considers round-leaved filaree to be a locally significant rare plant in Los Angeles. CEQA (Guidelines §§ 15125(c)) require the Lead Agency to include information on the regional setting that is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts, with special emphasis placed on 5 resources that are rare or unique to the region which must be incorporated into the DEIR. The DIER indicates that this plant is known to occur on site based on surveys associated with the HWDS EIR (2006).
a) The Department recommends the DEIR indicate whether or not this population will be impacted by the proposed Project, how many plants were present in 2006, and analyze specific avoidance or minimization measures to avoid impacts to this species.
b) The Department recommends a map depicting the location(s) of round-leaved filaree found in 2006 be included in the DIER to allow the Department to analyze any potential impacts and recommend avoidance and minimization strategies.
6) Impacts to Townsend’s Big Eared Bat. Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), a CESA-listed species in known to occur on the Project site.
a) The Department considers adverse impacts to a species protected by the CESA, for the purposes of CEQA, to be significant without mitigation. As to CESA, take of any endangered, threatened, or candidate species that results from the project is prohibited, except as authorized by state law (Fish and Game Code, §§ 2080, 2085). Consequently, if the project, project construction, or any project-related activity during the life of the project will result in take of a species designated as endangered or threatened, or a candidate for listing under CESA, the Department recommends that the project proponent seek appropriate take authorization under CESA prior to implementing 6 the project. Appropriate authorization from the Department may include an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) or a consistency determination in certain circumstances, among other options (Fish and Game Code §§ 2080.1, 2081, subds. (b),(c)). Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to a project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA Permit. Revisions to the Fish and Game Code, effective January 1998, may require that the Department issue a separate CEQA document for the issuance of an ITP unless the project CEQA document addresses all project impacts to CESA-listed species and specifies a mitigation monitoring and reporting program that will meet the requirements of an ITP. For these reasons, biological mitigation monitoring and reporting proposals should be of sufficient detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements for a CESA ITP.
b) The Department recommends bat surveys be conducted, including the use of sonar detecting equipment to help detect what species are present on the Project site and disclose this information in the final EIR.
7) California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). The Department recommends protocol 7 surveys be conducted following United States Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines as the Project site appears to support suitable habitat.
8-57 Ms. Allison Cook, Principal Planner City of Agoura Hills February 23, 2015 Page 4 of 6
8) Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands. As a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines section 15381, the Department has authority over activities in streams and/or lakes that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (including vegetation associated with the stream or lake) of a river or stream, or use material from a streambed. For any such activities, the project applicant (or “entity”) must provide written notification to the Department pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game 8 Code
The Department recommends impacts to streams be avoided when feasible. If the streams must be crossed, the Department recommends the use of span bridges or bottomless culverts sized for at least the 100-year flow event be used to reduce impacts associated from necessary stream crossings.
9) Wildlife Movement and Connectivity. The Project area supports significant biological resources and is located adjacent to a regional wildlife movement corridor. The project area contains habitat connections and supports movement across the broader landscape, sustaining both transitory and permanent wildlife populations. Onsite features, which contribute to habitat connectivity, should be evaluated and maintained. Aspects of the project could create physical barriers to wildlife movement from direct or indirect project- 9 related activities. Indirect impacts from lighting, noise, dust, and increased human activity may displace wildlife in the general area. The Department recommends the DEIR include studies that track wildlife movement and dispersal across the Project site, including large mammals, and discuss how the Project will affect the use and dispersal patterns. The Department also recommends the DEIR include maps showing local and regional wildlife movement patterns and analyze how the Project will affect these corridors. The DEIR asserts the Project will not have a significant effect on wildlife movement. the Department requests the DEIR include data and maps to support these conclusions.
Proposed Mitigation
7) Oak Tree Mitigation: The Department recommends considering impacts to oak woodlands as a community rather than assessing impacts to individual trees. The DEIR requires a tree report be prepared at the time each lot is proposed for development. The tree report requires a minimum of 4 oak trees be planted for each oak tree impacted. Replacing oak trees without taking into account the understory habitat and ecosystem of the oak woodland, does not appear to adequately mitigate impacts to oak woodlands in a biological sense. 10 The Department recommends the DEIR identify and map all oak woodlands that will be impacted by the Project, and specifically identify how these impacts will be mitigated. The Department suggests avoidance of oak woodlands as a first course, as this is considered a sensitive community in Los Angeles County. If avoidance is not feasible, the Department recommends for every acre of oak woodland impacted, 4 acres are preserved and/or restored, in perpetuity, at a nearby location. Creation of oak woodlands is not recommended by the Department as oak trees are very slow growing trees, and often take over 20 years to begin to provide the shade necessary to support an understory. Since the success criteria for healthy oak woodland should include demonstration of a healthy understory, monitoring for oak woodland creation sites could exceed 25 years before success criteria start to be met. If creation or planting of oak trees is proposed as mitigation,
8-58 Ms. Allison Cook, Principal Planner City of Agoura Hills February 23, 2015 Page 5 of 6
the Department recommends success criteria be set to include targets for species diversity, richness and abundance similar to a healthy oak woodland reference site, and that monitoring continue and financial securities remain in effect, until the oak woodland creation is deemed successful. The Department is willing to consult with the applicant and the County to review the oak woodland mitigation plan and success criteria prior to any grading plans being issued.
8) Deferred Mitigation. The DEIR addressed the potential for sensitive species to be found within the Project footprint, and requires preconstruction surveys and relocation as mitigation measures to bring impacts below the significance threshold. Specific surveys were not conducted to disclose if these resources would be impacted and if alternative 11 Project Design would avoid or lessen these impacts.
CEQA Guidelines §15070 and §15071 require the DEIR to analyze if the Project may have a significant effect on the environment as well as review if the Project will ‘avoid the effect or mitigate to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur’. Relying on future surveys, the preparation of future management plans, or mitigating by obtaining permits from the Department are considered deferred mitigation under CEQA. In order to analyze if a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Project related impacts, including survey results for species that occur in the Project footprint need to be disclosed during the public comment period. This information is necessary to allow the Department to comment on alternatives to avoid impacts, as well as to assess the significance of the specific impact relative to the species (e.g., current range, distribution, population trends, and connectivity).
9) Long-Term Management of Mitigation Lands. For proposed preservation and/or restoration, the DEIR should include measures to protect the targeted habitat values from direct and indirect negative impacts in perpetuity. The objective should be to offset the project-induced 12 qualitative and quantitative losses of wildlife habitat values. Issues that should be addressed include, but are not limited to, restrictions on access, proposed land dedications, monitoring and management programs, control of illegal dumping, water pollution, and increased human intrusion.
10) Translocation/Salvage of Plants and Animal Species. Translocation and transplantation is the process of moving an individual from the Project site and permanently moving it to a new location. The Department generally does not support the use of, translocation or 13 transplantation as the primary mitigation strategy for unavoidable impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species. Studies have shown that these efforts are experimental and the outcome unreliable. The Department has found that permanent preservation and management of habitat capable of supporting these species is often a more effective long-term strategy for conserving sensitive plants and animals, and their habitats.
11) Moving out of Harm’s Way. The proposed Project is anticipated to result in clearing of natural habitats that support many species of indigenous wildlife. To avoid direct mortality, the Department recommends a qualified biological monitor approved by the Department be on site prior to and during ground and habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm’s way 14 special status species or other wildlife of low mobility that would be injured or killed by grubbing or project-related construction activities. It should be noted that the temporary
8-59 Ms. Allison Cook, Principal Planner City of Agoura Hills February 23, 2015 Page 6 of 6
relocation of on-site wildlife does not constitute effective mitigation for the purposes of offsetting project impacts associated with habitat loss.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the referenced NOP. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Kelly Schmoker at (949) 581-1015) or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Betty J. Courtney Environmental Program Manager I South Coast Region ec: Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse)
8-60 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Letter 3
COMMENTER: Betty J. Courtney, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
DATE: February 23, 2015
Response 3.1
The commenter recommends that all fuel modification requirements be met within the project site boundaries and outside the designated open space, including outside lands set aside as mitigation.
Fuel modification is specifically addressed under Global Response 5.
Response 3.2
The commenter advises using a nine-quadrangle search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) as many species have had significant range expansions over the last few years and would have been missed using only a narrow, five-mile area to generate a list of potential species.
The species table in Section 4.2-1 has been updated to include a nine-quad search CNDDB search. No new significant species impacts were identified as a result of incorporating the nine- quad search and impacts to special status species would remain less than significant with mitigation as noted in the Draft EIR and evaluated under Section 4.2.
Response 3.3
The commenter recommends completion of a floristic based botanical survey for the site and that the survey reports be included in the appendices for the EIR.
As discussed in Global Response 7, botanical surveys were conducted in spring 2015 in consultation with SMMC and NPS and consistent with CDFW and CNPS survey protocol. No new impacts were identified as a result of the new studies. The survey report is included as Appendix H, 2015 Rare Plant Report, and includes the specifics of the methodology, survey timing and botanists completing the survey.
Response 3.4
The commenter states that Table 4.2.1 of the Draft EIR indicates Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis, slender Mariposa lily is restricted to the San Gabriel Mountains. Slender mariposa lily is known from the western Transverse Ranges, including the San Gabriel, Santa Susana, and Santa Monica Mountains, as well as the Simi Hills.
Table 4.2.1 has been corrected, as shown below. This correction does not alter the EIR conclusions.
City of Agoura Hills 8-61 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Low. The species was not detected during 2004, 2014, and 2015 rare plant surveys. The Calochortus project site is outside the Perennial bulbiferous herb. Blooms Mar- clavatus var. elevation range of the species. --/ -- Jun. Chaparral, coastal scrub. Shaded gracilis One recent (2008) sighting 1B.2 foothill canyons; often on grassy slopes recorded in the vicinity in the G4T2/S2 within other habitat. 420-760m (1380- Slender Simi Hills. Not Expected: This 2495ft). mariposa-lily subspecies is restricted to the San Gabriel Mountains. Documented occurrences nearby were likely misidentified.
Response 3.5
The commenter states that CDFW considers the round-leaved filaree to be a locally significant rare plant in Los Angeles. The commenter requests that the EIR indicate whether the filaree would be impacted by the project and that a map be included showing the location of the filaree.
Impacts to the C. macrophylla population confirmed as present during 2015 rare plant surveys are detailed in Global Response 7. Please refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-2(c) of the Final EIR for a measure to reduce potential impacts the C. macrophylla to a less than significant level. Location of the special status species detected during rare plant surveys are included in Final EIR Appendix H, and Final EIR Figure 4.2-7.
Response 3.6
The commenter states that Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinustownsendii), a CESA-listed species, is known to occur on the project site. The commenter requests completion of a bat survey for the site. Additionally, the commenter describes the CDFW review and permit process for projects impacting a CEQA protected species.
No bat roosting habitat, including adjacent and onsite large mature oak trees, is proposed for removal. No records were provided that would indicate that the bat species is present onsite and a CNDDB nine-quad search discussed in Response 3.1 does not show any records for the Townsend’s Big Eared Bat. As evaluated in the Draft EIR, it is unlikely that any sensitive bats known to occur in the general vicinity near the site would roost on the project site, and no significant impacts to any bat species are anticipated. It is unlikely that construction of the proposed project would impact foraging bats because construction would occur outside of this species’ nocturnal feeding period. Impacts to bats would be less than significant as evaluated under Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR.
Response 3.7
The commenter requests completion of surveys for the California gnatcatcher.
As discussed under Global Response 5, coastal sage scrub removal is evaluated as a theoretical “worst case” scenario rather than a “reasonably foreseeable” scenario. The maximum theoretical onsite impacts to 6.9 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat from fuel modification would be
City of Agoura Hills 8-62 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments mitigated per Mitigation Measure BIO-3(a). As discussed in Response 3.1, the Draft EIR evaluation has been updated to consider fuel modification impacts as permanent. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-3(a) would continue to reduce project specific and cumulative permanent impacts to sensitive communities, including coastal sage scrub, from fuel modification to less than significant, as previously identified in the Draft EIR. As evaluated in the Draft EIR, the potential for the coastal California gnatcatcher to occur onsite in the coastal sage scrub habitat in the fuel modification zone is low because Agoura Hills is out of the current range of the species. Impacts to wildlife would be less than significant with mitigation measures requiring pre-construction wildlife surveys and nesting bird surveys, which would include nesting coastal California gnatcatchers, if present in fuel modification areas, as well as the rest of the project site. Consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a) and (b), USFWS and CDFW would be consulted if any listed species, including the coastal California gnatcatchers, are detected.
Response 3.8
The commenter recommends avoidance of impacts to streams whenever feasible, and, if infeasible, recommends use of span bridges or bottomless culverts sized for at least a 100-year flow.
The proposed project has been sited to avoid potential jurisdictional drainages to the extent feasible. However, the current alignment of the existing trail on the east crosses a small ephemeral stream. The project proposes to realign this trail, but crossing the stream is unavoidable. The project proposes to install a culvert pipe under the trail crossing to allow for proper drainage of the hillside while protecting the trail. The construction footprint with the proposed culvert pipe would be less than a bridge or bottomless culvert, which would require a larger area and so would likely result in more environmental impacts. As acknowledged in the Draft EIR and consistent with the CFG code, a Notification of a Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required for any work, including trail work, within a jurisdictional water or wetland. Also, a Notification of Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required to install a storm drain outlet pipe in Chesebro Canyon Creek, across Chesebro Road. The area of proposed disturbance has been minimized to the extent feasible. Section 4.2 Biological Resources of the Draft EIR provides a discussion of potential impacts to streams and Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would reduce impacts to less than significant for the Chesebro Canyon Creek outlet. Mitigation Measure AES-3 would also reduce aesthetic impacts to the creek to less than significant.
Response 3.9
The commenter recommends inclusion of studies that track wildlife movement and dispersal across the project site, including large mammals, and discussion of how the project would affect use and dispersal patterns. The commenter also recommends inclusion of maps showing local and regional wildlife movement patterns and analysis of how the project would affect these corridors.
Refer to Global Response 6 for a discussion of wildlife movement and connectivity, and Draft EIR Figure 4.2-6 for maps showing local and regional wildlife movement. As discussed in
City of Agoura Hills 8-63 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Global Response 6, impacts would be further reduced through inclusion of clarified and new Draft EIR mitigation measures. The project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions.
Response 3.10
The CDFW recommends considering impacts to oak woodlands as a community rather than assessing impacts to individual trees and mapping of oak woodland. The commenter states that the Draft EIR requires the preparation of a tree report at the time each lot is proposed for development.
As shown in Draft EIR Figures 4.2-1, 4.2-4, and 4.2-5, no oak woodlands are located on the project site, which is mapped consistent with standardized alliance membership rules specified under the Manual of California Vegetation (2009) (i.e., relative cover of Quercus lobabta > 50%) and Vegetation Classification of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area and Environs in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties (2006) (i.e., sparse to intermittent tree layer of 4-41% absolute cover). Therefore, no oak woodland mitigation is proposed or required. As described in Draft EIR Section 4.2 and Appendix B, Oak Tree Study, no oak trees would be removed as part of the Phase 1 of proposed project. No trees are expected to be removed with Phase 2; however, the individual homes and residential lot layout have not yet been designed and an oak tree report would be required for such future development if in the vicinity of oak trees, per City requirements. Mitigation Measure BIO-6(b) addresses potential impacts to oak trees in Phase 2. Any mitigation of oak trees would occur consistent with the City’s Oak Tree Guidelines and Municipal Code. Potential impacts to six off-site oak trees with all or portions of the protected zone onsite for both project phases would be addressed through adherence to Los Angeles County Tree ordnance requirements, as clarified under mitigation measures BIO-6(a) and BIO- 6(b).
Response 3.11
The commenter asserts that the pre-construction surveys required in the Draft EIR constitute deferred mitigation. The commenter requests completion of additional surveys.
See Global Response 7 for a discussion of botanical surveys and associated mitigation measures. Specific surveys were conducted in 2003 (conducted as part of a previous EIR for a different project on this site), 2014, and 2015, and the impact analysis and mitigation measures are based on these survey results. Pre-construction botanical surveys would be completed to account for annual plant population variation that may occur between the time of project approval (if any) and construction of individual project components. The pre-construction mitigation measures commit the project proponent to mitigation, and include clear performance standards and criteria.
Response 3.12
The commenter requests inclusion of measures to protect the targeted habitat values from direct and indirect negative impacts in perpetuity
City of Agoura Hills 8-64 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Currently, the project site’s Lots 16 and 17 are used by the general public for walking and horse riding. Lots 16 and 17 would be preserved as open space as part of the project. Development of the residential lots and realignment of the existing easternmost trail may encourage walkers and equestriennes to use the trail for recreation purposes, and not the remainder of the project site. Mitigation Measures BIO-1(c) – (f) and BIO-2(b) and (c), BIO-3(a), and BIO-3(b) would protect habitat resources on these lots. See Global Responses 5 and 7 for a discussion of for mitigation measures that would require restoration of special status plants, if detected during preconstruction surveys.
Response 3.13
The commenter states that CDFW does not support translocation/transplantation of plants. Instead the commenter recommends preservation of plants.
No translocation/transplantation consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-2(c) is anticipated based on the locations of rare and special status plant species detected in the 2003 (conducted as part of a previous EIR for a different project on this site), 2014, and 2015 surveys. Refer to Global Response 7 for a discussion of botanical surveys and mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure BIO-2(b) allows for seed collection and restoration as one option for mitigation, along with offsite preservation of the species. The bond required in this measure would ensure that the mitigation was successful and would not be released until the performance criteria are met.
Response 3.14
The commenter recommends that a qualified biological monitor approved by CDFW be on site prior to and during ground and habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm’s way special status species or other wildlife of low mobility that would be injured or killed by grubbing or project-related construction activities.
No special status wildlife species were observed during field surveys and the majority of the ground disturbance is proposed in non-native grassland, which as discussed in Draft EIR has not been demonstrated to provide high value habitat for wildlife. Therefore, the potential for special status wildlife species to occur within the project footprint is low and impacts would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of pre-construction surveys. Refer to Draft EIR Section 4.2, pages 4.2-53 and 4.2-44, and Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a) for a discussion of preconstruction wildlife survey requirements.
City of Agoura Hills 8-65 Letter 4
1
2
8-66 2 cont'd
3
8-67 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Letter 4
COMMENTER: Dianna Watson, California Department of Transportation
DATE: February 23, 2015
Response 4.1
The commenter recommends completion of a Traffic Impact Analysis for the Chesebro Road and Dorothy Drive intersection.
The intersection of Chesebro Road and Dorothy Drive is on the opposite side of the freeway from the proposed project. This intersection was not included in the traffic analysis completed for the project. The traffic study found that the project would generate 144 average daily trips (ADT), with 11 occurring during the AM peak hour and 15 during the PM peak hour. Figure 5 of the traffic study shows that approximately 30 percent of the trips (43 ADT, 3 AM peak hour, and 5 during the PM peak hour) would travel through the intersection of Chesebro Road and Dorothy Drive. This number of trips would not negatively affect the referenced intersection. Please see Global Response 3, Traffic Impact Analysis, for a discussion of the traffic analysis that was completed for the project. No significant traffic impacts have been identified and there is no evidence suggesting the potential for a significant impact at the Chesebro Road/Dorothy Drive intersection.
Response 4.2
The commenter recommends installation of the future signal at the Palo Comado Canyon Road and the U.S. 101 northbound ramps now to improve level of service. The commenter also recommends that the Traffic Impact Analysis include the Long Term Traffic Conditions (2035 Cumulative) without traffic signal improvements at the intersection.
The traffic study completed for the proposed project assumed that buildout of the project and construction of the traffic signal would be completed by 2035. The traffic study further noted that the Long Term (2035 Cumulative) scenario assumes ambient annual growth of traffic and other cumulative projects that would occur by the General Plan buildout year (2035) and therefore a separate “without project” scenario for long-term conditions is not included. The proposed project would add a nominal number of trips to the Palo Comado Canyon Road/U.S. 101 NB ramps, and the expected LOS in 2035 is B for both the AM and PM peak hours. The City is currently planning on the Palo Comado Canyon Road/U.S. 101 NB ramps improvement, and is working with Caltrans on the installation of the referenced signal. The Project Study Report (PSR) and Project Report (PR) have been completed, and the City is now preparing the Plans, Specifications and Estimates stage for the project, including a signal, to be completed Fall 2015. It is reasonable to assume that these interchange improvements would be installed by 2035 at the latest, if not sooner.
City of Agoura Hills 8-68 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Response 4.3
The commenter notes that no work is planned within Caltrans Right of Way and requests minimizing the length and complexity of the new City boundary where practical. The commenter also notes that should any work need to be performed on the State Right of Way, an encroachment permit would be required. The commenter requests that the applicant be mindful of the need to discharge clean run off water and that it is not permitted to discharge onto State highways.
The proposed new City boundary is illustrated on Figure 2-8. The final City boundary that would result from the project would be determined by LAFCO. Should any work need to be performed within the State Right of Way, all appropriate permits would be obtained and all applicable regulations would be followed. The project would not involve any discharge of runoff onto State highways. The proposed drainage system is described in Section 2.0, Project Description, on pages 2-5 to 2-6.
City of Agoura Hills 8-69 Letter 5
1
8-70 1 cont'd
2
8-71 2 cont'd
8-72 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
Letter 5
COMMENTER: Jillian Wong, South Coast Air Quality Management District
DATE: February 20, 2015
Response 5.1
The commenter summarizes the project and then goes on to state that under Alternative 3, the project would place residential sites adjacent to the U.S. 101 freeway. As a result, these sensitive receptors could be exposed to a potentially significant source of toxic emissions. The commenter recommends that if residents would be located within 500 feet of the freeway, the EIR should include an analysis to disclose health risk impacts to future residents.
As shown on pages 6-5 to 6-8 of the Draft EIR, Alternative 3, the North Area Plan Buildout Alternative, would allow for 14 single-family residential lots at a density of 5 acres/1 dwelling unit (Mountain Lands, N5) over the entire site. This could result in a more dispersed development over the site with no designated open space. Residences under this Alternative could be located within 500 feet of the freeway. However, due to the topography of the site, placement of residences in that area would be unlikely. Additionally, Alternative 3 is not what is currently proposed and the proposed project does not include any residences within 500 feet of the freeway. Should a development similar to Alternative 3 be proposed for the site, additional CEQA review could be required. This analysis could include an analysis of health risks.
Response 5.2
The commenter recommends evaluation of the project’s air pollutant emissions using localized significance thresholds (LSTs) since the project is located within one-quarter mile of sensitive receptors. The commenter requests that the City review the SCAQMD guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis.
Air Quality impacts were analyzed on pages 15 to 20 of the Initial Study that was prepared for the project (Appendix A to the Draft EIR). LSTs were discussed on pages 16 to 17 of the IS/NOP. Page 1-1 of SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Methodology states that the use of LSTs by local government is voluntary and that staff recommends using the LST mass rate look- up tables only for projects that are less than or equal to five acres. Since the proposed project would disturb approximately 23 acres and the disturbance area would vary from 50 feet to 1,500 feet from sensitive receptors, it was determined during the preparation of Initial Study that the use of LSTs would not be appropriate.
Phase 1 of the project consists of the grading of Lot 1; and construction of a private road, drainage basins, trails, and utilities. Phase 2 of the project consists of the construction of 15 single family residences. Single family residences would be constructed by individual owners after the lots are sold. Therefore, it is unlikely that the residences would be constructed simultaneously. In order to accurately compare the emissions from the project with the LSTs, the emissions from the construction of Phase 1 improvements (3 acres) and for the construction
City of Agoura Hills 8-73 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments of one residence in Phase 2 (1 acre) have been calculated using CalEEMod. The SCAQMD provides lookup tables for project sites that measure one, two, or five acres. The project site is located in Source Receptor Area 6 (SRA-6, West San Fernando Valley). SCAQMD’s Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than 5 Acres in Size, contains a methodology for determining the thresholds for projects that are not exactly 1, 2, or 5 acres in size. This methodology was implemented to determine the thresholds for both construction scenarios analyzed for the project. The thresholds are different depending on the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LSTs are provided for projects 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters from the closest sensitive receptor.
The closest sensitive receptors are single family residences located directly west of the site. While some of the improvements proposed as part of Phase 1 would be located adjacent to residences, the majority of the development would be at least 300 feet (91 meters) from the residences. For Phase 1 improvements, the LSTs for 50 meters from the sensitive receptor have been used in order to ensure that the LSTs allow for the width of the disturbance area. For construction of one proposed single family residence, the LST for 25 meters was used since the disturbance area for the western lots would be within 25 feet (7 meters) of the closest sensitive receptors.
For the purposes of modeling, it was assumed that the project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which identifies measures to reduce fugitive dust and is required to be implemented at all construction sites located within the South Coast Air Basin. Therefore, the following conditions, which would be required to reduce fugitive dust in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, were included in CalEEMod for the grading phase of construction.
1. Minimization of Disturbance. Construction contractors should minimize the area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
2. Soil Treatment. Construction contractors should treat all graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved onsite roadways to minimize fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary, and at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day.
3. Soil Stabilization. Construction contractors should monitor all graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll compaction, and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and watered until landscape growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust.
City of Agoura Hills 8-74 Agoura Equestrian Estates Project Responses to Comments
4. No Grading During High Winds. Construction contractors should stop all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations during periods of high winds (20 miles per hour or greater, as measured continuously over a one-hour period).
5. Street Sweeping. Construction contractors should sweep all onsite driveways and adjacent streets and roads at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads.
LSTs and emissions for construction of Phase 1 and for the construction of one single family residence are shown in Table 1. Neither phase would generate emissions exceeding the applicable LSTs. Therefore impacts would be less than significant.
Table 1 Estimated Construction Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Phase 1 Site Improvements
Maximum Onsite Emissionsa 5.1 54.6 41.1 9.1 5.9
Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs)b n/a 166 1,114 23 6
Threshold Exceeded? n/a No No No No
Phase 2 Single Family Residence
Maximum Onsite Emissionsa 3.2 25.8 16.5 3.2 2.2
Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs)c n/a 103 426 4 3
Threshold Exceeded? n/a No No No No
All calculations were made using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for calculations. Calculations assume adherence to the conditions listed previously that are required by SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust. a LSTs only apply to onsite emissions and do not apply to mobile emissions (the majority of operational emissions). Therefore, only onsite construction emissions are compared to LSTs. b LSTs are for a 3- acre project in SRA-6 within a distance of 25 meters from the site boundary c LSTs are for a 1-acre project in SRA-6 within a distance of 50 meters from the site boundary
City of Agoura Hills 8-75 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY e1 r I • EDMUND G. BROWN; JR., GoYemor SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY RAMIREZ CANYON PARK 5750 RAMIREZ CANYON ROAD MALIBU, CAl.IFORNIA 90265 PHONE (310) 589-3200 FAX (3 IO) 589-3207 WWW.SMMC.CA.GOV March 2, 2015
Allison Cook Letter 6 City of Agoura Hills 30001 Lady Face Court Agoura Hills, California 91301
Agoura Equestrian Estates Project -Tract No. 72316 Draft Environmental Impact Report Comments
Dear Ms. Cook:
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the subject project without any supporting evidence concludes that the subject property is "not considered essential for the Santa Monica Mountains -Sierra Madre Mountains Connection regional wildlife corridor." Some portion of the property may not be essential for the wildlife corridor as claimed; however, the DEIR is deficient for not addressing how the whole project could adversely impact this portion of the inter-mountain range habitat linkage that joins the Simi Hills to the Santa Monica Mountains. Such an analysis is impossible if the full project is not defined in the DEIR project description.
The DEIR is deficient both for not describing the whole proposed project and for not fully analyzing the whole project. The DEIR candidly and repeatedly states that potential adverse impacts from Phase 2 of the proposed project-which includes all of the pad grading (except 1 lot 1), houses, guest houses, pools, horse facilities, tennis courts, lights and fences-are not fully addressed at this stage in the CEQA process. The body of the DEIR is silent on the limits of where the disturbance and development will occur on each lot other than the Phase 1 drainage, access road, and trail improvements would be. The DEIR is unclear as to whether the graded pad locations in Appendix Bare final and definitive. Because of this Jack of clarity and definition, it must be assumed that the Phase 2 pad locations and grading footprints are conceptual.
To support the exclusion of Phase 2 impact analysis, the partial DEIR justification is that the City of Agoura Hills building codes and standards would ensure that such development cannot result in substantial adverse impacts. That line of reasoning leaves extremely broad potential for how close development could be to the proposed protected open space. The one DEIR glimpse of this potential development distribution on large individual Jots is the disclosure of potential brush clearance impacts. The DEIR includes the potential extent of
8-76 . 1· ...
Allison Cook - Principal Planner Agoura Equestrian Estates Project - DEIR comments March 2, 2015 Page2
fuel modification (brush clearance) impact~ on plant communities using the assumption that habitable structures would be built within 25 feet of relevant rear lot boundaries. However, the DEIR does not address the potential indirect impacts of lighting, noise, pets, and domestic animals within 25 feet of core Simi Hills habitat. In a habitat linkage, spacing and buffer areas are critical. The DEIR is deficient for not addressing the potential impact differential between habitable structures being confined to the interior two-thirds of lots versus in locations within 25 feet of proposed protected habitat.
The Phase 2 part of the project is the source of the greatest potential biological, visual, and water quality impacts. The potential biological, visual, and water quality impacts from the Phase 2 part of the project have a high probability of being significant even if the habitable structures are limited to the interior two-thirds of lots 6-15 which all abut proposed protected habitat. It is difficult to imagine a more clear cut scenario for project piece mealing.
The omission of the definitive location and nature Phase 2 development leaves a large and 2 significant information gap from which to analyze the project. How close will all of the development components of lots 6-15 be to the adjacent core habitat? If the City of Agoura HiUs building regulations and standards allow for habitable structures within 25 feet of proposed permanently protected open space, the DEIR must assume a worst case Phase 2 development scenario that each habitat-adjacent lot (lots 6-15) would have a guest house and lighted tennis court (or equivalent) within 25 feet of protected open space and in some cases to the property boundary if there is no legally required setback.
The DEIR must be modified and recirculated with an impact analysis based on the distance between the proposed development footprints and adjacent habitat for Jots 6-15. The development footprint under the above use of this term includes limits of grading, houses, guest houses, pools, retaining walls, fenced animal enclosures, horse facilities, tennis courts, and all types of lighting and landscaping. There is no other option to adequately assess the proposed project's potential impacts.
Impact of Southernmost Lots on Narrow Habitat Linkage Area
Proposed lots 9-11 pose the greatest potential biological impacts to the habitat linkage and to the most unique plant community onsite. The subject regional habitat linkage that abuts the 101 freeway right-of-way narrows towards the southerly part of the project. Thus the proposed development in the southern portion of the site is spatially closer to the center 3 of the habitat linkage. It is important that wildlife are attracted to, and can be comfortable
8-77